Blaster

Captain
Dec 12, 2007
342
0
What about an event for Wallachia to unite with Moldavia in Romania (or even better... Dacia) if Wallachia isn't OE's vassal and has an alliance with Moldavia? Also the transylvanian provinces should have the romanian culture and not hungarian (maghyar) ; some where catholics but never maghyar. Wallachia should have all romanian provinces as national provinces, that's historycaly correct.

These states should be made much more strong as in history they (and Serbia sometimes) hold off the OE.

So... a ROMANIA event and more strenght for Moldavia and Wallachia should do the trick.Also the countries need more names, army names maby,events and leaders.

PS: Why isn't Dobrogea a port?
 
Last edited:

unmerged(40707)

Just call me Yoda in private!
Mar 1, 2005
20.187
2
Cores on whole Romania are granted with Michael the Brave in 1593.

The Romanian Union is already included during the reign of Michael the Brave around 1599 (see AGCEEP_Specific_Wallachia.eue and AGCEEP_Specific_Moldavia.eue events files). Only thing that doesn't happen in this case is a change of Coat of Arms/flag. Same for union of Transylvania.

I personally have no idea for the culture of Transylvania but it could be because of gameplay (EU2 engine) and Transylvania country (no malus because of wrong culture for the province itself but Transylvania shouldn't expand in Romanian cultured provinces without penalty).

Be our guest for names. :)

I have no idea for Dobrudja but all coastal provinces don't have a port in EU2 and AGCEEP.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(84239)

Major
4 Badges
Sep 19, 2007
576
0
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
Blaster said:
Also the transylvanian provinces should have the romanian culture and not hungarian (maghyar) ; some where catholics but never maghyar. Wallachia should have all romanian provinces as national provinces, that's historycaly correct.


Transylvania should change to romanian during Bethlen Gábor's reign, not earlier.

It was him who changed the influence of nationalities (if we can call them that in the 1620-30's) in favour of the romanians and saxon cities.
Because the hungarians and székelys did not want to pay more taxes.


Until Bethlen, the most influental - and most numerous - part of Transylvania was hungarian or hungarian székely.
(I admit that the % of romanians was groving since the hungarians captured the territory, but they were not a majority until Bethlen's politics, and later they became even more numerous because of the Habsburg settler program)


However, an earlier change of culture - IF Moldavia or Wallachia captures Transylvania - is a good idea, maybe with a population loss in Transylvania, and a population increase in the neighbouring Hungarian provinces.
 

Blaster

Captain
Dec 12, 2007
342
0
I am romanian and know my history well. Transilvania is romanian territory from the roman times.
A change of coat of arms and flag would make a big difference. Plus i'm talking about an event with terms not a precise one. As i said before: if Wallachia is not OE's vassal and has an alliance and good relations with Moldavia a union should be possible (something like the italian union but more simple)... and Wallachia should have all romanian provinces marked national.

PS: I think it's more likely that Dobrogea has a port than Jedisan.

army names
WAL;Armata Românã
WAL;Prima Armata
WAL;Armata Regalã
WAL;Armata A Doua
WAL;Armata A Treia
WAL;Vânãtorii de Munte

random leaders
WAL;Ion
WAL;Alin
WAL;Nicolae
WAL;Victor
WAL;Constantinescu
WAL;Traian
WAL;Aurelian
WAL;Bogdan
WAL;Daniel
WAL;Dinu
WAL;Decebal
WAL;Dumitru
WAL;Paul
WAL;Petre
 

unmerged(84239)

Major
4 Badges
Sep 19, 2007
576
0
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
Blaster said:
I am romanian and know my history well. Transilvania is romanian territory from the roman times.


And the "alternative history for Transylvania" movement rises again! :rofl:
 

unmerged(86600)

First Lieutenant
Nov 2, 2007
248
0
galuska said:
And the "alternative history for Transylvania" movement rises again! :rofl:

Hmm, I would be a little more careful about what you call "alternative". :) Nevertheless, the idea of a union of three Romanian culture states should only be really implemented during Michael the Brave's reign. Any earlier union would mean to missunderstand the mentalities of the time.

Also, I don't believe it's so much about strenghtening Walachia and Moldova. Rather, there should be more focus on their on and off alliance/vassalage with Hungary/Poland/Ottomans rather then a do-it-yourself union. Because for a long time, that's what they were in the end: Buffer states which no regional power had a particular interest in annexing.

