Yugoslavia achievement

[hajutze]

Honesty I really doubt that if any south-slavic state managed to conquer all the other slavic lands it would change the name/tag.

A simple solution would be to (somehow) make a CU without changing the name or CoA.

 

[Kansai-kun]

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?

There are theories that the Romanians and Bulgarians are partly descended from the Thracians. It can't be really proven, though, as the Thracians just vanished from history at some point. Illyria is probably mentioned because Napoleon created the so-called "Illyrian province" out of parts of Croatia - Illyrianism was also the name of a Croatian movement for South Slavic unification - which the Serbs didn't like because for them it was Croatia trying to dominate the other South Slavs - ironically, the Serbs did the exact same thing themselves later on, in Yugoslavia. My uneducated guess would be that the foundation of the kingdom of Yugoslavia was when the whole trouble started, and after that it's a cycle of hatred. As I already said, I'm not from the Balkans, so I can only describe how it looks to me from the outside.

But back to topic: I liked DanubianCossack's idea a lot:

In fact here is one idea for completely phantasy like unification of south slavs:

Podanubia / Podanubye / Padanubya or something like that.

Essentially land bellow/south of Danube (Dunav) river ("po nashki" it would be called Podunavlje).

Danube river is the main waterway that defines our region more than anything else. Most rivers that are used to place borders flow into Danube river.

It's a fairly neutral name, without all the historical/emotional baggage the names Yugoslavia and Illyria have.

 

[anomanderus]

There are theories that the Romanians and Bulgarians are partly descended from the Thracians. It can't be really proven, though, as the Thracians just vanished from history at some point. Illyria is probably mentioned because Napoleon created the so-called "Illyrian province" out of parts of Croatia - Illyrianism was also the name of a Croatian movement for South Slavic unification - which the Serbs didn't like because for them it was Croatia trying to dominate the other South Slavs - ironically, the Serbs did the exact same thing themselves later on, in Yugoslavia. My uneducated guess would be that the foundation of the kingdom of Yugoslavia was when the whole trouble started, and after that it's a cycle of hatred. As I already said, I'm not from the Balkans, so I can only describe how it looks to me from the outside.

But back to topic: I liked DanubianCossack's idea a lot:

It's a fairly neutral name, without all the historical/emotional baggage the names Yugoslavia and Illyria have.

Actually the Serbian monarchy originally only wanted Greater Serbia. They had no interest in a union of South Slavs- that was something radicals wanted.

The Slovenes and Croats petitioned Serbia to create a Yugoslavia, because otherwise they would essentially be puppets of either Italy or Greater Serbia and because in the case of the Croats there were Croatians in Italian claimed areas who would be under threat of Italian rule.

 

[Pilot00]

There are theories that the Romanians and Bulgarians are partly descended from the Thracians. It can't be really proven, though, as the Thracians just vanished from history at some point. Illyria is probably mentioned because Napoleon created the so-called "Illyrian province" out of parts of Croatia - Illyrianism was also the name of a Croatian movement for South Slavic unification - which the Serbs didn't like because for them it was Croatia trying to dominate the other South Slavs - ironically, the Serbs did the exact same thing themselves later on, in Yugoslavia. My uneducated guess would be that the foundation of the kingdom of Yugoslavia was when the whole trouble started, and after that it's a cycle of hatred. As I already said, I'm not from the Balkans, so I can only describe how it looks to me from the outside.

Yes I know all that, but as you said yourself all those cultures and people have been extinct centuries (and perhaps millennia in the Illirian's case and the Tracians were assimilated by the Greeks to some degree and eventually the Romans) before the Slavic and Bulgarian populations respectively migrated in there.

I can understand the notion of forming a nation after them under a propaganda regime, but I think it would be quite out of context for this time period.

 

[Kansai-kun]

Yes I know all that, but as you said yourself all those cultures and people have been extinct centuries (and perhaps millennia in the Illirian's case and the Tracians incorporated by the Greeks eventually) before the Slavic populations migrated in there.

I can understand the notion of forming them under a propaganda regime, but I think it would be quite out of context for this time period.

