PDA

View Full Version : Romanian Factions Requierd



Lothar
03-01-2007, 00:59
i think all of you know about the importance of romanian small kindoms north of danube. they posed a constant pain in the neck for the otoman empire, fought hungaryan royalty more than once and polish royalty (moldavian lords). it would be non realistic to miss them. they stoped the turkish advance northwards of the danube with fights like: the battle of rovine (if my memory serves me right Mircea cel Batran defeated baiazid with 5000 men, baiazid had about 15000) or the battle of vaslui, cetatea alba in the case of moldavian lord Stefan cel Mare. Also i think it is wrong to make Transilvania as a province of hungary, they had on more than one ocassion independence, for a short time but in that time they stopped the conquest of belgrad city under the rule of Iancu Corvine de Hunedoara. Even if valachian ppl are north and sout of the danube, under the rule of different powers in the area, there was a powerfull salv-valachian kingdom that defeated the bizantine empire unde the rule of King Ioan I and obtained independence. As for the northern danube there where small(one province) kingdoms that unified, transilvania was conquered by then by the hungarians. even so valachians that were between danube and southern carpatian mountains defeated hungary in 1330. moldavia (dont know the exact years, will check on it if this is approved) was formed with hungarian support by lord dragos. later on in 1600 all three kingdoms were united by mihai viteazul, union that laste 1 year. in any case in 1080 TRANSILVANIA WAS NOT UNDER HUNGARIAN RULE. it was split in 3 main kingdoms ruled by: gelu, gila and menumorut. all three fought the hungarians and by this bought time for Moldavia and Valachia to be born. If any of the mods want to hear me out, i will present materials regarding this matter, with dates,battles,cities.

one more thing the city of bucharest didnt exist in 1080, it apeared in the late half on the IV century, under the rule of Vlad Tepes (also known as Vlad Dracul or Dracula as many ar more familiar with this and also Dracula ruled Valachia in 3 stages beeing betrayed by Matei Corvine, duke of Transilvania).


PS: Vlad Tepes did not sucked ppl blood, wasnt a vampire, he punished thieves by impaling them with thick wooden spears, in english his name is: Vlad the Impaler)

Innocentius
03-01-2007, 16:51
Yes, and Sweden didn't exist by 1080 either, but it's predecessor did and it would be very unrealistic to leave out a warring little faction that 600 years later ruled more than half of the Baltic Sea coast!!!!!!!11oneone
And Stockholm didn't exist in 1080 either but did not appear as town untill the 1250-ies! Include Sweden even though it had no significance what so ever in 1080!!!!11one

PS. The html-code for sarkasm isn't working properly.

Lothar
03-02-2007, 15:01
ok if u think that about sweden and if it true no problem, but even before 1080 vlachian population played an important role in the balkans. if you do not know what happened in that area please do not spamm.

Innocentius
03-02-2007, 16:12
Darn those sarcasm-tags! They apparently don't work...:juggle2:

Anyway, since you didn't notice that I was being sarcastic: One might wonder what is spam...
Another put-this-country-in-because-I-live-here-and-it's-important-to-me post (that won't effect anything anyway since the faction list has already been declared) isn't very constructive really. Besides, like so many other minor kingdoms the Romanian factions could easily be represented by rebels instead. I really wonder why all local patritos sign up and head straight for the mod-section to complain about this and that area not being in the mod. Do I sense a conspiracy here?

Triglav
03-03-2007, 13:56
I'd say it's mainly because of general ignorance for "lesser known parts of history in nowadays-popular-culture-determined perception".

For instance...Since the movie Braveheart came out, Scotland was featured in numerous computer games (MTW2 included) though it was really quite an insignificant kingdom. Yet people nowadas have a much better awareness of what may have gone on in Scotland, which didn't really change the course of European history that much, than they do of what went on in the Balkans or the Iberian penninsula, where eventually the spread of Islam was halted, thus resulting in a Christian Europe...

Kingdoms that may have been players back then, but are less significant today tend to be overlooked in favour of those that may have or may not have been important then, but are ore influential now. Thus a "Germany" or a "France" are featured in most medieval games, though they were as much a collection of warring little states as the Balkans were...

Arbaces
03-03-2007, 14:25
I'm working something out, starting to get taste for MTW2 modding. Yesterday I first looked in the paks... I'll do a mod not just with Vlachs.. but I started with them anyway. Even started a logo, but I'm not so happy with the current symbol (below)... it looks to... modern, I think it will work better with the current symbol of the Arges county.
https://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3370/openvlahsip9.jpg
Vlachs were a very important faction, or... I'd rather say an important shield for Hungary in the late era. But of course the gameplay will be quite hard at the beginning since Hungary always wants to expand in Romania.
As I'm progressing I might think of Moldova and/or the Transylvanian kingdoms too, but as I said... yesterday I first opened the paks, and looked around, so I've just begun, this is the first time I mention.

Some concepts would be a good helping hand... hard to find vlach medieval units on the internet, no, I mean impossible.

Arbaces.

EDIT: Sorry I haven't noticed is in MTR sub-forum, what I said is not related to MTR, is just about me. Good luck to you guys as well!

Innocentius
03-03-2007, 14:32
Well, one main difference being that France had one king and the HRE had one emperor. France and the HRE were not warring little states in the same way as the 10+ kingdoms in the Balkans. Sure they had a lot of problems due to the feudal system, but they were still kingdoms. I'm not saying that the Balkans were insignificant, but you just can't put all those 10 little kingdoms in just because they existed. And I'm pretty sure that England, France and Germany had a greater impact on world history in the end...

Braveheart was released some 5-7 years before MTW was released (it's a pretty bad movie btw). And I'd be careful to say that Scotland was an insignificant kingdom, especially considering what role Scotland played in the Tudor-era and during the civil wars.
I'd love to see a movie about, let's say the Serbian empire or the Byzantine-Bulgarian wars, and I'd find that much more interesting than Braveheart (given that a talented director gets to do it of course, and one who knows something about history unlike mr Gibson).

The spread of Islam was stopped somewhere in Anatolia. The Ottoman Turks never expanded simply for conversion, they did it for more politicial and economical reasons. There were plenty of christians in the Balkans even during the Ottoman (muslim) rule.

Arbaces
03-03-2007, 16:02
Well, one main difference being that France had one king and the HRE had one emperor. France and the HRE were not warring little states in the same way as the 10+ kingdoms in the Balkans.
May I add that, while as you said France and HRE were apparently united but still split between the landlords, history has it that while these small Carpathian kingdoms were apparently divided, in case of war they were easily united, as it happened even before Basarab I's rising. I don't know, perhaps it's because of my nationalism as it was said, but since there are 30 slots why not? As whether they are or not in MTR... I... don't really think I care. These were local conflicts however they could've had disastrous consequences to christendom itself if these little barbarian rebels wouldn't have stayed in the path of the Mighty Ottoman empire. You should know what happened with Rovine where the mighty western crusaders got kicked like shit thanks to their tactic. Hell I wish my people wouldn't have stayed against Turks... perhaps now we would've had an Islam as far as Germany or such... hell knows...

Arbaces.

Lothar
03-04-2007, 21:34
well some will take as nationalism, BUT I HAVE STATED THAT A VLACHO BULGARIAN STATE WAS NEEDED NOT THE WHOLE SMALL KINGDOMS. and yeah those small kingdoms did stoped bizantium from expanding further north. they stoped hungary from expanding further east and south. they are important in the late period as well.

rc_848
03-14-2007, 19:45
Scotland was mainly made a faction because it gives the chance for an alternative outcome in the British Isles as well as cultural variation, I mean how many other factions will have men in kilts. Besides the existence of a faction competing offensively against England makes it more challenging for them to keep their areas in mainland Europe. Also Scotland's independance lasts longer than the original M2TW does. The Romanian factions halting the Ottomans' advance is basically like a strong force of rebels like the Flemish in Antwerp. Scotland has a good oppurtunity to invade England while all the little states in France like Provence and Brittany had no chance of outruling the main French kingdom. Also the Holy Roman Empire might as well be one because all the states that made it were simply insignificant by themselves and it's not like the computer's going to keep the empire knowing how treacherous allies are in Total War games. As for the Romanian factions, one would be enough to create a local conflict with the Hungarians instead of having Hungary competing against Polish and Russian expansion. If, however, Romania is made a faction the Byzantine Empire will very likely eliminate them in the earliest stages of the campaign.

Arbaces
03-14-2007, 20:17
Unless you make them allies of the Byzantium as they historically were. Would be a though challenge anyway!

edyzmedieval
03-14-2007, 21:35
Hey hey, if we didn't stop those Turks, Wien would have been a nice turkish city. :grin:

Ultras DVSC
03-14-2007, 22:23
Unfortunately, "those Turks" did not stop at Wallachia, the fate of Vienna was resting in the hands of others.

nikolai1962
03-15-2007, 12:05
Shame all these big mods take so much effort. Personally I'd like a whole bunch of RTR type mods all focused on smaller geographical areas so all these less well-known factions (half of which i know nothing about) could be fitted in.

Vazul's Ghost
03-23-2007, 11:08
Too my knowledge, the romanian kingdoms werent great conquerers in the sense of accumulating land, which is one of the key points of gameplay in MTW2. Although certainly independant (excluding tansylvania), Romanian factions are probably best represented as rebel factions both historically and gemeplay wise, particularly if the Cumans are in the final mod.

edyzmedieval
03-23-2007, 11:14
Before starting to conquer, you have to defend what you have. And since we had to defend everything we had because of Cumans, Hungarians, Turks, Serbs.... we couldn't conquer a thing.

@Ultras

Actually, if the Romanian medieval leaders didn't stop the Ottomans in Wallachia, Vienna would have been a Turkish province since 1400. Remember Mohacs in 1526?

Vazul's Ghost
03-23-2007, 11:35
What are you saying? That wallachians fought at mohacs!?!?!?

Vazul's Ghost
03-23-2007, 12:08
... Anyway, regardless of why, the fact remains that none of the romanian kingdoms ever expanded, they remained far smaller then all the playable factions in the game and mod. Total realism is about historical accuracy, and wether it was their fault or not, the romanian kingdoms never posed a threat to the existence of any larger kingdoms, and thus are most accurately represented as rebels.

El-Wrongo
03-23-2007, 13:15
Hmm, never expanded you say? Well that kinda leaves out a lot of other kingdoms, if that was requirement.

The HRE didn't expand much during this era, neither did the Roman Empire (Byztantines), the Egyptians, Berbers. France Didn't expand untill the hundred year war, England shrunk around that time. Actually very few of the kingdoms during the medieval age, changed size by any large proportion (Denmark, Rus, Turkey, Spain did grow larger). This was because even if a kingdom lost a war, it didn't have the same consequences as in the Roman era or WW2. However you should judge if it deserves a faction based on uniqueness, how many wars they fought, how important they were during the timeframe etc.

Ultras DVSC
03-23-2007, 15:23
Romanian medieval leaders...
Who? Mircea cel Batran was the only vlach military leader who was able to stop the ottoman forces at the end of the 14th century by using gerilla methods, but in the following two crucial centuries in the fierce warfare on the Balkan then on the borders of Hungary the role of Wallachia was rather unsignificant.

edyzmedieval
03-23-2007, 16:29
Try to read more before you make assumptions. What about Vlad Tepes? Mihai the Brave(Mihai Viteazul)? Remember?

hgtm
03-23-2007, 18:01
And stefan the great...

Ultras DVSC
03-24-2007, 11:11
Yeah, Stefan the Great was indeed a great ruler of Moldova in the middle of the 15th century. He managed to preserve the independence of his land from the Ottomans by paying annual taxes, but did not really care about Vienna.

Ah, the favourite Vlad Tepes. He was only 17 when attacked his own land (Wallachia) as the head of lent Turkish army... On the throne of Wallachia he managed to massacre some smaller Ottoman outpost, than to avoid the direct conflict with the army of Mehmed II but after that he was expelled by his own brother, Radu, who attacked Vlad also with a huge Turkish army. In the end in the jail of King Matthew he could only impale rats and insects...

Mihai the brave hustled at the end of the 16th century. Buda had been taken by the Ottomans so they were essentially stationing in front of the gates of Vienna. As the ruler of Wallachia, Mihai was a vassal of Zsigmond Bathory (prince of Transylvania), and their united army defeated some Ottoman troops at the Battle of Giurgevo. After that as far is i know Mihai mainly dealt with his personal affairs, rather than fighting against the Muslim oppressors...

The Ottoman forces tried to attack Vienna several times, but they were never able to seize her. The last and maybe the biggest effort took place in 1683 afaik, called the Battle of Vienna. The defenders consisted of Austrian, Bohemian and German soldiers, while the Ottomans had an army of about 100000 warrior including 15-20000 soldier of Moldova and Wallachia...

Vazul's Ghost
03-24-2007, 13:24
Indeed, however Stefan the Great is way after the time at which MTR ends. Zsigmond Bathory was a transylvanian prince and commanded many victories, there is one problem however with that. He was a HUNGARIAN prince of Transylvania. He and his subjects were magyars in every sense of the world. Transylvania has been part of Hungary for hundreds and hundreds of years, until the end of WW1. The seckler people populated and still partially populate that region, and were considered more Hungarian then any citizen of Esztergom by many, as they spoke a more archaic hungarian dialect. Including Transylvania as a faction is like including... i don't know, too many examples of pointless princedoms are flying through my head to pinpoint one.
...Anyway, how could anyone forget Vlad Tepes, however his exploits although memorable, only relate to Wallachia and on a lesser extent Hungary and Turkey on the broad scale of things. Indeed, he did take Wallachia from the puppet Hungarian king, however all his actions after that only really influenced the power of Wallachia, and on a minor scale Turkey and Hungary. Truly he and other warlords were great men, but when you look at all of Europe they only had the level of influence comparable to that of a rebel. They did not take much, if any land, except from other Romanian Feudal lords, and did not influence the progression of society, culture, religion or technology as was the reasoning behind CAs decision to include Milan.
On the topic of taking land, indeed the HRE etc did not gain much territory that they hadn't already lost, however they still controlled far more land then that of any Romanian, and certainly had greater military power.
It is for these reasons that i am adament that Wallachia, Moldova, or Transylvania be included as a faction. I believe that they should be represented as rebels and mercenaries, with perhaps some more unique units (like the Bulgarian Brigands for Bulgaria). This is not only historically correct, but bslsncing on the sense of gameplay, as there are already many factions for Hungary to deal with in the Mod such as Cumania and the Rus. Perhaps the inclusuion of Vlad as a very powerful rebel general in the game, but certainly not a faction of itself, that should be left for area specific mods made by people like Arbaces are making.

Vazul's Ghost
03-24-2007, 13:37
Damn, mistype:wall: . When i said Stefan the Great I meant Mihai the Brave, however, Stefan the Grea tis also towards the very end of the Medieval Total Realism Mod, and thus should also be taken out of consideration.

Russ Mitchell
03-26-2007, 22:36
Problem being...

a: Bulgarian Brigands are actually a good model for most light infantry in this region for a long time, particularly the Szekely...

b: ANYTHING that distracts from the Cumans will prevent them from coming down and kicking the crap out of the Crusaders in 1205....

Kavhan Isbul
03-26-2007, 23:47
Problem being...

b: ANYTHING that distracts from the Cumans will prevent them from coming down and kicking the crap out of the Crusaders in 1205....

...which they never did anyway, for the Crusaders clashed with the army of the Bulgarian Tsar Kaloyan.

Rex_Pelasgorum
03-28-2007, 10:55
You should really add in a romanian faction.
Small pre-statal formations belonging to romanians did exist in the carpatho-danubian area.

They are mentioned countless times in Hungarian Chronicles... they were not that great, but they were powerfull enough to pouse serios problems to Hungaryans when they entered Transylvania.

There is also strong archeologicall that such romanian states did exists at least from the begining of the IXth century. There is such at least such a romanian fort in western Transylvania (not farr from the actual hungarian border), wich date from this period, and was built to controll the invasions caming from the Pannonian plain (i`ve read an archeologicall review about it, as one of my friends was the first one who dig at the site).

It`s up your choice whether do you include a romanian faction or not, but at least for the Late Era, you should seriously think about that... you could make them emergent, if you like.There are endless possibilities. Maybe using some batch files like in RTR 7.0 you could include more than 30 factions... and so, make happy everybody :laugh4:

Russ Mitchell
04-03-2007, 02:12
...which they never did anyway, for the Crusaders clashed with the army of the Bulgarian Tsar Kaloyan.

:wall:

and if you know that, then you know who Qoja was, and who he was commanding while in Kaloyan's service, right?

Russ Mitchell
04-03-2007, 02:16
They are mentioned countless times in Hungarian Chronicles... they were not that great, but they were powerfull enough to pouse serios problems to Hungaryans when they entered Transylvania.

Um... not Transylvania... they are definitely there, in Wallachia... but explaining good points and bad points of official Romanian state historiography is, well, not a topic for a gaming board...

Abe Froman
04-03-2007, 10:26
Would Romania fit within the time frame of the mod as some sort of emerging faction?

Kavhan Isbul
04-03-2007, 17:53
:wall:

and if you know that, then you know who Qoja was, and who he was commanding while in Kaloyan's service, right?

I know, who Qoja is, but I have to disagree with Istvan Vasary (considering your location it must be his work you are manily relying on) about the role of the Cumans in the battle. While it is beyond any doubt that the Cumans played an important role, by luring the Knights into an ambush, it was the Bulgarian infantry that ultimately destroyed the Latin heavy cavalry in the marshes. Furthermore, I fail to see how this could be a Cuman accomplishment by any stretch of the imagination, as Qoja was acting under orders from Kaloyan, and the whole victory was a result solely of Kaloyan's tactical ingenuity and his ability to put his troops, including the Cuman auxilliaries, to their best use. Alternatively, you can blame the outcome of the battle on the Crusaders, who split their forces (part of their army was in Asia Minor) and then rather foolishly attacked with little knowledge of their enemy's numbers and dispositions. Terrain also played a role. We are getting off topic, but the statement that the Cumans defeated the Crusaders is a gross misrepresentation and one I could not skip.

Russ Mitchell
04-03-2007, 20:16
Not Vasary himself... I have some issues with his framing. I'm much more inclined to run with the actual primary sources describing the battle.

Though you're right, and Kaloyan's footmen DID play a role in the battle, it's also clear that without the Cumans' ability to force pursuit, the Crusaders wouldn't have split up (though that split is a fairly minor one, as it's clearly indicated that the force doing the fighting has the most and best of the Crusaders' guys). No disrespect towards Kaloyan intended, and the Crusaders clearly were in the wrong to have engaged in the manner that they did...

Kavhan Isbul
04-03-2007, 21:33
I completely agree that the Cumans were important for Kaloyan's strategy, but I do not think they were the crucial element. Tsar Boril, who succeeded Kaloyan (after organising his assassination, ironically carried out by a Cuman), tried to pull off the same trick against the Latins in the battle of Plovdiv (Phillipopolis), and the Latins remarkably fell for it again, but this time the Bulgarian foot did not hold and routed, resulting in a defeat for the Bulgarians. I will not argue any further though, because for me history is only a hobby and as the scholar you hold an advanatge (I have never read Choniates and Cleri in full).
Unfortunately, in the mod there will be no Bulgaria and Latin Empire, but a player would hopefully have the ability to test the Cumans (if their troops are well reconstructed in the mod) against a variety of armies. Considering the Cumans' role in the establishment of the second Bulgarian Empire, it would be nice if they are given missions and objectives south of the Danube.

Abe Froman
04-03-2007, 22:18
Unfortunately, in the mod there will be no Bulgaria and Latin Empire,

Taking into account the timeframe of the mod 1071-1492, what significant faction might emerge within the balkans? Think as if there was not a faction limit or perhaps several open slots.

Russ Mitchell
04-04-2007, 03:33
Hi, Abe. Let's put it this way. Kaloyan single-handedly destroys the 4th Crusade.

Kavhan: the element that I believe to be crucial is the initial engagement the day before. The Latins learn not to chase the Cumans, publicly commit themselves not to do so, and then do anyway. You can't posit that they were total idiots, since they'd just taken Constantinople. That means the Cumans are bringing something to the table that the Crusaders can't handle...

but I withdraw my headbanging, b/c you clearly know your stuff. ~D

Abe Froman
04-04-2007, 09:43
Well I get that. I am just trying to figure where to focus our efforts. We may have a chance to modify and potentialy add to the faction list. So I am trying to get a feel for where would be the first places we look to. Not much of a student of balkan history myself. I am much more comfortable with scandanavia and the Iberian peninsula.:yes:

Russ Mitchell
04-04-2007, 15:29
Well, the real issue is that everybody's important to the history of their region. Are the Asenids important to the Balkans? Yes, critically so, just as are the Serbs and the Istrian/Dalmatian city-states... similarly, the Albanians are a pain in the Ottomans' side for years until they're gradually converted...

To answer your previous questions, though, no, Romania as such is inappropriate as an emerging faction. Though the Vlachs and Moldavians are around, the conception of government is different, and neither becomes anything we'd recognize as "Romania" within the medieval timeframe. (Sorry, but this is established. Even most of the Romanian scholars I know are quick to state this when the state isn't looking over their shoulders.) When it comes to "state formation," the medieval Vlachs are a lot closer to the Welsh or the Appalachian Scots-Irish in mentality than they are to your classic feudal ideal. It's a fascinating region that the TW series unfortunately is ill-equipped to represent.

So.... The Latin Empire *could* emerge, the Bulgarians and Serbs should DEFINITELY do so, and the Moldavians could pop up as a minor (unplayable) faction very late in the game, as could the Albanians, and rebellions in Wallachia should be common coin as the locals play off all the outside powers against each other. As you can guess from my conversation with Kavhan, the Vlachs, Cumans, and Bulgarians are all VERY cozy with each other (Kavhan, I agree with Vasary on this one), so you've at least got some potential for interesting unit rosters.

Kavhan Isbul
04-04-2007, 19:27
It is undeniable that Bulgarians, Vlachs and Cumans were in extremely close relations during that period. As for Vlachs, I belive they were not that different from the Bulgarians (after all, Vallachia was part of Bulgaria for centuries before the Byzantine conquest, and the population there spoke the same language as in Moesia), and the main reason why so many Greek chroniclers refer to the armies of Kaloyan consisting of Vlachs might be as a synonim to Bulgarians with a slightly negative connotation - Greek chroniclers tend to describe their enemies as Barbarians, and often use use any word that may have offensive meaning to their foes. The Cumans are a little more complicated, and there have been speculations (or we should say a hypothesis) that ethnically, they (The Western Cumans at least) were somewhat similar to the Bulgarians, before the latter mixed with the Slavs. Whatever the truth, the quick inclusion of the Cumans into the Bulgarian society and politics suggests some ties. Anyway, this is really diverging from the topic and might cause a riot among our Romanian friends, which is really not my intention.
It will be interesting to see how the mod handles faction emergencies and the establishment of Crusader states, such as the Latin Empire. I understand this would be tough to do, but I trust in the creativity and ingenuity of the modders.

Vazul's Ghost
04-07-2007, 23:34
Of course, this is all assuming that MTR manage to increase the faction limit, otherwise they seem definite about their choice. It would be a shame if Bulgaria never gets properly represented, but if the faction limit doesnt increase it looks like they will remain in the dark.

Abe Froman
04-08-2007, 00:22
...otherwise they seem definite about their choice.

I think its pretty safe to say that faction choices will not be definite until we move into beta testing. We are taking a fresh look at who should be playable and who should be either emerging or represented as a minor faction.

Boyar Karhunkynsi
04-09-2007, 03:12
I think people are missing the point of rebel factions.

A rebel faction is there to indicate a people that played an important part in history, but did not expand its influence over the surrounding area. It denotes a nation that was about looking after themselves rather than forming an Empire.

So, by this we can see that every nation that significantly invaded another people or place for a economic, social, religious or political reason(s) should be a playable faction (For a a unified group of states/regions that did not expand their influence but aided one and other should be a non-playable faction.)

Which is why Scotland is oft mentioned in games and movies. It did attack and raid England on more than one occasion.

I like to contribute my two or three or fifty cents.

Russ Mitchell
04-09-2007, 23:14
Boyar: problem is, some of these minor factions were a royal pain in the butt to their neighbors. It *hurts* when the Welsh or whoever comes in and kicks the snot out of some market town while carting off anything and anyone who isn't nailed down. The Cumans definitely fit in that category, just like the Scots you describe, and the Vlachs don't own any states outright, but can still be a serious problem if they don't like you.

Rebels, otoh, don't really do much in the way of expanding, and you can simply waltz around them to your heart's content on the strategic map. In the game, you can wander through Cuman territory to your heart's content. IRL you took your life in your hands any time you crossed their part of the map without local friendship.

Now, how that circle gets squared? Beyond me: at this point, unless I have a couple projects fall through, I'm strictly an end user.

Dexter
04-11-2007, 07:55
I agree that Eastern-Eu is not properly represented in most games, as there regions are not historically accurate, presented poorly, and whiteout there natural recourses, but perhaps before you request a romanian faction you should read a bit of history, as romanian was not used in the medieval period, there were wlachs, and later (much later) moldavians - by the way they loved each other like cat and mouse, but one could newer tell witch is the mouse-.
I can understand that eweryone would like there nation to be included, but hey just because today the map of europe looks the way it looks, it does not mean it always looked the same. See history of europe before WW1 and WW2.
Just a pointer here: the wictors always writhe there history to there liking, not the other way around. My history theacher thought me to be realistic, as it is easy to write history from a perspective - an extreme example: the Third Reich can be presented as a good, self defending state -.
Even the term nation did not unite the people, as you can see the history of France, Germany, etc. By the way Germany was not a single sate until the XVIII-XIX - i have no problem whit Germany i`m referring here only because today Germany is a major member of the EU, yet they dont change there history to fit there goals -.
Sorry to say bet king Stephan the 1 - who was proclaimed a saint - did proclaim, an ruled ower an european roman-christian Hungary that was even recognized by the pope in 1001.
And it seems you are forgetting the point of this game is ... go back in time, take control of an army and change history ... not replay history.

Speiz_Bankurt
04-24-2007, 19:40
It would be a mistake to include Transilvania as an independent or a Romanian facton. The province of Transilvania has been ethnically and culturally Hungarian (or Magyar if you will) throughout the entire medieval period. When it was independant for a while, it was only because the rest of Hungary was lost to the Turks and the Habsburgs.

Otherwise, including Wallachia as a faction may not be a bad idea, I mean they were there and they did fight off the advancing Turks on many occasions.... but of course this is up to the developers of the mod who have to look at game balancing issues etc.

Also another note; Romanian historians like to hijack Hungarian historical personalities by changing their names and pretending they were Romaninans. Especially if they accomplished something noteworthy. If this mod is intended to be a total realism mod, it would be a good idea to ignore the Romanian version of history of that region as a reference.

Cheers

Cronos Impera
04-24-2007, 20:34
Iancu de Hunedoara was a Catholic Romanian for Zeus's sake.
His father was Voicu Corbu, the descendant of Ion Corbu, a pretender to Litovoi's Kingdom. He was a Romanian baptised in the Roman-Catholic religion. Why must any Catholic in Medieval Erdely be a Hungarian beats me. Religion is different from ethnicity and Romanian historians knew that.

Kavhan Isbul
04-24-2007, 21:23
If this mod is intended to be a total realism mod, it would be a good idea to ignore the Romanian version of history of that region as a reference.

Cheers

Second that!

edyzmedieval
04-24-2007, 22:50
Second that!

Maybe perhaps the Romanian kings should have allied with the Ottomans and leave the Turks to concentrate on Western Europe.

Remember Nikopole? Remember the thrashing the Crusaders got?
Maybe perhaps you don't know the history. Mircea the Old said: "Let's wait and see what they will do."

But nooo, we are Crusaders! Men of God, we'll never get defeated!!!
You won't, because they were in Heaven from the first moment they engaged the Janissaries.

Kavhan Isbul
04-24-2007, 23:07
Maybe perhaps the Romanian kings should have allied with the Ottomans and leave the Turks to concentrate on Western Europe.

Remember Nikopole? Remember the thrashing the Crusaders got?
Maybe perhaps you don't know the history. Mircea the Old said: "Let's wait and see what they will do."

But nooo, we are Crusaders! Men of God, we'll never get defeated!!!
You won't, because they were in Heaven from the first moment they engaged the Janissaries.

Romanian kings, you mean from Alexandru to Mihai?

And trust me, I know my history, just disagree with mainstream Romanian historiographers, especially when it comes to their attempts to steal and misrepresent the medieval history of their nowadays neighbors.

Therefore, as far as this mod is concerned, I second Speiz_Bankurt's advice - Romanian interpretations of history are to be taken with a grain of salt, at best, especially when they come from angered teenagers, who start sentences with "maybe perhaps".

edyzmedieval
04-24-2007, 23:22
What's wrong with the fact that some dukes, like Janos Hunyadi (Iancu de Hunedoara) was born in Alba Iulia?

Romanian kings, from Basarab I to Mihai the Brave.

Angered, no. Annoyed, yes.
We couldn't make our imprint on history because we were always in the middle. We were forced to defend, and we rarely attacked. How could you possibly attack when you got Hungarians, Poles, Mongols, Byzantines, Ottomans and Kievans at your gates?

Ok, if we take it like this. Why should Bulgaria and Serbia be included? Hungary, ok, because they were important. But why Bulgaria and Serbia should?

Kavhan Isbul
04-24-2007, 23:45
Well, Serbia and Bulgaria not only existed for most of the Middle Ages, but both of them suceeded in establishing Empires in the Balkans. Bulgaria actually controlled Vallachia for a large period of time.
The "Romanian kings" you have listed, first of all, were not kings, and second, not Romanian, for such a notion did not exist before the 19th century.
You should go and check the Pike and Musket mod, which as far as I know will include Vallachia and Moldova, and starts at a time when these principalties did play a significant role.

edyzmedieval
04-25-2007, 08:49
Since when was Bulgaria controller of Wallachia? Bulgaria had it's expansionist rule when the Asan brothers (ironically, they were Vlachs, and don't negate it...) started thumping the Byzantines. They grew, but they were finally defeated by the Ottomans.

And while the Bulgars and Serbs were absorbed in the Empire, at least we maintained a small independency.

Kavhan Isbul
04-25-2007, 16:54
The origins of the Assen dynasty are somewhat unclear, most likely were of Cuman origin, and most certainly not Vlachs. One thing is certain - they considered themselves rulers of Bulgaria and tried to prove a lineage to the ruling dunasties of the First Bulgarian Tzardom. There is strong evidence that Bulgaria maintained control of Vallachia at least until the end of Ivan Assen II's reign, and after that the region passed to the Golden Horde, but Bulgarian rulers maintained possession of cities north of the Danube right until the Ottoman conquest. Ivan Shishman, the last Bulgarian tzar, was able to defeat (and kill) Dan I and retake cities on the northern shore of the Danube even though Bulgaria was collapsing under Ottoman pressure. This shows that it was not until the 15th century that Vallachia and Moldova started to play any significant role in the region. I am not disputing the significance of Stefan the Great, but this is in the Pike and Musket scope and time frame, not Medieval Total Realism.

Baldwin of Jerusalem
06-07-2007, 14:43
I'd say it's mainly because of general ignorance for "lesser known parts of history in nowadays-popular-culture-determined perception".

For instance...Since the movie Braveheart came out, Scotland was featured in numerous computer games (MTW2 included) though it was really quite an insignificant kingdom. Yet people nowadas have a much better awareness of what may have gone on in Scotland, which didn't really change the course of European history that much, than they do of what went on in the Balkans or the Iberian penninsula, where eventually the spread of Islam was halted, thus resulting in a Christian Europe...

Kingdoms that may have been players back then, but are less significant today tend to be overlooked in favour of those that may have or may not have been important then, but are ore influential now. Thus a "Germany" or a "France" are featured in most medieval games, though they were as much a collection of warring little states as the Balkans were...


Good answer.

Incongruous
06-13-2007, 07:33
Second that!
Third it!

At the start of this period the Vlach were, in all respects a minor semi-nomadic people. Whereas by the the end of the 11th century the Serbians had proved themselves to be the major Slavoc power. Not only that, but gameplay wise, the Serbian millirtary has some really interesting options. What with thier adoption and adaptation of Magyar, Latin and late Ottoman arms and armour.

Mircea85
06-14-2007, 17:12
Also another note; Romanian historians like to hijack Hungarian historical personalities by changing their names and pretending they were Romaninans. Especially if they accomplished something noteworthy. If this mod is intended to be a total realism mod, it would be a good idea to ignore the Romanian version of history of that region as a reference.

Good joke!!! Every nation likes to hijack the history of their country and their region (Hungarians included, Romanians too).


The province of Transilvania has been ethnically and culturally Hungarian (or Magyar if you will) throughout the entire medieval period. :thumbsdown:

Another good joke!!! Culturally yes (the social elite of Transilvanya was hungarian or more exactly catholic, because they were orthodox, the romanian nobles were excluded), but ethnically, NO, the bulk of Transylvania's population was and still is of romanian entichity. Because of their religion, romanian were excluded from nobility, and they were peasants. For more about this you should read the book Ardeal, a romainan land by the american writer Milton Lehrer and especially Gesta Hungarorum by Annonymus (a medieval hungarian official), chronicle of Simon of Keza, Descriptio Europæ Orientalis, Chronicon Pictum of Vienna, about monk Ricardus.

About a romanian faction in XI century: the first true romanian state, Wallachia gained the independence in 1330 (battle of Posada), the second, Moldavia, in 1359. Before those dates, the romanians north of Danube and Charpatians were organized in little duchies called cnezate or voievodate which payed tribute to the nomadic tribes(cumans, pechenegs, mongols) E.g. Gelu , Glad and Menumorut in Transylvania and Salunus in Pannonia (IX century), Litovoi, Ioan, Farcas, Seneslau in Wallachia (XIII century).
The area of today Romania should be populated by romanian rebels with armies made of archers and peasants. The largest town in romania should be Campulung, town founded by romanians and germans from Transylvania led by the semi legendary voievod Radu Negru or Negru Voda (XIII century)
A bulgarian doomination, north of the Danube was a formal one and not a real one. The romanians north of the Danube helped bulgarains led by Asan brothers (they were at least partialy of aromanian origin).

Russ Mitchell
06-15-2007, 19:29
Sorry, Mircea, but you're presenting a serious geographic distortion. Seneslau was a voivode in *Oltenia,* which, just like *Muntenia,* was trans-Carpathian... and had fark-all to do with Hungarian transylvania except in the middle of the 14th century, when certain Hungarian kings decided they wanted to extend their power to exercise more than nominal rulership over the region (and then got his butt kicked in a running mountain ambush).

Having gotten your history from the unfortunately not-dead-yet Ceaucescu-era "support-this-historiography-or-lose-your-job" narrative is one thing -- I can understand that, having had to engage in some serious de-programming regarding how I teach several episodes in U.S. History that are not at all what students have been taught to believe previously. But presenting minor Oltenian lords as if they somehow have *anything* to do with medieval Transylvania, on the other side of the Carpathians (let alone suggesting that the Vlachs were any sort of serious presence in 9th-century Pannonia), is simply dishonest.

edyzmedieval
06-16-2007, 14:09
Russ, you cannot deny the fact that more than 70% of Transylvania's population was made of Romanians. The nobility was fully Magyar, but the rest, you have to be kidding.

Russ Mitchell
06-16-2007, 19:26
We can't have this conversation until we all agree to use medieval terms. Romania is founded, and "Romanian" delineated, as a 19th-century concept, and present-day history is simply not relevant.

To then answer the "I can't deny"... no, I can't, because you're asking me for the square root of negative one. It is, however, *not true* that 70% of Transylvania was ever Vlach in the middle ages... and I don't know the figures after that, because I don't do the early-modern period in any scholarly way.

