Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 186

Thread: 1648: The Two Towers

  1. #101
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,440

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    11. Repuplic of Ragusa -> if controlled by human player it can changed to Kingdom of Croatia
    Makes literally 0 sense, the kingdom of Croatia legally existed at this timeline and had absolutely no political ties with the republic of Ragusa.
    Replacing Croatia, a kingdom-like state in total war with the Turks for centuries with Ragusa, a city state that did barely anything of any importance after 1667 is ludicrous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    16. Principality of Montenegro -> if controlled by human player it can changed to Kingdom of Serbia
    Also makes literally 0 sense.
    The principality of Montenegro was created in 1852 and had nothing to do with the kingdom of Serbia which ceased to exist 1346 and was reformed as a separate political entity in 1882.

  2. #102

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    @Marius Marich

    You're half- or maybe two thirds- right.

    Even as somebody who is skeptical about having both the Kingdom of Croatia and the Republic of Ragusa in, I am not sure I see the two merging or evolving ala the Kalmar Union.

    But as for Montenegro, you are wrong about the date. Montenegro's inland clans asserted more or less independent power between the Ottomans and the Venetian Littoral. By the time this mod would start they would've been electing their own leader for about a century. Who led the struggle to contest Turkish power, which only escalated to an outright move to force the Porte to recognize them as independent in the 19th century.

    You could also do with toning down the rhetoric, especially if you don't have complete, perfect knowledge of what you are talking about

    (And nobody does)..
    Last edited by Turtler; January 10, 2015 at 01:43 AM.

  3. #103
    Gigantus's Avatar The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Modding Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    46,927
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Let's be nice to each other, yes?



  4. #104
    Libertus
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Carpathian Basin
    Posts
    90

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    What is this submod timeframe?
    Maybe I searching pictures about units of Transilvanian Principality, and Hungarian Kingdom's units under Habsburg leading.
    (Sorry my bad english!)

  5. #105
    hyretic's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    525

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    The timframe is: 1600-1648.

    It isn't a submod. It is more Sistermod. A few things are the same, but many things, map, another factions, a different timeframe, because of this it is more a sistermod for us.


  6. #106
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,440

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    Kingdom of Croatia and the Republic of Ragusa in, I am not sure I see the two merging or evolving ala the Kalmar Union.
    ...?
    I said something to support this or?

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    But as for Montenegro, you are wrong about the date. Montenegro's inland clans asserted more or less independent power between the Ottomans and the Venetian Littoral. By the time this mod would start they would've been electing their own leader for about a century.
    Irrelevant, the territory they controlled was more or less under the political dominion of Venice and was so small you could barely fit it onto a single province(even in this mod's local area world) and the later formed principality of Montenegro(which also barely had a territory worthy of a province on a map) became and actual state two centuries after this sistermods enddate.

    Same for them being politically interchangeable with the kingdom of Serbia is as ludicrous as Austria being politically interchangeable with Prussia.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    You could also do with toning down the rhetoric, especially if you don't have complete, perfect knowledge of what you are talking about
    I was merely surprised by the notions/suggestions.

  7. #107

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    There is almost nothing authoritative and scholarly enough on the internet that is available free of charge on any topic whatsoever. So, if anyone knows of a book with a reasonable historical treatment of the area around Croatia, Hungary and modern Romania at that time, please post a link. Any informative maps from that period would also be useful.

    I am sure Monti was thinking that the areas of modern Romania, Croatia, and Serbia-Montenegro had the potential of developing a unified national idea - and that potential had its origins in the mists of the 17-18th C. Of course Montenegro is not Serbia, etc. Also the fact that there were some autonomous regions does not mean that they had a plan of empire or that they were even militarised. But in the end modern states appeared out of that region, so the potential was there.

    I just found this interesting interactive map of 16th C Europe. There is an index with various historical regions that had some kind of at least autonomous state - called "dependencies". Click on Mani, Zagorochoria (Zagori), Mirdita, Montenegro, Ragusa, etc. These are probably approximate or average areas since the map probably covers a wider period. There is Transylvania but no separate Siebebuergen. Also no Moldova. And no Croatia. Can anyone enlighten us? Have they been left out accidentally?

