Egypt is not that modern, they are sort of independent under the later Ottoman rule.
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.
Egypt is not that modern, they are sort of independent under the later Ottoman rule.
I am with DanubianCossak in this. This particular case is something similar to the HRE. The Germans back there had no identity to speak of, they were a conglomeration of dis-unified factions that desperately needed something to cling on. And they clinked to the so called legacy of Charlemagne, just as it is happening to day, to give a desperate reason to keep things ordered and find their place in the world. The difference though is that the Germans knew their (successful at the time) gambit was a falsehood.
I am not an expert in modern history, the closest thing I have studied is the 2 world wars and the cold war only. So that said from my limited experience, Yugo was less than an ideal state. However it was better than the mess its constituent countries are now. The sad thing is, that most of the nations existing now, think that they are independent whereas the truth is that they foreign dependencies and usually crime lords have a big say in local politics.
In the long run the dissolution only served propagate violence and instability in the region further and make it a playground for foreign powers.
At least thats my take as an onlooker on the subject.
Last edited:
And Yugoslavia was equally as bad, because once the generation of partisans who knew and loved eachother starting dieing out, and getting replaced by people who didnt fight in the war, the situation started becoming bad. You had one nation - Serbs - who outnumbered all other nations, and everyone else kept trying to decentralize state, eventually turning it into a loose federation of almost independent states. As bad as situation is today, the way old Yugo was set up near the end, was even worse. In order to prevent country turning into complete Serbian hegemony, everyone else dulled all state mechanisms to the point where state was almost unable to function properly.
The way it is today is better compared to that, for one simple reason: everyone is now master of their own fate, and for every victory or defeat, they can only blame themselves, and nobody else.
Well as I said that was my take as a not so well informed outsider, nothing to take at face value. The only thing that saddens me is divided people became easier prey in the end.
Consider how much the Greeks and Serbians for example achieved in the balkan wars. Both had things to go to war about among themselves but they put it on the table and worked things out. Even managed to pushed off the Bulgarian treason, despite been numerically outnumbered. But I am blabbing on again sorry.
With that i agree. I don't think that Yugoslavia was equally bad, as successors states. I agree that it existed because of the partisans who have seen and learned lessons from the horrors of mutual fighting and slaughtering in WWII.
I think that fall of Yugoslavia should be seen in larger context, the world was changing, change coincided with the departure of the politicians who have in one way or another survived WWII.
As I said before, yugoslavia is not a good idea because the idea of yougoslavia comes after the french revolution and the birth of nationalism.
minus croatians, the people from the balkans under the rule of the ottomans called themselves romans until after the games end.
the simple idea of nationalism for the years before 1800 is ridiculous.
and if I may, considering the discussions on this thread about yougoslavia, most people seem biaised by the last wars in the balkans (and if I remember well the main reason for the dislocation of yougoslavia was a rich north vs a poor south - if Belgium was to explode due to the same problem, would you say that Belgium didn't really exist ?)
if we were to look at the game timeframe, Romania would be the right term to describe an union of the balkans (south slavs + greeks + vlachs)
As for the main point of discord at the time, it was religion, not culture (as pointed before, that's Vicky 2)
minus croatians, the people from the balkans under the rule of the ottomans called themselves romans until after the games end.
the simple idea of nationalism for the years before 1800 is ridiculous.
and if I may, considering the discussions on this thread about yougoslavia, most people seem biaised by the last wars in the balkans (and if I remember well the main reason for the dislocation of yougoslavia was a rich north vs a poor south - if Belgium was to explode due to the same problem, would you say that Belgium didn't really exist ?)
if we were to look at the game timeframe, Romania would be the right term to describe an union of the balkans (south slavs + greeks + vlachs)
As for the main point of discord at the time, it was religion, not culture (as pointed before, that's Vicky 2)
When will you people realize that NO ONE WANTED YUGOSLAVIA in EU4 time period. They didn't even think about it.
And don't get me started on Illyrian unity crap. There was no such thing.
It's just not for this game.
And don't get me started on Illyrian unity crap. There was no such thing.
It's just not for this game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumelia
Because no slav would ever call himself a roman nowadays doesn't mean slavs never did call themselves romans...
They were after all under the east roman empire for centuries.
