Yugoslavia achievement

[DanubianCossak]

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

Serbian king claimed the title of Byzantine emperor so that he could justify his conquest of Orthodox Greek lands held by Catholic crusaders.

However, that particular case is rather complicated. Stefan Dusan was expelled from Serbian court by his father, so him and his Bulgarian mother (iirc) basically lived at - Constantinople - until he inherited the throne. That guy was basically more Greek and Bulgarian than Serbian (oh the irony) simply by events in his life.

But with all that said, Serbs never claimed to be Romans, youre just wrong on that.

 

[unmerged(299084)]

Yes, and that actually did happen, once.

You mean Tsar Dushan? I wasn't aware he took Constantinople.

 

[hajutze]

it wouldn't seem that far-fetched to see solidarity and feeling of unity coming from the domination of a heathen lord

Oh they had solidarity and unity.

I dont know about the rest of the slavs but what I know about the bulgarian nationalists under the ottoman rule - if Bulgaria was to be liberated, their next move would be to help the other christians under muslim rule to FREE themselves. Not to unite all christians under one ruler but to free them from the turks.

They viewed themselves as brothers by faith but nothing more. Under no circumstantion they'd agree (any of them) to be someone else's rule.

 

[DanubianCossak]

You mean Tsar Dushan? I wasn't aware he took Constantinople.

Well no, sorry i didnt mean taking the city, but he did assume the title of Byzantine emperor.

 

[Pilot00]

z

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.

We discussed this matter of pretense 2 times now, must we go a third?
Also implying that the Greeks are close to the other two, even the other two themselves is a HUGE mistake and oversimplification.
What do they have in common except religion?

Also to the part that they wouldn't have taken badly: Let me remind you that both Bulgaria and Serbia, have been reconquered by the Romans at least 2 times each. And they didnt stay put. So no, historically it makes no sense at all.

I can see a unification of Serbs/Croats/Boznians, but throwing Bulgars and Greeks into the mix? No.

Also a side note: Dont learn your history from wikipedia, and dont post articles to prove a point. That thing has so many mistakes and bias, that if you go and make a thesis about something in a University and present it to your lecturer with wikipedia as a source you would be lucky if he just laughs you off.

Yes, and that actually did happen, once.

See what I am saying? It didn't. He never conquered anything or was not crowned anything. The only thing that happened was to bestow up him the title of Basileus to get him out of their lawn and keep him off their backs till he died. Meanwhile they were laughing at the barbarian who had imperial notions.

EDIT: Ops thats my mistake there, I was talking about the Bulgarian guy. Everybody wanted to be Emperor that you keep losing track of them

ehm albanians maybe?

Erhm....Settled the region after 1000 years maybe? No direct link except supposed stories that the Albanians themselves say and there is no historical evidence? Nothing in the Albanian culture points back to Illyria? The supposed contact between their languages are wide speculation with no proof?

Well no, sorry i didnt mean taking the city, but he did assume the title of Byzantine emperor.

And I can claim to be the president of the US does it make me one?

If anything this proves that relations between the peoples of the are were anything BUT good.

 

[DanubianCossak]

See what I am saying? It didn't. He never conquered anything or was not crowned anything. The only thing that happened was to bestow up him the title of Basileus to get him out of their lawn and keep him off their backs till he died. Meanwhile they were laughing at the barbarian who had imperial notions.

What are you talking about? He conquered half of Greece...

In fact his aggression against Byzantine empire led to Byzantines allying with Turks for the first time, and inviting them to Europe to fight Serbs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stephaniana

Im pretty sure nobody in Constantinople was laughing at him. Specially as he besieged Thessaloniki. Oh and his negotiations with Venetians to secure their navy for his planned campaign to conquer - Constantinople.

 

[Pilot00]

What are you talking about? He conquered half of Greece...

In fact his aggression against Byzantine empire led to Byzantines allying with Turks for the first time, and inviting them to Europe to fight Serbs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stephaniana

Im pretty sure nobody in Constantinople was laughing at him. Specially as he besieged Thessaloniki. Oh and his negotiations with Venetians to secure their navy for his planned campaign to conquer - Constantinople.

I was referring to Constantinople with everything. Also see that I edited my post cause I thought he was another man. Namely Michael the 3rd.

