the M*ldavia hyperwar may have ended but the Bulgaria hyperwar is underway
- 10
- 2
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The migration of the Albanians towards the rest of Epirus and Greece was starting in 1337 according to most sources. Despite that, I have already included a few Albanian minorities in those places. Expecting Albanian majorities in 1337 is far from historical, unless you can prove otherwise.
Everything you are discussing in most of your posts happens after 1337. That is why the result is different.
It is cool that you being Albanian wants to play with Albania, but the reality is that 1337 was not a great year for your people. It is what it is. I have tried to be as faithful as possible to history, without preferences.
- 9
- 5
This!
Should be your signature and first response to walls of useless text
I would love to read a TT on how this very problem shaped and steered certain decisions during the crafting and refining of the EU5 map from its early ideas and plans at the start of game development and onward.
- 2
The TT would be photos of me losing my mind reading stuff, trying to get everything together and then bumping my head with a wall. This during 10s of hours. Nothing pretty to see.
Last edited:
- 8
- 2
- 1
Proper Kafka material. One day it will be a classic!
Karpman's Drama Triangle will hit its peak when you had to tell Johan that state & provincial borders are, in essence: ''Everything you are discussing in most of your posts happens after 1337. That is why the result is different.''
- 1
I did prove it though in my posts concerning my Shkodre/Skadar, Vlore/Avlona and Dibra/Debar. I can even give another source for Dibra by Oliver Jens Schmitt
Source:
Skdanderbeg der neue Alexander im, Balkan: (translated in english)
"Clear spatial boundaries between the language groups did not exist in the Middle Ages. Larger, cohesive language areas cannot be identified in Dibra. Numerous people with Slavic and Albanian names live side by side in villages. However, a name alone cannot be used to determine a person's linguistic affiliation with absolute certainty. Although the mountainous uplands were considered Slavic and the lower regions Albanian in the schematic classification of Barletius, the biographer of Skanderbeg, name lists from Ottoman tax registers indicate a complex linguistic stratification. In Lower Dibra, the valley floor, in the main town of Piskupij al-Peshkopia, was home primarily to people with Slavic names, while Albanian name forms predominated in the villages in the surrounding hills and mountains.47 The altitude of a settlement, the difference between the valley floor and the mountains, was the deciding factor. In Upper Dibra, the Slavic population made up a larger proportion of the local population than in the lowlands, where Albanian speakers formed the majority; still, Albanians lived among the Slavs there too. The Slavs, in turn, were divided into two groups: In Pislcupija, Serbian influence predominated in personal names, borne by the tradition of Serbian statehood that had spread from Kosovo Field down into the valley of the Black Drin. However, the further south one went from Pislcupija, the stronger the Bulgarian influence became, radiating from the old ecclesiastical center of Ohrid."
So we know Lower Dibra was a clear Albanian albanian majority and Upper Dibra the slavic was proportionally bigger then the albanian one. Majority of the location is in lower Dibra while Upper Dibra has other locations steal the land wich was defined as part of Upper Dibra. Now that only leaves room for interpretation to decide, do you believe the Upper Dibra population was a demographically supersized majority who dwarfed lower Dibra by several factors. If yes I got nothing to argue cause I couldnt find population stats. if no then the map is inaccurate.
Anyway atleast was this official confirmation on the brown in Thessaly being Albanian and not Aromanian? Cause its still not possible for me to tell using only the colour.
About what you said yes wasnt Albanian majoritys in Thessaly and Epirus before the stardt date since we were at the beginning of the migration wave and it can be said the true demographic majority shift arrived after the serbian conquest of Albania and the accompanying conquest of northern greece (the real life one not the ingame province).
I would say the dissapointing thing is there isnt a event to show this happening, maybe add some trigger wich makes the pops move south when Serbia conquers the province or give Serbia a event choice to get more manpower in return for pops moving the Greece since the Serbian conquest didnt start the immigration but it accelerated them.
Thank you for readng.
- 2
- 1
If the major Albanian migrations into Greece begin around 1337, then why do Arvanites exist as a culturally distinct group from other Orthodox Tosk Albanians?
- 3
But all those Albanian dukes were vassals of Dušan. You can also play as a vassal, and then win?
He is asking for historical proof, now i appreciate that the dev is still open for changes and feedback regarding the balkans after the playthrough we saw on youtube, although i disagree with not giving a chance to play as my country.
I actually remember reading that there were already Albanians in Thessaly by the early 1330s, living in the mountains and coming down to the valleys in winter.
"Before he left Thessaly, the emperor received a deputation from the Albanian immigrants, of whom there were by now about 12,000. They lived mainly in the mountains and came down to the plains only for the winter months. The winter was then coming on and the Albanians asked for the emperor's protection for fear that they might be set upon by the Greeks. In return they did homage to him and promised to be his loyal subjects. By the end of 1333 the emperor was in Thessalonica. He could congratulate himself that within a few months he had recovered most of Thessaly, dealt skilfully with the Despot of Epiros and pacified the Albanians."
Nicol, D. M. (1984). The Despotate of Epiros, 1267–1479: A contribution to the history of Greece in the Middle Ages (p. 104). Cambridge University Press.
"Andronicus III spent that winter, 1332–33, in Thessaly; while there he concluded agreements with the local Albanian chieftains, who lived not in towns but in the mountains, and came down into the valleys in the winter. They seem to have represented three tribes—the Malakasi, the Buji, and the Mesariti—containing twelve thousand Albanian tribesmen"
Fine, J. V. A., Jr. (1987). The late medieval Balkans: A critical survey from the late twelfth century to the Ottoman conquest (p. 253). University of Michigan Press.
They could be building-based tags. But then I'm in a dilemma, what will we show all the internal vassals who were present in European countries, such as ministerials, knights, castellans, barons, counts, etc.? Unless the Albanian vassals had as many rights and independence as the Holy Roman vassals. If they had enough rights, then they should be land-based vassals of Serbia. Otherwise, a solution or proposal for the whole of Europe needs to be found on how internal building-based vassals would be treated, or if there will be any at all.
- 1
- 1
The migration of the Albanians towards the rest of Epirus and Greece was starting in 1337 according to most sources. Despite that, I have already included a few Albanian minorities in those places. Expecting Albanian majorities in 1337 is far from historical, unless you can prove otherwise.
Everything you are discussing in most of your posts happens after 1337. That is why the result is different.
It is cool that you being Albanian wants to play with Albania, but the reality is that 1337 was not a great year for your people. It is what it is. I have tried to be as faithful as possible to history, without preferences.
Thank you again for your effort and for replying. I appreciate the work that goes into representing regions like the Balkans, and I understand that 1337 is a tough starting point for Albania historically. Still, I want to voice a concern that I hope is taken as constructive feedback from someone who has spend years
playing and supporting Paradox titles.
-I acknowledge that many key Albanian developments happen after 1337, thats also true for other regions that are represented in game. Take the Serbian Empire, for example: after Stefan Dusan death in 1355, the empire quickly fragmented. This was not a minor event-it was one of the defining events of the century in the Balkans. Regional control collapsed, provinces became autonomous, and principalities like Zeta, Dukagjini, and others started to emerge. In the playthroughs I have watched (e.g. Napoli by Quarbit, Byzantium by Ludi) I see the game includes major historical events like the Black Death and the rise of the Ottomans. But this equally crucial moment, the implosion of Serbia and the rise of new Balkan principalities-seems absent. That feels inconsistent, especially when historical realism is such a core design goal. - As an Albanian player, Im not asking for favoritism. We are asking for a fair chance for players from our region to engage with their own history-just as others can. Even a mechanic that triggers the Serbian collapse post-1355 could allow smaller nations like Zeta, Brankovic, or Albanian principalities in Shkodra and Dukagjin and Has regions to breathe and develop. These regions had Catholic identities, Venetian influence, and unique cultural landscapes that made them distinct not much later in the 14th century.
Principalities post 1355, giving also room for players from Montenegro to play as Zeta. The represented picture above will give an idea of other principalities.
Last edited:
- 1
Zeta only started to emerge in 1400s, as a direct result of Venetian usurpations of East Adriatic. Bay of Kotor had solid catholic communities, and Bar was a center, but by all means influence in Zeta was always more Orthodox. Centuries of Venetian occupation (and religious repression at times) didn't change this.
@Inzano I don't seem to understand the scope of the game fully yet. But vassals like Muzaka or Thopia may be more than building based vassals imo. But you can definitely say that for Serbian vassals too.
The map below shows the exact land ownership around 1355 and afterwards. One of the guys related to Albania and the mess there in that time, is "Caesar" Preljub and his son, Thomas Preljubović, who fought with Albanian dukes a lot.