The alsacians, bretons, basques, corsicans flemish... are not latin and yet most of them consider themselves french.
Dont post me some wikipedia shit. This is what the turks called the region. No sane slav would ever call himself anything other than what he is be it a serb, croat, bulgarian and etc.
This sentence can be viewed as a truth ONLY for the greeks during the Ottoman era.
Not to mention that a Wikipedia article without a source is not really credible ... and I can't really find that statement in any of the 5 sources for that article.
If anything they would just call themselves Christians but romans ... REALLY ...
This sentence can be viewed as a truth ONLY for the greeks during the Ottoman era.
Not to mention that a Wikipedia article without a source is not really credible ... and I can't really find that statement in any of the 5 sources for that article.
If anything they would just call themselves Christians but romans ... REALLY ...
Last edited:
So no Yugoslavia, but would a Serb, Croat, Bosnian king crown himself maybe emperor if he took Constantinople, maybe change nation name into Empire of (Bosnia, Serbia etc.)
if you look at the different entities of the time (Byz, Serbia and Bulgaria) they were occupying pretty much the same territories. Before the occupation under the ottomans, the people there had been slavised by the invasions and hellenised by the rule of the Byz empire.
The notions of serb, croat, bulgarian ... existed but were much less predominant than faith. Being all orthodox christians was pretty much enough.
As for Rome, we may have forgotten in the last century how important it was at the time. Why do you think the Germans called their empire Roman ?
You are actually right by making a comparison between Christians and romans. To be emperor of Rome was to have the right to rule over Christianity.
So any ruler at the time would have dreamed of unifying the region and go fight the ottomans.
Basically all the balkans were pretty much the same. Especially since most cities and village were a mix between different cultures.
I dont echo the aggressive border line inflammatory sentiment but hajutze is correct the article is missing key info and is wrong on several accounts. Rumeli by all accounts was considered Greece with Bulgaria added into the administratory precinct. That said even if it did encompass the entire Balkans it was something enforced by a conqueror to divide his lands. It doesn't mean that the population ever seen itself as Romans. Nor did they ever the slavs have been waging centuries old wars against the Romans ever since they settled in their territories.
The fact that the Turks put them all into the same basket doesnt mean anything. The Turks didn't distinguished ethnicity, they distinguished religions, hence why the used the term Roman to denote Christians in their realm (and put the patriarch in charge of them, even though there were autocephalus patriarchates).
Mate no just no. You speak as if in the entire history of the region everything was ok and dandy: How many wars have been faught between the ERE, Bulgars and Serbs? Faith was a strong factor but what you describe is the Turkic point of view towards their subjects. That came after conquest. During the time that Bulgaria and Serbia were independent states from the ERE things were on swords edge.
As to any ruler would have dreamt....: Exactly that was one of the reasons of the division: Everybody wanted to crown himself king of the Romans. That didn't end out well.
If you were telling a citizen of ERE that he is akin to a Serbian or Bulgar barbarian he would most likely have you killed.
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Uro%C5%A1_IV_Du%C5%A1an_of_Serbia
called himself the emperor of serbs and greeks and used byzantine symbols such as the double headed eagle
as for the wars they were war for the domination of the region. Don't put together the ambitions of the overlord and the relationship between the peoples
Because you have a serbian empire, a byz empire and a bulgarian empire competing for the domination of the region doesn't mean that on the long term the people there wouldn't be okay no matter who is the one ruling, the culture were close enough
The bulgar and the serbs had been on byz domination for quite a time before. I don't think they would have taken it that badly. At least not worse than how I take it when people say I'm akin from the people that live in Paris
And we know that it didn't end well : war of religions, revolutions ... But the game is about alternative history and What ifs...
Now the question is : If a local ruler had unified the balkans, how would he have called his country ? from his original name if he wanted to stay local, roman empire if he wanted to go global.
Last edited:
Don't mix up the ambitions of the overlord to get legitimacy using the Roman Empire with the self-image of the peoples.
Are you arguing that the Bulgarians would be fine and dandy with being ruled by the Byzantines, and vice versa? I don't know enough about medieval Serbia to argue on that basis, but with regards to Bulgaria, that seems to be a very odd argument to make.
it wouldn't seem that far-fetched to see solidarity and feeling of unity coming from the domination of a heathen lord