Out of curiosity, why did you seek Asylon as a partner in a treaty granting Terran domain over three regions that had absolutely nothing at all to do with Asylon? Was it just because Asylon was signatory to the original treaty? Because, really, that's the part of it that seems the silliest of all, and is probably pisses Brance off more than anything else. "Hey Astrum, we're taking these three regions. And it's all cool, because Asylon says so!"
Many reasons:
1. Legal Claims of Central Occidens
Asylon was a signatory. Seemed like a good idea to talk to'em. Moreover, the Legal Claims state that claims can be transferred. Numerous Caerwynians joined Asylon, and the "government in exile" in Madina seemed fine with annexation. Only Itau could oppose, and Terran decided to nullify their claim. So we regarded Asylon as the implicit claim-holders: again, because it just didn't occur to me that there was any immediate question of Golden Farrow being colonized.
2. Asylon's Expanse
When I started plotting Terran's northward expansion, Asylon held Farrowfield. We weren't sure of Asylon's capability to hold any of these lands, but that's how things stood. As Asylon could make a real claim to inheriting Caerwyn's claims, and as they pragmatically had a big influx of nobles and their borders practically encircled Terran, they seemed like the logical people to approach. It doesn't look that way now that they've lost a few regions and there's an Astrum flag on the map. But it sure looked that way two or three weeks ago.
3. Diplomacy
Never miss a chance to make a friend. Hash out an agreement that grants us both claims we never had any intention of violating? Wonderful! It means we have a conversation and learn how to work with one another. Hireshmont is big into personal diplomacy, largely because I enjoy it as a player.
