What about the Romanians?

[unmerged(2356)]

...I wish this were the truth, but it is not.
Russians mass deported Germans to central asia just decades ago.

Census - Romania

1992:

Romanians - 20,408,542
Magyars - 1,624,959
Germans - 119,462
Gypsies - 401,087

2002:

Romanians - 19,409,400 - 1 million decline, current fertility 1.2 children per woman... worse than the Western European average of 1.5.
Magyars - 1,434,377 - 200,000 decline from a pop. of just 1.6M
Germans - 60,088 - most departed for Germany. Only 70+ year olds are left. Not a viable population.
Gypsies - 535,250 - how's that for a healthy increase of 25%?

 

[Alexandre]

...I wish this were the truth, but it is not.
Russians mass deported Germans to central asia just decades ago.

The world has changed. The deportations that marked the post-war period are no longer acceptable.

Alexandre

 

[unmerged(5394)]

OH NO, yet another of those threads o :rofl:

We have been there, over and over again, we have already discussed these things a zillion times, thus lets move on, therefore could one of the MODs move this to the history or EEP forum, where it should belong to,

cherioo :rofl:

 

[bman1234]

I repeat again, whenever you see the term "Vlach", you know you're in trouble.

Ron

 

[Szordrin]

About the whole inadequate informations, thouse who are in the dark shouldn't express so strong opinions, that's all. They can chose to remain uninformed in a matter, no problem, just don't act like you know everything about everything.

Attila the Hun and bman1234, what was the point of thouse last posts again?!

As was stated, "vlach" is a term given by outsiders. And i grow tired of this hole atitude, since it's kind of silly to think that 20 milion people suffer from mass delusion and thouse who heard of them 10 years ago know them and their history better, else the allien cover up would be a miled joke compared to this phenomenon!

Point is, such an event is a viable option; and historical facts cannot be changed by how they are implemented in a game, whichever that is. End of story.

 

[bman1234]

Attila the Hun and bman1234, what was the point of thouse last posts again?!
.

The point is that almost all of these discussions concerning the populations/cultures/history of the Balkans turn into what are in essence unresolvable conflicting points of view and interpretations. And you can be sure that you are heading into one of these discussions when the term "vlach" surfaces---the definition of who is and who isn't a "vlach" and what being a "vlach" means varies as to the point that the presenter is trying to prove, and the "vlaches" seem to always be dragged out when trying to prove a point.


This is the essence of the problems in the Balkans--everyone can look at exactly the same set of historical realities and facts and make completely opposite conclusions and interpretations. Don't get me wrong, I often enjoy the arguments, but find them as unresolvable as trying to decide who is the most beautiful woman in the world.

In fact, I find the study of extremist nationalist movements to be fascinating, especially as epitomized by what would be labled fascist movements, e.g., Codreanu's Legion of the Archangel Michael or the Arrow Cross and Szalasi in Hungary or the Ratnitsi in Bulgaria, to give a few examples.

Ron

 

[Alexandre]

This is the essence of the problems in the Balkans--everyone can look at exactly the same set of historical realities and facts and make completely opposite conclusions and interpretations.

<shrug> One can't look at actual facts and claim that Vlach is etymologically dervied from anything other than a name used by the Slavs to refer to Romance-speakers, a term that they got from the Germans, who used it to refer to foreigners. It never was a name that the Romance speaker used to refer to themselves, and hence the occurence of a similar name used by non-Romanians to refer to the south eastern Romanian principality doesn't prove any special connection, least you feel like granting Romania CB shields on Wales.

Alexandre

 

[Alexandru H.]

Last time I checked, this was a discussion about the possibility of Romania to form in the EEP scenario, not a "vlach" debate. As I previously said, if Germany and Italy can form, Romania should form as well; if not, then no (I like to play with Moldavia anyways..)

 

[unmerged(5394)]

Attila the Hun and bman1234, what was the point of thouse last posts again?!

I was simply pointing to the fact that this discussion should be moved either to the EEP forum (as far as I understand this would be in line with the intention of the first poster), or to the history tread if some of the others posting here would like to carry on their discussion about the origins of the name "Vlach" and other stuff. That is all.

