Greece?

[Vasily]

since Byzantium in the end really just is Greece with an Emperor on the throne

I disagree. The Empire had plenty of non-Greek emperors. There were Slavic and Armenian emperors and more than once did they take the throne. The Empire was hardly an ethnocentric state as nationalism didn't exist that time. The cultural life of the Empire however, was most certainly Greek but whether that cultural life is more akin to ancient Greece or to today's Greece is a question with a hard answer.

 

[jordarkelf]

Correct. A resurrected Byzantium should also get Armenian (and Bulgarian?) as accepted cultures. Maybe even Turkish, given that the main difference between an Anatolian "Byzantine" and Anatolian "Turk" was never the ethnicity, but the religion they followed. Long before the destruction of Constantinople the Anatolian inland had become "Turkish", but these were Christian subjects of the Emperor before the Ottomans destroyed the Empire and remained mostly Christian for the following centuries until the Ottomans forced them to become apostates.

I know I'll mod it that way myself anyway

 

[EMT0]

The West (more specifically, England) has always been pro-Turkish. An example, back when Russia spearheaded an invasion to liberate the Balkans. After the Ottoman Empire had essentially lost that conflict and it was about to lose all of its European possessions but thankfully, Great Britain, who was concerned about a thing called "balance of power" and sent its naval fleet to Constantinople to stop Russia from taking the city from Turkey. And stop Russia they did. Many times when the Turks were in danger of losing its European possessions, its European allies were always more than happy to help save their rears and help them retain their European possessions which, ultimately, is an offense on all Europeans as they are invaders who have never been a part of Europe proper.

What the hell is wrong with you? Invaders? I could make that claim for ANY ethnic group! Hell, the Turks where one of the most tolerant empires in history, and are as European as Russia can claim to be. Balkan heartlands much?

 

[Vasily]

Correct. A resurrected Byzantium should also get Armenian (and Bulgarian?) as accepted cultures. Maybe even Turkish, given that the main difference between an Anatolian "Byzantine" and Anatolian "Turk" was never the ethnicity, but the religion they followed. Long before the destruction of Constantinople the Anatolian inland had become "Turkish", but these were Christian subjects of the Emperor before the Ottomans destroyed the Empire and remained mostly Christian for the following centuries until the Ottomans forced them to become apostates.

I know I'll mod it that way myself anyway

Bulgarian? Bulgaria was the Empire's primary folly next to the Ottomans. Once did the Empire subjugate the Bulgarians but did they convert to Hellenism? No, rather, they led revolts and in time they regained independence from the Empire to lead wars (most notably the period of Tsar Asen II when Bulgaria reached its greatest territorial extent for its time) against the Byzantine Empire so I'd find it pretty hard to believe that the Bulgarians would be happy to be subjugated by the Greeks.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

If I the Byzantophiles get Byzantium, I want the Ottomans to have cores on Greece, the Crimea, all of Egypt, half of Hungary, and Vienna, just to annoy the Austrians! Oh, and southern Italy. Never forget Mehmet's campaigns! Anyway.......even if Greece formed Byzantium, they would still be Greece in all but name, just bigger borders and with a lot of angry Turks. :rofl:/

Nah. A core in V2 terms means an internationally credible claim to a territory. Two centuries of Ottoman rule of Hungary didn't earn them that recognition. On the contrary, should the sick man of Europe get well and start rolling over Europe like in the good old days, the Holy League may just as well have reappeared.

Greece should have cores on pretty much the entire coast of Asia Minor, on pretty much every place where there is a significant Greek population. That'd be in the nationalistic spirit of the age. Yet, I doubt the great powers of the age would have looked kindly on a Byzantine Empire even close to its historical borders, even its post-Arab-conquest borders of the 7th century.

 

[jordarkelf]

Look at post 13 for credible Greek claims. Those should be BYZ's cores (shaded area is questionable).

Anyway, I bit the bullet and downloaded the game here... looks like the Greek POPs need heavy adjusting (again). Far too few Greek POPs in Rumelia, Thrace, Mediterranean Coast, and Pontus.

POPs need adjusting not just in Greece either, NL is 100% protestant again
Wrong in Vicky1, wrong in Rev, wrong in VIP, and still wrong in Vicky2.

 

[EMT0]

Nah. A core in V2 terms means an internationally credible claim to a territory. Two centuries of Ottoman rule of Hungary didn't earn them that recognition. On the contrary, should the sick man of Europe get well and start rolling over Europe like in the good old days, the Holy League may just as well have reappeared.

Greece should have cores on pretty much the entire coast of Asia Minor, on pretty much every place where there is a significant Greek population. That'd be in the nationalistic spirit of the age. Yet, I doubt the great powers of the age would have looked kindly on a Byzantine Empire even close to its historical borders, even its post-Arab-conquest borders of the 7th century.

If population is a prerequisite, why would the USA have cores on their modern-day territory when it was populated by Mexicans and Indians? The Turks have a better claim on Hungary then the USA does on Nevada or California.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

If population is a prerequisite, why would the USA have cores on their modern-day territory when it was populated by Mexicans and Indians? The Turks have a better claim on Hungary then the USA does on Nevada or California.

Population isn't a prerequisite. The prerequisite is to have anything, anything at all which works as a credible claim. Population is one such thing.

As for why the USA has cores in places where it shouldn't have, don't ask me. I'm not the consistency commissar of Paradox.

 

[Vasily]

What the hell is wrong with you? Invaders? I could make that claim for ANY ethnic group! Hell, the Turks where one of the most tolerant empires in history, and are as European as Russia can claim to be. Balkan heartlands much?

Russia is as European as it can be. The original Russians, the Rus and the Kievan Rus originated in the European part of Russia. Those states later evolved into the Russian Empire and thanks to her emperors' ambitions they eventually colonized much of Siberia mainly because of the Church's propagation of Moscow's status as Third Rome. So her emperors saw fit to build an empire that would properly represent such Rome.

And Ottoman Empire being a tolerant empire? As someone who is from the Balkans and has a deep knowledge of her history I would respectfully disagree with you. The Turks committed many atrocities. The massacre at Batak that drove Russia to liberate the Balkans from Ottoman rule , the Hellenic genocide, the Armenian genocide, etc etc.

 

[jordarkelf]

If population is a prerequisite, why would the USA have cores on their modern-day territory when it was populated by Mexicans and Indians? The Turks have a better claim on Hungary then the USA does on Nevada or California.

Can't be compared.
Western USA is unsettled (by civilised nations), and cores in the West only can be gotten by the 'Manifest Destiny' decision. The USA historically was expanding in power and size.

Hungary is a civilised nation, and the Ottoman Empire historically was stagnant if not declining. Plus the Vicky2 period is about the rise of modern nations, where peoples and cultures were finally united in nation states -- nobody wanted to remain in the Ottoman Empire and every single non-Turkic ethnicity fought for its freedom.
Ottoman Empire reincorporating Hungary into its realm is as likely to be accepted as legitimate as Spain conquering the Netherlands back, or the Papal State conquering England (since this was a province of the Roman Empire).

 

[OHgamer]

Keep the discussion focused on gameplay mechanics folks. If you want to get into long historical debates about the nature of Ottoman Rule vs Byzantine rule, take it to the History Subforum as that is where that discussion belongs.

 

[WittyName]

Why in every strategy game that I see there's at one person complaining about Greece not being in the game or not being exciting? Byzantium pretty much vanished on 1453, and you want to resurrect it 400 years later? No thank you. I want my empires to stay dead.

Brace for flame.

 

[unmerged(52491)]

Why in every strategy game that I see there's at one person complaining about Greece not being in the game or not being exciting?

The Balkans.

 

[Ipsissimus]

Why in every strategy game that I see there's at one person complaining about Greece not being in the game or not being exciting? Byzantium pretty much vanished on 1453, and you want to resurrect it 400 years later? No thank you. I want my empires to stay dead.

Brace for flame.

The cores from post 13 are what Byzantium should be given.

Byzantium empire have fallen in 1453 but it's influence it still strong even today in modern Greece. It's not like you are trying to resurrect the Inca Empire.

Even today the dioceses of Crete and the Dodecanese, and the Monastic Republic of Holy Mount Athos remain under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople; they are not part of the Church of Greece. To be fair, the Archdiocese of Crete in is semiautonomous today.

Enough with the history. Who need Byzantium when you can try recreating Alexander's empire? I really need those cores in Indus River and in Siwa desert :rofl:

Hopefully steam will start selling Victoria 2 today.

 

[EMT0]

The cores from post 13 are what Byzantium should be given.

Byzantium empire have fallen in 1453 but it's influence it still strong even today in modern Greece. It's not like you are trying to resurrect the Inca Empire.

Even today the dioceses of Crete and the Dodecanese, and the Monastic Republic of Holy Mount Athos remain under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople; they are not part of the Church of Greece. To be fair, the Archdiocese of Crete in is semiautonomous today.

Enough with the history. Who need Byzantium when you can try recreating Alexander's empire? I really need those cores in Indus River and in Siwa desert :rofl:

Hopefully steam will start selling Victoria 2 today.

Seeing as how there where atleast 2 major revolts within colonial Spain that almost succeeded in reproclaiming a Quechua state with a Sapa Inca, the Inca Empire returning is essentially the return of a Quechua state, and not as unlikely as it sounds. THE only Quechua state in history. Meanwhile, Greece has the Hellas/Romaoi thing going on.

 

[unmerged(105833)]

Look at post 13 for credible Greek claims. Those should be BYZ's cores (shaded area is questionable).

Anyway, I bit the bullet and downloaded the game here... looks like the Greek POPs need heavy adjusting (again). Far too few Greek POPs in Rumelia, Thrace, Mediterranean Coast, and Pontus.

POPs need adjusting not just in Greece either, NL is 100% protestant again
Wrong in Vicky1, wrong in Rev, wrong in VIP, and still wrong in Vicky2.

Will you be modding the changes in, and if so, releasing the mod)? For my first game of Vicky 2 I've been playing Greece, and Greece could use some work (that's not to say I'm not enjoying it - it's a blast!).

 

[unmerged(126297)]

Why in every strategy game that I see there's at one person complaining about Greece not being in the game or not being exciting? Byzantium pretty much vanished on 1453, and you want to resurrect it 400 years later? No thank you. I want my empires to stay dead.

Brace for flame.

I agree with you, actually. I LOVE resurrecting the Byzantine Empire in EU III; but by the 19th Century, they thought of themselves as Greece. If they'd wanted to create the Byzantine Empire, they wouldn't have named themselves Greece.

 

[DarthJF]

I agree with you, actually. I LOVE resurrecting the Byzantine Empire in EU III; but by the 19th Century, they thought of themselves as Greece. If they'd wanted to create the Byzantine Empire, they wouldn't have named themselves Greece.

Historically Byzantium was dead and buried for good at this point of course, but there's nothing wrong in giving people who want to have a what if a chance to resurrecting it.

After all, it's not going to happen in the game unless you make it happen.

 

[unmerged(126297)]

Historically Byzantium was dead and buried for good at this point of course, but there's nothing wrong in giving people who want to have a what if a chance to resurrecting it.

After all, it's not going to happen in the game unless you make it happen.

I agree. And, honestly, I'll play as Byzantium. I was just pointing out that historically it wouldn't have been a good decision.

Of course, the very point of the game is to make ahistorical nations, so who am I to judge?

 

[Ipsissimus]

I agree with you, actually. I LOVE resurrecting the Byzantine Empire in EU III; but by the 19th Century, they thought of themselves as Greece. If they'd wanted to create the Byzantine Empire, they wouldn't have named themselves Greece.

The plan of the Filiki Eteria was the revival of the Byzantine Empire, with Constantinople as the capital, not the formation of a national state. The new state is called Hellas showing it's links with the Ancient Greeks.

Therefore it's not such a bad idea to be able to form Byzantium as Greece. Having a Byzantium Empire resurrected in HOI 3 would be a bad idea.