That's why I asked about a possible, i.e. plausible name for a formably South Slavic kingdom. Why shouldn't history unfold in such a way that the Balkan countries unite into a single kingdom?
Yugoslavia achievement
- Thread starter Yugoslavs
- 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.
That's why I asked about a possible, i.e. plausible name for a formably South Slavic kingdom. Why shouldn't history unfold in such a way that the Balkan countries unite into a single kingdom?
Here is what the problem is: there is no plausible South Slavic unification.
When people get desperate then they end up looking for just about anything, and thus the idea of "Illyria" as formable country for quasi Yugoslavia was born on this forum.
An idea that makes no sense what so ever.
That would be like having Dacia or Thracia formable instead of Romania, Scytia instead of Russia, or Babylon (or whatever) instead of Persia.
Bottomline is Balkan people were divided by religion and civilizational influences, before the late era of nationalism, there was no possibility for any kind of political project that would result in their unification.
Even the first Yugoslavia was far from being a "unification country", it was basically a Serbian tyranny over everyone else with the western blessing, because such situation suited their geo strategic interests.
That certainly makes sense.
The achievement could be called "od Triglava do Vardara" (from Triglav to Vardar)
Come on! All the Romanian nationalists would love to form a huge Dacia covering all of Hungary (besides Romania itself)
To be honest, I think they should get rid of the "south slavic" culture group, and make each of the individual cultures within it their own group. Might not be ethnolinguistically correct, but it reflects how the people in that part of the world treat each other far closer than EUIVs way in which they get less penalties for "same culture group"...
That would be bad for game play. The region is already poor, both base tax and production, and because the base tax is static it's very hard to improve the situation (and believe me - I tried, see this Ragusan 1.7 campaign).
Separating it into a 100 culture groups would only make the countries even weaker than they are.
Fine if you're a conqueror, awful if you're a "local" (aka playing a country in the region).
Plus these populations historically did not hate each other (and most actually don't hate each other even today, it's more a question of portrayal by outsiders - plus the ever troublesome Serbian nationalists
). But in 1444-1821 I doubt that there were many conflicts between Bulgarians/Romanians/Croatians/Bosniaks/Montenegrings/Serbs/Albanians. Especially since most of them were Orthodox (except the Croatians and the Bosniaks), and at the time the religion was actually the major discrimination factor anywhere in the world.
- Germany - 18 January 1871; Italy - 17 March 1861; Romania - 14 March 1881. Unless you mean Dacia, Romania was "formed" later.Ahem
I'll show myself out, but re-read your history please (Romania was formed before Germany or Italy...)
- you just war traumatized. Italy and Romania unifications was heavily patronized by GP's too, should we remove them?
- did you lived in that part of the world for 400 years to make propositions so preposterous like this?
While my post was far from being completely serious, it's a pretty good rule that those who live in a particular part of the world are the last ones you should trust with regards to it's history...
Aren't Macedonians a fairly new culture?Y u hate Slovenes and Macedonians oblio
But... that doesn't make sense at all. Why the Roman era named fictional country is only available when you hit Adm 24?
Because 1700 or so is when nationalism began to be a thing, and when the concept of nation-states that had never existed started getting traction - including the union of Southern Slavs, which I would name Illyria because it was used here and there during the period (by the French, the Croatians and the Habsburgs). I would underline that I would require Adm 24 for Scandinavia, Romania and a Republican Italy as well.
Im opposed to the kind of logical fallacies youre applying there. Italy is beyond comparison with Yugoslavia, because Italy as a country had existed before before EU4 time (at least in a way, sort of) AND it existed as a client state set up by Napoleon. History aside, Italy is one of European powers, Yugoslavia is insignificant in every regard. Italy being in game does not mean that Yugoslavia have to be in game, any more than not adding Yugoslavia would imply that Italy would need to be removed, thats ridiculous. Italy is simply Italy.
As for Romanian unification, well i dont see how thats comparable to Yugoslavia. As far as i know Romanian people have always been one people (though with different names throughout last centuries). Divisions within Romanian people are mostly etnonymic (sp?) and dialectic, while on the other hand Serbs are Serbs and Croats are Croats, and have been two different tribes even before they settled this area.
Last edited:
I mentioned Slovenes before, I just forgot Macedonians. I'm sorry about this slip-up, but Paradox is even worse than me - there are no Montenegrins, Bosniaks or Slovenes in the game (unless they changed something in 1.8 and I missed it.Y u hate Slovenes and Macedonians oblio
The Romanian United Principalities (or The United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia) - 24 January 1859.
14 March 1881 was just a formal renaming of the country, it didn't actually mean anything to Romanians.
1 December (1918) - Great Union Day - our national day and a public holiday.
24 January (1859) - Union Day - public holiday.
14 March - go to work you Romanian scrubs!
Call it whatever you want, but modern Romania was formed from the union of Wallachia and Moldavia in 1859 - not that far from the end of the game.
OP you should put this in the Suggestions thread. It's more adequate than in the general forum.