 

[arctvrvs]

We discussed this matter of pretense 2 times now, must we go a third?
Also implying that the Greeks are close to the other two, even the other two themselves is a HUGE mistake and oversimplification.
What do they have in common except religion?

Also to the part that they wouldn't have taken badly: Let me remind you that both Bulgaria and Serbia, have been reconquered by the Romans at least 2 times each. And they didnt stay put. So no, historically it makes no sense at all.

I can see a unification of Serbs/Croats/Boznians, but throwing Bulgars and Greeks into the mix? No.

Also a side note: Dont learn your history from wikipedia, and dont post articles to prove a point. That thing has so many mistakes and bias, that if you go and make a thesis about something in a University and present it to your lecturer with wikipedia as a source you would be lucky if he just laughs you off.

Well it seems to me that you fail to see several points :
1- religion was the most important thing at the time
2- they had much more in common at the time since many cities were a mix between the different cultures and territories shifted from one to the other
3- Bulgaria didn't stay put because of heavy taxes and emperor incompetence
4- Scotland has been conquered and revolted several time against england, they are still considered the same culural group even though one has a celtic and the other a german language
5- I'm always happy to learn, if you would be kind to post your sources that contradict what I say
6- Once again, the game is about what ifs

 

[Pilot00]

Well it seems to me that you fail to see several points :
1- religion was the most important thing at the time
2- they had much more in common at the time since many cities were a mix between the different cultures and territories shifted from one to the other
3- Bulgaria didn't stay put because of heavy taxes and emperor incompetence
4- Scotland has been conquered and revolted several time against england, they are still considered the same culural group even though one has a celtic and the other a german language
5- I'm always happy to learn, if you would be kind to post your sources that contradict what I say
6- Once again, the game is about what ifs

1) Believing that a Greek of the time would consider himself the same with the Slavs, or A Bulgar with the others means you havent studied enough what constituted the 3 factions and their mentality. I am not saying this to be insulting but the Balkans and the ERE had a distinct mentality from the Western nations, nationalism did arose there centuries before the West. And that is something that we (in the west) for some reason dont want to accept. Also the ERE (and by extent the Orthodox church) never took the notion of holy war - force convert - burn the heretics mentality of Catholicism. So its best not to confuse the two. It was important, but Civilization (that is Greek civilization) was equally important and the factor that divided them from the others.
2)Conquering cities doesnt immediately cause them to have a mix of population and meld culturally. This is a process that needs centuries to be done, as all three peoples we discuss have proven that even 500 years under Ottoman rule was not enough to meld them. Now consider the territories that were sifting hands and how much time each had them and check the populations.
3)Bulgaria didn't stay put, because Bulagaria was a different ethnicity with a different language, ambitions and all things consired a different civilization than the Romans. Also when it became obvious that the Bulgars could expel the Romans and even overpower them in time they did just that.
4)And this is a wanton mistake of the game to enable an easy formation of Brittan. If anything the Scots in this time frame were not culturally absorbed by the English. Nor did the Scots had the power (as history proved) to fight back the English as the Bulgars did the ERE
5)Books you can take an unbiased and as accurate as possible view on things (underlined is author):

Mazower, Mark. The Balkans
Journal of International Politics Escalation of Ethnic Conflict(dont know if you can find this one easily I have access to it because I am tutor, it was a presentation by multiple authors)
Boyd, Kelly Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writers

6) Agreed, but history and when we should discuss about it should be presented accurately and all of us should accept what really happened outside of national bias, less we repeat the same mistakes.
I understand its easier for me, since I dont hail from anywhere of these places.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Yes thats thing i never understood with the western school of thought. Somehow they wanna sell us the story that nationalism never existed until like 18th 19th or whatever century...

Thats ridiculous.

Nationalism has existed at least (and most certain even before) since Roman empire...

But lets go back to Byzantine empire, if you read the history of Slavic (Serbian and Bulgarian in particular) revolts, rebellions and uprisings, youll see text book examples of nationalism. You have a city, or a region, thats inhabited by non Greeks, Byzantine empire suffers a military defeat in Anatolia or something destabilizing happens to it, and boom, you have [x people] rebellion right away. Some rich person a merchant or a noble gathers peasants around him, makes an angry mob, and proclaims his own realm. Byzantines raise an army, come to said place, beat everyone senseless, and then go back to whatever they were doing before. Only in Serbian history that happened like 10 times before finally for the first time Serbs managed to break free (for a while).

Here is one example from Bulgarian history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_Peter_Delyan

Ive read countless articles like that in many different places.

 

[Marcus Septim]

Erhm....Settled the region after 1000 years maybe? No direct link except supposed stories that the Albanians themselves say and there is no historical evidence? Nothing in the Albanian culture points back to Illyria? The supposed contact between their languages are wide speculation with no proof?

its a big argument yes ,with one side linking clothing tradition ,very similar language (evolution whatever) , and the country name taken from the Albani tribe (one of the illyrian tribes) and stuff and stuff you can search the internet for this you will find alot of things suggesting that albanians are illyrians and alot of arguments that they arent it falls to you to decide which side you support , as for settled 1000 years after illyrians? what does that make albanians im pretty sure we are not slavs considering since i live in slavic country the only thing we have in common is moving out of here (money stuff)

 

[Pilot00]

And thats why I said that unifying them cultural (Greeks/Bulgars/Serbians) is not plausible and why a Serbian/Croatian/Bosniak union would make more of a sense.

As to why, well as a westerner myself I can answer that for you but...Lets just the atomic bombs that fell in the second WW2 aren't enough to describe the mess that will result from this.

And it is not only the notion of nationalism that presented wrong. Its like 70% of the historical and political landscape thats been cast on a different light in an attempt to....oh zog this.

 

[arctvrvs]

1) Believing that a Greek of the time would consider himself the same with the Slavs, or A Bulgar with the others means you havent studied enough what constituted the 3 factions and their mentality. I am not saying this to be insulting but the Balkans and the ERE had a distinct mentality from the Western nations, nationalism did arose there centuries before the West. And that is something that we (in the west) for some reason dont want to accept. Also the ERE (and by extent the Orthodox church) never took the notion of holy war - force convert - burn the heretics mentality of Catholicism. So its best not to confuse the two. It was important, but Civilization (that is Greek civilization) was equally important and the factor that divided them from the others.
2)Conquering cities doesnt immediately cause them to have a mix of population and meld culturally. This is a process that needs centuries to be done, as all three peoples we discuss have proven that even 500 years under Ottoman rule was not enough to meld them. Now consider the territories that were sifting hands and how much time each had them and check the populations.
3)Bulgaria didn't stay put, because Bulagaria was a different ethnicity with a different language, ambitions and all things consired a different civilization than the Romans. Also when it became obvious that the Bulgars could expel the Romans and even overpower them in time they did just that.
4)And this is a wanton mistake of the game to enable an easy formation of Brittan. If anything the Scots in this time frame were not culturally absorbed by the English. Nor did the Scots had the power (as history proved) to fight back the English as the Bulgars did the ERE
5)Books you can take an unbiased and as accurate as possible view on things (underlined is author):

Mazower, Mark. The Balkans
Journal of International Politics Escalation of Ethnic Conflict(dont know if you can find this one easily I have access to it because I am tutor, it was a presentation by multiple authors)
Boyd, Kelly Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writers

6) Agreed, but history and when we should discuss about it should be presented accurately and all of us should accept what really happened outside of national bias, less we repeat the same mistakes.
I understand its easier for me, since I dont hail from anywhere of these places.

1- I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that a greek would have considered himself the same as a serb or a bulgarian. What I'm saying is if a balkan state had unified the region, after the initial reject of foreign occupancy (that has nothing to do with culture imo) the cultures are close enough from commercial exchanges, assimilation with the natives from the provinces and bi/tri-nationals cities so that it wouldn't take as much time as if let's say a polish tried to occupy the balkans
2- the slavs are a foreign population in the balkans. considering the facts that there is still copts in Egypt, the original population had an effect on the occupying one
3- The bretons did stay put in France and even became loyal to the king afterwards
4- the scot did fight back and the english only got Scotland through marriage (it is more about the legitimacy to rule)
5- thanks for the books, I will try to take a look at them
6- I'm french so I don't really have a bias towards the balkans ^^. But I can understand that it is still a touchy subject (which may be why paradox didn't put a cultural union and probably put a sign on the idea : "hic sunt dracones" )

 

[Pilot00]

its a big argument yes ,with one side linking clothing tradition ,very similar language (evolution whatever) , and the country name taken from the Albani tribe (one of the illyrian tribes) and stuff and stuff you can search the internet for this you will find alot of things suggesting that albanians are illyrians and alot of arguments that they arent it falls to you to decide which side you support , as for settled 1000 years after illyrians? what does that make albanians im pretty sure we are not slavs considering since i live in slavic country the only thing we have in common is moving out of here (money stuff)

Reading history from the internet is wrong. I can create a website and my knowledge on such matters is such, and the way that I will present it to you will be as such that once you read it, you will believe that the people of Quebec (my 'countrymen') are definently from Mars and the rest are trying to cover up. I can even provide you with 'evidence'.

I say it into this forum and I will keep saying till my lungs die out: Do not read history from the Internet. Do not listen to what your father and grand dad told you.
Go buy books from people that have been written by people who have nothing to do with the nation you want to learn about. Read those, then go ask your relatives. Then read the history of the nation in question as written by themselves and then go read what their enemies write about them. Then and only then you will know the truth. The word is cross reference.
Hey I didn't say its easy eh?
So I am not deciding anything and not supporting anything. As a historian I learned to accept facts that are proven, and so far as proof goes we have no scientific evidence that connects Albanians with Illyrians. Merely myths and hearsay. And strong hints that they are not related. Weather you want to believe it for ethic reasons its your own choice.

To your question now: Know this: There is no such thing as clothing tradition and similar language. There is nothing and I mean NOTHING that survived from the Illyrians to compare and contrast it (asside from some ruins, but those have nothing to correlate them with the Albanians). There is also no such thing such as the 'Albani tribe', the only known tribes are the "Iapodes", "Liburnians" and "Pannonians and that is quite ancient and have nothing to do with the middle ages. Scientifically there is Nothing suggesting that Albanians have anything to do with Illyrians either (as civilizations go). Linguistic (though my knowledge is limited) a friend of mine that specializes in such thing told me that the Albanian language has some form of connection both with Latin and Greek and it was his belief that it was galvanized (for a lack of a better word) and reached its current form when the Slavs migrated to the area.

As to where they come from: Certainly from Central-Eastern europe, as DNA evidence has proved many similarities.

Even if there was evidence to link the two peoples there would be a difference between: Albanians are Illyrians, and Albanians are related to Illyrians. So far nothing seems to be pointing either way. The Illyrians are extinct, the whole question is weather they left 'family' behind.

EDIT: The only Albani tribe was a Latin tribe in Latium south of Rome. And I assure you there is no correlation.

 

[Pilot00]

1- I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that a greek would have considered himself the same as a serb or a bulgarian. What I'm saying is if a balkan state had unified the region, after the initial reject of foreign occupancy (that has nothing to do with culture imo) the cultures are close enough from commercial exchanges, assimilation with the natives from the provinces and bi/tri-nationals cities so that it wouldn't take as much time as if let's say a polish tried to occupy the balkans
2- the slavs are a foreign population in the balkans. considering the facts that there is still copts in Egypt, the original population had an effect on the occupying one
3- The bretons did stay put in France and even became loyal to the king afterwards
4- the scot did fight back and the english only got Scotland through marriage (it is more about the legitimacy to rule)
5- thanks for the books, I will try to take a look at them
6- I'm french so I don't really have a bias towards the balkans ^^. But I can understand that it is still a touchy subject (which may be why paradox didn't put a cultural union and probably put a sign on the idea : "hic sunt dracones" )

1)I didnt missunderstood you, I was showcasing. I would even counter-argue that even 500 years of Ottoman occupation didnt manage to put them together, so the results can be predicted to be the same as now, thats what I said.
2)Didnt say they didnt, but as you can see eventually they divided themselves up
3)You see this from the western POV. I know this because I did the same mistake for about 5 years. All western nations have a common ancestry and common cultural heritage. It was far more easy for them to intermingle.
4)Something that was attempted to be done more times than I care to count in the Balkans and it failed, see 3.
5)My pleasure
6)I am from Quebec Canada. But I am a University teacher in ancient and medieval history.
7)I wish I had people like you and the rest of the guys we are talking here as students in the UNI, you would make me proud.

 

[arctvrvs]

1)I didnt missunderstood you, I was showcasing. I would even counter-argue that even 500 years of Ottoman occupation didnt manage to put them together, so the results can be predicted to be the same as now, thats what I said.
2)Didnt say they didnt, but as you can see eventually they divided themselves up
3)You see this from the westerned POV. I know this because I did the same mistake for about 5 years. All western nation have a common ancestry and common cultural heritage. It was far more easy for them to intermingle.
4)Something that was attempted to be done more times than I care to count in the Balkans and it failed, see 3.
5)My pleasure
6)I am from Quebec Canada. But I am a University teacher in ancient and medieval history.
7)I wish I had people like you and the rest of the guys we are talking here as students in the UNI, you would make me proud.

Well considering that as an engineer student I interact more with books than with history teachers usually I will take more of your time

1- can you really consider that occupation under a foreign oppressor that didn't have the same cultural, religious background and that didn't try to mingle with the different component of the empire (pretty much as the british : as long as you obey, do whatever you want) would have the same effect than occupation by fellow orthodoxes that would educate the local nobility ?
2- my point was that the roman local population definitively had and impact and "civilised" the slavs to some degree
3- I do get that western Europe feodalism is completly based on the german concept of fidelity to your lord (let's call that the legalism legitimacy), and also by construction with the catholic church a divine right to rule (religious legitimacy) which allowed personal union to last even though the culture was different, while the eastern part is based on the roman concept of "prestige legitimacy" : The general that is victorious, or the elder uncle that has more prestige will fight for the throne, leading to civil wars and separation of the realms. But it is not really about cultures, more like why such we obey to X ? if you follow me you will have less taxes ... etc this is more due to the local nobility that will support a pretender to get advantages and that way prevent the apparition of a strong central power than to a local culture wanting to cut ties (thought they probably wouldn't mind following the guy that is not a "foreigner" but then again our notion of foreigner is pretty recent)
4- hum didn't know that but probably to the reasons I put forwards in 3 : if you can switch fidelity without any real problem than it is neat impossible to keep 2 groups with together since the local nobility will follow the guy that gives them more privileges

 

[Pilot00]

Well considering that as an engineer student I interact more with books than with history teachers usually I will take more of your time

1- can you really consider that occupation under a foreign oppressor that didn't have the same cultural, religious background and that didn't try to mingle with the different component of the empire (pretty much as the british : as long as you obey, do whatever you want) would have the same effect than occupation by fellow orthodoxes that would educate the local nobility ?
2- my point was that the roman local population definitively had and impact and "civilised" the slavs to some degree
3- I do get that western Europe feodalism is completly based on the german concept of fidelity to your lord (let's call that the legalism legitimacy), and also by construction with the catholic church a divine right to rule (religious legitimacy) which allowed personal union to last even though the culture was different, while the eastern part is based on the roman concept of "prestige legitimacy" : The general that is victorious, or the elder uncle that has more prestige will fight for the throne, leading to civil wars and separation of the realms. But it is not really about cultures, more like why such we obey to X ? if you follow me you will have less taxes ... etc this is more due to the local nobility that will support a pretender to get advantages and that way prevent the apparition of a strong central power than to a local culture wanting to cut ties (thought they probably wouldn't mind following the guy that is not a "foreigner" but then again our notion of foreigner is pretty recent)
4- hum didn't know that but probably to the reasons I put forwards in 3 : if you can switch fidelity without any real problem than it is neat impossible to keep 2 groups with together since the local nobility will follow the guy that gives them more privileges

1)Thats hard to say. However given the fact that in the Balkans even as far as the 20th century the Greeks had the higher education rates of all three (four if you add the Ottomans) and they managed to get key positions in the Ottoman empire regardless of being subjects, one can make really wild theories. One thing I can be sure about, is that under an Orthodox regime there would be so much blood and depopulation of the area even if they were revolting and fighting amongst themselves.
2)Yes they did Christianized them and gave them an alphabet, and other important advances but they didn't try to make them Romans. They kept their Identity. It was not something akin to the attempts of the early empire to in Gaul for example.
3)I need more clarification in this: Are we talking for an "how to accept an overlord idea" or how did they pick Kings/emperos and what defined their right to rule?
Because if we are talking the later you might be surprised to learn that most people in the ERE considered Justinian a tyrant for example.
4)Thing was in the ERE there was an air of superiority on a national level. Yes the empire was multinational but if you hoped to advance you better had Greek upbringing. In the late days it was more fluent, but honestly I would put it a such: Weather the lord that would follow a king followed him, would most likely have to do with his principles. I.E. to what he loyal, his parent state or his own well being. Likewise I find a bit difficult for a Serb to follow a Bulgar king, but in the end personal ethics would be the deciding factor.

