"...1345 and concluding in 1530..."

[Carpathian Wolf]

I'm curious why the choice of 1530 was made to conclude the timeline? Why not expand it to the 1600s? My reasoning for this is because of the inclusion of Mihai Viteazul, perhaps the most successful commander against the Ottoman Turks.

Another reason would be (and i don't know if this has been done already) we could add Poland into the mod and we could play out the Polish Turkish War. Perhaps we wouldn't have them right from the start but act as an emerging faction considering that they weren't all that active in the Balkans until a bit later on.


Also will there be an Albanian faction?

[The Noble Lord]

Because it's the mid 1500s that are considered by some historians to be the end of the middle ages. This mod is only suppose to cover the middle ages of Balkan history and that's all.
And, Albania would not be a faction because during that time 1345-1530 it was not a state nor a kingdom in a recognized national-political framework!

[Carpathian Wolf]

But the standard of the middle ages is more so based on western europe than eastern. Wouldn't it make more sense to respect the political situation in the Balkans and use that as a basis of when the mod ends?

Sure this is true about Albania but what do we do about Skanderbeg?

[slavic_crusader]

sice albania was an independent nation in the middle ages?

[phoenix[illusion]]

I'm curious why the choice of 1530 was made to conclude the timeline? Why not expand it to the 1600s? My reasoning for this is because of the inclusion of Mihai Viteazul, perhaps the most successful commander against the Ottoman Turks.

Another reason would be (and i don't know if this has been done already) we could add Poland into the mod and we could play out the Polish Turkish War. Perhaps we wouldn't have them right from the start but act as an emerging faction considering that they weren't all that active in the Balkans until a bit later on.


Also will there be an Albanian faction?

for the date, it's the end of middle ages. and those 70 years would make harder to make mod, cause of new troops.

poland is much higher on map, and making the poland would also mean making all other countries around it.
for emerging faction, it's quite good idea, but all slots are filled out. no more faction slots, cause almost every faction has it's riot fiaction, the one which split that faction onto two.

albania was never a faction in middle ages. it was pretty much under byzantine empire, and later under ottomans. Skanderbeg is a good idea for resistance against the turks, but yet no free slots.
if you ask me that Skanderbeg guy wasn`t such a hero. he was firstly defending albanian tribes against the turks, but later as he was conquered, he took islam as his religion and fought with turks. and later as Hunyadi defeted some turkish troops, he baptised himself into christianity and again fought against the turks. so if you ask me, he was only looking for his benefit.

[Bosnae]

Welcome to the cruel world of opportunism, that's the reason why Skanderbeg is so well known, i'm mean his not the only one Tvrtko I is today praised as one of the best medieval balkan stateleaders, in fact he was also a cold blooded witty opportunist, thats what makes an good and succesfull Statsman in the Medieval Period. I think that Skenderbeg was never interessted to present himself as an hero, just as you said Phoenix he just worked for his own benefit....thats the sad truth.

[Bosnian_King]

Welcome to the cruel world of opportunism, that's the reason why Skanderbeg is so well known, i'm mean his not the only one Tvrtko I is today praised as one of the best medieval balkan stateleaders, in fact he was also a cold blooded witty opportunist, thats what makes an good and succesfull Statsman in the Medieval Period. I think that Skenderbeg was never interessted to present himself as an hero, just as you said Phoenix he just worked for his own benefit....thats the sad truth.

I totally agree with you. The kings of the middle ages were not much interested in their people. The most of all where they were interested in was their own interest. But that is not important from the perspective of today. The kings and queens of the middle ages form an important part of the national pride of modern nation. Look for instance at the English anthem:



Look at the Dutch anthem: Prince Willem van Nassau: the most important Dutch king ever:



etc. etc. What I want to say is that it is logical that many nations point to their kings. Because in the middle ages it were the kings and queens who represented national soevereignity. Following the koncept of the middle ages, the were holy. For example; the Bosnian kings and also the Bosnian bans of the 12., 13. century; the call their right to rule as "god's will" but the crown was a proof of international recognition of the "rule by god's will" and from the perspective of today that has something powerful. But in reallity, in that time it was nothing different than interest with very very little nationality.

For us as Bosnians, for example, today it is beautiful that king Tvrtko conquered half of Croatia, that he held the Adriatic see in his hands, half of Montenegro, parts of Serbia... but I am sure that a medieval inhabitent of the Bosnian kingdom ; who was not part of the political nobility, did not care a lot about the fact that Bosnian borders moved for 100%.

[The Noble Lord]

@Bosnian_King
Since you posses the impressive knowledge of the Bosnian medieval history, what is your opinion on two subjects that sort of related to Bosnian medieval history.
First one is, what you think of those "supposed" ancient pyramids that are being unearthed in Visoko??

And second one is, there are two or three villages on top of the mountain Bjelasnica (One of them is called Lukomir) and people that live up there fit so much into the medieval profile of Vlachs. I came across that article while researching something for Tsardoms, it is actually two British anthropologists that spent some time up there and came up with that conclusion. What is your opinion on the issue??

[Bosnian_King]

@Bosnian_King
Since you posses the impressive knowledge of the Bosnian medieval history, what is your opinion on two subjects that sort of related to Bosnian medieval history.
First one is, what you think of those "supposed" ancient pyramids that are being unearthed in Visoko??

And second one is, there are two or three villages on top of the mountain Bjelasnica (One of them is called Lukomir) and people that live up there fit so much into the medieval profile of Vlachs. I came across that article while researching something for Tsardoms, it is actually two British anthropologists that spent some time up there and came up with that conclusion. What is your opinion on the issue??

I was in Visoko two years ago and I visited those "so called" pyramids. Definteley there is something under the earth. I saw something like blocks which are 100% man made. But if you ask me then I would say that that hill is not a pyramida but that there are remainings of the medieval town of Visoki which was once the capital of the Bosnian state.

About the villages I can say that it is a big coinsidence that you ask for it because my father was born in one of those villages. My mother always said that those people in those villages at the mountain of Bjelasnica are, according to her opinion originating from Vlachs. My gradpfather and grandmother are both born in one of those villages. Are they originating from the Vlachs? I don't know. I only know that those people, my gradparents, have had a very hard live. They worked whole their live very very hard just to survive. My father has got a lot of ground at this Bjelasnica mountain and I am planning to start a business there after finishing my university.

Near those villages at the Bjelasnica mountain you can find a lot of remainings from medieval Bosnia which is very interesting to me. We can find stecks in the village of Sabici. This is a village of about 50-60 inhabitants only. You can find also a lot of stecks at the most beautiful places which ordinary peole do not know but I know those places because my father showed them to me. From those stecaks I can conclude that there had to be villages wit good organisation at the mountain of Bjelasnica during the middle ages. I don't know a lot about it but I know that it is a beautiful mountain, with the beautiful rakitnica river and I am connected to this mountain because I remember that I went to this mountain as I chield every weekend with my parents from Sarajevo to the village of my gradfather (about 45 minutes with the car) and then my gradfather waited for me with his horses and he out me on the horse and we made little trips trough that beautiful landscape. We still have got a house in that village, only my grandparents are not amongs the livings unfortunately.

Stecaks at Bjelasnica:



Stecaks near the village of Sabici:



The Bjelasnica mountain:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Village at the Bjelasnica mountain:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Carpathian Wolf]

Well the majority of the people in the Balkans were Dacians, Thracians and Illyrians. Those people were Romanized. What does that make? A Vlach. Migratory nations are usually in much smaller numbers than the established populace and genetics havn't changed much since the paleoithic. In that regard, everyone is a 'vlach' in the Balkans be they Croat, Serb, "Bosniak", Bulgarian, Albanians etc. But due to political and cultural happenings the slavic languages prevailed in most of those countries.

[slavic_crusader]

i disagree slavs in the balkans look different from romanians, albanians, greeks. I think we are different from them but we have some similirities

[Carpathian Wolf]

i disagree slavs in the balkans look different from romanians, albanians, greeks. I think we are different from them but we have some similirities

How do they look different? Maybe slightly more slavic influence but it's so meager. Again genetically speaking the "slavs" in the Balkans are closer to Romanians and Greeks than with Poles or Russians.

[NikeBG]

I think we already discussed that in another thread. And, btw, Thracians were Hellenized, not Romanized. I don't know about the Illyrians though.

[Bosnian_King]

Slavs were organised war tribes which managed to dominated the very weak organised Ilirians who were not war tribes. So when the Slavs came to the balkans they conquered the lands of the Avars and they started to rule over the land and the Ilirians who were Romanised in the time before the Slavs.

The Slavs as I said, were dominant; so the Slavenised the Ilirians and used them for recruitement. The Ilirians became also Slavs but not by blood. If we want to know the genetic composition of Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia then we can look at the site of Igenea and we will see that stilll today the majority of the people from the Balkans have Ilirian blood.

http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=49a&id=38

[slavic_crusader]

yes of course we do just like most of us have even turkish blood. Im just sayin in general we look different from them. its what i see. of corse there are a few exceptions but that happens everywhere

[Carpathian Wolf]

I think we already discussed that in another thread. And, btw, Thracians were Hellenized, not Romanized. I don't know about the Illyrians though.

I think you are confusing Thrace:

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

With ancient Thrace which was pretty much modern Bulgaria, FYROM and much of northern Greece.

yes of course we do just like most of us have even turkish blood. Im just sayin in general we look different from them. its what i see. of corse there are a few exceptions but that happens everywhere

Actually probably the other way around. Modern day Turks are more Greek, Latin, Thracian, Phygrian, Kurdish, Armenian, Georgian, and Arab than anything else. Not to mention the many many other Balkan people who were taken as Ieniceri and eventually settled in Anatolia. I'd say there is a higher chance of a modern day Turk to have Serb, Croat, Romanian, Bosniak, Albanian, Bulgarian and Greek blood than the other way around since the actual Turk aspect of the Turks was already quite watered down by the medieval era...let alone today.

Modern day Turkey is inhabited by Turkified Anatolians more so than actual Turks.

[NikeBG]

I think you are confusing Thrace:

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

With ancient Thrace which was pretty much modern Bulgaria, FYROM and much of northern Greece.

I'm not confusing it, I mean exactly the Thracians. Though, true, their Hellenization was the strongest especially along the sea coasts and in the southern part, but it's considered that the Thracians got mostly Hellenized (and their descendants are the groups like the Karakachans today) and only minorly Romanized (unlike the Dacians which were mostly Romanized). This is what is considered to be the "boundary" between the Thracian and the Dacian branches.

Actually probably the other way around. Modern day Turks are more Greek, Latin, Thracian, Phygrian, Kurdish, Armenian, Georgian, and Arab than anything else. Not to mention the many many other Balkan people who were taken as Ieniceri and eventually settled in Anatolia. I'd say there is a higher chance of a modern day Turk to have Serb, Croat, Romanian, Bosniak, Albanian, Bulgarian and Greek blood than the other way around since the actual Turk aspect of the Turks was already quite watered down by the medieval era...let alone today.

Modern day Turkey is inhabited by Turkified Anatolians more so than actual Turks.

Besides the janissaries, don't forget also the deportations to Diarbekir, the earlier resettlements in that area (heck, there was even a small Bulgarian kingdom there which was founded by exiled Bulgarians after 1071 and which lasted a bit longer than the original Balkan Bulgaria), and even earlier - the mass resettlements of Slavs and other groups from the 7th century onwards. So Anatolia was probably even more mixed than the Balkans and, I agree, the Turkish genetic influence there would have probably been minimal.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I think you are confusing Romanized with Latinized. Romanized can refer to both Latin and Hellenic elements as they were both co-dominant in the Roman Empire. So while the Thracians closer to Greece were "Hellenized" this does not exclude the fact that that entitles Romanization.

[NikeBG]

Yes, sorry, I actually meant Latinized. Forgot that Romanized could be understood with a double-meaning.

[Zmaj od Noćaja]

albania was never a faction in middle ages. it was pretty much under byzantine empire, and later under ottomans. Skanderbeg is a good idea for resistance against the turks, but yet no free slots.
if you ask me that Skanderbeg guy wasn`t such a hero. he was firstly defending albanian tribes against the turks, but later as he was conquered, he took islam as his religion and fought with turks. and later as Hunyadi defeted some turkish troops, he baptised himself into christianity and again fought against the turks. so if you ask me, he was only looking for his benefit.

Totally agree