AFAIK these countries were artificially established by British and French in late history. So why? It seems inaccurate and unnatural.
Why this game has Syria and Iraq tags?
- Thread starter master_kong
- Start date
-
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.
I believe it’s so there are more releasables in the area. PDX has said before they want every culture to have a tag... so there you go I suppose.
Well, Syria was a Roman/Byzantine province, and under the Caliphate, Syria (under the Arabic name ash-Sham) was a province as well, so precedent does exist for it being a distinct entity. And while the country of Iraq was created by the British, even under the various Muslim empires, it was recognized as a distinct region called Iraq al-Arab (as opposed to Iraq al-Ajam).
Paradox is really inconsistent with tags and releasables. They include countries that were only around outside of the time period (like Italy, Germany, Rome, Rum, Yuan, Malaya), along with some that are pure fantasy (Scandinavia, United HRE, Mann) but are completely and utterly opposed to the inclusion of other nations, like Belgium (which sorta existed during the time period).
Those areas need "revolter" tags, essentially tags that are the "primary nation" of the culture that inhabits the area. But all of the tags that could naturally inhabit that area based on the time period are tied to dynasties or larger outside empires, such as the Jalayirids, Qara Qonyulu, Mamluks, Timurids, and so on. What makes more sense, an Iraqi revolt to re-establish Jalayirid rule 100 years after the fact, some kind of fantasy name made up by Paradox, or simply using the name "Iraq" to signify a local ruler declaring independence? Same goes for Syria pretty much. The fact that these areas were put under a microscope during the development of Cradle of Civilization yet the Syria and Iraq tags remain convinces me that there wasn't a better way to go about it.
I know all that but being a region doesn't make you a tag, at least shouldn't do it. At any point of history there were not a country called Syria nor Iraq. And if oil wouldn't be discovered in Mosul at the last moment, British were about to give whole area to French. So there would be no Syria or Iraq even today, maybe just Masriq or whatever the name they would give. It's completely artificial and I prefer them not to exist just like in history.
Last edited:
I think particularists or peasants would be more fitting for these areas.
I wouldn't say the HRE tag is pure fantasy. It could be argued that it existed at some point. I agree with the rest,
- 1
Scandinavia is not fantasy. The Scandinavist movement of the 19th century, aiming to create a unified Scandinavian state to hold its own against neighbouring great powers, arguably had roots back to at least the end of the 18th century, and had definitely taken off by the 1830s. It's not unreasonable for it to be an option in this game.
And I'll argue that Malaya is a pure fantasy... The only time all malay peninsula, sumatra, java, and borneo were ''united" is probably under Majapahit during its golden days, long before eu4 timeframe. A country named Malaya has never existed to this day
- 1
I think they exist as generic regional Islamic states so you can force a country to release them or you can release them as a puppet state.
It's because Paradox preferred ahistorical, regional powers over the more historical emirates of Bagdad, Mosul and Raqqa (which were once suggested as a replacement)... but I guess now that they added Basra, the Musha-something tag, and adl-Fadli, they could as well add a bunch of other regional tags and do away with those strange generic things.... And they should rework Lebanon to be something more historical as well...
But Belgium is pretty much a non-country.
Because the devs generally try to avoid using 'Empire of [x]' and dynasty names for tags unless they absolutely have to. There have been dozens of independent dynasties and autonomous vassals based in Iraq and Syria in and immediately before EU4's time period.
Ditto for Iraq, but 'Syria' is very much a real nation that has existed throughout history, though the modern borders of the traditionally classed Syrian people exclude Lebanon and include the Sunni east. Including Maronites, Alevis and Druze would be nice, but I guess the map is just too small.
Last edited:
- 2
But did they ever refer to themselves as anything but Danes, Swedes and Norwegians while doing so? Whilst self-identified 'Syrians' have always existed. Not sure about 'Iraqis' though..
- 1
It's either using these names or making up new names from thin air.
That they did not exist in our history means nothing because this is alternative history.
why NOT ? u realise we have italy and germany as tags yes ? who arent there in that time too xD
Yes. Scandinavian nationalists referred to the people of Scandinavia as Scandinavians. Swedish, Danish and Norwegian identities were supposed to be secondary to the Scandinavian identity.
- 1
1. How is Mann, a country/political entity that has the oldest continuous parliamentary body in the world, fantasy?
2. Belgium is included in the game. It is called the Netherlands. They were the same concept in the EU4 timespan - as demonstrated by the fact that the united provinces were officially called Belgica Foederata in Latin.
- 1
A country named Malaya has never existed to this day
A country named Malaya existed from 1957-1963.
- 1