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

[Linbot#6018]

The provinces in the Peloponnese are too small in my opinion, and the classical names being used may not have been relevant at this point (with the obvious exception of Achaea). Since further to the north we're joining Attica with Boeotia (not Beotia) and Aetolia with Acarnania, I think the whole peninsula should be split into West and East Morea.

I think there should either be a single Morea province or have it remain in its current state. An extremely arbitrary halving is the worst of both worlds.

 

[Silverbow]

Ruthenians only began to appear in the region as a result of the settlings conducted by settling Knezes, so no earlier than the 1320s. Máramaros was more or less uninhabited until the founding of the 5 royal cities: Huszt, Viszk, Técső, Máramarossziget and Hosszúmező. These cities were populated by Germans and Hungarians.

AS for Ungvar, Munkács and Bereg: Toponyms and other sources prove the existence of a significant Catholic Slav presence in the area. Aside from the Poles of Lubló (and some in Lápos), we elected to represent all Catholic West Slavs in Hungary as "Slovak". Further dividing would have just complicated things to an almost impossible degree, so it wasn't even considered.

?

I see, a Hungarian nationalist subscribing to the delusion that Hungarians arrived to an empty Carpathian basin and that the population that was present here long before the Hungarian conquest somehow only magically appeared later. Sadly that renders any attempts at further discussion pointless.

 

[Cuke]

Ruthenians only began to appear in the region as a result of the settlings conducted by settling Knezes, so no earlier than the 1320s.

But Ruthenian settlements date back pretty much at least to Salomon's time, 250 years earlier.

 

[purplephoton]

I got quite a few criticisms.

3 lakes

Lake Balaton was significantly larger in 1337, and seems to have stayed at that size until at least the 1700s (probably the 1800s). It would be extending all the way to the Kanizsa location and be a bit wider at some points.
Including Lake Velence was a bold move imo; it's not only quite small, but also prone to drying up on rare occasions.

Location map with names

It seems like the western border of Bat-Monostor follows the eastern branch of the Danube, whereas the county border followed the western branch.
Lendva looks like it might be <100 pixels in size (I'd estimate it at 300 km^2, and every pixel is roughly 2x2 km) and the devs said that they would prefer to not have locations that small. While Visegrad is similar in size, it was an important town, while Lendva represents something that's not relevant without anachronistic borders.
Zenta runs across the Csongrad-Bodrog county border while neighboring Telek ends up in Bacs-Bodrog despite most of its land being in Csongrad. I understand that a compromise probably had to be made in that area, but this seems like the worst of both worlds.
Some of the mountain passes in the east look skinny enough to only be a pixel wide. While I don't mind the choice stylistically at all, I think that this will run into visibility issues unless the player zooms in.

Hatvan is one of the rare cases, where we deviated from the county-based approach

Speaking of - some county boundaries are slightly off in a number of places, where they generally follow an approximately correct pattern, but appear to be shifted over. Fogaras is probably the biggest offender, but Kraszna-Szolnok, Komarom, Csongrad, Szepes, and many others have this problem as well.

political boundaries (historical and modern)

The devs have stated that they don't intend to design the game based on modern borders. While I don't think that's an issue for, say, dividing Ecsed and Szatmar, as following the modern border is better than being completely arbitrary, it gives Becskerek-Temesvar borders that wouldn't be acquired until... 1919..?, puts Gyula in a county/province where it doesn't belong (Bekes and Zarand had been split for a while by 1337), creates a Lendva that may be too small (already discussed), and may mislead the player on the border in Ujlak and Marot. It also raises some questions about the accuracy of terrain in Moson, as the actually swampy southern part of Nezsider matches the swamps of Ovar better than the slightly drier rest of Nezsider.
Also, it seems that this rule is applied inconsistently, as Csanad, Kapos, Kovacshaza, Sarospatak, and others go right across a modern border even though a split without this issue would have been possible. I understand the size considerations around Szolos, for example, but why not move the northwestern corner of Csanad to Hodvasarhely?

Province map with names

There are some controversial choices here that make sense, and some that do not.
Ugocsa's history and geography is less similar to that of Maramaros, and more similar to that of Bereg or Szatmar.
Pilis-Esztergom is very questionable. Pilis was attached to Pest for most of the game's timeframe. Esztergom is too small to stand on its own, but Komarom-Esztergom makes some sense (it's anachronistic, but at least it existed at some point, unlike Pilis-Esztergom).

Area map with names

So... is the Ung-Bereg province in Szomolnok-Kassa, or Szatmar-Varad? It seems to be split in half by the two.
Also, putting Valko-Pozsega in Szerem is probably going to make that area cross right over a region border, unless Slavonia ends up as part of Carpathia, which would be another... bold move.

Topography map

Karcag, Szoboszlo, and possibly Tolnavar and Heves should probably be wetlands. Tur I'm far less sure about.
Many of the areas marked as plateau in Transylvania actually have hilly ranges going right through them. The idea behind plateaus is that they're relatively flat, and ranges of hills sort of ruin that.
The mountains in Ungvar and Munkacs are a big maybe. Ungvar does have a few peaks that reach just over 1000m, but it's also centered around a river valley and includes a much lower and flatter piece of land on its southern end. Munkacs is split by terrain, where about a third of it is pretty flat.
The northern shore of Balaton is pretty hilly (as an extension of Transdanubian mountains), and Buda, Nograd, and Szecseny are on the hillier side as well.

Climate map

While the area was likely colder historically than it is now, Csongrad, Csanad, and Bekes stood out before the Ottoman invasion as having a relatively warm climate, which enabled them to grow more food than the surrounding areas. I'm not sure how to represent this, though, as there isn't any data on 14th century seasonal rainfall in Bekes that I know of.

Raw Materials map

Horses and copper seem to be under-represented. Both of those were important economic stays.
Fish may be slightly over-represented, but I have no hard sources for this. Same with fruit.
I have questions about western Slovakia and the surrounding areas. The tin in Ujbanya, the silver in Maros, the misplaced lead mines in Rimaszombat instead of Gomor, the misplaced gems in Kassa instead of Eperjes, the wine in Eger that wouldn't really take off for a while, the fiber crops being grown on Csallokoz (one of the biggest wheat producers), the Nagymihaly mercury, the Privigye spices, and lack of stone in northern Slovakia (which was supposedly quarried at >100 locations) all seem dubious. The Trencsen dyes may be as well - I vaguely remember considering but eventually ruling out dyes as a possible raw material for that area. Now, I'm not saying that they're necessarily wrong, I'm just saying that I'd be a lot more inclined to believe this if I had some sources.
The salt in Gyulafehervar seems dubious - was it stretched out into the neighboring Kiralyfold province just to include Vizakna? Or does it represent the salt deposit in Marosujvar that went unused for pretty much the game's entire timeframe? Either way, it seems like a stretch.

Population size map

The overall numbers are probably not that far off, but some locations are definitely off. Take Ungvar, for example, with multiple castles and accompanying villages, plus a long history tied to East Slavs and a steady stream of Ruthenian migration into the Marchia Ruthenorum since the 11th century. Yet it's somehow Hungarian-Slovak and with a low population.

I would like to note that our work is based on professional, impartial research

Ok, let's see.
Gabor Demeter: works at a university funded by the Hungarian government. Seems to be focused on post-1700.
Beatrix Romhanyi: works at a university funded partially by the Hungarian government. Seems to be focused on monks and agriculture.
Istvan Kadas: works at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Andras Vadas: works at a Hungarian state-owned university.
Denes Sokcsevits: works at an "independent" think tank, which has "benefit Hungary" as one of its official goals. Seems to be focused on Croatia.
Professional? Absolutely. Impartial? Idk, somehow, it's the nationalities of the countries that the Hungarian government has the most tensions with that end up underrepresented.

---
Anyways, I won't go into detail on demographic info here - it would be a whole new post and also other people have done plenty. I'll just say that there are some missing
-Jews in Esztergom, Central Hungary, Transcarpathia, and probably a number of other places
-Armenians
-Neapolitans in Transcarpathia
-Wallonians in Tokaj
-Croatians in Banat
-Ruthenians in Marchia Ruthenorum
-Transylvanians in the parts of Transylvania where there are Romanian names dating before 1337
-and probably quite a few others that I haven't caught

 

[StelarCF]

The issue of representation of the romanian historical point of view in english literature and in easy to digest formats like the maps Fehervari provided is saddening. I don't want to completely invalidate hungarian research on this, but besides the points which have been raised again and again on the troubled assumptions that the posted maps usually have (such as, for example, assuming that having a majority of toponyms coming from latter conquerors meaning they were the first settlers there), the issue is also that there is a far greater (political and cultural) incentive (and precedent) for magyar institutions to produce biased research on the topic than there has been for romanian institutions. I am pointing this out because even getting a rough idea of the ethnic distribution in this region is difficult enough - and much of the research providing such maps is recent, with romanian academics from my not-sufficiently-thorough investigation not really focusing on this kind of "this is the exact places a census would have told you were majority romanian" research as much as on research on the social and political structure of the region; because of that, even if such research were to be conducted (and yes - we can easily admit - our own academics probably wouldn't be truly impartial either, but I think we should say this honestly rather than.. well.. saying we're magically impartial because they have academic degrees, hint hint) it would probably be long past the carpathian review coming out.

On the other hand, I (genuinely) have to congratulate Fehervari on the initiative of actually getting in contact with historians. It's a higher standard than simply quoting their work, biased as they definitely are, and it does result in better quality data than whatever we can come up with as nonprofessionals. I am rather inspired and tempted to do the same, both with romanian historians and (albeit it's harder to pretend I would myself be unbiased in selection, particularly since at least one british historian miffed me while studying english-language historiography on Transylvania due to overtly preferring magyar scholarship to the point of being in hungarian friendship groups, rather undermining my personal belief towards that particular historian being unbiased) foreign ones who are less likely to have an emotional, economical or political interest in delivering results confirming our national sensitivities. I would still militate towards our side of the story being the objectively correct one, but you know.. I'm romanian, and my whole life I've been taught and seen confirmations of our own theories on romanian ethnogenesis.

That said, I also want to say I really hope Paradox doesn't prefer one side or another simply on the quality of presentation or quantity of available data, or even quantity of publication. Bad scholarship done using shortcuts can easily look better than good scholarship done with sweat and hard work. Even good scholarship should be taken at the value of what it researches. Taken to the extreme (i.e. kindly don't take this as an accusation, please): if Paradox is ever presented with two disagreeing sources of equal trust value, one of which is a well researched article using multiple methods to prove a single sentence conclusion, or a single percentual statistic with a margin of error of up to 10%, and one which is a fanciful article using tenuous logic using third-degree or higher interpretations to provide beautifully detailed breakdowns with two decimal points for how many carrots the average cattle farmer in every specific village of Occitania would consume, then I'd hope Paradox would place greater emphasis on the macro value being based on the well researched, low information article, and use the higher-information but lower trust article for finetuning regions; it's a game after all.

And finally, it's sad to say this (since it's on us), but our ministry of culture is underfunded and so are projects related to history and archaeology, while to my knowledge the magyar government does a far better job in that respect. I actually find this admirable, as much as it also means their own nationalistic theories are amplified.

tl;dr:
- don't assume "they have maps" means those maps or any other investigations which utilize proxies should come first over the base, macro values under debate (like proportion of romanians in Transylvania)
- don't assume more publications means something is more correct, it's a touchy subject with blood spilled in the past and it's not very asymmetric either (this is very important)
- I think what Fehervari has done is still a good thing, as long as due caution is taken to make sure it's not unduly believed at face value
- caveat to the previous statement: I really, really don't like the immigration, admigration, or latter growth theories
- it would be a good thing for us to contact romanian historians too, I'm just not very hopeful we'll get information as nicely presented as what Fehervari has put out

 

[Mingmung]

Yeah, I still think Paradox' version of the Transylvanian culture-setup isn't that bad (besides the name 'Transylvanian' for Romanians living there, which is iffy). Even though I also applaud Fehervari's contact with historians on those subjects. It just doesn't sound plausible to have such a small Romanian minority there, among other things.

And I'm not even a Romanian myself, nor someone like Ludi (who has had some criticism on the devs without actual citations to back-up his claims).

EDIT: There's probably a core of truth somewhere, as we'll never know what the precise density of the different cultures was.

 

[Fehervari]

Romhányi:
Many of these raised points are not easy to answer. First because they rely on certain claims of older works/literature, and there such things are really written as some of the people here wrote. Second, there’s a desire-driven thinking in these comments about how much this or that one wants to see.

The first Knezes (just like Schulteißes, or in certain parts the „Gerébs”), weren’t assigned to rule over preexisting populations, instead their job was to settle new people to a certain area where previously noone lived (they also received jurisdiction over the land prior, which were later reaffirmed, the Knez status often being exchanged for nobility in the process). This doesn’t mean that such lands weren’t in use prior (for example transhumance pastorialists might have used it), but there were no permanent settlements. And the settlements of mountainous areas were also significantly smaller than settlement located further down. If we plainly compare the number of settlements, then in a given situation we compare a strawberry to a pumpkin – one to one, but doesn’t really match up.

The population data are essentially based on the ecclesiastical institution network – this is true for the Orthodoxes as well, and Orthodox churches only begin to appear in the 14th century. Adrian Andrei Rusu also came to this conclusion (he’s not Hungarian). If there would have been masses of „schismatic” Orthodoxes Hungary through the entire Middle Ages, then that would have left a mark in the country’s laws. Contrary to that, we see no mention of them in normative texts in the 14th century. There’s only one place, where there were Orthodoxes appearing in a concentrated manner: at the end of the 1360s, Orthodox Bulgarians settled in the Southeastern part of the Banate, and there immediately appeared Franciscans belonging to the Bosnian province/march/watch (tn.: not sure about the translation here) too, who were tasked with the conversion of these new arrivals to catholicism. This Franciscan province/watch was called „Bulgarian Watch”, despite not having a single monastery on actual Bulgarian territory (aside from two shortlived attempts that ceased operations prior to 1370). This watch became part of Hungary’s obersvational vicariate in 1444, but following that most of their monasteries largely disappeared, since the Union of Florence made their existence moot.

Everywhere else, we can observe mosaic-patterned settlings, which for a long time didn’t cause any issues, since they were small, frequently moving groups. In the area of the Banate of Severin, not even the Kneziate centres had permanent locations (elsewhere it mostly was though). Tension, conflicts between the Catholic and Orthodox population started to appear around 1400. From this point onwards, this is sociology, this was the point when the Orthodoxes reached that share in the population that was at the level of causing issues locally. According the modern sociology literature, this share level is around 10%. Ont he country level, King Sigismund’s decree issued in 1425, that obliged Orthodoxes to rechristen/convert, is the first that deals with the question in any shape or form, and even that was targeted at the area of Karánsebes, specifically.

Besides, the population of different parts of the kingdom grew very unevenly. Based ont he changes in the parish networks between 1330 and 1500, the country’s population overall grew by 50%, but for example Transylvania experienced a much higher growth: about 80%. Meanwhile, the population of the Diocese of Pécs grew only by a third.

It is important to highlight that a parish is not simple an ecclesiastical institution, and not only Catholics were assigned under a parish. By definition, the Kingdom of Hungary was a Catholic country, the king and populace all viewed it as a fact of life, it was a much more important part of identity than ethnicity (which is something medieval society didn’t really understand as we do – just like how a Csángó would first identify as a Catholic, and only in recent times did they begin to also add they are Hungarians, well those who are still around anyway). The English word parish even today still means both church(plébánia) and village/township/municipality(község), but the German word Gemeinde also can mean Pfarrgemeinde and Katastralgemeinde both. This wasn’t any different in the Kingdom of Hungary either, and it also can be seen that for example in France one parish had about the same amount of people delegated to it as in Hungary, around 1330 and around 1500 as well. Furthermore, the population per parish (750–760 souls) figure of ~1500 also left its mark in 18th century French policy when the commune system was organised (about 28 million people were assigned to about 37 thousand communes). This is why the parish network can be used as a base to demography, that’s why its important that even around 1500, Fogaras only had 3 parishes and beside them 1 Orthodox chapel near Kerc in Kercisóra where Romanians already lived by the end of the 13th century. However this chapel is not an independent institution. In the 15th century, there ar already some Romanian parishes too, adn even beyond that, in Hunyad, Máramaros and Bihar counties, even higher level, basically archdeaconry-equivalent Orthodox (Romanian/Ruthenian) ecclesiastical administrations also appeared (this initially caused tensions in Hunyad, but later on it was recognised and integrated).

The immigration coming from the directions of the Balkans and Moldavia from the medieval era has scarce mentions in literature, early modern much moreso. It’s unclear why its a point of dispute.

I see, a Hungarian nationalist subscribing to the delusion that Hungarians arrived to an empty Carpathian basin and that the population that was present here long before the Hungarian conquest somehow only magically appeared later. Sadly that renders any attempts at further discussion pointless.

Demeter: This comment is neither an argument nor debate, it’s plain accusation thrown out without any kind of academically interpretable counterpoint to complement it.

In the span of 300 years, they assimilated. If the Dacians could have been romanised in a hundred years, as nationalist Romanian historiography claims, then nationalist Hungarian historiography’s 300 years would straight up predestinate it The evidence to this are the Cumans and Jássics, who by 1600 didn’t speak their non-Hungarian related language. Meanwhile in 1337’s map, they mark quite a big spot in spite of any and all kind of nationalist Hungarian daydreams.

On another note, our ethnic map is much less „nationalist” compared to Kocsis Károly’s, which is the mainstream…

Thirdly, placenamings should be looked into. Settlement names can be dated rather well, and obviously the local language speakers would have had one or two words about what gets rooted in. For example: the Slavic placenames’ transformation in accordance with Hungarian phonetic, provable with credible sources, is rather distinctive. (Balaton)

But Ruthenian settlements date back pretty much at least to Salomon's time, 250 years earlier.

Demeter:
Of course, they didn’t speak Hungarian in the settlement of Oroszi, located in the middle of the basin (but maybe not even Slavic, but Varangian…) either, but what existed during the Árpád dynasty, for example let’s say after the conquest of Halych, that doesn’t necessarily implies persistence until 1337. Noone spoke Pecheneg (Besenyő) either by 1337, meanwhile there are still two dozen or so villages named like so.

There’s quite a few „Várkony”-s (Avar) as well, yet noone talks about Avar masses in 1337. If the Hungarian population can lose its tribal bounds by 1300 (while tribal names persist to this day, see Békásmegyer, Balassagyarmat, Dunakeszi, Salgótarján…), then this story can repeat with anyone else.

The question is wether the inspectors of these maps are aware that the year of concern is 1337, and not 1100 or 1500.
Sure, if we look at Kristó’s and apply the Árpád Age’s non-Hungarian settlements, then we get quite a colourful map. But if a population doesn’t have replenishment (Romanians for example had), then the settlement name alone remaining doesn’t mean much…

Besides, there are Ruthenians on the map.

Lake Balaton was significantly larger in 1337, and seems to have stayed at that size until at least the 1700s (probably the 1800s). It would be extending all the way to the Kanizsa location and be a bit wider at some points.
Including Lake Velence was a bold move imo; it's not only quite small, but also prone to drying up on rare occasions.

Demeter: Balaton could be expanded with the Kis-Balaton, the Nagy-Berek region, mybe even with about half of the Tapolca basin, Tihany is also used to be an island.

Me: It would be fun to make those changes, I'm not sure the devs would implement it though.

As for Velence, it takes absolutely nothing to include or exclude it.

It seems like the western border of Bat-Monostor follows the eastern branch of the Danube, whereas the county border followed the western branch.

This one I can answer. It was made like so because of size and terrain considerations in regards to Szekcső. But depending on how the Danube gets drawn by the developers, this and some other things could get adjusted (for example Baranyavár).

Lendva looks like it might be <100 pixels in size (I'd estimate it at 300 km^2, and every pixel is roughly 2x2 km) and the devs said that they would prefer to not have locations that small.

According to my conversion, Lendva is about 381 km^2. If the devs find it unnecessary, they can just attach its territory to Kapornak and/or Kanizsa.

Zenta runs across the Csongrad-Bodrog county border while neighboring Telek ends up in Bacs-Bodrog despite most of its land being in Csongrad. I understand that a compromise probably had to be made in that area, but this seems like the worst of both worlds.

I think you're looking at an incorrect map, specifically one based on Hóman Bálint's work. Compare it to this instead:
https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/MNA_3_7.pdf (2nd map, for example)

Some of the mountain passes in the east look skinny enough to only be a pixel wide. While I don't mind the choice stylistically at all, I think that this will run into visibility issues unless the player zooms in.

Yes, that's something that has already been pointed out by others earlier. The devs are free to adjust them for playability considerations. The National Atlas' terrain maps can also help them draw their on wastelands. That's why I also included a location layout without wastelands.

Speaking of - some county boundaries are slightly off in a number of places, where they generally follow an approximately correct pattern, but appear to be shifted over. Fogaras is probably the biggest offender, but Kraszna-Szolnok, Komarom, Csongrad, Szepes, and many others have this problem as well.

They seem fine on my map:

GIS doesn't show any big deviancies either.

Karcag, Szoboszlo, and possibly Tolnavar and Heves should probably be wetlands. Tur I'm far less sure about.
Many of the areas marked as plateau in Transylvania actually have hilly ranges going right through them. The idea behind plateaus is that they're relatively flat, and ranges of hills sort of ruin that.
The mountains in Ungvar and Munkacs are a big maybe. Ungvar does have a few peaks that reach just over 1000m, but it's also centered around a river valley and includes a much lower and flatter piece of land on its southern end. Munkacs is split by terrain, where about a third of it is pretty flat.
The northern shore of Balaton is pretty hilly (as an extension of Transdanubian mountains), and Buda, Nograd, and Szecseny are on the hillier side as well.

Topography is not an easy question, that's for sure. This is a compromise result, limited by the game's current categorisation. This question in all its aspects were quite extensively debated internally, but also with @Sulphurologist.

There are some controversial choices here that make sense, and some that do not.
Ugocsa's history and geography is less similar to that of Maramaros, and more similar to that of Bereg or Szatmar.

There were many variations here through development. This is honestly just one of many. An alternative approach could be Ugocsa getting attached to Ung-Bereg instead (making it Ung-Bereg-Ugocsa), or it could form a province together with Bereg, making Bereg-Ugocsa, meanwhile Ung would get united with Zemplén (two location provinces are generally not accepted by the devs. I think initially Máramaros only had two locations, that's why Ugocsa was attached to it, maybe.

Pilis-Esztergom is very questionable. Pilis was attached to Pest for most of the game's timeframe. Esztergom is too small to stand on its own, but Komarom-Esztergom makes some sense (it's anachronistic, but at least it existed at some point, unlike Pilis-Esztergom).

The triangle made up by Esztergom, (Óbuda) and the Danube-bend has been referred to as the middle of the country already in the 11th century, and it indeed was, even in the 14th century. Sure, Komárom-Esztergom and Pilis-Pest would also work perfectly, but this layout has its own logic to it as well.

So... is the Ung-Bereg province in Szomolnok-Kassa, or Szatmar-Varad? It seems to be split in half by the two.

Oof, that's an error on my part. The variations in province layout remained unaccounted for on the area map in this case. It works either way, but maybe it would be better being part of Szatmár-Várad. Of course, the changes suggested above should be taken into account this time.

Also, putting Valko-Pozsega in Szerem is probably going to make that area cross right over a region border, unless Slavonia ends up as part of Carpathia, which would be another... bold move.

Slavonia is in Carpathia, only Croatia-Dalmatia is in the Balkans, but even if Slavonia would be in the Balkans, that wouldn't affect Valkó-Pozsega.

While the area was likely colder historically than it is now, Csongrad, Csanad, and Bekes stood out before the Ottoman invasion as having a relatively warm climate, which enabled them to grow more food than the surrounding areas. I'm not sure how to represent this, though, as there isn't any data on 14th century seasonal rainfall in Bekes that I know of.

Location-specific modifiers, maybe? Otherwise we need to wait for better solution until climate get revised by the devs.

Horses and copper seem to be under-represented. Both of those were important economic stays.

I'm not opposed to the increase of either of them, although horses were not exported in great quantites but rather in great value instead.
Copper used to be slightly more numerous, although 3 is already not few either.

Fish may be slightly over-represented, but I have no hard sources for this. Same with fruit.

Fruit was produced in immense quantities, especially in the North, os I think it's fine, but fish indeed might be too numerous. We'll discuss it.

I have questions about western Slovakia and the surrounding areas. The tin in Ujbanya,

Pálosnagymező was known for its tin mines in the 14th, 15th centuries, but otherwise tin naturally occurs alongside with gold and silver. We sacrificed the gold at Újbánya to represent that overall. A mention of Pálosnagymező's tin:

Pálosnagymező. | Borovszky Samu: Magyarország vármegyéi és városai | Kézikönyvtár

www.arcanum.com

the silver in Maros

During the Árpádian Era, coinage minted in Hungary was silver-based, and one of the country's most notable mining areas back then was the Börzsöny in Hont.
This paper mentions it:

https://real-eod.mtak.hu/1228/1/magyarorszgb00wenzuoft.pdf

the misplaced lead mines in Rimaszombat instead of Gomor

Rimabánya also had some lead, but more importantly, iron is simply to significant in Gömör not to make it that.

the misplaced gems in Kassa instead of Eperjes

Visit my thread, that one was discussed there. But long story short, tha argument is same as above. Salt was pretty significant in Eperjes, so gems was delegated to neighbouring Kassa instead.

the wine in Eger that wouldn't really take off for a while

What do you place this claim on? The Wallons/French who settled in the proximity developed local wine production to a respectable level by this point, prior to that the bishopric also.

the fiber crops being grown on Csallokoz (one of the biggest wheat producers)

Csallóköz became a big wheat producer much later on. Meanwhile the area does have a tradition of flax and hemp production (a century prior also gold washing).

the Nagymihaly mercury

Alsókomarócz was known for its mercury mine. Abrudbánya is already there as one mercury location, so if it feels too many for the devs they can put something else there.
A few arrangements were tried and shown in my thread.

the Privigye spices

Saffron, the same reason as dyes for Trencsén. If they don't belong, then the notes in the relevant table can be followed for alternatives.

and lack of stone in northern Slovakia (which was supposedly quarried at >100 locations) all seem dubious.

Vágbeszterce has stone. I also really wanted to have more stone locations, but it's not exactly the simplest matter, since one wouldn't want to sacrifice more valuable raw materials. We managed to fit in stone locations further south though.

The salt in Gyulafehervar seems dubious - was it stretched out into the neighboring Kiralyfold province just to include Vizakna?

Not stretched, that's the historical boundary of Fehér county. This was also discussed in my thread.

The devs have stated that they don't intend to design the game based on modern borders.

Also, it seems that this rule is applied inconsistently, as Csanad, Kapos, Kovacshaza, Sarospatak, and others go right across a modern border even though a split without this issue would have been possible. I understand the size considerations around Szolos, for example, but why not move the northwestern corner of Csanad to Hodvasarhely?

The idea was to give the opportunity to recreate rather approximate modern borders with the least possible damage done to the historical county layout. Also, not only modern borders were considered also many kind of historical borders, for example 1699.

it gives Becskerek-Temesvar borders that wouldn't be acquired until... 1919..?

That's probably the single largest county border violation caused by modern borders, yes, but I don't think that one particularly is a big issue.

puts Gyula in a county/province where it doesn't belong (Bekes and Zarand had been split for a while by 1337)

Gyula is in Zaránd though. But the town was always passing back and forth between Békés and Zaránd, so writing it doesn't belong to one or the other is a bit odd.

and may mislead the player on the border in Ujlak and Marot.

You mean because the location borders look similar to modern Croatian ones but said border doesn't include Újlak here? Or wdym?

It also raises some questions about the accuracy of terrain in Moson, as the actually swampy southern part of Nezsider matches the swamps of Ovar better than the slightly drier rest of Nezsider.

That indeed was a sacrifice made for the sake of modern borders.

Anyways, I won't go into detail on demographic info here - it would be a whole new post and also other people have done plenty. I'll just say that there are some missing
-Jews in Esztergom, Central Hungary, Transcarpathia, and probably a number of other places

Jews in Esztergom probably yeah, but not elsewhere.

-Armenians

Not until after 1500.

-Neapolitans in Transcarpathia

?

-Wallonians in Tokaj

They are there (French).

-Croatians in Banat

You mean the Crassovians?

-Ruthenians in Marchia Ruthenorum

There are Ruthenians within the country, however there was no such thing as "Marchia Ruthenorum".

Ok, let's see.
Gabor Demeter: works at a university funded by the Hungarian government. Seems to be focused on post-1700.

Demeter:
I have not worked at a university since 2010... when I worked at the university, my livelihood was based on a PhD in Earth Science, as I was not, you see, a practicing historian, but rather an assistant professor in the Department of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics.
And since, as a historian, I am a methodologist and a Balkanist, the evaluation of my scientific publications by their date is misleading. I don't know what website purplephoton was browsing, but I have publications from the 16th century as well (available online too).

Istvan Kadas: works at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

But that would be nice. A few years ago, we were detached from there without asking us, since then we have had three names but never any money, and now the government has taken away 400 million from us, they love us so much.

HOWEVER: Gábor Demeter is indeed an employee of HAS, because I have another job beyond HUN-REN RCH. So, if for Puplephoton, the fact that someone works in a state-owned/financed institution is a sign of reliability (or its lack), then here you go...

Andras Vadas: works at a Hungarian state-owned university.

We asked Andris as an environmental historian, I don't really understand what the significance of being state-owned is in terms of a scholar's professional reputation, moreover, ELTE does not operate under the foundation model, so it cannot be considered a FIDESZ-controlled institution.

Denes Sokcsevits: works at an "independent" think tank, which has "benefit Hungary" as one of its official goals. Seems to be focused on Croatia.

Well, no. Where did he get this from???? Dénes works at the HUN-REN BTK TTI, he is my office mate, like Judit Gál, by the way, he openly identifies as of Croatian nationality (from a family related to a Croatian ban family), Bunjevac, so he is a representative of the minorities that purplephoton was missing...

Idk, somehow, it's the nationalities of the countries that the Hungarian government has the most tensions with that end up underrepresented.

Please cease these baseless and frankly vile accusations.

You mention a lot of things, but nothing of it seems to mention numbers of these populations, and the fact that so many locations have a neat, round number suggests a fair bit of guestimation.

The first census was in 1785, what do you expect, how do historians anywhere in the world do these kind of works!?

Where is this attested, and why would the area be more forested than the direct nearby areas, which are more hilly than the incredibly flat river valley around Făgăraș? Additionally, the construction of a fortress started there in 1310, which I presume would necessitate chopping down a lot of trees in order to establish a field of visibility and control around said fortress. A fortress on flat plains surrounded by thick forest doesn't sound ideal.

Demeter:
It's not the percentage of forested area that matters, but rather the fact that if they started building something there in 1310, then from the perspective of state organization, there wasn't any significant data before that, no matter how many Vlach shepherds wandered around there (and they, moreover, move over the ridge to Wallachia during the other half of the year). Even if their number reaches a thousand, due to their migration, they are temporary and quite difficult to capture in state or church records.

But otherwise, in the case of Fogaras, it basically doesn't matter whether it's 80% Romanian or 99% Romanian, and whether it's 100 people or 2000 people. their proportion hardly changes, but then the system developed for the WHOLE TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY, which is based on unified and WESTERN LITERARY ANALOGIES, is damaged.

