What about the Romanians?

[unmerged(16937)]

Hi,

I'm playing the EEP as a Novgorod-turned-Russia, and I noticed Siena make a good attempt at becoming Italy, before it got diplo-annexed by Aragon.

However, it got me thinking. Italy and Germany can both be united in the EEP, right? Why therefore can there not be other nations that were not historically created until after 1820? I'm thinking especially of Moldavia, which grabbed eastern Hungary, Dobrudja and Jedisan for a while - what if Moldavia or Wallachia took all of the Romanian provinces? Would it not be fair to allow them to become Romania? The same could go for any of the Mongol Khanates that was to take control of all the Mongolian provinces - create a Greater Mongolia. It just seems unfair to only allow those who later became great powers to be united.

Of course I'm aware that the AGCEEP is out, but I want to finish my Russian campaign before trying it, so I apologise if these ideas have been implemented already.

What do y'all think?
Marius of Britannia.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Well its an interesting idea, but there's a limited number of tags, so If they created a Romania they'd probably end up creating every nation that popped up in the 1800's.

 

[MarshalN]

And Romania didn't pop up until after Trianon (however you spell it) which was a treaty after the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy. That created a whole slew of countries -- some historical, some less so. By your logic, we need a lot of different things in EEP, which simply cannot be accounted for

 

[Classique]

It's my impression that a united Germany did not make it into EEP or AGC-EEP, although I could be mistaken.

 

[unmerged(16937)]

You're right, Romania did not appear until after 1820 - nor did Italy or Germany, hence my concern that no1's defending the little guy.

Classique, Italy and Germany rarely appear in EEP if the player isn't playing a German or Italian minor, because the AI's just too stupid to manage it, but there are events allowing for the creation of Italy and Germany.

Well I don't know how many free tags there are, but I'd have thought there'd be enough for those countries that need uniting - after all, there are no Finn, Slovak, Slovene, Montenegran etc minors, so there's no need for a unification event. A Yugoslavian one might be possible, if Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia or Ragusa take over all the others... You're right there's not much point to it, but I think it could be quite a lot of fun bringing about the birth of a smaller nation, and then turning it into a power.

 

[Konig15]

No, Germany didn't make it in EEP, Italy did. I've seen the files. If Germany is in the AGP-EEP section, I'd like to know. I think that there are enough unused player defined tags (U01-U20, If I recall) event in EEP to make a Romania, but flags and letting the computer know which army graphics sets is to be used, I'm not sure how that works, but you can probably find that out around here.

In my opinion, a unified Romainia would make sense as a more complete buffer state seperating Russia and the Ottomans, (or in my case, keeping the Russians out of the Byzantine Empire's backyard).

 

[Alexandru H.]

And Romania didn't pop up until after Trianon (however you spell it) which was a treaty after the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy. That created a whole slew of countries -- some historical, some less so. By your logic, we need a lot of different things in EEP, which simply cannot be accounted for

Huh? Romania formed in 1859, after another treaty (Paris 1856). Along with Germany and Italy, it forms the national triangle of the 50s-60s (the only three nations that completed the goals of the 1848 revolutions).

Finn, Slovak, Slovene, Montenegran

All XXcentury creations...

I don't play EEP much and I never requested that Romania should form, yet, if Germany and Italy find their way into the mod, Romania should be in, too...(Romania's creation was earlier than that of the other two)... Of course, this could only be possible from the 1600s

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Actually, there is a Finnish minor. Sweden dosen't have the big RR events or usually high WE that would make it appear, but it can happen.

 

[unmerged(20844)]

yes, i've seen finnland pop up several times
usually it happens when russia gets it from sweden and then gets embroiled in too many wars. very weird to see such a mighty country not be able to defeat 10k rebels

on the subject of unification, you may notice there are a LOT of german and italian minors... and the romanian provinces arent that much... so maybe that's why they chose to implement Germany and the Kingdom of Italy

 

[Alexandre]

Hi,

However, it got me thinking. Italy and Germany can both be united in the EEP, right? Why therefore can there not be other nations that were not historically created until after 1820? I'm thinking especially of Moldavia, which grabbed eastern Hungary, Dobrudja and Jedisan for a while - what if Moldavia or Wallachia took all of the Romanian provinces? Would it not be fair to allow them to become Romania?

I don't think that it's that big a deal. There was a Romanian "unification" under Michael the Brave who simultaneously controlled Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania before his assassination, but there really wasn't any attempt at politically unifying the territory into a single nation state.

I'm happy enough with the situation as it now stands. My only objection (way, way, way back) was that Wallachia had the Moldavian shield, but all that I needed to do was to take a digital picture of the correct shield, mail it to Johann and he made sure that it was in the next patch.

Alexandre

 

[Alexandre]

And Romania didn't pop up until after Trianon (however you spell it) which was a treaty after the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy. That created a whole slew of countries -- some historical, some less so. By your logic, we need a lot of different things in EEP, which simply cannot be accounted for

That's completely wrong. Romania was created in 1850's. The post-WWI merely saw the transfer of Romanian-majority provinces from the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires to Romania.

Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Czechoslovakia were the states that emerged post-war, and Yugoslavia was created from a merger of Montenegro, Serbia, and the southern Slavic provinces of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Alexandre

 

[unmerged(2356)]

And Romania didn't pop up until after Trianon

...hanging would be too good for him...

 

[Sable_Rose]

What about them? Oh yeah.. Ottoman Empire.. Right.

 

[MarshalN]

Sorry guys, I got my stuff mixed up this time. I somehow remembered that Romania was also created post-war...... nvm

 

[Mad King James]

That of course brings up the question of what being Romanian means. Remember that 'Romania' in the EU2 timeframe refers not to the modern area called Romania today, but rather the domains of the Roman peoples. I suppose the Moldavians and Wallachians ended up referred to as such because as they were never annexed directly into the Ottoman Empire they alone remained free of the 'Roman' peoples, thus they are all that remains of 'Romania'.
Also there is no real defining Vlach nationalism at this point. The Vlach states still had a Hungarian-heavy upper class and for the most part manifested itself as a Greek-Orthadox Hungarian protest against Catholicism. Over time this Vlach and Hungarian nobility became largely Orthadox in its institutions and of course culturally quite seperate, but I believe a unified Vlach state wouldn't consider itself 'unified'. In their own mindset they would consider themselves successful in gathering the eastern, Orthadox hungarian states, but would strive to get 'the rest' before they considered themselves the rulers of a united state of their originators.
This is much the same as other societies. Russians for instance harken back to the Kievan Rus, but the Kievan Rus, while undeniably populated almost entirely by Russians, was ruled by a tiny minority of Vikings. Any Russians who became aristocrats inevitably became Kievan, and therefore Viking, Aristocrats. It was only after their dissolution that the concept of the domain they once inhabited being a definitive and achievable goal of being czar of 'all the Russias'.
A united, early Romania would likely refer to itself as Transylvania, and would doubtlessly seek to conquer the rest of Hungary and impose Orthadoxy over it, rather than Catholicism.
Now before you flame me, remember that I'm not saying the Vlachs are Magyars. I'm saying they were 'Hungarians' as in the STATE not the PEOPLE. In actual fact, the Hungarians AND the Vlachs are the same people really, the Cimmerians. The Magyars who conquered modern Hungary made up a tiny minority who over the centuries have doubtlessly been diluted down to nothing, just like the Turks who conquered Anatolia. Have you SEEN drawing or paintings of what Turks and Magyars originally looked like? They're asiatic. When was the last time you saw an asiatic Turk or Hungarian?

 

[unmerged(11633)]

In my input, I think that if Wallachia or Moldavia had expanded, they probably would have still called themselves wallachia or Moldavia.

The Vlach states still had a Hungarian-heavy upper class and for the most part manifested itself as a Greek-Orthadox Hungarian protest against Catholicism. Over time this Vlach and Hungarian nobility became largely Orthadox in its institutions and of course culturally quite seperate,

A united, early Romania would likely refer to itself as Transylvania, and would doubtlessly seek to conquer the rest of Hungary and impose Orthadoxy over it, rather than Catholicism.

In actual fact, the Hungarians AND the Vlachs are the same people really, the Cimmerians.

My oh my, I can see why you nick is Mad King James. Cimmerians? Orthodox Magyars?

When was the last time you saw an asiatic Turk or Hungarian?

Hmm, last time I was down at Ozgur's Kebabs in the Valley, the Turkmen there looked quite asiatic. Unless, of course, you restrict "Turk" to mean the Osmanlis.

Any Russians who became aristocrats inevitably became Kievan, and therefore Viking, Aristocrats.

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that any vikings present were toally assimilated into slav culture? Is there any particular reason for these unsubstantiated theories MKJ?

 

[Mad King James]

In my input, I think that if Wallachia or Moldavia had expanded, they probably would have still called themselves wallachia or Moldavia.
My oh my, I can see why you nick is Mad King James. Cimmerians? Orthodox Magyars?
Hmm, last time I was down at Ozgur's Kebabs in the Valley, the Turkmen there looked quite asiatic. Unless, of course, you restrict "Turk" to mean the Osmanlis.
Wouldn't it be fairer to say that any vikings present were toally assimilated into slav culture? Is there any particular reason for these unsubstantiated theories MKJ?

