KOTF OOC Thread

[econ21]

You don't buy my argument that the King owns Antwerp prior to ratification by right of conquest? I thought we agreed conqueror's hold their conquests until ratification - this was explained to me by Tristan:

...Zim seemed to consider that the hand-over should be handled at the next council session and that until that time the province belonged to the conquering noble. Then it was either ratified and went to the King or became the start of a civil war, or was handed back to its rightful owner through lack of ratification.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=977

So if we agree the King owned Antwerp by right of conquest, surely he could transfer ownership before ratification?

That argument stands or falls regardless of the edict authorising taking rebel settlements. However, if people don't buy that argument, you could make the case that the edict authorised taking Antwerp because at the time of the edict, Antwerp was - I believe - rebel. [Maybe I am wrong that Antwerp was rebel at the time of the edict (but it starts vanilla M2TW as rebel).]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Based on the past edicts, all rebel provinces taken in the last period were ratified.

I think the edict covered "neighbouring" rebel provinces, so there is an issue of interpretation regarding Caernarvon and Antwerp.

Was Antwerp rebel or german?

Another issue of interpretation is the timing. I think Antwerp was rebel at the time of the edict (and I forgot it was German at the time of conquest, hence my jumping the gun earlier). So you could make a case that the edict covered provinces that were rebel at the time of the edict.

Personally, I think my "King's by right of conquest" argument is the relevant one though.