Serbia in Medieval II

[dragomix]

Does anyone knows is serbia playeble in Medieval II? We were one of tree empires in Medieval time.

[professorspatula]

Does anyone knows is serbia playeble in Medieval II? We were one of tree empires in Medieval time.

Oak, Willow or some other variety?


The Serbs don't feature in M2TW. There are quite a few factions that should have perhaps been in the game but aren't, but there will always be mods to address such issues.

[dragomix]

There were Holy Roman Emperor (Germans), Bizantians and Serbia (or Great Serbia). If you dont know see for your self, surch on internet yull see.

[LegioScythia]

There were Holy Roman Emperor (Germans), Byzantines and Serbia (or Great Serbia). If you don't know see for your self, such on Internet yull see.

What ? no it didn't exist
there was only the Serbian Kingdom and it was founded in 1882
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Serbia

[Innocentius]

Serbia reached its golden age under the House of Nemanjić, with the Serbian state reaching its apogee of power in the reign of Tsar Stefan Uroš Dušan. Serbia's power subsequently dwindled arising from interminable conflict among the nobility, rendering the country unable to resist the steady incursion of the Ottoman Empire into south-eastern Europe. The Battle of Kosovo in 1389 is commonly regarded in Serbian national mythology as the key event in the country's defeat by the Turks, although in fact, Ottoman rule was not fully imposed until some time later. After Serbia fell, Tvrtko Kotromanić, the king of Bosnia used the title "King of Bosnia, the Serbs, the West-ends and the Primorje" from 1389 to 1390.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Nemanji%C4%87

However, I wouldn't compare Serbia to The Holy Roman Empire or The Byzantine Empire. The tile "Tsar of All Serbs, Albanians, Greeks and Bulgarians" only existed for some 40 years, then Serbia was more or less conquered by the Ottomans.
The Byzantine Empire for an instance lasted for more than a millenium.

Anyways you shouldn't belive anything that you find on the net, especially not Wikipedia. It is very possible that articles about Serbian history have been changed or edited by non-objective people.

[KARTLOS]

There were Holy Roman Emperor (Germans), Bizantians and Serbia (or Great Serbia). If you dont know see for your self, surch on internet yull see.

the might have described themselves as having an empire, but in terms of scale nothing the serbs achieved ever merited that description.

[Kavhan Isbul]

the might have described themselves as having an empire, but in terms of scale nothing the serbs achieved ever merited that description.

Being a Bulgarian and by all means not a great fan of the Serbs, may I respectfully disagree? They had a small Empire by all means, stretching from Epirus and Macedonia to Bosnia and even had Bulgaria vassal (nominally) for a short period of time. While it was not comparable to the HRE and the Eastern Roman Empires at their height, it was an Empire of its own right. Of course, the same applies for Bulgaria, especially at an earlier period. The title tzar was equivalent to that of a Basileus (even if the Basileus considered himself to be more fo an emperor). The first Bulgarian ruelr to assume the title in the eraly 10th century had it bestolen on him the Patriarch in Constantinople (and in the 13th century confirmed by the Pope), and I think so did Stefan Dushan. It was not like he was self-proclaimed Emperor.
Overall, the Serbs did have an Empire, even if a short-lived one, and their ruler's title was one of an Emperor. And while they may not have been as significant as the HRE and the Eastern Roman Empire, they were certainly more significant than the Scottish or the Milanese (who should not be a faction, the Geniese should have been preferred), and just as significant as the Danes or the Poles.

[dragomix]

You are right. You were our enemies back than. You beated us many times so did we you. If there were no serbia Otomans would concuare half of Europ. We stoped them in Kosovo battle from going nort and west. You are right that our empire was small one but it was an empire. The makers of the game are looking where they can sell more copies of the game, and Serbia or Bulgaria is not the place where you can sell games.

[dragomix]

You are right. You were our enemies back than. You beateld us many times so did we you. If there were no serbia Otomans would concuare half of Europ. We stoped them in Kosovo battle from going nort and west. You are right that our empire was small one but it was an empire. The makers of the game are looking where they can sell more copies of the game, and Serbia or Bulgaria is not the place where you can sell games.

[Kavhan Isbul]

You are right. You were our enemies back than. You beated us many times so did we you. If there were no serbia Otomans would concuare half of Europ. We stoped them in Kosovo battle from going nort and west. You are right that our empire was small one but it was an empire. The makers of the game are looking where they can sell more copies of the game, and Serbia or Bulgaria is not the place where you can sell games.

I think you have nailed it with the last sentence, but then again, if they do not sell enough copies, there will be no CA (SEGA will simply liquidate them) and no Total War games. I am happy that the games exist, with all their flaws. The great thing is that we have modders, who will fix things impractical for CA to take care of, and in the various MTW mods Serbia and Bulgaria (in the later periods) were very fun to play. Hopefully this will be the case once the M2TW mods are finished.

[KARTLOS]

Being a Bulgarian and by all means not a great fan of the Serbs, may I respectfully disagree? They had a small Empire by all means, stretching from Epirus and Macedonia to Bosnia and even had Bulgaria vassal (nominally) for a short period of time. While it was not comparable to the HRE and the Eastern Roman Empires at their height, it was an Empire of its own right. Of course, the same applies for Bulgaria, especially at an earlier period. The title tzar was equivalent to that of a Basileus (even if the Basileus considered himself to be more fo an emperor). The first Bulgarian ruelr to assume the title in the eraly 10th century had it bestolen on him the Patriarch in Constantinople (and in the 13th century confirmed by the Pope), and I think so did Stefan Dushan. It was not like he was self-proclaimed Emperor.
Overall, the Serbs did have an Empire, even if a short-lived one, and their ruler's title was one of an Emperor. And while they may not have been as significant as the HRE and the Eastern Roman Empire, they were certainly more significant than the Scottish or the Milanese (who should not be a faction, the Geniese should have been preferred), and just as significant as the Danes or the Poles.

i agree they should be in the game- and that they were a much more significant power than say the scots ( who are probably included just for popularity). any territorial achievements they made were incredibly short lived.
i think they were a signifigant kingdom but not an imperial power despite their pretensions.

[KARTLOS]

You are right. You were our enemies back than. You beateld us many times so did we you. If there were no serbia Otomans would concuare half of Europ. We stoped them in Kosovo battle from going nort and west. You are right that our empire was small one but it was an empire. The makers of the game are looking where they can sell more copies of the game, and Serbia or Bulgaria is not the place where you can sell games.

whilst the battle of kosovo was a noble stand it ultimately totally failed to stop the islamic advance. The serbs were pretty much crushed and the islamites were given a free reign to advance further north + west. (perhaps you were thinking of the battle of stefanania?)

[dragomix]

We killed turkish sultan that day. New sultan went back to Turky and did not make any further progres. So Serbs did stop Otomans for some period of time.

[KARTLOS]

We killed turkish sultan that day. New sultan went back to Turky and did not make any further progres. So Serbs did stop Otomans for some period of time.

certainly if the acounts are true milos obilic deserves to be revered as hero by all europeans. but ultimately this did not prevent the subjugation of serbia nd the islamic encroachment upon europe.
Serbia acted magnificently in impossible circumstances and it should be considered a shameful low point for all european countries that they couldnt unite to provide effective support for the southern european nations.

[dragomix]

You are right. You see in europ muslim states are only on balkan. You have two Albania and Bosnia and Hercegovina (half of it is Republika Srpska). I think that we did not went out that day to fight there would be more muslim states in europ.

[KARTLOS]

You are right. You see in europ muslim states are only on balkan. You have two Albania and Bosnia and Hercegovina (half of it is Republika Srpska). I think that we did not went out that day to fight there would be more muslim states in europ.

yes I think that serbia and its neighbouring countries have been let down consistently by the rest of europe, and you are still suffering the consequences. it is a travesty that not only was the invasion allowed to take place, but also that once it had occured it took so long rectify it. this was more understandable in the 1600's when the european and the turk could be considered somewhat equals. However by the 1800's the military supremacy of europeans was such that the continued turk presence in europe is a shameful indictment on the self-interested policy of the various european powers. With a concerted effort the greek war of independence could have included the return of constantinople and the historically hellenic coastline of asia minor. I think the crimean war were the british allied themselves with the frenchman and propped up the decrepid turc regime is a historical low point for british foreign policy (unfortunately this fact has been completely overshadowed by the events on the field!). they certainly got their comeupence in ww1.

... back on topic - serbia was a great nation with an important historical role and an exciting geo-political starting position and i hope some mods can get them in the game swiftly!

[Kavhan Isbul]

The Europeans missed too many chances to repulse the Ottomans from Europe. First, the Balkan rulers did not realize the threat, and never made a concerted effort. The Byzantines kindly invited them to the Balkans, and when they asked the Bulgarians and Serbs for help, they did not receive any. At Chernomen a 10 times larger Christian army was obliterated by a small ottoman force, showcasing the difference between superb Ottoman commanders and their poor Christian counterparts. After the battle at Kosovo, only a few years later in the battle of Nicopolis it was the Serb of Stefan Lazarevich that won the vitory for the Ottomans. Then in 1402 after the battle of Ankara, when the Ottoman Empire was in disarray everyone simply watched. The Bulgarian heirs to the thone allied themselves with Musa, one of the ottoman princes in the civil war. The Serbs did not do much either, and the West just thought it was over. It was not, but it could have been only a few decades later thanks to Huniadi. During the second campaign of Wladyslaw and Huniadi though, the Serbs and the Wallachians simply proved unloyal allies and did not come to the Crusaders' help (perhaps fearing the Crusaders more than the Ottomans, and for good reason, but still). And then the Venetians instead of preventing the Ottoman fleet from crossing the straits, actually transferred it over (for the right sum of gold, of course). Only after Constantinople fell it became abvious that the Ottomans are a threat, comparable to that of the Mongols centuries earlier. But it was a bit too late for the Christians on the Balkans by then.
However, there were more chances in the early 17th century. After the second siege of Vienna failed in spectacular fashion, Eugene of Savoy was driving the Ottomans out of Europe, and there were rebellions all over the Balkans. If the French did not stab the Austrians in the back, it might have been very different.
But at the end, had our rulers in the 14th century been just a bit wiser, and not neglected the threat, we might have stopped the Ottomans before they even became a factor. I do not blame the West, I blame the Bulgarian tzar's and boyars' shortsightedness (the same applies to the Serbs and the Byzantines). Obviously no lessons were learned, as in 1913, during the Balkan war when the Bulgarian army was 40 kilometers out of Istanbul, and the coalition of Balkan states had practically won the war and thrwon the Turks out of Europe for good (or so we thought), we were able to again get into a dispute over a few barren hills in Macedonia, allowing the Turks to retake Eastern Thrace. They have signed a treaty giving this land to the coalition, but after they took advanatge of our internal disputes and retook it, none of the Great Powers who were supposed to observe the treaty did anything...

[KARTLOS]

The Europeans missed too many chances to repulse the Ottomans from Europe. First, the Balkan rulers did not realize the threat, and never made a concerted effort. The Byzantines kindly invited them to the Balkans, and when they asked the Bulgarians and Serbs for help, they did not receive any. At Chernomen a 10 times larger Christian army was obliterated by a small ottoman force, showcasing the difference between superb Ottoman commanders and their poor Christian counterparts. After the battle at Kosovo, only a few years later in the battle of Nicopolis it was the Serb of Stefan Lazarevich that won the vitory for the Ottomans. Then in 1402 after the battle of Ankara, when the Ottoman Empire was in disarray everyone simply watched. The Bulgarian heirs to the thone allied themselves with Musa, one of the ottoman princes in the civil war. The Serbs did not do much either, and the West just thought it was over. It was not, but it could have been only a few decades later thanks to Huniadi. During the second campaign of Wladyslaw and Huniadi though, the Serbs and the Wallachians simply proved unloyal allies and did not come to the Crusaders' help (perhaps fearing the Crusaders more than the Ottomans, and for good reason, but still). And then the Venetians instead of preventing the Ottoman fleet from crossing the straits, actually transferred it over (for the right sum of gold, of course). Only after Constantinople fell it became abvious that the Ottomans are a threat, comparable to that of the Mongols centuries earlier. But it was a bit too late for the Christians on the Balkans by then.
However, there were more chances in the early 17th century. After the second siege of Vienna failed in spectacular fashion, Eugene of Savoy was driving the Ottomans out of Europe, and there were rebellions all over the Balkans. If the French did not stab the Austrians in the back, it might have been very different.
But at the end, had our rulers in the 14th century been just a bit wiser, and not neglected the threat, we might have stopped the Ottomans before they even became a factor. I do not blame the West, I blame the Bulgarian tzar's and boyars' shortsightedness (the same applies to the Serbs and the Byzantines). Obviously no lessons were learned, as in 1913, during the Balkan war when the Bulgarian army was 40 kilometers out of Istanbul, and the coalition of Balkan states had practically won the war and thrwon the Turks out of Europe for good (or so we thought), we were able to again get into a dispute over a few barren hills in Macedonia, allowing the Turks to retake Eastern Thrace. They have signed a treaty giving this land to the coalition, but after they took advanatge of our internal disputes and retook it, none of the Great Powers who were supposed to observe the treaty did anything...

great post.

the sad thing is that now it is unrealistic/unfeasible to hope for a change of current political borders and as such they are pretty much set for ever. if the europeans had got their act together earlier, constantinople would once again be a greatcultural capital.

[Papewaio]

Istanbul seems a great cultural capital too IMDHO.

[KARTLOS]

Istanbul seems a great cultural capital too IMDHO.

IMDHO - does this mean In My Humble Opinion?

yes of course it is stilll an important city, and there is alot to see. however if it had been reclaimed for the west 100 or so years ago then i think it would be one of the most signigant cities in the world. as it is many cultures in the region are cut off from their spiritual homeland.

[Papewaio]

IMDHO = In My DisHonourable Opinion

I disagree with the idea that it would have been greater if it was Christian. Nor do I think Christianity is as tied to a single location as others, I would think that there are more important places. Constinapole was important as a trade center and capital, the religous aspect follows those two very closely... ie wherever the people and the wealth is so shall ye find the religion.

So the religion of the city is a secondary characteristic and is because it is a great city, the city is not great because of religion.

[KARTLOS]

IMDHO = In My DisHonourable Opinion

I disagree with the idea that it would have been greater if it was Christian. Nor do I think Christianity is as tied to a single location as others, I would think that there are more important places. Constinapole was important as a trade center and capital, the religous aspect follows those two very closely... ie wherever the people and the wealth is so shall ye find the religion.

So the religion of the city is a secondary characteristic and is because it is a great city, the city is not great because of religion.

im not religious myself, and i dont think it is important for constantinople to be "chrisitian", i just feel that it is a shame that it was not returned to its western greek origins.
people in europe do not look towards towards istanbul with favour as it is part of turkey their historic (islamic) opressors. The point is that despite turkeys secular pretensions, most of the non-islams were murdered/forced out of the country during the formation of the current state of turkey. as such constanople is stuck in a mono-cultural nation and gives little sense of belonging to its western neighbours. if it was currently part of a european nation then i think it would be much more of a magnet in the region.

[dragomix]

I heard some rumors that serbia will be loct for play, or it will be playble in total realisam mod. Is that true? And something about Istambul (constantinopolj), if someone could just give back Aja Sofija. That was the bigest Pravoslav Circh in the world.

[Kavhan Isbul]

Oh no, I do not want to change any of the current borders in the world, and on the Balkans in particular. We have the game for that. I have been to Turkey a few times and I do not look upon the Turkish as my former oppressors, I look at them as neighbors, in a similar boat such as my own country. And Constantinople is a great city, perhaps thanks to the Ottomans - it was in decay before they captured it. Sure, they put minarets on Haggia Sophia, but to tell the truth, they did far less damage to the churches than the Christian Crusaders (who simply plundered anything they could lay their hands on, including mosaics pieces). Thanks to the Fourth Crusade, you can see more from the former Eastern Roman Capital in Venice, than in Istanbul today. At least this is what I found out after visiting both places. And as much as I would have preferred fort he Ottomans to stay in Anatolia and never copme over, I admire the achievements of their Empire while it was still on the rise, until the early 17th century. It was with its decay that the athrocities against the Christians in their lands really started, during the conquests the Ottomans treated the newly conquered population quite well, and much better than the Crusading Hunagrians or Poles (who unlike the Ottomans were extremely religiously intolerant), and the Venetians in Greece.
Anyway, back to the topic. The history of Eastern Europe during the Middle Ages is just as fascinating as the history of Western Europe. Unfortunately, in this game the emphasis is placed heavily on the west and the 100 years war, the Reconquista and the relations between the HRE and the Papacy. The East is included only as a crusading detsination and is misrepresented as a place full of underdevelopped regions full of insignificant factions and rebels, from where hordes of Muslims and Mongols appear to provide a continental challenge for the Western Catholics when they were on the verge of collonizing the New World. At least this is my impression from all the previews of the game so far.
The Orthodox states are given an isignificant role in this game, but in reality it is good to keep in mind that if it was not for the Eastern Roman Empire, the Bulgarians, the Serbs and the Russians to act as a buffer between Europe and invaders from Asia, Europe may have never moved out of the so called Dark Ages (which were not so dark in East). Apart from historical inaccuracy, I think this detracts from the game as it leaves it sort of one-dimensional and takes a lot of diversity out. The poor city name selection (using modern names as opposed to Medieval ones, and including cities that were built late in the Middle Ages and were insignificant compared to others) further takes away from the game, as it ruins the atmosphere. Little details, but they are so easy to fix, only if someone does a few hours of research.

[dragomix]

You are compleatly right. And I hate moust when West Europians look at us like we are some underdevelopped region whit no history. They look at all Ortodox (especial Catholics) like we are their enemy.

[Innocentius]

The Orthodox states are given an isignificant role in this game, but in reality it is good to keep in mind that if it was not for the Eastern Roman Empire, the Bulgarians, the Serbs and the Russians to act as a buffer between Europe and invaders from Asia, Europe may have never moved out of the so called Dark Ages (which were not so dark in East).

That's not completely correct. Moving out of the "Dark ages" was quite inevitable, as evolution is something that happens one way or the other. I am probably not as good at eastern European history as you are, but for what I know, the only real "threat" to western Europe by the late 5th and early 6th century was the muslims. They were stopped in the east by the Byzantines, and in the west by Charlemagne (these are of course simplifications, reality is never easy).
But if the muslims had conquered Europe, I don't see why these lands shouldn't have moved out of the Dark age. The muslims at this time were far more technologically and military advanced than the Europeans, so this would have taken wester Europe out of the Dark ages as well, just in another way.

The way you wrote it, it seems like you are talking about the medieval times ("invaders from Asia"), by which time even western Europe had moved out of the Dark ages.

You are compleatly right. And I hate moust when West Europians look at us like we are some underdevelopped region whit no history. They look at all Ortodox (especial Catholics) like we are their enemy.

I'm neither Catholic nor western European, and I don't know the exact relationship between catholics and orthodox christians, but one must remember that the catholics and orthodox christians didn't approach each other in a "less hostile", or even friendly way untill the 20th century. Before that there was a thousand years of rivalry between Rome and Constantinople.

[LegioScythia]

That's not completely correct. Moving out of the "Dark ages" was quite inevitable, as evolution is something that happens one way or the other. I am probably not as good at eastern European history as you are, but for what I know, the only real "threat" to western Europe by the late 5th and early 6th century was the muslims. They were stopped in the east by the Byzantines, and in the west by Charlemagne (these are of course simplifications, reality is never easy).
But if the muslims had conquered Europe, I don't see why these lands shouldn't have moved out of the Dark age. The muslims at this time were far more technologically and military advanced than the Europeans, so this would have taken wester Europe out of the Dark ages as well, just in another way.

The way you wrote it, it seems like you are talking about the medieval times ("invaders from Asia"), by which time even western Europe had moved out of the Dark ages.



I'm neither Catholic nor western European, and I don't know the exact relationship between catholics and orthodox christians, but one must remember that the catholics and orthodox christians didn't approach each other in a "less hostile", or even friendly way untill the 20th century. Before that there was a thousand years of rivalry between Rome and Constantinople.

Each one considered them self to be the right path of the religion and the others heretics some times the relations were bad as much as with Islamic nations just look at what the Teutonic order did

[Kavhan Isbul]

Well, Innocentius, the threat could not have been in the 5th century, for that was the time of the great migrations, and two centuries before Mohammed was even born. The Arabs became a serious thread only in the 8th century, and despite French myths about the significance of the battle at Tours, they were really stopped in the East and never allowed to establish a foothold in Europe here. The turks were at the doorsteps of the Eastern Roman Empire probably even before that - the Avars were already in nowadays Hungary. The Byzantines were able to stop first the Arabs, and then wave after of wave of Turks, until they were attacked from the Crusaders and finally ruined. In the emantime theyw ere able to convert us and the Russians to Christians. Imagine a Muslim Russia - scary, right?

What would have happened if the Eastern Roman Empire was not as a wall in front of the Arabs on their way to Europe, we cannot know what would have happened. There would have been no Rennaisance for sure. Just before the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans, there are frescoes in churches that suggest that these lands were on the brink of the Rennaisance. After their conquest, it arrived as late as the late 18th or even early 19th century. Also, in the 14th century, Bulgaria and England both had an estimated population of approximately 2.6 million people. In 1878, when we were liberated, we were still 2.6 million, and I believe England was more than 20. You are perhaps right that Europe would have moved out of the Dark Ages, but it might still be stick in the Middle Ages, if the Arabs were not stopped in Asia Minor.

The only contribution of the West in all this was to ruin the main buffer between Europe and the Asian invaders, which allowed tha letter to lay two sieges to Vienna. And this was at a time when Europe had developped itself significantly, trade was flourishing and the New World with its resources was discovered. If the Eastern Roman Empire was gone earlier, and the Pagan Slavs and Turks in the east were converted to Muslims, the chances of the Franks to stop the spread of Islam coming from all sides and converting the Pagans in Central Europe and the North would have been a very hard, not to say impossible task.

[Miloshus]

Serbia was one of the strongest kingdoms in medieval time, Serbian king has stoped the great Turkish invasion in year 1389 at Kosovo battle, and if there werent Serbs to stop the Turkish invasion, the whole eastern Europe including Austria would be under Turkish command (imagin half of Europe being muslims, quite disturbing isnt it?!),
so I think there should be Serbian empire at MTW2.

[Miloshus]

You are compleatly right. And I hate moust when West Europians look at us like we are some underdevelopped region whit no history. They look at all Ortodox (especial Catholics) like we are their enemy.

You are right,but you cant expect the country like Serbia wich was from 15th century under Turkish command till 1815, when Serbes destroyed Turks and got their independance, and lost half of population during the first and second world war to be rich and developed region.


And try to correct your spelling