Plus, historically, the emergence of a solid state in the area was against the interests of all other parties involved. Maybe the Habsburgs would have accepted a "Romania" (or some sort of revived Dacia in their view), but only as a vassal. Actually, make that a Catholic vassal.
 

unmerged(84239)

Major
4 Badges
Sep 19, 2007
576
0
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
From gameplay point of view:

The problem with the mentioned province is that Hungary should receive full taxes from there, and it is only possible when
A) Transylvania is magyar
B) Hungary has romanian culture

From the 2, definietly the first one is the better, as noone wants Hungary to attack Wallachia and Moldova...

Of course, Moldova and Wallachia should also receive full taxes from there, that's why I said that it should change when it is conquered. Plus during Bethlen, it should change anyway.


(I admit that it is impossible for a hungarian and romanian to agree on Transylvania, even historians can't do it. Both views have something right, as always, the thruth is somewhere between the 2. That's why I thought that the matter should be considered from a gameplay point a view)
 

ROMANU

Banned
Aug 26, 2007
632
0
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
that's right... whenever moldovia or walachia conqueres transilvania an event should fire that will change the culture from maghyar in romanian...
regarding this, there has been over 50% romanian in transilvania any time in the hungarian ocupation times but the cronicles in budapens refuse to acnollage this, they even come with the idea of transilvania being colonised in the 17th century
 

unmerged(84239)

Major
4 Badges
Sep 19, 2007
576
0
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
ROMANU said:
regarding this, there has been over 50% romanian in transilvania any time in the hungarian ocupation times but the cronicles in budapens refuse to acnollage this, they even come with the idea of transilvania being colonised in the 17th century


That's why I said that we won't reach simultanious agreement (by Barry from Jagged Alliance 2 :cool: )



When EU2 starts the percentage of romanians is somewhere near 50%, I admit. (it was less before that)

BUT

The kings of the Hungary were ruling through the nobles, who were considered hungarian. EVEN when they were not of hungarian origin, they were considered _nobles of the hungarian holy crown_ IF they converted to catholicism.
And most nobles of romanian origin converted.

When you think of medieval hungary, don't think of it like the 'kingdom of hungarians' as most of the time it was a multi-cultural nation, where the formal language (at courts, assembly of orders, etc.) was latin at first, and later german. All nobles were considered equal (even former enemies, like Jan Giskra and later Julius Haynau!) no matter where they were born.

So, as the most influental part of the community were hungarian (at least: was considered a hungarian noble) I think the province should start hungarian (magyar). When this status quo - between nationalities - changes in favour of romanians - Bethlen Gábor's reign historically, either that, or Wallachian/Moldovan conquest in the game - it should change.



************


What do you mean by 'came up with the idea of Transylvania being colonized in the 17th century'?


I have never heard of this theory (strange, as I am hungarian ;))...
If you refer to the Habsburg settler program after the Austrian capture of Transylvania, that is a fact, but romanians were living there earlier.
 

unmerged(40707)

Just call me Yoda in private!
Mar 1, 2005
20.187
2
This is why current representation is a compromise.

galuska said:
However, an earlier change of culture - IF Moldavia or Wallachia captures Transylvania - is a good idea, maybe with a population loss in Transylvania, and a population increase in the neighbouring Hungarian provinces.
Only a player will be able to achieve this, if ever. Do we really need to "help" him with an ahistorical change? But I don't say I'm opposed to it, if it is plausible.

Thanks to Blaster for names.
 

Toio

Field Marshal
6 Badges
Jun 18, 2003
7.699
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
galuska said:
From gameplay point of view:

The problem with the mentioned province is that Hungary should receive full taxes from there, and it is only possible when
A) Transylvania is magyar
B) Hungary has romanian culture

From the 2, definietly the first one is the better, as noone wants Hungary to attack Wallachia and Moldova...

Of course, Moldova and Wallachia should also receive full taxes from there, that's why I said that it should change when it is conquered. Plus during Bethlen, it should change anyway.


(I admit that it is impossible for a hungarian and romanian to agree on Transylvania, even historians can't do it. Both views have something right, as always, the thruth is somewhere between the 2. That's why I thought that the matter should be considered from a gameplay point a view)

firstly, regardless of culture , the HUN dow on WAL or MOL will still happen, be it due to corvinus, or alliance with POL and whatever, the % of Dow will remain as is. Culture will not change this %.

secondly ,make Transylvania Romanian culture from 1419. then HUN to get Romanian culture at 1419 and lose the culture in 1438 with the signing of the 3 nation treaty, a treaty where the nobles of Transylvania did not have to pay tax anymore. this will reflect the loss of income due to NO romanian culture . this is a far better solution and easier to implement (less events) in the game. it will also reflect the many minor revolts that HUN had in Transylvania.
 

