• 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.
YodaMaster said:
I agree for point 1 even if the door is open with Michael the Brave.

This situation is much more complex than it should be reduced to Michael the Brave, he is not even the key figure in these chain of events. from 1591 to 1606 happened the 15 years war between the habsburgs, transsylvania, the romanian principalities and the ottomans. In general this was the first attempt from the habsburgs to drive out the ottomans from the former territory of the hungarian kingdom (the title was theirs). And to do this, they managed to make an alliance with transsylvania, what is accepted their supremacy in exchange for help. As TRA was a vassal of the ottomans and formally an ally, it was not an easy thing. the unsuccesfulness of the war (from habsburg or hungarian point of view) comes from this. transsylvania had to defend themselves till the habsburg will be able to reach and keep the lands near TRA's border, so TRA changed sides many times, and in this situation the lord of TRA had key role, who was Sigismund Báthory, the nephew of the former king of poland and lord of transsylvania Stephan Bathory. The war started with an alliance between Báthory and Michael the Brave, where Michael accepted Sigismund as his lord so he became a vassal of TRA and cut his vassalisation with the ottomans. As the war continued it became obvious that Sigisimund is quite erratic and irresponsible so the habsburgs made connection with michael, and when finally Sigismund accepted the habsburg offer of a dukedom in silesia (?) and retired, an interregnum happened in TRA where not only candidate tried to get the throne. In this situation the habsburgs asked michael to move to TRA with his forces and secure the principality for them and he did so with the support of szeklers, however the nobility supported an other Bathory (It does not came to my mind what was his first name). Of course and sadly to michael, he tried to gain something from this and this was not acceptable to the habsburgs so they got rid of him fast. He was not even elected as a lord of TRA, he had just the support of the szeklers just because they wanted to get rid of the Bathory family.
So I would not say that in this half year while he acted in TRA he tried to unite something, he just wanted to increase his power because it was obvious that the ottomans would not allow to live a relatively large and unfriendly country next to their borders so he had to defend his realm.

YodaMaster said:
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.

I played agceep years ago, so forgive me :) in the vanilla game TRA is independent from the start.
 
Last edited:
Blaster said:
PS: that link can't help. infos overthere are written from a hungarian point of view.

don't be so ridiculous, sources are sources and in a scientific approach it does not count that what is the nationality of the writer. It is a completely nonsense to say that just because of the nationality something can't be true.
If you wish to discuss you have to read and understand the other side's point of view, without it you simply can't take part in a discussion. You have the possibility to post a link of a translated romanian monography about transsylvania here, I'll read it and if it is necessary, will comment it, but I guess not this thread is the right place to do that.
And how do you know that the information behind the link is false, without reading it?
 
History is always complex, isn't it?

Not easy to put everything in a game.

igen7777 said:
I played agceep years ago, so forgive me :) in the vanilla game TRA is independent from the start.
We don't talk about vanilla here. You could have a big surprise if you take a look at AGCEEP again now, especially for this area. :)
 
YodaMaster said:
History is always complex, isn't it?

I would say instead that you have to catch the main line, and from this point it is not so complex. "of course" and sadly all central european nations have a nationalist point of view in their teached history in schools and no one cares about their neighbours despite that there is no national history, there are always connections to other nations and states. as you see it is not even rare to explain the middle ages and the renaissance as a national history which is stupid as there were no nations at that time. it doesn't count that you are hungarian, romanian, polish, croat etc, you will face it, and you will learn it at school. and of course nationalism is definitely NOT the main line of the history till the 19 century.
Sorry for being off thread it just came to my mind and I felt that I should write this down..

YodaMaster said:
We don't talk about vanilla here. You could have a big surprise if you take a look at AGCEEP again now, especially for this area. :)

well I'm currently playing with railroad tycoon 3 again, so maybe later, I'm just looked in because someone told me that it should worth it. : )
 
igen7777 said:
I would say instead that you have to catch the main line, and from this point it is not so complex. "of course" and sadly all central european nations have a nationalist point of view in their teached history in schools and no one cares about their neighbours despite that there is no national history, there are always connections to other nations and states. as you see it is not even rare to explain the middle ages and the renaissance as a national history which is stupid as there were no nations at that time. it doesn't count that you are hungarian, romanian, polish, croat etc, you will face it, and you will learn it at school. and of course nationalism is definitely NOT the main line of the history till the 19 century.
Sorry for being off thread it just came to my mind and I felt that I should write this down..
Fully agreed and this is why it is complex but not complicated. ;)

igen7777 said:
This situation is much more complicated than it should be reduced to Michael the Brave...
 
igen7777 said:
don't be so ridiculous, sources are sources and in a scientific approach it does not count that what is the nationality of the writer. It is a completely nonsense to say that just because of the nationality something can't be true.
If you wish to discuss you have to read and understand the other side's point of view, without it you simply can't take part in a discussion. You have the possibility to post a link of a translated romanian monography about transsylvania here, I'll read it and if it is necessary, will comment it, but I guess not this thread is the right place to do that.
And how do you know that the information behind the link is false, without reading it?

