Romanian Factions Requierd

[edyzmedieval]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.