I hope you people have in mind that, as in RP so in RL as well, people can have their own interpretations of treaties, if it isn't 'clear' enough, and people with take sides based on their interpretations.
Things aren't black and white.

To my character in this world, Saxony is an intruder that unjustifiably occupied Serbian lands.

This isn't a game mechanic rule treaty so that someone has to be banned, and this OOC discussion about it is totally silly to me, Charles Hart made a great point about using the terms.


What Oscar fails to realize, is that social terms as occupation, nation/nationalities are not strict but subjective terms, and are open for different interpretations.
Different people experience situations differently.
For Serbia in this game, Saxony occupied its lands, perhaps, in RL, Bulgaria doesn't experiance Turk invasion as an occupation. You see, there are differencies. You can show your own opinion and mentality about such things Oscar, but you can't apply it to all of us

Gruffurd, what you fail to realize is that these terms about which I'm talking are official legal terms in international law. Not subjective interpretations.
Changing "conquer" to "occupy" is wrong use of a term, not subjective use.

it's Gruffudd, spell it right please

we are in a game here, international terms do not apply.
There is no court to enforce an interpretation, there is no UN to send it's troops and decide what's best.

Eventually, Army Boot makes all the decisions


About the use of a term occupation, please reread this topic again, Spanish lad made a great point

Gruffudd,
no presence of international court doesn't mean "military occupation" is a subjective term , and we weren't talking about everyday use of the word, but its use in diplomatic RP for a Casus belli

Did I disprove Charles point - no, it's a valid, reasonable and well argumentated one, in my post I disproved your and Lazar's attempts at proving that occupation existed as concept before it was coined historically.

Still, for me, the point that Charles made doesn't disprove that Byzantium participated in attack on saxon shire, which was the reason behind Alrik's ultimatum towards Byzantium, nor that Croatia moved to saxon shire and not a serbian one, while such claim was Ljudislav's reason to declare war on Croatia.

Gregory's logic was more than excellent on that matter.

Oscar von Reuenthal wrote:

QUOTE:
Gruffudd,
...nor that Croatia moved to saxon shire and not a serbian one, while such claim was Ljudislav's reason to declare war on Croatia.

What you fail to realize is, that they did.

so Charles explained that it is ok to use such terms, and you accepted that, yet you continue to discuss... just to prove our seemingly different points wrong? ain't that a waste of time?

anyway, if you haven't found traces of "occupation" in history, I'll help you with - Crusades.
If you read a bit, you'll clearly see that occupation as an idea existed even then



if you want to justify your possible wars against Byzantium and such, you can do it on your own, no need to discuss it on forums. We consider our war against Croatia legitimate (and, as it was pointed, they did step on Serbia's territory as well as moving on our occupied lands)

I know you'll disapprove, but there isn't any "legitimate war", only wars for conquest or attempts to humiliate your opponent.
An "exception" can be made in case of religious wars, but only as response of the Church call for a crusade.

Negotiations are the only way to solve a conflict, because nobody can expects to be answered to hate and destruction with friendship.

Hmm - well when the Pechenegs started the current war by attacking us they weren't seeking conquest nor to humiliate us, so there must be at least a third option. I'm not sure what that is in this case, but my best guess is they did it for entertainment...

And what is to be done when one's opponent refuses to negotiate?

Oscar von Reuenthal wrote:

QUOTE:
Gruffurd, what you fail to realize is that these terms about which I'm talking are official legal terms in international law. Not subjective interpretations.
Changing "conquer" to "occupy" is wrong use of a term, not subjective use.

In RL, there is no international law prior to the Treaty of Westphalia.

Instead there is the supranational Church, but in KH it seems we don't have that either (notice that Hadrian has now left the game... yet another victim of getting involved in church RP).

Smelgar wrote:

QUOTE:
Hmm - well when the Pechenegs started the current war by attacking us they weren't seeking conquest nor to humiliate us, so there must be at least a third option. I'm not sure what that is in this case, but my best guess is they did it for entertainment...

And what is to be done when one's opponent refuses to negotiate?

maybe distraction then? Someone told them to distract you for a while with a war? That is the 3rd option in my opinion.

Also 4th option , pillage , loot and kill and get back home (barbaric ways) and then defend yourself and sign peace (enticing the enemy to come to you)