balkan provinces

[unmerged(19211)]

any clue into how the balkans will be partitioned? i mean, the provinces in eu/eu2 were totaly wrong in the region, there was no detail regarding both hungary and it's counties and croatian kingdoms, definition of dalmatia, croatia, slavonia, dubrovnik and bosnia, also eu serbia and kosovo should also be redrawn. with the same provinces i don't believe it will be possible to simulate the local history

any clues?

 

[unmerged(16363)]

Only a screenshot would solve most of your doubts. However, IIRC by 1066 most of the balkans south of the Danube were ruled by the Eastern Roman Empire.

 

[unmerged(19226)]

Only a screenshot would solve most of your doubts. However, IIRC by 1066 most of the balkans south of the Danube were ruled by the Eastern Roman Empire.

And it was the best solution for them

 

[Demetrios]

Well, there was the Kingdom of Croatia (which is no doubt the reason for Foolish to post this thread ), as well as the two Serbian principalities of Dioclea/Zeta and Rashka, which were Byzantine dependencies...

 

[unmerged(19211)]

zeta/duklja is actually montenegro, not serbia, and during that brief period montenegro ruled over proto-serbia(raška)

but, all the important events are very complicated to simulate on the eu2 map, the croatian-venetian conflict, then the shifting of the balance of power between viceroy of croatia(šubiæ mostly) and the king of bosnia(closely related to šubiæ ;-)), not to mention the hungarian-serbian border(belgrade was hungarian until it fell to the turks, never in serbia prior to 19.ct)

FYI croatia was never ruled by the byzantines, manoilus comnenus conquered some eastern teritories, but those were soon reclaimed...

 

[Hrv123]

Ah, this thread brings some memories

 

[Nikolai]

You mean the last one about this area?

 

[Alexandru H.]

Originally posted by Foolish
FYI croatia was never ruled by the byzantines, manoilus comnenus conquered some eastern teritories, but those were soon reclaimed...

A proud statement indeed! Well, in a few years (1102, no?), Croatia will be no more!

 

[irishpony]

Originally posted by Hrv123
Ah, this thread brings some memories

i still think we should bring back the culture thread that had memories

 

[CCR_of_the_Code]

Sorry Demetrios, but Croatia was also a dependancy right after Basil II.

 

[Txini]

Originally posted by CCR_of_the_Code
Sorry Demetrios, but Croatia was also a dependancy right after Basil II.

As I read, that was what Deme said....

But in 1066 it seems totally independent

 

[unmerged(19211)]

alexandru, here's Pacta Conventa for you...

After king Zvonimir died, there was a civil war in Croatia, one party chose the regent Petar as king, the other the Queens' brother Koloman, king of Hungary.
In spring 1097. Koloman is petitioned by supporting nobles to invade. He defeats Petar at the battle of Gvozd. Koloman proceeded towards the coast, but had to retreat because Russians and Kumans invaded Hungary.
Croatian nobles rallied and sent an army north to Drava. Koloman was forced to negotiate, before he was coronated in Biograd na Moru, a settlement was agreed upon.

Here are the main points:
1. The King of Hungary will not unite the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia with the Kingdom of Hungary, and these will remain separate independent kingdoms, each with its own crown, each with separate coronation. As proof the king new title will be:"King of Hungary, Croatia and Dalmatia"
2. The King of Hungary will rule Croatia according to the constitution in agreement with Croatian State Parliament.
3. The twelve ancient Croat tribes keep their legacy and rights and pay no taxes to the King.
4. Croat Forces, in Croatia and abroad fight only under Croatian banner and as a separate Croatian army.
5. According to the settlement, Croatian teritory is defined as all between Drava and Danube to the north and the Adriatic to the south.

The Pacta Conventa is the first personal union treaty between two independent nations: Hungary and Croatia, first represented by Koloman I and the other by the twelve Croat tribes.
This was absolute law from 1102.-1526., and the basis of everything during the Habsburg reign.

 

[CCR_of_the_Code]

No, he said besides the two Serbian principalities there was the Kingdom of Croatia. As far as I know Croatia was astill a dependancy.

 

[unmerged(19211)]

byzantines lost influence over Croatia way before the reign of Tomislav, the first king. During the reigns of Petar Kresimir IV and Zvonimir Croatia is 100% independent, Dalmatia is not only ruled by Croat kings, but 100% integrated and hereditary within the croatian crown...

duklja is not a serbian principality, but future montenegro. rashka is proto serbia, and a vassal of duklja at the time...

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by CCR_of_the_Code
No, he said besides the two Serbian principalities there was the Kingdom of Croatia. As far as I know Croatia was astill a dependancy.

No, Croatia was never under Byzantine influence in the 11th century, even under Basil II. Byzantine influence at the time didn't go past the Serbian principalities (which I insist on calling them, as they spoke Old Serbian in both ), and then not always even there.

 

[unmerged(19211)]

i must disagree, a the time there was still a very strong croatian influence over duklja, which manifested itself in the tribal organization which was identical to croatian, not to serbian and which in a form exists even today, because montenegro never truly grew into a nation, still in a large part resembling a tribal alliance.

the language was croatian, probably influence left, from red croatia. i'll try to translate a text i read today regarding this. serbs started colonizing it after the Candian war, an that is 17.ct


you should consider yourself lucky that no montenegro had read this, or heads would roll... ;-D

 

[CCR_of_the_Code]

Well, seeing as I keep the Chronographica right next to my computer, and that I doubt you know more about Byzantine history than E.R.A Sewter (and Warren Treadgold as well it seems), it looks like modern day Croatia was either a dependancy or a province in 1025, at Basil's death. Oddly enough, with the exception of Slovenia, all of Eugoslavia was under Basil's rule.

 

[Alexandru H.]

Don't trust that map too much! The Byzantines owned fewer parts from Syria, Armenia and Iraq...

 

[CCR_of_the_Code]

Maniakes had recently taken Eddesa.

 

[Demetrios]

The area ruled by the Kingdom of Croatia is outside the northeastern border of the Empire, even on that map. And could you please quote the exact passages of Treadgold in which he states that Croatia was a dependency (it most certianly never was a province).

And Alexandru is correct, the map grossly exaggerates Byzantine rule in Syria and Mesopotamia. Edessa was on the border, which is several hundred miles to the south of the city on that map.