  8. #108

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Since the mid-15th century Hungary and Croatia were attacked by the Ottoman Empire. After the defeat of the Hungarians and Croats against the Ottomans at the Battle of Mohács (1526), was elected Ferdinand I of Habsburg to the Croatian king of the Croatian nobility at the meeting of Cetingrad

    The historic Croatian landscape Dalmatia and Istria were parts since the late Middle Ages under the rule of the Venetian Republic. The Republic of Dubrovnik/Ragusa could keep only one of the territories of present-day Croatia from the 14th century until 1808 their national independence.

    ------------------------------------

    Moldavia, Walachia.. The Wallachian prince Mihai Viteazul (Michael the Brave) managed to become the first Prince to rule over Moldavia, Wallachia, and Transylvania. From July 1600 to August 1600.... After lost battle at Mirăslău against Basta. He was assasinated.

    --------------------------

    fact is, thats a mod. i want to have some minor factions in mod with the chance to get a real faction (again). Would i only do historic absolutly correct modding, there would ne no factions of greek, bulgarian, albanian, montenegro and only ragusa, but without a chance to become croatia, because the ruling families were italians.
    Last edited by Monguntiacum; January 10, 2015 at 11:54 AM.

  9. #109
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,440

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffrey of Villehardouin View Post
    I just found this interesting interactive map of 16th C Europe. There is an index with various historical regions that had some kind of at least autonomous state - called "dependencies". Click on Mani, Zagorochoria (Zagori), Mirdita, Montenegro, Ragusa, etc. These are probably approximate or average areas since the map probably covers a wider period. There is Transylvania but no separate Siebebuergen. Also no Moldova. And no Croatia. Can anyone enlighten us? Have they been left out accidentally?
    Most historical maps are simplistic and inaccurate.
    I'l see what I can find.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    ragusa, but without a chance to become croatia, because the ruling families were italians.
    Italians had nothing to do with Dalmatia until the 20th century, and the Venetians never step foot in Dubrovnik after 1358.
    Everything southeast from Istria was populated exclusively by Slavs with a local (also slightly/heavily Slavenized)Romanic ruling class here and there.

    Again, having Croatia formed from Ragusa is not only unhistorical, it is idiotic.
    Last edited by Gigantus; January 10, 2015 at 11:17 PM. Reason: wrong forum for that kind of argument

  10. #110

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    ...?
    I said something to support this or?
    No, I was saying the new faction list you critiqued did. I actually agreed with you that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    Irrelevant, the territory they controlled was more or less under the political dominion of Venice
    If anything, it was the opposite; the Venetian littoral was tiny and largely buffeted by the independent highlands that dominated most of the region. And I note that this directly goes against the what you would later say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    and was so small you could barely fit it onto a single province(even in this mod's local area world) and the later formed principality of Montenegro(which also barely had a territory worthy of a province on a map) became and actual state two centuries after this sistermods enddate.
    A: As for the "barely fit into a single province", that list issue. But we could also say the same for the Republic of Ragusa/Dubrovnik.

    B: The bottom line is that still contradicts what you said barely a post earlier, where you claimed that it didn't exist for centuries. When in fact the transformation into an independent state was mostly contiguous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post

    Italians had nothing to do with Dalmatia until the 20th century, and the Venetians never step foot in Dubrovnik after 1358.
    For the former claim, even a quick look at Wikipedia can say otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Dalmatia (And while I know Venice is the special child of Italy and that Venetian isn't even in the same language family as the other Italic ones, I do believe they qualify as "Italian" in this sense). Dalmatia was under Venetian domination for centuries even long after Venice stopped dominating almost anything. While that hold was always somewhat teneous and the population was heavily Slavic, how that somehow means they had "nothing to do with it" mis beyond me.

    As for the latter, that is not true. It's accurate to say that Ragusa and Venice nourished some rather bitter rivalries after the end of Venetian hegemony over the city, but they were still trading cities standing right next to each other on the "extended lagoon" that the Adriatic was at this point. So *of course* Venetians set foot in Ragusa/Dubrovnik and vice versa.

    In fact, this is noteworthy because some of the major signs of the rivalry between the two came from the protectionist policies they enacted against each others' trade, and some incidents where Venetians in particular could get in trouble when visiting. All written down if you care to read it in either the medieval/Renaissance languages or modern transcripts.

    And even this didn't change the two from setting aside their rivalries to commit to common causes like the attempt to bolster Indian/Muslim resistance to the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    Everything southeast from Istria was populated exclusively by Slavs with a local (also slightly/heavily Slavenized)Romanic ruling class here and there.
    By this point in time Dalmatia had been under Venetian domination for centuries, and had been subject to fairly steady but uneven Italicization (or Venetianization). The "Slavs" had often intermarried with Tuscan and Venetian colonists in the region, had often adopted some of the veneers of Italicization, and had often gone across the "pond" to look for work and an education in Penninsular Italy as well as to the East in Royal Croatia. This was a large part of the reason why the Italo-Slav leadership and high culture was formed and existed for so long in places like Ragusa/Dubrovnik.

    The idea that they were exclusively anything smacks of nationalistic wishful thinking and a fair bit of propaganda rather than the actual anthropology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    Again, having Croatia formed from Ragusa is not only unhistorical, it is idiotic.
    And this is where I flat out stop having any words.

    Even though I actually disagree with outright turning Ragusa into the Kingdom of Croatia (unless it's done specifically)*, there is No Reason Whatsoever that you have to say it like this. None.

    We've already mentioned extensively how Ragusa and RoyaL Croatia are problems as factions; so it's highly unlikely that any workable solution will be perfectly historical. In the end it doesn't have to be; it just has to work between the history and gameplay.

    As somebody who has disagreed (often times quite stridently) with some of the mod staff, there can be No Justification for disrespect of this magnitude. And it's more likely to have your points ignored than anything else.

    * For the record, the main way I could see Ragusa/Dubrovnik turning into the Kingdom of Croatia is if we turn the pre-existing Royal Croatia into some sort of Habsburg puppet state or provinces of Austria, and then allow Ragusa to "found" a "real" Kingdom of Croatia if they can seize those provinces. Or maybe even have it so that if Royal Croatia and Ragusa go to war and the latter destroys the former the latter can chose to take on the King. of Croatia tag for itself.

    Either way has issues, but I feel that almost any other would as well.
    Last edited by Gigantus; January 10, 2015 at 11:19 PM. Reason: continuity\really not needed

  11. #111

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Ragusa:
    The Republican Constitution of Ragusa was strictly aristocratic. The Republic was also a staunch opponent of the Eastern Orthodox Church and only Roman Catholics could acquire Ragusan citizenship. Speculum Maioris Consilii Rectores, lists all the persons that were involved in the Republic's government between September 1440 to June 1860, were from "old patrician" families: Gozze, Bona, Caboga, Cerva, Ghetaldi, Giorgi, Gradi, Pozza, Saraca, Sorgo, and Zamanya. In the 17th century, 50% of the dukes and senators were from the following families: Bunić, Gundulić, Gučetić, Menčetić, Sorkočević. So we can see, the leading families were italians and croatians.
    One of 29 playable factions in this mod, is the "Republic of Ragusa". And that faction i will give the tiny chance to change into "Kingdom of Croatia". If that faction is played by a human player AND some terms are fulfilled (inc. some croatian core regions). If the players don't want to have that chance for that faction, no problem. That would spare us some work with coat of arms, banners/flags, renaming, eg.

  12. #112
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,440

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    A: As for the "barely fit into a single province", that list issue. But we could also say the same for the Republic of Ragusa/Dubrovnik.
    Which is why I find it strange as a choice of playable faction instead of Croatia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    B: The bottom line is that still contradicts what you said barely a post earlier, where you claimed that it didn't exist for centuries. When in fact the transformation into an independent state was mostly contiguous.
    False, I claimed no such thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    The extreme accusations and blanket statements make me believe they aren't the ones at risk for dealing with WWII propaganda.
    Maybe I should apologize, but my frustration is justified.
    You have no idea how many times I had to endure remarks from nationalistic morons that half of my country belongs to Italy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    For the former claim, even a quick look at Wikipedia can say otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Dalmatia (And while I know Venice is the special child of Italy and that Venetian isn't even in the same language family as the other Italic ones, I do believe they qualify as "Italian" in this sense). Dalmatia was under Venetian domination for centuries even long after Venice stopped dominating almost anything. While that hold was always somewhat teneous and the population was heavily Slavic, how that somehow means they had "nothing to do with it" mis beyond me.
    Overstatement on my part, true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    but they were still trading cities standing right next to each other on the "extended lagoon" that the Adriatic was at this point. So *of course* Venetians set foot in Ragusa/Dubrovnik and vice versa..
    Thank you Captain Literal.
    What ever would we do without you?

    I was merely stating that Venetians had no important influence in creating Dubrovnik as a city and prosperous republic it later became apart from being its immediate rival and enemy.
    A fact that eludes an alarming amount of "historians" and "regular" people alike.


    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    By this point in time Dalmatia had been under Venetian domination for centuries, and had been subject to fairly steady but uneven Italicization (or Venetianization).
    Not really, Italian influence was mostly felt in Istria, in Dalmatia, Venice had huge problems throughout their reign, which permanently did not begin until the second half of the 15th century considering it took Venice 70 years to conquer Dalmatia city by city, island by island since even after Dalmatia was sold to Venice, the locals simply refused to integrate peacefully with the island of Krk being last to "fall"(1482).

    The population was rebellious against them to such an extent that the stationed garrisons in the cities had to be brought from abroad and the soldiers were legally forbidden to marry local women and interact with locals just to minimize the ever present possibility of revolt and dissidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    The "Slavs" had often intermarried with Tuscan and Venetian colonists in the region
    There were no such "colonizations", merely individual families relocating due to business and trade.
    Even during the last century of their reign, "Italians" had barely any noteworthy commune in Dalmatian cities, the largest one being in Zadar accounting for less than 2-3% of the population while the entire west coast of Istra was settled with a significant Italian majority.


    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    had often adopted some of the veneers of Italicization, and had often gone across the "pond" to look for work and an education in Penninsular Italy as well as to the East in Royal Croatia. This was a large part of the reason why the Italo-Slav leadership and high culture was formed and existed for so long in places like Ragusa/Dubrovnik.
    This is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    The idea that they were exclusively anything smacks of nationalistic wishful thinking and a fair bit of propaganda rather than the actual anthropology.
    As I stated above, this topic created frustration considering how often people claim Dalmatia, Istria and Dubrovnik as purely Italian in modern times.


    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    Even though I actually disagree with outright turning Ragusa into the Kingdom of Croatia (unless it's done specifically)*, there is No Reason Whatsoever that you have to say it like this. None.
    Yes there is, it makes no historical sense, it makes so little sense that it borders comedy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    One of 29 playable factions in this mod, is the "Republic of Ragusa". And that faction i will give the tiny chance to change into "Kingdom of Croatia".
    Whelp, I give up.



    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    The Republican Constitution of Ragusa was strictly aristocratic. The Republic was also a staunch opponent of the Eastern Orthodox Church and only Roman Catholics could acquire Ragusan citizenship. Speculum Maioris Consilii Rectores, lists all the persons that were involved in the Republic's government between September 1440 to June 1860, were from "old patrician" families: Gozze, Bona, Caboga, Cerva, Ghetaldi, Giorgi, Gradi, Pozza, Saraca, Sorgo, and Zamanya. In the 17th century, 50% of the dukes and senators were from the following families: Bunić, Gundulić, Gučetić, Menčetić, Sorkočević. So we can see, the leading families were italians and croatians.


    Again, those were local Romanic Dalmatian families, not Italians, and some of those names are actually Italian versions of Slavic families names.


    I hope my initial frustration is understood now.

    Best regards
    Last edited by +Marius+; January 10, 2015 at 06:57 PM.

  13. #113

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    Which is why I find it strange as a choice of playable faction instead of Croatia.

    Again, those were local Romanic Dalmatian families, not Italians, and some of those names are actually Italian versions of Slavic families names.
    Maybe.

    Anyway. As i know, was Ragusa a very important place for development of croatian literature and culture. And when i look onto a map of 1600, i see only Ragusa as a possible croatian playable faction, which could be, the nucleus of a reborn croatian kingdom. the so named still existing croatian kingdom was in fact nothing more then an austrian province, like the hungarian areas of Austria.
    Last edited by Monguntiacum; January 10, 2015 at 07:55 PM.

  14. #114
    Gigantus's Avatar The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Modding Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    46,927
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    You have no idea how many times I had to endure remarks from nationalistic morons that half of my country belongs to Italy.
    As long as I am in charge of the 1648 forum you can rest assured that this angle of discussion will not be tolerated. So, let's get back to the factual, historical discussion (there's a moron for you ), everyone, please?

    Edit: and I won't tolerate personal attacks\comments either
    Last edited by Gigantus; January 10, 2015 at 11:22 PM.



  15. #115
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,440

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    Maybe.
    No, not maybe.
    Yes is the proper response
    There were no actual "Italian" families among the ruling class of Dubrovnik.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    the nucleus of a reborn croatian kingdom. the so named still existing croatian kingdom was in fact nothing more then an austrian province, like the hungarian areas of Austria.
    That "province" elected the Habsburgs on a separate parliament with a legal decree by the Croatian sabor(1527) and continued to have a parliament/military/judiciary system separate from Austria thus legally existing as a separate kingdom until 1918 when the sabor/parliament was finally dissolved and the kingdom of Croatia legally ceased to exist.


    Do not confuse Austria and the House of Habsburg, nor overestimate the connection between the two.


    Need I remind you that, regardless of its awesome might and power, Austria(as a political entity) was from 1453 to 1804 just an archduchy.
    Simply put, Austria was just a localized territorial Margraviate of the Holy Roman Empire, whilst Croatia and Hungary on the other side were politically separate entities(kingdoms)...thus legally above Austria itself when it comes to the notion of statehood.


    It was not until the creation of the Austrian Empire in 1804 that the various states under the Habsburgs(family) were finally united into a single "state"(the one most people know today as the Habsburg state).

    Also, before that date the Habsburgs never managed to dissolve the Croatian parliament(even during times of open treason), however, nearly immediately after the creation of the Austrian Empire it was dissolved until 1825, thus finally rendering Croatia as a province...at least for a decade or two.
    Last edited by +Marius+; January 11, 2015 at 12:40 AM.

  16. #116

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    de jure mate. de facto, a province.

    The Emperor was: Archduke of Austria, King of Bohemia, King of Hungary, King of Croatia, eg. But at first, he was emperor. And he was the King of Croatia. I could do a Kingdom of Croatia as a faction in game. I could do a "Croatian Estate" like i do it with Bohemia. Because the Bohemian Estates rebelled in 1618 against the Habsburgs. They give their crown, after second fenestration of Praha, to another german prince, the Elector of Palatinate. That ends with the Battle of White Mountian. And bloody massacres.

    If Croatian Estates have had given their crown to another prince or a croatian noble. What would have happened?

    Maybe like the many rebellions of the people at the also de jure existing Kingdom of Hungary: the Kurucs Uprisings, The Magnate Conspiracy, the revolt of István Bocskai,...
    Maybe like the Uskoks, after an agreement between Venice and Austria, Count Joseph de Rabatta was appointed to act as commissioner to those in Senj as well as the chief negotiator with the Venetians. Rabatta came to Senj in 1600 , his time ruling over the Uskoks was brutal where many Uskoks were hung or sent to fight in the Turkish war. Austria used the Uskoks as fighters against the Turks, but they dropped these guys like a hot potato, when i was opportune.

    Do not confuse de jure with de facto.
    Last edited by Monguntiacum; January 11, 2015 at 01:33 AM.

  17. #117
    isa0005's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Australia, Victoria, Melbourne
    Posts
    1,416

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    So how's progress?

    I'm really intrigued by the Greek Rebels faction . Imagine that! a Byzantine Empire reborn in the 1600s!

  18. #118

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Its going on. Now we´re rolling again. At the moment we steamrolling with the map. After that we have lots of work to do. But at one point we will need help, the units. We have many units we can use of our own mod, "1648: Thirty years of war". But we will need help of other mods for more units: Italian, Walachian, Uskoks, Moldavian, Ottomans, Maltesian Knights, and many more. Some of these units we could maybe getting by other mods. But some must be done new. Example: Greek Rebels and if some player get the big prize: Renaissance of Byzantine Empire, a new byzantine Army with the Weapons of 17. century. How would they look alike, how would the called? That need help of guys who are good with Milkshape
    Last edited by Monguntiacum; January 11, 2015 at 02:40 AM.

  19. #119

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    @Gigantus

    Thank you as always. I wouldn't have expected anything less from you.

    @Marius Marich

    A few quick words on this before we move on.



    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    Maybe I should apologize, but my frustration is justified.
    You have no idea how many times I had to endure remarks from nationalistic morons that half of my country belongs to Italy.
    Actually, I think I do. As a historian and someone of primarily Italian descent (whose family suffered from the mechanations of Il Moose etc. al.) I am well aware of ultranationalist scum. Including the Neo-Blackshirt Brigades and their internet presence. I've had to slap them around a few times before. So I can sympathize.

