Allow me to quote myself:
Transylvania, which is mainly inhabited by Romanians and has just separated from Hungary, has no reason to rejoin it, unless of course you bring some good arguments.
-
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.
Allow me to quote myself:
Transylvania, which is mainly inhabited by Romanians and has just separated from Hungary, has no reason to rejoin it, unless of course you bring some good arguments.
first, its ahistorical, wich means its plausable.
second, its really interesting what you say, mainly inhabited by romanians? ... yes about 55-60% of the population was romanian, the rest hungarian and german, who never wanted to join romania. And even within the romanians could be some people who wanted to join hungary (proletarians who supported communism for example) so i think there would be support for joining with hungary. And by a decision, i meant that they would have more options, like: 50% for joining with Romania 30% for joining with Hungary, and 20% for staying independant. I know hungarians and romanians disagree over the percentage of ethnic populations in transylvania in that time, but even if we say that 70% of the inhabitants was romanian, 30% of the population isnt something that can be overlooked so easily. BTW it was just a thought from me, i think this would make the game more interesting
second, its really interesting what you say, mainly inhabited by romanians? ... yes about 55-60% of the population was romanian, the rest hungarian and german, who never wanted to join romania. And even within the romanians could be some people who wanted to join hungary (proletarians who supported communism for example) so i think there would be support for joining with hungary. And by a decision, i meant that they would have more options, like: 50% for joining with Romania 30% for joining with Hungary, and 20% for staying independant. I know hungarians and romanians disagree over the percentage of ethnic populations in transylvania in that time, but even if we say that 70% of the inhabitants was romanian, 30% of the population isnt something that can be overlooked so easily. BTW it was just a thought from me, i think this would make the game more interesting
If you really want to keep Dobruja as part of the Romanian states, at least give Sulina to Wallachia, because it was never part of Moldova.
Oh, I forgot about it! I'll correct the mistake ASAP.
first, its ahistorical, wich means its plausable.
second, its really interesting what you say, mainly inhabited by romanians? ... yes about 55-60% of the population was romanian, the rest hungarian and german, who never wanted to join romania. And even within the romanians could be some people who wanted to join hungary (proletarians who supported communism for example) so i think there would be support for joining with hungary. And by a decision, i meant that they would have more options, like: 50% for joining with Romania 30% for joining with Hungary, and 20% for staying independant. I know hungarians and romanians disagree over the percentage of ethnic populations in transylvania in that time, but even if we say that 70% of the inhabitants was romanian, 30% of the population isnt something that can be overlooked so easily. BTW it was just a thought from me, i think this would make the game more interesting
I think it could be fun if there is at least some chance of Transylvania joining Hungary. We have to consider, though, that Hungary is communist but Transylvania isn't. It could therefore be interesting if Hungary/Transylvania get an event chain where Hungary tries to coup the Transylvanian government. If they succeed, then later on there's a chance that Transylvania joins Hungary (and no chance that they join Romania); if they fail (which should be designed as the more likely scenario), there's a good chance that Transylvania joins Romania, and no chance that they join Hungary.
This b/c apart from the ethnic considerations, if two governments are of opposing ideology, there's no chance of them ever getting close enough together to consider unification.
In my opinion, we should also take into consideration the fact that the Hungarian population in Transylvania is mostly located in Miercurea Ciuc province, as you can see in this ethnic map of Romania from 1930. I think it is more likely to see the rise of an independent Erdely in that province rather than a unification between Hungary and Transylvania (of course, if there is a communist coup, anything can happen). Similarly, at a certain level of dissent, there should be an increased chance of seeing partisans in the Romanian-inhabited provinces of Hungary.
Surely enough, the Ottomans will try to keep the integrity of their vassal, so this could lead to a confrontation between the Axis and the Comintern.
Surely enough, the Ottomans will try to keep the integrity of their vassal, so this could lead to a confrontation between the Axis and the Comintern.
We could have that the attempted coup by Hungary is done by making use of the ethnic Hungarian minority in Transylvania. It could be that this coup could incite these provinces that you mention into revolting and trying to set up a Hungarian-led (by which I mean led by ethnic Hungarians, not by the nation of Hungary) communist government in Transylvania. If this civil war drags on long enough, Hungary might decide to intervene, which in turn could spark a war between the Axis and Comintern. If, however, Transylvania succeeds in quelling the rebellion quickly enough, they are on the road to unification with Wallachia and Moldova.