Blaster

Captain
Dec 12, 2007
342
0
galuska said:
The problem with the mentioned province is that Hungary should receive full taxes from there

Hmm... sorry to ask this but why should Hungary receive full taxes? Guys, check the romanian history; Transilvania is romanian territory since the romans!

1. An event to change the culture is not what i think is correct. Just simply change the culture in there. But that's not the real request because it would be nice that after the formation of Romania (Wallachia and Moldavia) the newly formed country to get back those territories on their own, so Romania should have those territories from Transilvania marked national provinces and the culture..i think the religion is right. I don't think these changes should pose so much of a big deal; check the history, i'm sure i'm right. thanks.

2.what about Dobrogea having a port?
 

unmerged(40707)

Just call me Yoda in private!
Mar 1, 2005
20.187
2
Toio said:
firstly, regardless of culture , the HUN dow on WAL or MOL will still happen, be it due to corvinus, or alliance with POL and whatever, the % of Dow will remain as is. Culture will not change this %.
True!

Toio said:
secondly ,make Transylvania Romanian culture from 1419. then HUN to get Romanian culture at 1419 and lose the culture in 1438 with the signing of the 3 nation treaty, a treaty where the nobles of Transylvania did not have to pay tax anymore. this will reflect the loss of income due to NO romanian culture . this is a far better solution and easier to implement (less events) in the game. it will also reflect the many minor revolts that HUN had in Transylvania.
Good idea!
Only problem I see is Transylvania as a revolter. State culture will be Romanian in this case. Wad?

Blaster said:
Hmm... sorry to ask this but why should Hungary receive full taxes? Guys, check the romanian history; Transilvania is romanian territory since the romans!

1. An event to change the culture is not what i think is correct. Just simply change the culture in there. But that's not the real request because it would be nice that after the formation of Romania (Wallachia and Moldavia) the newly formed country to get back those territories on their own, so Romania should have those territories from Transilvania marked national provinces and the culture..i think the religion is right. I don't think these changes should pose so much of a big deal; check the history, i'm sure i'm right. thanks.
See Toio's proposal.

Blaster said:
2.what about Dobrogea having a port?
Please bring us evidence of why this province desserves a port in EU2 terms.
 

Blaster

Captain
Dec 12, 2007
342
0
the center of all romanian history was to unite all romanians that's why i asked for a event for that, just if both moldavia and wallachia are free and allied they should form romania.

from hungarian history point of view transilvania is theres culture but the land was always romanian, that's what i'm saying and wallachia should have them at least marked national provinces.

dobrogea being a port... that's not so important just that i was surprised to see jedisan province having a port and dobrogea not.
 

unmerged(40707)

Just call me Yoda in private!
Mar 1, 2005
20.187
2
Blaster said:
the center of all romanian history was to unite all romanians that's why i asked for a event for that, just if both moldavia and wallachia are free and allied they should form romania.
We try to model historical alliances between Moldavia and Wallachia, Alexander I for example in 1431, but this is not sufficient to form a united country according to our historical standards.

Blaster said:
from hungarian history point of view transilvania is theres culture but the land was always romanian, that's what i'm saying and wallachia should have them at least marked national provinces.
Wallachia starts with core on Banat, Transylvania and Dobrudja.
 

unmerged(84239)

Major
4 Badges
Sep 19, 2007
576
0
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
YodaMaster said:
True!

Good idea!
Only problem I see is Transylvania as a revolter. State culture will be Romanian in this case. Wad?

Transylvania has magyar, slovak and romanian. (because it wanted to unite Hungary, only the weapon of choice - Ottomans or Habsburgs - changed)

So a romanian Transylvania province will not cause problems for a Transylvania country.



TOIO:

secondly ,make Transylvania Romanian culture from 1419. then HUN to get Romanian culture at 1419 and lose the culture in 1438 with the signing of the 3 nation treaty, a treaty where the nobles of Transylvania did not have to pay tax anymore. this will reflect the loss of income due to NO romanian culture . this is a far better solution and easier to implement (less events) in the game.

The problem with this is that most of the time Transylvania was the powerbase of influental hungarian figures, like Hunyadi János, or later Szapolyai János (before the split of the country).

