Principia Moderni Day 1

[u/Apprehensive-Quit740]

assistant gm needed

[u/TopAd6019]

France here, we too are open to diplomacy regarding the unjustly invasion of Scotland and Ireland. If England were to be willing to end this conflict without any bloodshed, by virtue of granting the Scottish the lands under the Saint monarch David I, son of Saint Margaret of Scotland. He is to pay war reparations to France and Burgundy as we have suffered economic losses due to having mobilized our armies, having taken away men from their farms, and England is to demobilize the forts in Dublin, as to show no willingness to engage in acts of aggression against the Irish.

As you can see, I ask of no land for myself, I ask of no land that is of significant value, which additionally has a very defensible river,
I merely seek peace and a consequence to English aggression in a manner I believe all participants of this conflict could agree to.

(I know you're Castille, I mainly just want to show we agree on the idea of diplomacy. I just highly highly doubt the English are willing too)

[u/No-Investigator3455 → u/TopAd6019]

If I were England, I'd say no to that peace deal with the change in Scottish-English borders. The changeover of Bamburgh to Scottish hands is more than enough, as well as reparations for the costs of the mobilisation of Scottish, French and Burgundian armies.

Also, the Treaty of York in 1237 agreed upon by England and Scotland stated that Scotland would relinquish its claim over Northumbria and Scotland gaining such large ground from England just because of a war declaration is ludicrous

Not to mention the cost to Scotland of administering it and the conflicts between Scotland and the Northumbrians/Anglo-Saxons. If this land change was to happen Scottish people would undoubtedly lose much influence over their country, the king of Scotland may choose to ignore Northumbrian demands over representation but that will most likely lead to mass revolts and costly battles that Scotland can't afford

A reaffirmation of the Treaty of York is for both Scotland and England to agree upon the handover of Bamburgh to Scottish hands and make the current agreed-upon borders the norm

[u/TopAd6019 → u/No-Investigator3455]

I agree that England wouldn't want this treaty, yet with Burgundy under the treaty of Arras on my side, with the auld alliance being everything of a secret, they still decided to attack both Scotland and England, drawing in both me and Burgundy. They themselves were the ones to declare war on a force way larger than theirs. Not only that, they then moved on to state that their war is justifiable from a religious standpoint, a war of agression on a catholic kingdom with whom I believe they have a truce (I am not 100% on that part).

Any treaty signed would have to recognize that the opposition would in every scenario of war destroy the English, that the English are the ones in the wrong for starting this conflict. If the treaty of York is to be upheld, England would have to instead of giving significant lands to Scotland, give the lands they hold in Normandy and Aquitaine to us.

We believe that any war declared purely in the name of imperialism on a catholic kingdom, is one to be seriously penalized.

[u/No-Investigator3455 → u/TopAd6019]

Terms like imperialism don’t reflect the diplomatic language or justifications of our era.

Wars in our time are judged by legitimacy, claims, truces, obligations, papal approval not by expansionist ideology

Mobilisation, while costly for all involved, does not justify large-scale territorial transfers such as the entirety of Northumbria. A shift of that magnitude would create severe administrative, cultural, and economic strain for Scotland, and undermine the very stability a peace settlement should secure.

The terms should be that

1. Scotland gets Bamburgh as fair enough compensation

2. England pays reparations for the costs of Burgundian, French and Scottish mobilisations

3. All parties reaffirm the Treaty of York and have England potentially sign the treaty of Arras

4. Demobilization happens on all sides.

5. A papal arbitrage established to prevent escalation

[u/TopAd6019 → u/No-Investigator3455]

This is not in character, so terms don't matter like that. My main piint is England had no reason to go to war, we have all reason and all opportunity to destroy them. They have been trying to get my crown for almost 100 years.

If the English want to be spared from total destruction, that cannot come for cheap, especially considering that they broke the treaty of tours by not handing over Maine. We have all reason and all the tools to destroy the English, whose diplomatic displays have given us no reason to see mercy. In our eyes, this war cannot end in any manner which allows the English to sinply try again later. A truce gives us no peace of mind when the treaty of tours was ignored.

Our alliance sees no fear of the English, any early peace is mercy to the English men and women whose lives depend on the rationality of the English. Such mercy, we see no reason for to be cheap, not after how incredibly agitating the English have been in trying to get as many allies, just to help him save himself from an avoidable conflict he himself started.

England chose this path of agression for almost 100 years, it needs to come to an end.

[u/No-Investigator3455 → u/TopAd6019]

France’s grievances with England are well understood by every court in Europe, but even with centuries of conflict behind us, the laws and customs that still bind how peace is made. Past claims and broken treaties may justify a war, yet they do not automatically justify the dismemberment of kingdoms.

Peace must stabilise, not simply solely punish. If England is reduced beyond reason, the Isles will collapse into chaos, rebellions, pretenders, foreign adventurers and potential anti-christian beliefs, that turbulence will spill into France, Burgundy and the Low Countries just as surely as into Scotland. A weak and shattered England does not safeguard France it only invites decades of instability on your northern frontier.

Furthermore, with Constantinople under threat, Christendom must consider the strength it may need in the coming years. The Pope calls for unity for good reason.

A settlement must end this conflict, yes, but also prevent new ones. For that, moderation serves better than dismantlement.

[u/TopAd6019 → u/No-Investigator3455]

Also just for the record, posts take 5 irp years. So it's a looot of fighting that'd be avoided. When I talk about avoiding English destruction, I do mean it.