Tinto Flavour #9 - 7th of March 2025 - Hungary

[Rule Britannia]

Arabia, really? Are you guys sure you have not forgotten a rather important Tinto Map feedback that people have been waiting for for a very long time?

 

[bokorthedust]

Arabia, really? Are you guys sure you have not forgotten a rather important Tinto Map feedback that people have been waiting for for a very long time?

Lawrence of Arabia had to come from somewhere.

 

[Rule Britannia]

Lawrence of Arabia had to come from somewhere.

Very true

 

[pheonicia]

It may happen, and it may be a bit immersion-breaking. But it's also true that Hungarian kings historically their kingdom a bastion of Christendom against eastern threats, so in that regard, we think that it keeps making sense, flavour-wise.

Is it something that you have planned to address after release then? If alternate advanceds will already be a thing, then a Hungary with Christians (or even specifically just Catholics) to the North, South, East, and West might be more breadbasket than bulwark.

 

[Oglesby]

We'd like to have more clothing style per ages, eventually, but we're currently aiming to have base clothing sets for all the graphical cultures first.

What are the graphical cultures?

What do you mean base set? (one per pop type, per age?)

 

[Metz]

Is morale not part of unit statistics? Some unit types could have higher morale than others, especially the special cultural units.

 

[Metz]

Will inviting German settlers be a double edged sword in the late game once nationalism appears? Ex: Croatia is devastated by a war against Hungary in the late 1300s so to repopulate it invites German settlers. By 1700, 1/3 of Croatia is German, especially the northern locations which might prompt Austrian nationalists to annex those lands to unify the German people.

 

[Inzano]

Do you have a link to the full map? Of is it just limited to Hungary

This map is in work in VN Discord server unther other teasers. Ratkus is teasing with it some time.

 

[Pavía]

It's a minor mistake, but this is anachronistic.

The name Translylvania back then did not mean the entirity of territories ceded to Romania at the end of WW1, only the innermost part of it.

Bánság = Banat
Partium = Partium (In hungarian sometimes Részek)
Erdély = Transylvania

View attachment 1262455

View attachment 1262465

As I understand the releasable tag got those territories because it had cores on them, right? They should be removed.

True, sloppy research from my end when I fixed the borders of the formable after the Tinto Maps feedback, I've made it now accommodate the historical borders of the Voivodeship, up until the 16th century:

 

[Gurtannon]

They would start at the same level. Then one of the partners could become the Senior one.

Isnt Hungary already Senior partner of Croatia?, After Poland joins the union, do we get two different unions with one Poland and Hungary is in union with no senior, and one Hungary and Croatia in with senior, if so shouldnt Croatia be in union with Poland, not only in Hungary?

 

[Makkasag]

I've made it now accommodate the historical borders of the Voivodeship, up until the 16th century:

Thank you. It's perfect.

 

[Inzano]

Would this not just be represented by these other countries being under personal union with Hungary? Or as vassals if they did not share a King.

Difficult, because, for example, the Principality of Cilli was under the HRE and at the same time had possessions in Hungary, the same Austria. As far as I know, a state can be in multiple international organizations, but I don't know if it can simultaneously be free with its ruler in a personal union with another ruler.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

Do you have a link to the full map? Of is it just limited to Hungary

Europe 1444 map by Ratkus

 

[IndigoRage]

Will the game have the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom or will it just be spicy renamed Transylvania like in EU4.

 

[Materloo]

In a previous Tinto post, I shared my concerns regarding the borders and cultures.

My biggest concern remains the same: the eastern borders of Transylvania are not aligned with the historical borders of Transylvania and the Kingdom of Hungary but instead follow the modern administrative borders, which were altered by the Romanian government in the 1960s to further disrupt the ethnic composition of the counties. As a result, many ethnic Székely settlements were incorporated into counties belonging to Moldavia.

It gives the impression that the current Romanian administration of Transylvania has historical roots. However, Transylvania was always an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary until the Ottoman occupation. At times, it is mistakenly referred to as a 'vassal' of the Kingdom of Hungary, but it was never a separate entity before that period.

I'm hoping that my border suggestions will be adjusted by the developers. The Transylvanian borders need more refinement, and I also hope that the provinces of Lucsco and Lucensis will be added. The territory remained under Hungarian influence until the 1250s–1270s, so by the 1330s, it was still a relatively recent territorial loss.

Additionally, a separate province named Severin/Szörényvár would be a great addition. As depicted, the Banate of Severin was lost to the Wallachians, but its capital, Turnu Severin/Szörényvár, remained under Hungarian control until the Ottoman occupation. During the territorial shrinkage of the Banate of Severin, its administrative borders shifted toward the Hungarian plains, south of the Maros River. This is why the region came to be known as Banat/Bánság—many territories were placed under the administration of the Ban of Severin




I also want to expand the Moravian part with the recently found czech article about the region, called Campus Lucsco, Provincia Lucensis -
I've also did a post on the Bohemia tinto talk - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...f-february-2025-bohemia.1728777/post-30189555

Lucká provincie – Wikipedie

cs.wikipedia.org

I've graduated as an archaeologist and as a historian. It's good to see that paradox is getting better at maps and at historical facts/sources, so it is better represented during the game.

However i would like to highlight and point out some small mistakes.

These are truly small mistakes as many Hungarian has no clue about these, and you will only come across with these if you are a map-nerd, or if you go to college.

Let's start from the western bits of Kingdom of Hungary.

The so-called "Burgenland" was never a historical region of Kingdom of Hungary until the 1920's, when the territory was ceded to Austria. The name "Burg" refers to the "Castle" as the territory was meant to be of 4 counties which had the name "burg" in german, as in the Hungarian administration the counties were called as "vármegye" which meant castle county, or county of a castle - which was the capital and the most fortified settlement during the foundation of these counties. The territory was named to Vierburgenland - 4 castles land Ödenburg (Sopron vármegye), Pressburg (Pozsony vármegye), Wieselburg (Moson vármegye), Eisenburg (Vas vármegye). Since Pressburg/Pozsony became part of Czechoslovakia the term of Vierburgenland was shortened to Burgenland, as only 3 of the 4 counties became part of Austria partly.

"Burgenland" is one of the few post-Hungarian territories where the borders were not changed. "Vojvodina" borders were changed, as other cities and villages were incorporated to Belgrade, so that's why there is a triangle shape missing on the south, when you check the map of "Vojvodina". Those territories were part of the Banat and Syrmia however. Also the borders were changed in Transylvania too, i will get back to that later.

I thought for years that the borders of "Burgenland" preserved the original medieval borders of Kingdom of Hungary and the Holy-Roman Empire. But it is not true.

As the Hungarians arrived to the Carpathian Basin the western bits of the Hungarian occupation zone spred to the river of "Enns". And beyond the Enns - Ober-Enns, was the "Oberennsia" - Óperencia, which is usually used in the Hungarian folklore referring to a territory which is really really far away.

This border has shrinked eastward during the decades as many of these territories were later retaken by the East-Frankish Empire. The Hungarian "rulership" in todays Austria only lasted couple of decades as these austrian territories were mainly used as bufferzones.

The two sides had an agreement which declared the Leita river as the border of the Holy-Roman Empire and Kingdom of Hungary after the battle of Pozsony (907.). It remained a shared border until the dissolution of Austria-Hungary where the Trans- and Cisleithania were used to refer to both Austria and Hungary.

However, few changes had occured during this region mainly in the 11th century, and later during the reign and death of Matthias of Hungary.

The highlighted red area was probably lost to Austria sometime in the 11-12th century. As the church of Németóvár was founded by Saint Stephen of Hungary. It is very likely that the area was never ruled by the german speaking population, and it was under slavic/pagan rulership, that's why no church were built in that region before Saint Stephen. The name "Ó-vár" - Old castle, also a hungarian toponym where the "Német" was later given to differs from the "Hungarian - Óvár" - Mosonmagyaróvár - (Moson)magyar(Hungarian) ó-vár (old castle) - Altenburg in german also "old castle". Probably it refers to the near pre-roman settlement Carnuntum, which was considered as an old "castle" ruin in the 11th century.

From this part to the south other smaller territories were lost to the austrians during the 15th century.

On this map my comment is a bit broken, as i changed the title, and i forgot to fix the commentary properly.

You can see with light blue how the Leita river flows to the Danube and create a border with the two country. To the east you can see the current border of Austria and Hungary with light grey to the west from "Mosonmagyaróvár".

If you take a look at the red highlighted part on the map, you can see that there are two parts which are "crossing" the rivers border. You can see that the dotted borders are mainly squarish, artificial. This is by the fact that the two small territories once belonged to Kingdom of Hungary and it was sold to the HRE emperor for quick money, to cover the Hungarian king's debt. While the HRE emperor later incorporated the territory into Lower-Austria, but it was meant to given back to Hungary after the debt was repaid which was never done by the emperor after the debt was lifted. This angered the Hungarian nobility. and it is referred to as the fiefs of Sárfenék - Scharfeneck/ Mannersdorf. The smaller bits were taken from the family of Kőszegi by the HRE emperor as they betrayed him in 1491, and the emperor incorporated the territory into Lower-Austria.

The other territory is very unkown for me even I tried to do some research. The territory lays between Czechia and Slovakia today. However it was a shared border between Kingdom of Bohemia and Kingdom of Hungary. This border haven't changed through the centuries, and it does share the same border between Czechia and Slovakia that once shared the borders between Kingdom of Bohemia and Kingdom of Hungary. However, with the defeat of "Great"-Moravia, the natural border between to two nations - Moravians/Czechs and the Hungarians became the river Morava as today.

The Morava river plays a role between the two nations as a western border from the city of Rohatec - Skalica (Szakolca) until the symbolistic entrance of Kingdom of Hungary - Dévény/Devin where the Morava flows into the river Danube.

If you follow the Morava river from Dévény/Devin to the north you can see how the border turns to eastward at Skalica/Szakolca and then comes back to the same route/shape at Valasské Klobouky. You could literally connect the two points between Skalica and Valasské Klobouky with a straight line. So it is not a surprise why this western part of Kingdom of Hungary looked like as if somebody bit into it's territory during sometime it's history.

Well if you ever had this feeling you are not mistaken. There are some interesting settlement names which refers to not only to Hungarians but to Romanians too. It could help to understand who could rule this territory during the centuries.

Valasské Kolobouky has the "Valasské" which refers to the Wallachian/Romanians. Many Romanian shepherd migrated to the territory from Transylvania and Máramaros during the 13-14th century, as they migrated to Transylvania during the 12-13th century from Wallachia (romanian readers are highly triggered. )))))) )

There are 3 other interesting city names - Uhersky Brod (Magyarbród/Magyargázló), Uherské Hradiště (Magyarhradis/Magyarerőd/Magyarvár), Uhersky Ostroh (Magyarsárvár). Where "Uhersky/Uherské" refers to the Hungarians/magyars. Don't get fooled however - Uherské Hradisté has nothing to do with Hungarians, as it was built against the Hungarians, to serve as a good fortress against the war campaigns of Kingdom of Hungary.

Uhersky Ostroh however might has to do something with Hungarians. Ostroh is like "palánkvár" - "földvár" (castles built by timber and earth) - "sárvár" literally means mud-castle in Hungarian. Anonymus mention a settlement there called "Saruuar" which could be "Sárvár", this specific settlement.

Uhersky Brod also a bit more interesting. Brod - could mean "gázló" in Hungarian (river ford). The settlement most likely were founded by Andrew I of Hungary in the 1040s.

When, and how these territories became part of Kingdom of Bohemia is unknown.

I have seen some maps of the Kingdom of Hungary during the reign of Saint Stephen, and also of the reign of Béla III of Hungary, where this territory was part of Hungary but some sources are controversial. Let's just say, it's very likely that it was under Hungarian rulership until the 13th century. As the territory probably served as a "gyepű" - Hungarian bufferzone at the border, with dense forest and low population - the archaeological finds from the region could be really scarce to prove or to refute such theories.

Also - mispelled the word "century" to cenutry. sorry.

Kingdom of Hungary at the death of Saint Stephen of Hungary. The dotted lines are the unclear ones.

Kingdom of Hungary during the reign of Béla III. You can see, that this czech territory here is part of Kingdom of Hungary.

My other research is about Transylvania. The shape is almost perfect.

Well the problem, as I mentioned that not every territory managed to preserve it's original borders which once belonged to Kingdom of Hungary.

The counties' borders in Romania were redrawn and not just the counties, but Transylvania's border was changed too. As far as I remembered it has been changed sometime in the 1960-70's, but my fellow romanians who are reading this post could enlighten me on that.

Unfortunately many "history" games are following the today's administration borders of Transylvania which is false. But fear no more, many Hungarians don't know about this border change and I have seen "Greater Hungary" maps with these romanian shape. (yuck!)

You can see how small bits of Transylvania were given to Moldavians and Wallachian counties.

There is a cut in Transylvania, which looks like a "nose". In the Hungarian version it looks more like a C or a turned U shape, on the Romanian however its more like an L shape

And this is my suggestion for the borders so far:

Please give the Lower-Austria bits back to Hungary (I know its small) Also redraw the western borders of Transylvania - I've tried to recrate the proper shape in paint with light blue -

And please change the shape of Fehér (which is Fejér not Fehér btw), and Bácska, to save us from bordergore, and consider adding a new county called "Solt" as it was a county at the time too.

And please rename the state "Kraszna" to Szilágy/Zilah as "Kraszna" named county never existed in Hungary.

And my other suggestion: Add Uhersky Brod/Magyargázló and Uhersky Ostroh/Magyarsárvár to Kingdom of Bohemia as conquerable provinces. So kingdom of Hungary might be capable retaking them back.

And please change the shape of "Severin" - Szörényvár, as when Olténia (Szörényi bánság) was lost to the Romanians Szörényvár stayed under Hungarian rulership for centuries to come. And so Hungary had a weird shape to Oltenia.

And here is some gulyás for reading my post.

 

[Makkasag]

In a previous Tinto post, I shared my concerns regarding the borders and cultures.

Great post but please edit it by making the font size standard in every part. A bit annoying, "hurts the eye"

 

[Materloo]

And well… regarding this description, I know it will trigger many people, but historical facts do not care about anyone’s emotions.

The term "Slovak" is a modern concept. The Slavic people living in Upper Hungary at the time had no national consciousness and did not refer to themselves as Slovaks. Additionally, as discussed in the previous Tinto article, the Ruthenians in Transcarpathia were present in such small numbers that they were negligible—not even worth mentioning. However, the Croatians are notably absent from this description.


Therefore, I recommend the following revision:

"The Carpathian basin is home to more than just the Hungarians. Slavs, Cumans, Germans, Croatians and (not many!, only other) other different minorities (Vlach, and other latin-speaking people, like people from Italia and Wallonia) call our realm their home. As such, it is only natural that our government is proficient in adopting different cultures into our state with ease."

 

[The Russian Empire]

I'd like to see more Cuman-related content, given their status as a de facto autonomous group within the Kingdom that retained political and military influence into at least the 16th century and were often viewed with suspicion by the Hungarian elites.

 

[nyetflix2]

1. Good news, yes, the pop editor has been fixed!
2. Bad news (FTM): We think that at this stage, is more efficient for our workflow to keep working on the review of most aspects, and then we'll make the pop review (both on population size and minorities) all at once. We have already been bookmarking all the relevant and helpful posts in all Tinto Maps posts, so we won't lose any information during the process, just make it differently, workflow-wise.

Does the pop review include culture/religion distribution in general, in addition to minorities?

 

[Polesie Admiral]

Arabia, really? Are you guys sure you have not forgotten a rather important Tinto Map feedback that people have been waiting for for a very long time?

Dave's still cooking