Yugoslavia achievement

[yerm]

My apologies for presuming. The rest of the arguments stand, though, unless you can also convince me that the idea of south Slavic union was even around at the time.

The concept not having traction in our own history is a weak argument for not including it's addition to the game. The idea of a large and powerful union in the region makes no sense more because of the dominance of outside powers than some kind of internal hatred. It simply never happened; it wasn't impossible to happen. Hungary not having been sacked by the Mongols and dominated by the Ottomans could have left them able to form a substantial Balkan nation, much like Poland did above them, but that's really just theory. The implausibility of a south slav cultural union in our history would also be reflected in game, where the chances of one of those nations played by ai actually taking the whole area are spectacularly low.

I really don't care if the Balkans are about the worst place on earth for Nationalism and disunity now, they were not that way in 1444, and should not be railroaded into it in the game. I rather enjoy the Hungary and Ragusa starts, myself, and don't give a rats ass what a cultural union down there would be named... I just want it to exist. You could call it Nationalismia for all I care.

 

[WeissRaben]

My apologies for presuming. The rest of the arguments stand, though, unless you can also convince me that the idea of south Slavic union was even around at the time.

It was, around in the last century or so of the game. It didn't get to real big until the 19th century (just like nationalism as a whole), but it was there and the concept of unifying the Southern Slavs wouldn't have been outlandish in 1750.

 

[unmerged(652342)]

Dude, there were 2 separate Romanian states (Wallachia, Moldavia). After the date I mentioned they became 1: the Romanian United Principalities (= Romania; to-may-to, to-mah-to).

- United Principalities under Ottoman rule, but whatever, you won. Romania is ancient kingdom separated by evil powers from beyond.

Yes, because the concept of Italy was not invented by Napoleon. It had existed before in this or that form. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Italy_(Holy_Roman_Empire) or even this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_the_Lombards if you keep in mind that northern Italian culture is called "Lombard" and that basically whole northern half of the country could constitute "Lombardia".

I didnt think i had to mention it, because its kind of obvious isnt it? All you have to do is load EU4 as Denmark, Norway or Sweden in 1444. and it will be immediately apparent. Kalmar union that doesnt fall apart like it did historically = Scandinavia. The same way as Poland+Lithuania = Commonwealth.

- so its OK to be a complete fiction or ancient history or be created by foreign powers, unless you are mong... Yugoslavia.:rofl:

Yes and you got a natural union of the East Slavic people, and its called Russia. Youre just proving my point.

- kinda not, considering that game now have 2 separate east slavic unions - Russia and ...Ruthenia. Good luck finding justification for latter.:rofl: And yeah, some people here on the forum actually protesting for Russia to be a union.

Poles and Russians are two different tribes of what is technically same people. And yet Poles and Russians have two completely different historical kingdoms and two completely different historical states and two completely different histories all together.

Serbs and Croats are today (and mostly like have been throughout history) linguistically quite similar, id say a lot more than some east Slavs. But that doesnt mean that the differences that do exist constitute the same natural union of our two people. Because thats simply not true, otherwise there would have been one in history and we would not be have this conversation.

- so it should not be possible for Austria to unite Germany unless mong... HRE?

Something pro-Yugoslavians seem to be missing or intentionally ignoring in this thread is that Yugoslavia was never a concept prior to its creation post-WW1.

- Malaya, Hindustan and Scandinavia which exists only because Pdx wants it to exist.

Now, Italy? It was a de jure kingdom during the entire timeframe, and had existed as a concept since the Roman Republic and possibly before. Germany? Also a de jure kingdom, and had existed as a concept in the minds of foreigners since the Roman Republic as well; by locals since the birth of the HRE. Egypt had existed before, and it'd hardly be the first time a polity would try to remind people of former glory to take their attention off other things. Arabia, while dubious, can be viewed as a restoration of the Caliphate — although I'd prefer it just be called the Caliphate.