First of all, has it occured to you that it is PRECISELY the nationality AND subjectivity of the writer which counts in many historical interpretations? It has happened many times in different countries and ages, from the Roman propagandist Livy, Napoleon's "in-the-making" legend or Churchill's "personal" account of WWII. In the end, mainstream history has always been in a continuos struggle to differentiate itself from mainstream theories and politics. A purely scientifical point of view is occasionally extremely hard to come by. Times change and interpretations change with them. And at times, simple logic can destabilise them.

For instance, take the case of the incredibly clumsy theory of the "Roesler migration" (very fashionable in Austria and Hungary in the 19th century, and ignoring the most basic contact with reality, including some medieval Hungarian sources)which stated that some of the ancient Wallachians had roamed about in the southern Balkans, being well...roamy and then decided to get back, coincidentally, on the land where they were born as a distinct culture, some centuries back, where unsuspecting "hungarian" settlers awaited. (Incidentally, this would have been the only recorded invasion in history where an "attacker" would be enslaved(!) by the "defender" into a role of servitude. I mean, if Wallachians would have been so "roamy" by nature they would have simply took off etc.) Plus countless other much more serious arguments made clear in continuation-theories.

Yes, Hungarian nobles were the most influential, yes, the Szekely were colonised into defence roles near strategic border zones, yes, the Saxons were brought to colonise cities? SO, what does that tell you? That the elites were not rulling over like-minded majorities, perhaps? I mean, really, even the Teutonic order was brought in for a short holiday. If you look a bit closely at the map you'll see that this particular piece of land is a highway for various barbarian invading tribes, be they turkik, khazar, germanic or slav, mobile populations acting tribute collecting elites at best. The Hungarian rule was just the last in a series of forced land leases. Except, yet again, times were changing (see 1438 and the Three Nations). And the politically disorganised "Romanian" population here(the problem is a bit more complex than that) could do little other than offer some light resistance.

Like Galuska said earlier, the Kingdom of Hungary was a multinational work (we're talking "national" for simplification's sake), in some respects, just like the Ottomans were a mixture of Turks, Greeks, Slavs, Tatars, Levantines, Africans etc. It was a common feature and much more tax-effective to try to WORK together with the conquered rather than simply try to assimilate or get rid off them. This is why only the name of a certain political entity doesn't really tell us much about its people sometimes. History is filled with examples of political entities who took the names of former (great) enemies/allies. The "magyar" seed of Hungarian identity included. That's why the most conclusive evidence must be sought after in the language and customs, both of which favor a Romanian-continuation point of view(but I won't go into that very different topic). Then there would be the "who got there first" theories, something both sides exaggerate in my opinion, with the Hungarians claiming in some respects that Transylvania was virtually void of populace at the time of their arrival, while the Romanians argue the exact opposite. (I'm sure there were SOME areas where an invading Magyar could rest his horse a bit and build a nice cottage for the wife and kids ;). It wasn't exactly China, you know)

I've tried to give, within the constraints of time and space, a reasonably accurate image of the problem. Now can we please get back to gameplay??? :D

Some more names for the Danubian and event propositions are on the way.
 
1-we can agree or disagree about transylvania, however i must point out that transylvania has always been a specific entity( hungarian or romanian culture for game balance). more probablly then corsica depicted in agceep for example; it always had some "special" staus from wichever perspective you might be looking from, hungarian or romanian.

2-dobrogea should indeed have A PORT.jedisan, i THINK was added as a port initially becouse the original game developing was concentrating on poland( so it gets eventually a port at black sea). historically speaking i really do not believe that lithuania has ever had a navy, except maybe fishing ships. in contrast , during ottoman wars dobrogea has had at least fielding BOTH turkish and romanian navy, both in earlly and last parts of the historical period covered in eu2
 
Vandervecken said:
First of all, has it occured to you that it is PRECISELY the nationality AND subjectivity of the writer which counts in many historical interpretations?

I do not really understand your post. I put a link of an english version of the "history of transsylvania" to this thread, which IMHO could help to clarify many things about transsylvania. If someone knows an other monography on the web in english, then please, put it's link to this thread, because as an educated historian I would like to read that, too, especially if it is romanian.

OFF

we can discuss about historical facts, especially about transsylvania, or about romanians and hungarians, but not in this thread, because it would be off, and perharps not in this forum, because the moderators like to close those threads where serious discussions took part especially about history and I understand and accept paradox's demand that they do not want to be the place of these.
 
beregic said:
1-we can agree or disagree about transylvania, however i must point out that transylvania has always been a specific entity( hungarian or romanian culture for game balance). more probablly then corsica depicted in agceep for example; it always had some "special" staus from wichever perspective you might be looking from, hungarian or romanian.

I think it is quite simple: the state itself should have a hungarian culture and should be catholic till 1606 and after that reformed.
the province should be hungarian till 1660 and romanian after that, and catholic till 1606, reformed from 1606 till 1660, orthodox from 1660 till 1701, and from 1701 catholic again (hungarian catholics + romanian greek catholics)

but I think the discussion is not about this.
 
About post #32, I will tell, even before moderators' intervention.

The more historical inputs we have, the more we can depict situation, at least if sources are trusty and not controversial.

Let's summarize:
1. We have an extended list for names (post #4)
2. Dobrudja could have a port
3. Transylvania province could start with romanian culture and Hungary with romanian culture in 1419 but Hungary will lose the culture in 1438 with the signing of the 3 nation treaty (event to be written)
4. There is no problem for Wallachian cores at start of the game
5. Formation of a united Romania is possible under conditions but in late game (already included in AGCEEP with events granting core to Wallachia on Moldavia). We could add CoA/flag for this (sources?).
6. Formation of a united Romania before this is Fantasy. We are not opposed to Fantasy but it means it will not be included in core AGCEEP and it can only be part of a separate scenario.

Do I forget something?
 
YodaMaster said:
About post #32, I will tell, even before moderators' intervention.The more historical inputs we have, the more we can depict situation, at least if sources are trusty and not controversial.
Do I forget something?

I disagree about point 3, but I already wrote about this. there was no romanian majority in transsylvania till the end of the 17th century on the grounds of different sources (tax censuses, other written sources). The book I linked writes about this. However I'm open to other sources but if there are any I would like to come to know them.

this chapter is about the migration of the romanians in the 13th century:
http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/81.html

this is about the demographic changes after 1660:
http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/230.html
 
Last edited:
igen7777 said:
I disagree about point 3, but I already wrote about this. there was no romanian majority in transsylvania till the end of the 17th century on the grounds of different sources (tax censuses, other written sources). The book I linked writes about this. However I'm open to other sources but if there are any I would like to come to know them.

this chapter is about the migration of the romanians in the 13th century:
http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/81.html

this is about the demographic changes after 1660:
http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/230.html


Last time I checked, the most objective account of history did not really come from one's own national historians:). This is why some of the best history books about Britain were written by the French. So let's keep Hungarian or Romanian sources out of this and just stick with the Germans or something.

Or better yet. With the game. Right now I'm guessing Transylvania lacks some serf rebellions every now and then. Plus a somewhat increased importance for the region of Bujak in vanilla until the 1500's. Historically, it was the last link in the Baltic-Crimeean trade lanes, and as such, hotly contested by Danubians, Hungarians, Ottomans.
 
Vandervecken said:
Last time I checked, the most objective account of history did not really come from one's own national historians:). This is why some of the best history books about Britain were written by the French. So let's keep Hungarian or Romanian sources out of this and just stick with the Germans or something.

as you wish

Kurt Horedt Geschichte der Siebenbürgen:

http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02113/html/index.html

but please please READ those two damned chapter just to know what I'm talking about... :( :mad:
 
igen7777 said:
I disagree about point 3
Current setup is then right. Do we need an event for province culture change? Or is agreement impossible yet?

Blaster said:
good. let's make it possible starting Michael The Brave's reign.
Already done. See current events for Wallachia and Moldavia
Blaster said:
Coat of arms is needed.
Source?
Blaster said:
Religion is catholic.
Why? Wallachia and Moldavia are Orthodox.
Blaster said:
Dobrogea: has a port.. yes or no?
Could have... I'd like to have more input and comments.

Vandervecken said:
Plus a somewhat increased importance for the region of Bujak in vanilla until the 1500's. Historically, it was the last link in the Baltic-Crimeean trade lanes, and as such, hotly contested by Danubians, Hungarians, Ottomans.
It is the case with multiple cores (but not only) on the province in AGCEEP.
 
YodaMaster said:
Current setup is then right. Do we need an event for province culture change? Or is agreement impossible yet?

I wrote in post 33 about the real situation which is the most historically accurate in my knowledge, and I put some sources to the post.
so now it is up to you how do you implement it into the game. : )

I think the best way is to make the changes through events.