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

[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).

 

[Muhu]

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)?

Families change their naming convention based on their environment all the time. I know many people with German surnames and non-German first names. Does that mean that their family name doesn't actually come from Germany? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

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?

You don't need to take any source at its word. However not blindly trusting a source and dismissing it entirely as fiction aren't two equivalent actions, with the latter requiring much stronger evidence to justify.

 

[Futski]

Second, there’s a desire-driven thinking in these comments about how much this or that one wants to see.

Same criticism could be made in the opposite direction.

We have a clear idea where the German settlers came from within Germany. But for the Romanians, who according to this theory, would immigrate in such numbers that they would far outnumber everyone else, is at best located as coming somewhere down-over-yonder.

Their pastoral character is also taken to mean that they represent small communities, whenever they happen to be present in Transylvania, but outside, they are thriving in large numbers enough numbers to become the dominant ethnic group on the plains between the Carpathians and the Black Sea, as well as Transylvania, despite having no centralised state, just roaming the mountains.

Additionally, they largely seem to have assimilated to a high degree in the West and South Balkans, but the opposite then happens in Transylvania, despite starting from scratch.

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.

Like this right here is a great example of the above mentioned. How can you with any degree of certainty conclude the size of a pastoral population living in the mountains with few permanent structures? Again, keeping in the internal logic of the theory in mind that Vlach pastoralists were able to be numerous enough to settle and become the dominant ethnic group.


This book states on page 5 that 300 Vlach families lived around Mount Athos in the late 10th century.

What makes it impossible that the knez would have been a local cheiftain, who was charged with establishing permanent settlements with the goal of settling pastoralists from the kinship group he was the leader of?

Maramures is roughly 30 times larger than than Mt Athos. If 300 families could live in that area, putting 75 Romanians in the Máramarossziget location seems to be unbelievably few.

Also why go through the bother of bringing in people from far away to settle and area, just so you can toss them across the Carpathians a few years later.

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.

But do we have evidence of the Vlachs building churches in the mountains south of the Danube, that can be used to determine population numbers?

For this theory to make sense, there needs to be a degree of consistency north and south of the Danube. If South Danube Vlachs managed to be numerous enough to provide a bulk population for settling all of modern Romania, I do not see why it all of a sudden becomes a necessary condition in Transylvania.

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.

Or previous to this time period, you had pastoralists largely living in a symbiosis with the settled populations living in the valley. Once you settle the pastoralists, they too enter the competition for farm land and space, and thus tensions arise.

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.

Something seems lost in translation here?

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.

They could, but it's possible to point to the Slovaks and thus suggest that the Hungarian Kingdom and the early Roman Empire at its apex had different settling and assimilation policies, since Slovakia, despite being part of Hungary since the very beginning, never got fully assimilated, despite its proximity to the core of the kingdom, so why would the pressure to assimilate be higher in Transcarpathia?


Frankly not that great an argument.

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

They would recognise that this is the territory of guesswork based on little concrete evidence, and treat the numbers produced with uncertainly, instead of presenting the data as comprehensive.

It's completely alright for a historian to say "we don't actually know" from time to time.

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.

If the people are migratory between two areas, they still very much exist, and ought to be modelled.

Again, this shows a deep flaw in trying to model populations, which you first of all, acknowledge are there, and secondly, acknowledge have used the area in a pastoralist manner through church records.

This game is going to model Societies of Pops, this mechanic would be an excellent way to model these pastoralist populations in the beginning of the game.

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.

Yes, but the scientific manner to go by when you are presented with something that conflicts with the thesis, is not to throw a hissy fit, but instead investigate whether it's a good model to use for this area. As far as I am concerned, France didn't have a large pastoralist population in the middle ages in the same way that the Balkans did. So why assume that you can use the same way to accurately model the populations, when the conditions quite clearly are different. Additionally, France had been a feudal society starting from Charlemagne, while the Balkans and the Pannonian Basin had been in a non-stop period of instability and turmoil between Emperor Commodus and the establishment of the Hungarian Kingdom, and even then, the area still got hit badly by the Mongols a roughly 200 years in.

 

[purplephoton]

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.

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.

These are actually helpful, thanks.

I think you're looking at an incorrect map, specifically one based on Hóman Bálint's work. Compare it to this instead

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.

Both the map posted by Tibi earlier in the thread of 1342-1382 and this map of 1490 by Kogutowicz Mano show Csongrad as extending far south and Gyula as part of Bekes.

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

In nothern Gomor county, yes. In Gomor location, I see a whole lot of fruit.

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

Yes.

Not until after 1500.

Jozsa Hevizi, 2018:
"The first Armenians to reach Hungary presumably came from the Balkans in the 10 -11th century. The existence of a colony of Armenians in Esztergom is shown by a charter issued by Béla IV that granted them land and a monastery. Several place names of the period attest to the presence of Armenians. These include Örményes, Örményszékes and Mezõörményes (Örmény is Armenian in Hungarian. Tr.) Archival documents show that in the 15th century an Armenus Egidius was a magistrate in Pest and that in the 16th century, a certain Stephanus Ermeni was chief judge of the City of Buda."
"The seal of Talmács village, in County Szeben, indicates that there was an Armenian bishopric and an Armenian bishop as early as 1343."

?

Druget family brought over settlers from their homeland.

You mean the Crassovians?

Yes. Evidence suggests that their migration began in the late 1200s, so at least a few would have been present by 1337.

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.

Developed to a respectable point, yes. However, according to the Hungarian wikipedia (not the best source, I know), mass planting began in the 14-15th century when the forests were cleared to make room for wineyards, wine quality was improved by Serbs fleeing from the Turks (so late 1300s to early 1500s), and it became dominant "by the 16th century". Personally I'd make it change to wine by event, but then again, that's just me.

They are there (French).

They're in Sarospatak.

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

Not quite. The area very roughly corresponding to modern Transcarpathia was often referred to as a march, and was often the source of military-political disputes.
For example, Munkacs and the surrounding areas were supposedly held by Galicia-Volhynia between 1281 and 1321 (I may refer to this in a later post). Also, Bereg county was until the mid-1200s an autonomous "forest comitatus" (autonomous in the sense that the local ispan had much more say in how it was administered, and in the late 1300s this ispan was a Ruthenian nobleman - though by this time the forestry was admittedly abolished). So yes, "Marchia Ruthenorum" is a made-up concept, but it refers to a de-facto march, inhabited and at times ruled by actual Ruthenians, that had a degree of autonomy).

 

[purplephoton]

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.

We asked Andris as an environmental historian

If their contributions were primarily related to physical geography, then I have no further objections. Physical geography isn't something you can have much of an agenda about, unlike historical demographics. Speaking of, the concern about Romhanyi was not addressed.

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...

He was associated with the Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis, which is what I'm referring to. Further digging also shows that he worked at the University of Pecs.

Please cease these baseless and frankly vile accusations.

Pointing out that Ruthenians and Romanians are underrepresented isn't a baseless and vile accusation (and I'm trying to translate sources that show that they are indeed underrepresented, though I actually suspect that it's not due to any recent historian's wrongdoing).
Suggesting that the Hungarian government might extend a nationalistic agenda to its universities that over time may give incorrect information to even the best researchers, leading to said information being posted in here, is not much of a baseless and vile accusation either, though I'm not sure how much I can say about modern politics here without breaking some forum rule.
So what exactly is this baseless and vile accusation that you're talking about?

 

[Mingmung]

@Clyde Wallach I disagree with renaming Alexandroupolis to Mákri; the old regional centre of Traianoupolis is still (barely) intact in 1337, which should honestly be the name of the location. Another option would be Vira/Bira (a small town with a fortified monastery) or maybe the castle of Avantas (which was designed to protect towns like Traianoupolis/Vira, though).

Here's my post about it: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rpathia-and-the-balkans.1693751/post-29868242

Your post is quite extensive, and there are indeed some very interesting/plausible locations that could be added/changed. I don't think the devs will change the density of Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Wallachia (and their surroundings), though (with the exception of a handful of locations). Density seems to be pretty good there, already. A bit like how Anatolia and Italy were handled. The Kingdom of Hungary and parts of Moldavia (and maybe Bosnia) are probably the regions which could use the biggest amount of work (confirmed for Hungary, by the devs).

 

[Bomaxx]

Hello everyone,
Seeing the incredible work of other members in this forum, creating very detailed maps and summarising each country's position, I decided to do the same and put together a map for Bulgaria. I was mostly inspired by @Monix and his great posts regarding the subject, but I've also been taking note of all other efforts in this thread (@Antimonum , @buffon1313 , @vikinglord , @Nikicaga ). For my sources, well since this is mostly a visualisation of previous posts, I'll link to them and they'll have the associated research. For the locations I've added on my own, I'll of course give sources directly.
Now, before viewing the map let me explain how to interpret the colours:

Borders:
Blue - the borders of the location have not been altered with respect to the original
Yellow - the borders of the location have been altered, either to fit a newly added province or to better restructure surrounding locations
Green - borders of a newly added location

Names:
Orange - correction of the location's name, mostly to remove anachronisms
Yellow - the name has not been changed, serves to clear up which location is which
Green - the name of a newly added province

I. The Map and some notes

I'd like to mention that this is the historically conservative version of the map, where each location has evidence for existing in the period under its respective name. I've also left out some smaller fortresses which I'll later include as additional locations if the devs want to increase the density further.
Now I'd like to note some things, which I find to be important or useful:

- The location of Razgrad has been removed and partitioned, due to the accounts for its existence being shaky. However I understand its benefits in regards to density so later on I'll propose an alternate scenario.

- Višesav should be Vishesav when in Bulgaria's domain, something more, I believe it should be in Bulgaria's hands to begin with as without this location a historical conflict in the very near future of the game between Bulgaria and Hungary would not be possible as they wouldn't share a border. And to that effect, the location should be altered to include some of the impassable terrain (Myhald on the Hungarian side respectively too) so that a connection exists between the two countries. - see the Hungarian occupation of Vidin on Wikipedia
Honestly I think there should be some more border changes in the political map, but this isn't the focus of this post.

- Pernik should exist as a separate location because it was still significant in the period and was part of Bulgaria as opposed to Serbia.

- Zibestova is an alleged old name of Svishtov, which existed in the time period and had some significance

- There should be more mountainous terrain and impassable regions around Stara Planina.

- Konstantsiya and Konstantsa, is not a mistake. The former is the name of a fortress that was present in the time period and corresponds to today's Simeonovgrad, the latter corresponds to the modern city of Consanța

- Dabilin should become Diampolis when in Byzantine hands. Perperek would be Perperikon.

- Preslav should actually have a slightly different southern border in my opinion, but I haven't reflected it because I can't precisely align a terrain map on top. It should follow the contour of Stara Planina, so the locations of Sliven, Lardeya and Aytos should expand a little more northward, like this:

- If Paradox chooses not to remove Razgrad (which should then at least be renamed to Hrazgrad) and instead favours to break up the region more to add additional strategic depth, then I propose locations be split in the following way:

II. Additional locations
These are some bonus locations for increased density, since I can't be sure just how much Paradox would like to break up the region. All of them are historically attested and I'll even provide images of how I think the first few could look on the map, the rest I'll just write about.

- Petlyuka - a fairly notable fortress which could be used to split the Sredets (Sofia) and Pirot locations. Honestly I should've included this in the original map I personally think it's a great addition.

- Rila - the monastery was granted villages by a royal charter of Tsar Ivan Shishman in 1371 and was economically significant. Currently it is entirely impassable terrain, but the location can be carved out the following way. Another issue however is that currently the borders between Serbia and Bulgaria would make it disconnected from Bulgaria, so either changes have to be made in the political map or the location redrawn from the north (less realistic)

- Glozhen - a very obscure village today (Glozhene) but it did exist in the time period, and the monastery there (Glozhene monastery) was built all the way back in 1224, interesting history. Could be used to break up Bozhenitsa and Lovech and be a great mountain location to make the passage more difficult to conquer as it historically was.

- Madara - a fortress in the northeast of Bulgaria that was conquered by the Ottomans in 1388. It's notable, however it clusters closely to Shumen and Preslav, so I decided not to give it its own location. Depending on the level of granularity however it could prove to be useful.

III. Sources and links to posts
EDIT: Well I can't post links so instead I encourage you to check out the following things on your own:
@Monix
PROVINCES AND LOCATIONS (Part 1)
PROVINCES AND LOCATIONS (Part 2)
PROVINCES AND LOCATIONS (Part 3)
Post about Pernik's location

@Antimonum :
Rila Location and the Rila charter
Province structure and names

Sources for my own additions:
Hungarian occupation of Vidin Wikipedia page
Zibestova (Svistov's Wikipedia page in Bulgarian) - only in Bulgarian
Konstantsiya (Simeonovgrad's Wikipedia page in Bulgarian) - only in Bulgarian
Petlyuka (in Bulgarian) - sources outside of Wikipedia
Glozhene Monastery Wikipedia page
Madara (Wikipedia page in Bulgarian) - only in Bulgarian

 

[bobbaum]

The City of Pozsony should have Austrian culture

The city had a clear Austrian majority population by the 1300s and its pretty weird putting it as Slovak with Austrian minorities. Every source says that the city was Austrian so i don't see a reason for putting it as slovak

sources:

Bratislava – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Deutsche_Ostsiedlung.png/800px-Deutsche_Ostsiedlung.png

Mittelalterlicher Landesausbau/Ostsiedlung

ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de

Die deutsche Ostkolonisation

Pressburger Deutsch – Wikipedia

de.m.wikipedia.org

Carpathian Germans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

this scientific paper is written by the institute of ethnology of the slovak academy of sciences

Wayback Machine

 

[Mingmung]

@bobbaum As explained by others in your other thread, the city doesn't represent the whole location. Rural population is generally bigger. And Germans are already a sizable minority there, so it's not even such an issue (we'll never 100% know what the divide was back then).

 

[bobbaum]

@bobbaum As explained by others in your other thread, the city doesn't represent the whole location. Rural population is generally bigger. And Germans are already a sizable minority there, so it's not even such an issue (we'll never 100% know what the divide was back then).

there was an austrian majority in trnava and the countryside around the 1300s until the late 1400s

Trnava - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

ostsiedlung maps

Die deutsche Ostkolonisation

Mittelalterlicher Landesausbau/Ostsiedlung

ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de

then there is this ethnic map from the 1400s

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F6kywxbe79pab1.jpg

all maps have authors from various universities

 

[Fehervari]

Someone made a mistake here, Murska Sobota had the largest proportion of Slovenes in Hungary. Varaždin, however, did not have a large presence of Slovenes, almost not perceptible.
View attachment 1191051

It actually was a choice I initially viewed skepctically also (the same goes for the very strong Hungarian presence in North Slavonia, or the low share of Romanians and Ruthenians in their traditional areas of the country, btw.) but I was assured it was a conscious choice:
"From a linguistic perspective, Muraköz and Varasd are an independent little microcosm, where Slovenian (Wendish), Croatian, Hungarian, and even a bit of German sneak in, though the latter barely shows. Even in the 18th century, the census takers had difficulty deciding what language to record for each village."

This is so demonstrably wrong.

If you consult a map, you'd see that the right-bank of the Olt, towards the north, the area is flanked by hills reaching 500-600 meters, while the left bank towards the south is flat plains extending for 15-20 km before reaching the Carpathian foothills.

You're right that the immediate left bank is topographically better featured compared to the immediate right, the light brown area on the map, basically. Bank was meant in a wider sense. To the North, the Saxon population centres were also concentrated more to the North, the immediate sides of the Olt both were forested. You also need to consider the comparison between the slopes on the two sides of the Carpathians, the Southern side has a more gentle slope, so it was better suited for grazing, first that attracted the pastorialists more.

If the population growth of Orthodox people in Transylvania were immigrants from the Balkans, why was it the ones from the area that was subject to the least harsh conditions by the Ottomans, rather than the Slavs or the Greeks.

Being a buffer state is not the least harsh condition. You also need to take into account the Boyar and later on also phanariote repression as well. Not to mention, Transylvania in the 1660s was going through quite a demographic crisis, to put it lightly, the immigrating Romanians had a lot of room to settle (and the Hungarian nobility welcomed them with open arms to replenish their decimated serfs.) This is when the Romanian share of the population quickly rose to above 50% of the region's population (from the previusly mentioned ~25%).

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).

Demeter: That's the point. The Hungarian language, albeit distorts on the original phonetic form, and in many times the word is meaningless in Hungarian, still retains such early Slavic phonetic forms, inwhich the g-h shift did not occure yet and includes nasal sounds (Ung, Bereg). Therefore, it makes little sense to categorise this linguistic record as either Rusyn/Ruthenian or Slovak (btw, why you argue Ruthenian, not Slovak?), furthermore the retention of this old phonetic form is evidence that the local Slavic element of the time assimilated, otherwise the Hungarian language also would also use the phonetic form with "h" and without "n", which is a shift that can be dated after the 11th century.

Besides, the "Duna" name also survived, which is of Iranian origin (Don, Dnyeper, stb. parallel), yet noone believes that Iranians have lived along the Danube in great masses in 1337.

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.

Demeter: I haven't seen it written in such form in any charter, despite this of course he still could have been Slavic, or Germanic, or even Turkish based on merely the phonetic form. The comments point is not about what language did he speak, but rather that the language of the subjugated does not necessarily match with the overlord's - not in the 10th century, and not in the 14th century either.

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.

View attachment 1191652

We will look into this question.
I personally would like to raise a point however. The 1332-'37 Papal Tithe Register does seem to include parishes located in the area marked to the West on your map (and also more, actually).

AFAIK, the whole area was in near constant dispute through this time period, but the highlighted area is not large enough to be its own location (this sadly applies to the one on the left as well, imo). For similar considerations were the Burgenland locations drawn the way the are also, for example.

3. not sure why Buda is not hills?

If possible, I would also prefer Buda (and maybe Esztergom too) to be hills. I would like to make some other locations hills as well, but don't think the current boundaries set by the devs would allow them.

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).

1 alum
1 coal
1 dyes
1 gems
1 lead
1 sand
1 spices
1 tin
2 fiber crops
2 marble
2 mercury
2 saltpeter
3 copper
3 medicaments
4 fur
4 horse
4 silver
4 sturdy grains
6 gold
6 legumes
7 clay
7 wool
8 salt
9 wild game
11 fruit
14 iron
15 fish
16 stone
18 lumber
20 wine
29 livestock
34 wheat

These are the current amounts of each raw material. Livestock is second only to wheat, so I don't think it's really underrepresented.
Still, if there's a need to increase it further, I suppose some fish or else could be changed to that.
The number of horses could be increased without problem, although we need to find suitable locations for that. Tolnavár and Siklós might be good candidates.
I don't think fruit is overrepresented, but a small decrease could still be reasonable.
Having any less wheat considering the total location count would be disproportional, imo. It would be odd to see Hungary be made an importer of wheat.

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.

The devs can scale up these numbers to align the population size of Hungary with the rest of Europe, but the locations' pop figures relative to each other (in terms of ratio) should be preserved. All things considered however, 3,7 million is an extremely high figure either way. 3 million would still be a huge stretch, but still a bit more reasonable.

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

How could something historically suitable be "immersion breaking"? I get it if you don't like it, but immersion breaking is not the right term, I believe. We are looking into alternatives though, maybe something based on the dioceses, with some mergers involved.

In nothern Gomor county, yes. In Gomor location, I see a whole lot of fruit.

The area of Gömör location was quite a notable producer of fruits, although this also applied to Rimaszombat location as well. The raw materials of the two could be exchanged, but I'm not sure it's necessary.

Both the map posted by Tibi earlier in the thread of 1342-1382 and this map of 1490 by Kogutowicz Mano show Csongrad as extending far south and Gyula as part of Bekes.

Albeit the county borders weren't completely chiseled in stone through the ages, so there's some merit to both maps, the one I used is somewhat more detailed and accurate, since it's based on Engel Pál's research into this topic. There also a GIS interactive map program you can download to view it, btw!

Yes.

Stretching Valkó location further just to include it wouldn't make sense. Croats will need to be content with the approximate recreation of their modern borders (or they can secure Ilok with some extra lands.)

Jozsa Hevizi, 2018:
"The first Armenians to reach Hungary presumably came from the Balkans in the 10 -11th century. The existence of a colony of Armenians in Esztergom is shown by a charter issued by Béla IV that granted them land and a monastery. Several place names of the period attest to the presence of Armenians. These include Örményes, Örményszékes and Mezõörményes (Örmény is Armenian in Hungarian. Tr.) Archival documents show that in the 15th century an Armenus Egidius was a magistrate in Pest and that in the 16th century, a certain Stephanus Ermeni was chief judge of the City of Buda."
"The seal of Talmács village, in County Szeben, indicates that there was an Armenian bishopric and an Armenian bishop as early as 1343."

The Armenians that settled in Hungary under the Árpáds were mostly if not completely assimilated by this point. We can look into those last two claims though, they seem interesting enough. I would love to have some Armenians on our map, tbh.

Druget family brought over settlers from their homeland.

Yes, but where did you meet the claim that any of them ended up in Máramaros? IF you can find it we will look into it.

Romhányi:
Regarding the Slovenian-Croatian / Slovenian-Hungarian border:

In the Muraköz region, the early collection of place names is quite mixed. Lendva (Lendava) or Dobronok (Dobrovnik) are clearly Slavic, but Muraszombat (Murska Sobota) itself is not so straightforward, since the type of place-naming is Hungarian (see Nagyszombat, Rimaszombat, or similarly formed place names like Csütörtök, Csíkszereda, etc.). Additionally, among the villages, several contain more Hungarian name elements (such as "hely" meaning place, "fa" meaning village [fa is short for „falva”]), while near Lenti there is Tótszerdahely, which quite clearly refers to the Wends (Slovenes). Perhaps the best solution would be to stripe the two affected locations (the other being Csáktornya), adjusting the population numbers accordingly.

Regarding the Ruthenians/Rusyns (and Romanians):

A distinction must be made between the Rus-ian settlement of the 11th-12th centuries and the Ruthenian/Rusyn settlement of the 14th century. In the early period, the new population was scattered, which is why they assimilated quite quickly. The first block settlement was that of the Transylvanian Saxons in the "Királyföld" (Royal Land) from the mid-12th century onwards, with the known result. Afterwards, the Cumans and the Jasz people were similarly settled, and in the 14th century, in several places, the Romanians and the Rusyns. Except for the Saxons, all the aforementioned arrived initially as relatively small groups and formed several island-like settlement areas. However, unlike the one-time settlement of the Saxons and Cumans, the Jasz had continuous reinforcements until about the end of the 14th century, and the others had continuous influx until modern times.

Specifically, in the area stretching from Máramaros to Sáros around 1500, there were 30 Orthodox (wooden) churches and 2 monasteries. Among the latter, the St. Michael's in Körtvélyes (Hrusheve) also served as a kind of ecclesiastical center, and during Matthias's time, it is written about as "fide uniti," meaning it was considered Catholic in the sense of the Union of Florence. This altogether could have meant 18-22 thousand Orthodox Rusyns/Romanians in that area at that time. Assuming continuous but not mass immigration (annual growth of 0.3%), around 1400 there were about 13-16,000 people. The preceding period was the time of intensive immigration, which is the hardest to estimate.

It says a lot about Máramaros that before 1337, apart from the five crown towns, only Bedőháza (Bedevlya) and Szurdok (Strâmtura) are mentioned, and both are granted to a Vlach "kenéz" (local leader), obviously to settle them. Besides these, (Tisza)fejéregyház (Bila Cerkva), based on its name, is probably a settlement from the Árpád era, although it is first mentioned only in 1363, but it has a nice Hungarian name. Possibly also from the Árpád era is (Iza)Konyha (Bogdan Vodă), whose name is of Slavic origin but, as far as I know, it early passed into Hungarian, so let's decide which language's people named the settlement. Voivode Bogdan appears only after this, in the 1360s, so it's not clear exactly what the critics are holding to account.

In the papal tithe register, in Máramaros only the parishes of the five crown towns are listed. In Ung, Zemplén, and Sáros, the early 14th-century parish network extended quite high, and the names of the settlements are mixed Slavic, Hungarian, German. However, in this area, there are more unidentified parishes than average, which suggests that some of the parishes ceased after 1337, which could precisely be due to the settlement of Rusyns, Vlachs, Romanians (whichever one or other prefers).

At the beginning of the 15th century, in Zemplén and Ung, many mills appear in expressly mountainous areas. Engel already considered these to be sawmills, meaning that by then sheep grazing and logging were taking place on the slopes of the Carpathians. The appearance of the first wooden churches in these regions is also connected to this period. Before these, the spiritual care of the local faithful was provided by two Orthodox monasteries, the one in Körtvélyes (Hrusheve) (between 1385-1391) and the one in Munkács-Csernekhegy (Mukachevo) (around 1402). These foundations are roughly in chronological alignment with the settlement. In the Saxon areas, it is also observed that the construction of churches occurs one or two generations later than the establishment of the settlement.

Not so far from this general area is Kápolnokmonostor (Copalnic-Mănăștur), another Orthodox monastery, which was founded sometime around 1405–1424. It falls into Kővár location.

Another interesting thing worth noting in regards to the monastery of Munkács is that its igumen/abbot was also „Bishop of the Rusyns”, which was first mentioned in a charter of Vladislaus II in 1491. It is likely a development from after 1440 (Union of Florence).


I will continue to post replies later.

 

[Fehervari]

If their contributions were primarily related to physical geography, then I have no further objections. Physical geography isn't something you can have much of an agenda about, unlike historical demographics. Speaking of, the concern about Romhanyi was not addressed.

She didn't feel the need to write anything in this regard, so there was nothing to quote. But google is your friend, search away and conclude whatever you want.

 

[Mingmung]

I'm not detecting anything nationalistic or Fidész-related. The early 14th century might just be too early for mass-immigration from Romanian-speaking areas.

Ludi would've a field-day if he sees how Paradox' version has more Romanians in Transylvania than there would have been in reality, considering his initial reaction (and video) on the matter XD

 

[Inzano]

It actually was a choice I initially viewed skepctically also (the same goes for the very strong Hungarian presence in North Slavonia, or the low share of Romanians and Ruthenians in their traditional areas of the country, btw.) but I was assured it was a conscious choice:
"From a linguistic perspective, Muraköz and Varasd are an independent little microcosm, where Slovenian (Wendish), Croatian, Hungarian, and even a bit of German sneak in, though the latter barely shows. Even in the 18th century, the census takers had difficulty deciding what language to record for each village."

View attachment 1192033
You're right that the immediate left bank is topographically better featured compared to the immediate right, the light brown area on the map, basically. Bank was meant in a wider sense. To the North, the Saxon population centres were also concentrated more to the North, the immediate sides of the Olt both were forested. You also need to consider the comparison between the slopes on the two sides of the Carpathians, the Southern side has a more gentle slope, so it was better suited for grazing, first that attracted the pastorialists more.

Being a buffer state is not the least harsh condition. You also need to take into account the Boyar and later on also phanariote repression as well. Not to mention, Transylvania in the 1660s was going through quite a demographic crisis, to put it lightly, the immigrating Romanians had a lot of room to settle (and the Hungarian nobility welcomed them with open arms to replenish their decimated serfs.) This is when the Romanian share of the population quickly rose to above 50% of the region's population (from the previusly mentioned ~25%).

Demeter: That's the point. The Hungarian language, albeit distorts on the original phonetic form, and in many times the word is meaningless in Hungarian, still retains such early Slavic phonetic forms, inwhich the g-h shift did not occure yet and includes nasal sounds (Ung, Bereg). Therefore, it makes little sense to categorise this linguistic record as either Rusyn/Ruthenian or Slovak (btw, why you argue Ruthenian, not Slovak?), furthermore the retention of this old phonetic form is evidence that the local Slavic element of the time assimilated, otherwise the Hungarian language also would also use the phonetic form with "h" and without "n", which is a shift that can be dated after the 11th century.

Besides, the "Duna" name also survived, which is of Iranian origin (Don, Dnyeper, stb. parallel), yet noone believes that Iranians have lived along the Danube in great masses in 1337.

Demeter: I haven't seen it written in such form in any charter, despite this of course he still could have been Slavic, or Germanic, or even Turkish based on merely the phonetic form. The comments point is not about what language did he speak, but rather that the language of the subjugated does not necessarily match with the overlord's - not in the 10th century, and not in the 14th century either.

We will look into this question.
I personally would like to raise a point however. The 1332-'37 Papal Tithe Register does seem to include parishes located in the area marked to the West on your map (and also more, actually).

AFAIK, the whole area was in near constant dispute through this time period, but the highlighted area is not large enough to be its own location (this sadly applies to the one on the left as well, imo). For similar considerations were the Burgenland locations drawn the way the are also, for example.

If possible, I would also prefer Buda (and maybe Esztergom too) to be hills. I would like to make some other locations hills as well, but don't think the current boundaries set by the devs would allow them.

1 alum
1 coal
1 dyes
1 gems
1 lead
1 sand
1 spices
1 tin
2 fiber crops
2 marble
2 mercury
2 saltpeter
3 copper
3 medicaments
4 fur
4 horse
4 silver
4 sturdy grains
6 gold
6 legumes
7 clay
7 wool
8 salt
9 wild game
11 fruit
14 iron
15 fish
16 stone
18 lumber
20 wine
29 livestock
34 wheat

These are the current amounts of each raw material. Livestock is second only to wheat, so I don't think it's really underrepresented.
Still, if there's a need to increase it further, I suppose some fish or else could be changed to that.
The number of horses could be increased without problem, although we need to find suitable locations for that. Tolnavár and Siklós might be good candidates.
I don't think fruit is overrepresented, but a small decrease could still be reasonable.
Having any less wheat considering the total location count would be disproportional, imo. It would be odd to see Hungary be made an importer of wheat.

The devs can scale up these numbers to align the population size of Hungary with the rest of Europe, but the locations' pop figures relative to each other (in terms of ratio) should be preserved. All things considered however, 3,7 million is an extremely high figure either way. 3 million would still be a huge stretch, but still a bit more reasonable.

How could something historically suitable be "immersion breaking"? I get it if you don't like it, but immersion breaking is not the right term, I believe. We are looking into alternatives though, maybe something based on the dioceses, with some mergers involved.

The area of Gömör location was quite a notable producer of fruits, although this also applied to Rimaszombat location as well. The raw materials of the two could be exchanged, but I'm not sure it's necessary.

Albeit the county borders weren't completely chiseled in stone through the ages, so there's some merit to both maps, the one I used is somewhat more detailed and accurate, since it's based on Engel Pál's research into this topic. There also a GIS interactive map program you can download to view it, btw!

Stretching Valkó location further just to include it wouldn't make sense. Croats will need to be content with the approximate recreation of their modern borders (or they can secure Ilok with some extra lands.)

The Armenians that settled in Hungary under the Árpáds were mostly if not completely assimilated by this point. We can look into those last two claims though, they seem interesting enough. I would love to have some Armenians on our map, tbh.

Yes, but where did you meet the claim that any of them ended up in Máramaros? IF you can find it we will look into it.

Romhányi:
Regarding the Slovenian-Croatian / Slovenian-Hungarian border:

In the Muraköz region, the early collection of place names is quite mixed. Lendva (Lendava) or Dobronok (Dobrovnik) are clearly Slavic, but Muraszombat (Murska Sobota) itself is not so straightforward, since the type of place-naming is Hungarian (see Nagyszombat, Rimaszombat, or similarly formed place names like Csütörtök, Csíkszereda, etc.). Additionally, among the villages, several contain more Hungarian name elements (such as "hely" meaning place, "fa" meaning village [fa is short for „falva”]), while near Lenti there is Tótszerdahely, which quite clearly refers to the Wends (Slovenes). Perhaps the best solution would be to stripe the two affected locations (the other being Csáktornya), adjusting the population numbers accordingly.

Regarding the Ruthenians/Rusyns (and Romanians):

A distinction must be made between the Rus-ian settlement of the 11th-12th centuries and the Ruthenian/Rusyn settlement of the 14th century. In the early period, the new population was scattered, which is why they assimilated quite quickly. The first block settlement was that of the Transylvanian Saxons in the "Királyföld" (Royal Land) from the mid-12th century onwards, with the known result. Afterwards, the Cumans and the Jasz people were similarly settled, and in the 14th century, in several places, the Romanians and the Rusyns. Except for the Saxons, all the aforementioned arrived initially as relatively small groups and formed several island-like settlement areas. However, unlike the one-time settlement of the Saxons and Cumans, the Jasz had continuous reinforcements until about the end of the 14th century, and the others had continuous influx until modern times.

Specifically, in the area stretching from Máramaros to Sáros around 1500, there were 30 Orthodox (wooden) churches and 2 monasteries. Among the latter, the St. Michael's in Körtvélyes (Hrusheve) also served as a kind of ecclesiastical center, and during Matthias's time, it is written about as "fide uniti," meaning it was considered Catholic in the sense of the Union of Florence. This altogether could have meant 18-22 thousand Orthodox Rusyns/Romanians in that area at that time. Assuming continuous but not mass immigration (annual growth of 0.3%), around 1400 there were about 13-16,000 people. The preceding period was the time of intensive immigration, which is the hardest to estimate.

It says a lot about Máramaros that before 1337, apart from the five crown towns, only Bedőháza (Bedevlya) and Szurdok (Strâmtura) are mentioned, and both are granted to a Vlach "kenéz" (local leader), obviously to settle them. Besides these, (Tisza)fejéregyház (Bila Cerkva), based on its name, is probably a settlement from the Árpád era, although it is first mentioned only in 1363, but it has a nice Hungarian name. Possibly also from the Árpád era is (Iza)Konyha (Bogdan Vodă), whose name is of Slavic origin but, as far as I know, it early passed into Hungarian, so let's decide which language's people named the settlement. Voivode Bogdan appears only after this, in the 1360s, so it's not clear exactly what the critics are holding to account.

In the papal tithe register, in Máramaros only the parishes of the five crown towns are listed. In Ung, Zemplén, and Sáros, the early 14th-century parish network extended quite high, and the names of the settlements are mixed Slavic, Hungarian, German. However, in this area, there are more unidentified parishes than average, which suggests that some of the parishes ceased after 1337, which could precisely be due to the settlement of Rusyns, Vlachs, Romanians (whichever one or other prefers).

At the beginning of the 15th century, in Zemplén and Ung, many mills appear in expressly mountainous areas. Engel already considered these to be sawmills, meaning that by then sheep grazing and logging were taking place on the slopes of the Carpathians. The appearance of the first wooden churches in these regions is also connected to this period. Before these, the spiritual care of the local faithful was provided by two Orthodox monasteries, the one in Körtvélyes (Hrusheve) (between 1385-1391) and the one in Munkács-Csernekhegy (Mukachevo) (around 1402). These foundations are roughly in chronological alignment with the settlement. In the Saxon areas, it is also observed that the construction of churches occurs one or two generations later than the establishment of the settlement.

Not so far from this general area is Kápolnokmonostor (Copalnic-Mănăștur), another Orthodox monastery, which was founded sometime around 1405–1424. It falls into Kővár location.

Another interesting thing worth noting in regards to the monastery of Munkács is that its igumen/abbot was also „Bishop of the Rusyns”, which was first mentioned in a charter of Vladislaus II in 1491. It is likely a development from after 1440 (Union of Florence).


I will continue to post replies later.

I wonder why the 20th century boundaries are being pushed, if it says the game will last until the beginning of the 19th century?

Another more rhetorical question, if there will be no other start date than 1337, does it even make sense to consider other historical boundaries beyond 300, 400 or 500 years from the start date? Because what is the probability that events will happen as they did in our timeline. I already thought about this during the discussions about Estonia, when I proposed historical regional organization from the 13th century, and one commented that it would be more correct to consider the borders from the 17th and 18th century, etc.

 

[Mingmung]

I wonder why the 20th century boundaries are being pushed, if it says the game will last until the beginning of the 19th century?

Another more rhetorical question, if there will be no other start date than 1337, does it even make sense to consider other historical boundaries beyond 300, 400 or 500 years from the start date? Because what is the probability that events will happen as they did in our timeline. I already thought about this during the discussions about Estonia, when I proposed historical regional organization from the 13th century, and one commented that it would be more correct to consider the borders from the 17th and 18th century, etc.

Yeah, devs have also mentioned not necessarily using later borders when it's not necessary.

My main complaint on Fehervari's work is indeed thr usage of modern/later borders here and there, but I honestly still have to look at some other parts.

 

[ArVass]

If possible, I would also prefer Buda (and maybe Esztergom too) to be hills. I would like to make some other locations hills as well, but don't think the current boundaries set by the devs would allow them.

1 alum
1 coal
1 dyes
1 gems
1 lead
1 sand
1 spices
1 tin
2 fiber crops
2 marble
2 mercury
2 saltpeter
3 copper
3 medicaments
4 fur
4 horse
4 silver
4 sturdy grains
6 gold
6 legumes
7 clay
7 wool
8 salt
9 wild game
11 fruit
14 iron
15 fish
16 stone
18 lumber
20 wine
29 livestock
34 wheat

These are the current amounts of each raw material. Livestock is second only to wheat, so I don't think it's really underrepresented.

Exactly, it is second to wheat; from what I have read, it was so undeniably dominant that it should unquestionably be first in overall production (which does not necessarily mean it should have the most locations, but given that the livestock locations on average are less developed than the ones you made wheat so wheat would likely dominate in this economic setup).

Still, if there's a need to increase it further, I suppose some fish or else could be changed to that.
The number of horses could be increased without problem, although we need to find suitable locations for that. Tolnavár and Siklós might be good candidates.

Cuman and Székely locations are also good candidates (paying royal taxes in horses was tradition among the Székelys, though livestock seems to have been overtaken horses as the primary form of taxation by the 14th century; still, horseback warfare was particularly typical of Székely and Cuman society in this era, see the lófő class of the Székelys). Kecskemét was also used for royal stables aswell. The density of horse-producing locations is actually quite low in the country compared to other revealed areas of the map such as Poland or even the British Islands, which does not seem accurate for a kingdom that took great pride in its horses in these first two centuries.

I don't think fruit is overrepresented, but a small decrease could still be reasonable.
Having any less wheat considering the total location count would be disproportional, imo. It would be odd to see Hungary be made an importer of wheat.

I don't agree with the assumption that tipping the scale towards more livestock and horses against wheat would mean wheat import.... we don't know what the food production-to-need ration is in Hungary, but it is probably quite high (mostly peasant population with less food need than what they produce, gameplay-wise), and also, livestock is also food so decreasing wheat to increase livestock really wouldn't change the balance in that regard. So I am skeptical about the assumption that less wheat in favour of more livestock (which we do know they produced in immense quantities, so much in fact that they exported over a hundred thousand cattle to the Holy Roman Empire each year by the 16th century).

How could something historically suitable be "immersion breaking"? I get it if you don't like it, but immersion breaking is not the right term, I believe. We are looking into alternatives though, maybe something based on the dioceses, with some mergers involved.

It is not historically suitable, and they are not areas in the sense that they are supposed to be; it breaks the immersion for me, yes, especially with the names such as these that feel really awkward to me. I also don't think that if you took a medieval or early modern merchant, cartographer, palatine, king, traveller or whoever, and asked them to describe what areas/regions/provinces Hungary has, that any of them would start off by listing the listing chambers and their areas - maybe except for the master of treasury.

Just because they existed as a bureacratic/administrative division, does not mean it is historically suitable. I think even a generic "Western Hungary, Eastern Hungary, Northern Hungary, Southern Hungary, Slavonia, Transylvania" setup would work better, and even if nobody agrees with me I'm dying on this hill.

 

[Fehervari]

I wonder why the 20th century boundaries are being pushed, if it says the game will last until the beginning of the 19th century?

It is there to please those who want to (approximately) recreate modern borders.
As for the Croatia-Slovenia border, as I wrote, we will look into it.

 

[Fehervari]

Yeah, devs have also mentioned not necessarily using later borders when it's not necessary.

My main complaint on Fehervari's work is indeed thr usage of modern/later borders here and there, but I honestly still have to look at some other parts.

I sympathise with this sentiment, although I do believe I managed to integrate them in in a relatively inoffensive way.

 

[Mingmung]

I sympathise with this sentiment, although I do believe I managed to integrate them in in a relatively inoffensive way.

Oh I'm not offended at all, I'd personally just opt for historical borders from that era, or close to it, just like the devs intend.

 

[Inzano]

It is there to please those who want to (approximately) recreate modern borders.
As for the Croatia-Slovenia border, as I wrote, we will look into it.

I understood the part about the Croatia-Slovenia border, the more this question flew to the Austria/Slovenia border with Hungary. If I myself am Slovenian and I would like to see the people of Prekmurje have their locations according to the modern borders, this border was determined in 1919 and even then this regional identity developed. But it was actually historical luck for the Slovenians that the allies decided to join this piece of territory to the SHS State, and before that there were no such borders. I understand that some people would like to play modern borders, but the developers themselves do not want to rely on modern borders, so I don't know if this will fall on fertile ground.

Otherwise, kudos for such good analysis and attention to detail for Hungary. And I am glad that someone does not forget about our little nation. But I would rather see the historical internal divisions of the Hungarian Counties than pushing the border of the 20th and 21st centuries, since the theme of the game is from the beginning of the 14th century to the beginning of the 19th century. Those who want modern borders will subscribe to the mod that will do it, but those who want the full EU V experience will want to stay within the theme as much as possible.

This is just my opinion, I don't want to demean your work, because I know that your work took a lot of your free time. Just when I proposed for Inner Austria, it took a lot from me, what about you, when you worked on an area 10 times larger. I just wanted a critical debate.