Drevnibor said:
Hullo, Tmina!
I have just recently made an account here, since this mod seems to be revived.
However, I'm a long-time lurker on this forum, and have paid a close attention, especially during the development of the Balkan factions, several years ago.
So, I will try to answer your questions.
Hi!
Thanks for trying to clear some things up.
2. Živogošće?
Are there even any records that this place existed at the time? I couldn't find any, and compared to other villages like Gradec, Sisak or Nin, this one is pretty insignificant. I would much rather suggest that Ostrog (near today's Zaostrog), then a fortified port-village, be put in its place.
Živogošće is a settlement which I've often seen in maps representing Serbia in 1190-1220.
Here are two maps, and Živogošće (Живогошће) is on both of them, in the western part.
Okay, but is there anything else than those maps? I mean, is there any, any at all, historical data on that settlement?
Maybe it just serves as a reference to the stretch of the Serbian rule in today's geography.
Also, I remember reading a book History of Dubrovnik, by a Croatian historian Vinko Foretić.
He says that the population of Dubrovnik was around 50-50 (Serbs and Croats), up until the 14th century.
I've been skimming through the book, and the statement which sounds like yours is in the prologue, although a more correct translation is as follows: "Both Croats and Serbs have been settling in Dubrovnik, but the Croatian element outweighed, and from the 14. century we can say that Dubrovnik was a Croatian city." I do apologise if you meant something else.
However, Foretić also quotes the Arabian writer Al Idrisi who, in his work from 1153., says that Dubrovnik and some islands were a part of Croatia, although the actually - weren't. They can't be. Foretić then says: "It is, therefore, obvious, that Al Idrisi observes "Croatia" as an ethnical area inhabited by Croats."
So there, I just used your source, nothing else.
And although I don't personally agree with the latter part of that statement, the fact is that both sides agree there was a hefty number of Serbs in that whole area, in 1200.
Okay, that's correct.
4. Croatian culture / Noble troop tree
This seems to be the big one. As far as I understand, there can't be 2 cultures and 2 noble troop trees in one faction.
If that is true, than the way to implement it must be through the Republic of Ragusa. Yes, it is a small faction, and it having merceneries instead of armed peasents as lowly troops is realistic. But it's noble troop tree is nonexistant, and when you click on "recruit nobles" in it's castles you just get Ragusan mercenaries as if you recruited them in a mercenary camp.
If I remember correctly, the research thread for Ragusa and Bosnia was made by a Serbian guy, but the research was open-for-all, so I remember there were some Croats and Bosnians doing research too.
Now, I believe some sort of a neutral agreement was made, where Ragusa (i.e. Dubrovnik) will have town troops called Dalmatian Militia, and their combat troops called Mercenaries, with no mention of Serbia or Croatia.
I think that's fair, since these boards tended to quickly escalate in political arguing.
That's probably the most realistic solution anyway. You can easily imagine a small Byzantine fortified port-town like Dubrovnik, completely surrounded by hostile states, hiring merecenaries rather than raising levy, which they surely didn't have a lot of.
The minor problem that still remains that in the Korčula castle you apperantly get the same unit (ragusan mercenery) no matter do you select sargeant or noble troops.
But even then you will still be recruiting "Young Hungarian nobles" in all castles held by Croatian nobles, which is weird.
No, no, no... try not to look at Hungarian Nobles as belonging to the Hungarian people, or Bulgarian Nobles being strictly Bulgarian by birth.
For example, let's say France attacks an English castle, and conquer it.
The village of that castle will still produce ENGLISH villagers, but the castle will produce FRENCH nobles, since they are now waging war for France.
After all, Holy Roman empire has the Imperial Nobles, with no mention of their 'nationality'.
It's hard not to, there is even a Bosnian noble troop tree, and no Croatian one.
Exactly because of that did I went on so much about the status of Croatia in the union with Hungary in the first post.
Senj was ruled by the Knights Templar in 1200
Oh... that's interesting!
Yeah. And when Andras (Andrew) II. went on a Crusade, he appointed a Templar Master Pontius de Cruce as his regent in the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia.
Check your messages, I will send you a link to an interesting text (on Croatian) about Templars in Croatia, if you want read up on it.
6. Vira?
I couldn't find any historical data of settlement with this name on the island of Hvar. Same case as Živogošće. The village of the Hvar castle should be Stari grad, or Paiz, as it was called. It was the seat of the Hvar bishopric, and is the only old settlement on the island of Hvar besides the city of Hvar itself. Therefore, "Vira" should just be renamed to Paiz.
If I remember correctly, Vira was just a temporary name, which would be replaced when a historical name is found.
However, it seems most people forgot about it.
I think there is Vira in real-life modern Hvar.
By quick googleing, you find it's the name of a car camp located on Hvar. Maybe the researcher has some fond memories of the place?
Anyway, I doubt it ever was a place of importance.
7. Mongoloid / Khergit "Croatian peasants"
I think I saw some of these. Anyway, this speaks for itself.
Their facial appearance, or their clothes?
Both, I'm afarid. Also, I don't think Croatian units shouldn't have sabres. The Byzantine influence should be more represented, since it currently isn't at all, except in Dubrovnik.
8. The Croatian faction project
Look, if we are strictly going by history, I would avoid putting Croatia as a faction, not because I'm a Serb, but because it's a case of one side against everyone else.
Meaning - the Croats, in their history books, call their land CROATO-HUNGARIAN KINGDOM.
On the other hand, the Hungarians and the rest of the world simply call it HUNGARIAN KINGDOM, with Croatia being nothing more than a region in said kingdom.
I put up a Hungarian map where it clearly says that they called their realm "The Hungarian Empire".
Croatia is clearly separated and reffered to as "Kingdom", and so is Bosnia.
Now, of course the most common name of the said realm is the "Hungarian Kingdom", since empire is a bit too much and the dynasty was Hungarian, who were, of course, dominant.
Likewise, "Croatia in the union with Hungary" is a term used to desrcibe a state, something which Croatia (as in explained in te first post) had all attributes of.
I do not quite get what you wanted to say here.
I remember when, some years ago, a controversy arose concerning the addition of an Albanian faction, called Arber/Arbanon, in Europe 1200.
The Albanian side claimed that region (town of Kruje and its surroundings) had a certain level of autonomy from the Byzantine (Roman) Empire.
The opposing side claimed that the evidence confirming the existence of a ''state'' of Arber was filmsy - it relied on one WIkipedia article, with some very strange (dubious?) sources from modern books.
However, Arber was added.
So, if we look at the fact that Arber/Arbanon was added despite the strong opposition, I see no harm in making Croatia as well, since their existance certainly has more evidence and strength, than that of Arbanon.
I know nothing about Albania, but Bosnia was added, which is in a very similar position as Croatia.
Legally, Croatia was in a better position, but Bosnia had a de facto independent ruler of their own ethnicity.
In the end, it's not up to you or me to decide anyways.
Nemo iudex in re sua.
In other words, I'm biased by default, so I can't judge on this matter.
