• 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.
Finellach said:
It's their problem...

No, that's a problem for the game, since the vast majority of people who play want to see a powerful and historically performing Ottoman Empire, the monster in the East. For the first two and a half centuries in the game, they were the single most powerful country in the world. It would be like trying to play Victoria without the British Empire or Hearts of Iron without Nazi Germany.

This statement also seems to indidcate that what you want is not historical accuracy, but creating a Slavic superpower that didn't exist. That's fine if you want to do that by playing the game. But the game shouldn't be set up that way.
 
Hive said:
I figure that because it seems like you see them in a different light than everyone else just because they are from your home region...

My home region?! I live 1000 kms to the north :rofl:

The beginning? When? In the 12th century or something? Because by 1419, Venice was the by far most powerful nation in the Adriatic Sea.

In 10th century not 12th. By 1419 Venice was the most powerful nation due to the fact Croatia declined, Bosnia was also more focused to it's inner continental part and securing their indpendence from Hungary.

I fail to see how Hungary and Croatia influenced Venetian power. Already before OE crushed Hungary and Croatia, Venice had beaten them both in a war for the Dalmatian coast. Venice had supremacy. And they most certainly were no competitors for Venice on the sea.

Venice was paying tribute(and by this logic it was their vassal...) to Croatia until Croatia sufered interlan strife and ultimately war with Hungary. If that didn't happen Venice would remain a small provincial tourist village.

Eh.. are you suggesting that those Istrian islands were what made Venice so powerful?

What made Venice powerful are all Dalmatian islands. You will admit that conquering 1000 and more foritified islands is not an easy taks?

I do believe that Ragusa were important enough to be in the game - I just don't agree that they were as important as you say, during the EU2 time period. ;)

I am not sayint that either. I am saying what if.

Well 4 provinces could work if you consider Dubrudja as a part of Bulgaria... if not, then 3 provs should suffice.

I actually did count Dobrudja into Bulgarian provinces. ;)

Pelagonia. I kinda liked that name... why 'Ochrid'? You sure that's accurate?

I never heard about Pelagonia. This is the first time I hear it. Ochrid was on the other hand center of upper Macedonia for centuries. Byznatines had the duchy seat there which controlled about the same size province as it is in your map.
 
chegitz guevara said:
No, that's a problem for the game, since the vast majority of people who play want to see a powerful and historically performing Ottoman Empire, the monster in the East. For the first two and a half centuries in the game, they were the single most powerful country in the world. It would be like trying to play Victoria without the British Empire or Hearts of Iron without Nazi Germany.

I don't see how Ragusa can mess this up.... :confused:

This statement also seems to indidcate that what you want is not historical accuracy, but creating a Slavic superpower that didn't exist. That's fine if you want to do that by playing the game. But the game shouldn't be set up that way.

I want historical provinces. Ragusa was there and should be there. What you want is to erase history.

Besides Ragusa was not "slavic superpower". It wasn't even slavic...
 
Finellach said:
In 10th century not 12th. By 1419 Venice was the most powerful nation due to the fact Croatia declined, Bosnia was also more focused to it's inner continental part and securing their indpendence from Hungary.

That's my point: it was many many years before EU2 starts.
 
Hive said:
That's my point: it was many many years before EU2 starts.

And your point was? What do you think I am saying? :p

What I am keep saying all the time is that Ragusa was there. Nor am I saying that it should be a superpower or anything similar. All I am saying is that I would like to have Ragusa and that it should exist as separate province....that all.
I agree with those who said that Ragusa should be made extremly pacifistic country/republic because thats what it ultimely was.
 
Finellach said:
And your point was? What do you think I am saying? :p

What I am keep saying all the time is that Ragusa was there. Nor am I saying that it should be a superpower or anything similar. All I am saying is that I would like to have Ragusa and that it should exist as separate province....that all.
I agree with those who said that Ragusa should be made extremly pacifistic country/republic because thats what it ultimely was.

But you are the one who keeps saying how much stronger than Venice Ragusa could have been... but what relevance does that have then, since that chance was wasted 4 centuries before EU2 starts?

Ah well, it doesn't matter anyway. Ragusa will be a province on my map.
 
I figure that because it seems like you see them in a different light than everyone else just because they are from your home region...
Hive, you can't call these people nationalists only because they have different opinion from yours - especially if they don't even live in that country :D
 
Rythin said:
Hive, you can't call these people nationalists only because they have different opinion from yours - especially if they don't even live in that country :D

I didn't call him nationalistic. I reserve such names for the Polish horde that has invaded the AGCEEP subforum. :p
 
The Columbia Encyclopedia agrees with me too.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/du/Dubrovni.html

Ragusa became a powerful merchant republic (the term argosy derives from its name); although it was a protectorate of the Byzantine Empire until 1205, of Venice until 1358, of Hungary until 1526, and of the Ottoman Empire until 1806, it remained virtually independent

protectorate = vassal in EU2
 
Pelagonia seems to be more of a Middle Ages term. I'm not sure what would be best.

