Kurdistan
- Thread starter Atilla 'The Hun'
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Nice, this used to be a discusion about the historical facts inside a videogame, and if something should be added. Now it is a internet fight about being Turkish. I think paradox might exclude kurdish culture just because shit like this. But to get back on track, i think there should be a Kurdish culture, and kurdistan should only be able to spawn from rebels. It would simulate what could have happend, and it is not hard to add in to the game.
Last edited:
+1
Sure, Kurdistan has, well, never been a state but for the majority of EUIV neither were places like Afghanistan, or for the entirety of EUIV, CK2 and Victoria 2, a non-Mughal 'Hindustan'. The Kurds are their own culture and have their own identity, however, so an ahistorical formable Kurdistan makes sense and would be very fun. Regardless, Kurdish culture fits in well with the map overhaul of AoW and, with or without Kurdistan, Kurdish states should exist.
Sure, Kurdistan has, well, never been a state but for the majority of EUIV neither were places like Afghanistan, or for the entirety of EUIV, CK2 and Victoria 2, a non-Mughal 'Hindustan'. The Kurds are their own culture and have their own identity, however, so an ahistorical formable Kurdistan makes sense and would be very fun. Regardless, Kurdish culture fits in well with the map overhaul of AoW and, with or without Kurdistan, Kurdish states should exist.
- 2
Off topic: DanubianCossak are you reading this, you see what unites us is greater than what divides us
I read Piri, i read.
Dont worry kanki's and baba's Danub is with you and Turkey. No separatism.
Tamam?
With support of this Serb Turkey stronk. Mashallah.
Kurdistan as a formable nation seems good. But not as a releasable one.
Adding a Kurdish culture seems interesting, and maybe even a formable "Kurdistan" state. Ideally at least 1 minor state would be available in 1444 so that the state can actually be formed somewhat easily.
I think I'd play such a state if it would be available because I like small states in difficult situations.
Regarding the whole thread, the identity of a people is based on their self-awareness, not on what other people say about them.
I'll give an example based on Romanian history: the Romanians didn't identify themselves as Romanian until influenced by the French Revolution and its ideals.
The locals had been calling themselves Rumâni (aka Romanian) forever but they identified themselves more based on their regional identity, as was common in that age:
- Wallachian (Munteni, i.e. people of the mountains)
- Moldoveni
- Ardeleni (Transilvăneni; i.e. the large Romanian community in Transilvania: Ardeal = Erdely in Hungarian)
Still, the spoke the same language, shared the same religion and most of the customs. But until the 19th century there was no real unifying movement.
When the tide started to change (1848), it took only 30 years for the principalities to gain their independence and 40 more years to reunite the entire people, now called Romanian, as part of a single state.
If the Kurds consider themselves a people and want their own state, why shouldn't they have it? Or at least autonomy. Even in Romania, if we'd give Szekely Land (it has a majority Szekely & Hungarian population) autonomy, things would probably be better for everyone. Of course foolish nationalism on both sides won't let this happen (our nationalists don't want to give autonomy, their nationalists probably want full independence).
As a bystander, the Turkish reactions in this thread don't fill me with confidence regarding their ability to compromise.
I think I'd play such a state if it would be available because I like small states in difficult situations.
Regarding the whole thread, the identity of a people is based on their self-awareness, not on what other people say about them.
I'll give an example based on Romanian history: the Romanians didn't identify themselves as Romanian until influenced by the French Revolution and its ideals.
The locals had been calling themselves Rumâni (aka Romanian) forever but they identified themselves more based on their regional identity, as was common in that age:
- Wallachian (Munteni, i.e. people of the mountains)
- Moldoveni
- Ardeleni (Transilvăneni; i.e. the large Romanian community in Transilvania: Ardeal = Erdely in Hungarian)
Still, the spoke the same language, shared the same religion and most of the customs. But until the 19th century there was no real unifying movement.
When the tide started to change (1848), it took only 30 years for the principalities to gain their independence and 40 more years to reunite the entire people, now called Romanian, as part of a single state.
If the Kurds consider themselves a people and want their own state, why shouldn't they have it? Or at least autonomy. Even in Romania, if we'd give Szekely Land (it has a majority Szekely & Hungarian population) autonomy, things would probably be better for everyone. Of course foolish nationalism on both sides won't let this happen (our nationalists don't want to give autonomy, their nationalists probably want full independence).
As a bystander, the Turkish reactions in this thread don't fill me with confidence regarding their ability to compromise.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
If a semi-fantasy country like Theodoro is being added to the game, why not add Kurdistan?!
I don't really care though. It is hilarious that some people are more concerned about tags rather than broken game mechanics.
I don't really care though. It is hilarious that some people are more concerned about tags rather than broken game mechanics.
- 1
I'd love to see Kurdish culture and nation in game. However wouldn't this require a lot of new provinces to ensure enough space for the Kurdish and Armenian nations? Will the territories in the region be split up further? I know that the Arabian Peninsula is getting a much needed facelift.
You don't need a Kurdistan tag. A Kurdish state has been added. That is Kurdistan. As long as the Kurds get one tag. I don't like the idea of "releasable" states, but each culture should have at least one revolter state depending on size. Iran is about 20 provinces now, excluding the Mazandarani provinces, and still only has one tag. The
Ireland was also never a state during the timeframe of EUIV, yet it has a formable tag. *Cue topic descending into argument about The Troubles*.
Iceland doesnt exist in EU4 vanilla. To my knowledge at least. And i just checked country files in vanilla.
The problem is Kurdish culture wasn't really the majority back in those times... I mean majority in EU 4 provinces, obviously there were Kurdish tribes and villages and whatever but if you take the whole province into account, say, for province Kurdistan, the majority wasn't really Kurds. So making them Kurdish instead of Turkish/Azerbaijani historically wouldn't make much sense. It's like making a Christian majority province Jew(whelp, I know they don't exist in game ^^ ) just because there are many Jews living in that province. Obviously Kurds weren't non-existant, but they were actually a lot less in per cent than they are today.
Those maps provide no information regarding population majority because they don't mean those provinces are only populated by the Kurds, it just represents where the Kurds lived.
I don't wanna be a part of this discussion going on for 4 pages and I have no problem with Kurdistan being added but I just stated out my reasons why it would be wrong historically.
I'd be ok with them revolting but, well, again historically there wasn't even Kurdish nationalism before 1900s so a Kurdish tag wouldn't make sense but more like small tribes of them living out on their own.
- Status