I know, and I'm no fan of trying to claim heritage that may possibly not be your own. The only times "modern" Illyria came into existence was as the short-lived "Kingdom of Illyria, which was part of the Habsburg Empire - and the Habsburgs used this title among their others even after Illyria's dissolution - and the equally short-lived "Illyrian Provinces" of the Napoleonic Empire. There was never a Illyria founded by Croats: it was more the to-go name for Croatian client states - which is why I would probably use the same name, should I conquer Croatia and be interested in holding it.

Actually the Serbian monarchy originally only wanted Greater Serbia. They had no interest in a union of South Slavs- that was something radicals wanted.

I already had this idea a while back in this thread: Why not just add a "Proclaim Greater X" decision for the South Slavic countries, changing them to de-facto cultural unions, the same way how the "Kingdom of God" decision works.

 

[Pilot00]

I know, and I'm no fan of trying to claim heritage that may possibly not be your own. The only times "modern" Illyria came into existence was as the short-lived "Kingdom of Illyria, which was part of the Habsburg Empire - and the Habsburgs used this title among their others even after Illyria's dissolution - and the equally short-lived "Illyrian Provinces" of the Napoleonic Empire. There was never a Illyria founded by Croats: it was more the to-go name for Croatian client states - which is why I would probably use the same name, should I conquer Croatia and be interested in holding it.

I am not accusing you m8, I am just wondering out loud so to speak

EDIT: The thing is as I see it at least and dont shoot me for it: Most of the 'damage' (so to speak dont take it literally) between the peoples of the Balkans was done by the Ottoman occupation. That was mostly the reason for the appearance of large populations of Muslims in there that caused a 'cultural division' and enmity. That and the Italian city states and Hungary spreading Catholicism. If we can Imagine a unified area under a strong ruler that sets the basis for it to be united in the whole time frame of the game, there wouldn't be such a division. So again IMHO its plausible to have a south Slavic union Tag.

 

[Kansai-kun]

I am not accusing you m8, I am just wondering out loud so to speak

No problem. I just thought at first you misunderstood my post.

 

[Rey]

It's a fairly neutral name, without all the historical/emotional baggage the names Yugoslavia and Illyria have.

Why go full nonsensical fantasy when there's perfectly historical entities able to fulfill that role (even if a bit out of the game's timeline)? I disagree that these guys should get in-game special treatment in the emotional/historical regard when others didn't/don't.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Why go full nonsensical fantasy when there's perfectly historical entities able to fulfill that role (even if a bit out of the game's timeline)? I disagree that these guys should get in-game special treatment in the emotional/historical regard when others didn't/don't.

Answer? Scope.

This is the maximum extent of Illyria, and even then thats something that happened only thanks no Napoleon, not on its own.

This isnt even 10% of South Slavic territory, its probably closer to 5%.

Having that turned into unification, when it actually had nothing to do with vast majority of people - is equally as much phantasy as calling the unification after geography is. In fact geography might be a lot better, having in mind that its a common denominator.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

A Serbian or Bosnian or Croatian king would never call their realm Yugoslavia. Almost certainly, they'd just keep their old name. As Danubian mentioned, the name Yugoslavia could only arise after nationalism and pan-ethnic ideology like Pan-Slavism arose. Might be a fitting name for a late-game Revolutionary Republic formed from a South Slavic kingdom ruling the area, but even that's stretching it.

And yes, Malaya and Hindustan and (I'm pretty sure) Ruthenia don't follow this principle, but that's an argument for getting rid of these stupid tags, not for adding more like them.

 

[nalfz]

I definitely like the idea of 'Podanubia'
It may not (or at least to my knowledge) have a historical precedent but it seems plausible enough to me. Actually Pomerania means 'beside the sea' right? From the same sort of slavic root? That's pretty close to a precedent

The problem though with trying to add unification tags to EU4 is that the timeline for the most part pre-dates nationalism. Creating a new state usually revolved more around claiming some new title rather than uniting a people. That's why I like the idea of Podanubia. Sounds like a plausible name for a kingdom because it's based on geography like a lot of the others

 

[DanubianCossak]

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?

Same thing that Germans have to do with Rome. Its a claim.

Illyrians lived here before everyone else, in fact everyone who lives here now is mixed with Illyrians, so when people claim they are descendents of Illyrians they claim they are the rightful owners of - everything.

In fact this idea - of Illyria - has been quite popular with some people last 20 or 30 years. Ill let you find out who that is.

 

[Pilot00]

Same thing that Germans have to do with Rome. Its a claim.

Illyrians lived here before everyone else, in fact everyone who lives here now is mixed with Illyrians, so when people claim they are descendents of Illyrians they claim they are the rightful owners of - everything.

In fact this idea - of Illyria - has been quite popular with some people last 20 or 30 years. Ill let you find out who that is.

Only thing is Illyrians have been dead for about 2 millennia, pretty hard to have descendants and the Germans had the blessing of a Pope with a forged license, that none at the time (Except the ERE perhaps) suspected to be as such (or wanted to admit it was, because political reasons).

Just because a civilization/culture inhabited a geographic area, doesn't mean that the modern inhabitants in and of themselves are their descendants or have anything to do with them.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Only thing is Illyrians have been dead for about 2 millennia, pretty hard to have descendants and the Germans had the blessing of a Pope with a forged license, that none at the time (Except the ERE perhaps) suspected to be as such (or wanted to admit it was, because political reasons).

Just because a civilization/culture inhabited a geographic area, doesn't mean that the modern inhabitants in and of themselves are their descendants or have anything to do with them.

I agree, but the thing is, when someone makes that kind of claim, its usually not meant to persuade anyone of the validity of such claim (because anyone who has half of brain will know better), but instead its meant as national narrative constructed for internal use. A story told to justify certain political agenda. You can see that a lot in history.

 

[AndersSchm]

+ The Kingdom of God, Jerusalem, Italy, Germany, Hindustan.

+ Wales, Cornwall

 

[Pilot00]

+ Wales, Cornwall

Both were not culturally absorbed sufficiently to completely erode their Identity at the time of the games zone, so one can imagine a handful of reasons someone might flew a flag and started a revolt there.

 

[Yugoslavs]

Actually the Serbian monarchy originally only wanted Greater Serbia. They had no interest in a union of South Slavs- that was something radicals wanted.

The Slovenes and Croats petitioned Serbia to create a Yugoslavia, because otherwise they would essentially be puppets of either Italy or Greater Serbia and because in the case of the Croats there were Croatians in Italian claimed areas who would be under threat of Italian rule.

But of course, Serbs have even back then planned to exterminate all Croats and Bosniaks within Great Serbia, but instead they formed Yugoslavia.

I wonder why?

Oh, wait i know, because they wanted to have them all in one state and then to exterminate them slowly.

 

[Yugoslavs]

I agree, but the thing is, when someone makes that kind of claim, its usually not meant to persuade anyone of the validity of such claim (because anyone who has half of brain will know better), but instead its meant as national narrative constructed for internal use. A story told to justify certain political agenda. You can see that a lot in history.

My dear reactionary friend. Keep up the good work. Yugoslavia is just a fiction that have never existed, and neither have all those people who have fought for it.

 

[hajutze]

I agree, but the thing is, when someone makes that kind of claim, its usually not meant to persuade anyone of the validity of such claim (because anyone who has half of brain will know better), but instead its meant as national narrative constructed for internal use. A story told to justify certain political agenda. You can see that a lot in history.

And yet we have Macedonia nowadays claiming exactly that ...

Just because it's not logical it doesn't mean people aren't doing it.

 

[DanubianCossak]

My dear reactionary friend. Keep up the good work. Yugoslavia is just a fiction that have never existed, and neither have all those people who have fought for it.

Yugoslavia was a fiction that was kept alive by Tito and core made up of partisans who fought together during the WW2 and would not let anything break their friendship.

As soon as Tito lost power and those partisans (including two of my grandfathers) starting retiring / dieing, your Yugoslavia went to hell, all you have to do is youtube Vukovar or Dubrovnik and it will be painfully apparent.

Im not reactionary, im just less of a blind idealist, compared to some.