More formable nations in AOW
- 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.
Not formable. Historically it 'appeared as a revolter' in the early 18th century, then disappeared, then all of the Panjab region fragmented into various small republics under nominal Mughal and Durrani rule, then one of them, Sukerchakia, expanded to conquer most of them (aside from those which aligned themselves with the British) in the very late 18th- early 19th century. Creating a unified kingdom that was almost a proto-nation state, which appears in Victoria II as the strongest non-British kingdom in south Asia.
I wish people would stop promoting Illyria as a Balkan unification. Why wont you understand that it was not a Balkan movement in any way shape or form? It was first and foremost a linguist movement in Slavic areas that were inside AUSTRIAHUNGARY. Which also happen to be Catholic areas. They tried to spread it to Serbs, but it didnt work, as Serbs have already went through their awaking and didnt have anything in common with Slovens and Croats who were trying to create their language, culture etc within the context of avoiding being culturally assimilated by the Austrians.
Having Bosnia, Serbia, Albania etc within that movement is simply ridiculous. That would be equal to giving Russia cores Germany upon its formation.
Slavs living east of oder river didn't die out in 14 century
so called germanization killed them around 19 century
and not all of them
so question and desire of having it is as valid a some other retarded illyrias or whatever else
Hindusthan flag should be changed or at least they should add a requirement to be Hindu? No?
Where is Fishman786?
'Hindustan' was actually the Persian/Muslim name for India. It refers to the Indus river. Anyone living beyond the Indus was a Hindustani. The actual native name for India is Bharata. It actually makes more sense for a Muslim to use the name 'Hindustan', although the flag is problematic.
Yep. Am I right in saying that only the Mughals used it as the name of an empire (as opposed to using it as the name of a geographic location)? Or did any incarnation of the Delhi Sultanate use it before them?
Not sure.
Also confusing is the TH that's sometimes used in the word 'Hindusthan'. TH in English either makes a 'thuh' sound like in 'thorn' or 'three', or a 'the' (the old letter Thorn) used in 'this' or 'that'. Neither of those sounds exist in any of the Indo-Aryan languages. TH is used in transliterations of Hindi, Urdu and Panjabi (amongst others) to represent a heavy 'tuh' sound. In English there's no separate letter for it, it just comes under 't'.
Lol, the outrage after suggesting Yugoslavia as Balkan unifaction state was even bigger
Boys, either Illyria or Yugoslavia or absolutely nothing formable in the Balkans (except already existing Romania/Greece), there are no other options.PS
Gameplay > too tiny historical details
In another thread, they announced Arabia as a formable cutlural union in 1.8.
And to comment on above statements, I don't think that having a south Slavic Union would be a bad idea. I would add a pretty difficult challenge in the game, and you would probably rarely ever see it. **Cossack**
And to comment on above statements, I don't think that having a south Slavic Union would be a bad idea. I would add a pretty difficult challenge in the game, and you would probably rarely ever see it. **Cossack**
Don't see why having them is bad. its not to difficult to create a country and asetof NI's also meant to help block our resident Iberians I think.