Talk:Kingdom of Macedonia (1983: Doomsday)/Archive

Owner, could I help you with this? BoredMatt 00:43, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, you can start by updating the flag and CoA picture, they are the real ones for Macedonia, but the map I need is of an area called Greater Macedonia Ownerzmcown 00:55, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

The map you have IS of Greater Macedonia. And how would you like me to update the flag or CoA? BoredMatt 12:49, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually the map I got is very recent and I just fixed the problem, but nothings wrong with the flag or CoA anymore, Yankovic fixed it. Ownerzmcown 12:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that this entire area would be under the control of this state in the first place. Not only that, but the proposal I'd made before this one saw the light of day for a Bulgarian successor state - Rhodope - takes up the northeast portion of the map. Correct as needed.

But, the biggest issue is the prince himself. At Doomsday Alexander - and his family - were barred from Yugoslavia, would have been in either Spain or Great Britain and thus more than likely perished as a result.

Also, there is no such thing as a Macedonian language - the majority of the population speaks Bulgarian, in reality.

Please do some research - it needs it. VERY BADLY.

Lordganon 08:23, June 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm, Lordganon, there is such a thing as a Macedonian language.--Vladivostok 08:59, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

First, our countries are still proposals so the maps and locations are still up for debate, and two because he was living in Seville, Spain at the time, he would only have to be protected from moderate fallout and a bunker, which he likely would have had, would easily protect him. Ownerzmcown 13:00, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

"Macedonian" is just a politicized dialect of Bulgarian. It's like calling American and British English two separate languages.

Seville would have been nuked - and besides, he'd have had no way of getting there, especially with the many men.

Also, Greece would never have gone for that deal with a Macedonian kingdom if it involved a loss of land - see their disputes with the current Macedonian nation for details.

Alas, I have made mine before yours, so it does have precedence over this.

Lordganon 20:23, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

How bloody dare you! First of all, you didn't even contact ME, caretaker of the Federation of Greece over anything, and yet you take half of my bloody claims and sovereign Greek territory? Shrink your claims or so help me God I will fight tooth-and-nail to make sure this never graduates.
 * If Mr. Hicken and Mr. Carnehl could see how bloody awful this TL (this whole site actually) has become they'd probably shed a few tears.

Mr.Xeight 21:01, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the King be named Alexander II? Because their was, of course another Macedonian king named Alexander. Alexander the Great. Sure he reigned in ancient times, but that matters not.

Yankovic270 23:03, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Technically Mr. Xeight, the area he's controlling isn't controlled by the Federation of Greece according to your maps, so as far as the FoG is concerned, its legitimate. Unless of course, there's a map I missing. If so, forgive me.

But I'm just curious. What nuclear strikes occured around this area and how heavy would the fallout be? Also, this ATL allows for some wiggle room. Even if the Yugoslav king at the time was in Spain, he could live on the outskirts of the city, have a bunker, and have enough private funds left to procure a ship, which could have made a haphazard journey during the post-Doomsday chaos to Macedonia. So I don't see too much of a problem with that. You do have to be creative after all. Caeruleus 04:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Theocracy of the Holy Mountain, an integral member of the Federation; besides I've made it known the Federation claims all of pre-Doomsday Greece's borders; good to know you've done your research. Mr.Xeight 05:29, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, am I getting this right that this is a Slavo-Macedonian state, ruling over northern Greece and led by a Serb that nevertheless manages to be perfectly stable even in a post-Doomsday world? Did anyone even bother to look up the highly explosive ethnic make-up of the area? --Karsten vK (talk) 16:53, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is inplausible. The Balkans would have torn itself apart through ethnic violence. The OTL dissolution of Yugoslavia shows us how the ethnic make up of the area would have had an even greater impact in this ATL. And I doubt Macedonia would be this big, even if it survived Doomsday. It would probably be smaller, since refugees from Greece and Bulgaria and other parts of Yugoslavia would have overwhelmed the states borders. HAD 10:03, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um... question: Wasn't Thessaloniki nuked? just asking, because Thessaloniki would make much of the Macedonian claim almost ininhabitable. Fedelede 13:26, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Macedonia is still a moderately sized region, Thessaloniki would not be hit by that many nukes, and why wasn't Athens hit, the map doesn't show that. Ownerzmcown 19:52, July 2, 2010 (UTC) 19:52, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The confederation of greece page says Athens and Thessaloniki were hit. The Mt Athos state of the Federation I would assume controls most of Chalkidiki Prefecture. The confederation also claims all of pre-dd greece so if you want to have any Greek territory it will put Macedonia in bad relations with Greece. Greece being a major member of the league of nations, Macedonia's claims to greek territory would not be recognized either.Oerwinde 18:17, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be recognized to actually exist. Greece can still claim the territory, even if its administered by Macedonia. It sets the stage for conflict later down the road, which is a good thing in my opinion. Caeruleus 21:54, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I think it more likely for them to have taken parts of Albania rather than Greece. The Confederation has a strong presence in the area, while Albania is weak militarily, etc. So if they don't want to be landlocked, that might make more sense. Unless.... they moved in on the territory of the former city of Thessaloniki, which the greeks might have given up as uninhabitable and therefore abandoned. Because Greece is pretty much a thalassocracy, so most of the other coastal regions of greece would be in Greek hands, making the ruins of the city the only greek area Macedonia could control.Oerwinde 22:43, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the map shows Thessaloniki and the surrounding area under Macedonian control, so that makes sense. Other than that though, Macedonia doesn't really control a whole lot of Greece territory. I think its fine, but if it must be changed only a small portion of coastal Macedonia to the east and west of Thessaloniki would need to be designated as Greek. Caeruleus 15:49, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was bored with nothing else to do, so here's a map of what I think Macedonia and Greece would look like. Macedonian claims are shrunk some, but they still control Thessaloniki. All Greek claims are respected. GreeceandMacedonia.gif remember, this is a horribly designed map. I did it in 5 minutes with MSPaint. Caeruleus 18:45, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I love this new map, but if you can do anything to fix this, then I'll agree to put it on. Ownerzmcown 19:30, July 5, 2010 (UTC) 19:30, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * MapofConfedofGreece_copy.jpg's an improved map. It's not perfect, but it properly shows a possible border between Greece and Macedonia. Caeruleus 23:39, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, it looks good, but part of the areas shown in the first one isn't in the second one, if you can fix that, then I'll put it up.
 * Ownerzmcown 23:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC) 23:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * MapofConfedofGreece_copy.jpg's an improved map. It's not perfect, but it properly shows a possible border between Greece and Macedonia. Caeruleus 23:39, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, it looks good, but part of the areas shown in the first one isn't in the second one, if you can fix that, then I'll put it up.
 * Ownerzmcown 23:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC) 23:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

An improvement, but you still need to remove the Bulgarian portions. Expand into Albania as compensation.

Lordganon 03:18, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

H 1 truck
Ok, I found it a bit strange when they started mass producing tanks, but an H1 armoured truck? The truck was introduced into the US military in 1984-85. How did it possibly end up in Macedonia?--Vladivostok 13:41, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! your article is very good. VENEZUELA 22:50, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I like it too. Arstarpool 16:43, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Ditto.

Yankovic270 14:50, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Weaponry & Allies
The weapons Macedonia is equipped with is unrealistic. I'm pretty sure they couldn't produce most of that before the war, and they certainly wouldn't be able to afterwards. Turkey and the Alpine Confederation could both produce some of those weapons, but that would mean everything would be imported. Macedonia could certainly produce some less advanced weaponry though.

