In Age of Empires 3, Hungary and Romania are mirror nations, with very little difference between the two.
Except, Hungary can revolt from Ottomans, Russians, Germans and Maltese. While Romania can only revolt from Ottomans and Russians.
From what I could find the justifications are as such:
Hungary’s availability to the Germans is a reference to Hungary being part of the Habsburg Monarchy.
Hungary’s availability to the Ottomans reflects the Ottoman occupation of Hungary.
Hungary’s availability to the Russians is a reference to their intervention during the Hungarian revolution in 1848. and include Carpatho-Rusyns.
Hungary’s availability to the Maltese is a reference to the commanderies of the Protestant branch of the Knights Hospitaller in Central Europe.
While for Romania the justification is as such:
Romania’s availability to the Ottomans reflects the fact that most of Romania, which includes Moldavia, Wallachia, and Transylvania, were under the control of the Ottoman Empire until the 18th century.
Romania’s availability to the Russians refers to the Russian occupation of Romania in the mid-18th century and Russian support of the Romanian War of Independence.
However, just like “Hungary’s availability to the Russians is a reference to their intervention during the Hungarian revolution in 1848. and include Carpatho-Rusyns”, the same is true to Romania for the Germans in the 1784 great Romanian peasant revolt in the Austrian Empire.
#################################################################################### ############################################################################################# ###############################################################################################
(edit: every link was censored )
Wikipedia Revolt of ###### Cloșca, and Crișan
Executedtoday ##### and closca Transylvanian Rebels
Habsburger French Revolution ######### Romanian Peasants Revolt
I think that the revolutions of Hungary and Romania are a little poorly represented, some cards do not work as they should, others are repeated or have the same effect twice, there are many errors and not to mention the junk cards that no one uses and are only there filler, honestly these two revolutions should be reworked from scratch, maybe something like what was done with revolutionary France would do them justice so that they feel more fun when using them, ironically the royal houses of Habsburg and Phanar represent much better to hungary and romania than the revolutions themselves, sad but true.
Hungary’s connection to Malta is non-existent. The Knights had a presence pretty much everywhere in Europe so there’s nothing special about Hungary.
Malta has a much stronger connection to Romania since there was a Moldavian ruler who was Maltese. So Malta should actually have a Romanian revolt instead of a Hungarian one.
It is not the same at all. This was in Transylvania which was Hungarian territory, not German territory. The only way this makes sense is if “Germans” get rebranded as “Austrians” or it is a two stage revolt that goes Germany → Hungary → Romania.
In 1784 Transylvania was part of the Austrian Empire. You are thinking of Austria-Hungary which didn’t exist until 1867.
The reason for Hungary’s availability to the Germans is a reference to Hungary being part of the Habsburg Monarchy. So the Germans are already rebranded as “Austrians” in that case.
But I agree that they both need a rework. It would be great if you were able to recruit Rosior Dragoons normally. But this likely needs a complete overhaul. Although simply allowing Romania to be a German revolt and fixing the bugs would be good enough.
It was under the Hungarian Crown long before Austria-Hungary or even the Austrian Empire. The Habsburgs ruled them via Hungary.
The only way this is a German revolt is if you’re going to say they are revolting against the Transylvanian Saxons which is not what you give as a justification.
Personally, I’d like to see Romania made more 19th century than whatever we have now.
Calarasi hussars and vanatori Skirmishers too.
Hungary could be a 2 parter, like the French Revolution. It would become german exclusive, the revolutionary Grenzer would be replaced with a Honved. Pt. 1 would be 1848. Pt. 2 would be the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.
Ottoman/Russian Hungary could be replaced with Serbia or Bulgaria.
The Wikipedia link you provided says the following:
The “Lands of the Hungarian Crown” was the titular expression of Hungarian pretensions to the various territories that the King of Hungary ruled nominally or absolutely.
It is merely an expression of Hungarian pretensions, you could just as easily call today’s territories of Croatia, Serbia, Romania and Slovakia “Lands of the Hungarian Crown”.
At that time, there was no separate Kingdom of Hungary, as the King of Hungary was the Emperor of Austria. The Austrian Empire functioned as 1 state but the Emperor had 2 titles: Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. That title “King of Hungary” was everything there was about Hungary, there was no personal union, Hungary was simply incorporated into and part of the Austrian Empire.
Hungarians didn’t have political control over the Lands of the Hungarian Crown in 1784 during the time of the Romanian revolt, which is exactly the reason for the 1848 Hungarian revolution, and the Austro-Hungarian compromise of 1867.
They are revolting against the Austrian Empire, because they were part of the Austrian Empire.
It was governed with its own laws as a single entity which included Hungary, Croatia, and Transylvania. Yes, ultimately the Austrian emperor was at the top, but the civ currently is Germans, not Austrians. A Romanian revolution is two steps removed from Germans proper and lacks an actual revolt against them. Your examples seem to be mostly peasant uprisings which aren’t the same thing as the independence movements in Hungary. Overall it isn’t a terrible idea, but the justification is pretty weak, and I’d much rather see them as an option for a civ with even worse revolution choices like Malta.
I have seen this several times, but I still don’t understand how this is a justification. The Protestant branch of the Hospitaller Knights was not in Hungary, but in North Germany.
Not at all. It was a separate unit within the empire (just like Bohemia or the ##########
The only movement you’ve mentioned is the revolt of ###### Cloșca, and Crișan. And that was 100% a peasant rebellion aimed at reducing the oppression of the Hungarian nobility, not an independence movement.
The Austrian Empire didn’t exist until 1804. Before that, it was a patchwork of separate kingdoms and dominions. Even after the formal proclamation of the Empire, some of its constituent territories (like Hungary) still kept its own institutions (at least before 1848).
I agree with your comments, but even with that into consideration, I think a Romanian revolution would still be more justified than two of the revolutions the Germans already have (Colombia and Argentina)
After Hungary was taken away from the Ottomans by the Austrians, the Austrians put upon their own laws and enforced their own culture, and the lands conquered back from the Ottomans instead of giving to the local Hungarian nobility, they assigned to the Germans. Transylvania specifically where the revolt of Revolt of ###### Cloșca, and Crișan happened a century later was put into direct viennese administration.
There is no shortage of weak justifications in AoE3, Malta example included. At the very least, the Romanians had a peasant revolt in Transylvania against the Austrians. Hungary’s justification for being a possible revolution from the Russians, is the Russian intervention during the Hungarian revolution in 1848, which, they revolted against the Austrians and the Russians just intervened to help the Austrians, they did not revolt against the Russians.
Yes, reducing to 100%, meaning abolishing the nobility in Transylvania. The revolt started because of the poor conditions of feudal serfs in Habsburg Transylvania, especially Romanians since Orthodox Romanians lacked political equality with Catholic subjects in Transylvania, and the goal as stated by the leaders of the revolt was to turn Transylvania into a republic. Additionally, the revolt ended when Joseph II ordered the army to intervene, so this revolt was not specifically against the Hungarian part of Transylvania like the 1848 one.
Indeed. However, I think Rákóczi’s rebellion was a more direct consequence of this land allotment after the Ottoman defeat.
I agree, it’s a poor justification. I think the Russian should get a different revolution instead, hopefully we will get new and more appropriate revs in the future like the cossacks, for example
The reason why this would actually make sense is because of the Hohenzollern dynasty that led Romania during its war of independence (and later against Germany in WW1 eventually leading to the Greater Romania, which is nowadays split between Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Moldavia). It’s actually fascinating when you think this game comes so close to the present in term of timeline. Some of these events still affect us to this day.
Russia makes little sense. The so called help during the independence war was actually Russian army under the Romanian prince leadership. The relationship was more of allies, rather than vassalage (like vs ottomans or soviets after ww2)
)