On another note, if there are 200 more Jews, we still won't fall on our swords, even if it cannot be substantiated by credible sources.

By your data, they are practically all but absent. Even to hardcore immigrationists, this seems like a fairly extreme position. Do you have any international research backing this, or is it solely resting on Hungarian scholarship?

Demeter:
If the entire Hungarian academic community judges that it is "worthy" to recalculate the data of Kristó, Györffy, Kubinyi, etc., and finally throw everything into a unified database, then this probably makes sense, rather than constantly bringing up the results of the old scholars, which are based on smaller databases and are either local or based on extrapolation. Naturally, this does not mean that we (Beatrix) are right in everything, have been, and will be, but it does mean that she is DOING EXACTLY WHAT THE COMMENTERS demand: collecting, organizing, and analyzing data according to a unified logical system – which, when complemented by the unique evaluation of individual data, gives a much more reliable result (at least from a scientific methodology point of view; of course, there may be a discrepancy between the obtained figures and reality, but we won't know that until a charter surfaces...).

Also if the Romanians would only come later, how come the Hungarian crown used Romanian nobles from the far north to launch the expedition to establish a vassal across the Carpathians in Moldova?

Hont and Pázmány were local German and Frankish lords (they are precisely the evidence of the survival of the remaining persistent local population and the transfer of their power), and yet this does not mean that their subjects were Germans and Franks in large numbers...


Alright, this is it for now. Sorry if I missed things. I will look through the messages soon again.

 

[Silverbow]

Demeter: This comment is neither an argument nor debate, it’s plain accusation thrown out without any kind of academically interpretable counterpoint to complement it.

In the span of 300 years, they assimilated. If the Dacians could have been romanised in a hundred years, as nationalist Romanian historiography claims, then nationalist Hungarian historiography’s 300 years would straight up predestinate it The evidence to this are the Cumans and Jássics, who by 1600 didn’t speak their non-Hungarian related language. Meanwhile in 1337’s map, they mark quite a big spot in spite of any and all kind of nationalist Hungarian daydreams.

On another note, our ethnic map is much less „nationalist” compared to Kocsis Károly’s, which is the mainstream…

Thirdly, placenamings should be looked into. Settlement names can be dated rather well, and obviously the local language speakers would have had one or two words about what gets rooted in. For example: the Slavic placenames’ transformation in accordance with Hungarian phonetic, provable with credible sources, is rather distinctive. (Balaton)


...


Hont and Pázmány were local German and Frankish lords (they are precisely the evidence of the survival of the remaining persistent local population and the transfer of their power), and yet this does not mean that their subjects were Germans and Franks in large numbers...


Alright, this is it for now. Sorry if I missed things. I will look through the messages soon again.

Yeah right, so the Ruthenians have been present at the time of the conquest (as proven by plethora of archeological and etymological evidence), then they magically all assimilated into Hungarians in the matter of 300 years, then they magically de-assimilated a few centuries later... And now tell me the one about the Red riding hood...

BTW etymology is hilarious in the area, every single location name is meaningless magyarization of meaningful original Ruthenian name (Ungvár/Munkács/Beregszász/Huszt vs Užhorod/Mukačevo/Berehovo/Chust).

BTW 2, "Pázmany" was called Poznaň, and was very obviously Slavic (I'm sure you're aware of homonymous Polish city). As usual, it's meaningful in Slovak and Polish and meaningless in magyarized version.

 

[Mingmung]

Hmmm, the amount of effort in commenting on our criticisms is very admirable. Big respect, also kudos to the historians themselves.

There might be some assumptions of us that are just wrong then. Even though it might be a tough one to swallow, regarding certain aspects.

Others, like borders and tradegoods are less 'definitive' and easier to discuss. As the gameplay parts is also in effect there, and there usually being more options.

 

[Cuke]

the Ruthenians have been present at the time of the conquest (as proven by plethora of archeological and etymological evidence)

While I support the pro-Ruthenian scepticism in principle, I have to say that archeological and etymological evidence indicates that we are all Swedes now.
Not because we are at a Swedish forum but because we are using IKEA stuff.

 

[Inzano]

Romhányi:
Many of these raised points are not easy to answer. First because they rely on certain claims of older works/literature, and there such things are really written as some of the people here wrote. Second, there’s a desire-driven thinking in these comments about how much this or that one wants to see.

The first Knezes (just like Schulteißes, or in certain parts the „Gerébs”), weren’t assigned to rule over preexisting populations, instead their job was to settle new people to a certain area where previously noone lived (they also received jurisdiction over the land prior, which were later reaffirmed, the Knez status often being exchanged for nobility in the process). This doesn’t mean that such lands weren’t in use prior (for example transhumance pastorialists might have used it), but there were no permanent settlements. And the settlements of mountainous areas were also significantly smaller than settlement located further down. If we plainly compare the number of settlements, then in a given situation we compare a strawberry to a pumpkin – one to one, but doesn’t really match up.

The population data are essentially based on the ecclesiastical institution network – this is true for the Orthodoxes as well, and Orthodox churches only begin to appear in the 14th century. Adrian Andrei Rusu also came to this conclusion (he’s not Hungarian). If there would have been masses of „schismatic” Orthodoxes Hungary through the entire Middle Ages, then that would have left a mark in the country’s laws. Contrary to that, we see no mention of them in normative texts in the 14th century. There’s only one place, where there were Orthodoxes appearing in a concentrated manner: at the end of the 1360s, Orthodox Bulgarians settled in the Southeastern part of the Banate, and there immediately appeared Franciscans belonging to the Bosnian province/march/watch (tn.: not sure about the translation here) too, who were tasked with the conversion of these new arrivals to catholicism. This Franciscan province/watch was called „Bulgarian Watch”, despite not having a single monastery on actual Bulgarian territory (aside from two shortlived attempts that ceased operations prior to 1370). This watch became part of Hungary’s obersvational vicariate in 1444, but following that most of their monasteries largely disappeared, since the Union of Florence made their existence moot.

Everywhere else, we can observe mosaic-patterned settlings, which for a long time didn’t cause any issues, since they were small, frequently moving groups. In the area of the Banate of Severin, not even the Kneziate centres had permanent locations (elsewhere it mostly was though). Tension, conflicts between the Catholic and Orthodox population started to appear around 1400. From this point onwards, this is sociology, this was the point when the Orthodoxes reached that share in the population that was at the level of causing issues locally. According the modern sociology literature, this share level is around 10%. Ont he country level, King Sigismund’s decree issued in 1425, that obliged Orthodoxes to rechristen/convert, is the first that deals with the question in any shape or form, and even that was targeted at the area of Karánsebes, specifically.

Besides, the population of different parts of the kingdom grew very unevenly. Based ont he changes in the parish networks between 1330 and 1500, the country’s population overall grew by 50%, but for example Transylvania experienced a much higher growth: about 80%. Meanwhile, the population of the Diocese of Pécs grew only by a third.

It is important to highlight that a parish is not simple an ecclesiastical institution, and not only Catholics were assigned under a parish. By definition, the Kingdom of Hungary was a Catholic country, the king and populace all viewed it as a fact of life, it was a much more important part of identity than ethnicity (which is something medieval society didn’t really understand as we do – just like how a Csángó would first identify as a Catholic, and only in recent times did they begin to also add they are Hungarians, well those who are still around anyway). The English word parish even today still means both church(plébánia) and village/township/municipality(község), but the German word Gemeinde also can mean Pfarrgemeinde and Katastralgemeinde both. This wasn’t any different in the Kingdom of Hungary either, and it also can be seen that for example in France one parish had about the same amount of people delegated to it as in Hungary, around 1330 and around 1500 as well. Furthermore, the population per parish (750–760 souls) figure of ~1500 also left its mark in 18th century French policy when the commune system was organised (about 28 million people were assigned to about 37 thousand communes). This is why the parish network can be used as a base to demography, that’s why its important that even around 1500, Fogaras only had 3 parishes and beside them 1 Orthodox chapel near Kerc in Kercisóra where Romanians already lived by the end of the 13th century. However this chapel is not an independent institution. In the 15th century, there ar already some Romanian parishes too, adn even beyond that, in Hunyad, Máramaros and Bihar counties, even higher level, basically archdeaconry-equivalent Orthodox (Romanian/Ruthenian) ecclesiastical administrations also appeared (this initially caused tensions in Hunyad, but later on it was recognised and integrated).

The immigration coming from the directions of the Balkans and Moldavia from the medieval era has scarce mentions in literature, early modern much moreso. It’s unclear why its a point of dispute.


Demeter: This comment is neither an argument nor debate, it’s plain accusation thrown out without any kind of academically interpretable counterpoint to complement it.

In the span of 300 years, they assimilated. If the Dacians could have been romanised in a hundred years, as nationalist Romanian historiography claims, then nationalist Hungarian historiography’s 300 years would straight up predestinate it The evidence to this are the Cumans and Jássics, who by 1600 didn’t speak their non-Hungarian related language. Meanwhile in 1337’s map, they mark quite a big spot in spite of any and all kind of nationalist Hungarian daydreams.

On another note, our ethnic map is much less „nationalist” compared to Kocsis Károly’s, which is the mainstream…

Thirdly, placenamings should be looked into. Settlement names can be dated rather well, and obviously the local language speakers would have had one or two words about what gets rooted in. For example: the Slavic placenames’ transformation in accordance with Hungarian phonetic, provable with credible sources, is rather distinctive. (Balaton)


Demeter:
Of course, they didn’t speak Hungarian in the settlement of Oroszi, located in the middle of the basin (but maybe not even Slavic, but Varangian…) either, but what existed during the Árpád dynasty, for example let’s say after the conquest of Halych, that doesn’t necessarily implies persistence until 1337. Noone spoke Pecheneg (Besenyő) either by 1337, meanwhile there are still two dozen or so villages named like so.

There’s quite a few „Várkony”-s (Avar) as well, yet noone talks about Avar masses in 1337. If the Hungarian population can lose its tribal bounds by 1300 (while tribal names persist to this day, see Békásmegyer, Balassagyarmat, Dunakeszi, Salgótarján…), then this story can repeat with anyone else.

The question is wether the inspectors of these maps are aware that the year of concern is 1337, and not 1100 or 1500.
Sure, if we look at Kristó’s and apply the Árpád Age’s non-Hungarian settlements, then we get quite a colourful map. But if a population doesn’t have replenishment (Romanians for example had), then the settlement name alone remaining doesn’t mean much…

Besides, there are Ruthenians on the map.


Demeter: Balaton could be expanded with the Kis-Balaton, the Nagy-Berek region, mybe even with about half of the Tapolca basin, Tihany is also used to be an island.

Me: It would be fun to make those changes, I'm not sure the devs would implement it though.

As for Velence, it takes absolutely nothing to include or exclude it.


This one I can answer. It was made like so because of size and terrain considerations in regards to Szekcső. But depending on how the Danube gets drawn by the developers, this and some other things could get adjusted (for example Baranyavár).

According to my conversion, Lendva is about 381 km^2. If the devs find it unnecessary, they can just attach its territory to Kapornak and/or Kanizsa.

I think you're looking at an incorrect map, specifically one based on Hóman Bálint's work. Compare it to this instead:
https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/MNA_3_7.pdf (2nd map, for example)

Yes, that's something that has already been pointed out by others earlier. The devs are free to adjust them for playability considerations. The National Atlas' terrain maps can also help them draw their on wastelands. That's why I also included a location layout without wastelands.

They seem fine on my map:

GIS doesn't show any big deviancies either.

Topography is not an easy question, that's for sure. This is a compromise result, limited by the game's current categorisation. This question in all its aspects were quite extensively debated internally, but also with @Sulphurologist.

There were many variations here through development. This is honestly just one of many. An alternative approach could be Ugocsa getting attached to Ung-Bereg instead (making it Ung-Bereg-Ugocsa), or it could form a province together with Bereg, making Bereg-Ugocsa, meanwhile Ung would get united with Zemplén (two location provinces are generally not accepted by the devs. I think initially Máramaros only had two locations, that's why Ugocsa was attached to it, maybe.

The triangle made up by Esztergom, (Óbuda) and the Danube-bend has been referred to as the middle of the country already in the 11th century, and it indeed was, even in the 14th century. Sure, Komárom-Esztergom and Pilis-Pest would also work perfectly, but this layout has its own logic to it as well.

Oof, that's an error on my part. The variations in province layout remained unaccounted for on the area map in this case. It works either way, but maybe it would be better being part of Szatmár-Várad. Of course, the changes suggested above should be taken into account this time.

Slavonia is in Carpathia, only Croatia-Dalmatia is in the Balkans, but even if Slavonia would be in the Balkans, that wouldn't affect Valkó-Pozsega.

Location-specific modifiers, maybe? Otherwise we need to wait for better solution until climate get revised by the devs.

I'm not opposed to the increase of either of them, although horses were not exported in great quantites but rather in great value instead.
Copper used to be slightly more numerous, although 3 is already not few either.

Fruit was produced in immense quantities, especially in the North, os I think it's fine, but fish indeed might be too numerous. We'll discuss it.

Pálosnagymező was known for its tin mines in the 14th, 15th centuries, but otherwise tin naturally occurs alongside with gold and silver. We sacrificed the gold at Újbánya to represent that overall. A mention of Pálosnagymező's tin:

Pálosnagymező. | Borovszky Samu: Magyarország vármegyéi és városai | Kézikönyvtár

www.arcanum.com

During the Árpádian Era, coinage minted in Hungary was silver-based, and one of the country's most notable mining areas back then was the Börzsöny in Hont.
This paper mentions it:

https://real-eod.mtak.hu/1228/1/magyarorszgb00wenzuoft.pdf

Rimabánya also had some lead, but more importantly, iron is simply to significant in Gömör not to make it that.

Visit my thread, that one was discussed there. But long story short, tha argument is same as above. Salt was pretty significant in Eperjes, so gems was delegated to neighbouring Kassa instead.

What do you place this claim on? The Wallons/French who settled in the proximity developed local wine production to a respectable level by this point, prior to that the bishopric also.

Csallóköz became a big wheat producer much later on. Meanwhile the area does have a tradition of flax and hemp production (a century prior also gold washing).

Alsókomarócz was known for its mercury mine. Abrudbánya is already there as one mercury location, so if it feels too many for the devs they can put something else there.
A few arrangements were tried and shown in my thread.

Saffron, the same reason as dyes for Trencsén. If they don't belong, then the notes in the relevant table can be followed for alternatives.

Vágbeszterce has stone. I also really wanted to have more stone locations, but it's not exactly the simplest matter, since one wouldn't want to sacrifice more valuable raw materials. We managed to fit in stone locations further south though.

Not stretched, that's the historical boundary of Fehér county. This was also discussed in my thread.


The idea was to give the opportunity to recreate rather approximate modern borders with the least possible damage done to the historical county layout. Also, not only modern borders were considered also many kind of historical borders, for example 1699.

That's probably the single largest county border violation caused by modern borders, yes, but I don't think that one particularly is a big issue.

Gyula is in Zaránd though. But the town was always passing back and forth between Békés and Zaránd, so writing it doesn't belong to one or the other is a bit odd.

You mean because the location borders look similar to modern Croatian ones but said border doesn't include Újlak here? Or wdym?

That indeed was a sacrifice made for the sake of modern borders.

Jews in Esztergom probably yeah, but not elsewhere.

Not until after 1500.

?

They are there (French).

You mean the Crassovians?

There are Ruthenians within the country, however there was no such thing as "Marchia Ruthenorum".

Demeter:
I have not worked at a university since 2010... when I worked at the university, my livelihood was based on a PhD in Earth Science, as I was not, you see, a practicing historian, but rather an assistant professor in the Department of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics.
And since, as a historian, I am a methodologist and a Balkanist, the evaluation of my scientific publications by their date is misleading. I don't know what website purplephoton was browsing, but I have publications from the 16th century as well (available online too).

But that would be nice. A few years ago, we were detached from there without asking us, since then we have had three names but never any money, and now the government has taken away 400 million from us, they love us so much.

HOWEVER: Gábor Demeter is indeed an employee of HAS, because I have another job beyond HUN-REN RCH. So, if for Puplephoton, the fact that someone works in a state-owned/financed institution is a sign of reliability (or its lack), then here you go...

We asked Andris as an environmental historian, I don't really understand what the significance of being state-owned is in terms of a scholar's professional reputation, moreover, ELTE does not operate under the foundation model, so it cannot be considered a FIDESZ-controlled institution.

Well, no. Where did he get this from???? Dénes works at the HUN-REN BTK TTI, he is my office mate, like Judit Gál, by the way, he openly identifies as of Croatian nationality (from a family related to a Croatian ban family), Bunjevac, so he is a representative of the minorities that purplephoton was missing...


Please cease these baseless and frankly vile accusations.

The first census was in 1785, what do you expect, how do historians anywhere in the world do these kind of works!?

Demeter:
It's not the percentage of forested area that matters, but rather the fact that if they started building something there in 1310, then from the perspective of state organization, there wasn't any significant data before that, no matter how many Vlach shepherds wandered around there (and they, moreover, move over the ridge to Wallachia during the other half of the year). Even if their number reaches a thousand, due to their migration, they are temporary and quite difficult to capture in state or church records.

But otherwise, in the case of Fogaras, it basically doesn't matter whether it's 80% Romanian or 99% Romanian, and whether it's 100 people or 2000 people. their proportion hardly changes, but then the system developed for the WHOLE TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY, which is based on unified and WESTERN LITERARY ANALOGIES, is damaged.

On another note, if there are 200 more Jews, we still won't fall on our swords, even if it cannot be substantiated by credible sources.


Demeter:
If the entire Hungarian academic community judges that it is "worthy" to recalculate the data of Kristó, Györffy, Kubinyi, etc., and finally throw everything into a unified database, then this probably makes sense, rather than constantly bringing up the results of the old scholars, which are based on smaller databases and are either local or based on extrapolation. Naturally, this does not mean that we (Beatrix) are right in everything, have been, and will be, but it does mean that she is DOING EXACTLY WHAT THE COMMENTERS demand: collecting, organizing, and analyzing data according to a unified logical system – which, when complemented by the unique evaluation of individual data, gives a much more reliable result (at least from a scientific methodology point of view; of course, there may be a discrepancy between the obtained figures and reality, but we won't know that until a charter surfaces...).


Hont and Pázmány were local German and Frankish lords (they are precisely the evidence of the survival of the remaining persistent local population and the transfer of their power), and yet this does not mean that their subjects were Germans and Franks in large numbers...


Alright, this is it for now. Sorry if I missed things. I will look through the messages soon again.

In addition to the strange national border of the Slovenians in west of Hungary, on the border with Carniola, the fact that Čabar (local Čeber) was part of Carniola until 1671 and then forcibly annexed by Croatia (Hungary) was not taken into account. The dispute between Carniola and Croatia was resolved in 1794, when Heinrich
von Auersperg was paid damages with 12,000 guilders.

In 1578, Žumberak (Slovenian Gorjanci) was annexed to the Croatian War Territory, which was never returned, there were many disputes for this region as well, and the last negotiations were in 1847 between Carniola and Croatia.

In 1337, these locations were nationally Slovenian. When Žumberak became part of the Croatian War of Independence, it quickly became Croatian as in Čabar, the Slovenes preserved themselves for a very long time, which is why they still speak the Slovenian dialect there, which Croatians classify as Kajkavian.

If you don't want to consider the borders between the 14th century and the 18th century, please, at least consider the cultural border here.

 

[Muhu]

BTW 2, "Pázmany" was called Poznaň, and was very obviously Slavic (I'm sure you're aware of homonymous Polish city). As usual, it's meaningful in Slovak and Polish and meaningless in magyarized version.

Pázmány is the Hungarian form of Patzmann, a German name of a Swabian knight who arrived in Hungary in the late 10th century.

 

[Silverbow]

Pázmány is the Hungarian form of Patzmann, a German name of a Swabian knight who arrived in Hungary in the late 10th century.

This old theory contradicts most evidence (like why would the Poznans keep using Slavic first names for centuries?) and is solely based on Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum (a thoroughly dubious semi-mythological source written 300 years later) calling them "knights of Swabian origin".

Some modern authors suggest that the clan Hont-Poznany was formed by intermarriages of two separate families, the Hunts and the Poznans ("Pázmánys", "Posnans") when the latter's male line died out in the mid-12th century. They claim that the ancestors both of the two families were already nobles at the time of Great Moravia and preserved their possessions after the incorporation of their territories into the arising Hungarian state.[4][5] The theory suggests that they kept their Christian faith during the 10th century and its followers claim that the foundation deed of the Benedictine monastery of Bzovík proves that hereditary estates from the time before the arrival of the Magyars prevailed in the Hunts' property. The Pázmánys oversaw the Benedictine monastery below Zobor hill near Nitra and became its secular patrons. According to the theory, the seat of the Hunt family was the Hont castle and they ruled in the Central Ipeľ region in today's southern Slovakia, while the Pázmánys ruled in the region of today's north western Slovakia in the 10th century. Both families acknowledged the sovereignty of Michael of the House of Árpád and thus they became nobles at his court in Nitra. After Michael's death, the new ruler, Vajk (Stephen I) and the local nobility, spearheaded by the Pázmány and Hunt houses, developed very close personal ties and while fighting the Koppány rebellion in 997, Stephen took shelter with Pázmány and Hunt ("Poznano" and "Cuntio"); they in turn added their troops to the retinue of Stephen's Bavarian wife Giselle. The united forces then defeated Koppány, making Stephen the sole ruler of the emerging Hungarian state. In the 11th and 12th century the Hunts owned estates mainly in the county of Hont and along the Ipeľ river. By the 11th and 12th centuries the Pázmáns' estates were mainly in the valley of the Nitra river. According to the alternate theory, the Pázmáns' male line died out in the mid-12th century; allied by marriage to the Hunts, the line became "Hont-Pázmány".

The oldest genealogic data about the Poznans are preserved in the Zobor charters (1111-1113). The charters contain names at least of fourth nobles from the Poznan family - Una, Bacha (Bača) and two sons of Bukven - Deda (Dedo) and Caca (Kačä). The high number of Slavic names in the Hunt-Poznan family is obvious until the 14th century (Stojslav, Vlk, Držislav, etc.). The character of their hereditary property also indicates pre-Hungarian origin[a][6] Naturally, those who belonged to the royal court or obtained property in Hungarian ethnic territories self-identified with the majority population in the area.

Notes​

[edit]

1. ^ The property of Honts and Poznans was at the beginning clearly separated and both clans also used a completely different system of significant names. This contradicts theory that they were brothers. The domain of the Poznans was in the south-western Slovakia with highest density of properties in Ponitrie. The original hereditary property of the Hunts was nearly exclusively located in Hont, Malohont and Nógrád. The charter of the Abbey of Bzovice (1135) contains valuable information about Hunts's early property, because it strictly differentiates between property dedicated by the first Hungarian kings, property bought later and those "inherited from ancestors". (Lukačka, 2010) The fact that later Hunt-Poznans held numerous property also in the other parts in the kingdom is already taken into account.

 

[Mark9973]

BTW etymology is hilarious in the area, every single location name is meaningless magyarization of meaningful original Ruthenian name (Ungvár/Munkács/Beregszász/Huszt vs Užhorod/Mukačevo/Berehovo/Chust).

Amazing that you managed to pick 4 examples of which none are originally Slavic. Taking a quick glance at wikipedia:

The city's earliest known name is Ungvár, from Hungarian Ung (River Uzh) and vár "castle, fortress", originally referring to a castle outside the city (probably Nevytske Castle). The name Uzhhorod was coined in early 19th century Slavophile circles as a literal translation of the name Ungvár. The city officially adopted this name some time after 1920, under Czechoslovak administration.

Most probably, the name derived from the Hungarian surname "Muncas"—munkás (worker)—which later transformed into Munkács

Its name comes from the Hungarian noun berek (grove), its suffix refers to the former Saxon inhabitants. The name Ukrainian comes from Hungarian.

The name is most possibly related to the name of the stream Hustets or Husztica, which means "kerchief". It is also conceivable that the name of the city comes from a Romanian traditional food ingredient – husti.

I suppose you also think that there were never Germans in Danzig, since its etymology was always Slavic and the German name is useless? Peoples can change, place names tend not to.

 

[Muhu]

This old theory contradicts most evidence (like why would the Poznans keep using Slavic first names for centuries?) and is solely based on Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum (a thoroughly dubious semi-mythological source written 300 years later) calling them "knights of Swabian origin".

Names like Lampert, Martin or Achilles? These don't sound particularly Slavic to me. The quote you posted is clearly listed as an alternate theory even on the page you took it from and seems to be mainly based on the works of one guy. It is hardly the mainstream view.

 

[ArVass]

So many bad takes in one thread!

 

[Silverbow]

Amazing that you managed to pick 4 examples of which none are originally Slavic. Taking a quick glance at wikipedia:

The city's earliest known name is Ungvár, from Hungarian Ung (River Uzh) and vár "castle, fortress", originally referring to a castle outside the city (probably Nevytske Castle). The name Uzhhorod was coined in early 19th century Slavophile circles as a literal translation of the name Ungvár. The city officially adopted this name some time after 1920, under Czechoslovak administration.

Most probably, the name derived from the Hungarian surname "Muncas"—munkás (worker)—which later transformed into Munkács

Its name comes from the Hungarian noun berek (grove), its suffix refers to the former Saxon inhabitants. The name Ukrainian comes from Hungarian.

The name is most possibly related to the name of the stream Hustets or Husztica, which means "kerchief". It is also conceivable that the name of the city comes from a Romanian traditional food ingredient – husti.

I suppose you also think that there were never Germans in Danzig, since its etymology was always Slavic and the German name is useless? Peoples can change, place names tend not to.

1. Hustets is literally a Ruthenian word. 0/1
2. Berek my ass, it's obviously from "bereh" (meaning "slope, shore")which is actually part of the word Berehovo, unlike Berek. If it actually had anything to do with Berek, it'd be Berekszasz in Hungarian. 0/2
3. You conveniently left out the rest of the quote, which reads "while another version points that the name contains proto-Slavic root "Muka" which means “flour”." Muka also means torment, so it could easily also mean "martyr's town". Meanwhile, again Hungarian version is just twisting itself to strain to fit and fails at maintaining the root of the word. 0/3
4. Maybe look at the name of the river Uh/Uzh (meaningless Ung in Hungarian), which again is Slavic? 0/4

Scholars disagree about the origin of the river's name. Some believe that it got its name from the eponymous snake , which is found in abundance in the river valley. Other researchers believe that its name has nothing to do with the snake of the same name, by the way, on the territory of Slovakia, the river is called "Ug". Linguists prove that since the territory of the region was under the influence of the Bulgarians for some time , the name of the river comes from the words Bolg. coal (coal) or "corner" (corner), or "narrow" - narrow, meaning a narrow river valley. There is also an opinion about the origin of the name from the Turkic words "ung", "ong", which are translated as "right", or from the word "uz" - water.

Names like Lampert, Martin or Achilles? These don't sound particularly Slavic to me. The quote you posted is clearly listed as an alternate theory even on the page you took it from and seems to be mainly based on the works of one guy. It is hardly the mainstream view.

Don't be disingenuous, it's literally in the quote I posted.
The oldest genealogic data about the Poznans are preserved in the Zobor charters (1111-1113). The charters contain names at least of fourth nobles from the Poznan family - Una, Bacha (Bača) and two sons of Bukven - Deda (Dedo) and Caca (Kačä). The high number of Slavic names in the Hunt-Poznan family is obvious until the 14th century (Stojslav, Vlk, Držislav, etc.).

 

[Muhu]

Don't be disingenuous, it's literally in the quote I posted.

And I provided counterexamples showing that the picture is more complicated. It's an interesting theory which seems to be coming from exclusively one scholar, as all the references in your quote point to him. I cannot attest to its verity. It may or may not be true but what's obvious is that it's not the current historical consensus. What's disingenuous and extremely presumptuous is presenting a fringe theory like that as some sort of obvious truth like you did.

 

[Silverbow]

And I provided counterexamples showing that the picture is more complicated. It's an interesting theory which seems to be coming from exclusively one scholar, as all the references in your quote point to him. I cannot attest to its verity. It may or may not be true but what's obvious is that it's not the current historical consensus. What's disingenuous and extremely presumptuous is presenting a fringe theory like that as some sort of obvious truth like you did.

So why would a supposedly German family in Hungarian kingdom keep mixing obvious Slavic names with pan-Christian ones (Martin is extremely common in Slovak too), mythological ones (Achilles) and indeed even German (Lampert)?

Should we just take a largely mythological source that even tries to connect Hungarians to Huns (obvious colossal self-aggrandizing lie) at its word instead?

 

[ArVass]

So some short and final commentary on the Fehervari-proposal and the ensuing "debates":

1. the areas map is just counter-intuitive, breaks all immersion for me, and while minting chambers did exist as an administrative entity, areas are supposed to be primarily cultural and geographical/geological areas

2. I do feel like we did provinces better in at least two places, in the Jász-Kun district (should likely be part of the same province for reasons of immersion, as the Cuman and Jász seats were not treated as part of any county but as a separate entity under the Nádor, so it would make gameplay sense if province-based actions applied to those lands as one instead of split between multiple provinces), and merging Pest with Pilis and Esztergom with Komárom to follow counties that did, later in history, form

3. not sure why Buda is not hills?

4. as multiple people already mentioned, for the raw goods I believe Livestock and Horses are underrepresented, while Fruits and Wheat are overrepresented. In the 14-15th centuries, Hungary was an overproducer of livestock, the German markets were flooded with Hungarian cattle, and the Pannonian plains were also described as being teeming of horses by one French traveller if my memory serves me well (I'll try to find the source but it was one of those that we used in our proposal).

5. my main problem with the population is that it is one of the lower estimates there is; you seem to have used a 2 million-ish estimate, while there are other estimates ranging up way over 3 million; personally I like Tinto's 3.7 million measure, simply because it is more in line with the population densities they have taken for other neighboring places with similar conditions for the time; whether or not those estimates are realistic would require more research. It also doesn't help the case of the 2.3 million-ish number that similar 2.5 million-ish populations were calculated for right after the Black Plague, a pandemic that had a massive death toll (almost as big as the famines that followed); so I'm in favour of the higher estimates.

6. this one is for Silverbow; I recommend you look up what a "folk etymology" is; also it is quite worrying how militant you get about the topic for some reason.

7. whether if the researchers Fehervari consulted have been working for a state-owned institution before in their lifetime is not relevant to their academic prowess; good luck if you think that you can find employment as a historian in Hungary without ever working with the MTA or any public university that is state-funded, lol. It's not easy to get by without relying on taxpayer money occasionally a little bit.
I'd even argue that their proposal, apart from the likely underrepresentation of Romanian and Ruthenian pops (which is not completely insane, despite what many people on here think; in our previous proposal with Purplephoton, it actually took quite a lot of wishful thinking to add as many Romanian, Ruthenian, Serbian locations as we did, because the evidence is quite scarce), actually paints Hungary in a less favourable location than ours or even Tinto's did (much less population, some suboptimal topology decisions, questionable raw goods at places, Kézdiszék and Orbaiszék merged into one location though they were already two, and the areas that I really, really don't think are resonant with Tinto's vision of areas at all).