Copied from Oscar von Reuenthal:

Knez Lazar wrote:

QUOTE:
Oscar von Reuenthal wrote:

QUOTE:



(OOC: Don't use modern terminology for medieval times. There is a strong reason that the game has no "Core-province" mechanics - and it is that there was no such thing at that time)

OOC: So you're saying that whole RP of peace treaties surrendering territories/annexation of territories is totally useless. We could just win what we want and conclude peace, without any say in what shire is left with what nation? I call that bull. Also, just because you can google a word, doesnt mean you understand what occupation means. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/guthrum.html -> Clearly shows that lands were subject to peace treaties thus, the term annexation did exist, tho maybe not the word itself.

OOC:
Knez Lazar, don't twist my words and don't accuse me before you understand what I'm talking about.

I never said anything about annexation, nor about peace treaties.
I said that claim on the territory is one thing and owning it another thing. Claims on provinces mostly are about lands that aren't owned at the moment by the nation, but that have been owned in the past. And owning means the administration of that region is done by a certain nation in the moment.

Treaties have existed long before Middle Ages I don't renounce them in any way. Treaties do settle claims and give mutually agreed document that defines who wons who but only between the signers of the treaty and only as far as the treaty is valid. No treaty between two countries gives eternal ownership that third countries must oblige to keep.

Annexation means addition. In case of nations and diplomacy it's just adding more territory to one country. I don't see where it contradicts to the fact that in the future things may change.

And about the "Don't use modern terminology" thing - it was meant to be about the use of "Core-provinces" and "occupation". Those terms never existed in medieval times. And about claims on provinces, which was the nearest term to "core-province", above I explained that there is difference between these.

And google about occupation (and about when it became a term) before accusing me I don't know what it means.

To give you an example from your history, when Serbia conquered a lot of territory from Byzantium and became Empire and had treaty with Byzantium, recognizing it's territory, did that mean that The Ottomans can't later come conquer all that land and call it part of their Empire?

And, please, MODs, move this and all possible future OOC talk out of this thread into off-topic one.

As I still see concepts like military occupation thrown at me in RP, I want to clarify things a bit ( I hope wwiki links with references for further reading are enough, for I can't make the the lawyers I know iRL to come post here )

1. Occupation did not exist as a term until long after middle ages

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

2. Basic international law was "Right of Conquest", which means all that is conquered belongs to the one who conquered it.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest

To those who want to cry out that this disproves peace treaties - no it doesn't, learn to think.

Denis de Fecamp, nobody is denying the right of conquest, but for one region to be acknowledged as part of a new land, it takes some transition time, for example Slovenia had lots of rebels against Austro-hungary over time, in quite distanced periods of time, conclusion is, transition doesn't happen quickly at all (unless the two nations are related ethnically, or in belief, or anything common which makes the conquered people to like their new rulers)

Occupation and Core-provinces perhaps didn't exist in terms spelled that way, but their meaning was familiar to the Medieval people, you will realize that as soon as you read number of history books who take a sight on thoughts of people of a nation, their state and such, you can feel the nostalgia of conquered people.
If you want to play it that way, in medieval times, English wasn't like it is now, and English wasn't world language like it is now, does that mean we shouldn't talk at all before we learn Archaic English?

This is not a historical reenactment. We make our own "international law" based on the prevailing agreements of the players and rulers... just as these conventions have come into being in the modern world etc etc and so forth.

As has been pointed out there are many things that are not fully accurate in the game, from referring to shire numbers, diplomacy settings among other things in rp. This is because it is the quickest way to convey complex meanings in a language that is not the native language of the vast majority of players.

"occupation" is such a word that captures the meaning of an aggressive seizure of land not belonging to you on which your armies then remain in.

You can call that conquering or conquest etc etc. However the treaties we have signed have long been the final settling factor in determining the fate of disputed territory... often they mirror the results of the military activities, but it is the treaties not the actions themselves that have solidified these matters.

@Gruffurd, giving examples from 18 century and beyond for medieval times is. .. let's say far away for a good argument.


@Charles; I don't see any contradiction between conquest and later peace treaties.
Peace treaties arrange the distibution of land from the time of their signing onwards, until they expire and only between the nations that have signed them. On the other hand conquest shows the distribution of land for the exact moment.
In fact, nothing of the things mentioned above denies the right for any land to be redistributed by a treaty and for "determining the fate" of a territory. But there is no dispute to whoever owns that land in every exact moment and this is decided by the right of conquest. Even the game mechanics doesn't give any room for spculation who owns what shire.

And may I see any previous agreement about occupation... for I see this argument that you use for the first time.

Alrik vom Greifenstein wrote:

QUOTE:

...
Hamburg always was a shire of Saxony
...

And so on it went, and on, and on, and on......

Knights Honor it's a simulation in re-writing the history from the starting point of the game (around year 1000)

All the conventions are in-game conventions and while the attempt to be as accurate as possible using references to real history, I'm afraid that cannot be used as decisive argument.

As in-game convention, the nation who owns the land have the right to write in RP about the events in the province.
Former owner can claim the land of course, but by extension, once conquered, the rights belong to the present owner.
A recent example was Poland defending Normandie after France took it from England. England hold the province for a long time, but once conquered by France, it was considered no longer an English province.
A reference to real history population of the province have no relevance, as long as the game it's a parallel history.

@Gruffudd: the first post of the topic do not represent Denis de Fecamp opinions, he only moved the OOC part of a post from the RP board, giving you the opportunity to clarify the things in the right board, because:

Game Rules

QUOTE:
The principle of roleplay: Passages from real life marked by comments like “ooc”, “rpg off” or “rl” are not allowed. All posts have to be roleplays.

http://knights-honor.com/content/view/52/152/

I think Greg has summed up the issue nicely here.

Smelgar wrote:

QUOTE:
Alrik vom Greifenstein wrote:

QUOTE:

...
Hamburg always was a shire of Saxony
...

And so on it went, and on, and on, and on......

Smelgar, what that claim on land disproves?


@Gregory, would you please state what you mean by "owning the land", because in your post I see proof for my point and Charles sees proof for his.

I think that Gregory I hit the jackpot this time. Bullseye to be correct.

Gruffudd is a new and young player , he mentions 18 th century for this game (conquest) , he invaded (so to be said) my and Borna's RP with the intention of insulting us and dissalowing us to continue and I hereby thank Denis for clearing that up.

We should supply Gruffudd with the rules of this game and tell him to read it , twice or so. And then he will know what to do and what not to do.