Some info from Barbara Jelavich's "History of the Balkans: Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries":

For the Christians, as in other areas, the Orthodox church was the major element of unity. The Bulgarian people were under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, whose was much like that of Peć. Although it did not blatantly collaborate with an enemy power, it did suffer from the same problems of corruption and debt as did the other Slavic institution. The Greek cultural pressure was also stronger here. When in 1767 the Archbishopric was abolished and the church placed under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, the consequences for the Slavic population were more serious than for the Serbs. The latter always had an alternate authority in Sremski Karlovci, which remained a strong center of Serbian influence. For the Bulgarians the loss of the Slavic Archbishopric gave rise to a period of Greek cultural domination. Greek became the language of the services in even solidly Slavic areas. What education was available was also in this language. When it is considered that Greek was also the language of commerce, the cultural dominance of the Greek civilization can well be understood.

Jelavich also has a little blurb on Ragusa:

The city of Dubrovnik, previously a possession of Venice, was placed under Ottoman protection in 1458. A tribute, which was set at 12,500 ducats in 1481, was paid; but aside from this, and the recognition of Ottoman suzerainty, Dubrovnik was for all practical purposes independent. It entered into relations with foreign powers and made treaties with them. Its own flag flew over its ships. The Ottoman vassalage had the important result of giving the city special rights in trade within the empire. It was obviously to Ottoman advantage to have one of its dependents, rather than the Venetians, handle the Adriatic trade. Dubrovnik was in a position to make full use of the privileges that it was given. Its traders received from the Porte special tax exemptions and trading benefits. They were also allowed to set up, in major Ottoman cities, colonies that had extraterritorial rights; that is, the members governed themselves according to their own laws rather than those of the locality. Since this was a Catholic city, religious jurisdiction was also involved.
Like the Italian city-states, Dubrovnik was a republic controlled by its patrician class. The main organ of government was the senate, which represented the interests of this group. The city was both a manufacturing and a trade center and thus had a population of merchants, seamen, and craftsmen. The patricians controlled the surrounding agricultural lands. Dubrovnik retained its autonomous position until 1806, when French troops occupied the city.
 
Hive said:
Hmm.. I think I'll just stick with Pelagonia.
Pelagonia seems entirely anachronistic--I doubt it much that the Slavic natives of this region ever called it this. Pelagonia sounds like some classical Greek invention--I think Ochrid would work better.
 
Finellach said:
I don't see how Ragusa can mess this up.... :confused:

That was about Bulgaria and the fact that the Ottomans don't need massive amounts of Christians in their country. Please try to keep up.

I want historical provinces. Ragusa was there and should be there. What you want is to erase history.

What history does Ragusa do in the game? Despite repeated asking, you have never once been able to asswer this one simple question. All you ever say is "what if." "What if" doesn't justify anything, except a fantasy mod.

Besides Ragusa was not "slavic superpower".

And yet you keep trying to claim it could have rivaled an actual superpower, Venice. The only way it could do so is by being a superpower. Which is it? Ragusa was a serious rival for Venice or it wasn't?

It wasn't even slavic...

Despite the fact that the rulers and leading merchants of Ragusa were Italian, the majority of people living in the city at the time were Slavs.
 
Sandolfon said:
Pelagonia seems entirely anachronistic--I doubt it much that the Slavic natives of this region ever called it this. Pelagonia sounds like some classical Greek invention--I think Ochrid would work better.

Indeed!

Hive said:
Ah well, it doesn't matter anyway. Ragusa will be a province on my map.

Indeed. :D
I don't know why are we still disucssing this... :p

Let's move on Bulgaria and Serbia and then on to Hungary and Romania. These look like more troubling regions. :)
 
chegitz guevara said:
That was about Bulgaria and the fact that the Ottomans don't need massive amounts of Christians in their country. Please try to keep up.

I already said that Bulgaria should maybe be left as it is. Seems I am not the one who needs to keep up...:p

What history does Ragusa do in the game? Despite repeated asking, you have never once been able to asswer this one simple question. All you ever say is "what if." "What if" doesn't justify anything, except a fantasy mod.

You are becoming tiresome. Ragusa was extremly important culutural center. That it didn't conquer anything doesn't mean it didn't do any "history".
Besides Ragusa is in the game so please let's drop this already...

And yet you keep trying to claim it could have rivaled an actual superpower, Venice. The only way it could do so is by being a superpower. Which is it? Ragusa was a serious rival for Venice or it wasn't?

Venice was not superpower. And Venetians looked upon Raugsa as a rival....thus it's not important what I or you think.

Despite the fact that the rulers and leading merchants of Ragusa were Italian.

They were not Italian but Latin/Dalmatian.
 
I agree Ragusa should be removed as an independent country at the start of all scenarios. I take it you're planning to leave it in as a revolter though.

'Pelagonia' must be renamed, almost anything would be better. Ochrid isn't a bad suggestion.

Suggest Hellas is renamed too... Thessaly? And I still think Kosovo should be Nis :)
 
Earl Uhtred said:
I agree Ragusa should be removed as an independent country at the start of all scenarios. I take it you're planning to leave it in as a revolter though.

It should be a vassal of someone.

And I still think Kosovo should be Nis :)

Nis is a city in southern Serbia, never was in Kosovo and never had anthing do with Kosovo.
 
Earl Uhtred said:
I know that. But the area 'Kosovo' fills on the map is vast and comfortably includes Nis.

Actually it does not.

serbia.jpg


Also this map is good to show what cosometic corrections there needs to be made on Serbia province.
 
Last edited: