Printable View
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.
Hello, chronology.Quote:
describe Dacians and then Vlachs.
And again, let's pray to the holy hungarian historians, but also to the justice made by the treaty of Trianon. :oops: Cheers
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...
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.Quote:
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?
TRUEQuote:
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...
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.Quote:
The history to which I refer is the standard internationally-accepted historiography.
I already expresesd my opinion. A romanian faction is not possible because the first true romanian state gained it's independence in 1330.Quote:
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?
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
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
I already expresesd my opinion. A romanian faction is not possible because the first true romanian state gained it's independence in 1330.
For Pike and Musket, such a faction would not only be great game-wise, but is also critically important to the regional strategic balance.
Russ, this is a completely off topic question (so is this whole thread anyway): are you by any chance back in Budapest?
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.)
Leave trianon out of this. seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea85
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Deutschland Uber Alles
The continuous cycle of abuse between Eastern Europeans on this board.:no:
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.
Long Live Romania!
Yep, I am Romanaian as well:yes:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea85
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...
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.
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:
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapagos
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.
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.
@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.
What might be nice is if you guys (thats all you eastern Europeans) stopped making a mess of the boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapagos
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.
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.]
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:
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:
Hello
Some maps from euratlas
So this is the map of Europe in
2000
http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_2000.html
1900
http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1900.html
1800
http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1800.html
1700
http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1700.html
1600
http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._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_euro..._map_1500.html
1400
http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1400.html
1300
http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/..._map_1300.html
1200
http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1200.html
1100
http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1100.html
1000
http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1000.html
900
http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_0900.html
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