Capto Iugulum Background Thread

[Jehoshua]

I didn't say it had been subsumed; quite the opposite. I'm not sure that we aren't completely in agreement here - or, if not, I am entirely missing the point of your criticism.

Your point on Burgundians is perhaps more pertinent to my criticism that local identities are not subsumed as much as you seem to think (Normandy, being more regionally distinct than the average French kingdom). Afterall if the majority of Burgundians thought of themselves as Confederates first, why did they elect a government (not once, but twice) and set the nation on an escapade of imperial idiocy rooted in rampant nationalism? That they did this indicates some degree of support and acceptance of the ideology of the "Empire of Burgundy" no? It might even imply that the recent turn to Septembrism is primarily a liberal response to the national catastrophe rampant nationalism caused rather than because confederate identity is stronger than local identity?

The main gist I'm trying to convey is minimise national and regionalist sentiment to your peril, and that those implying or outright arguing that confederatism is primarily to do with a super-regional identity are wrong. I think its much more to do with liberalism as an ideology being popular in the wake of recent history (making the days of septembrism appear as a golden age) and the states having common interest in confederation (to counter German hegemony, and increase each members bargaining weight) than due to some diminution in regional identity and localism.

 

[spryllino]

I now see your disagreement. I think, though, I have already dealt with the main points in my most recent post of length in response to EQ, and so I will leave it at that rather than having an even more lengthy debate on the subject. I still maintain that the recent things in Burgundy were more French nationalism than Burgundian nationalism (i.e. the New French party), and in so far as it was Burgundian, it was Burgundian regionalism, and that calling the latter nationalism is something that, at least in character, is unlikely and inaccurate.

 

[christos200]

The "Empire of Burgundy" and the New French Party were French nationalists. Hollande viewed the other states as traitors who backstabbed the Confederation and the French nation, and wanted to conquer the other states in order to unify France. The main ideology of the New French Party was the creation of a Nationalist Unitary French state. It viewed the Confederation as weak.

So, the Burgundians were the most nationalist Frenchmen and they developed mostly a French nationalism, not a regional one. France was always first.

EDIT: According to Hollande, the Confederation was not defeated because of military defeats, but because politicians of the other states found the chance to betray Burgundy and stab the confederation in the back by making a deal with the Germans.

 

[Terrance888]

Didn't know Burgundians were related to the Danes.

 

[christos200]

Care to elaborate what you mean?

 

[Terrance888]

Think about what GrandKhan says about the Great War :3

 

[christos200]

I do not know about the Great War, but I always found silly how the Confederation surrendered, despite that the majority of it's territory was still free and they could still fight the Germans.

 

[Terrance888]

OK. I'll explain the joke.

BETRAYAL! wow TRAITOR. BETRAYER! NEUTRALITY FOREVER! wow TOURISTS CAUSE REVOLUTION! wow SO MUCH NEUTRALITY! wow wow NEVER ASSOCIATE WITH TRAITORS!

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

@Jehoshua: the New France party was elected once, by rigging the election - the other time it was a coup that got them into power. The regular folks were all to happy to help the coalition forces tear that regime down.

 

[christos200]

If they did not like the regime, why did they not revolted after the rigged elections?

 

[ChineseWarlord]

typing with one hand

secret police obviously.

 

[Luckymoose]

Europe in CI can best be described as wimpy losers cowering under Russian hegemony, willing to do anything to appease potential threats.

 

[Bair_the_Normal]

What's John's Chinese name?

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

Also, I agree West Francia is a rather silly name, and, unless something else really cool comes to mind or is suggested before the order deadline, I'm going with spry's Confederation of Continental States.

 

[Circuit]

What's John's Chinese name?

Hopefully he doesn't have one, considering he was raised and educated in London.

 

[m.t.cicero]

What's John's Chinese name?

金睿 - Jin Rui. John's Manchu name is Aisin Gioro Dorgon.

 

[Grandkhan]

@Christos: the joke is that the Confederation, Netherlands, and Scandinavia massively sold out Denmark, their smallest ally, to their enemies so they could get out of the war almost scot free. Many betrayals.

I do not know about the Great War, but I always found silly how the Confederation surrendered, despite that the majority of it's territory was still free and they could still fight the Germans.

OK. I'll explain the joke.

BETRAYAL! wow TRAITOR. BETRAYER! NEUTRALITY FOREVER! wow TOURISTS CAUSE REVOLUTION! wow SO MUCH NEUTRALITY! wow wow NEVER ASSOCIATE WITH TRAITORS!

Got it in one.

In all seriousness, it was because we'd lost the entire fleet and if we didn't make a decent peace now we'd end up getting invaded by the US, Brazil, and Britain within a year, and then we'd be fighting a three front war on our own soil. If you look at the Triple Alliance as a whole, we got off pretty well - it was a pretty good peace overall, it was just unfairly concentrated on the smallest country.

The question as to why we never got very far can be answered by the fact that Spry decided that the optimal tactical decision on both the Occitan and the Brandenburger front was to sit there and do nothing, and that somehow this would win a trench war.

 

[Crezth]

To be fair you can't really win a trench war without overwhelming numbers. Why do you think the only major line break was the Russo-Polish border? (Because Poland staunchly refused to recruit infantry)*

*and yes I know that this front wasn't really tench warfare per se, but that just helps my point

 

[Grandkhan]

Why do you think the only major line break was the Russo-Polish border? (Because Poland staunchly refused to recruit infantry)*

*and yes I know that this front wasn't really tench warfare per se, but that just helps my point

Fun fact: 1906 was spent furiously building ships to pull off an invasion of Ireland that was never going to be a success and fight a naval war that we were never going to win.

ED: You're also forgetting the Spanish-Occitan front, which was proper Trench Warfare and to some degree the Indian front, but thats neither here nor there.

 

[spryllino]

I think, Grandkhan, you either didn't quite understand the strategy at the time, or were so irritated by being betrayed as a consequence of its failure that you subconsciously revised your understanding of it to make it a good deal stupider than it actually was. We didn't build ships to invade Ireland; we invaded Ireland not least to force a naval battle, on the basis that we couldn't win the land war (which was totally true, and also - although I didn't say this at the time - not entirely desirable to win it given the dominance from Russia that would necessarily result, and indeed unfortunately did result due to a rather disappointing performance on the Polish army's part). We then proceeded to lose the naval battle with the odds decidedly in our favour - and it was that that meant that we had no hope of preserving our colonies other than by treaty. We could have invaded Germany till we burnt Berlin to the ground and still would have lost all our colonies. The only way to win the war was to win the naval war - and there was literally no point whatsoever in advancing into Brandenburg or Occitania.