The treaty of 3 nations (Kápolna union) didn't say that they don't pay taxes! (the nobles didn't pay anyhow, and neither did they székely's, who had collective noble status. But the serfs/cities continued to pay)



BLASTER:

Hmm... sorry to ask this but why should Hungary receive full taxes? Guys, check the romanian history; Transilvania is romanian territory since the romans!

Check hungarian history: the most influental in Transylvania were the hungarian nobles.
Romanians living there didn't have neither a national identity nor an organized society then! They were not included in the Union of Kápolna (3 nations) because the others could not find anyone who could represent the romanians living in Transylvania.
(of course later, when romanian identity in the region formed, they should have been given a chance to join)
 

unmerged(61066)

Captain
Sep 21, 2006
372
0
YodaMaster said:
We try to model historical alliances between Moldavia and Wallachia, Alexander I for example in 1431, but this is not sufficient to form a united country according to our historical standards.

Wallachia starts with core on Banat, Transylvania and Dobrudja.


As I understand this post (however I hadn't got much vein to read it deeply :( ), the approach to this topic is completely false. But I wish to divide things to separate lines.

1) the request is that there should be an event to create a national state. This would be IMHO completely ahistoric, because before the nationalist era no one thought about these concept.
1b) the role of Mihail Viteazu (Vitéz Mihály in hungarian, Michael the brave in english): he is not the first one who was able to unite the romanian lands, but he is instead one of the most successful wallachian rulers, who was able to extend the borders of his personal demesne. It is very important to understand: nationality at that age was not the primary idea which organized countries, because the 16-17th century societies did not consider it as a community forming factor. Rights from birth, the classes of the society, and religion were much more important.

2) the role and situation of transsylvania:
2a) transsylvania existed as an independent state and a political factor from 1541 to the 1690's de facto, and to 1867 de jure. there was no independent transsylvania before this, so I find it quite strange that it is an independent state before 1541 but I can live with it at least I mod my installed version.
2b) demographics: according to different sources, the majority of the population till the 1660's was hungarian, it changed after the 1660's because of the destruction after different wars, and from that time the majority of the population was romanian. This has two main reasons: the first is that the romanians lived in the relatively safer upper parts of TRA, and there was an immigration from moldavia and wallachia after the turks were driven out from the carpathian basin. It is also important to say that the ethnic changes of the peasantry did not changed the ruling class and did not have any effect on the union of Kápolna, so the nobility (which was mostly ethnic hungarian), the saxons and the szeklers remained the only political factors of the country till 1867 when transsylvania was reunited with the other parts of kingdom of hungary.
2c) the main goals of transsylvania's foreign policy: in 1541 the ottomans occupied Buda but before this the country already fallen to two parts. the conquest of Buda just caused that the followers of king John I. were forced to move their capital to transsylvania, while the centre of the followers of Ferdinand I. remained in the western and northern part of the country. from this point there were two goals for both sides: drive back the ottomans, and defeat the other faction. of course the "kingdom", which was ruled by the habsburgs had much more resources, but transsylvania was a relatively free ottoman wassal, so if it was necessary they had support from the ottomans. so in this situation there were two goals for transsylvania:
a) get back as much territory as possible from the kingdom of hungary, and get back the king title from the habsburgs
b) and after that get rid of the ottomans and unite the country.
in this situation the two romanian principalities were counted as possible allies and vassals, but it was meaningless to expand to that territory.

3) the political connections of the two romanian principalities and transsylvania/kingdom of hungary (before 1541):
these connections are quite ambivalent, however in general were much better than the hungarian - romanian connections nowadays.
Of course the different religion and the constant hungarian attempts to gain more control above the two principalities caused many conflicts. But it is important to say that the wallachian and romanian nobility was always invited to the kingdom's diet, and after the fall of the kingdom to the transsylvanian one, the nobility was counted as the part of the nobility of the kingdom, and despite the ottoman influence, they always tried to help their christian buddies against the moslems if it was possible. sometime with just some information, sometimes with force. of course it was not easy with the ottomans in their back.

I wrote much and I hope it may help with some information.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(40707)

Just call me Yoda in private!
Mar 1, 2005
20.187
2
I agree for point 1 even if the door is open with Michael the Brave.

For point 2, there is no Transylvania country in AGCEEP before 1540. :confused:
And AGCEEP portrays quite well what you're saying for situation after 1540.