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

[Pavía]

'Ok, today's Tinto Maps is looking kind of calm, let's see what happened in the Balkanic one.'
'500 unread posts over 25 pages, and more than 40 direct mentions...'
'grandpasimpson.gif'

PS: I'll try to make some more replies next week, thanks for your patience in the meantime!

 

[hightowel]

'Ok, today's Tinto Maps is looking kind of calm, let's see what happened in the Balkanic one.'
'500 unread posts over 25 pages, and more than 40 direct mentions...'
'grandpasimpson.gif'

PS: I'll try to make some more replies next week, thanks for your patience in the meantime!

Exactly why I was hesitant to post this, wasn't sure you would bother reading anything after the last 15-20 pages of nationalist drivel lmao.
But I am so glad you do indeed read all of this, thank you so much for all the work you put into the details!

 

[Ivio]

Exactly why I was hesitant to post this, wasn't sure you would bother reading anything after the last 15-20 pages of nationalist drivel

Nationalistic drivel like serbs in ragusa, i hear you brother

 

[Mingmung]

Exactly why I was hesitant to post this, wasn't sure you would bother reading anything after the last 15-20 pages of nationalist drivel

I think you overstate the amount of nationalist drivel, though (there have been some annoying comments, yes). I think it's still quite a civil thread overall, especially because of it being about the Balkans xD

 

[hightowel]

Nationalistic drivel like serbs in ragusa, i hear you brother

Do you actually think that literally all the Slavic speaking population in Ragusa was Croatian, that is insane historical revisionism, I simply can't take you seriously at this point. No sense in further arguing, especially with your pfp.

 

[hightowel]

I think you overstate the amount of nationalist drivel, though (there have been some annoying comments, yes). I think it's still quite a civil thread overall, especially because of it being about the Balkans xD

I'm glad that it is so, didn't read all of it, but at cursory glances saw a lot of name calling.

 

[Ivio]

Do you actually think that literally all the Slavic speaking population in Ragusa was Croatian, that is insane historical revisionism, I simply can't take you seriously at this point. No sense in further arguing, especially with your pfp.

Oh im sure game is not going into such detailes as to simulate 10 to 15 serbs that lived in ragusa in 1337

 

[Sylas]

A few tiny corrections for Slovak:
Békéš -> Békeš
Murska Sobota -> Murská Sobota
Bihar -> Bihár
Čongrád -> Černohrad - but it might be a bit anachronistic (as in going too far back in history)
Déva -> Deva
Kološvár -> Koložvár
Krasna -> Krásna
Kokelburk -> Kokelský Hrad
Liptovský Mikuláš -> Liptovský Svätý Mikuláš
Uhorský Starhrad -> Uhorský Starohrad
Marušký Trhovište -> Marošské Trhovište
Mehádie -> Mehadia
Oravský Podzámok -> Oravský Hrad
Pakrac -> Pakrác
Radna -> Radná
Sasburk -> Saský Hrad
Somoďský Hrad -> Šomoďský Hrad
Sriemska Mitrovica -> Sriemská Mitrovica
Sikulské Dvorištie -> Sikulské Dvorište
Solník -> Soľník

Târgu-Mureș in Romanian for Marosvásárhely/Székelyvásárhely is anachronistic for PC's time period, it's name changed to that only in the inter-war period. I believe Oșorhei or Mureș-Oșorhei would be way more time period approriate.

Thank you guys I updated the original post with your suggestions. Btw if anybody has any other suggestion to my list, pls feel free to share with me

 

[Tokci]

I want to propose having much more farmlands and possible farmlands in the region.

Here is a map of soil quality in Europe:

Carpathia, and especially the regions next to the Danube River, have some of the most fertile soils in Europe. Soil is not everything, as some parts are covered by forests even today, and you also need infrastructure to fully utilize the land. Anyway, I hope we might be able to change the landscape a bit and cut down forests in the game.

What I would like to propose is to reclassify some grasslands (and possibly convert some forests) to farmlands.

Sorry for my bad map editing skills.

 

[Dieselface]

I posted a thread, Greek Dynamic Names Suggestions - Balkans and Cyprus, which covers Greek names for the Balkans. Right now I've covered Greece, Bulgaria, and Albania. I'm still working on the Yugoslavia region, but those will come in the same thread.

 

[Immortal Impi]

Soil quality doesn't map to farmlands because soil quality is not an objective measure for all plants. Some soils are much better for olives than others. Also this is a modern map and many areas became suitable only after many years of development through draining marshland and economic growth.

 

[raz14]

I have an idea concerning Moldova at the beginning. Moldova was historically formed by Hungary in 1345 by defeating a Mongol army. Before 1345, the region was divided in lots of chieftains (I guess similar to Ireland), with some being under the Hungarian crown, others under the polish one and some under the vassalage of the Golden Order. It would be fun to have a situation where all the 3 great powers mentioned can form a vassal/march by having the military hegemony in the area. But it would also be fun for a Moldavian minor to unify the region military or diplomatically and ally themselves with other countries to defend against Hungary, Poland and/or the Golden Order. For example, a Moldavian minor unifies the region and allies with the Poles or Serbians or the Greeks or any other nation to defend against whoever presses claim. Another way to unify the region would be for Wallachia to unify (military or diplomatically) Moldova, and same as Moldova, they would need an ally to support them against the great power that presses claim over the region.

This would make either for an historical path for Moldova and the Romanian region, or a fun and challenging playthrough as a Romanian minor to try and unify the Romanians in one kingdom earlier. And then invade the rest of the Balkan to redo the achievement from eu4 and why not have a claim to the roman empire since they would be a Latin empire.

 

[Nicolas136]

In the last few days I studied the colonization of germans in the east, the magyar invasion and how settled in the Carpathian Basin as well as the existance of romanian speaking people in Transilvania. and went to 2 saxon (german) towns in Transylvania namely Sighișoara (Schäsbrich) and Sibiu (Härmeschtat) to see and gather information, maps and documents. I have 3 main points to legitimize my claims:

1. It is well known that there were a romanian population in Transilvania (reference: Gesta Hungarorum, by Anonimus cca 1200), and a pretty significant one as well given that (and all historians came to a consensus on this):
a) Romanian culture formed in to the west of the charpathians, inside the old roman border, by a process called romanization (of the geto-dacian people), and after hundred of years of trade migrations and cohabitations, the process of romanization finished in the rest of the carpato-danubiano-pontic region. My point with this statement is that a minority and an insignificant population in transylvania could never influence such a vast region.
b) It is well known that the romanians are a "latin island in a sea of slavs", this is due to the fact that there was a well established and numerous population of "proto-romanian/vlahs" in the region and thus the slavs were always a minority, which language, customs and traditions were integrated in the romanian culture. The main point of historians for why romania unlike all the other south slavic nations remained latin is the well established and high density of vlah people in the region during the The Migration Period. I cannot think of any major event which would lead to the major decline in population before 1000 so that another migratory population could be majority in transylvania in 1337.

2. One of the earliest written evidences that romanians were the majority population in transylvania came from the german sources during the Ostkolonisation (East settlement).

Map in "Schul-Atlas zur alten", by Alfred Baldamus, Julius Koch, F.W. Putzger 1893.
The general consensus is that the mass majority of the urban population is german and maghyar (excluding the Székely Land ) and the rural population is overwhelmingly romanian. Knowing that medieval Europe at that time was mostly rural (even more so eastern Europe) it means that romanians although not having any power of decision or being able to be part of a guild or any significant importance in the economy, they were still the most numerous culture in that region.

3. Although we have very few sources form 14th century about the populations of transylvania newer ones show something really important. For example I am going to show a Map by the french geographer Elisee Reclus published in Nouvelle Géographie Universelle (cca 1876) depicting the different population of the balkans (this map can be also found at the museum of Weapons and old Maps in Schäsbrich).

I think is a really not-biased depiction of the balkans.
My first point is the fact that the greek population on the Anatolian Peninsula shrunk, and became a minority even, being found only on the coast. This is a historic fact that we all can agree on. This phenomena is really natural and logical, when a nationality is suppressed for hundreds of years and ruled by a different culture and religion, they choose to either flee, convert or more tragically are wiped from the land in one form or another.
Given everything I mentioned how could the romanians in Transylvania be a minority in 1337 and not only not going extinct as a culture or language (like northern sami, livonians or others) but thriving and becoming the dominant population in the region (eg in 1400 [Ostkolonisation], in 1876, and across a multitude of maps, fiscal and funciar documents [taxes on agricultural productions]). I think this is impossible given that being orthodox and romanian meant that you had to pay a larger amount of taxes, you were not allowed to live inside the walls of the cities, you were not free to practice your religion and you were encouraged to convert to greco-chatolicism (a church made by the nobility specific for orthodox converts) and to learn hungarian to be able to speek to the officials.

Given all of this I think the distribution of population in Transylvania is not historically accurate and given all of this besides the cities, the mass majority of peasents should be of "transylvanian" culture and thus the mass majority of the population (as well as a major lack of burghers, nobles and clergy of romanian culture as this is the most accurate depiction of the time and region)

Thanks a lot for the attention @Pavía and Tinto Team and for all the hard work given into this project! Please take into account my points and if you consider that anything I said is incorrect or the Tinto Team has better sources and points that invalidates my points please let me know I am very curious because I can think to only 2 thing (A mass migration of romanians into Transyvania after 1337, I am not aware of any or that the black death affected the german and magyar urban population that hard that they became the minority, as well I am not aware of this).

Looking forward to receive feedback for my feedback))

 

[ArVass]

I would like to point out that systemic oppression in the past is not in itself indicative of past majority and population loss over time. For example, the Roma only started appearing in Europe around the 12th century the earliest but really in the 13th century, the have been systemically oppressed for like 700 years in every European country, and arguably still are, and yet their population still kept growing throughout that period, despite all of this. I do not think this is really a strong or valid argument most of the time.

 

[Mingmung]

I have an idea concerning Moldova at the beginning. Moldova was historically formed by Hungary in 1345 by defeating a Mongol army. Before 1345, the region was divided in lots of chieftains (I guess similar to Ireland), with some being under the Hungarian crown, others under the polish one and some under the vassalage of the Golden Order. It would be fun to have a situation where all the 3 great powers mentioned can form a vassal/march by having the military hegemony in the area. But it would also be fun for a Moldavian minor to unify the region military or diplomatically and ally themselves with other countries to defend against Hungary, Poland and/or the Golden Order. For example, a Moldavian minor unifies the region and allies with the Poles or Serbians or the Greeks or any other nation to defend against whoever presses claim. Another way to unify the region would be for Wallachia to unify (military or diplomatically) Moldova, and same as Moldova, they would need an ally to support them against the great power that presses claim over the region.

This would make either for an historical path for Moldova and the Romanian region, or a fun and challenging playthrough as a Romanian minor to try and unify the Romanians in one kingdom earlier. And then invade the rest of the Balkan to redo the achievement from eu4 and why not have a claim to the roman empire since they would be a Latin empire.

There are sadly enough no clear maps on those small border fiefdoms. I'd suggest a Moldavia tag in some of those provinces, and maybe even as a vassal of the Golden Horde.

As long as the Golden Horde doesn't have full control over Moldavia, or a Moldavia tag with full control over Moldavia.

 

[Uskana]

Hello again Tinto Team, unlike my previous economic post, I am here to post something nationalist now
I know the demographics are a touchy subject, and that your team will naturally read literature available in English which is usually anti Serb leaning.
The reasoning why it is as such has to do with the Yugoslav wars and later on the Kosovo war and it was in the Wests interest for Yugoslavia to breakup and to prop up the new countries removing them from the Soviet sphere.
Of course, I am not saying only I am right and everyone else is wrong, just wanted to give you an another perspective.
Now that I am over with my little self victimization rant, let me present my argument.


Also, at the start of the game Ragusa should have no more than a couple of hundred of Venetians, as merchants and craftsmen mostly, i.e. burghers.
On the other hand, the Slavic speaking population of Ragusa was in all likelihood in the absoulute majority in the city itself at the game start. But, among the nobility that was not the case even though you have records by 1284. of some Ragusan nobility only knowing the Slavic/Illyrian tongue. All disputes in the Civil Court upwards to 10 perper (a minor sum) occured in the Slavic tongue. At the same time these were the most common cases, this would indicate that most people in court on a day to day basis only used Slavic. Over time, this led a reaction by the Romance speaking part of the Major Council in 1455. and 1472. which banned the Slavic speakers from holding high positions (Nedeljković, 1984, p 23-24, Liber Viridis). There is a lot more detail here, its in Serbo-Croatian but I am referencing it just so you know I am not making it up for this delicate matter. Thus I propose the following demographic makeup of the Ragusa location. 5% Venetian, 40% Dalmatian and 55% Slavic (split between Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian. The religious groups should be mostly Catholic (Dalmatians, Venetians, Croats), with some Orthodox Serbians (some were Catholic), some Catholic Bosnians (few Krstjani as well) and a few Jews as well.

The 1472. reaction secured their position as the seats on this council were hereditary and successfully prolonged the great influence of Dalmatian (Romance language) until the mid 16th century, although it was spoken by a significant portions of Ragusans up untill the 20th century.

Also, Ston/the Pelješac penninsula (which was held by Ragusa since 1333) seems not to be a part of Ragusa but a separate location with some other islands, thus the easiest solution would be to merge Pelješac with Ragusa while leaving the other islands in the other location.

I will not deal with the demographic map of Bosnia because it is not my area of expertise, but making Hum majority Bosnian and Krstjani is completely false, thankfully, others have already written about this.

Neither will I deal with modern day Vojvodina, the Hungarians probably have this covered. To summarize, Hungarians should be the majority in Bacska and northern Banat, while Serbians should be majority in southern Banat (significant Hungarian, Romanian and Bulgarian minorities) and Srem should be majority Serbian as well with many Hungarians and Croatians.

Now onto my most controversial point (its not, but its the point I will get most of the downvotes from), that is, the representation of Albanians in Kosovo and Northern Albania as well as Vlachs in the area.

According to the Dečani monastery chrysobulls/charters the first dating from 1330. is the collection of charters by which the newly built monastery of Dečani were gifted land, property and tax farming rights. The demesne of the monastery included land from southwestern Serbia, Kosovo and Metohija, Montenegro and northern Albania. According to these writtings, about 10% of names (name of the head of a household who the monastery had the right to tax) was non-Slavic. Of course, they would not have the right to tax non-Orthodox which could skew the numbers for a significant number of Albanians were Catholic, but not all of course (Grković, 2004, 26-56, Prva hrisovulja manastira Dečani, in Serbian

Another important piece of data for this subject is the Ottoman census of the former Branković (strong noble family) territory from 1455. The area covered was most of modern day Kosovo (except the very south) with strips of land into modern day Serbia and Montenegro. According to it about 96% of household heads had Slavic names the rest being Albanian, Vlach, Greek and even Jewish. The exact methodology is unknown which would explain the overwhelming number of Slavs, the lower number of Vlachs could be explained that they as seminomadic pastoralists were not included in this kind of tax so no need to record them unless they have settled down. On the other hand, I highly doubt the Ottomans had any incentive to grossly underestimate the numbers of Albanians and other settled populations unlike the Vlachs.

My proposal is to make the entirety of modern day Kosovo and the Skadar location Serbian, as they already are, (about 60%) with the others being Albanian (about 30%), Vlach (5%) and a few Saxons, Greeks, Croats, Bulgarians and Jews (5% in total).

Here is some basic reading material in English, though you have probably already googled



Literature:

About Ragusa:

Liber Viridis, Branislav Nedeljković, 1984, (Serbo-Croatian and Latin).

About Kosovo:

Oblast Brankovića, katastarski popis iz 1455. godine, Hadžibegić, Handžić and Kovačević, 1972, the entire book is so cool but its in Serbo-Croatian. It contains the translated census.

The history of families and households: Comparative European dimensions
Chapter 4 of this book (in English) is also quite useful, p. 69-92 as it talks about that census but in English.

All the books I can provide in pdf if you so wish
I could try to find more sources from Serbian and Albanian historians and others when I have the time, but as I said in my previous post, I am extremely busy with my PhD, this was just a moment of procrastination

Names are actually not a good indicator for culture, as Albanian Orthodox believers used Slavic names regularly, especially those under the Orthodox Patriarchates (be it Bulgarian or Serbian).

If you used the same methodology for Ottoman times, you could make the argument that all the Muslim Albanians were actually Turkish because they had mostly Turkish names (such as Mehmed, Bajram etc). "Subjugated" people tend to adopt names of their "overlords".

Skanderbeg's family is a good representation of this, he had brothers named Repoš and Staniša, but his name was Gjergj. Then you have Nikša and Brajko Spani, among other examples. We also have the Balsha family who are considered to be Albanian by many historians, or at least a mixed Albanian-Serbian family.

And as you said yourself, Catholics wouldn't even be mentioned in the Orthodox censuses. So I don't think it is possible to determine the culture of the people just by looking at their name.

Cheers.

 

[Mingmung]

Regarding Lesbos (which might actually part of next week's Aegaen discussion):

Spoiler: Lesbos-suggestion

- I recently advocated to merge its two locations, as one was named after the whole island and another to its capital town. This was in the Anatolia-thread.
- There's a way to keep the split, as that would be more in line with the location-density of other islands.
View attachment 1160061
1: Rename Lésbos into Kalloni and give it the Salt-tradegood Mitiléne currently has (it had Lésbos' saltpans which are currently attributed to the Mitilene-location). It was a Byzantine settlement, even has some Ottoman architecture and was continually inhabited.
2: Mitiléne is fine, but should be given the Wine- or Olives-tradegood instead of Salt.

That's enough map-staring for today.

@Pavía
A follow-up on Lesbos' suggestion: a look on the other Aegean islands! By the way, please don't mind the spelling of the location-names.

The Duchy of the Archipelago (Naxos):
- The Duchy of the Archipelago (Naxos) controls most of the Cyclades, with some islands being under more direct control of Venice. Ándros should be under the control of the Duchy/Naxos, though. This is because the dispute between the Sanudo's and the Dondolo's was settled a few decades before 1337 and the island reverted to the Duke's control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andros (I know, it's Wikipedia, but still. There are footnotes).
- Location-density is fine, it represents the uniqueness of the Aegean. Even though some island-chains are very small. Like the islands beneath Naxos itself: Milos and Amorgos; Not sure if both of them are different locations (as the name of Amorgos isn't visible, but it seems to have a population seen in a different mapmode), but they're fine either way.

The Triarchy of Negroponte:
- The Triarchy currently has 6 locations; Quite a few for 25k people and around 3684 km2. That wouldn't have been a 'problem' if all of the locations would have been major towns or strongholds.
- The Triarchy was historically divided into three parts (terzieri): terzero del Rio (Oreós), terzero di Caristo (Kárystos) and terzero della Clissura (Kleisoúra). The three were governed from the central city of Chalkís. There was a time when there were 6 baronies (sestieri), but those were reverted back to their original forms. Venice retained these terzieri when they took over.
- That means that Erétreia and Kymi are basically redundant, not just because of historical administrative divisions, but also because of both of them being largely irrelevant during the game's timeframe.
- Erétreia was an ancient city which kept its relevancy until around the 8th or 9th century, and was abandoned during much of the game's time. It only started being redeveloped somewhere in the 19th century.
- Kymi redeveloped a bit earlier, under Ottoman rule. As a (slightly anachronistic) village, it could technically stay included, but location-density is already high in this area compared to other, more populous islands.
- So, I'd suggest merging Erétreia with Kleisoúra and parts of Kymi, and other parts of Kymi with Kárystos, resulting in 4 locations total: Chalkís, Kárystos, Kleisoúra and Oreós.

The Kingdom of Candia:
- Even though it has a smaller population than Cyprus (65k compared to 186k), and a smaller surface (8336 km2 compared to 9250 km2), it still has more locations (8 compared to 7).
- Just like with Negroponte, some locations are slightly redundant, or just wrong.

- You can see the early administrative divisions of Crete on this map; The sestieri. All of them named after the sestieri of Venice itself, so not after towns or fortresses of Crete.
- That means that Hagios Pavlos is the wrong name for such a location, as there wasn't a village with that name there (there was one named that way around the sestieri of Stavros or Castello, but that's beside the point). The other Cretan locations aren't named after these sestieri, either. I'd suggest to either remove it, and merge it with Chania and/or Rethymnon, or to rename it to (Chora) Sfakia, which was a village in this location renowned for its resistance against central authority. The first option has my preference, as Crete already has lots of locations compared to other islands. Chora Sfakia wasn't very big, either.

Χώρα Σφακίων - Βικιπαίδεια

el.wikipedia.org

- Elounda is basically uninhabited at this point in time, and will be for quite a while. I'd suggest renaming it to either Kritsa (one of the biggest villages around this time) or Ierapetra (a small port-town located around Elounda's/Siteia's southern coast), which might mean some revised borders.

Ierapetra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kritsa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- Gergeri and Anno Viános existed, yes, and I'm fine with their current inclusion. If density is too high, though, then they could always be merged. As long as Chania, Candia, Réthymno and Siteía are there. Just like the later administrative divisions of Crete:

 

[hightowel]

Names are actually not a good indicator for culture, as Albanian Orthodox believers used Slavic names regularly, especially those under the Orthodox Patriarchates (be it Bulgarian or Serbian).

If you used the same methodology for Ottoman times, you could make the argument that all the Muslim Albanians were actually Turkish because they had mostly Turkish names (such as Mehmed, Bajram etc). "Subjugated" people tend to adopt names of their "overlords".

Skanderbeg's family is a good representation of this, he had brothers named Repoš and Staniša, but his name was Gjergj. Then you have Nikša and Brajko Spani, among other examples. We also have the Balsha family who are considered to be Albanian by many historians, or at least a mixed Albanian-Serbian family.

And as you said yourself, Catholics wouldn't even be mentioned in the Orthodox censuses. So I don't think it is possible to determine the culture of the people just by looking at their name.

Cheers.

Exactly why I didn't say that Serbians should be 95% in Kosovo but 60% and Albanians being 30%, for example, Albanian historian Selami Pulaha said that there are indications that up to a 100 villages were Albanian from the 480. Thus I tried my best to be impartial, I agree that this census isn't perfect, but there is not much else to use, maps of ethnic distributions made in the 18th and 19th century are even less accurate because of the time distance and should be used with a grain of salt just like this census.

Also, on the topic of the Balšić family, they could have only been Serbian, or slavicized Vlachs because of the name of their founder Balša, though there are many Slavs with this name in the area which couldn't have possibly been Vlachs like Petar Balša of the Kosača family or among the Hrvatinići, Balša Hercegović to be exact. The form Balshajt is something exclusively seen in Albanian historiography. In their own charters the form Balšić is used which is a Serbian/Slavic suffix. In historical sources they are called Albanian by both Venetian and Hungarian sources, for example, Đurađ II was granted the title the Duke of Albania, this was a part of the struggle between the Venetians and Hungarians over solidifying control over the region, especially with them recently holding land in southern Albania, such as Valona, Himara, Berat and Kanina. Thus the area of the Balšić family became a part of the Albanian region in the geopolitical sense. Another factor is them being Catholic untill Balša III which was a part of the Albanian identity. So for example, the city of Kotor would say to pope Urban in 1396. that they were under threat from the "Serbo ortodosso" Radič Crnojević and "Albanese catolico" Balša II. Kotor wrote of the Balšić to the pope before, but only started calling them Albanian after the conversion. In one letter between Sandalj Hranić, a Bosnian lord, and Ragusa he informs them how he took Albanian land which belonged to Balša III, while from another letter it is known that he talks about northwestern Montenegro, not a region that would be a part of Albania, or that had a Albanian majority. It is clear that at the time all of Montenegro was considered a part of Albania even though the population was Slavic speaking. In all of their own charters, the Balšić called themselves: the lords of Zeta (modern day Montenegro) (1360, 1368 1373), the independent lords of all Zeta and the Coastal region (this flashy title was in the charter between them and Ragusa in 1386). Not once have they called themselves the lords of Albania or themselves Albanian. Not to mention all their documents were written in Old Serbian, though written Albanian already existed at the time, but was not preserved.

Literature: Rudić, 2021, Balšići.

Also thank you for your feedback, the more we have of it, the better the game in the end

 

[Uskana]

Exactly why I didn't say that Serbians should be 95% in Kosovo but 60% and Albanians being 30%, for example, Albanian historian Selami Pulaha said that there are indications that up to a 100 villages were Albanian from the 480. Thus I tried my best to be impartial, I agree that this census isn't perfect, but there is not much else to use, maps of ethnic distributions made in the 18th and 19th century are even less accurate because of the time distance and should be used with a grain of salt just like this census.

Also, on the topic of the Balšić family, they could have only been Serbian, or slavicized Vlachs because of the name of their founder Balša, though there are many Slavs with this name in the area which couldn't have possibly been Vlachs like Petar Balša of the Kosača family or among the Hrvatinići, Balša Hercegović to be exact. The form Balshajt is something exclusively seen in Albanian historiography. In their own charters the form Balšić is used which is a Serbian/Slavic suffix. In historical sources they are called Albanian by both Venetian and Hungarian sources, for example, Đurađ II was granted the title the Duke of Albania, this was a part of the struggle between the Venetians and Hungarians over solidifying control over the region, especially with them recently holding land in southern Albania, such as Valona, Himara, Berat and Kanina. Thus the area of the Balšić family became a part of the Albanian region in the geopolitical sense. Another factor is them being Catholic untill Balša III which was a part of the Albanian identity. So for example, the city of Kotor would say to pope Urban in 1396. that they were under threat from the "Serbo ortodosso" Radič Crnojević and "Albanese catolico" Balša II. Kotor wrote of the Balšić to the pope before, but only started calling them Albanian after the conversion. In one letter between Sandalj Hranić, a Bosnian lord, and Ragusa he informs them how he took Albanian land which belonged to Balša III, while from another letter it is known that he talks about northwestern Montenegro, not a region that would be a part of Albania, or that had a Albanian majority. It is clear that at the time all of Montenegro was considered a part of Albania even though the population was Slavic speaking. In all of their own charters, the Balšić called themselves: the lords of Zeta (modern day Montenegro) (1360, 1368 1373), the independent lords of all Zeta and the Coastal region (this flashy title was in the charter between them and Ragusa in 1386). Not once have they called themselves the lords of Albania or themselves Albanian.

Literature: Rudić, 2021, Balšići.

Also thank you for your feedback, the more we have of it, the better the game in the end

I don't mind that Serbian is the majority culture in Kosovo, provided there is a sizeable Albanian minority, but I don't believe Serbian should be the majority culture in Shkodër though. Just because it was under Serbian control doesn't mean the resident population was majority Serbian.

Also, I'd like to challenge you on the point that the Balsha couldn't have been of Albanian origin.

Sima Cirkovic 2020: Živeti sa istorijom. Belgrade: Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji.

"U tom svetlu ja ne mogu osporavati albanskim istoričarima da se bave Balšićima, koji su očigledno neslovenskog porekla, koji su u svim periodima gospodarili i delovima nesumnjivo albanske teritorije, i koje su srpski srednjovekovni izvori nazivali “arbanaškom gospodom”." transl. ["In this light, I cannot challenge Albanian historians to deal with the Balšićs, who are obviously of non-Slavic origin, who in all periods ruled over parts of undoubtedly Albanian territory, and whom Serbian medieval sources called “Albanian lords”."]"

Also you can check the other sources listed on the Wikipedia page:

"Contemporary medieval sources provide evidence for the Albanian ethnic belonging of the Balšić family members, and the description of the Balšas as Albanian lords stands in current scholarship, while on the other hand a number of scholars consider them of Serbian or of otherwise Slavic origin. Both Serbian and Albanian authors claim them."

Them not writing in Albanian isn't that surprising, Albanian wasn't really an "important" language, it wasn't used officially, it wasn't even used in church. The first time it was used in an official capacity (as far as we know) was under Skanderbegs time, when Pal Engjelli translated the Baptism Formula in Albanian. Hell, even Skanderbeg didn't write his diplomatic correspondences in Albanian, because Albanian didn't have a privileged status as a language.

And I agree, I like having these discussions respectfully without it turning into a nationalistic flame war. Salute.

 

[hightowel]

I don't mind that Serbian is the majority culture in Kosovo, but I don't believe they should be the majority in Shkodër though. Just because it was under Serbian control doesn't mean the resident population was majority Serbian.

Also, I'd like to challenge you on the point that the Balsha couldn't have been of Albanian origin.

Sima Cirkovic 2020: Živeti sa istorijom. Belgrade: Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji.

"U tom svetlu ja ne mogu osporavati albanskim istoričarima da se bave Balšićima, koji su očigledno neslovenskog porekla, koji su u svim periodima gospodarili i delovima nesumnjivo albanske teritorije, i koje su srpski srednjovekovni izvori nazivali “arbanaškom gospodom”." transl. ["In this light, I cannot challenge Albanian historians to deal with the Balšićs, who are obviously of non-Slavic origin, who in all periods ruled over parts of undoubtedly Albanian territory, and whom Serbian medieval sources called “Albanian lords”."]"

Also you can check the other sources listed on the Wikipedia page:

"Contemporary medieval sources provide evidence for the Albanian ethnic belonging of the Balšić family members, and the description of the Balšas as Albanian lords stands in current scholarship, while on the other hand a number of scholars consider them of Serbian or of otherwise Slavic origin. Both Serbian and Albanian authors claim them."

And I agree, I like having these discussions respectfully without it turning into a nationalistic flame war. Salute.

What Ćirković means here is that the Balšići were a part of Albanian history ruling a significant part of modern day Albania, and thus that Albanian historians have the right to write and research about them, everyone should have the right. Just like Serbian historians can write about Đurađ Kastriot Skenderbeg for he was a part of Serbian history as well, his mother being Serbian from the prominent Branković family. We shouldn't gatekeep, that is an American custom Also, saying non-Slavic origin he meant Vlach, not Albanian in any shape or form (see Ćirković, Istorija Crne Gore 2-2, p. 7).

The wikipedia claim I won't comment, I could edit it right now and link it back to you saying that they were Japanese xd
Not to mention the ridiculous claim of some Western historians that they were of Provencal origin, I could write more about it because they way that theory formed is so interesting, but I have to go to the dentist now.