- judging by yours constant use of CK term "de jure Kingdom" and diving back to ancient time to find legitimacy for those states to exist in EU, i can say that your knowledge on the subject is rather limited.

Scandinavia is also quite dubious, but is hardly unlikely to have happened — the norsemen had always been on relatively good terms, and never genocidal (unlike south slavs);

- whaat? So constant wars between Danes and Swedes never happened because modern Danes and Swedes had no conflicts in 20-21 century? And about what south slavic genocides you talking about in EU timeframe?

had the Kalmar Union lived, Scandinavia isn't that unlikely. Upon integrating Norway, Denmark didn't stay Denmark — it became Denmark-Norway. Do you really think it would've chosen to be Denmark-Norway-Sweden if Sweden hadn't declared independence? Naaaah.

- we have a saying in Russia - "If my grandmother had testicles, she would be my grandfather" and "If mushrooms grew in my mouth that would be not mouth but garden". You cant talk about something that did not happened like you 100% know what consequences it would have. By that logic i could claim that if invading barbarians did not conquered Rome we would colonize solar system already, because Rome is awesome and shit. Had Serbia fight off Ottomans and proceed with conquering balkans, could it be that this new political entity would try legitimize itself by claiming that it is protector of all south slavs, and consequentially naming itself Yugoslavia?

The southern slavs have a long history of hateful internal conflict, too. How does it make sense to give them a cultural union? Had any of the polities there succeeded in uniting the Balkans, they would've all fiercely tried to eliminate all traces of their neighbouring cultures anyway (which you can do just fine in the game, since the Balkans have trash BT and you can just blithely culture-convert all of it).

- you should watch less political propaganda, it is kind of hard to have "hateful internal conflict" considering that for the most part of EU timeframe balkans were under foreign rule.

Southern Slavs dont have a long history of hateful internal conflicts

- and italians and germans and scandinavians have.

 

[Christopholes]

Federation/Kingdom of the Balkans: Safe and generic

 

[Nyrael]

Something pro-Yugoslavians seem to be missing or intentionally ignoring in this thread is that Yugoslavia was never a concept prior to its creation post-WW1. The southern slavs — Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Montenegrin — have never been on friendly terms. The Serbs wanted to unite the Balkans around WW1, but they didn't want to form Yugoslavia — they wanted to dominate the other slavs of the region and form Great Serbia. They had no concept of a peaceful union between the local peoples.

Having read quite a lot of my country's history through my life, I can confirm that the idea of a united South Slavic State, at least in Croatia, existed... and even the idea of a global pan-Slavic state existed in this period. It is not even surprising: the powerful countries of Austria, Hungary and Turkey made the nobility understand that one South Slavic country alone might not be able to stand on equal ground against these three forces, but a united one might.

The southern slavs have a long history of hateful internal conflict, too. How does it make sense to give them a cultural union? Had any of the polities there succeeded in uniting the Balkans, they would've all fiercely tried to eliminate all traces of their neighbouring cultures anyway (which you can do just fine in the game, since the Balkans have trash BT and you can just blithely culture-convert all of it).

The hate only appeared in the period that you play through in a fancy game called Victoria 2, which takes place in era of Growing Nationalism. Before that, the relationship between the South Slavs was nothing unique: there were conflicts and cooperations, and many in the time cheered for one another in their fights against the Turks. That these cultures were not on friendly terms is mostly modern wishful thinking.

 

[arctvrvs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_movement
actually I must say I don't even understand why croatian and serbian are considered a different culture...
for me croatian, serbian and bosniacs at least during the game period are the same, albeit with different religions.
as for the cultural union, first I would add the greeks in it. Apart from language, the cultures were pretty close (at least as close than portuguese and basque ...)
also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumelia
the non-turk term would be ... Romania
I find it a bit a shame to look at the game with the prism of last 200 years nationalism when it affected only the last ten.
Romania could be the balkan union and the first step before restoring byz

 

[Kansai-kun]

I find it a bit a shame to look at the game with the prism of last 200 years nationalism when it affected only the last ten.