Also, you technically can't have an alliance with the Alpine Confederation unless its writer approves it. I don't know if they have, but I thought I should mention that. As for Turkey, I don't mind that we're allied, but Turkey wouldn't send more than 10,000 troops, thought it would be more like 5,000. Other than that, I like it. Caeruleus 16:37, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think that some of them they would be able to produce, think about it, Macedonia sits on a huge deposit of iron, soon would come steel out of that, and with that steel would eventually come some Tanks and APCs if they got a hold on some, also Yugoslavia and the countries near it would have had multiple military bases in the projected Macedonian territory where the Macedonians would have access to multiple different types of weapons. Ownerzmcown 03:52, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but pre-Doomsday was a minimally industrialized region of Yugoslavia with internal problems. They may have the resources, but they wouldn't have the industry for quite some time. Plus, even if they built up the industry, they wouldn't have the technology to build these weapons, even if they could reverse engineer things. Also, many of the bases you see Macedonia seizing in Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia would be destroyed, pillage, or abandoned during the initial chaos of Doomsday leaving very few weapons and technology to recover. You would surely be able to receive some, but not any weapons in mass quantities. Since this is an althist, they could theoretically come to reverse engineer some of the technology, but it would take years and ultimately be of lower quality. They would also rename these weapons to Macedoian designations. Caeruleus 04:43, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well, one, I changed it so that all the armed forces had a more realistic stache of weapons, and two, I'm not very knowledgable about Macedonian names, all I know are Alexander and Phillip. Ownerzmcown 13:43, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Virginian Republic was just opened to the outside world. If the Virginians and Macedonians became aware of each ofter, the Virginians would be very enthusiastically supplying the Macedonians military equipment. If this is implausible, let me know. But the Virginians would be having a major supply of imcome shipping arms to the other countries.

Yankovic270 14:48, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Alpine Confederation is also a member of the LoN, which the Virginian Republic is also a member of, so therefore, if the two countries were to make contact through the LoN, then the Virginians could easily trade with the Macedonians, likely by water. Ownerzmcown 14:55, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hey Yank, one, I need a picture of the Thompson tank, and two, is it okay that I make a subsection for the article about our countries making contact. Ownerzmcown 15:31, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

No. By names, I don't mean Macedonian names like Alexander or Phillip. I mean they'll rename the weapons. Like if they built their own M-16, they wouldn't call it the M-16. They'd call it the LN-21 or something like that. Btw, I totally just made that up off the top of my head. Your designations can actually stand for something. And they can stand for something in English if you want. Caeruleus 18:31, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Thompson tank is effectively the WWII-era Tiger II, aka the "King Tiger", tank with the design flaws worked out. The earlier models also had design traits of the Pershing heavy tank and the M1 Abrams. The later models also have design charectoristics of the Leopard 2 and the T-80 tanks. You could still call it the M-16, but it would be the "Minta-16" ("Minta" being Hungarian for "Model") Besides, the weapons the Virginians are shipping are the far superior M-14 not the M-16.

Yankovic270 19:13, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

But Yankovic, can I talk about our countries contacting each other? Ownerzmcown 19:24, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Here is the King Tiger tank image I used in the Virginian Republic article



--Yankovic270 19:28, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Naturally you can write about our countries meeting. Would the Macedonians be impressed by how professional the Virginians are?

Yankovic270 19:31, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Probably, although they both have conscription, I'm sure the military training of the armed forces would be impressive. Ownerzmcown 20:06, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Yank, can u contact the guy who make Superior too? I want to make sure its plausible to contact his country. Ownerzmcown 21:22, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

I am the caretaker of Superior. What do you need? Arstarpool 07:33, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Superior and Macedonia would have much contact. Superior has been blocked by Canada from the LoN due to its occupation of parts of Ontario, and its pretty much landlocked.Oerwinde 08:39, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

New Maps
I had more time on my hands. Here are some maps. Caeruleus 00:34, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I really like the second one, if you can get any more maps I'll look at them, but if not, then I'll just put this up Ownerzmcown 00:55, July 11, 2010 (UTC)



My Rhodope article has now been graduated, and you have parts of its territory, both controlled and claimed, included on that map - so that will have to go. Sorry guys, but if you have maps like that I'll never let it graduate.

Lordganon 07:12, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I also think that Greek territory occupied by Macedonia should be shown in a different color as well.Oerwinde 08:37, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the area is only claimed by Rhodope, but if its completely occupied by Macedonia, then it would make sense, but really strain the relationship between the two countries Ownerzmcown 13:25, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Guys, go to the Rhodope page and look at the section called Macedonia

The only overlapping territory is a tiny portion of southwest Rhodope. It can be claimed by Macedonia, but admnistered by Rhodope. Throw in a peace conference to try to settle the dispute if you want, but there's barely any difference to be made on the map. Caeruleus 15:40, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Acutally, it would be the other way around, if you read the Rhodope article, you would see that they agreed to give the area to Macedonia through a peace conference so it could be claimed by Rhodope, but administered by Macedonia. Ownerzmcown 16:00, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Not even close to what has been written guys. The border will stay the same as the old Bulgarian border, as already seen in the article. Its already been said before that that is too large a territory for Macedonia, besides.

The only negotiating in a conference that would be done is maybe a couple of border towns changing hands.

Like I said, take more of Albania in response - I'm sure some Serbian prince would love that idea.

Lordganon 20:30, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, make a map like that and I'll see if I like it Ownerzmcown 20:33, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Ugh...since I'm the one editing the maps, what do you want changed? Reduced Macedonian territory in Bulgaria and greater territory in Albania? Caeruleus 21:43, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, take Macedonia out of Bulgaria and expand it into both Albania and Serbia/Montenegro to compensate. also, if you can show Rhodope and possibly expand onto the Albanian coast if you think its plausible. Ownerzmcown 23:18, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced the Macedonian Bulgarian territories substanially, using the Rhodope map as a basis. Macedonia still controls some of Bulgaria because its part of Greater Macedonia and they would want to control that. However, since Rhodope claims all of Bulgaria, I've marked that area as "Administered by Macedonia; Claimed by Rhodope." I also included Vidin in the map. Caeruleus 02:11, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Look, sorry to be a bitch about this, but what if you did the Administered by Macedonia; Claimed by Rhodope kinda like a horn that touches Rhodope in the north Ownerzmcown 02:15, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Lolwtf? Can you um...describe that better? But does it really matter? Caeruleus 04:01, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Still not good enough. It needs to have no control over any of Bulgaria, at all. No ifs, ands, or buts. Rhodope and its map are both canon, and therefore must be followed.

Lordganon 11:07, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

The map follows canon. I gave Rhodope the areas of Bulgaria that your map says are under its control/administration. It claims the rest of Bulgaria, but claims mean nothing. Canada claims all of Canada, but barely controls any of it. Same with Rhodope in regards to Bulgaria.

Caeruleus 16:37, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Do you see Macedonia on the map as controlling any of Bulgaria? No? Then it doesn't. Plain and simple.

Besides, your "Serbian prince" would want Serbians, not Bulgarians. Still waiting on you to explain how he could possibly have gotten there to rule, fyi.

Lordganon 21:28, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

So the prince and his very small army tried to make a new country after DD in Yugoslavia, but because it was more stable there and wasn't nuked, they weren't able to succesfully overrun the area from the holders. So they turned south and managed to secure land in the southern part of the country and then continued to expand to secure more land and civilians, and eventually when the situation stabilized they created a new country. Ownerzmcown 22:47, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ownerzmcown, it's your article. What do you want? More of Serbia/Albania and less of Bulgaria? Or do you want it how it is? Caeruleus 02:20, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Actually its fine, thats why I put it up already. Ownerzmcown 03:23, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Still doesnt tell us how he got there.

And, its not fine. So long as that map is there, I will not let this graduate.

--Lordganon 10:16, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

What's your problem with the map? It doesn't even conflict with your Rhodope map. Caeruleus 17:08, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah man, whats wrong with it? Ownerzmcown 21:40, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

On yours, Macedonia is shown as controlling part of Bulgaria. Yet, on the Rhodope map, there is no Macedonia controlling any of it. Thus, the problem. --Lordganon 22:58, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

So, just change your map. Ownerzmcown 23:16, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Your map is the one that needs to be changed. The only reason Macedonia isn't on their is because it wasn't proposed when you made that map. That area isn't controlled by Rhodope and this is a new addition to the canon, therefore, your map needs to be edited accordingly to accomadate this article once it's added to the canon, assuming it is. I'll even change it for you if you want.

Also, as a minor note, your Rhodope article only goes up to 1996, so that map can only be assumed to be a 1996 map. The Macedonian map is a 2010 map. You should probably update your article, but as it is, there's nothing to suggest Macedonia can't control those regions of Bulgaria. So there's no violation of canon. Caeruleus 02:30, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Key thing here - mine is a modern, canonized map - and yours is not. Thus, I don't have to change a thing unless I want to. You do, as I will never let this graduate until you do.

And, I'm almost done the article, just haven't changed it yet ;)

--Lordganon 06:34, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, Caeruleus, make me a mpa where I don't control Bulgaria. Ownerzmcown 10:58, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. But I want to control more of Serbia.

That doesn't make sense Lordganon since you made that map before this article was created so there's no possible way it could have been on that map, but whatever. If the creator wants it changed, I'll change it. Caeruleus 15:39, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Much better.

Fyi, no work has been done on Albania yet - you could literally take the northern 2/3rds of it and no one will complain ;)

--Lordganon 23:44, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Caeruleus, can you make me a map showing that? Ownerzmcown 00:48, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Greek Issue
I think you need to deal with the aquisition of greek lands better in the article. Its barely mentioned, but it would be a major issue for the Greek population, especially with the existence of a major greek state. While with operation Thessaloniki you would probably have a large amount of Macedonian immigration to the city, the rest of the greek lands would be majority greek and likely seek cecession to the Federation of Greece. This needs to be dealt with in the article I think.Oerwinde 20:16, July 11, 2010 (UTC) I would, but Mr.Xeight wont respond to my messages and I cant mention Greece or he'll get pissed like when I was first making this article, just look in the upper part of this article.Ownerzmcown 20:21, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

As long as you keep in mind that the Federation of Greece claims all of pre-doomsday Greece and incorporate that into the article I don't see a problem. MrX hasn't really filled out his Greece article much, so its hard to work around it, you pretty much just need to extrapolate from existing stuff. Only Athens and Thessaloniki were hit, so Greece wasn't that badly hit, but with no central government they fractured, eventually forming a coalition of these fractured states. This coalition became the major power of the mediterranean. So based on that, you have to assume most of coastal Greece is in the confederation's hands. Being that they are big in the League of Nations, their claims over Greek Macedonia would be recognized internationally and Macedonia would be viewed as an occupying force. Greece is probably too spread out right now to do anything about the Macedonian presence in Greece, and while keeping an outward hostile stance on the reconstruction of Thessaloniki, would privately be happy someone else is taking on the expense of doing so, even if it means a lesser claim to the area. You can write what you want and go from there, don't worry about MrX, he's a very emotional guy, but as long as you know this and can get past it you can work with him(when he shows up) to adjust what you've written.Oerwinde 20:39, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

This is easy to explain away. Thessaloniki was nuked and the local Greek population either died or fled southward. Therefore, the area would be largely empty for years. There wouldn't be many Greeks in the area to protest the Macedonian encroachment. Greece can claim half the world, but the article isn't clear at all so you only have to give them control of the southern half of the pensula to the south of Thessaloniki as part of the Mount Athos state. The rest of northern Greece taken by Macedonia can be said to have been partially evacuated after the nuclear strikes and devestated by refugees from Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Yugoslavia. None of these areas are directly controlled by the Greek states either. And tell me if you make any further edits. I'll add it to the map for you. Caeruleus 21:54, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why would there be devastation by refugees from states not nuked? (Albania, Yugoslavia only got one on its capital). Northern and Western Greece wouldn't be too devastated. Also, as to the new addition, the Greeks wouldn't need to bring Greek settlers, as the local population was already Greek. In order to avoid a greater rebellion Macedonia would have to expel the greek population into Federation lands and bring in Macedonian settlers. This would give them greater control of the land and greater stability (Its what the russians did quite successfully), would piss off the Greeks, and wouldn't look as bad internationally as putting down rebellion after rebellion.Oerwinde 23:12, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just stick to the acquisition of Yugoslavian lands? Sticking to the historic borders may be nice, but I doubt that would happen. Arstarpool 16:37, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Serbian Navy
How can Macedonia have a naval conflict with a landlocked nation?Oerwinde 07:43, July 14, 2010 (UTC) I added in parts that they captured ports in the south. Ownerzmcown 21:32, July 21, 2010 (UTC)