I agree- Genoa is really important
Printable View
I agree- Genoa is really important
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
:yes:
.
Are we talking about Medieval period?Quote:
Originally Posted by GaugamelaTC
Because for a moment I thought you wondered off.
However, if they choose to include post Medieval period into a Medieval game, then Portugal increases in its significance.
To say that this casts shadow over Bohemia is an overstretch. Still within the European politics and history, which is what this game will concentrate on no matter how long will the timeline be, Bohemia had more economic, cultural, and military achievements to boot.
I think portugal also wasn't that insignificant during the "main middle ages", they already existed as a county in the 11th century ("portucale"), became fully independent in 1143 and took part in the reconquista for the next 100 years, Portugal would clearly make Iberia more interesting, especially if Aragon isn't included.
I did come up with a reason. It was the most powerful Centeal European kingdom during the 13th and 14th century. This culminated in Przemyslids ruling much of the Central Europe (Przemyslids were winning wars against Polish and Hungarian kingdoms during that time). Had Wenceslaus III not been assasinated en route to dealing with matters in Poland their domination would have continued. They still remained the strongest Central European country under Luxembourgs. And if you add Hussites to boot, this is really one of the most excitting and rich and unique faction to play as (for instance, howitzer was invented by Czechs, derived from their word houfnice- 'houf' means a mass, preferably of people, so houfnice was used to destroy a mass of people).Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
[Moderator comment: more ad hominem attacks deleted]
.
My ideal startup factions at the beginning of the 12th century AD, roughly from east to west:
- Khwarezm-shahs
- Selchuqs (Great)
- Selchuqs (Rûm)
- Bolghars (Volga)
- Roman Empire (at Konstantinopolis)
- Armenia (in Kilikia)
- Kumans
- Republic of Novgorod
- Kiev
- Zengi Atabegs of Musul
- Fatimid Khalifas of Egypt
- One of the Maghrib kingdoms (Ziris or Hammadis)
- The Murabit Empire (Almoravid) ― Muwahhids (Almohad) can spawn on rebellion
- Hungary
- Poland
- Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia (one faction)
- Bohemia ― complete with the Hussite rebellion!
- One of the pagan Baltic tribes would be cool; Lietuva?
- Sweden
- Denmark
- Holy Roman Empire
- Venice
- Pisa/Genoa
- Papacy
- France (consisting of the King's domains, the feudal fiefdoms being rebel)
- England (including Normandie, or rather vice versa ~;))
- Scotland
- Leon-Castillia
- Cunty of Barcelona rather than Aragon, imho
With the inevitable rebels our thirty faction slot will be depleted. I hope it will be at least thirty in order to open up space for a few emerging factions (Moŋols! Crusaders et al). (I'm pretending that there won't be any silly Aztechs, Númenoreans or aliens. ~:mecry: At worst case it would be a great list for a mod. :yes:) Notice also the regional polarities.
I haven't included many feudal principalities, muslim emiratelets around Iberia, as well as Ireland and Wales; not because I deem them unimportant but for their non-expansionist and stagnant character at the time. They should be represented as strong enough rebel factions, though.
.
I don't think that they are insignificant, but in comparison to Europe's major powers they are not as significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Noob the Stupid
I certainly wouldn't mind having Bohemia in as a faction. There are plenty of other factions just as influential, though, and much of Bohemia's involvement was as part of the HRE. I'd be happy either way on that one.
The most important thing will be for them to leave it open to modders, (and hopefully with a high faction cap to give them plenty of options for inclusion), so it can be more customized for personal interests after release. I also like the way VikingHorde made XL mod (and I think BKB's does something similar), where the faction list is different for each starting period to reflect the changes over the age. IIRC Bohemia is a faction in XL in early and late, but part of the HRE in high. Hopefully they will include different starting date options again, and one step better will be to customize the factions for each of the periods.
Ajax
My ideal list would be (if it is only for 21 factions):
Catholic:
France
England
HRE
Denmark
Catille
Portugal/Aragon-I'm leaning more towards Portugal based on the expanded timeline.
Sicily
Venice
Papacy
Bohemia
Poland
Hungary
Otrhodox:
Kievan Rus
Novgorod
Byzantines
Bulgaria/Serbia -one of these two of which I can't decide
Muslim:
Turks
Egypt
Almoravid
Moors (either as general tribes or unique rebels)
Pagan:
Lithuania
If there are 30, then these should be added:
Serbia/Bulgaria (whichever was left out)
Kumans
Georgia
Sweden
Timurids
Kwarezm
Scotland
Genoa
Armenia
Sorry, I didn`t understand you. I thought you are saying that they should exclude turks because there wasn`t any dominant turkish faction. I quite agree, but it is unlikely that there will be two turkish faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
Well, let's do this. You support your made up claims with some textualQuote:
Originally Posted by lars573
evidence. I did and you called it a lie. You said it didn't represent reality.
Have you read anything that I have linked? Just admit it to us that you have no knowledge of Bohemian history and therefore you shoul reserve the right of
debating about its history to people who know what they are tlking about.
Tell me about one histrical book that you read about Bohemia previous to this
discussion (and no, googles articles don't count)?
At Admins: The thing I said about Nazis was deadly serious. They used history as they pleased and even have rewrote it to suit their ideological beliefs, among which was that Slavs were inferior. They simply could not stand a thought of a powerful Slavic king ruling Germans.
How do you then suggest I should have appraoched this, when his argument is similar to theirs? Why do you then take away my ability to express myself when it is not meant to attack but to point out certain falacies?
You are being unfair to me.
To have an idea about how a Bohemian faction may look like lookout for a new preview of this faction in C:TW (the medieval mod for RTW hosted on SCC).
I would like to se ireland
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Unfortunately seems so, considering CA's tendency of lumping things together. But if we really have 30+ faction slots then great mods can be made. ~:)
.
Lol i love the regular input of,
"thyle probably make them non playable. or a sid campaign"
I really dont see what would be the gain in that,
however thats how it looked like in RTW,
So i guess its a 50/50
I'd like to see Spain split into Castile and Aragon, unless it's harmful to game play, as someone suggested above.
Other than that, the Lithuanians/Livonians seem essential to me (and I'm not Lithuanian).
I can see the arguments for the Bulgarians and to a slightly lesser extent, Serbia.
I suppose one could make an interesting game out of having the Knight Hospitallers and the Templars being separate factions too.
I know enough, not gory details (like I can't remeber when the HRE incorporated bohemia into the empire and it's bugging the hell out of me) but enough. Enough to know that it's not worth seperating Bohemia from the HRE. I tried to read that but it was too tricky and I've read most of the raw details before. Written much more neutrally. That text is anti-German, and there fore bogus. Texts that unfairly degrade something to boost something else have no worth to me. Plus you should really spell check before posting (you too Mouza) it's really hard to argue with someone when they are making so many spelling mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLKHERO
As for historical texts, physical books none. Online mostly. But I only cite sites that I consider valid. If you want I'll link to them. Having no money or credit card and a very poor reference section in my local libraries means the internets is my only resource.
My only reason for not wanting Bohemia in is that you can't have everything. Bohemia is an integral part of the HRE. Which was made up of quasai independent provinces. If you include Bohemia why leave out Bavaria, or Saxony, or Austria, or any of the HRE constituent parts. You'd end up needing to do what was done to the Roman republic in RTW. That didn't work very well did it. Your reason is that Bohemia was a major player in eastern europe. This is not true as the HRE was, Bohemia was part of it. So all of Bohemia's glory is the HRE's glory.
I don`t know. It`s a coin flip between Serbia and Bulgaria. After tzar Dusan of serbia defeated combined bulgarian and byzantium amies somewhere in the first half of the 14th century, and then securing lasting peace with the new bulgarian tzar by marrying his sister, his rule extended south until thesaloniki in todays greece. Dubrovnik accepted supreme rule of serbian kings long before that and paid special taxes to be autonomous. What serbs lacked to become a major power in mediterranean was the fleet. Also, don`t forget that bulgarians were asian barbaric horde when they first came to balkans, that is a couple of centuries before the start of the game. They conquered some serbian (slavic) tribes but eventually accepted serbian (slavic) language, culture and religion and that is why today they are considered to be south slavs. As a said, I think it`s a coin flip...Quote:
Originally Posted by gardibolt
And do not forget to include a powerful rebel faction of Bulgaria (similar to what was Burgundy in MTW but more active) in XII century (in later periods Bulgarians should be playable IMHO)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
I suppose you wanted to say that the Hussites will appear later in XVth century as a rebel faction ( which is historically acurate)~;)
[QUOTE=Mouzafphaerre].[*]Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia (one faction)
Bosnia existed at the time only as geographic term andnot as a country. Croatia had a bried period of the independence before 1000AD, but after that croatian feudal lords acknowledged supreme rule of hungarian kings. They didn`t have any impact on history in the timeline of the game.
Totally agree, though I think Qipchaq would be a better name for the Kumans, and we deffiently need Mongols to spawn... mabye Ottomans to, if we can link it to the appearance of Mongols (that's when they gained power, right?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
One word for bohemia haters :furious3:
Jan Zizka!
Also I think the obvious way to incoporate Bohemians is you can start as the HRE, and when the hussite rebellion starts you would be offered to switch sides, if you choose the rebels you play the bohemians and get the unique war wagons!
Problem solved! :idea2:
If it's coint flip, it's good to now that at game start 1080, 3 years ago in 1077 Rashka and Duklja merged forming first what could be called Serbian kingdom. At that point there was no Bulgar state (conquered some time before).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Later, in next century after many Serbian raids, Byzantines with powerful emperor forced Serbia to become vassal state, but in near the end of 12th century due to rise of Nemanjic famliy Serbs become independent again (that's also a same era when Bulgars emerge again).
Of course, if there was 2 faction slots opened I would place Serbia at start of the game with two provinces Duklja and Rashka and I would made Bulgars emerge later if Byzantines get weakned by other factions.
Mouz:
for 13th century I'd like a Gwynedd faction as they were evolving nicely into a proper little medieval state and consolidating their dominance over Wales. Who knows what they may have done if Edward I hadn't been such a git (personal bias there).
You are near to the truth but you are not exactly right:book: . In Vth century a lot of Slavic tribes started to live in Balkan peninsula (from Danube to the south parts of Greece). Some of them were romanized (later). Actually there is a slight difference between Serbian and Bulgarian slavs (they are two groups that are different but not very much- it is almost the same as the difference between Croatian and Serbian people). When the so called protobulgarians came (they are not the same as the bulgarians- they are semi-nomadic and later Bulgarian slavs and they formed the Bulgarian nationality) there were no other Slavic country in Europe (tothe exception with the state of Samo but it existed only some decades)- no Serbia, no Russia. After protobulgarians defeated Byzantines in 680 they allied with some of the Slavs from the Bulgarian group and put the foundation of Bulgaria in 681- that's true Bulgaria is the first permanent Slavic state (Because Slavs became more and more after the successful wars against Byzantium- only the slavic tribes in the southwestern parts of the Balkan peninsula refused to go under the power of Bulgarian khan- that was the Serbian and Croatian tribes (they formed their own state in IX century)). Of course the organisation of the Bulgarian state changed- it stopped being a federation and became a centerlised monarchy - the slavic chiefs lost their independence but they were included in royal court and some of them became a governors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
So in the middle of IX century Bulgaria was very interesting country- with two religions (two pagan religions -slavic and the official the Protobulgarian) which was a barrier between two groups (they were friendly to each other but they are two groups not one nationality). I don't agree that protobulgarians accepted the slavic religion. No, the protobulgarians and slavs were converted to the christianity by Boris I(852-889,+907) and then they became one nationality (slavic - the Slavs (that as I explained are not Serbs) were more than protobulgarians). The protobulgarians really accepted Slavic (which is similar to the Serbian but is not Serbian) but that happened when the 'students' of Kiril and Metodius (the same that pope John Pavel II declared to be patrons of Europe) came with the slavic letters in Bulgaria.
Conclusion the Bulgarians were close to the Serbs but are not Serbs ( neither they came from Serbian tribes; I pay attention to this there is a difference between serbian and Bulgarian Slavs). I hope I won't offend anybody but in the period betweenVII and XIV Bulgarians were better developed by the Serbs (earlier state, earlier converting to the Christianity, bigger territories) so they are not the same. It is the same as to say that Bulgarians and Russians are the same.
P.S. there were no combined armies of Byzantines and Bulgarians. One short story- the batlle of Velbyjd(the battle you talk about- Serbians and Bulgarians. The leaders of the two armies the Serbian king (father of Stefan Dusan) and the Bulgarian Michael III Shishman agreed to ' cease the fire' for pne day. The Bulgarian monarch made very big mistake trusted to the enemy. Then the Serbs attacked him and Bulgarian tsar was killed in the battle. Later the Bulgarian reinforcements stopped Serbians(that prevented bulgarians from losing many fortresses). The Bulgarian ally emperor Andronicus III saw that his allies lost their tsar- then A. III decided not to help to his allies but to conquer some bulgarian fortresses...Next - new war with Byzantium ...
All this is worth nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Provide a SOURCE that supports your aggregious claims. Fight facts with facts.
Here is one article that completely debases you claims http://www.hoover.org/publications/b...t/czech/15.pdf
Thanks for an indepth response. I tried to explain it in simple terms for people from other parts of who aren`t familiar with the history of the balkans. I know that bulgarians don`t speak serbian, that`s why i put slavic in the brackets. I just wanted to say that the slavic tribe that most influenced bulgarians were serbs, as it was the tribe they were most in contact with. You are right about religion, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
As the battle of velbujd is concerned, Stefan Dechanski, the father of Tsar Dusan held command but only formally. As for the betraying part, I can`t really say that I heard of that. Funny how history is told differently. I wonder which version is the truth. I`ll try to get more info on that subject.
This is what I found on wikipedia. As it is not the most reliable source I will try the more.
After Serbian expansion under the rule of King Milutin, Bulgarian Emperor Michael III Shishman sought to take over Macedonia and destroy the power of Serbian Kingdom. After Milutin's death in 1321 Stefan Decanski became the King. His policy was that of peace with Bulgaria which he offered to Michael III Shishman. However Michael III Shishman refused the peace and instead prepared for war creating an alliance with the Greeks. Serbs made extensive war preparations, which included additional training of the army and hiring of western mercenaries mainly Kelts. In 1330 Michael III Shishmanmarched his army of 15,000 on Serbia. Another Greek army was coming from the south, in order to join the Bulgarian forces and then defeat Serbs. Serbian strategy was to prevent two armies from joining, and therefore Serbs marched with an army of 15,000 to meet the Bulgarians first before they joined the Greeks. Two armies met at Velbuzd on July 28, 1330. Battle went well for the Serbs. Bulgarians army was quickly crushed by Serbian archers and cavlary supported by experinced mercenaries who captured Bulgarian flag marking the victory for the Serbs. Young King Dusan proved to be an excellent military commander whose forces played decesive role in Bulgarian defeat. Serbian army continued to pursue Bulgarian forces deep into Bulgaria killing most of Bulgarian soldiers. However after Greeks attacked southern Serbian provinces Serbian army returned and swiftly defeated Greek forces driving them out of Serbia. Michael III Shishman died in battle after being slained by Serbian forces. As the result of the battle Serbian state became the most powerful country in the Balkans and one of the most powerful countries in Europe.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velbu%C5%BEd"
Bohemia hasn't been put in the game. End of. If you think it should be, get some people together and make a mod for it.
[Moderator comment: edited for language.]
This is from oxford university:
A disputed succession soon ended in the enthronement of the late King's illegitimate son, Stephen Urosh III, known in history by the epithet " Detchanski " from the famous monastery of Detchani which he founded. He had been blinded for conspiring against his father; but on his father's death he recovered his sight, which perhaps he had never entirely lost. His reign is one of the most dramatic in Serbian history, for it affords an example of those sudden alternations of triumph and disaster characteristic of the Balkans, alike in the Middle Ages and in our own day. On June 28, I330, he utterly routed the Bulgarians at Velbujd, as Kostendil was then called. Bulgaria became a vassal state of Serbia, which had thus won the hegemony of the Balkan peninsula.
Now I am going to stop this as I am probably going to bore to death anyone who is not serbian or bulgarian :laugh4:
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/MillSerb.html - here you can find a lot of information about medievel serbia if anyone is interested, in english.