Re: [eia] Control of Papacy revisited

Everett E. Proctor on 24 Jul 2002 08:16:03 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] Control of Papacy revisited

To: eia@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [eia] Control of Papacy revisited
From: "Everett E. Proctor" <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:15:03 -0500
In-reply-to: <002601c232a4$27001f60$4591570c@KylesDell4500>
References: <001501c23245$57f60b70$8891570c@KylesDell4500> <002601c232a4$27001f60$4591570c@KylesDell4500>

Re-reading the rules,

4.6  "the major power chosen must not be at war with that neutral minor
country and may only be an ally of a major power at war with it if there
are no non-allies willing or eligible to run it"

Therefore, I think we erred and the control of the Papacy should have
gone to Turkey.

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [eia] Control of Papacy revisited
  - From: Kyle H
- Re: [eia] Control of Papacy revisited
  - From: J.J. Young

References:
- Re: [eia] British naval phase
  - From: Kyle H
- [eia] French (land) reinforcement
  - From: Kyle H

Prev by Date: [eia] French (land) reinforcement
Next by Date: Re: [eia] Turkish land phase, 1805
Previous by thread: [eia] French (land) reinforcement
Next by thread: Re: [eia] Control of Papacy revisited
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread