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

[Thorum]

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.

ok

Can't sleep with the horiible weather, so ... Dodecanese.


a basic map. Purple are TT location borders (Kastelorizo not drawn, Astypalea included with the Cyclades, which is just wrong. Yellow are today's "regional unit" borders. I'll be ignoring the geographically separate Kastelorizo

So, what kind of areas does this give ?
- the three not-Rhodes regional units each have around 350 km²
- Kastelorizo which is max 20 km²
- the island of Rhodes itself is 1400 km²
- the remainder of the Rhodes regional unit is 170 km²

As for history, checking the islands > 50 km² on wiki ("..." meaning "see Rhodes") :
- Rhodes (1400 km²) : 1337 knights Hospitaller, 1522 Ottoman, 1912/1923 Italian, 1943 German, 1945 British, 1947 Greek
- Karpathos (325 km²) : 1337 Venice (Cornaro family), 1538 Ottoman, ...
- Kos (288 km²) : 1337 knights Hospitaller vassal to Genoa (de Vignoli family), 1522 Ottoman, ...
- Kalymnos (111 km²) : ...
- Astypalea (96 km²) : 1337 Venice (Querini family), 1522 Ottoman, 1648 Venice, 1668 Ottoman, 1821 Greek, 1828 Ottoman, ...
- Kasos (66 km²) : see Karpathos
- Tilos (61 km²) : ...
- Symi (58 km²) : ...
- Leros (54 km²) : 1337 knights Hospitaller, 1522 Ottoman, 1821 Greek, 1830 Ottoman, ...

So, what would I do (ignoring Kastelorizo) ?
- Karpathos-Kasos regional unit + Astypalea separate location, as a vassal of Venice.
the remainder is Knights "north of Kos" or "between Kos and Rhodes" are too small, so I'd go for
- combination of Kos and Kalymnos regional units
- the northeast of Rhodes island including the city itself
- the rest of Rhodes regional unit (including both the mountainous part of the island and the smaller islands like Tilos and Symi).

 

[Linbot#6018]

This could help with the region borders:

It's unclear how accurate this video is exactly.

 

[Thorum]

"north of Kos" or "between Kos and Rhodes" are too small,

Looking just north, it seems that the island of Ikaria, while with Samos and Chios under Genoa officially in 1337, was heavily influenced by the knights and/or even governed by them for a few decades before the 1522 fall.

With Samos on its own being large enough, and the location of the Bodrum Peninsula, that could make an alternative arrangement possible:
- islands of Rhodes and Samos each as location on its own (Rhodes maybe even two locations, depending on how sieges work)
- Kos including everything between Kos and Rhodes
- islands north of Kos including Ikaria, Patmos and Leros

 

[Mingmung]

A continuation of feedback about some things I found about the allocation of tradegoods, this time focusing on the Tsardom of Bulgaria (and some of its surroundings). I have mentioned some things, like salt-production in Anhialo, earlier in this thread.

List of changes I'd make to Bulgaria (and surroundings):
- Pangalia: Salt -> Wool/Fish
- Anhialo: Wine -> Salt
- Burgas: Livestock -> Fish
- Samokov: Lumber -> Iron
- Visesav: Copper -> Wheat
- Kucevo: Wheat -> Copper
- Mentioned earlier in this thread, but Kucevo should be renamed into Golubac, a far more important location/fortress (and its borders changed accordingly, if necessary)
- The current setup for the Tsardom of Bulgaria obviously has a lot of Lumber, Wheat and Livestock, but kind of misses a Horse-producing location somewhere.

Sources/explanations:
- I couldn't find anything about salt-works within the location of Pangalia. Salt water from the Black Sea might have been evaporated on a local level, and there were rock salt deposits here and there in Bulgaria, but nothing what I saw is decisive enough to justify Salt as a tradegood for this location. Anhialo (Ahyolu in Turkish, and nowadays called Pomorie), however, did have some relatively big saltworks (and even has a museum about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Museum,_Pomorie). It was operated in Roman/Byzantine times, but also during Ottoman rule:

Source: An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire (by Halil Inalcik).
- Burgas is a small location with the Livestock-tradegood, which should probably be replaced by Fish. When Burgas was founded on the ruins of Pyrgos, it actually started out as a small fishing village. The location mostly consists of a shoreline, too. Burgas was also known as an important port for the shipment of grain, but that was probably produced in the hinterlands (outside the location). https://www.britannica.com/place/Burgas
- Logging was prominent in the Samokov region, but it was also famous for its iron-production (not to be confused with the foundries and forges of Demirkoy in Eastern Thrace, which was also called Samokov). Bulgaria currently has quite a few Lumber-producing locations, but none for Iron (unless it starts conquering its neighbours). The Wikipedia-page mentions a lot about the iron-production here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samokov and tourist-information sites also got a few notes on the town (https://samokov-info.com/landmarks/the-samokov/?lang=en). An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire (by Halil Inalcik) also mentions the export of iron from Samokov. The inclusion of the Iron-tradegood here is basically a no-brainer, really.
- The Copper-tradegood has currently been assigned to the Serbian location of Visesav, but major copper-deposits are actually located just to the west of this location, inside Kucevo. Namely the historical coppermine of Majdanpek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majdanpek) which was exploited by the Ottomans around the early 17th century (but could already have seen low levels of local exploitation). There's also the gigantic Bor coppermine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bor_mine), in proper use since the early 20th century. This one might be located within Kozelj, but shouldn't be considered because of it being a big anachronism. In short; Kucevo should get the Copper-tradegood because of Majdanpek and Visesav could get Wheat (or something else) in return.

Next stop: Thrace and other parts of Greece.

 

[Zeprion]

THE ROMANIANS'S CULTURE ISSUE: SIMPLE FIX

You have 4 Eastern Romance branches:
- Aromanian
- Istro-Romanian
- Megleno-Romanian
- Romanian (sometimes called Daco-Romanian)

Daco-Romanian - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Romanian language - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"To distinguish it within the Eastern Romance languages, in comparative linguistics it is called Daco-Romanian as opposed to its closest relatives, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian."

This is a list of all cultures known at the moment:
Thank you, @Gianvitus !

LATIN GROUPS

Spoiler: Italic Group

1. Piedmontese
2. Ligurian
3. Lombard
4. Emilian
5. Gallo-Italic
6. Venetian
7. Dalmatian
8. Friulian
9. Ladin
10. Romansh
11. Tuscan
12. Corsican
13. Median
14. Neapolitan
15. Sicilian
16. Sardinian (in theory, it's not Italian Group, but can be reasonabily grouped here)
17. Maltese (same as Sardinian - best fit is here)

Spoiler: French Group

I don't know if French will be separated as their language in 'Langue d'oc' and 'Langue d'oil'; in that case the former are nn° 1-6, the latter 7-19. Arpitan language is closer to oil but is neither oc nor oil.

1. Provençal
2. Alpine
3. Languedocien
4. Gascon
5. Limousin
6. Auvergnat
7. Saintongeais
8. Poitevin
9. Berrichon
10. Bourguignon
11. Franc Comtois
12. Champenois
13. Angevin
14. Picard
15. Norman
16. Walloon
17. Gallo
18. Lorrain
19. Francien
20. Arpitan

Spoiler: Romanian Group

1. Wallachian
2. Transylvanian
3. Aromanian
4. Istroromanian

Spoiler: Iberic Group

1. Portuguese
2. Galician
3. Asturleonese
4. Castillian
5. Aragonese
6. Catalan
7. Andalusi (in TM#13 devs confirmed it's not in Arabic group, so probabily it'll go here)

CELTIC GROUPS

Spoiler: Celtic Group

Same as French: Brittonic (1-3) and Gaelic (4-6)

1. Breton
2. Welsh
3. Cornish
4. Highland
5. Irish
6. Norse-Gael

GERMANIC GROUPS

Spoiler: Scandinavian Group

1. Danish
2. Swedish
3. Norwegian
4. Icelandic
5. Gutnish

Spoiler: British Group

1. English
2. Anglo-Irish
3. Scots
4. Northumbrian (proposed, not official; waiting for TM Feedback)

Spoiler: German Group

Same as French, can be divided in Low German (2-13) and High German (14-27). Frisian is neither, but closer to Low G. EDIT: devs confirmed the existence of a unique German Group.

1. Frisian (proabily it's going here, but at least the language is more similar to the British Group)
2. Lower Franconian
3. Westphalian
4. Prussian
5. Baltic German
6. Lower Saxon
7. Angrian
8. Eastphalian
9. Holsatian
10. Brandeburgish
11. Markish
12. West Pomeranian
13. East Pomeranian
14. Transylvanian German/Siebenbürger (as proposed in TM#9 comments)
15. Moselle Franconian
16. Ripuarian Franconian
17. Rhine Franconian
18. Silesian German
19. Carpathian German/Zipser (as proposed in TM#9 comments)
20. Southern Bavarian
21. Danube Bavarian
22. Saxon
23. East Franconian
24. Upper Palatine
25. Swabian
26. High Alemannic
27. Rhine Alemannic

BALTO-SLAVIC GROUPS

Spoiler: Baltic Group

1. Western Baltic
2. Samogitian
3. Latvian
4. Aukstaitian

Spoiler: West Slavic Group

1. Polish
2. Silesian
3. Kashubian
4. Polabian
5. Moravian
6. Czech
7. Slovak
8. Sorbian

Spoiler: East Slavic Group

1. Ruthenian
2. Severian
3. Moscovite
4. Novgorodian
5. Rusyn
6. Pomor

Spoiler: South Slavic Group

1. Slovene
2. Croatian
3. Bosnian
4. Serbian
5. Bulgarian
6. Sclavene

HELLENIC GROUPS

Spoiler: Hellenic Group

1. Greek
2. Pontic
3. Cappadocian

ARMENIAN GROUPS

Spoiler: Armenian Group

1. Armenian

ALBANIAN GROUPS

Spoiler: Albanian Group

1. Albanian
2. Arvanites

INDO-IRANIAN GROUPS

Spoiler: Iranic Group

1. Kurd

BASQUE GROUPS

Spoiler: Basque Group

1. Basque

UGRO-FINNIC GROUPS

Spoiler: Permic Group

1. Komi
2. Udmurt

Spoiler: Finno-Baltic Group

1. Estonian
2. Livonian
3. Finnish
4. Karelian
5. Ingrian
6. Vepsian
7. Kven
8. Tavastian
9. Savonian
10. Bjarmian

Spoiler: Samic Group

1. Sami (probabily will be split)

Spoiler: Volgaic Group

1. Erzya
2. Moksha
3. Mari

Spoiler: Hungaric Group

1. Hungarian
2. Szekely
3. Jasz (same as Maltese: Jasz people are from Iranic origin, but they'll probabily go here)

Spoiler: Ob-Ugric Group

1. Mansi
2. Khanty (not yet confirmed)

SAMOYEDIC GROUPS

Spoiler: Samoyedic Group

1. Nenets

TURKIC GROUPS
The alternative is a Pan-Turkic Group

Spoiler: Oghur Group

1. Chuvash

Spoiler: Oghuz Group

1. Turkish
2. Turkoman

Spoiler: Kypchak Group

1. Kazani
2. Mishary
3. Cuman
4. Bashkir

KARTVELIAN GROUPS

Spoiler: Zan Group

1. Laz

SEMITIC GROUPS

Spoiler: Jewish Group

1. Italki
2. Sephardic
3. Ashkenazi
4. Romanyoti
5. Mizrahi
6. Musta'ravi

Spoiler: Samaritan Group

1. Samaritan (Samaritan and Jews did not get along, so I don't thik it's correct to have them in the same CG)

Here devs talked about Arabic and Maghrebi Groups, so I divided them

Spoiler: Arabic Group

1. Egyptian
2. Sa'idi
3. Bedouin
4. Hijazi
5. Najidi
6. Levantine
7. Iraqi
8. Alawite (proabily here)

Spoiler: Maghrebi Group

1. Libyan
2. Moroccan
3. Algerian
4. Tunisian
5. Hassaniya

HAMITIC GROUPS

Spoiler: Berber Group

1. Masmuda
2. Sanhaja
3. Zenati
4. Kabylian
5. Chaoui
6. Mozabite
7. Eastern Berber/Fezzani (name proposed in TM#10)
8. Tuareg
9. Guanche
10. Massufa
11. Lamtuna
12. Godala

CHADIC GROUPS

Spoiler: Chadic Group

1. Hausa
2. Mandara.
3. Sao

SAHARAN GROUPS

Spoiler: Saharan Group

1. Toubou
2. Kanembu
3. Zaghawa

SUDANIC GROUPS

Spoiler: Bongo Group

1. Baguirumi
2. Bilala

SONGHAI GROUPS

Spoiler: Songhai Group

1. Songhai

ATLANTIC GROUPS

Spoiler: Gur Group

1. Mamprusi
2. Dagbani
3. Mossi
4. Tem
5. Kabiye
6. Bariba
7. Gonja
8. Gurma
9. Gurunsi

Spoiler: Kwa Group

1. Akan

Spoiler: Benue Group

1. Bantoid
2. Bassa
3. Benue
4. Bubi
5. Fang Gabon

Spoiler: Niger Group

Can be split in Gbe (1-3), Nupe (4-5), Idoma (6), Yoruba (7-8), Igbe (9) and Edo (10): feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

1. Ajan
2. Ewe
3. Fon
4. Gbari
5. Nupe
6. Idoma
7. Igala
8. Yoruba
9. Igbo
10. Edo

Spoiler: Ubangi Group

1. Adamawa

Spoiler: Mel Group

1. Baga
2. Bullom
3. Sherbro
4. Kissi
5. Temne

Spoiler: Bak Group

1. Balanta
2. Jola
3. Manjak

Spoiler: Fula Group

1. Fulbe
2. Serer
3. Tenda
4. Wolof

Spoiler: Gola Group

1. Gola

Spoiler: Ijaw Group

1. Ijaw

Spoiler: Senufo Group

1. Senufo

MANDE GROUPS

Spoiler: Mandé Group

1. Bambara
2. Dyula
3. Kono
4. Mandinka
5. Bobo
6. Soninke
7. Dan
8. Kpelle

KRU GROUPS

Spoiler: Kru Group

1. Eastern Kru
2. Western Kru

DOGON GROUPS

Spoiler: Dogon Group

1. Dogon

ESKALUIT GROUPS

Spoiler: Inuit Group

1. Kalaallit

There is the Romanian group:

1. Wallachian
2. Transylvanian
3. Aromanian
4. Istroromanian

Which is absurd because Aromanians & Istroromanian =/= Romanian.
And Wallachian & Transylvanian = Romanian but in EU5's timeline they weren't different enough to be a different culture. They aren't different today either but back then it was even more similar. Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania are not as different as Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia. Far from it.

Many people expressed this previously, so there's no point beating a dead horse. I just wish to say that the "Romanian group" could be called the "Eastern Latin" group or the "Vlach group" and be split into:
- Romanian (or Daco-Romanian, both are correct)
- Aromanian
- Istroromanian
- Meglenoromanian

Eastern Romance languages - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Polesie Admiral]

how would the game prevent(or slow) hungary from blobbing and eating the romanian principalities and bosnia like in eu4, perhaps making them tributaries?

 

[Tantara]

how would the game prevent(or slow) hungary from blobbing and eating the romanian principalities and bosnia like in eu4, perhaps making them tributaries?

Control, probably.
If control is sufficiently weak getting across the Carpathians, Hungary would be better off making Moldavia/Wallachia into vassals than ruling them directly.
Of course, they're also right down the Danube, so it'll be interesting to see how much major rivers actually affect control

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

Control, probably.
If control is sufficiently weak getting across the Carpathians, Hungary would be better off making Moldavia/Wallachia into vassals than ruling them directly.
Of course, they're also right down the Danube, so it'll be interesting to see how much major rivers actually affect control

This, and Walachia just being hard to invade from the north in general. You’re marching over a mountain into a fortress, you’re at a massive disadvantage militarily.

 

[Zeprion]

how would the game prevent(or slow) hungary from blobbing and eating the romanian principalities and bosnia like in eu4, perhaps making them tributaries?

I have a historically accurate reason for this, but my guess is that it will be rather difficulty to implement - Lus Valachicum/Vlach Law

The Vlach law was a set of legal customs and regulations historically applied to the Vlach people in Eastern Europe. The Vlachs were a people who primarily engaged in livestock herding, such as sheep and cattle. The Vlach law governed various aspects of their social, legal, and economic lives, reflecting their unique way of life.

Here are some key features of the Vlach law:

1. Pastoral Rights and Obligations: The law focused on the management of livestock, grazing rights, and land use. It provided specific rules about the seasonal movement of herds (transhumance), which involved migrating between summer and winter pastures. The Vlach law allowed for a certain autonomy within regions where pastoralism was a dominant way of life.
2. Autonomy and Taxation: Under the Vlach law, Vlachs were often granted a degree of local autonomy by various rulers (such as the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, or medieval Serbian and Hungarian states) in exchange for military service or tribute. They were often required to pay taxes in the form of livestock rather than money, and these privileges and obligations were defined by the Vlach law.
3. Social Organization: The law also regulated the internal social structure of the Vlach communities. These communities were often organized around kinship groups, with leadership roles (such as cnezi aka counts) being passed down through families. The law helped maintain order within these groups and ensured collective responsibility for certain legal obligations.
4. Judicial Matters: The Vlach law included specific regulations on resolving disputes within the community. Issues such as inheritance, theft, marriage, and property rights were adjudicated according to these customs, often within the context of the community itself, rather than relying on external authorities.

The Vlach law allowed these communities to retain their distinct cultural identity while adapting to the political and legal frameworks of the larger states they lived within. It reflected a blend of Roman, Byzantine, Slavic, and local influences and varied across regions.

In essence, the Vlach Law is that the Vlachs:

• Peasants always had the right to travel
• Peasants always had the right to carry weapons
• Peasants always the right to hunt. (even on noblemen's forests)
• Peasants had no mandatory labour service
• Peasants were expected to pay taxes in livestock or money. (not expected in agriculture, but accepted)
• The Counts/Cnezi were a hereditary title but the Dukes/Voievods were elected by the Romanian Cnezi under the Voievod.
• Non-Romanian Cnezi had no vote in picking the next Dukes/Voievods after their death.
• No foreign Cnezi or Voivode would rule over Romanian peasants
• A foreign Domnitor/King could rule over a Romanian Voivode who in turn would rule over the Romanians.
• For these privileges, peasants where required to participate in battle or pay a fine.

This law was so important that the Lus Valachicum/Vlach Law is the reason Wallachia and Moldavia became independent from Hungary in the first place. The king of Hungary attempted to revoke these rights, and institute typical feudalism in Wallachia, enough Vlachs considered this too much in order to start a revolt.

The Vlach law and the associated status of the Vlach communities played a role in the conflicts between the Kingdom of Hungary and Basarab I, which ultimately contributed to the emergence of Wallachia as an independent state. The tensions revolved around control of territories and the rights of the Vlachs living in those regions, particularly in the area that would become Wallachia.

During the 13th and 14th centuries, the Kingdom of Hungary sought to expand its influence over the Carpathian and Danubian regions, including territories inhabited by Vlachs. The Hungarian crown had incorporated these regions into its realm, attempting to control the Vlach communities through the granting of privileges and obligations, including military service and tribute under the so-called Vlach law. At the same time, the local Vlach cnezi were trying to consolidate their own power and secure autonomy from Hungarian control.

Basarab I, a Vlach voivode (duke) who ruled in the early 14th century, sought to assert greater independence from the Kingdom of Hungary. Basarab came to power in what was a frontier region between Hungarian-controlled Transylvania and the lands south of the Carpathian Mountains. As a Vlach leader, Basarab was able to rally the local Vlach population, who were bound by the Vlach law, to resist Hungarian control, who was trying to implement a typical form of feudalism in Wallachia.

The Vlach law itself was a legal framework that allowed the Vlachs a certain degree of autonomy in exchange for military service and tribute, typically paid in livestock. However, the increasing demands from the Hungarian crown for control and intervention in the Romanian affairs created tensions with the local Vlach leaders, including Basarab. These demands conflicted with the Vlach desire for autonomy and were seen as attempts to tighten Hungarian control over the region.

The conflict came to a head in 1330 when Charles I of Hungary (also known as Charles Robert) attempted to reassert control over Basarab I and his territories. Charles I launched a military campaign to subdue Basarab and bring Wallachia back under Hungarian domination. However, Basarab's forces, composed largely of Vlach warriors, ambushed and decisively defeated the Hungarian army at the Battle of Posada (1330).

The victory at Posada marked a turning point in the struggle for Wallachian independence. Basarab's successful resistance to Hungarian control allowed him to consolidate his rule over Wallachia, leading to the establishment of Wallachia as an independent principality. This effectively ended Hungarian suzerainty over the region, although Hungary continued to claim influence over Wallachia in subsequent years.

The Vlach law, with its provisions for autonomy and distinct rights for the Vlach communities, was a major cause for the tensions between the Kingdom of Hungary and Basarab I. The conflict centered on Hungarian efforts to assert control over the Vlach territories, which clashed with the Vlach desire for autonomy and self-rule. Basarab I’s leadership and military success in resisting Hungarian dominance were instrumental in Wallachia's emergence as an independent state in the early 14th century.

 

[Zeprion]

Adding this would require adding unique inheritance and peasants' rights mechanics for the Romanians, including low popularity if they are ruled by a non-Romanian duke or count (king is okay). This means that you can own Wallachia and Moldavia at best as a vassal state without the risk of them revolting against you.

So I completely understand if it's too much. Perhaps a simple "resistance to occupation/foreign rule" bonus would abstractize this well enough. Your only real safe option would be making them vassals.

 

[Mingmung]

It's still a game, though. Conquest of Wallachia and Moldavia shouldn't necessary be harder than other areas.

@Zeprion Those bits of information are interesting, nonetheless.

 

[ArVass]

I have a historically accurate reason for this, but my guess is that it will be rather difficulty to implement - Lus Valachicum/Vlach Law

The Vlach law was a set of legal customs and regulations historically applied to the Vlach people in Eastern Europe. The Vlachs were a people who primarily engaged in livestock herding, such as sheep and cattle. The Vlach law governed various aspects of their social, legal, and economic lives, reflecting their unique way of life.

Here are some key features of the Vlach law:

1. Pastoral Rights and Obligations: The law focused on the management of livestock, grazing rights, and land use. It provided specific rules about the seasonal movement of herds (transhumance), which involved migrating between summer and winter pastures. The Vlach law allowed for a certain autonomy within regions where pastoralism was a dominant way of life.
2. Autonomy and Taxation: Under the Vlach law, Vlachs were often granted a degree of local autonomy by various rulers (such as the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, or medieval Serbian and Hungarian states) in exchange for military service or tribute. They were often required to pay taxes in the form of livestock rather than money, and these privileges and obligations were defined by the Vlach law.
3. Social Organization: The law also regulated the internal social structure of the Vlach communities. These communities were often organized around kinship groups, with leadership roles (such as cnezi aka counts) being passed down through families. The law helped maintain order within these groups and ensured collective responsibility for certain legal obligations.
4. Judicial Matters: The Vlach law included specific regulations on resolving disputes within the community. Issues such as inheritance, theft, marriage, and property rights were adjudicated according to these customs, often within the context of the community itself, rather than relying on external authorities.

The Vlach law allowed these communities to retain their distinct cultural identity while adapting to the political and legal frameworks of the larger states they lived within. It reflected a blend of Roman, Byzantine, Slavic, and local influences and varied across regions.

In essence, the Vlach Law is that the Vlachs:

• Peasants always had the right to travel
• Peasants always had the right to carry weapons
• Peasants always the right to hunt. (even on noblemen's forests)
• Peasants had no mandatory labour service
• Peasants were expected to pay taxes in livestock or money. (not expected in agriculture, but accepted)
• The Counts/Cnezi were a hereditary title but the Dukes/Voievods were elected by the Romanian Cnezi under the Voievod.
• Non-Romanian Cnezi had no vote in picking the next Dukes/Voievods after their death.
• No foreign Cnezi or Voivode would rule over Romanian peasants
• A foreign Domnitor/King could rule over a Romanian Voivode who in turn would rule over the Romanians.
• For these privileges, peasants where required to participate in battle or pay a fine.

This law was so important that the Lus Valachicum/Vlach Law is the reason Wallachia and Moldavia became independent from Hungary in the first place. The king of Hungary attempted to revoke these rights, and institute typical feudalism in Wallachia, enough Vlachs considered this too much in order to start a revolt.

The Vlach law and the associated status of the Vlach communities played a role in the conflicts between the Kingdom of Hungary and Basarab I, which ultimately contributed to the emergence of Wallachia as an independent state. The tensions revolved around control of territories and the rights of the Vlachs living in those regions, particularly in the area that would become Wallachia.

During the 13th and 14th centuries, the Kingdom of Hungary sought to expand its influence over the Carpathian and Danubian regions, including territories inhabited by Vlachs. The Hungarian crown had incorporated these regions into its realm, attempting to control the Vlach communities through the granting of privileges and obligations, including military service and tribute under the so-called Vlach law. At the same time, the local Vlach cnezi were trying to consolidate their own power and secure autonomy from Hungarian control.

Basarab I, a Vlach voivode (duke) who ruled in the early 14th century, sought to assert greater independence from the Kingdom of Hungary. Basarab came to power in what was a frontier region between Hungarian-controlled Transylvania and the lands south of the Carpathian Mountains. As a Vlach leader, Basarab was able to rally the local Vlach population, who were bound by the Vlach law, to resist Hungarian control, who was trying to implement a typical form of feudalism in Wallachia.

The Vlach law itself was a legal framework that allowed the Vlachs a certain degree of autonomy in exchange for military service and tribute, typically paid in livestock. However, the increasing demands from the Hungarian crown for control and intervention in the Romanian affairs created tensions with the local Vlach leaders, including Basarab. These demands conflicted with the Vlach desire for autonomy and were seen as attempts to tighten Hungarian control over the region.

The conflict came to a head in 1330 when Charles I of Hungary (also known as Charles Robert) attempted to reassert control over Basarab I and his territories. Charles I launched a military campaign to subdue Basarab and bring Wallachia back under Hungarian domination. However, Basarab's forces, composed largely of Vlach warriors, ambushed and decisively defeated the Hungarian army at the Battle of Posada (1330).

The victory at Posada marked a turning point in the struggle for Wallachian independence. Basarab's successful resistance to Hungarian control allowed him to consolidate his rule over Wallachia, leading to the establishment of Wallachia as an independent principality. This effectively ended Hungarian suzerainty over the region, although Hungary continued to claim influence over Wallachia in subsequent years.

The Vlach law, with its provisions for autonomy and distinct rights for the Vlach communities, was a major cause for the tensions between the Kingdom of Hungary and Basarab I. The conflict centered on Hungarian efforts to assert control over the Vlach territories, which clashed with the Vlach desire for autonomy and self-rule. Basarab I’s leadership and military success in resisting Hungarian dominance were instrumental in Wallachia's emergence as an independent state in the early 14th century.

I'm not a fan of streamlining the gameplay, every outcome should be just as likely to happen as what happened historically (periods of independence and nominal or de facto vassalage interceding eachother for more than a century); however I do think early game feudal AI should prefer subjugation/vassalage CBs than actual conquest and integration of territories, which was the usual practice Hungarian kings followed in the Balkans and Romania when they won wars (eg. "creating" a series of either nominal or de facto vassal states in the Balkans (both by asserting dominance over already existing countries and creating new ones/restoring old ones by conquest) to serve as a buffer zone against the advancing Turks later on, for example).

That being said, the Ius Valachicum would be an interesting flavour for Wallachians (and/or a special advancement for Hungary, as it was part of a larger trend under the Angevin kings to expand the rights of important minorities with such rights of autonomy and/or self-governance, such as Cuman and Jász, Saxon, Székely, Zipser, or the Privilegium pro Slavis)

 

[ArVass]

Control, probably.
If control is sufficiently weak getting across the Carpathians, Hungary would be better off making Moldavia/Wallachia into vassals than ruling them directly.
Of course, they're also right down the Danube, so it'll be interesting to see how much major rivers actually affect control

Speaking of right down the Danube, I wonder if the Iron Gates would be represented, that was a pretty great obstacle that made Danubian ship travel really hard (as well as crossing the river at that section too)

 

[Mingmung]

Alright, now on towards some bits of (northern) Greece and its surrounding areas. Some of the research on fitting tradegoods was absolutely headache-inducing, but I'll get to that soon. Keep in mind that it's always possible that I've overlooked certain locations/bits of information.

List of changes I'd make to areas in and around northern Greece/Thrace:
- Ahtopol: Horses -> Iron
- Gallipoli: Fish -> Salt
- Demótica: Iron -> Stone/Livestock
- Komotiní: Lumber -> Alum
- Velbuzd: Lumber -> Copper
- Kavála: Salt -> Iron
- Dospat: Iron -> Lumber
- Bansko: Iron -> Lumber
- Nevrokop (maybe): Copper -> Iron
- Édessa: Copper -> Lumber/Livestock/Legumes
- Melnik: Silver -> Wine (Iron also possible, but I won't recommend it)
- Kastoriá: Legumes -> Fur
- Grevená (maybe): Alum -> Legumes/Livestock/Wool
- Ioannina: Gems -> Livestock

List of changes I'd make to areas of the Chalkidiki peninsula:
- See the following suggestion: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rpathia-and-the-balkans.1693751/post-29754862 for the 'details' on locations.
- Regarding tradegoods; Olives are fine in some parts of the Chalkidiki-peninsula, as long as Siderokafsia gets the Gold- or Silver-tradegood. Not sure what to give to Rentina. Livestock could make sense there, or Stone.
- Siderokafsia (which obviously needs localisation) as the location-name, even though it's a mine, makes sense. It's mentioned as such on multiple 18th/19th century maps:

Mentioned as 'Sidero-Capsa' on this one, and the silvermines are also mentioned.

But also on this one (which needs some zooming in). This is because it was more than just a mine; A town/village was basically created around it (with baths, a mint, etc.). Naming it after one of the mining villages would be iffy, as none of them in particular stood out.

Sources and explanations on northern Greece and its surroundings:
- The Ottoman foundries of Demirköy (Thracian Samokov) were a metalworking centre from the 15th century and onwards, located inside of what's currently the Ahtopol-location: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demirköy_Foundry

The article Silver and Steel of the Ottoman Empire also mentions these foundries, where not only iron, but also copper was extracted, melted and forged into things like cannonballs. The minerals were acquired by melting the magnetite sands from the area. This was a method which was also used in other parts of Bulgaria/Greece. So, this tradegood might be slightly anachronistic (it would take a hundred more years or so), but it was still a very important location for the Ottoman warmachine and could already be represented in this area.
- While not every historical saltwork has to be included, there was one important enough around Gelibolu (see its 16th century revenue documented in the source from Halil Inalcik's book on the economy of the Ottoman Empire). Seeing how there's already plenty of Fish in the area, I'd opt for the Salt-tradegood instead.

- While I found out about a lot of iron-producing locations inside of Greece and southern Bulgaria, I couldn't find anything about the area around Demótica. There may have been something here, but it could've been too minor (as there are no mentions in the sources I looked at). I might have missed something, though. Please let me know if that's the case. I'd suggest either Livestock or Stone if there's indeed no major source of Iron in this location (which I suspect).
- Komotini/Gümülcine was one of the only Alum-producing areas in Europe, together with some other locations mostly located within the future Ottoman Empire.

Other important Alum-producing areas in this region were the island of Milós (which already has the tradegood). Phocea (inside of Anatholia, which also has the tradegood) and Sebinkarahasir (inside of Anatolia, which still misses the tradegood). Source: Alum production and Alum trade in the Ottoman Empire (about 1560-1830)
- Velbuzd/Kyustendil and its area was known for its mines on the other side of the Osogovo mountains - opposite of Kratovo. Iron and copper were extracted in this region. The abundance of mines is being mentioned in reports like the following: https://belleten.gov.tr/eng/abstarct/266/eng
Seeing how Kratovo has the Iron-tradegood, it makes sense to give Kyustendil/Velbuzd the Copper-tradegood to balance things out in the region. Just like in EU4. Wikipedia also mentions mines in the area:

The town of Kratovo could also be given the Silver- (or possibly even Lead-)tradegood, but that's up to the devs. Source: Silver and Steel of the Ottoman Empire (also notice the mention of Majdanpek, which I covered in my other suggestion).

- The town of Eleftheroupoli (Pravi), which seems to be well inside of the Kavála-location, was known for its iron-production from the melting of magnetite sands and old slag. A few of the locations mentioned in this source (Silver and Steel of the Ottoman Empire), like Sidirokastro, Faia Petra and Angistro, are inside the Serres-location, which already has the Iron-tradegood. Keep in mind that while I mention the Ottomans a lot, they basically took over most of the Byzantine operations.

More information on the site of Eleftheroupoli (source: Early Extractive Iron Metallurgy in N Greece: a unified approach to regional archaeometallurgy):

- Like with Demótica, I couldn't find anything about iron-production inside either the location of Dospat or Bansko. The sources I used were pretty much focused on this region of Greece/Bulgaria, so it would probably have been mentioned if there was something here. The locations have one thing in abundance, though: Wood. I'd suggest changing the tradegood to Lumber because of that. Woodworks are still a major export from this region.
- I couldn't find much about copper in the northern parts of Greece. I wonder if I overlooked something here. But from what I found (or the lack thereof), I'd remove Copper from both Nevrokop (somewhat questionable) and Édessa. This source (Silver and Steel of the Ottoman Empire) does mention the trade of metals from Nevrokop:

It coincidentally also mentions transactions relating to metals for the location of Drama, which has the Iron-tradegood already. The Wikipedia page on Nevrokop mentions quite a few iron-mines in its vicinity. There was some coppersmithing here, but the question is whether the copper actually came from local sources. So, I'd go with Iron for Nevrokop, but Copper isn't entirely out of the question (maybe depends on other sources out there).
- The thesis Early Extractive Iron Metallurgy in Northern Greece: a unified approach to regional archaeometallurgy mentions Melnik producing iron:

But it currently produces Silver, which is odd as I got no clue why. None of my sources mentions such a thing in this area. Another tradegood being mentioned from this area is Wine, though. And not just some kind of wine, but a quality one (just Google 'Melnik wine'). During the 17th century onwards it was popular among a big portion of the European royalty. Considering the amount of important Iron-producing locations in its vicinity and the lack of a Wine-tradegood in most of northern Greece, I'd opt for the Wine-tradegood for Melnik. On another note; Vathytopos and Katafyto are locations within the Serres-location, thus once again justifying the Iron-tradegood there.
- Kastoriá needs its Fur-tradegood. It was the centre of Greek fur-trade. Wikipedia has an article on it with enough footnotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fur_industry_in_Kastoria
- Regarding alum-production in the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, I couldn't find anything about Grevená and its surroundings. But that doesn't mean that it makes no sense, considering that the devs have made Alum slightly less rare by expanding the definition of it a bit. So, while I personally am not a fan of Grevená producing Alum (especially with Komotiní making more sense in the Greek area), I hope someone can clarify why it could stay as an Alum-producing location. I'd change it to another tradegood, otherwise, as Greece/the Eastern Roman Empire would already have an important Alum-producing location in an updated Komotiní.
- Ioannina is well-known as the centre of silverware and jewelry, but it didn't actually have any sources for Gems or Silver within its confines. It seems most of the goods used by the craftsmen were imported.

 

[Linbot#6018]

This, and Walachia just being hard to invade from the north in general. You’re marching over a mountain into a fortress, you’re at a massive disadvantage militarily.

I don't really think this captures it properly.

The mountains didn't stop Hungary from conquering Wallachia several times in real life and never integrating it. Furthermore, Wallachia was conquered many times by the Ottomans and a few times by its neighbour Moldova and in all cases, even though there aren't mountains in the way there, Wallachia didn't cease to exist, the overlordship of it was just transferred around.

 

[Mingmung]

A case for the addition of Bizye/Vize:

When I was working on the location-checkup of the region of Thrace (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rpathia-and-the-balkans.1693751/post-29754862) it was quite hard to find proper maps and to come with good alternatives for Metrae/Catalca (which is currently inside Selymbria). Location-density in this region also seemed quite alright, so I didn’t pay it much heed. Then I began working on the suggestions regarding tradegoods and read about the Ottoman foundries at Demirköy. The town of Bizye(Gr.)/Vize(Tur.) was also mentioned a few times in the sources about Demirköy, as it was (relatively) close by. After reading more about this town/fortress, it would make sense to include it within the game. Here's a bit from Wikipedia (with footnotes) talking about it being a centre of a military district: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vize

I also read about other towns/fortresses in its vicinity, like Sergentzion and Brysis:

And also about Derkos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durusu):

I even (accidentally) found this French map about the Byzantine metropoles/(arch)bishoprics in the Theme of Thrace from the 8th to the 12th century, coincidentally pointing out quite a few noteworthy towns/fortresses of this region, as well as the places I mentioned earlier:

Source: Géographie historique du monde méditerranéen, and the following part: La thrace orientale et la mer Noire : géographie ecclésiastique et prosopographie (viiie-xiie siècles)

Obviously not all of the locations mentioned on the map survived the 12th/13th century, but those I mentioned before did still exist within the game's timeframe. This map, alongside the other bits of information, also provides us with alternative options to Metrae/Catalca without deleting the location altogether (which I initially suggested). So, here’s my take (remember; the dots are approximate, as I don’t use the same map-projections as the devs):

In red:
- Pinpointed the locations of Selymbria and Medea, as well as Tzouroulos and Arcadiopolis. They're very much correct, so nothing needs to be done with those four locations.

In yellow:
- Ahtopol's location is too close to Sozopol (or maybe even inside of it), it really needs some 'breathing-room' (also mentioned in the other suggestion).
- The location of the town of Bizye, which would be very nice to have. It could be cut out from a bit of Arcadiopolis, some bits of Medea and maybe even a bit of Ahtopol.
- I'd suggest either Sergentzion/Sergentze (modern-day Atatürk/Binkilic, presumably called Istrandja/Istranca back then) or Derkos (modern-day Durusu) for the location of Metrae (modern-day Catalca). Both might be too much. Sergentzion is the easiest, as it seems to be within the confines of Metrae, already.
- Other towns/strongholds, like Brysis (modern-day Pinarhisar), could be considered, too. It depends on how much change the developers want to see in the region of Thrace. The very important town of Heraclea (Perinthus) is also an option, and one I'd like to have, even if it has to be the size of Ainos to be included.

In black:
- While Demirköy definitely doesn't need to be a location itself (sources mention it being in use from the early 15th century onwards), it would still be nice to give the location the Iron-tradegood because of its foundries and iron-extraction (also mentioned in the other suggestion: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rpathia-and-the-balkans.1693751/post-29842042).

 

[Zeprion]

History of Maramures & The Founding of Moldavia:

History of Maramureș - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, from the book: History of Maramures, by Alexandru Filipascu: (271 - 1400)

In the year 271, the Roman Empire was continuously invaded by the Goths, who descended from the Scandinavian Peninsula. Emperor Aurelian was forced to withdraw his legions beyond the Danube. However, only the Roman officialdom retreated, while the population remained in place. During the long period of Roman domination, an indissoluble connection had already been forged between the land and its workers—a bond consecrated by the sweat of their brows and tradition. Generations of plowmen and shepherds were at home and held as their ideal the preservation and expansion of their ancestral lands. They preferred to protect and close off these lands rather than yield them to strangers. Therefore, they could not expose themselves to wandering on foreign soil, nor could they abandon their families, friends, and birthplace—without which life held no charm or meaning.

There was no great fear of the barbarians because they had long been in contact with these peoples, and forging friendships with them would not cost much more than enduring harsh Roman taxation. Besides, the locals lived in a strong natural fortress, easy to defend, which was not situated along the invaders’ path. This allowed them to endure throughout the era of invasions without being swallowed by the invading peoples. Furthermore, as the raiders were constantly fighting each other and the Roman Empire, peaceful coexistence with the natives was often possible.

Thus, the people of Maramureș successfully resisted and preserved their language, and the Roman name, while keeping alive the memory of their ancient kings and the great emperor who once ruled the whole world. Memories of certain barbarians—such as the Longobards, Bastarnians, and Huhurezi (Hungarians)—were preserved only in folk legends. The Sărmătieș Mountain on the border of Budești recalls the Sarmatians, while the Coman family and the Piciorul Comanului Mountain in the River Valley refer to the Cumans. From the Goths, they borrowed the word "kneaz" for county, as well as baptismal names like Tatomir, Dragomir, Lodomir, and others, along with the construction of wooden churches in Gothic style, featuring arrow-straight towers resembling the Starkirchen in Norway. The construction of these Gothic-style churches began as early as the 4th century under Gothic rule—not due to the influence of Saxon colonists who would come in the 13th century.

The Slavs left deeper traces, as they entered peacefully and in small, isolated groups. From them, the Daco-Romans learned the love of freedom, because the Slavs were all free, and after a while, they would even free their slaves. For this reason, the noblemen from Maramureș never oppressed his serf brother, with whom he always maintained friendly relations and with whom he jointly participated in the tasks of supporting the same churches. Thus, church inscriptions have preserved the names of benefactors, both noblemen and serfs, mixed together. Daco-Romans also borrowed the title of "voivode" from the Slavs for the already existing position of duke, along with many other words that adapted to the nature of the Romanian language and continued to persist, largely due to the centuries-long influence of the Slavic language, which was used in the Romanian church.

That is why the vast majority of Maramureș baptismal names from the 14th-16th centuries, such as Balea, Bălir, Bogdan, Dragoș, Dunca, Fedea, Bilțiu, Hrihor, Hodor, Iuga, Iura, Iurca, Mih, Mihnea, Mihalca, Pașca, Stețiu, Stețcu, Stan, Slav, Seneslau, Tomșa, Vlad, and others, are of Slavic origin.

In preserving the Daco-Roman culture, Latin Christianity played a decisive role, providing them with the hierarchical organization so necessary in those times. The idea of faith and the Latin preaching of Roman missionaries brought the Dacians closer to the Romans spiritually, leading to the merging of the two into a single culture with a Latin language. Furthermore, under the pastoral care of a Daco-Roman bishop (Saint Nicetas of Remesiana), the connections between those of the same faith and language on both banks of the Danube were intensified, fostering a sense of unity and national solidarity. Roman Christianity is the strongest proof of this.

(....)

The invasion of the Hungarians, which first claimed as victims the Romanian fortresses of Ung and Bârjava, dealt a heavy blow to the Romanian element in the valleys of Lăturiţa, Ung, and Lăburţa. The extent to which the Romanians were represented in those parts is shown by the multitude of Romanian names for villages, valleys, and mountains, such as Bârjava, Bilca, Certeza Romana, Cozmina, Comlăuşul, Chicera, Băbeni, Buşteni, Drăgoeşti, Fata, Izvorul, Lăturiţa, Longodar, Mocira, Negrileşti, Repedea, Romanova, Răstoaca, Sărcad, Timşor, Zimbrilova, Corna, Izvorul, Vizia, Bârlău, Bursucina, Cioncaş, Cornii, Dumbrava, Măgura, Muncel, Mureş, Plai, Râpa, Roman, Săliştioara, Stânca, Strâmtura, Tomnatec, and others, which have remained Romanian to this day. Even the name Bereg or "Silvae Bergu," as it appears in the oldest documents, must have been a Romanian name, being synonymous with Bârgăul Năsăudean. Therefore, the Hungarian historian T. Lehoczy (o.c. I., p. 116) is forced to admit that "at the arrival of the Hungarians, Romanian populations lived in the eastern parts of Bereg, but they were not capable of forming states."

(....) This is where the game begins! And how Moldavia was formed.

The military expeditions of 1340-1350 cleared Moldavia of the Tatars, who were driven beyond the Dniester, toward Crimea, and the Tatar leader, Athlamos, was captured and beheaded. A group of brave men from Maramureș, led by Dragoș from Bedeu, participated in these expeditions, and as a reward for his bravery, he was appointed voivode and royal deputy in Moldavia, with his residence in Baia. Dragoș's estates in Maramureș were divided between his brothers Giula of Giulești and Drag of Bedeu, as well as their relative—likely a brother-in-law—Voivode Seneslau of Dolha. After two years, Dragoș was succeeded in rule by his son Sas, whose memory is preserved in the Sas Valley near Botiza, the Sas family of Șieu, and the Sas Valley on Taras, mentioned in 1411 (cf. ib. nr. 97). Giula and his sons Dragoș, Ștefan, Tătar, Dragomir, Miroslav, and Costea controlled the entire Mara Valley, being the ancestors of the noble families in this region (cf ib. nr. 13). Drag of Bedeu had a son, Vasile, a praetor in 1385 and the ancestor of the noble families in this community. In 1456, the estate of Drag and Dragoș from Bedeu, received as a royal donation in 1336, was inherited by Mihail-Bogdan from Petrova, the grandson of Voivode Seneslau of Dolha (cf. ib. nr. 51, 221).

According to the chronicles, the founding of Moldavia is attributed to a bison hunt, which allegedly led Dragoș to the fertile plains of Moldavia. These chronicles usually begin with the words: "In the year 6867 from the creation of the world, with God's help, the country of Moldavia was founded, and it began like this: Voivode Dragoș came from the Hungarian land, from Maramureș, on a bison hunt, and he ruled for 2 years." Similarly, with minor variations, Baron Nicolae Zesky, Poland's ambassador in the years 1470-1490, and Marcus Bandinus, an apostolic visitor to Moldavia in 1648, wrote. These chronicles show us that the founding of Moldavia was not a trivial event but a significant political event, whose memory has been preserved vividly by the people's tradition throughout the ages.

The pretext of the bison hunt is merely a creation of popular imagination, impressed by the presence of the fearsome animal in the virgin forests of Maramureș, whose head adorned the coats of arms of Moldavia and Maramureș. The memory of the bison is still preserved today in the Zimbroslavul mountains on the border of Borșa and Vf. Boului in Valea Râului, the village of Boureni, and the Tursad valleys near Vad and Bouț near Boureni. The last bison was shot in 1852 at Țibău, when the skin and horns of the bison were donated to priest Alexandru Anderco from Borșa, from where they eventually disappeared over time.

Bogdan's faction did not view the participation of the Maramureșans in the expeditions against the Tatars in Moldavia favorably, and thus Ștefan of Iuga attempted to draw Giula and his sons from Giulești to his side ("quod ipsos a Via solitae fidelitatis divertere, ac suo et ipsius Bogdan quondam Voyvodae nostris infidelis notorii contubernio. et societati jungere nequivisset"), but failing to do so, Ștefan devastated their estates and burned their houses ("domos suas concremari, et comburri faciendo"). In response, King Ludovic, who was in Bistrița—where he directed his armies—ordered Voivode Ioan to restore Giula and his sons to their estates (cf. ib. nr. 13 from 1349).

The expulsion of the Tatars, the defeat of the Lithuanians, and the establishment of the Romanian state of Moldavia provided Bogdan with the opportunity to escape from royal authority. His loyal supporters were secretly preparing the ground in Maramureș for this purpose, while others were plotting discreetly in Moldavia, seeking to form a faction opposed to Hungarian rule represented by Dragoș and his son Sas. Meanwhile, the Maramureșans participated under the command of Count Andrei in the expeditions against Naples from 1349 to 1351, carrying the fame of Romanian bravery across lands and seas. In March 1352, the Maramureșans took part in the expedition against the Lithuanians, during which the king's army was defeated near the fortress of Belcz, where Tatomir, son of Dragomir and grandson of Sas Voivode, lost his life. His bravery—still celebrated after 35 years—served as a reason for royal reward to his brother Ioan Valahul (cf. ib. nr. 52). In this same expedition, Ștefan of Iuga also distinguished himself, thus regaining the king's favor, who on May 14, 1353, granted him and his brother Ioan the Cuhici region ("Stephani et Iohannis Olachorum filiorum Ige similiter Olachy, fidelium Servencium dicti Domini Regis," cf. ib. nr. 16).

In 1359, Bogdan, taking advantage of the fact that Ludovic was personally leading an expedition against Dušan of Serbia, as well as the recent death of Sas Voivode, set out accompanied by the bulk of the population from 300 villages in Bereg and Ung, as well as a multitude of brave men from Maramureș. On his journey (Sighet-Giulești-Vălcini, Bârsana-Săcel-Moisei, Borșa-Prislop-Bistrița-Aurie), he once again burned the estates of Giula's sons from Giulești and those of Ioan from Rozavlea, who had refused to accompany him. Bogdan appears to have faced little resistance in Moldavia; after occupying it, he expelled the sons of Sas Voivode into Hungary.

King Ludovic hastened to come to the aid of his loyalists and to bring the rebels to obedience. On his way, between Vad and Oncești, he quenched his thirst at a spring which in 1411 was called Fântâna Craiului (cf. ib. nr. 100). In the king's army were Balcu, Drag, Ioan, and Ștefan, the sons of Sas Voivode, Dragomir, Sas Voivode's son-in-law, along with his son Ioan, Ștefan, son of Iuga, Dragos, son of Giula, Stan of Petru from Săpânța, Gerheș from Sarasău, Vănciuc from Oncești, the sons of the voivode Locovoi from Cosău, and others, all of whom received various royal favors. Ludovic encountered such fierce resistance from Bogdan that to avoid a disastrous failure, he resorted to the diplomatic skill of Dragoș of Giula, who managed to extract from Bogdan a symbolic recognition of royal sovereignty and a commitment to respect the estates belonging to Sas Voivode's family. The king’s companions were generously rewarded, and Ștefan, Bogdan’s nephew, was appointed Voivode of Maramureș in place of his brother Ioan, who had likely recently died ("Stephanus filius Ige Voyvoda noster Maramorusiensis dilectus nobis et fidelis," cf. ib. nr. 19, 24, and 22). The king’s gratitude was especially poured out on Dragoș of Giula, to whom he granted a donation patent ("nobilitatis titulo quo cactcri veri primi et natureles regni nostri Nobiles sub vexillo regio gaudeant et fruantur") for the estates of Breb, Slatina, Copăceni, Desești, Hărnicești, and Șugatag in recognition of his exceptional merits: "specialiter autem in restauratione terrac nostrae Molclavanae... plures Olachos rebellantcs juxta suam industriosam virtutem ad constantem fidelitatem regiae Coronae observandam reducentes" (cf. ib. nr. 19). He was also honored by the king with a precious knightly belt, which in 1384 was in the possession of his son Vasile and was valued at 26 florins (cf. ib. nr. 49).

Bogdan's companions founded new villages in Moldavia, naming them after their baptismal names or after the names of the villages they had left in Maramureș. In 1346, Bogdan declared himself independent, revoking his previous declaration, and as a sign of his independence, he minted coins inscribed with "Moneta Moldaviae," "Bogdan Wajwo." The sons of Sas Voivode attempted to resist Bogdan, but after a fierce battle, in which many of their supporters fell and Balcu himself was wounded, they were forced to flee to Hungary ("non sine propriis suis cruoris effusione ac letalium vulnerum supportatione, fratrumque proximorum et quamplurimorum famulorum suorum morte crudelli sollicite et habiliter exhibuisse," cf. ib. nr. 29). The king, engaged in war with the Turks, could do nothing but declare Bogdan a notorious infidel and enemy of the empire, confiscate his estates in Maramureș, and donate them to the sons of Sas Voivode ("revocatis a Bogdane Vaivoda et filiis suis nostris infidelibus notoriis, qui fulminante diabolo... in terram Moldauanam clandestine recedentes," cf. ib. nr. 29 from February 2, 1365). After this, the king, occupied with his wars and with the affairs of Poland, of which he had become king in 1370, had no more time to interfere in Moldavia's affairs, which was thus able to organize itself in complete peace. Ștefan and Ioan, sons of Iuga, and the sons of the voivodes Seneslau from Dolha and Solovăstru from Sarasău, remained permanently in Maramureș.

TL;DR version -> Read only the colored part.
- Bogdan became Voivode (Duke) of Maramures in 1330. He has a brother named Iuga who has 2 kids: Ioan and Stefan. Bogdan also has a son named Stefan, who has a son named Petru.
- In 1340, another Romanian, Count Dragos from Bedeu, participiated in the expedition against the Golden Horde in Moldavia.
- Because of this, the King of Hungary made him Voievode of Moldavia. His lands in Maramures were given to his brothers. (Giula of Giulești and Drag of Bedeu)
- Bogdan was against this expedition, so he attacked (now Voivode too) Dragos's brothers lands in Maramures. (Dragos' former lands)
- The King of Hungary ordered Bogdan to restore Giula and Balcu's lands.
- Bogdan accepted but took his time.
- In 1359, the king of Hungary was in Serbia and Sas died, this was the opportunity Bogdan was waiting for.
- He made a 2nd expedition into Moldavia, this time against Balcu, son of Sas.
- Bogdan defeated the loyalists and the Hungarian army.
- Eventually, they made a concession: Bogdan agreed to respect Sas Voievode's family estates, the king of Hungary agreed to make Stefan Voievode of Maramures. (basically: let's not kill our families and leave them in place)
Rulers of Maramures from 1320 to 1400:

*Regarding Bedohaza: Their actual name at the times were Sas, Balc and Drag. These are the magyarized versions. Their descendents would be magyarized, thus the reason their names are in Hungarian here. But at the time they were still Romanians.

And in Moldavia:

*Bogdan's nephew, Peter, would form the House of Musat, that would rule Moldavia until 1592.

 

[Kaspar Osraige]

Oh god. The review for this thread will take two million years.

 

[Mingmung]

Oh god. The review for this thread will take two million years.

They've probably bookmarked quite a few posts, already. It's a big region, with half of it needing a big rework (Hungary, as the devs said so themselves). I can see them working on multiple regions at a time, so we'll see.

Anyway, I'm quite glad to see such a quality of feedback. And it has also given me (and others) the time to properly do research on this region.

TL;DR: I think all will be well in the end

 

[Zeprion]

I think this initiative is easily one of the best the devs could think of. The vast majority of paradox players are going to be history nerds, and while a wrong region and such many not mean a lot for someone who is not interested in history, for someone who knows what actually happened there breaks immersion because it's simply presented wrong.

And while the devs themselves are history nerds, no one person can know that much about the whole world. Just look at the scope of this project. It's impossible for 10 people interested in history to know as much as 100 people interested in history, so really, all this brainstorming, while I agree it would take a lot of times for the devs to figure out, especially this topic on Carpathia, the topic on Anatolia and the topic on Maghreb, were proven to be quite controversial. I think it's better to have the wrong idea about a region, display your initial output, and then get a ton of feedback so you can better make that region before you put the region in the final game.

Isn't this what we all want at the end of the day, both fans and devs, a historically accurate EU5 experience?
Which is why I think that this initiative, although difficult, is one of the best things that could have happened to a paradox game, and I can't thank the devs enough for it.