Yes yes Mr. Pickypants I was referring only to Anatolian Turks, as obviously the Turks of the Steppe, being the point of origin, look asiatic
I suppose I'll have to plow into the reasoning behind my arguments then, the reason for not wanting to will become evident as the paragraphs pile up
All current inhabitants of Hungary and Romania are by and large, barring the occasional tidbit of invader, Dacian. Dacians are all that is left of the Cimmerians, once the masters of the Steppe, Bessarabia, and the Hungarian plain. They were forced off the steppe by the Scythians, and found refuge in Bessarabia and Hungary. The Scythians eventually conquered Bessarabia as well, however by that point the population was overwhelmingly Cimmerian, and so the Scythian legacy was doubtlessly small.
Over the centuries small tribes have 'taken over' so to speak and ruled as the elites of Bessarabia and the Hungarian plain, but again as always the Dacians continued to make up the bulk of the populace, adopting the language and customs of their conquerers as the conquered have always done. The last group to do this, as we all know, were the Magyars, who as a Turenic people looked quite a bit more like Mongolians or the Ugric reindeer herders of the Ural mountains than modern Hungarians.
Now getting back to the Hungarian aristocracy of Vlach lands. Now as we know from the previous paragraph it's basically moot what they were called, because they're essentially the same people, however the states of Wallachia and Moldavia were founded by 'Magyar' (read Dacians adopting Magyar customs) princes, who however sided with Constantinople in the great schism instead of Rome, and therefore set the destiny of the Transylvanian Principalities (not my choice of a name, theirs) on a seperate course than that of the rest of Hungary. Now as the centuries pile up this becomes more and more of a moot point, and certainly by 1419 only someone who knew next to nothing about the issue would argue that the Vlach and Magyar principalities and kingdoms were 'the same', however they shared an origin.
You could logically however declare a unification of 'Dacia' of course, all things being the same, however even though they were Dacian, the princes of Wallachia and Moldavia didn't consider themselves to be so. It's all rather complicated but the main point is the fact that these guys came out of Hungary, founded the state as a Hungarian principality, then sided with Constantinople. The rest of Hungary united into one kingdom, and they remained seperate. End of story
Now you also stated that the Viking aristocrats became 'Russian'. Well that's very interesting but there was no 'Russian' identity. Rather the opposite happened really, the traditionally pagan, eminently peaceful and community oriented Russians became fiercely Christian, adopted old-school Scandinavian feudalism and became a classic Viking state-pimping out itself for mercenary activity, trading with and for everything they can find, and building cities with trade as the central aspect. The reason Russia isn't like this today is because the Kievan Rus died when the Mongols invaded, and the Russians then became Mongols, and still are really. Well.. more of a fusion of both really.

 

[unmerged(6105)]

A Yugoslavian one might be possible, if Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia or Ragusa take over all the others...

Yugoslavia? There was never much uniting those there at any rate.

 

[Alexandre]

Also there is no real defining Vlach nationalism at this point.

<sigh> Romanians and Vlachs are *not* the same people. They are kindred races, certainly, but at least as distinct as Danes and Norweigans, or English and Scotts.

I believe a unified Vlach state wouldn't consider itself 'unified'. In their own mindset they would consider themselves successful in gathering the eastern, Orthadox hungarian states, but would strive to get 'the rest' before they considered themselves the rulers of a united state of their originators.

No, that's wrong. Moldavia and Wallachia were founded by Romanian nobles who fled Hungarian religious oppression. They were quite clearly *not* Hungarian.

A united, early Romania would likely refer to itself as Transylvania,

I'm rather dubious about that. Wallachia never called itself Wallachia, but rather "the Roman land", and would regularly refer to Moldavia as "the other Roman land". Neither one ever refered to itself as Transylvania.

Now before you flame me, remember that I'm not saying the Vlachs are Magyars. I'm saying they were 'Hungarians' as in the STATE not the PEOPLE.

This makes about as little sense as talking about the Soviet people. In both cases, the minorities only remained part of the state because of state coercion.

In actual fact, the Hungarians AND the Vlachs are the same people really, the Cimmerians.

That's just silly, MKJ. The languages aren't even related, let alone mutually intelligable. If you ever visit Romania and Hungary, look at the people. You can argue that Hungarians and Transylvanians come from the same stock, but Moldavians and Wallachians are clearly of different stock: shorter, darker, far more "Italian" than "Central European" in appearance.

Alexandre

 

[Alexandre]

All current inhabitants of Hungary and Romania are by and large, barring the occasional tidbit of invader, Dacian.

Well, not quite. While Dacians certainly made a large contribution to the modern Romanian ethnicity, they were very significantly augmented with Roman colonists. (Dacia was the most heavily colonized Roman province.) During the Slavic invasions, they completely displaced the Roman population from the Danube Delta (as in we see *no* archaeological evidence of Roman continuity there) and significantly replaced the Roman population in the Hungarian, Wallachian, and Moldavian plains.

Your relying too much on 19th century Romanitic nationalism which in both Romania and Hungary significantly downplayed the Slavic component.

however the states of Wallachia and Moldavia were founded by 'Magyar' (read Dacians adopting Magyar customs) princes, who however sided with Constantinople in the great schism instead of Rome,

No, they weren't Magyar, they were Romanian, but, you are right that religion, not ethnicity was the motivating issue.

You could logically however declare a unification of 'Dacia' of course, all things being the same, however even though they were Dacian, the princes of Wallachia and Moldavia didn't consider themselves to be so.

Well, here we can agree.

It's all rather complicated but the main point is the fact that these guys came out of Hungary, founded the state as a Hungarian principality, then sided with Constantinople.

No. The schism had taken place centuries before the founding of either Moldavia or Wallachia.

Alexandre