[X] Conquer to the mountains. (Easier militarily, Revaunchists strengthened.)
@Redium I pretty much agree with your points on defensibility. We got too greedy in going for Stymyr first, instead of last, under the theory that they were distracted by fighting someone else. The surer solution for this war would be to conquer Stymyr.
That's not the surest solution for winning the subsequent peace, however. We'll be forced, in the Ymaryn style, to spend time and energy integrating a disloyal populace (I added this
as a point #3), something we probably can't afford right now.
I think
@Oshha already mentioned this, but attacking Stymyr was the best of a bad lot. We had to attack somebody and between Stymyr and Western Wall, it's obvious who was weaker.
Pacifying a disloyal populace will also be
a lot easier than dealing with an army from Stymyr. Between the Guilds, Cholera and Starpox treatment, consistent access to food and our enormous trade markets, we have a lot to offer the general populace. People don't rebel without reason. If their lives are made better, the average person will not fight against you. This isn't the Age of Irrational Nationalism and the Stymyr people are our cultural cousins. Plus, the Ymaryn are fully multi-cultural and religiously tolerant. The divide isn't insurmountable. To argue otherwise is to suggest we abandon everything about the Ymaryn and retreat to being a hermit kingdom in the Caucasus. The Ymaryn are a cultural union beyond 'High' Ymaryn culture.
Conquering land is not somehow uniquely impossible, it's clearly happened throughout history! It's also happened for us, too! We conquered the Thunder Plateau by force as well as Txolla. We subjugated the nomads in not!Ukraine. Free Hills turned to us for military protection. It wasn't a direct threat of military force from us that brought them into the Empire, but there was absolutely implicit coercion ongoing there. There's this idea that the Ymaryn haven't conquered people, but that's genuinely not true. We totally have.
We would get in trouble if we conquered
wantonly. Due to our values, we really need to hold onto any land we take, but it is possible to hold onto land. Taking the lowlands of Stymyr up to the mountains gives us a defensible border, much more than what we have now. As long as we can secure and hold our gains, it is possible for us to expand. In fact, some degree of expansion may be necessary because it permits us to consolidate an otherwise indefensible position!
@Aranfan Is it possible to get a truce that will last multiple years if we win? I believe Tarta did that with Styrmyr.
We're going to have to
crush Stymyr to get them to agree to a multi-year truce and honour it. The latter is the key part.
The big issue with historical peace treaties is that there's
nothing backing them up. Stymyr could repudiate the treaty the day after it was signed and that wouldn't be considered deeply unusual. The Field of The Cloth of Gold was an enormous summit between England and France in 1520 that promised ever lasting peace and was built on a joint military alliance from 20 years before.
England would be at war with France by 1521. The ink was hardly dry.
If Stymyr thinks they can stick a knife in us when we go against the Thunder Plateau, they absolutely will. That's how war and diplomacy worked during this time period. Since we have an Elective Monarchy with a fully bureaucratic state we don't even really have the tools to solve this dispute. There's a reason royal marriages were so important in peace treaties. They gave you a solid reason not to abrogate your treaties. You were now family and the other party had your son or daughter.
If we want to do this, it doesn't mean committing to a simple peace treaty. It means committing to a brutal war to obliterate Stymyr's ability to act against us for at least the next 10-20 years. Compared to going for a defensible border, I somehow doubt that this will be less bloody. Recall: given Stymyr can (sometimes) call up a City Levy, military power is
not held by the noble elite or a warrior class, but in the general morass of civilian manpower. Their ability to fight is a function of the size of the general population and economy. We either have to destroy that or capture that within our borders in order to guarantee a peace.
If Stymyr backstabs us during the war with the Thunder Plateau, I don't even want to think about what it would do. The Revanchists would be strengthened beyond belief, likely far more than we've managed to weaken them in my mind. It validates
everything that they preach. Even if we somehow manage to fight Stymyr off (I honestly don't think we could get a City Levy while the Mass Levy is active, they draw on the same manpower source and we know Stymyr can do City Levies), the Revanchists will have been proven
right. Unambiguously right. We would
have to destroy Stymyr for attacking us when we're weak and it's certain they would force us to turn our attention outwards to other potential threats.