Axis Minor Nations

[funat]

Claiming that Bosnia is Croatian (or Serbian or Klingon) is no more than nationalist propaganda that already caused several wars. It's the same about Kosovo, Alsace or Northern Ireland or any other mixed area that found itself in the middle of forming national states. There is no physical evidence that even King Tomislav existed or that he was a king (no grave, no money, no picture, no state documents, no crown, no children, NO NOTHING)! Just tales from a second and third hand (History of Salona), where he reminds of Ragnar of Vikings - no proof but a living legend. There is no proof that his "state" (a barbaric territory without cities or laws) ever crossed into Bosnia, more likely to southern parts of Herzegovina. The whole "history" is mostly without proof and mostly serves nationalists (from all sides) for their agenda (which is ironic as there was no nations at those times so who are we to claim who was Croat and who was for example Roman or Bohemian).

As for orthodox people under Ottomans - it's perfectly logical and sane because the Orthodoxy had its seat under Ottoman rule (orthodox patriarchs were subjects of Sultan - be it in Serbia, Greece, Armenia or Assyria). Catholics had their leader outside of the Empire and they were not to be trusted as the Pope was considered a western player (and rightfully so).
The same thing happened even on the West where Irish Catholics were never trusted by the English and Irish protestants. The Home Rule act (for autonomy of Ireland) was known as "The Rome rule" among protestants on the north.

As for the film The Dagger, of course it is by Serbian nationalist. My point was that BOTH (Serbian and Croatian) nationalists CLAIM Bosnia(ns). The truth is non-existent - it's just a mixed area that was a "state" just as Croatia was. The only exception was Serbia that actually had a real state in middle ages (with laws and rules), but less than 30 years (1346–1371 - wiki - Empire of Serbia). The rest were no more than barbaric chiefdoms that payed "protection" to various big players in the area.

[funat]

CroCop 96, why don't you stop wasting your time on political discussions and lengthy diatribes. You mentioned that you'd like to create a mod. That would be much more productive, so that we can play it.

Yup - agree. Make the mode so I can play the partisan side

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Also, I forgot - there were no Catholics and Orthodox Christians before the 1054 Great Schism...

Garbage. Rome and Constantinople (and the Abyssinian Coptic church) had been rifting apart slowly ever since the Council of Chalcedon (325 AD), with that rift made quite obvious when the pope (stupidly) decided to have a shot at the ERE by proclaiming Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans".

1054 was just the final break.

The only exception was Serbia that actually had a real state in middle ages (with laws and rules), but less than 30 years (1346–1371 - wiki - Empire of Serbia). The rest were no more than barbaric chiefdoms that payed "protection" to various big players in the area.

Both Serbia and Croatia had states. Serbia lasted into the 1400s before being conquered by the Ottomans. Croatia was independent from 9th to 11th centuries (and probably a little bit of time either side).

I object to the concept of 'barbaric chiefdoms': before the Christianisation around 950-1100, a lot of areas not under Karling influence were tribal: Poland, Scandinavia, Hungary, Brittany (a little bit), Ireland, Hungary and Russia. This didn't stop the 7 Polish tribes banding together whenever an external threat appeared (In essence forming the background for a united Poland). The Vikings established a successful kingdom in England for 150 years.

The Mongols also technically fit into your category, but if that was the case then how are they able to form the largest empire on the planet?

*** I LIVE A GOOD 15-20 000 KMS AWAY FROM THESE AREAS. PLEASE DON'T FORM THE OPINION THAT I AM SUPPORTING EITHER SIDE IN A CROAT/SERB DEBATE. ***

- BNC

[funat]

BNC - more like a Cro left/Cro right debate:D I agree with you that maybe "barbaric chiefdom" is too harsh from my side, but you have to admit that a state should have a capital, at least some kind of standing army (maybe not in feudalism) and a set of laws. These entities merely had a "king" - whose remains are usually not found, and their existence is claimed usually through folklore and/or Porfirogenet and similar authors and historians in that era that lived in real cities (remains of antique empires).

It's hard to find a lot of "real states" on the map of most of Europe in the middle ages. Usually the maps from that age and outside of established kingdoms and known cities (Franks, East Romans, etc..) show names of peoples over some territory but without cities or clear borders. But yes - we can stretch a little bit and call it a state, and even give a name to its people (which is even more stretched given the tribal and not national context).

We are also returning to that story now where you have stateless territories (Mad Max areas) - Libya, CAR, South Sudan, Eastern Syria, although the territory is claimed by sovereign states. But we also have modern feudalism now so history is repeating on all levels.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

BNC - more like a Cro left/Cro right debate:D I agree with you that maybe "barbaric chiefdom" is too harsh from my side, but you have to admit that a state should have a capital, at least some kind of standing army (maybe not in feudalism) and a set of laws. These entities merely had a "king" - whose remains are usually not found, and their existence is claimed usually through folklore and/or Porfirogenet and similar authors and historians in that era that lived in real cities (remains of antique empires).

I won't say that is entirely wrong, but it isn't fully right either. A "state" in 800 has very different standards to one in 1800. In the 8th and 9th centuries tribalism was the norm outside of the Karling realms, the Roman Empire, and wherever the Muslims happened to have conquered. Even then, the Karlings didn't really have a capital in the modern sense of the word: Charlemagne spent a lot of time in Aachen, but his capital in the sense of the royal demesne was probably Rethel, a small town in north modern France. AFAIK Aachen wasn't ever part of the land owned by the Karling dynasty.

These days however, territory claimed by the Islamic terrorists are certainly not a state: our standards are a lot different (190 something official organised countries). Each (nearly) of the countries around today has an organised government with bureaucratic officials and the like, and any "state" or slab of territory without one is not considered a proper country. However, medieval countries didn't have any of this, so are we to suddenly assume that only 3 countries existed before the 1400s?

I could go on, but it would probably be a waste of time.

- BNC

[McGuba]

hm... getting slightly off-topic?

[funat]

However, medieval countries didn't have any of this, so are we to suddenly assume that only 3 countries existed before the 1400s?

- BNC

Not before 1400's, but after Roman empire collapse.
Hence the "Dark ages" name. I totally think there were 3-4 proper countries and the rest was pretty much chaos for a few hundred years.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

hm... getting slightly off-topic?

Not as bad as the 54000 thread!

However, medieval countries didn't have any of this, so are we to suddenly assume that only 3 countries existed before the 1400s?

- BNC

Not before 1400's, but after Roman empire collapse.
Hence the "Dark ages" name. I totally think there were 3-4 proper countries and the rest was pretty much chaos for a few hundred years.

I won't stop you thinking that then

- BNC

[CroCop96]

UPDATE!

1) Funat and I have agreed to work together on the Yugoslav Front mod
1.1) Yeah, it's better we put our energy to working on the mod rather than discuss history here!

2) I congratulate everybody, especially all you guys not from Funat's and mine corner of the world, on your knowledge about the subject (as well as on your general historical knowledge, but that is to be expected from a WW2 strategy fan )

3) Dear admins, sorry for the OT, but at least it's a historical discussion and besides, our mod team just grew to 2 people!

[verstaubtgesicht]

UPDATE!

1) Funat and I have agreed to work together on the Yugoslav Front mod
1.1) Yeah, it's better we put our energy to working on the mod rather than discuss history here!

2) I congratulate everybody, especially all you guys not from Funat's and mine corner of the world, on your knowledge about the subject (as well as on your general historical knowledge, but that is to be expected from a WW2 strategy fan )

3) Dear admins, sorry for the OT, but at least it's a historical discussion and besides, our mod team just grew to 2 people!

Sounds promising! My 2c: this should be heavily terrain-dependent - maybe a meager 3-4 general defense for partisan units, but a super high close defense in forests, etc.

[funat]

True, partisan units are mostly local - so they know terrain better and that should be calculated in the equasion. Also reinforcements should be cheaper as they draw volunteers.

[PanzerCro]

UPDATE!

1) Funat and I have agreed to work together on the Yugoslav Front mod
1.1) Yeah, it's better we put our energy to working on the mod rather than discuss history here!

2) I congratulate everybody, especially all you guys not from Funat's and mine corner of the world, on your knowledge about the subject (as well as on your general historical knowledge, but that is to be expected from a WW2 strategy fan )

3) Dear admins, sorry for the OT, but at least it's a historical discussion and besides, our mod team just grew to 2 people!

when mod will be finished ?

[Elkarlo]

I think it would be fun if on the Eastern front the Romanian or Hungarian Aux units involved during your battles were controlled by the AI. Would add an interesting dynamic to the game. As you would be forced to help or slow down your advance if they go too slow or stumble into trouble.