Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
What about Armenia & Georgia?
Quite true, the one guy up above suggested the Byzantines are the same as the Greeks, which is quite wrong. Given how the Byzantines are in fact the Eastern Roman Empire, in other words they were Romans.
And someone else seems to have missed something they've already done and are suggesting they do it again
Macedonian region and it's people was under Bulgarian rule during their peak, then to Byzantine, then to Bulgarian, back to Byzantine, suddenly Serbian and then Ottoman. There is only the historiography of Samuel in which Bulgarian historiography claim him as theirs, where we claim him as ours. The other thing is the Prilep Lordship which was Serbian royalty ruling the southern and central region of Macedonia, in Serbian historiography they are claimed as Serbs and our historiography does not dispute that with the caveat of the peasants and people living there as Macedonians.
So all in all, not very relevant.