 

[arctvrvs]

1)Thats hard to say. However given the fact that in the Balkans even as far as the 20th century the Greeks had the higher education rates of all three (four if you add the Ottomans) and they managed to get key positions in the Ottoman empire regardless of being subjects, one can make really wild theories. One thing I can be sure about, is that under an Orthodox regime there would be so much blood and depopulation of the area even if they were revolting and fighting amongst themselves.
2)Yes they did Christianized them and gave them an alphabet, and other important advances but they didn't try to make them Romans. They kept their Identity. It was not something akin to the attempts of the early empire to in Gaul for example.
3)I need more clarification in this: Are we talking for an "how to accept an overlord idea" or how did they pick Kings/emperos and what defined their right to rule?
Because if we are talking the later you might be surprised to learn that most people in the ERE considered Justinian a tyrant for example.
4)Thing was in the ERE there was an air of superiority on a national level. Yes the empire was multinational but if you hoped to advance you better had Greek upbringing. In the late days it was more fluent, but honestly I would put it a such: Weather the lord that would follow a king followed him, would most likely have to do with his principles. I.E. to what he loyal, his parent state or his own well being. Likewise I find a bit difficult for a Serb to follow a Bulgar king, but in the end personal ethics would be the deciding factor.

1- I do get the greeks were a bit contemptuous of the other less educated people but if a serb managed to conquer greece and made his capital in constantinople and if he had been educated there, the ERE has proven that it could accept foreign rulers. I wouldn't say that there wouldn't be revolts, but a strong state that can each time for 200 years destroy the revolts can pretty much make any veilty of revolt disappear
2- I'm not talking about the ERE but about the romans from pannonia and whatever was the name of the roman province the bulgar came into
3- more like I'm talking about succession. when it's divine law that you should be next or that betraying you will make everyone turn against you you're safe. But when someone can come and say I can lead better and people will follow him, it's harder to have a stable succession since young heirs or ones with few achievements would find little support. Once you have your hands on the power, it's harder to get you out. As for justinian he pretty much put an end to religious tolerance in the empire, so I can understand why
4- yeah it goes back to what I think : if you have no moral pressure that force you then it is quite impossible. But that's because in there customs there was no such thing. If for 200 years the son of the emperor became emperor, it would be much more difficult for a general to be accepter for exemple

 

[adijarca]

- at hte end of XIX to be precise.

1859 is not the end of the XIXth century. And we also had an attempt in 1600, which is well within the game's time-frame. Just like Italy also had an attempt at unity under Cesare Borgia. Meanwhile the idea of a unified kingdom of slavs did not exist before 1848 and came about as a result of panslavism.
I don't have a problem with a single Slavic state in the south but don't try to compare it with other unions.

 

[oblio-]

I have a tricky question regarding the topic: one could argue that the current French are actually a mix of peoples: Breton, Normans, Burgundians, Occitans (I lack a better word for them, the speakers/former speakers of Occitain) and of course Franks/Gauls aka French. Through a series of determined rulers West Francia aka France became a centralized nation state (even though even during the Revolution minority elements were still present and resisted assimilation for a century or more). These peoples had about the same in common as the peoples of the Balkans. So, based on this similar situation, 2 questions arise:
1. Could a strong series of kings in the region have fought off the Turks and formed a strong, region-covering nation state by the 19th century? I say that this is plausible.
2. Would have these kings renamed the country? Like Wikipedia would say, "dubious". If the resulting nation would have been a sort of national evolution, perhaps (see Kings of Franks becoming King of France). But most likely not. So we'd have no tag change. In the highly unlikely event - picking a proper name is a fool's errand, IMO.

1859 is not the end of the XIXth century. And we also had an attempt in 1600, which is well within the game's time-frame. Just like Italy also had an attempt at unity under Cesare Borgia. Meanwhile the idea of a unified kingdom of slavs did not exist before 1848 and came about as a result of panslavism.
I don't have a problem with a single Slavic state in the south but don't try to compare it with other unions.

At this point I'd just say to ignore his opinion on this specific sub-topic, this discussion is also off topic anyway.