Just ignore any nationalism - at least that's what I do, as I come from a country where showing nationalist tendencies gets you very strange looks. Maybe some day the rest of the world will overcome this cancer, too.

 

[oblio-]

- United Principalities under Ottoman rule, but whatever, you won. Romania is ancient kingdom separated by evil powers from beyond.

Did I say we were independent? By the same criteria, remove Finland - after all, Finland wasn't independent until 1918

If you want to be a smart-ass, which you do, you could say that forming Romania in EU4 is based on the 20th century provinces (Transylvania is included) - which is a stretch for 1444-1821. But then I'm probably asking too much of you, because you've probably never formed it in-game.

If you must troll, do it with style

 

[Anreads]

Em, am i wrong, but isn't the really old dacians, and for example the present day romanians almost completely different people? And i'm talking about genetics no obvious culture differences.

 

[oblio-]

Em, am i wrong, but isn't the really old dacians, and for example the present day romanians almost completely different people? And i'm talking about genetics no obvious culture differences.

Of course. That's why Dacia is fantasy land, even for CK2. Dacia was dead and buried by the time the Romans left it, during Aurelian's rule.

But for EU4 a formable Romania is not that far of a stretch. Wallachia and Moldavia (both in-game) were Romanian countries, "Romania" was formed when both previous countries voted to unite into a single country, roughly 38 years after the end of the game.
RussianBias is just trolling about the actual name of the country when it was formed.

Adding an ADM tech requirement for the decision to form Romania would be a good idea, though. Forming Romania as successful Wallachia before 1600 is too early. The earliest attempt at uniting the Romanian states was at 1600 and it lasted for less than a year (in between Austria - Russia - Ottomans, life was hard ).


Anyway, this is completely off topic. Romania is formable in EU4 and has been since EU3. And this topic is about... Yugoslavia.

 

[TheBoozehammer]

I think Yugoslavia should be formable. The name does make sense and the region could use a union. Plus, according to other posters here, the idea of it was around back then. It makes at least as much sense as Arabia.

 

[DanubianCossak]

I think Yugoslavia should be formable. The name does make sense and the region could use a union. Plus, according to other posters here, the idea of it was around back then. It makes at least as much sense as Arabia.

The name Yugoslavia means Yugo/Yuzhna Slavia = South Slavia. Without the idea of Slavia = panslavic movement = like 19th? century, the idea of SOUTH Slavia makes no sense whatsoever.

Arabia actually makes a lot more sense since there was something it was named after.

 

[Rey]

Em, am i wrong, but isn't the really old dacians, and for example the present day romanians almost completely different people? And i'm talking about genetics no obvious culture differences.

Genetics don't matter. Much of Europe was ran over by invaders multiple times since the Romans, who intermixed with the local populations. It's the social constructs, like language, religion, 'culture', etc, that largely define a 'people'. Europe has many peoples that adopted the culture of their ruling class (e.g. Anglo-Saxons and the Britons), and others where the ruling class was assimilated by the locals (e.g. Goths in Southern Europe) and whose language vanished.

 

[Zak Preston]

- and how is that different from Yugoslavia?
- at hte end of XIX to be precise.
- and Ruthenia

-- And Russia before 1721 (around ADM-20 tech in EU4) :closedeyes:

 

[Anreads]

Anyway, this is completely off topic. Romania is formable in EU4 and has been since EU3. And this topic is about... Yugoslavia.

Yeah i just got sidelined by someone mentioning dacia should be in the game to please people

 

[Anreads]

Genetics don't matter. Much of Europe was ran over by invaders multiple times since the Romans, who intermixed with the local populations. It's the social constructs, like language, religion, 'culture', etc, that largely define a 'people'. Europe has many peoples that adopted the culture of their ruling class (e.g. Anglo-Saxons and the Britons), and others where the ruling class was assimilated by the locals (e.g. Goths in Southern Europe) and whose language vanished.