Thus, I hope a MOD will eventually show up someday and move this thread to either of the forums mentioned above, where they indeed belong to.

Cheriooo :rofl:

 

[unmerged(2356)]

Thus, I hope a MOD will eventually show up someday and move this thread to either of the forums mentioned above, where they indeed belong to.

Cheriooo :rofl:

Why do Hungarians feel obligated to intervene in every thread on this topic? Especially if we were not bashing them...

 

[Alexandru H.]

Why do Hungarians feel obligated to intervene in every thread on this topic? Especially if we were not bashing them...

And the path is opened :rofl: ....

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Why do Hungarians feel obligated to intervene in every thread on this topic? Especially if we were not bashing them...

They've got shields on your provinces?

 

[unmerged(2356)]

Well, since EU2 appeared, the weasels managed to convince Johan to change Transylvania to Magyar, Banat to Magyar, and Dobrogea to Slavonic. As if I needed one more reason to...

No, seriously, good people.

 

[Dark Knight]

Well, since EU2 appeared, the weasels managed to convince Johan to change Transylvania to Magyar,...

But they're Orthodox Magyars.

 

[unmerged(5394)]

Why do Hungarians feel obligated to intervene in every thread on this topic? Especially if we were not bashing them...

It is a habit of mine You know. :rofl:

Seriously, I do believe this is not the right thread to discuss this topic, hence my comment. I could have commented on the substance as well (Orthodox Magyars and stuff like that :rofl: ), but that would have probably sparked another flame war I guess, which I am trying to avoid at this point. Go ahead discuss these things in depth, fine with me, but not here in the general discussion forum, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the EU II time frame.

My 2 cents

 

[Classique]

Dobrogea to Slavonic.

I believe Bulgarians argued for that one, not the Magyars.

 

[Szordrin]

But they're Orthodox Magyars.

When? Where? Last i've looked they were still catholic, unfortunately (in the game)!

And seriously, if we don't have a romanian Dobrogea (debatable at the begining of GC), then it should be greek, not slavonic!

 

[unmerged(20844)]

When? Where? Last i've looked they were still catholic, unfortunately (in the game)!

And seriously, if we don't have a romanian Dobrogea (debatable at the begining of GC), then it should be greek, not slavonic!

do not make me go after you with an axe, you wont like it

instead, read the thread in case you havent.

you are insulting several hundred thousands people who live in DOBRUDJA for centuries.
Greek=hilarious

do you have any idea where the capitals of the Bulgarian Khanate and Kingdoms were? would you let your capital's nearby region be dominated by a foreign tribe? HUH

I am sorry that you Romanians feel like half the world should have Romanian culture

...retreat

 

[Alexandru H.]

I know I'm going to be sorry, but...

Szordin's idea about Transylvania was quite good (romanian culture, magyar and possibly german state culture, orthodox religion, catholic state religion). There is something about which the developers did not think: if we accept the current situation (magyar culture), we don't have vlachs in Transylvania. Fine, but where are they? In Macedonia? Then give romanian culture to Macedonia ... Right now, Transylvania looks exactly like the default magyar province (which was not the case)

Retreating as well

PS.

I am sorry that you Romanians feel like half the world should have Romanian culture

They should have...They were moved from place to place by every neighbour, including magyars, serbs and bulgarians...

 

[Alexandre]

Right now, Transylvania looks exactly like the default magyar province (which was not the case)

The original set up (version 1.0) was to have Transylvania culturally Romanian, and religiously Catholic till the reformation. I still think that's the best layout: Moldavia and Wallachia are likely to be too poor to convert it to Orthodoxy (unless played by a person) while Hungary can't change the provincial culture, which means that it'll be dificult for Hungary to rule, and difficult for Moldavia/Wallachia to rule. The original set up reflected both the majority Romanian population of the province while also recongizing the very sizable Magyar and Saxon populations. Given the importance of all three of those populations, it was a far more reasonable set up than the current situation.

At the time when the switch was made, I tried to argue for a return to the original set up, but certain members of the Hungarian clan made it their mission to close every single one of those threads because "the decision was made and is final". Unfortunately, some of the moderators actually were willing to close threads for that reason. :wacko:

Alexandre