I am *not* a Hungarian or Hungarian-sympathizing irredentist. I am a complete stranger who thinks the actual history of your region is fascinating, and who wants to spit after having to listen to Romanian scholars sadly wishing that they could practice their craft without constantly having to toe a 20th-century ideological line. :no:

But when you say "Romanians," you are using a modern concept (describing people on the basis of a nation-state), rather than a tribal one. Even the folks still defending the Daco-Roman continuity theory (which does have some good points) describe Dacians and then Vlachs. This is not how medieval people thought: you could be a Jasz Hungarian, a Pecheneg Hungarian, a Saxon Hungarian, a Magyar Hungarian, or a Vlach Hungarian. The modern tribalism is a mindset that is just that.. modern. In the middle ages, nobody cared. What they cared about was, to whom did you owe your fealty?

Mircea85
06-16-2007, 19:43
:yes: Gesta Hungarorum by Annonymus, chronicle of Simon of Keza, Descriptio Europæ Orientalis, Chronicon Pictum of Vienna, monk Ricardus, Decree of Turda of king Louis I of Hungary are historical sources of european or even hungarain origin (Annonymus), not of romanian origin, so your statemant about Ceaucescu-era historiography falls. Or, mayby, those writers forged the history because they knew that they would support the claims of romanians over Transylavania. L-)

Every nation likes to hijack the history of their country and their region (Hungarians included, Romanians too). Do you agree this statemant, or mayby, hungarians are saints and they do not forge parts of their history???:shame:


But presenting minor Oltenian lords as if they somehow have *anything* to do with medieval Transylvania, on the other side of the Carpathians (let alone suggesting that the Vlachs were any sort of serious presence in 9th-century Pannonia), is simply dishonest.

About a roamanian(vlach) and slavic presence in Pannonia talks Gesta Hungarorum. But I didn't said that Seneslau had any conection with Transylvania, but Gelu, Glad and Menumortu had (about them talks Annonymus).

The only serious geographic distortion is yours, Senslau is in Muntenia, Litovoi is in Oltenia:wall:


and had fark-all to do with Hungarian transylvania except in the middle of the 14th century

Litovoi fouhgt with Hungary in 13 century.

So, long live Trianon:yes: and cheers

Mircea85
06-16-2007, 20:16
QUOTE]But when you say "Romanians," you are using a modern concept (describing people on the basis of a nation-state), rather than a tribal one.[[/QUOTE] So medieval society was a tribal one. Very nice. I see now that you lack any knowledge of history. As a historian you are ZERO.


describe Dacians and then Vlachs.

Hello, chronology.

And again, let's pray to the holy hungarian historians, but also to the justice made by the treaty of Trianon. :oops: Cheers

Russ Mitchell
06-16-2007, 22:20
Hey, don't blame me for a hundred years of ink: the Daco-Roman controversy is a propaganda based on the blatant stupidity of both sides... Gents, I really am *not* an irredentist, and could care less about Trianon. And, frankly, Trianon is predicated upon Versailles, and without Versailles, as ugly as that could get, the history of the 20th century would have been even worse. (Can you imagine East Timor without it?) The history to which I refer is the standard internationally-accepted historiography. Show me better sources, and I withdraw my objections.

Where, then, was Seneslau's land? I seem to have misremembered. Have to look that up.... :book: Either way, these gentlemen are simply irrelevant to the question: Caroberto was engaged in a classic example of extreme overreach, and everybody involved knew it.

The Gesta Hungarorum, otoh, is widely known to be completely unreliable for the period of the Hungarian entry into the Carpathian Basin. And it moves against the grain of how we know that the Vlachs in the period lived... as mountain shepherds/highlanders, not all that dissimilar to Appalachian folks in my country. Keza I don't have to hand. Turda is, again, an Angevin critter, 14th century. DEO, again, post-Interregnum, 14th century. Chronicon Pictum's account of Posada is very good, but who would accept it for the 9th century?

So, if one insists, does one then have a nationalist rebellion in 1330? Should Moldavian and Vlach then become synonymous? How then should the rest of the political timelines be rearranged to suit these fantasies?

Not that it makes a difference. These gents seem to have their mod well in-hand without our arguments...

Mircea85
06-17-2007, 12:38
The Gesta Hungarorum, otoh, is widely known to be completely unreliable for the period of the Hungarian entry into the Carpathian Basin. And it moves against the grain of how we know that the Vlachs in the period lived... as mountain shepherds/highlanders, not all that dissimilar to Appalachian folks in my country. Keza I don't have to hand. Turda is, again, an Angevin critter, 14th century. DEO, again, post-Interregnum, 14th century. Chronicon Pictum's account of Posada is very good, but who would accept it for the 9th century?

So, we have to disregard the historical sources, but we must belive the hungarian version of history, even if this version is not based on any historical source.


Hey, don't blame me for a hundred years of ink: the Daco-Roman controversy is a propaganda based on the blatant stupidity of both sides... TRUE



The history to which I refer is the standard internationally-accepted historiography.

Standard international historiograhy if you read history from the site hungarian-history.com or other modern hungarian sources. Here we learn about the mighty and peaceful hungarain kingdom, about how they defended the Europe against the nomadic hordes (forgeting to mention the river Sajo battle), how they the Christianized the romanians (we were Christian long before the hungarian invasion in Pannonia - see Saint Andrew), we learn about the great hungarian general Janos Hunyadi (who was in fact of romanian origin, son of cnez Voicu) and the great Nikola Šubić Zrinski or Miklós Zrínyi who is called a great hungarain , about the so called "migration of romanians in Transylvania" in 13th century ( Disregarding the fact that no medieval chronicle mentions any large-scale migrations of Romanic peoples from the Balkans to Romania; contrary to a south to north movement, a chronicle indicates rather a north to south movement: according to Cecaumenos' Strategicon (1066), the Vlachs of Epirus and Thessalia came from north of the Danube and from along the Sava and almost all historical sources), we learn about the evil Woodrow Wilson and his 'Fourteen Points' in wich he dared to say that every nation has the right of self-determination (including the barbarious romanians, slovaks, croatians etc). We also learn how the hungarians understand freedom (at 1848 revolution, the hungarians valiantly fought for freedom, but they denied the freedom of romanians and others subjugated nations, HYPOCRISY). We also learn about the fiery policy of romanization (partialy true, we see how efective was this policy by comparing the numbers from 1910 census (1,662,000 hungarians, Note that 1910 the census did not count "ethnicity", but native language as well as "the most often spoken language", which led to manipulations with census results) to that of 2002 census (1,415,718 hungarians). But, they forget to tell us about the policy of forced magyarization implemented by various Hungarian authorities at various times.


So, if one insists, does one then have a nationalist rebellion in 1330? Should Moldavian and Vlach then become synonymous? How then should the rest of the political timelines be rearranged to suit these fantasies?

I already expresesd my opinion. A romanian faction is not possible because the first true romanian state gained it's independence in 1330.

P.S. Unfortunately, romanian history is hard to find on the net or in the librararies in US. But you can read on this site: http://rotravel.com/romania/history/index.php

Cheers

Russ Mitchell
06-18-2007, 05:08
So, we have to disregard the historical sources, but we must belive the hungarian version of history, even if this version is not based on any historical source.

Let's assume we're sufficiently competent to look at historical sources on all sides and assess them critically. Plenty of historical ink has little to no basis, and if you honestly believe that I'd accept a 19th-century nationalistic assessment of the Hungarian medieval role... well, then you'd think that I was like a lot of early scholars who DID simply choose one side or another... which is silliness. You may recall my saying that I am colleagues with both Romanian and Hungarian scholars? Just because I married the girl from Buda, rather than the art-historian from Cluj-Napoca... well, don't judge by the addresses on my profile.


I already expresesd my opinion. A romanian faction is not possible because the first true romanian state gained it's independence in 1330.

And my rejoinder, again: do they refer to themselves in 19th-century terms, or are they an antecedent to the modern construct? What evidence is there that the Moldavian archers sent to assist against the Teutonic Order in even the early fifteenth century thought of themselves as Romanian, rather than Moldavian? I've got plenty of 17th-century Scots-Irish ancestors, but they sure didn't think of themselves as "British..." the idea hadn't been invented yet.

For Pike and Musket, such a faction would not only be great game-wise, but is also critically important to the regional strategic balance.

Kavhan Isbul
06-19-2007, 00:51
Russ, this is a completely off topic question (so is this whole thread anyway): are you by any chance back in Budapest?

Russ Mitchell
06-19-2007, 00:55
No, but I will be in about three weeks... if you need something, please don't be shy. (If I don't know where to track something down, I'm sure I can find somebody who can.)

Vazul's Ghost
06-27-2007, 10:07
So, long live Trianon:yes: and cheers
Leave trianon out of this. seriously.

Deutschland Uber Alles
07-14-2007, 16:53
Ya,long live TRIANON(don't judge by my name).God bless the ,,evil" Wilson which offer Romania a chance to take back the land that the BOZGORII(hungarians ,called in Romania :people withouth contry)took.So Romanians won,and hungarians lost like dogs:laugh4: :laugh4: Long live Romania

P.S.I hope that Hugary will be doomed
Now i just sit in my country(which is way bigger than Hungary,Romania)and wait for the third world war to come for REVENGE.
Today Romania can beat the hell out of Hungary>>>>>>>I hope it happens:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Incongruous
07-16-2007, 22:11
Ya,long live TRIANON(don't judge by my name).God bless the ,,evil" Wilson which offer Romania a chance to take back the land that the BOZGORII(hungarians ,called in Romania :people withouth contry)took.So Romanians won,and hungarians lost like dogs:laugh4: :laugh4: Long live Romania

P.S.I hope that Hugary will be doomed
Now i just sit in my country(which is way bigger than Hungary,Romania)and wait for the third world war to come for REVENGE.
Today Romania can beat the hell out of Hungary>>>>>>>I hope it happens:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Ya! Zieg Hiel! Death to enemies of Romania! Ya, bla bla bla...
The continuous cycle of abuse between Eastern Europeans on this board.:no:

Mircea85
07-17-2007, 00:52
Deutschland Uber Alles expresed his opinion, a opinion disapproved by many romanians, so don't judge a nation because of its black sheep.

About Trianon:
Trianon did justice for milions of romanians, croats, slovaks, serbs, so Trianon can be considered the triumph of self-determination.

King Orko
07-17-2007, 05:17
Long Live Romania!
Yep, I am Romanaian as well:yes:

Russ Mitchell
07-17-2007, 20:50
About Trianon:
Trianon did justice for milions of romanians, croats, slovaks, serbs, so Trianon can be considered the triumph of self-determination.

Sure it did. And if more sober heads had prevailed all around, it would have been done better (since at least in theory, the treaty was supposed to reflect "facts on the ground") and then we wouldn't be reading about current actions in the European parliament, etc etc. Personally, I think the idea of a Danubian republic made a lot of sense, since it would have stopped the Habsburgs from playing everybody like tools all through the 19th century so that they could retain their power... (sorry guys, but y'all got played. Both sides involved.) But then, if it weren't for the Great Depression, WWII, and Stalin/Ceaucescu, things could still have been much, much better.

One thing about us humans... we just can't ever seem to take two steps forward without taking one back, and mixing tragedy and triumph into some kind of seriously weird-ass milkshake...

edyzmedieval
07-17-2007, 21:31
Actually, we suffered from communism as we would have expected just in the 1980's, because till then, Romania was a really rich country, and the first Eastern European one to establish diplomatic relationships with Israel.

Plus, Iraq and Iran were constant buyers of Romanian armament, and Iraq also had their military uniforms produced in Giurgiu, Romania.

Galapagos
07-17-2007, 21:33
Well, what is with you hungarians?????It seems that you want Transylvania back:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Well if you want this............this is one thing that will never happen...:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: In the game is not necessary to appear Romania,it could appear Wallachia and/or Moldavia and everyone would be pleased(i would enjoy sacking Budapest and kill those bloody ottomans):laugh4: :laugh4: :beam: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:

AnthoniusII
07-18-2007, 20:24
Gendlemen...please!!!I am tiered to read about members arguing about nations of their own...These threads are about a GAME not international policy.We all (atleast most of us) a number of people who want to enjoy this GAME not to solve all national hates and problems.ENJOY THE GAME WHO EVER YOU ARE AND LET OTHERS TO...P.S. If you still want to have national hostille messages please whrite them some where ellse...FRIENDLY...

Vazul's Ghost
07-27-2007, 15:34
Well, what is with you hungarians?????It seems that you want Transylvania back:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Well if you want this............this is one thing that will never happen...:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: In the game is not necessary to appear Romania,it could appear Wallachia and/or Moldavia and everyone would be pleased(i would enjoy sacking Budapest and kill those bloody ottomans):laugh4: :laugh4: :beam: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:

HOLY CHARLEMAGNE THIS GIVES ME THE WILLIES!!!! Sorry for my use ofthe vernacular but I wanted trianon to be left out of this BECAUSE I knew it would provoke more eastern european animosities manifest in highly innapropriate and off topic posts (see above)!!! I respond with a mere six words and a pack off people jump to the high horses assuming i am another disgruntled hungarian exerting my racist hatred of the thieving nasty (calm down, sardonism) Romanians, croats, serbs, slovaks etc and any other ethnicity who happened to previously live under hungarian rule... For the record i am an Australian, one of the few who are interested in this sphere of history, and hold no grude against Romanians (though many such Romanians are doing a great job of undoing that). I have tried to follow historical accuracy, trying to leave political machinations that hold little relevance to this thread e.g. Trianon out of the topic, fearing they would cause degradating arguments to arise. And look what happened, Nice going Deutschland Uber Alles, King orko etc, you have accomplished an extraordinary feat; Making off topic and provocative statements in opposition to a post aimed at stopping such stateements, then proceeding to justify these statements with MORE off topic posts (thankyou Mircea), thus causing extremely unrelated and pointless debates to surface.
You know what... there is no reason for me to post on this thread any more, as i know that the modders of M2TR are intelligent people... and i hold greater faith in their historical knowledge, and that of the majority of the postees of this site, then that of present company based solely on the above statements. I am tired of feeling sick every time i read many of the posts on this thread, one that has stagnated so far beyond its original themes that it has become nothing but an outlet for ethnic ill will to exert itself in puppet history. TO ANYONE INTERESTED IN EASTERN EUROPEAN HISTORY: READ THE SOURCES FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT, RELY ON YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT AND DON'T MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THIS THREAD! If you'll excuse me i'm going to go and weep for the ghost of unbiased historical examination.

PuppetMaster
07-29-2007, 14:22
HAHAHAHA

This thread rules, being able to see so many Eastern European cultures clash over issues revolving around a video game mod, lol.

How about this. All of Europe except for Italy, UK, Spain, Germany, France, and Austria go fight it out in a big, horrifying war. Then, the USA comes and liberates you all like we did in Iraq (lol), tear down statues of your leaders, and proclaim "mission accomplished" aboard our mighty aircraft carriers, which shall be perched in the black sea. then, we will neglect the re-building of your societies and governments, and further rape your nations of their assets by sucking the oil or gold that you have right out of the earth. The end.

:juggle2:





this was a joke by the way. tasteless, yes; does it make me sound like a war-hawk american hick? definitely.

Redmeth
07-29-2007, 23:58
@Puppetmaster Most of us Eastern-Europeans got "liberated" once by the Russians and that was a truly pleasant experience.

As for the rest of the argument, I can't say if a Romanian faction would be "required" that's up to the modders if they don't want one then I guess there's always other mods (not that I wouldn't play it if there wasn't one). All this hatred really doesn't help anyone but I have to say that arguing that Translyvania was completely deserted and devoid of population is a bit... illogical I guess, it's not a desert after all it's full of riches and that's why it's been so disputed. I believe that the Hungarians did conquer and rule over it just as many other nations conquered and ruled over other people's lands as long as history was written and we were lucky to finally get it back (others I guess weren't). The whole idea of "getting it back" stems from the reality of the overwhelming Romanian population in Transylvania during the Middle Ages. I really don't think Romanians would have crossed into Transylvania in great numbers just to live under Hungarian rule...

At the start of the period they're probably correct to not include one but for the late period (emerging faction) it's a worthy faction to look at.

Incongruous
08-06-2007, 03:25
Well, what is with you hungarians?????It seems that you want Transylvania back:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Well if you want this............this is one thing that will never happen...:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: In the game is not necessary to appear Romania,it could appear Wallachia and/or Moldavia and everyone would be pleased(i would enjoy sacking Budapest and kill those bloody ottomans):laugh4: :laugh4: :beam: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:

What might be nice is if you guys (thats all you eastern Europeans) stopped making a mess of the boards.
It's not very nice, I remeber at the rtr forums a massive fight between Macedonians and Greeks, then Romanians and Magyars. Not very nice at all.
So please, stop.

Romano-Dacis
01-06-2008, 05:56
Alright, this idiocy has gone on long enough. I'm talking of idiocy from both sides, and I'm a Romanian. Now, let's get some facts straight.
1) Transylvania was not under Hungarian control in 1080, at least in no administrative sense. No Comites in Transylvania are mentioned until 1113, when we finally get a mention of the Comitat of Bihor. The, we get Dobica and Crasna in 1164; Solnoc in 1166; Cluj, Alba, and Timis in 1177; Caras in 1200 etc. One only needs to look at the fact that King Ladislaus established the first Transylvania bishoprip in Varad in 1094, this being only on the outer fringes of Romania today. At most you can say this was a conquest in progress at 1080. Many regions in fact retained autonomy for a long time, like Maramures and Fagaras. Besides, it makes it more interesting as well if the Hungarians actually have to conquer Transylvania, as it must have happened historically.

2) A Romanian state should be included. Wallachia and Moldova had much more pronounced successes in the Middle Ages than say, Moravia, Bohemia, Serbia, 2nd Bulgarian Empire, Scotland, or Denmark. Wallachia, Moldova, and Transylvania were the only regions to remain autonomous of Turkish administration, and this is an undeniable historical fact. None of these regions ever became Turkish provinces, and vassalship was often sporadic, and fluctuated between many of the expansionist neighbors. Of pretty much every nation in Eastern Europe, Wallachia and Moldova were the only ones to retain autonomy throughout a continuous history. In fact, I have a vivid image of a map from 16th century, showing the three principalities (Wallachia, Moldova, and Transylvania) bordering the Turks on pretty much all their borders except the very North. Mircea the Old at one point even played an important part in Ottoman politics, trying to destabilize the Ottoman throne after Bayezid's death. Mircea the Old, Vlad III Tepes, Stephen the Great, Alexander the Good, John the Brave, and Michael the Brave all played pronounced roles in international politics, whether it was against Teutonic Knights, Hungary, Poland, or the Turks.

It is wrong to show Wallachia/Moldova as rebels, because the progress on the map would be ahistorical. The rebel states always become weaker as the game progresses, but in the case of Wallachia and Moldova, we see the CONSOLIDATION of two states. They actually became stronger with the course of history, though their territory never grew significantly. For this reason, at least Wallachia should be shown as an EMERGING STATE, as that is what it was historically, becoming its own consolidated principality in 1330. They are effectively an Eastern synonym for the Swiss, with Posada being similar to the battle of Sempach politically. If Switzerland becomes an Emerging State, there is literally no reason to not have Wallachia as at least an emerging state, if not a fully playable faction. Switzerland never expanded either, so that is no reason to not include a Romanian principality.

Not to mention the Orthodox Christian factions are severely lacking on this map. In Vanilla TW, there were only two factions! In this, there are 4 at most. Wallachia could act as an important political, cultural, and military weight in Southern Europe. At the very least, Wallachia should replace Bulgaria (2nd Bulgarian Empire) as Wallachia is pretty much in the same region but had greater political longevity (never losing autonomy).

[NOTE: I use autonomy, not independence. While none of these states were ever provinces of the big players that surrounded them, they often had to pay ransoms for their peace.]

Romano-Dacis
01-06-2008, 06:23
Also with regard to the term Romanian: The Romanians have always called themselves as such, and this is attested by humanists, historians, and documentation from the Middle Ages which all say "These people preserve their name of Romans." Vlach itself is an exonym, and it is no more appropriate to say Vlach and Romanian are different than it is to say Greek, Romanoi and Hellene are different. I don't care if you called us "negroe", the term "Romanian" has historical precedence, and Wallachia was called by its native inhabitants "Tara Rumaneasca" (see the letter in 1521 sent to Brasov).

I only need to give this example: Francesco della Valle wrote in 1534: "the emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans"

I assume Francesco was not referring to the similarity of the name "Vlach" with that of "Roman." :sweatdrop:

pike master
01-11-2008, 02:05
not sure why this issue is much larger than the others but i would say i support a more in depth faction selection in the balkans. we should at least have the transylvanians in there.:skull:

Tantalaul
10-02-2008, 09:30
Hello

Some maps from euratlas

So this is the map of Europe in
2000
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_2000.html

1900
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1900.html

1800
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1800.html

1700
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1700.html

1600
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1600.html
mention
In 1600 Mihai Viteazu lThe Brave) succed to unify all the romanians (speakers of same language) in one country
Principality Of Transylvania, Principality of Moldavia and Principality of Wallachia

1500
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1500.html

1400
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1400.html

1300
http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/europe_map_1300.html

1200
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1200.html

1100
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1100.html

1000
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1000.html

900
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_0900.html

Imperator Invictus
06-04-2009, 01:14
the point is that a game is made to be played, and romanian population is bigger than hungarian and bulgarian combined (even if they assimilated other populations). So the romanian players are more numerous....think about that