Sounds good enough to me. It surely will be challenging to unify those three states and get away with it.
P.S. I've never understood why the Ott.Empire is not in the same alliance as the other Muslim states (except for balancing the game). Can you please give me a "historical" explanation?
P.S. I've never understood why the Ott.Empire is not in the same alliance as the other Muslim states (except for balancing the game). Can you please give me a "historical" explanation?
I think this is the best solution but i would suggest a last option. If Transylvania chooses not to unite with any of the two countries, then there should be a chance for a "molotov ribbentrop pact" between Hu and Ro, where Hu gets the northern part, and Ro the southern
but i would suggest a last option. If Transylvania chooses not to unite with any of the two countries, then there should be a chance for a "molotov ribbentrop pact" between Hu and Ro, where Hu gets the northern part, and Ro the southern
It would be at least interesting , but the problem this time is with the Ott. Empire which will do its best to keep its vassals in their current forms (which is also the cause of war with RO if the unification happens at all).
, but the problem this time is with the Ott. Empire which will do its best to keep its vassals in their current forms (which is also the cause of war with RO if the unification happens at all).
P.S. I've never understood why the Ott.Empire is not in the same alliance as the other Muslim states (except for balancing the game). Can you please give me a "historical" explanation?
Ok, here it comes
.The 19th century was quite a tumultuous century for the Ottoman Empire. The various revolutions and counterrevolutions often led to wars with neighboring states in which the Ottomans (being weakened by these internal struggles) usually were defeated (usually by an alliance of neighboring nations). The OE lost significant amounts of territory during this century. Gradually, during the last decade of the 19th century and the first of the 20th, this led to feelings of revanchism and to the view that the OE had been betrayed by opportunistic neighbors seeking easy gains. Steadily, the idea also became prevalent that it were the liberal revolutionaries who were to blame for the OE's weakness and that liberalism therefore was a bad thing. With these ideas on the rise, the military were able to gain significant power, to the point where currently, the Empire, in name led by the Sultan, is in fact a military dictatorship. Under the military's rule, the Ottoman Empire has been significantly stabilized and strengthened. The military junta believes that the Ottoman Empire is a strong nation surrounded by weak states that are ripe for the taking; this view they can justify by the perceived betrayal that most of these states inflicted on the OE.
So the muslims colonized the America's? Also, whats the deal with the Pacific States? Who Colonized them?
No they're English (/European). After the treaty of friendship was signed between Iberia and Great Britain, the British were able to also colonize in America (before, Iberia would never allow it). However, there were not many places left; really only OTL California and OTL Argentina/Chile. They chose California. Then, after the communist revolution in Great Britain, their colonies got either taken over by foreign powers or, in the case of California, gained independence. After their independence, they colonized some more places in and around the Pacific ocean.
And what happened to gorge washington ben frankin thomas jefferson jhon adams and the rest of them ?
Never existed. This mod is an alternate history scenario where the point of divergence is really early. So early that atm i don't even know when exactly it is (prolly around 1000 or so); the only premise is that Muslim nations were much more successful; and from there I reasoned that if Iberia would be Muslim, then it would have been Muslims that discovered America and so on and so forth.
But what if all of them were born in the ottaman Empire and led the revolution that created the muslim states of America. or what if the british american revolution happened on the west caost instaed and created the PSA.
What if the United Emirates of America rebelled from Iberia because they started a different sect of Islam? Some sort of Cold War between the UEA and European Muslims?
We could do that with the rest of America (middle and South), so that it is not so strange that they also go commie and UEA doesn't? What do you guys think? I'm willing to change quite a lot in the history, it's all for good fun!
edit: or maybe the middle and south goes commie and UEA is neutral, but there is enmity between Iberia and the middle and south of America. Then, during our timeframe, UEA has to choose sides. War with Iberia, or war with Mexico.
How about a civil war in the UAE caused because two muslim sects both want power, and one controls most of the government, so the South breaks away to protect its religion, which is now a minority?