Attachments
Last edited:
- 1
I must respectfully contest the assertion that Zeta only began to emerge in the 1400s due to Venetian influence. Historical records indicate that the fragmentation of the Serbian Empire following Stefan Dusan death in 1355 led to the rise of semi-autonomous regions, including Zeta.
-The Balshaj family established control over Zeta between 1356 and 1362, marking the beginning of its development as a distinct political entity. This period saw Zeta functioning with a degree of autonomy, engaging in regional politics, and asserting its presence in the Balkans. Regarding religious influence, while Orthodox Christianity was predominant, its noteworthy that the coastal areas of Zeta, such as the Bay of Kotor and Bar, had significant Catholic communities. The Archdiocese of Bar, for instance, was established in the 11th century and continued to be a center of Catholicism in the region. Venetian influence, particularly in coastal cities, further contributed to the Catholic presence.
However, my primary concern lies not with Zeta specifically, but with the broader historical representation of the Serbian Empires fragmentation post-1355. The period between 1337 and 1355 is relatively short in the grand scope of the games timeline, yet the current depiction maintains the Serbian Empires kohesion well beyond its historicl dissolution. Dushans death reshaped the landscape of the Balkans. It led to the emergence of various principalities and regional powers, including those in present day Albania and Montenegro. Reflecting this fragmentation is abolutely empty in the playthrough we were provided by multiple youtubers.
- 1
This would be difficult to simulate, given that Dušan took these territories later than the start date. Unless a certain event caused Serbia to become an IO and the vassals were randomly selected based on the clans and families that existed as building-based vassals before this event. And later, if Dušan has no strong successor, this IO would have been destroyed and the vassals would become independent. I don't know how else this situation could have come about.
- 2
- 1
Hopefully we get a Serbia Tinto flavour that shows how they handle its rise and collapse. Honestly, they could just script what tags pop out kind of like what they did with Delhi.
- 1
- 1
@Aldaron I understand the complexities involved in simulating the fragmentation of the Serbian Empire post-1355 in Europa Universalis V, but please consider adding an event to it that players can avoid but AI cant, like having a weak heir or the lack of an heir wich means dissolution like it is historically, the period following Stefan Dushan death in 1355 was marked by significant decentralization and the emergence of semi autonomous regions.
Such additions will give room to breathe to other countries and would provide players with a richer gameplay experience by allowing even players from Montenegro to enjoy the game as Zeta and Albania to be able to form League of Lezhe later on.
Such additions will give room to breathe to other countries and would provide players with a richer gameplay experience by allowing even players from Montenegro to enjoy the game as Zeta and Albania to be able to form League of Lezhe later on.
You calling Balšić as Balshaj is the same as me calling Kastriotis as Kastratović, I just hope we can agree around this.
Sure, but Zeta only started being independent after it was physically impossible for Serbian Kings/Despots to assert direct link to it (such as Ottoman invasions in 1400s). Venetian influence? Only after 1420. I do agree with the other factoids though.
On your second paragraph, I can understand where you're coming from, but Dušan died 20 years after the game start, so there is plenty of chance to make the country fragment.
High nobility power in game setup in the start is kind of an obvious sign, a ruler with weaker stats than Dušan would immediately have problems in game terms, so I don't see how you believe that Serbia maintains cohesion it didn't have in 1337? Like what is this about? Serbia was able to wage war against Bulgaria, Byzantium, and Hungary (and win) around these years my friend. I think you are just underestimating the military power and the power of coin that Serbia had in these decades.
- 1
- 1
My concern is less about Dushan actual strength in the 1330s and more about how the game's mechanics portray Serbia after 1355. I understand that high nobility influence and ruler stats may theoretically lead to fragmentation, in practice, the game currently does not seem to reflect the historical implosion that occurred. Watching extended 100 years playthroughs (e.g. Ludi Yourube, Quarbit), there is little sign of the natural disintegration that marked this period and that is only AI playing. Serbia often remains unified or strong well past the time when historically it fell into a patchwork of principalities.
To be clear: Im not asking for Serbia to start fragmented, but for there to be a real, scripted possibility of fragmentation after Dushan death similar to how EU4 handles historical crises. Just as other major states face historical inflection points (e.g. the Ottomans’ advance the Black death crisis), the Serbian collapse after Dushan is one of the most defining events in the Balkans during this era, and I believe it merits mechanical representation.
- 3
- 1