Map modification(South-Central Europe)

[unmerged(27913)]

Then it should Having that province represent central Serbia makes a lot more sense than the marginal and mountainous Kosovo.

It should not. Central Serbia is already represented by province of Serbia.

Esentially the location of Serbia province is just in the right position....it only needs some corrections.

This what I propose =>
Before

After

 

[Norrefeldt]

Your map looks good Hive. I think Ochrid is a good name, isn't pelagonia a flower in English, as in Swedish? Ochrid is at least a big lake down there.
Scrap Ragusa, for well known reasons.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Ochrid is at least a big lake down there.

Ochrid is a city. Ochrid Lake got it's name by that city.

Scrap Ragusa, for well known reasons.

You people are boring...Ragusa is there...so deal with it.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

It should not. Central Serbia is already represented by province of Serbia.

We may have different ideas of 'central Serbia'. I'm talking the upper Morava valley. May be 'southern' by your definition.

Basically, 'Kosovo' in vanilla and as suggested here physically separates 'Serbia' from FYROM. Kosovo doesn't remotely do that IRL. It's a marginal area of marginal significance, unlike Nis which has always been the strategic keypoint of the region. The only problem of course is Nis is a city name not a regional one.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

We may have different ideas of 'central Serbia'. I'm talking the upper Morava valley. May be 'southern' by your definition.

What on Earth are you talking about? Morava river is going exactly through the middle of Serbia province.

Basically, 'Kosovo' in vanilla and as suggested here physically separates 'Serbia' from FYROM. Kosovo doesn't remotely do that IRL. It's a marginal area of marginal significance, unlike Nis which has always been the strategic keypoint of the region. The only problem of course is Nis is a city name not a regional one.

You are talking about a small strip of land between Kosovo and Bulgaria. Nis is not in this region, Nis is to the north in the Serbia province. Take a look at my modification suggestion.

Basically this small strip of land was actually part of Turkish Rumelia(Ottoman possesion besides Bosnia) and didn't belong to any distinct region.

Btw. Hive I think you should extend Slavonia a bit. It's eastern border should have a border with Serbia like on this map =>

 

[Earl Uhtred]

What on Earth are you talking about? Morava river is going exactly through the middle of Serbia province.

Settle down. The Morava river, according to my atlas here, flows south-north. Rises not too far from Skopje and joins the Danube just downriver from Belgrade. Right? Well, the 'upper Morava valley', unless someone's spiked my tea with ketamine again, definitely includes Nis. This isn't a grey area. I've just checked again and it's still there.

 

[unmerged(10777)]

Hellas doesn't really need to be renamed--Thessaly/Thessalia is in central Greece just below Macedonia. I think MKJ's map in the AGCEEP forum shows its location accurately. Hellas covers the whole province rather than just an area of it like Attica and Thessaly. By the way, I want to thank Hive for the work he's done so far--I may seem critical at times, but I completely support what he's doing. I can't wait to try out these new provinces...in a few months or so at any rate.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Settle down.

eh?

The Morava river, according to my atlas here, flows south-north. Rises not too far from Skopje and joins the Danube just downriver from Belgrade. Right? Well, the 'upper Morava valley', unless someone's spiked my tea with ketamine again, definitely includes Nis. This isn't a grey area. I've just checked again and it's still there.

What are you talking about?!?! Morava river and Nis is exactly in the province of Serbia. Check that historical map I posted and then check the province in Hive's map.

I also suggest to take a peek at my modification suggestion.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Whatever. We clearly have different ideas what the original 'Serbia' province represents.

What do you suggest we call it then? If it's not Nis it certainly isn't Kosovo.

Hellas doesn't really need to be renamed--Thessaly/Thessalia is in central Greece just below Macedonia.

Fair enough. I wish there was a better choice than 'Hellas' though, it's a misnomer on the scale of 'Anglia'.

 

[Hive]

By the way, I want to thank Hive for the work he's done so far--I may seem critical at times, but I completely support what he's doing. I can't wait to try out these new provinces...in a few months or so at any rate.

Thanks for the support.

And I don't mind some constructive criticism, it's what helps me improve my map. Please keep it up.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Whatever. We clearly have different ideas what the original 'Serbia' province represents.

Obviously.

What do you suggest we call it then? If it's not Nis it certainly isn't Kosovo.

It should called Serbia as it was and as it should be.

Btw. a few maps for you to see.

Historic map of Serbia(central Serbia)

Maps of modern Serbian state
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/serbia.jpg
http://www.europe-atlas.com/maps/serbia-montenegro.gif

Few more maps
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1900.htm
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big2000.htm

Now take a look at my proposition

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Right. The map you have there shows Serbia after 1878 when it acquired an area that included Nis for the first time since the fifteenth century.

Nis was clearly central to medieval Serbia. But it was separated from that state soon after the GC begins, did not come to the nineteenth-century Serbian state for decades and makes an obvious second Serbian province.

 

[chegitz guevara]

Basically this small strip of land was actually part of Turkish Rumelia(Ottoman possesion besides Bosnia) and didn't belong to any distinct region.

Rumelia was the Ottoman province encompassing Macedonia and Bulgaria (Rumeli). The strip of land to which you refer was part of Bosnia. I don't think there's a good name for it, but the city should be Banja Luka.

BTW Earl Uhtred, in 1419, no one called Macedonia FYOM, since Yugoslavia wouldn't exist for another five hundred years. It's okay to call it Macedonia, the Greek nationalists won't get upset.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

BTW Earl Uhtred, in 1419, no one called Macedonia FYOM, since Yugoslavia wouldn't exist for another five hundred years. It's okay to call it Macedonia, the Greek nationalists won't get upset.

I know In any other thread I would have called it Macedonia, but thought it might be a bit ambiguous here.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Right. The map you have there shows Serbia after 1878 when it acquired an area that included Nis for the first time since the fifteenth century.

Look what you are asking is going to destabilize the whole region. We cannot have so many provinces there and I am sure Hive definately would go along with that. If we are going to make another province there then we can also go on and make one between Montenegro and Serbia...strange you didn't noticed that.

Making separate Nish region would then also mean we need to take a part of Bulgaria...in fact we would have to take it's most important part with the city of Sofija. Thats something I would recommend and I definately wouldn't go there. As it is obvious I am for more modern setup.

Here is map how it looked in period between 1815-1859
http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/185915BK.GIF

If you would make a map so we can see what you are talking then perhaps we would know better.

Nis was clearly central to medieval Serbia. But it was separated from that state soon after the GC begins, did not come to the nineteenth-century Serbian state for decades and makes an obvious second Serbian province.

We have two ways how we can make Serbia.
One is that we make Serbia or Rashka covering the current southern parts of Serbia along with whole Kosovo and name it Rashka. - this would be medieval setup. In that case Montenegro would also be of very different shape. We would also need to remodulate the whole region by such setup.

Another version would be to make it more modern as it is now.
I am for the latter option.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Rumelia was the Ottoman province encompassing Macedonia and Bulgaria (Rumeli).

"Historically, Rumelia denoted the Balkan possessions (particularly Thrace and Macedonia, and excluding Bosnia) of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman province of Rumelia comprised much of present-day Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia, Bulgaria, European Turkey, N Greece, and part of Albania. Sofia was the seat of the governors of Rumelia until 1878" - Columbia Encyclopedia

The strip of land to which you refer was part of Bosnia.

Indeed.

I don't think there's a good name for it, but the city should be Banja Luka.

The name should be Sanjak, thats how Serbs call it even today.
Btw. the city of Banja Luka is totally on the other side close to border with Croatia.(modern map).

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

BTW Earl Uhtred, in 1419, no one called Macedonia FYOM, since Yugoslavia wouldn't exist for another five hundred years. It's okay to call it Macedonia, the Greek nationalists won't get upset.

No, but the Macedonians (FYROM) nationalists will.

That's why I suggested "Pelagonia". That was the name chosen for the area by Slavic Macedonians, precisely to emphasize continuity with classical Macedonia. By keeping it Pelagonia, both FYROM & Greece will get their territory named after the illustrious ancient kingdom and nobody will get upset.

Changing Pelagonia to Vardar or Ochira or something more overtly Slavic is tantamount to granting Greece a monopoly on Macedonia(TM) and implicitly lending weight to the Greek charge that modern Macedonians are not descended from the ancient Macedonians, but are merely "foreign" invaders. I think that will upset modern Macedonians terribly.

 

[unmerged(10777)]

No, but the Macedonians (FYROM) nationalists will.

That's why I suggested "Pelagonia". That was the name chosen for the area by Slavic Macedonians, precisely to emphasize continuity with classical Macedonia. By keeping it Pelagonia, both FYROM & Greece will get their territory named after the illustrious ancient kingdom and nobody will get upset.

Changing Pelagonia to Vardar or Ochira or something more overtly Slavic is tantamount to granting Greece a monopoly on Macedonia(TM) and implicitly lending weight to the Greek charge that modern Macedonians are not descended from the ancient Macedonians, but are merely "foreign" invaders. I think that will upset modern Macedonians terribly.

Hmmm, perhaps you're right--Isn't a diocese in the region known as Pelagonia? I still think it's far too Hellenic-sounding. Let me have one last word on Ochrid/Ochrida: the city was a very important fortress and episcopal town during the Middle Ages--I do believe that it served as a Patriarchate (for Serbia or Bulgaria, right?) and the lake beside it is named for it. Still, I don't like city names for provinces...maybe there's a mountain region nearby we could use? Does Pelagonia really cover the whole region? If so, it might be the best solution.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Changing Pelagonia to Vardar or Ochira or something more overtly Slavic is tantamount to granting Greece a monopoly on Macedonia(TM) and implicitly lending weight to the Greek charge that modern Macedonians are not descended from the ancient Macedonians, but are merely "foreign" invaders. I think that will upset modern Macedonians terribly.

What are you talking about?!? Since when is Ochrid slavic-only name?! The Romans(Byznatines) used the that name so why shouldn't we?!

Btw. the old Romans called that region 'Dardania' but that name was obsolete by 15th century.

And I never heard about Pelagonia....if I heard it somewhere else I would think this is some juice or something...

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

What are you talking about?!? Since when is Ochrid slavic-only name?! The Romans(Byznatines) used the that name so why shouldn't we?!

Btw. the old Romans called that region 'Dardania' but that name was obsolete by 15th century.

Isn't "Dardania" Latin? I think these dudes are going for the Hellenic/Macedonian thing.

I don't have great objections to Ohrid. Except that it doesn't seem to have any great "Philip of Macedon" connection, whereas Pelagonia does. As Sandolfon has pointed out, Ochrid has epixcopal connections, i.e. Middle Ages at the earliest. Furthermore, it is also a reminder of "Christanization" from abroad. I know it sounds absurd, but if you're already prickly about being called "non-native" by the Greeks, naming your area after a Greek mission erected to convert "pagan foreigners" probably won't help.

Or, putting it another way, when discussing Macedonian-Greek interaction, Macedonians prefer to recall the time when the direction of influence went from Macedonia to Greece, and not the time when it was the other way around.

And I never heard about Pelagonia....if I heard it somewhere else I would think this is some juice or something...

Well, apparently there's a mineral spring water "Pelagonia"

Anyway, google "Pelagonija". You'll see plenty of stuff. They seem rather proud of the connection, if you ask me.