Yes and no. But since the romanians doesn't share the religion or customs from a 2000+ year old people, it shouldn't be in the game, so it hasn't anything in common. Which i hinted at since i said " no obvious culture differences"

 

[checro]

I find it a bit a shame to look at the game with the prism of last 200 years nationalism when it affected only the last ten.
Romania could be the balkan union and the first step before restoring byz

That's not how it works... That's not how any of this works... You should think of it as a 50 year nationalist pause in 1000 years! Tito was a... well, magician, I guess...

Just ignore any nationalism - at least that's what I do, as I come from a country where showing nationalist tendencies gets you very strange looks. Maybe some day the rest of the world will overcome this cancer, too.

I'd like to live in a country like that... They say I'm not a Croat because I don't support nationalism... I'm a commie for them... But this topic anwsers are out of that bounds historically and it has nothing to do with nationalism... Yugoslavia just doesn't make sence in that year... It is not nationalism, really...

It is like..... Let DDR be formable....

The name Yugoslavia means Yugo/Yuzhna Slavia = South Slavia. Without the idea of Slavia = panslavic movement = like 19th? century, the idea of SOUTH Slavia makes no sense whatsoever.

Arabia actually makes a lot more sense since there was something it was named after.

Actually... Since PanSlavia was an idea in all subjugated Slavs... And all independent Slavs had an idea of "uniting" Slavs under their flag.....



How about: TAG is Eastern Slavic or Western Slavic, has 3 vassals of W/E Slavic culture... Form PanSlavia - instant annex and accepted culture.... (Eastern Slavs are a bit different I think, just W and S).... At least it is compatible with the timeframe....

 

[Clownie]

- judging by yours constant use of CK term "de jure Kingdom" and diving back to ancient time to find legitimacy for those states to exist in EU, i can say that your knowledge on the subject is rather limited.

Because a term becomes immediately invalid because it's used in a video game, right?

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Römisch-deutscher_König

The Holy Roman Emperor was, towards the end of EU4's time period, king in Germany. Most of the time, anyway. But hey, I referred to Germany as a de jure kingdom (which it was), so I must be wrong. My apologies.

 

[Pilot00]

First of all im someone in part from area of former Yugoslavia.

With that said, Germany is Germany, Italy is Italy, Scandinavia makes sense having Kalmar union in mind, and so on.

Yugoslavia as a formable nation doesnt belong in EU4 for one simple reason: Yugoslavia was not a natural unification of South Slavic people, Yugoslavia was a creation made by Great Britain and France after the WW1 in order to create a new balance of powers in Europe that would be in their favor - weakened Austria and crippled Hungary. With that mind, Yugoslavia is heavily context driven idea, one that simply doesnt belong in EU4.

Yugoslavia as some kind of achievement, sure.

IRAQ.

And btw I know I might open a huge can of worms but....What has Illyria/the Illyrians, Dacia and Thrace anything to do with the Slavic people?

Aren't Macedonians a fairly new culture?

No.

Yes, from a historic point of view there never existed something called "Macedonia" in the games time frame for a Slavic nation in the approximate area of the EU map. Also if it did it falls under the Serbian or Bulgarian cultures in this time frame.

 

[anomanderus]

In the same way that Spain is a cultural union for Castilllians and Portuguese rather than Iberia, which is a V2 type concept the EU4 version of Yugoslavia should be called Illyria.

I note that recreating the Bulgarian or Serbian empires is much more time-period friendly however. But the only "independent" kingdom of South Slavs during most of this period was Croatia (which was in a personal union with Hungary) and I believe Illyria was hyped at some point in this period as a name for a larger state of South Slavs comprising those lands bordering the Adriatic.