one of the revolts was in 16th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian-Slovenian_peasant_revolt

I don't know how do some always imagine some fictional years and asign it to my evidence.
It was also claimed occupation as a term was invented during 18th century... so if I proved that the term existed (but just not as the same word) earlier, that makes the claim wrong.

Oh, sorry Ban, that was your RP? I thought you were writing fantasy books...

Gruffudd wrote:

QUOTE:
one of the revolts was in 16th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian-Slovenian_peasant_revolt

I don't know how do some always imagine some fictional years and asign it to my evidence.
It was also claimed occupation as a term was invented during 18th century... so if I proved that the term existed (but just not as the same word) earlier, that makes the claim wrong.

Oh, sorry Ban, that was your RP? I thought you were writing fantasy books... :)

well it was RP about how we crushed the combined Serbian-Hungarian-Byzantium armies with Saxony so yes it was RP and please learn the rules and don't interupt in the future.

again you're showing 16th century stuff , we're in the 11th century Gruffudd and if you calculate (with a calculator or with your own brain) you'll get that 16 th - 11 th century = 5 centuries aka 500 years too long to have any effect on this game.

Want me to scan the history books that say occupation during ottomans in Balcans? Its np...

http://www.spcoluzern.ch/index.php?pg=1979&lang=srl

For the moment, you can see it mentioned in 1459, so we're already 4 centuries ahead, i'll check the books after training, scan them and show that too

I'm not much of a drawer (the one who draws, not the piece of furniture! ), but I'll try to help you out Ban...

you see, Knez Lazar was attacked that he wasn't RPing properly, cause, supposedly by some, idea of an occupation was only understood in 18th Century. I just proved it was understood earlier, before the acceptance of the term occupation - therefore, attacks on Lazar were without base.

Which kinda closes this topic
Until you find evidence that the understanding of an occupation didn't exist in medieval age, you have no right to speak here against Lazar again


and about that fairy tales you are trying to make Ban... you have much more to learn about Role Playing before anyone here (sane enough) takes you seriously. You, as a very young individual of our human race, will hopefully learn that in time, so I'm not worried at all

Gruffudd wrote:

QUOTE:
I'm not much of a drawer (the one who draws, not the piece of furniture! :D), but I'll try to help you out Ban...

you see, Knez Lazar was attacked that he wasn't RPing properly, cause, supposedly by some, idea of an occupation was only understood in 18th Century. I just proved it was understood earlier, before the acceptance of the term occupation - therefore, attacks on Lazar were without base.

Which kinda closes this topic ;)
Until you find evidence that the understanding of an occupation didn't exist in medieval age, you have no right to speak here against Lazar again :)


and about that fairy tales you are trying to make Ban... you have much more to learn about Role Playing before anyone here (sane enough) takes you seriously. You, as a very young individual of our human race, will hopefully learn that in time, so I'm not worried at all :)

I'm not speaking against Lazar , I'm speaking against the entire Serbian Empire that declared war on Croatia over a reason that will be invented in the 18 th century.

Lazar shows the history of when Serbia was conquered by the Turks (around 1400 or so) and yet even if we take his evidence as good and strict it's again 400 years in the future.

We're roleplaying in this game for the medieval ages , around 10-11th century.

I have been roleplaying about my actions and such , you lost the battle and as history tells us , history is made by the victors and not the losers. I made a roleplay of a glorious charge to our deaths to the lines of Serbians and Byzantians , in which I died to Stefan Dusan Nemanjic's attacks (which is true to the battle report) and then all Croatians fell. My roleplay is historically correct , game mechanic correct (I didn't flew on a pegasus or rain down meteors did I?) and battle report correct (I didn't say I was an imortal and that I killed all of you alone) that makes my RP , correct to the last letter.

Ban Moroplovac wrote:

QUOTE:

I'm not speaking against Lazar , I'm speaking against the entire Serbian Empire that declared war on Croatia over a reason that will be invented in the 18 th century.

(I didn't flew on a pegasus or rain down meteors did I?) and battle report correct (I didn't say I was an imortal and that I killed all of you alone) that makes my RP , correct to the last letter.

I can show you that the term itself existed for 1400's, the whole idea of occupation rose to life much earlier.
And even if you were right Ban(which you arent), you also stepped foot on unoccupied Bosnia at the time, just because you thought Saxons will win the battle. Thus you acted like a vulture, thus why your arse is on the line.


I cast fireballs from my eyes and bolts of lightning from my arse, I ride a pink gryphon with laser eyes, and a 19th century canon between his legs. Got a problem with that?


P.S. Your story was a bit silly, i must agree with Gruff. "Fleeing Serbian troops were held by Bavarians." Something here screams brownnose, but its not me, no sir!

Knez Lazar wrote:

QUOTE:
Ban Moroplovac wrote:

QUOTE:

I'm not speaking against Lazar , I'm speaking against the entire Serbian Empire that declared war on Croatia over a reason that will be invented in the 18 th century.

(I didn't flew on a pegasus or rain down meteors did I?) and battle report correct (I didn't say I was an imortal and that I killed all of you alone) that makes my RP , correct to the last letter.

I can show you that the term itself existed for 1400's, the whole idea of occupation rose to life much earlier.
And even if you were right Ban(which you arent), you also stepped foot on unoccupied Bosnia at the time, just because you thought Saxons will win the battle. Thus you acted like a vulture, thus why your arse is on the line.


I cast fireballs from my eyes and bolts of lightning from my arse, I ride a pink gryphon with laser eyes, and a 19th century canon between his legs. Got a problem with that? :silly:

you're quite paranoid you are...such fantasies omg , like a little child

but Gregory I said everything instead of me and his argument is really tough to kill.

Well, it's not really a matter of Greg being "right" and "guff" being *wrong* because a lot of what Greg said is summing up what both people are saying and translating it (or attempting to). He did it nicely but I'll try to reiterate.

In an rp in a province is handled by who controls it IN GAME physically. The rights to all NPCS in that shire and all events happening inside said shire are the under the direct control of the players of that nation within the rules of rp in the game. This is a bedrock principal of rp in this game. Someone from somewhere else can rp inside said shire if they are physically in it, but they cannot propose to dictate conditions inside it. They can, however, say what their characters *think* or what they believe is happening in those lands... the rape and slaughter of presents as an example... could even say they'd gotten reports of it.. because nothing says those reports are accurate. This is not the same thing as physically saying they saw it, or rping the Saxons doing it.

However, 100% historical accuracy has never been a goal of this game, as we write out OWN history from the moment we began playing it...nothing after was historically accurate. We do strive to keep the overall setting roughly in line with norms of the time. The physical term "occupation" may not have been used, however the idea of someone else taking your lands certainly was. The meaning behind the term is clear to modern players so quibbling over the exact wording isn't really something we should be doing in this case. Its rather.... silly frankly.

Now if it was suggested that someone was going to "call in the marines" then yes we have something to discuss. But ultimately we are all modern people of dozens of different real life countries. Using the term occupation allows us to convey a complex concept without taxing the English comprehension abilities of anyone involved in the conversations...or anyone trying to read them in the game at large. It is not what you, or I, or Denis, or Oscar, or Knez can understand but what 1275 active players can understand. Were we to void such things entirely our rps would devolve into wordy diatribes that basically said nothing... and while there is certainly a time and a place for such things... serious diplomacy isn't one of them.

So rather than saying: "you have seized lands held by Serbia since xxxx, given to us in treaty by Croatia and driven our peasants from their farms (population loss), damaged royal property (shire improvements), and committed the sin of spilling Christian blood in your unjustified and unprovoked assault upon the Empire of Serbia. We retain claim to those lands and will have them back, your attempt to increase your holdings at our expense will not be tolerated and we will restore the good people of (name of shire) back to Serbian control! Withdraw or face the consequences of your assault upon the Empire and the continued presence of your armies within them.!"

Nothing wrong with it... it works it gets the point across. However "We will drive off your forced occupation" does get the point across much quicker and easier.

Remember people the key to good communication is... brevity.

Oscar von Reuenthal wrote:

QUOTE:
Smelgar wrote:

QUOTE:
Alrik vom Greifenstein wrote:

QUOTE:

...
Hamburg always was a shire of Saxony
...

And so on it went, and on, and on, and on......

Smelgar, what that claim on land disproves?


@Gregory, would you please state what you mean by "owning the land", because in your post I see proof for my point and Charles sees proof for his.

Who owns the land? I open the Map and check for the crest. Simple as that.

About "occupation" term that seems to be the subject of the topic, it's related to the Nations term. Oscar von Reuenthal correct me once that Nations appear later in the way we know them today, as a communion of language and membership in a territory delimited by explicit borders.
That is correct in the real history, but in the game the process was greatly accelerated by the fact the players behind the chars are modern people with a modern perception about nationality.

While real history indicate there wasn't nations yet by that time, in the game perception it's a bit different.
It's a role-play, I agree, that follow the historic accuracy of environment, but we cannot separate ourselves 100% by the chars we use to play as modern people.

Since the game is not bound to respect 100% the real history, except perhaps the starting point, I understand and hereby cannot say it's totally improper the usage of the term "occupation", even without any consequence regarding the treaties in terms of occupation (except the case is specifically mentioned, e.g. "Bosnia will be considered by the Croats as Serbian land, no matter of the owner, with all the consequences mentioned in the treaty"

As long as it wasn't mentioned like that and the province change hands, Croatia is not guilty by moving the troops after the conquest. About Croatia moving in Serbian territory (shires with Serbian crest on it) without permission, that's another story.

PS. It seems Charles was quicker than myself in explain all these and i agree in every point with what he says.

Gruffudd wrote:

QUOTE:
one of the revolts was in 16th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian-Slovenian_peasant_revolt

I don't know how do some always imagine some fictional years and asign it to my evidence.
It was also claimed occupation as a term was invented during 18th century... so if I proved that the term existed (but just not as the same word) earlier, that makes the claim wrong.

Gruffurd, have you ever read that link that you offered - because in it is shown a peasant rebellion. Not rebellion against "occupation", but rebellion against the unjust way in which the territory was governed.
Also even rebellion for independence doesn't mean the territory was just occupied. And I'll give you even modern example(far later than the time in which the term occupation was coined) for this: Basques in Spain - in the time of Franco's rule they didn't have even authonomy, they were as much a part of Spain as any other provinces. And they wanted independence , protested and even used terroristic means.
But does this means that they were occupied by Spain tat that time?Advice - read a bit and think carefully before you try to say "yes"

And if you have read a bit more than wikipedia's links that I gave you will see that t the term military occupation is indeed created in 18th century. And no other forms of it existed before that - what was conquered became part of the country that conquered it, until independence or conquest by another country.



Knez Lazar wrote:

QUOTE:
Want me to scan the history books that say occupation during ottomans in Balcans? Its np...


http://www.spcoluzern.ch/index.php?pg=1979&lang=srl

For the moment, you can see it mentioned in 1459, so we're already 4 centuries ahead, i'll check the books after training, scan them and show that too :laugh:

Lazar, 20th century serbian authors of history books use the word occupation.And that makes the word used in middle ages ?

Those 400 years that in contemporary Serbia are called "occupation ", in Bulgaria were called at some point "yoke" and at another just "presence"due to the existence of nationalistic sentiments in all Balkan countries that were liberated from the Ottoman rule, but in all countries that weren't conquered by the Ottomans were called simply Ottoman rule (and this includes countries that existed in that time and that made treaties to define borders with Ottoman empire). And in all maps of that time Ottoman empire's territory was including serbian and bulgarian territories among others within it's borders.

So, I am still waiting to see you disprove Encyclopaedia Britannica and prove that occupation existed in medieval times