The Balkans in 1835

[Tunch Khan]

Poor Bosnia and Albania.. Since they were mostly considered as moslem nations, neither Russia nor Austria-Hungary supported their authonomy or independence. One had to wait until 1912 while the other until 1992. Nobody wants to play them? We can still pretend they were independent. They too had some kind of authonomy.

 

[Arilou]

Originally posted by Dzoser
re Dark Knight



So Sytass wrote wrong? There will be playable Serbia? That's what you mean?
By the way from this point of view Sweden shouldn't be playable in EUII, too.

True, but then we have no (or at least very little) idea of what sort of diplomatic arrangements they have, and everyone agrees that the vassal-thingie works horribly anyway.

 

[unmerged(10416)]

I don't know what the hell you all are talking about.

Does the first map (the one with German writing) show Wallachia, Serbia and Moldau as independent states??? No.

I don't think you have to speak German to understand what the designation "EUROP. TÜRKEI", written all over the map, means, right? Does it not look odd that the borders of Austria, Russia and Italy are all shown as broad colored stripes... stripes that are nowhere to be seen along the supposed borders of Serbia or any Romanian principality?

Besides, from what I've gathered the Turks garrisoned Serbian until 1867. I agree that it would be good if Serbia could be represented as a Turkish vassal in 1835, with Turkish military access and no possibility for Serbia to make alliances or declare war on anyone. But I suppose the vassal/protectorate model of Vicky isn't that strict so the designers decided to make Serbia a part of Turkey anyways. I guess there will be an event quite early on (1867? 1859?) that makes Serbia an autonomous vassal, and from there on it won't take long until they shake off the last shackles.

 

[Alexandru H.]

I hope the designers didn't use that particular map (which is still wrong, no matter the used german writing) for Victoria's grand campaign....

I repeat: Moldavia and Wallachia had at that particular moment a working constitution...now, if you have any turkish province with a constitution, own army, own prince, which has diplomatic relations with the rest of Europe, placed under the protection of a foreign state (Russia), I rest my case....

I agree, Serbia is more difficult to handle, but not impossible. The Obrenovic dinasty had a little pact with its overlord and the vassalship doesn't sound quite wrong. There are more differences between Serbia and Rumelia than between Serbia and Hannover....

Just my 2 pounds...

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Dzoser
re Dark Knight

from post of ejs421


So this screenshot doesn't exist?

You should read the comments that have been left about the screenshot in multiple threads.

It isn't official and it's quite old.

 

[idomeneas]

Poor Bosnia and Albania.. Since they were mostly considered as moslem nations, neither Russia nor Austria-Hungary supported their authonomy or independence. One had to wait until 1912 while the other until 1992. Nobody wants to play them? We can still pretend they were independent. They too had some kind of authonomy

As for Albania if Italy didn't want a foothold in the Balkans and to limit Serbian and Greek access to the Adriatic there wouldn't have been such a state.

If the situation had stayed as is Albania wouldn't have existed with Serbia taking over the northern part and Greece taking over the southern part. It is simple to notice that due to the fact that because Albanians were mostly muslmi there wasn't such a rush in nationalism as the one that happened to all the other Balkan nations. They did not just feel under the same oppression as the other balkans. Too many Albanians were influential figures in the ottoman empire to realy want independence from the ottomans. It is simple history. So in game terms Italy should get an event saying protest in favor of out Illyrian relatives or something like that.

 

[Demetrios]

It was the Austrians who blocked Serb ambitions in Albania. The Italians didn't like it much either, but they were following the Austrian lead in 1912-3.

 

[Tunch Khan]

Originally posted by Alexandru H.
I hope the designers didn't use that particular map (which is still wrong, no matter the used german writing) for Victoria's grand campaign....

I repeat: Moldavia and Wallachia had at that particular moment a working constitution...now, if you have any turkish province with a constitution, own army, own prince, which has diplomatic relations with the rest of Europe, placed under the protection of a foreign state (Russia), I rest my case....

I agree, Serbia is more difficult to handle, but not impossible. The Obrenovic dinasty had a little pact with its overlord and the vassalship doesn't sound quite wrong. There are more differences between Serbia and Rumelia than between Serbia and Hannover....

Just my 2 pounds...

I agree with you, since both Wallachia and Moldova had, constitutions, parliaments, own monetary unit and own army.
They had established diplomatic relations.

At the start of the game, they should be vassal countries and allies of Ottoman Empire.
An event of unification should happen like 1859.

Serbia, no army, no monetary unit, Ottoman heavy presence in country and large garrison in Belgrade until 1867. Considered Ottoman Pashalik with Istanbul appointed governor. No official diplomatic relations. (like consulate or embassy of Serbia). Turkish officials in government positions. Should start as an Ottoman province with very high revolt risk. Just like Montenegro.
But if historic accuracy is to be neglected then whatever you want is possible, after that point, everything is fantasy. You can easily grant Ianaia independence then, since it had semi-authonomy as well.

Egypt, traditionally Ottomans allowed Mameluk army to exist and be in charge of security of pilgrims. When the Ottoman governor revolted against Istanbul, there was a war between the revolting army and Ottoman forces until 1839. However, when Ottomans recognized their authonomy and the dynastic rule of Mehmed Ali, the problem was resolved and they became a vassal principality called "Khedivate of Egypt". And became a strong ally with very high relationship level with Istanbul.

So instead of modeling the war until 1839, game can start with Egypt already a vassal, and ally of Ottomans.

If historic accuracy is a must, then, A revolting nation in war against Ottomans. It could be dificult to reflect the peace agreement though. Maybe an event can balance that issue.

 

[The historian]

For this discussion to end we either need the game or an official answer from Patric Johan,Dark Knight or Sytass that will tell us whether Wallachia ,Moldova ,Serbia ,Montenegro ,Egypt will be playable in the Victoria Gc

 

[unmerged(15557)]

Hmm, nice discussion

@Tunch Khan,

You are descended from Edessa? ( Or Vodina, as was called prior to 1912 liberation).

My mother's father was forced to leave Kerzon (Or Kerasous as we called it) on Pontos, now Anatolia, by the black sea.

Edessa is not a new name. By all means. It is its ancient name. When Alexandros o megas was alive, that was how it was called. We just gave it back its original name.

Now, Alexandroupolis, on the other hand, did not exist at ancient times. It was called Dedeagac when we liberated it, and assumed a Greek name.

Just to clarify, I believe that it is a designer call what and when they will set countries free. It is that simple. I think what they do is adhere to history.


On a history note and level, Moldavia and Vlahia was a part of the Ottoman empire (nomatter how you call it), so it should be a part of it gamewise. Ever since 1400's they had been a faithful vassal. ( Count Dracul and other rebels aside)

Greece, on the other hand, ever since 1828 wasn't a part of the Ottoman empire so, it is in.

Simple as that, really.

 

[unmerged(739)]

Re: Hmm, nice discussion

Originally posted by Keravnos

On a history note and level, Moldavia and Vlahia was a part of the Ottoman empire (nomatter how you call it), so it should be a part of it gamewise. Ever since 1400's they had been a faithful vassal. ( Count Dracul and other rebels aside)

Greece, on the other hand, ever since 1828 wasn't a part of the Ottoman empire so, it is in.

Simple as that, really.

And how do you know which countries are in at the beginning of the game?

 

[Alexandru H.]

You buy the game!o

Actually, Keravnos, things are never easy like that....

 

[The historian]

Originally posted by Keravnos

On a history note and level, Moldavia and Vlahia was a part of the Ottoman empire (nomatter how you call it), so it should be a part of it gamewise. Ever since 1400's they had been a faithful vassal. ( Count Dracul and other rebels aside)

Greece, on the other hand, ever since 1828 wasn't a part of the Ottoman empire so, it is in.

Simple as that, really.

Well you crack me up is this the ofiicial greek version of history
Moldova and Wallachia faitful vassals:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[unmerged(1862)]

It occurs to me here that famous line about how it takes an outsider to write a good history of a place.

Your passion is all well-founded and I have deep respect for it. I can only hope paradox either a. had someone not from the balkans make these decisions or b. at least had equal numbers of all interests concerned and made sure they were equally armed.

I swear, maybe it's just having parents of different religions and grandparents from most corners of the european map and me currently living comfortable in a cosmopolitan metro area in America and being a flaming liberal generally, but I don't think I'll ever understand the vehemence of the Balkan history debates. I respect the hell out of it, but I'll never get it.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Originally posted by Wheels
It occurs to me here that famous line about how it takes an outsider to write a good history of a place.

Too true. Nor can they be trusted to make games reflect history, which is why one wonders whether the entry of Sweden into WW1 on the German side will - as some so snidely suggested in the Western Front Beta AAR - dramatically change the course of history. (Love you really, Paradox, and you know it )

I swear, maybe it's just having parents of different religions and grandparents from most corners of the european map and me currently living comfortable in a cosmopolitan metro area in America and being a flaming liberal generally, but I don't think I'll ever understand the vehemence of the Balkan history debates. I respect the hell out of it, but I'll never get it.

Well, the real reason is because American history is so short and, frankly, boring. I mean, it gets going, when...? 1700 or so, really. And boring because it doesn't have the kind of "your great-great-great-great-grandfather pinched my great-great-great-grandmother's bottom, so my great-great-great-uncle peed on his shoes, but your great-great-grandfather (a nasty man) took revenge by cutting my great-great-grandmother's pretty ribbons at the dance to commemorate the building of the local synagogue / mosque / church in Anypolis / Anygrad / Anyshehir (please take your pick)..... and so on and so forth for umpteen generations. With history as rich and full of incident as that, how else can one be except chock-a-block full of contention?

Also, liberals will never understand the Balkans.

Spammishness over, I believe now there is little to do except wait for an announcement or for the game itself.

 

[Tunch Khan]

Re: Hmm, nice discussion

Originally posted by Keravnos
@Tunch Khan,

You are descended from Edessa? ( Or Vodina, as was called prior to 1912 liberation).

My mother's father was forced to leave Kerzon (Or Kerasous as we called it) on Pontos, now Anatolia, by the black sea. [/B]

Am i a descendant from Edessa/Vodina? Omg, you should have learned not to ask a Turk about his/her descendancy. It takes forever to reply, until it all goes back to Central Asia.. lol

My mothers side of the family;
Now i have a Vodina (Greece today) born grandfather whom his family is known to have migrated from Batumi (Gerogia now) hundreds of years ago, who is married to my grandmother whose family is from Sofia (Bulgaria now).

My fathers side of the family;
A grandfather whose father is Albanian from Ohrid (Macedonia FYR now) and other side is from Daghestan (Russian Federation now) whose married to my grandmother from Istanbul (finally) and her grandmother is an Arab from Damascus (Syria now).

I call myself a Turk right now to avoid complications...


NOTE: I did not include the unofficial links, since i'm not quite sure, but back in times most bigger households had other women, er.. can anyone help me translate "Halayik"? it's like an unofficial wife, but not the one that 'islam' allows you to, she can be 'bought' from a slave market but is not an official slave neither... it's a girl that does whatever you want and helps your wife with house duties, shopping etc. isn't it what we all dream of? maybe we should re-establish Ottomans...

:rofl: :rofl:

 

[Alexandru H.]

Well, apart the well-known "only foreigners can write a good history of my country" stereotype, I just wanted to say that I am one of the least biased persons I know ( ) about a subject as dangerous as nationalistic history. And I agree that such a thing must have no place in a game like Victoria.

But the fact is that Moldavia, Wallachia and Serbia have the right to exist in the grand campaign. This is not propaganda, this is not nationalism, just some facts that happen to agree with me. As I said before, I don't judge Paradox games after some higher nationalistic standards, it's only fun and that must be equal to everybody. Remember the great hungarian uprising against EU2's Hungary settings? I told them I agree with them, but you can't expect Paradox to follow each one's idiosyncracies.... My point was just this one: they should be; if they aren't, it's fine, I'll play Victoria anyways; if they are, fine again....

 

[idomeneas]

On the subject of Walachia and Moldavia

Yes they were autonomus but there were under huge control from Instanbul. There was so much control that someone could say that there weren't realy separate states (say from 17770-1820 the translator to the sultan almost gets to become the prince that is really independent:wacko: )

Serbia on the other hand gainedd their autonomy through a revolt and due to the fact that they had more support from other powers were able to keep some more autonomy. So I can see a playable Serbia but a playable rumanian state seems a little more difficult. There will certainly be a mod adding them , for this I am sure.

 

[Alexandru H.]

The 1820 situation is not the same for 1835, when Victoria starts!

 

[Tunch Khan]

Let's leave history aside, Serbia, Montenegro, Wallachia and Moldova are all going to be playable in Victoria. Although all of them became independant on 1878, thus allowing them to make alliances with other nations, i have seen a thread with history log, where Russia signs an alliance with Montenegro in 1846.

So i guess the discussion is over. Game is set.

"To write history, one must be more than a man, since the author who holds the pen to this great justiciary should be free from all pre-occupations of interest, or of vanity."

Napoleon Bonaparte