    But that does not mean we should sacrifice history like they do. Replicating that

    Especially since Dalmatia fell victim to two racist agendas by totalitarian governments in the modern era. One of which was Fascist Italian (the "Regency" takeover of Fiume/Carnaro/Rijeka) trying to force Italicization at gunpoint and suppress the Croatian/Slavic/non-Italian population and its' history. But the other of which was Yugoslav, particularly under Tito after WWII. Who after evicting the Axis from the country/ies- ironically with a force that included many Italian volunteers/defectors, some of whom were locals- began to evict the Italian population and start forcible Slavicization in place of the Italicization. He tried to remove as many signs of there being any kind of Italian history to the region at all, just like Mussolini before him tried to deny that there was a non-Italian history.

    As we know, Tito mostly succeeded. Even where Mussolini's cultural oppression (and gratuitous slaughtering) had failed. The actual history was never destroyed or forgotten, but by the time he was dead the "Italian" communities and culture that had lived for something like millennia on the Eastern bank of the Adriatic had ceased to exist. And some of the rhetoric from the prior posts (that Italians had nothing to do with Dalmatia prior to the 20th century, etc) practically read straight from that script. Which was written (probably unknowingly) in order to justify a rather heinous policy not unlike Mussolini's.

    I am obviously not writing this in order to justify some kind of annexation of half of Croatia to the modern Italy, or the ethnic cleansing of Croats. What's done is done; the people living there know what they want and have the right to have it. The Blackshirts are all the more guilty for advocating those crimes be repeated. But that also doesn't mean we should forget that there has been a long, long history of Roman and Italic influence in those reasons (any more than we should overlook the Slavic/Croatian ones). That region has been across the Adriatic from Italy for thousands of years after all, while the Slavic migrations into most of Europe happened during the 5/6th centuries C.E.

    Why should we deny history, cut off our nose to spire our face because of some ultra-nationalist lunatics, or assume that those saying otherwise are that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    I was merely stating that Venetians had no important influence in creating Dubrovnik as a city and prosperous republic it later became apart from being its immediate rival and enemy.
    A fact that eludes an alarming amount of "historians" and "regular" people alike.
    Then you should have outright stated that. Not some other attempt at an equivalent but which would up factually inaccurate.

    "No" miiiight be an overstatement, but I'd be inclined to agree; by the end of the 12th century Ragusa/Dubrovnik had already gained a lot of the important benchmarks for the trading hub it would be; and the Venetians only came in with the Fourth Crusade and their tribute demands were draconian.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    Not really, Italian influence was mostly felt in Istria,
    Agreed; I was using a wider definition of Dalmatia because that was how non-locals often defined it during the era. That might account for some of the discrepencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    in Dalmatia, Venice had huge problems throughout their reign,
    Agreed; hence why I mentioned that this was not exactly something like a harmonious relationship or that the region was as "Venetian as Venice." Nope, and I think that would be a sizable factor in this mod.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    which permanently did not begin until the second half of the 15th century considering it took Venice 70 years to conquer Dalmatia city by city, island by island since even after Dalmatia was sold to Venice, the locals simply refused to integrate peacefully with the island of Krk being last to "fall"(1482).
    True, but Venetian influence and power over that had waxed and waned over the past several centuries, right back to when they were still nominally part of Byzantium and were driven out on a rail in the 7th century CE. So this campaign was also something of a re-conquest/re-assertion of Venice's longstanding claims to the region and a move to protect the shipping

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    The population was rebellious against them to such an extent that the stationed garrisons in the cities had to be brought from abroad and the soldiers were legally forbidden to marry local women and interact with locals just to minimize the ever present possibility of revolt and dissidence.
    Agreed, and I do think the Venetian/Croatian tensions in the area should be represented in game. Probably as rebels a Venetian player would have to deal with and an enemy of Venice could exploit (Especially if you are Ragusa and you want to take advantage of the great enemy and your cultural affinities with the rebels....). But as I mentioned before, it waxed on and off. The legal prohibition to interact and marry were fairly typical Renaissance Italian policies when dealing with turmoil (and it gets seen even on the Peninsula like with the Podestas), and they were not always in force (in part because Venice was always in need of manpower).

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    There were no such "colonizations", merely individual families relocating due to business and trade.
    That is what I meant by "colonists;" my apologies for any misunderstandings. Though it was a bit less ad-hoc than it would seem because it often happened when city overcrowding kicked in and the government decided to (politely) kick a few people out and send them to the countryside or other areas where ther ewere less.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    Even during the last century of their reign, "Italians" had barely any noteworthy commune in Dalmatian cities, the largest one being in Zadar accounting for less than 2-3% of the population while the entire west coast of Istra was settled with a significant Italian majority.
    If I may: this was largely because what truly defined a Medieval/Renaissance Italian (style?) Commune was Independence (from foreign rule and feudal oversight short of the Holy Roman Emperor and Pope, or at least a long tradition of it. Which was the very last thing Venice wanted in Dalmatia; especially since a powerful Communal rival on the Eastern Adriatic shore could have seriously endangered their power on the whole (and indeed Ragusa/Dubrovnik and Fiume/Zadar were the closest things to that and both threatened to do it).

    Which probably explains a lot why Venice preferred to take their chances with the local Croatian powerbrokers rather than risk setting up a headache-inducing Commune ont heir own back porch.

    And ironically means that one could make an argument that the most successful Italian-style Commune in Dalmatia was the one that called itself the "Republic of Dubrovnik" and was probably the least Italian.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    As I stated above, this topic created frustration considering how often people claim Dalmatia, Istria and Dubrovnik as purely Italian in modern times.
    Those people are

    A: Lunatics

    and

    B: Not present in this thread or forum. So they are not a concern.

    Remember that you're not the only person who has cause for frustration on the topic. Especially since there is a directly opposite school of thought (that is just as silly).

    One that believes that there was no Italian population or history in the region whatsoever and that anything to the contrary is Fascist propaganda; but that if there were, Tito's plan to persecute them out of existence was a good idea.

    I don't think you're one of them, but some of the stuff you mentioned would sound oddly like them. So you might want to watch that.

    So I hope you can understand that A: I am not one of them, and B: my frustration/ "Captain Literal" tendencies about sensitive topics like these.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    Maybe.

    Anyway. As i know, was Ragusa a very important place for development of croatian literature and culture. And when i look onto a map of 1600, i see only Ragusa as a possible croatian playable faction, which could be, the nucleus of a reborn croatian kingdom. the so named still existing croatian kingdom was in fact nothing more then an austrian province, like the hungarian areas of Austria.
    I agree on the former. But as for the latter, those "provinces" were more than capable of plotting and rebelling against the Habsburgs on occasion. As we see with the original Transylvanian horde faction in vanilla 1648 and the historic conspiracy attempt by Croatian and Mygar/Transylvanian German leaders to rise against the Empire. Royal Croatia was by far more pacific than Royal Hungary was, but that doesn't mean the potential isn't there. Especially since it had some autonomous laws and things on their own (as befitting a place on a permanent state of martial law and military alert).

    Quote Originally Posted by Marius Marich View Post
    That "province" elected the Habsburgs on a separate parliament with a legal decree by the Croatian sabor(1527) and continued to have a parliament/military/judiciary system separate from Austria thus legally existing as a separate kingdom until 1918 when the sabor/parliament was finally dissolved and the kingdom of Croatia legally ceased to exist.

    ===============================================

    Need I remind you that, regardless of its awesome might and power, Austria(as a political entity) was from 1453 to 1804 just an archduchy.
    Simply put, Austria was just a localized territorial Margraviate of the Holy Roman Empire, whilst Croatia and Hungary on the other side were politically separate entities(kingdoms)...thus legally above Austria itself when it comes to the notion of statehood.


    It was not until the creation of the Austrian Empire in 1804 that the various states under the Habsburgs(family) were finally united into a single "state"(the one most people know today as the Habsburg state).

    Also, before that date the Habsburgs never managed to dissolve the Croatian parliament(even during times of open treason), however, nearly immediately after the creation of the Austrian Empire it was dissolved until 1825, thus finally rendering Croatia as a province...at least for a decade or two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    de jure mate. de facto, a province.

    The Emperor was: Archduke of Austria, King of Bohemia, King of Hungary, King of Croatia, eg. But at first, he was emperor. And he was the King of Croatia. I could do a Kingdom of Croatia as a faction in game. I could do a "Croatian Estate" like i do it with Bohemia. Because the Bohemian Estates rebelled in 1618 against the Habsburgs. They give their crown, after second fenestration of Praha, to another german prince, the Elector of Palatinate. That ends with the Battle of White Mountian. And bloody massacres.

    If Croatian Estates have had given their crown to another prince or a croatian noble. What would have happened?
    I think these issues are fascinating, and could easily pop up.

    For instance:: What if one of the minor German states gets tired of twiddling its' fingers during a lull in the Turk Smash*, and proceeds to Off the Habsburgs of Austria? What happens then?

    I think there is a lot of potential for some very interesting things to happen with Royal Hungary and Royal Croatia with that in mind and other possibilities in place.

    * Yes, I know it's terrible but I couldn't resist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    Maybe like the many rebellions of the people at the also de jure existing Kingdom of Hungary: the Kurucs Uprisings, The Magnate Conspiracy, the revolt of István Bocskai,...
    Maybe like the Uskoks, after an agreement between Venice and Austria, Count Joseph de Rabatta was appointed to act as commissioner to those in Senj as well as the chief negotiator with the Venetians. Rabatta came to Senj in 1600 , his time ruling over the Uskoks was brutal where many Uskoks were hung or sent to fight in the Turkish war. Austria used the Uskoks as fighters against the Turks, but they dropped these guys like a hot potato, when i was opportune.

    Do not confuse de jure with de facto.
    Agreed, and the former is why I think the Hungarian and Croatian "provinces" could be far more rebellious and possibility-laden than merely some more provinces for the Austrian Habsburg faction.

    Agreed about the Ushoks; it's a classic case of outliving their usefulness and failing for the last time. They were also used as proxies against Venetian Adriatic trade (because Venice was perhaps the most prominant anti-Imperial and pro-Protestant commune in Northern Italy, and some back and forth between it and the Ushoks dragged in people and factions from all over around the same time as a period in the THirty Years.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    Its going on. Now we´re rolling again. At the moment we steamrolling with the map.
    That's awesome!

    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    After that we have lots of work to do. But at one point we will need help, the units. We have many units we can use of our own mod, "1648: Thirty years of war". But we will need help of other mods for more units: Italian, Walachian, Uskoks, Moldavian, Ottomans, Maltesian Knights, and many more. Some of these units we could maybe getting by other mods. But some must be done new. Example: Greek Rebels and if some player get the big prize: Renaissance of Byzantine Empire, a new byzantine Army with the Weapons of 17. century. How would they look alike, how would the called? That need help of guys who are good with Milkshape
    I'll help however I can.

    But as a quick word: The Knights of Saint John/Malta saw relatively few "proper" members/knights who were actually Maltese. IIRC most were French or Italian outside of a few who were actually born on the island. Maltese were more likely to be "enlisted" militia, men at arms, and sailors under the knights. And there was some discontent over this. Which was why the Maltese were generally happy to see Napoleon and the French force the order out.

  20. #120

    Default Re: 1648: The Two Towers

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    Agreed, and the former is why I think the Hungarian and Croatian "provinces" could be far more rebellious and possibility-laden than merely some more provinces for the Austrian Habsburg faction.

    Agreed about the Ushoks; it's a classic case of outliving their usefulness and failing for the last time. They were also used as proxies against Venetian Adriatic trade (because Venice was perhaps the most prominant anti-Imperial and pro-Protestant commune in Northern Italy, and some back and forth between it and the Ushoks dragged in people and factions from all over around the same time as a period in the THirty Years.)



    But as a quick word: The Knights of Saint John/Malta saw relatively few "proper" members/knights who were actually Maltese. IIRC most were French or Italian outside of a few who were actually born on the island. Maltese were more likely to be "enlisted" militia, men at arms, and sailors under the knights. And there was some discontent over this. Which was why the Maltese were generally happy to see Napoleon and the French force the order out.

    1) Maybe, what could be rebellious factions of hungarians and croatians. But in fact, we have 29 slots for factions. And i have already a hungarian faction: Principality of Transylvania. And i have already a croatian faction: Republic of Ragusa. So i give to these both factions the tiny chance to "free" their Kingdoms. I have 29 Slots and i have to tell the and a story of the humans between 1600-1648 at our map. I have to choose what factions i take into the mod. The factions must have a real and well reasons for their existence. There are some italian factions (Parma, Lucca, Modena and Mantua) i did not into the mod. They would be on the map, they really existed. But i had no room for them. They did in 1600-1648 nothing important for the story i want to tell. I have no slovakian oder slowenian faction, because i guess there "getting a nation" is more in later times, i could not find a real reason why they should be a faction here. Also i guess, it wouldnt be fair, to kick out two factions, to create two more factions of hungarians and croatians. What factions should i kick out? Venice? Austria? The Ottomans? To get two hungarian factions, or two croatian factions?


    2) I know that the Order recruited mainly french and italian knights. I´m historian, too :-)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •