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
The 18th century districts/circles held even less relevance to the everyday folk or even the elite of the country. It was a feature of a failed attempt to take away authority from the noble counties. The districts then later made a comeback as statistical regions in the 19th century. Compared to this, the chambers at least actually were a functioning and integral part of the state administration and the economy. Furthermore these districts/statistical regions weren't any less "artificial" than the minting chambers themselves, so I don't believe they are a better alternative.
especially with the names such as these that feel really awkward to me.
"Transdanubia, Banat, Partium, West- and East Slovakia" feels so much more immersion breaking to me personally, tbh. Such names are the height of anachronism.
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.
Tax collection and money circulation actually affects people to varying degrees. Those who deal in money or are engaged in mining would largely be aware (the king and leaders of the country would also know, how could they not). They would earlier mention the chambers than obscure districts dreamt up centuries later. But if the inhabitants awareness is a point of concern, then it's really the ecclesiastical divisions that need to be really considered. The problem there is that it doesn't align perfectly with the counties, it demands some compromises. From that point of view, chambers are less problematic.
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.
Such a purely directional-geographical split could also be considered, but then the use of "Hungary" kinda becomes inevitable. I would imagine that's a less preferred solution to some.
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).
Lower population shouldn't necessarily mean the RGO is less developed. From what I know, lower pop density kinda goes hand in hand with livestock-based agriculture, wheat producing areas inevitably become more populous in comparison.
Also, the scale of consumer needs also has to be considered. Wheat products are consumed in much higher quantites than meat, so the current setup should leave much more livestock surplus than wheat surplus when domestic demands are met, leaving more of livestock to export. Furthermore, similar consumption pattern would be likely abroad as well, so the wheat export would be a mere drop in the ocean, while the export livestock would satisfy a higher share of the foreign needs.
Well, this is what my logic dictates, we will have to see how actual consumption patterns will be set up in the game.
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.
Yes, but another thing to consider is what do you replace with horse and how does that affect the overall picture.
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).
It's really not easy to give a definite answer to this problem without a better understanding of the needs and demands of the pops. I think this question should be remembered and once we know more can we get back to it in earnest.
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.
By inoffensive, I meant not overtly disruptive to historical divisions. But I'm glad to hear this too.
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.
Yes, although the border between the Bishoprics of Zágráb and Veszprém do kinda align well with atleast Lendva location's borders.
As for Muraszombat, its inclusion quite literally has zero negative impact.
But I would rather see the historical internal divisions of the Hungarian Counties than pushing the border of the 20th and 21st centuries
Going below the county level for historical boundaries would be a close to impossible challenge. There's just so much data not available for that kinda stuff, the analysis of the non-missing data would also require tremendous work.
The below county-level divisions were primarily built upon the following considerations: historical territorial changes, terrain, important places/areas to represent and also late 19th century járás/municipality borders (where no other contrary consideration exists). There were some special considerations in certain locations too, and of course some compromises had to be made at a few points.
So what exactly is this baseless and vile accusation that you're talking about?
Unsubstantiated implication of bad faith might be the better term.
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
On our map, the location of Pozsony does in fact have a German plurality.
Is this something you have concrete sources saying, or is this speculation on your behalf? While the mountains rise more rapidly on the north-faced slops, it's not as if they are vertical and impassable, it's entirely possible to cross the Carpathians on foot, and even to this day, it's not unusual to encounter grazing sheep if you drive up the Transfăgărășan highway on the northern route, or in the glacial depression around the Bâlea lake. The fact that they are high, also limits the tree growth up there.
It's the overall available area. The remarks concerning the summer heat are valid though, that's a reason why the pastorialists kept wandering back and forth seasonally on the two sides of the mountains.
Well of course that's the point - original name is Ruthenian (therefore proving original population being Ruthenian) and has been absorbed into Hungarian. However, this is not at all "proof that local Slavic element did assimilate" - it happened same way everywhere, e.g. Hungarians called Orava Árva, yet no one assimilated there. In fact, no settled minority (not talking about other nomads like Cumans here) really assimilated into Hungarians - not Slovaks, not Croats, not Romanians and not Ruthenians. Assimilating into lower-population culture of nomadic origin is highly unlikely (just look at how Avars ended up assimilated and extinct instead), and the utter alienness of Hungarian language did present an additional massive barrier. And frankly, it should be obvious that population doesn't change in the manner of "1000 AD - 100% Ruthenian -> 1300 AD 100% Hungarian -> 1900 AD 60% Ruthenian & 25% Hungarian".
The original names are
Slavic, not specifically Ruthenian. And you basically argue that the Carpathian Basin has been in a demographic stasis ever since the Hungarian conquest...
And again, what matters is
how a placename adopts to another language, since that can give us a clue about the population.
Again, this is prior to census data, what are these numbers based around?
On various charters, and settlement and church records, among other things. It was already said.
Is there evidence proving a massive flight of people from else where? Towns being abandoned, nobles writing letters complaining about their subjects running away, etc.
The large scale immigration to Hungary/Tranylvania in the early modern age is well documented. We know of the Romanian princes' letters of complains and demands for repatriation sent to the Transylvanian Prince. For the record, emigration is also documented, to Hungary Proper and to the Romanian principalities also. Partially that's also why Moldavia has some of the Csángós.
Which evidence are these assumptions made upon?
To get a not perfect, but considerably adequate introduction concerning this matter, you can look up Kristó Gyula's "Nem magyar népek a középkori Magyarországon".
What is she talking about? I've read three separate Hungarian sources, that all talk about a Voievod Bogdan in the mid 1330s, and that he had become disloyal towards the crown in 1342 after the death of King Charles.
Bogdan, as a voivode in Máramaros, was first mentioned in a charter of King Louis in 1343. But it is charters from the 1360s, that tell us about Bogdan taking over Moldavia, usurping Voivode/Prince Balk in the process. That's what she meant.
I would also like to add that Bogdan could only have had some meagre forces coming with him from Máramaros, most of his supporters were locals. He was likely related to Balk's family, which allowed him to have a base of supporters within the young principality.
I still want to stress, unless we have evidence pointing to Vlachs around the Balkans erecting churches where they lived, I don't see why they necessarily have to be there in Transylvania before they formed settlements.
If the countryside in for instance Macedonia, Epirus and Thessaly was filled with old Aromanian churches, it would be a fair claim to make north of the Danube, but to my best knowledge.
And I think it's a methodological mistake to estimate populations based on churches and parishes for a population, that migrates long distances seasonally.
As I said, charters mentioning Romanian/Vlach presence/settlements in specific areas were also factored in, among other things.
Demeter:
I can only say that the number of people in 1337 according to the critics is an assumption, whereas our calculations are based on a model, which can of course be criticized. But until they present a better one that not only explains localities but covers the whole country, its relevance shouldn't be questioned based on practically zero source material. Pál Engel, in the 2000s, based his GIS-based atlas on organizing chartered data. There were more charters; many were destroyed during the Turkish era, but we cannot speculate about what was in them.
And this model was invited to Valencia for the October workshop titled "Reconciling the Irreconcilable: Methods and Techniques Towards a European Historical Local Population Database" to promote international developments, which means that for historical statistics, this is a relevant concept with international exemplary value (and not a nationalist, particularist standpoint). I pose the question: why is it a better method to retrospectively project values onto communities about which we have no concrete mass data, only scattered local (and we've collected those too)? A concept operating on analog modeling from age data (French, English system) has the same relevance.
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.
That's how demographic vacuums work. The Pecheneg-, then Cuman-, then Mongol-infested Wallachian plains had low populations, which decreased even further with the Pecheneg, Cuman, then Jassic/Jász settlement in Hungary. Similar story can also be told in regards to Moldavia, with Ruthenians also factored in. The share of Romanians in these areas kept growing, and a gradual transition to settled lifestyle has began, making Wallachia and Moldavia increasingly crowded. There remained more mobile elements of Romanian societies, which continued to migrate further, in search of more grazing grounds. The first appearance of Romanians in Transylvania and Hungary as a whole were done by such elements. And this mobile excess population was the primary source of the first settlings all across the under- or nonpopulated parts of the Eastern half of the country. These were first and foremost more mountainous areas, suitable for the Vlachs' pastorialist lifestyle.
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.
I think its not hard to see how a settled lifestyle in valleys and lowlands leads to a larger population than transhumance pastorialist lifestyle conducted in the mountains. The Romanian population experienced a dramatic increase exactly when they began to dwell on lower lands as well (made possible by appearing demographic vacuums and settling efforts).
It's also worth noting that pastorialists populations compete for space with their own herds, there's not much room for a huge population like that (that's why they spread out so far historically, from the Southern tip of Greece to all the way to Moravia, even.
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.
New churches need to be built were there aren't any. The Balkans was firmly Orthodox with many already built churches, leaving less need to build new ones (although new ones certainly were built, Vlachs built monasteries in the Dinaries for example). The building of new Orthodox churches/monasteries where weren't any previously tells us the establishment of notable Orthodox population in a certain region, and it is the charters and other historical data that can help us determine the ethnicity of said group.
Also, how exactly do you imagine Vlachs would keep their Orthodox faith in the long run if they don't have any churches/monasteries to provide service to them in the vicinity?
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.
Contemporary documents and charters, furthermore toponymical and etymological evidence would have remained in such cases. And again, these were also considered.
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?
The size of the population is one thing to consider, for example. The population in Western Slovakia was high and organised enough to have states form in the area prior to the Hungarian conquest. Immigration from Moravia and other nearby areas were also less restricted, since everyone was Catholic, helping to keep the area's Slavic character. Compared to that, Ruthenians arriving from the Northeast encountered less people speaking languages like theirs, and were also subject to conversion pressures, which also increased the likelihood of their assimilation.
Terrain is another thing to consider. In Slovakia, there are many mountains and valleys, making the area outstandingly dissected. The narow valleys could act kinda like a chokepoint to Hungarian linguistic advance. Linguistic borders could only change slowly in a linear fashion, because any Hungarian settlement too far ahead would be subject to assimilation to their surroundings themselves.
Another thing:
Orthodox population was a bit less welcome than Catholics during this time period, they were subject to conversion efforts, which inadvertedly also made them more susceptible to linguistic assimilation as well (not necessarily to Hungarian, but to the language of the local Catholics).
The dialect continuum between Eastern Slovak and Rusyn makes it hard to differentiate between then even today and pretty much impossible from back then. That's why all Catholic Slavs in this area were assigned "Slovak" and all Orthodoxes "Ruthenian".
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.
As I said, other evidences were also considered. If any charter prior to 1337 (and some after that) made mention of Romanians, we took that into account.
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.
Societies of Pops or tribesmen could be considered. That could potentially make room for some additional Vlach pops to get represented, but first we would need to know more how exactly do these things work.
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.
This game needs concrete numbers though, and our work tries to adhere to that based on best possible evidences available, which are as concrete as they can possibly be for the era. Are they estimates? Yes, but these are based on modern, professional academic quantitative research.
Naturally, it cannot be ruled out that we missed some things. If you have any concrete credible evidence that runs contrary to one or other choices of ours, please feel free to share it with us and we will examine it.
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?
Demeter:
As far as I know, none of the individuals working on the current project are entirely/exclusively affiliated with foundation institutions; moreover, the HAS (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) and ELTE (Eötvös Loránd University) are not nationalist, in fact, they have been explicitly under attack by the government for about ten years now. Our map construction is far from being as nationalistic as Kocsis's 2015 atlas, and it also has more professional basis. I don't know why purplephoton thinks what they write, but what they write is generalisation; generalization indeed and prejudice against individual researchers.
Why would I be nationalistic considering I refute Acsády's 1720 name analysis data, viewing it professionally unfounded and exaggerated (based on the example of Nógrád County)? Or am I a nationalist historian because instead of the manipulated ethnic data of 1910, I use the 1880 data as more reliable? Or is it because I am the first to publish an ethnic-confessional map of Transylvania based on settlement-level data for 1750, which does not favor the ethnic proportion of Hungarians? Or because I have created the settlement-level depiction of the 1850 census for Transylvania, which likewise does not favor the Hungarians?
Ok, I'm a little lost with all the quotings, so I will just paste further replies below:
Vlach assimiliation in the Balkans:
Demeter:
On the Balkans, everyone was Orthodox, while the environment in Hungary was different in this regard. In this age, religion is a more important attribute of identity. If a religion different from the surroundings can be kept, then the different language is also more likely to endure.
Neapolitans arriving with King Charles:
Romhányi:
Charles Robert arrived in Hungary with an incredibly small number of people; specifically, in his court, only the Drugeths (Philip, John, and Vellermes/William) were of foreign origin. Everyone else was a younger or poorer descendant of the Árpád-era elite. If we are to look for anyone in his entourage who was Neapolitan, they were most likely ecclesiastical persons, and perhaps one or two of his closest chamberlains, although there is no indication of this in the written sources. It was probably possible to do this because his grandmother, Maria of Naples (daughter of Stephen V), maintained very intensive relations with the Hungarian elite. From 1290 onwards, she worked on securing the Hungarian throne. He then built his government from members of local families loyal to him (and in friendly relations with him), while carefully ensuring that about half of the estates remained in royal hands. By the way, among those he granted favors to, we see only the Drugeths as beneficiaries of foreign origin, and they also strove to integrate quickly—with success. For more on the topic, see Attila Zsoldos's book "The Druget Province." The term "province" is debated, but otherwise it's an excellent work, and the personnel policy is also evident from it.
Do you have any source in regards to the Neapolitan settlers brought by the Drugeths? Or you meant just the Drugeths themselves and those few abovementioned likely entourages?
On Crassovans:
If we illustrate them, it will probably be as their own unique culture.
On the linguistic assimilation of Vlachs in the Balkans:
On the Balkans, everyone was Orthodox, while the environment in Hungary was different in this regard. In this age, religion is a more important attribute of identity. If a religion different from the surroundings can be kept, then the different language is also more likely to endure. Getting converted increases the chance of cultural assimilation too, basically.
In Hungary, the arriving Vlachs populated more remote locations and their lifestyle also separated them from the nearby Catholic population. This helped preserve both religion and language. Later on, it was the steady replenishment arriving from abroad that counteracted their assimilation. The Union of Florence also decreased assimilatory pressures.
Furthermore, there are the special rights/privileges to take into account. A culture with such can also have a stronger staying power. In the case of Vlachs (not only Romanians, but also Ruthenians), the Vlach Right is something to consider in this regard. This is a privilege closely associated with the Kenéz/Voivode institution and can be dated to appear in Hungarian charters between the 13-16th centuries.
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 future Moldavia wasn't exactly far away, but Serbia and Wallachia weren't either, nor Southern Transylvania or the Bihar Mountains. It's also important to note that by this time "Vlach" didn't only refer to Romanians, but it could also refer to Ruthenians. It was moreso an "occupational" term (pastorialists) than an ethnic one. There are even records inwhich Székelys were referred to as Vlachs.
On another note, inviting a group then expelling them a few years later is something that could happen, the case of the Teutonic Order in Hungary is a good example of that.
"The seal of Talmács village, in County Szeben, indicates that there was an Armenian bishopric and an Armenian bishop as early as 1343."
Romhányi:
This sentence bleeds from several wounds. 1) the source of the information is not indicated (just like nothing else in the book). 2) In Talmács in 1369, Layk, the Voivode of Wallachia, burned down the Franciscan monastery (UGDS II 333; ENTZ 1996 481; FABINI 1999 724; RUSU 2000 259). The settlement is mentioned a few times prior to this in the 14th century, but there is no mention of its church (it obviously had one, since the Franciscans settled here, but there is no source about it). There is also no mention of its seal, even less so because at this time very few cities had their own seal (villages had none, but this is less relevant here, since in 1369 the settlement is called civitas). 3) There is no mention anywhere of a bishopric, especially not Armenian. In the 15th century, a Romanian Orthodox bishop is already mentioned roughly in this area, but not here, not like this (in Hunedoara, and it is a matter of debate whether it could operate).
Romhányi also searched the database of the Hungarian National Archives, and found no mentions of Armenians in the time period of 1330–1337.
This week we’re posting the general map of the region, along with some more detailed maps, that can be seen if you click on the spoiler button. A starting comment is that the location density of Hungary is noticeably not very high; the reason is that it was one of the first European maps that we made, and we based it upon the historical counties. Therefore, I’m already saying in advance that this will be an area that we want to give more density when we do the review of the region; any help regarding that is welcome. Apart from that, you may notice on the more detailed maps that Crete appears in one, while not being present in the previous one; because of the zooming, the island will appear next week along with Cyprus, but I wanted to make an early sneak peek of the locations, given that is possible with this closer zoom level. Apart from that, I’m also saying in advance that we will make an important review of the Aegean Islands, so do not take them as a reference for anything, please.
Country and location population (which I’ve also sub-divided, and is under the Spoiler button).
