• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tinto Maps #9 - 5th of July 2024 - Carpathia and the Balkans

Greetings, and welcome to another Tinto Maps! This week we will be taking a look at Carpathia and the Balkans! It will most likely be an interesting region to take a look at, with a lot of passion involved… So I’ll just make an initial friendly reminder to keep a civil discussion, as in the latest Tinto Maps, as that’s the easiest way for us to read and gather your feedback, and improve the region in a future iteration. And now, let’s start with the maps!

Countries:
Countries.png

Carpathia and the Balkans start in a very interesting situation. The Kingdom of Hungary probably stands as the most powerful country in 1337, but that only happened after the recovery of the royal power enforced by Charles I Robert of the House of Anjou, who reined in the powerful Hungarian nobility. To the south, the power that is on the rise is the Kingdom of Serbia, ruled by Stefan Uroš IV Dušan, who has set his eyes on his neighbors to expand his power. The Byzantine Empire, meanwhile, is in a difficult position, as internal struggles ended in Andronikos III being crowned sole emperor, at the cost of dividing the realm; both Serbia and Bulgaria have in the past pressed over the bordering lands, while the Ottomans have very recently conquered Nicomedia. The control over the Southern Balkans is also very fractioned, with a branch of the Anjou ruling over Albania, the Despotate of Epirus under the nominal rule of Byzantium as a vassal, Athens, Neopatria and Salona as vassals of the Aragonese Kings of Sicily, Anjou protectorates over Achaia and Naxos, and only nominal Byzantine control over Southern Morea. It’s also noticeable the presence of the Republics of Venice and Genoa, which control several outposts over the Adriatic and Aegean Seas. A final note: in previous maps, Moldavia was shown in the map, but we’ve removed it from it, and it will most likely spawn through a chain of events in the 1340s.

Dynasties:
Dynasties.png

The House of Anjou rules over Naples, Hungary, Albania, Achaia, and Cephalonia; they’re truly invested in their push for supremacy over the region. Apart from that, each country is ruled by different dynasties, except for Athens and Neopatria, ruled by the House of Aragón-Barcelona.

Locations:
Locations 1.png

Locations 2.png

Locations 3.png

Locations 4.png
This week we’re posting the general map of the region, along with some more detailed maps, that can be seen if you click on the spoiler button. A starting comment is that the location density of Hungary is noticeably not very high; the reason is that it was one of the first European maps that we made, and we based it upon the historical counties. Therefore, I’m already saying in advance that this will be an area that we want to give more density when we do the review of the region; any help regarding that is welcome. Apart from that, you may notice on the more detailed maps that Crete appears in one, while not being present in the previous one; because of the zooming, the island will appear next week along with Cyprus, but I wanted to make an early sneak peek of the locations, given that is possible with this closer zoom level. Apart from that, I’m also saying in advance that we will make an important review of the Aegean Islands, so do not take them as a reference for anything, please.

Provinces:
Provinces.png

Provinces! Nothing outstanding to be commented on here; as usual, we’re open to any feedback regarding them.

Terrain:
Climate.png

Topography.png

Vegetation.png

Terrain! The climate of the region is mostly divided between Continental and Mediterranean, with some warmer and some colder regions. Regarding the topography, the Carpathian mountains are famously important and strategic, while the Balkans are a quite hilly and mountainous region, which is also greatly covered by woods and forests.

Cultures:
Cultures.png

Here comes the fun part of the DD: The cultural division of the Balkans! A few comments:
  1. Hungary is full of different minorities. Transylvania, especially, is an interesting place: there we have a mix of ‘Hungarians’, ‘Transylvanians’ (which are the Romanian-speaking inhabitants of the region), ‘Transylvanian Germans’, and ‘Szekely’ people.
  2. We have divided the Southern Slavic-speaking region into their dialectal families of Slovene, Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian.
  3. The Southern Balkans are mostly divided among Bulgarian, Albanian, and Greek cultures.
  4. We’re also portraying plenty of other cultures, such as Dalmatians, Aromanians, Sclavenes, Arvanites, Cumans, Jasz, or Ashkenazi and Romanyoti Jews.

Religions:
Religion.png

This one is also interesting. Apart from the divide between Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, we have the Krstjani in Bosnia, Bogomils (the pink stripes both in Bosnia and Macedonia), and Paulicians in Thrace. The Jewish populations do not pass the threshold percentage to appear on the map, but there are plenty of communities across the region.

Raw Materials:
Raw Materials.png

The materials of the region. Something very noticeable is the richness of minerals, with plenty of Iron, Copper, Tin, Lead, Gold, and Silver. Specifically, Slovakia is very rich, and you definitely want more settlers to migrate to the region, and exploit its resources. The region is also very rich in agricultural resources, as you can see.

Markets:
Markets.png

The region is mostly divided among four markets: Venice, Pest, Ragusa and Constantinople.

Country and Location population:
Population 1.png

Population 2.png

Population 3.png

Population 4.png
Country and location population (which I’ve also sub-divided, and is under the Spoiler button).

And that’s all of today! I hope that you find the region interesting; we certainly think that it is. Next week we will go further south, and we will take a look at the Syrian Levant and Egypt. Cheers!
 
  • 193Like
  • 69Love
  • 7
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Well yes, I can confirm that the sources provided by the people I disagree with sometimes don't maintain the things they speak of, but I'm not sure when I previously mentioned Dragos and Bogdan. :)
Your job was mostly a support character, to agree and confirm to everything the big boys said.

But when I asked ibvfteh for sources to his theory that:
- The Romanian speakers came from the Eastern Carpathians in big enough numbers to form a majority after 1337, before that there were hardly any Romanian speakers in Moldavia.
- Almost half of Moldavia was still made up by a majority of Slavic speakers by 1337.
- The southern half of Moldavia (everything south of Iasi and Orhei) was made by a majority of Tatar speakers by 1337.
- With Moldavians only being the majority in Baia and a few in Iasi and Galati.

His reply (that you agreed to) was:
- Tivertsi and Ulichs are briefly mentioned in early Ruthenian manuscripts, 863 being the earliest reference, and 944 being the latest. (game starts in 1337? it only mentions them, not that they were a majority in any way, let alone exist in half of Moldavia as he paints it)
- Romanians are not mentioned to live somewhere between Prut and Dniestr rivers at that time. (see the previous post with a lot of mentions of Romanians)
- Bolokhovians and Berladnici (For which, there is no mention of Bolokhovians and Berladnici after the 13th century. By contrast, there are mentions of Romanians)
- Dragos and Bogdan coming with their men from Maramures and founding some villages. (as if this somehow implies that Moldavia previously had no Romanians and that these numbers were big enough to turn Moldavia from Romanian minority to Romanian majority. None of this is what the source say. But ibvfteh automatically implies this and uses the source as evidence)
- A map with the Bolokhovians in north-east Moldavia, as evidence for Bolokhovians in north-east Moldavia 1337, when Bolokhovians were last heard of in 1257 and the homeland of the Bolokhovians is much debated, see the above maps placing Bolokhovians in modern-day Ukraine.
- "Yes but Bolokhovians are placeholder for Slavs" he says in answer. Placeholder for Slavs or not, the same issues of not in 1337 and possibly not even in Moldavia still apply, placeholders or not.
- A toponyms map for which about 70% of Moldavia is Romanian, but we should ignore the Moldavian part as they may have come later. (so essentially, is using a source, and is building a speculation on top of the source, as if his speculation was what the source said, it wasn't)
etc.

So 80% of what he's saying is not supported by the sources he provides as back up for what he is saying. But he likes to disguise his speculation as "backed up by source".

- Did he provide any source mentioning a Tatar majority in the southern half of Moldavia (everything south of Iasi and Orhei) by 1337? No. It's his speculation, based on them being mentioned a few centuries ago, and not even as a majority or to the extent he paints them on the map.
- Did he provide any source mentioning a Slavic majority in the northern half of Moldavia by 1337? No. His main point is the Bolokhovians last heard of after they were conquered in 1257 which were never mentioned as a majority and may not have lived there in the first place.
- Did he provide any evidence that there were hardly any Romanian speakers in Moldavia in 1337? No. His main point is Dragos and Bogdan coming with their men from Maramures and founding some villages, which according to him this must means that this is where all the Romanians came from. Therefore this map I made, pointing out that lack of sources aside it's very unrealistic for the small red region to spread in 10 years all over the blue region to make the Romanians a majority there.
map.jpg

- In defense, he brought up some Soviet sources (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovenism ; not saying every Soviet source is bad, but context is needed, these kind of schools of thought are considered fringe) there were a total of 78.000 people in Moldavia. Which is a very small number, but that would still mean that in Maramures (the red region) there needed to live far >78.000 Romanians for this to be true. Enough to become a majority in Moldavia & remain a Majority in Maramures as the Romanian Voivodship of Maramures continued to exist up until 1402. So the numbers in his theory don't add up.

etc; but that's the main gist of it.

So I'm not against these theories because I have something with them, but because I simply do not see how the sources he provided connect to the point he is trying to make & being from Bessarabia I've heard these points before from pro-Russian nationalists. Maybe it was a bit rash of me jump on the you must be a Russian nationalist too vagon but the points are from there.
"A distinguishing feature of Moldovenism is the fact that it is not an autochthonous product, but is the result of Soviet academics’ efforts to substantiate the claims of the Soviet Union on the territory between the Prut and the Dniester, widely considered as Bessarabia. (...)"

So, so you did not state it, but you agreed to it and supported it, but if you wish to make it more general, ok:
fixedit.png
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This is low. Insulting people only shows your lack of respect.
Nevermind the fact that he insulted me first I guess.
You literally were incorrect about him and instead of accepting just went for insults. It’s shameful
I literally wrote in the post above of which you replied why I wasn’t incorrect. But I guess we are at step 3 now, ignoring.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
And I found a source on the Bolokhovians = Romanians.
Lisseanu wrote about the city of Bolechov, the most important center of the Bolohovians, that it was referred to in a Polish chronicle as "Vila Valachorum dicta" (the village called of the Vlachs).
Source: G.Popa Lisseanu, Continuitatea românilor în Dacia.Editura Vestalia, Bucurest, 2014, p.75
I looked it up and it seems like you reference Wikipedia without looking into the source. G.Popa Lisseanu cites linguist E.Kaluzniacki without citing any actual work of Kaluzniacki, but I take it
1732003585535.png

The problem here is that Bolechov is a modern town that located far from actual Bolokhov which gave the name to Bolokhovians. Bolokhov, according to chronicles, was located around the upper reaches of Southern Bug and Horyn rivers. Bolechov, on the other hand, is located in Carpathians near Drohobych far outside of Bolokhovian domain, on top of that, one of Bolechov districts is called Vlach village, so there is no evil conspiracy to hide secret Vlach toponymy there. Romanian Wikipedia just messes shit up. What is likely happened here is that Bolechov was one of the Vlach settlements along their migration to Moravia in 14th century. This has nothing to do with Bolokhovians and archaeology contradicts their connection to Romanians, even Spinei admits that in Spinei - The Romanians and The Turkic Nomads North of The Danube Delta From The Tenth To The Mid-Thirteenth Century-Brill (2009) (link)
 
Last edited:
  • 6
Reactions:
You got to love the serious (and mostly constructive) discussion about Moldavia interspersed with memes about Zeprion as well as this feedback taking too damn long.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
@Wildrake
Source translation:

"The Vlach principalities are found, in annalistic tradition, not only in the former Hungary, but also in the northern regions of our country, in Galicia up until the upper Bug. And because the Vlachs were always called by Russians "Volochs", we deduce that there is no reason to doubt the nationality of these Vlach populations found north of the Carpathian or the nationality of the Bolokhovians (written Volochovians). The origin of the name Volochov, was proven first by E.Kaluzniacki where the settlement Bolechov from Galicia is called "Vila Valachorum dicta".

Romanian Wikipedia seems to accurately reflect this text from Spinei.

Spinei does seem to reference a Bolechov from Galicia. Possibly the one near Drohobych, but both of them place the Bolokhovians very far from Moldavia.

There is no consensus on the exact location of Bolokhovians. It's possible Spinei believes in this version from Martin Dimnik, since according to him: "The Vlach principalities are found, (...) in Galicia up until the upper Bug".
Bolokhoveni.png


Thanks for providing the source: Spinei - The Romanians and The Turkic Nomads North of The Danube Delta From The Tenth To The Mid-Thirteenth Century-Brill (2009) (link)!

Could you please point to the page where he discusses that archaeology contradicts their connection to Romanians, I tried searching for keywords but cannot find it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Thanks for providing the source: Spinei - The Romanians and The Turkic Nomads North of The Danube Delta From The Tenth To The Mid-Thirteenth Century-Brill (2009) (link)!
161-162, he states that material culture is almost the same with Slavic cultures around but mentions Vlach enclaves (such as Bolechov) in the area of Halych-Volhynia

Yeah, you are right that Romanian Wikipedia references Lisseanu correctly, seems he conflated Bolokhov in old Chronicles and Bolechov which was first mentioned in 1371 (around the time of Vlach migration to Moravia)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Found it, thank you!

"Equally controversial is the ethnicity of the Bolokhovens, a population mentioned as living in the Rus’ regions to the north-east from Moldavia. On the basis of similarity with the name of the Volokh/Wallachians, some have regarded them as of Romanian origin, the more so since during the Middle Ages there seems to have been many Romance speaking enclaves within the Galician-Volhynia Principality. Archaeo-logical investigations undertaken in the last few decades have precisely detected the settlements of the Bolokhoven princes mentioned in the chronicles, and defined the features of their material culture. Those features are specific to western Rus’ territories, a fact that is believed to be relevant for defining the ethnicity of the Bolokhovens. The idea that the Bolokhovens were Rus’ is also supported by evidence of relations between Bolokhoven princes and Galician noble families. Some believe that prior to the battle at Kalka, the lands of the Bolokhovens were ruled from Kiev. Bolokhoven princely were sworn enemies of Daniil (Danylo) Romanovich, against whom they fought in 1231, 1235, 1241, and 1257. As the confrontations were between unequal military forces, the Bolokhovens allied themselves with Daniil’s enemies, the Hungarians and the Mongols. Their fortified settlements enabled the Bolokhovens to opposed the Galicians for many decades. However they could not stand the campaign organized by Daniil in 1257, and thus their chances of political emancipation were ruined. Medieval places names and the existence of villages organized according to the so-called Romanian law (jus Valachicum) on Galicia-northern slopes of the northern Carpathians, which were part of Galych-Volhynia, indicate a numerous Romanian population and point out certain features of its organization."

Indeed. Spinei regards the Bolokhovens as most likely Rus' and points out that the argument that they are Romanians is based on the name similarity with Volokhs, but he does view the homeland of the Bolokhovens outside Moldavia over the Dniester river like Martin Dimnik.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Nevermind the fact that he insulted me first I guess.

I literally wrote in the post above of which you replied why I wasn’t incorrect. But I guess we are at step 3 now, ignoring.
makes memes about me and others like we are conspiring with propaganda against him and the Romanian people, not even caring where we are from.
Yep, Putin - Orban team checks out.
thumbs_b_c_8ea85cd9ec015b519f7abc64dfb9062b.jpg
Someone makes a meme about him
Proceeds to respond, but lies in the response meme itself
when pointed out, insults the person
Your job was mostly a support character, to agree and confirm to everything the big boys said.
and now, to top it off, he claims he was not the first to do so
Nevermind the fact that he insulted me first I guess.

I literally wrote in the post above of which you replied why I wasn’t incorrect. But I guess we are at step 3 now, ignoring.

marvellous
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
makes memes about me and others like we are conspiring with propaganda against him and the Romanian people, not even caring where we are from.
makes memes about me then are surprised pikachu when I respond with a meme about them

thinks I don't know where you and a few other people here are from.
Someone makes a meme about him
where they lie in the meme itself
Proceeds to respond, but lies in the response meme itself
does not actually but ibvfteh proceeds to ignore this part.
when pointed out, insults the person
so my memes about you are insults but your memes about me are not insults, got it
and now, to top it off, he claims he was not the first to do so marvellous
and now, to top it off, they want to play the victims after they made 5 pages of memes about me

the only thing that upsets you is that I responded in kind

marvellous
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I think this thread will be solely held responsible for the Downfall of Paradox Tinto.
 
  • 1Love
Reactions: