Dev Diary #155 - The Shattered Empire

[Zeprion]

Hey, I know it's a bit late to the party, but please consider some of this information for the Roads to Power.

Content:
- 1) There are actually 4 types of Vlachs, but I think that 2 are relevant enough.
- 2) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in Northern Moldavia in 867, 1066 and 1178.
- 3) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in the Duchy of Maramures in 867, 1066 and 1178.
- 4) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in Transylvania in 867, 1066 and 1178.
- 5) Ius Valachicum - Special Romanian Vlach Inheretance Law.
- 6) Vlach Themed Legends.
- 7) The Issue of Vlach Personal & Family Names in the Game.
- 8) Vlach Dynasties Coats of Arms.
- 9) A funny narrated video on the history of Romanians and Aromanians.

1) There are actually 4 types of Vlachs, but I think that 2 are relevant enough.

Latin Group -> Eastern Romance/Vlach -> split into 4:
- Romanian (sometimes called Daco-Romanian to avoid confusion)
- Aromanian
- Menglenoromanian
- Istroromanian

While Menglenoromanian and Istroromanian were small, Aromanian may be large enough to be passable as one of those obscure cultures in the game.

Because:
- The provinces of Thessaliotis and Metzovo were predominantly culturally Aromanian in 1066 and 1178.
- Aromanian Beriboos was the count of Thessaliotis in 1066. (loyal to the Byzantine Empire, confirmed to be Aromanian)
- Greek Nikoulitzas Delphinas was the count of Thessaly in 1066. (unknown origin, likely Greek, but respected by Aromanians, led a failed Aromanian revolt in 1066)
- Aromanian Dobromir Chrysos was the count of Prosek in North Macedonia in 1178. (he revolted against the Emperor but eventually settled for a peace with a marriage)

Nikoulitzas Delphinas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nikulitsa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dobromir Chrysos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It would be an interesting flavor to hose these 1 Aromanian count in 1066, and 1 Aromanian count in 1178.

Both of these rulers, recorded to have existed and confirmed to be Aromanians.

Aren't Romanian and Aromanian modern terms?

The term "Romanian" is far from a modern invention; rather, it is an endonym, a term used by a group to identify themselves, similar to how Greeks refer to themselves as "Hellenes" rather than "Greeks." Historically, Romanians have consistently referred to themselves as "Romanians" rather than "Vlachs," which is an exonym applied by others.

The term "Romanian" has deep historical roots. The people known today as Romanians have used this designation since their earliest recorded history. For example, Wallachia was historically referred to in Romanian as "Țara Românească," meaning "The Romanian Land," indicating a self-identified connection to the Roman heritage.

The designation "Wallachian" or "Vlach," on the other hand, is an exonym derived from a Proto-Germanic term meaning "stranger," which was used broadly to describe Romance language speakers. This term was used by neighboring peoples such as the Hungarians and Slovenians, who also had their own terms for Italians based on similar roots, like "olász" for Italians in Hungarian and "Lahi" in Slovenian.

The use of the term "Romanian" to describe the people of Wallachia and Moldavia predates the formal unification of these regions in 1859. Historical records from various periods confirm that the inhabitants referred to themselves as "Romanians" long before this political event.

For instance, the historian Johann Lebel, writing in 1542, noted that "common Romanians call themselves 'Romuini'." Similarly, the Polish humanist Stanislaus Orichovius, in 1554, observed that the descendants of the Dacians called themselves "Romini" in their own language. The Dalmatian humanist Antonius Verantio, who settled in Transylvania and later became a cardinal, recorded in 1570 that "the Wallachians call themselves Romans," illustrating that the term was in active use among the people themselves.

Further attestations include Jesuit theology professor Martinus Szent-Ivany, who in 1699 cited Romanian expressions like "Sie noi sentem Rumeni," which translates to "We are Romanians," reflecting the continuity of the term. In 1754, the geographer Anton Friedrich Busching observed that "the Wallachians, who are remnants and progeny of the old Roman colonies, thus call themselves Romanians," underscoring the historical self-identification with Roman heritage.

In the early 19th century, Hungarian writer András Dugonics described the language spoken by the Romanians as a blend of Latin, Slavic, and Dacian elements, and referred to them as "Rómaiak," meaning Romans. Similarly, English author John Paget, in his 1839 work "Hungary and Transylvania," noted that contemporary Wallachians called themselves "Rumunyi," reflecting a continued pride in their Roman ancestry.

In conclusion, the term "Romanian" has a long-standing history as an endonym, used by the people themselves to assert their identity and heritage. The consistent use of this term throughout history, as documented by various scholars and observers, illustrates its deep-rooted significance and continuity, far preceding its adoption by other nations in the modern era.

While the Aromanians, also known as "Macedonian Vlachs," have identified themselves through various terms that reflect their connection to the Roman heritage and their distinct place within the Balkan region. Unlike the Romanians north of the Danube, who referred to themselves as "Romanians," the Aromanians have traditionally used the term "Aromân" or "Armân" to denote their ethnic identity. This self-designation emphasizes their Roman heritage and differentiates them from their neighbors.

The use of "Aromanian" as an identifier has been documented for centuries. In the medieval and early modern periods, the Aromanians were often known by terms that indicated their Roman heritage, such as "Vlach," a term used by other peoples to describe Romance language speakers. However, "Vlach" was an exonym applied by neighboring groups, and it did not reflect how the Aromanians saw themselves. They used terms derived from their own language to assert their identity, reflecting their Roman ancestry and cultural distinctiveness.

2) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in Northern Moldavia in 867, 1066 and 1178.

This is the cultural map from the game:

I do not understand the reason why there is a dominant Ruthenian culture in Northern Moldavia when no source says such a thing.

In the year 938, Ibn al-Nadīm published the work Kitāb al-Fihrist (The Index of Arab Books) in which he mentioned "the Turks, Bulgarians, Vlachs" (using the term Blagha' for the Vlachs) and other peoples. Another document, by the Arab chronicler Mutahhar al-Maqdisi, who lived in the 10th century, mentioned among the neighbors of the Turkic peoples the Slavs, Waladj (Vlachs), Alans, Greeks, and other peoples.

In 1019, the Pechenegs and the warriors called "Blokumenn" in Scandinavian documents (likely the Bolokhoveni or Romanians) fought in the Battle of the Alta River (near the Dnieper River) on the side of Sviatopolk I of Kiev against Yaroslav the Wise. This information is one of the oldest references to the Vlachs/Romanians in the region of Moldova. It is the only battle in which the Vikings (from Yaroslav's army) fought against the Romanian Vlachs (from Sviatopolk's army). The information is based on the chapter "Eymundar Þáttr Hringssonar" from the saga of King Olaf Haraldsson (1015–1028), which mentions that Sviatopolk prepared an army against Yaroslav, composed of Turks (Pechenegs), Blokumen (Vlachs/Romanians), and other peoples.

In 1040, Casimir, Duke of Poland, formed an alliance with Yaroslav the Wise, Duke of Kiev, and received 1,000 foot soldiers to reclaim his lost territories in Poland. On this occasion, an army composed of Ruthenians, Prussians, Dacians, and Getae (possibly Romanians) is mentioned.
In 1068, the Vlachs/Romanians from Moldova and the Pechenegs led by Osul took part in a raiding campaign in Transylvania and Hungary, which ended with the Battle of Chiraleș in Transylvania, where they were defeated. The events are recorded in a Russian chronicle.

In 1070, the Vlachs/Romanians from Moldova, along with the Pechenegs and Ruthenians, were involved in an expedition by King Bolesław of Krakow. The campaign is commented on by the Polish chronicler Długosz.

On the border between Halych and the Brodniks, in the 11th century, a Viking by the name of Rodfos was killed in the area by Romanian Vlachs who supposedly betrayed him. In 1164, the future Byzantine Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos, was taken prisoner by Romanian Vlachs around the same region.

The Bolohoveni, a Romanian Vlach population, is mentioned by the Hypatian Chronicle written in the 13th century. The chronicle shows that this land is bordered on the principalities of Halych, Volhynia and Kiev. Archaeological research also identified the location of 13th-century fortified settlements in this region. Alexandru V. Boldur identified Voscodavie, Voscodavti, Voloscovti, Volcovti, Volosovca and their other towns and villages between the middle course of the rivers Nistru/Dniester and Nipru/Dnieper. The Bolohoveni disappeared from chronicles after their defeat in 1257 by Daniil Romanovich's troops.

In the early 13th century, the Brodniks, a possible Slavic-Romanian hybrid culture, vassal state of Halych, were present, alongside the Romanians Vlachs, in much of the region's territory, towards 1216, the Brodniks are mentioned as in service of Suzdal.

There are plenty of sources mentioning the Romanian Vlachs in Northern Moldavia. However, when it comes to the Ruthenian presence, we only have evidence of Ruthenian in the northern half of the Duchy of Bukovina as far as the future Kingdom of Moldavia is concerned.

So rather than half of Moldavia being Ruthenian, only half of Bukovina should be.

3) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in the Duchy of Maramures in 867, 1066 and 1178.

Looking back at the previous map, there is no presence of Vlachs in the Duchy of Maramures.

The Duchy of Maramures is first documented under this name in 1199, during the period of Hungarian expansion into Transylvania. At that time, there was a Romanian population throughout the entire Maramureș region, as well as in neighboring regions to the west, Ung, Bereg, and Ugocea. For these latter regions, the kings of Hungary guaranteed the Romanians the right to elect their own voivode (Duke) and to be judged according to "Vlach law" (ius valachicum).

In the early centuries of the second millennium, the Voivodeship of Maramureș was led by local voivodes and organized into valley kneziates (territories governed by local leaders).

We do not know who was the voivode of Maramureș in 867 and 1066. But we know that from 1320 (first reference of the name of the Voivod of Maramures) to 1402 Maramureș was only ruled by Romanian Vlach voivodes (Dukes).

Reason stands that it was ruled by Romanian Vlachs ever since it was first documented in 1199.

These are the known ruling families of Maramures, since the name of the families and rulers were first documented, all 3 being Romanian Vlachs:

*House of Dragos was renamed into Bedohaza after Mayarization in the 15th century, made of it here:

But what about the Vlach population, it was ruled by Romanian Dukes, but was it populated by Romanians? According to what we know about the founding of Moldavia, yes. We do not have evidence of Maramures being populated by Hungarians or Rusyn until much later. But for Romanian Vlachs we have the first references.

The social organization of Maramureș during the Middle Ages was also very specific. The people in many mountain villages, where each family had a considerable domain, were called free peasants. In Romanian-speaking areas, these were called nămeși [nameshi] or free peasants. The Romanian term indicates belonging to a small clan, from the Romanian neam (bigger old family). This term has been preserved to this day, both in the areas that remained Romanian and in those which later gradually became Slavic. Hungarian and German terms also existed for similar circumstances in Hungarian and German-settled areas.

Between the 12th and 15th centuries, Maramureș and surrounding areas were the source of an emigration. The Romanian population was gradually being assimilated into new-coming Slavic populations, but sometimes strongly influenced the local culture. In the southeastern corner of modern Poland, where "lex vallachorum" (Vlach Law) was in force as late as the 16th century, or eastern Moravia, where their autonomy was devastated by Wallenstein during the Thirty Years' War.

The Founding of Moldavia, and how it related to the Duchy of Maramures being mostly Romanian Vlach:

The founding of Moldavia is a story of migration, conflict, and state-building, involving the movement of Romanian (Vlach) nobility, from the mountainous regions of Maramureș into the territories of Moldavia, twice. This process, which unfolded during the 14th century, saw the rise of local leaders who shaped a new principality, establishing it as a distinct political entity.

The Kingdom of Hungary, under kings like Charles I of Anjou and his successors, was actively expanding its influence in Transylvania and its eastern frontiers. During this time, Hungarian kings sought to secure their borders and establish control over the regions to the east of the Carpathian Mountains, which were sparsely populated by Slavs, Vlachs, and Turkic tribes like the Pechenegs and Cumans.

This was the backdrop for the foundation of Moldavia, where local Romanian nobility from the Voivodeship of Maramureș, a mountainous region, played a central role in expanding their influence into the territories beyond the Carpathians.

Dragoș and the Establishment of Hungarian Control.

The first significant attempt to establish political control over Moldavia came from Dragoș, a kneaz from Maramureș. Dragoș was a vassal of the Duke Bogdan of Maramureș and of the Hungarian King Louis I of Anjou, who sought to extend Hungarian control eastward to secure the frontier against the Mongols and the Tatars of the Golden Horde. Around 1351, Dragoș was tasked by Louis to lead an expedition into the eastern territories, crossing the Carpathian Mountains and establishing a defensive presence in the region.

Dragoș succeeded in this expedition, establishing a small polity in the region near the Moldova River, where he founded the town of Baia, which became the first capital of Moldavia. Dragoș's mission was primarily military: to protect Hungarian interests and secure the Carpathian passes from Mongol and Tatar raids.

Dragoș became the voivode of Moldavia and now an equal of Bogdan, giving his lands in Maramureș to his brothers. As a Hungarian vassal, his rule over Moldavia was tied to Hungarian sovereignty, and while he established the basic political structures of the principality, Moldavia remained under Hungarian influence during his reign.

However, Dragoș's role was transitional. His descendants, who continued to rule as Hungarian vassals, faced increasing pressure from local Romanian nobility in Moldavia who sought greater independence from Hungarian control.

Bogdan I and the True Independence of Moldavia.

The real establishment of an independent Moldavian principality came with the actions of Bogdan I, another prominent voivode from Maramureș. Bogdan had long been a powerful noble in the region but became increasingly hostile to Hungarian domination. His conflict with the Hungarian crown, particularly over issues of autonomy and land rights in Maramureș, led him to seek opportunities beyond the Carpathians.

In 1359, Bogdan led a migration of Romanian nobility, warriors, and their followers from Maramureș into Moldavia, crossing the Carpathian Mountains and challenging the Hungarian-appointed rulers descended from Dragoș. Bogdan deposed the ruling family loyal to Hungary and established himself as the independent ruler of Moldavia, effectively severing ties with the Hungarian crown.

Bogdan’s actions marked the true foundation of Moldavia as an independent principality. He established his capital at Suceava, which would remain the center of Moldavian power for centuries. Under his leadership, Moldavia gained recognition as a sovereign state, no longer a vassal of Hungary. This marked a critical turning point in the region’s history, as Moldavia emerged as a political entity distinct from the other Romanian principalities and neighboring powers.

Essentially, Hose of Bogdan is the green one & house of Dragos is the blue one.

4) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in Transylvania in 867, 1066 and 1178.

Looking back at the previous map, as well as Gelu from CK2's Iron Century, there are no presence of Vlachs in Transylvania.

There is evidence of Romanians in Transylvania but scarce.

According to Jean W. Sedlar, the oldest extant documents from Transylvania, dating from the 12th and 13th centuries, make passing references to both Hungarians and Romanian Vlachs.

In 1213, an army of Romanian Vlachs, Saxons and Pechenegs, led by the Count of Sibiu, Joachim Türje, attacked the Second Bulgarian Empire - Bulgarians and Cumans in the fortress of Vidin. After this, all Hungarian battles in the Carpathian region were supported by Romance-speaking soldiers from Transylvania.

A royal charter from 1223 mentions that Cârța Monastery in Transylvania founded on the lands taken from the Romanians. Cârța Monastery was finished in 1202.

Similar charters mentioning land taken from the Romanians exist for Zarand in 1318, Bihor in 1326 and Turda from 1342.

According to the Diploma Andreanum issued by King Andrew II of Hungary in 1224, the Transylvanian Saxons were entitled to use certain forests together with the Vlachs and Pechenegs.

However, the debate over the population and ethnic composition of Transylvania during the period between 800 and 1300 is a deeply contentious issue in both Romanian and Hungarian historiographies.

This debate is critical because it shapes the historical narratives surrounding the origins of modern Romania and Hungary, as well as the region's medieval political landscape. Both Romanian and Hungarian historians have produced extensive arguments regarding the presence and role of their respective populations Romanians and Hungarians during this period, often drawing on different primary sources and archaeological evidence to support their claims.

Romanian Historiography: Continuity Theory.

Romanian historiography emphasizes the concept of Daco-Roman continuity, arguing that Romanians are the descendants of the Romanized Dacians who remained in the Carpathian-Danubian region after the withdrawal of the Roman Empire in the early 3rd century AD. According to this view, the ancestors of the modern Romanians inhabited the region continuously from Roman times through the early Middle Ages, including the period between 800 and 1300. This theory is rooted in the work of early modern Romanian historians such as Nicolae Iorga and Alexandru Xenopol, and it has been carried forward by modern scholars like Ioan Aurel Pop and Constantin C. Giurescu.

"Gesta Hungarorum" by Anonymous: One of the most cited sources by Romanian historians is Gesta Hungarorum (The Deeds of the Hungarians), written in the late 12th century by an anonymous Hungarian chronicler. This chronicle describes the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin around 895 and includes references to various local populations encountered by the Hungarians, including the Vlachs. Romanian historians argue that these mentions of Vlachs indicate the continuous presence of a Romanized population in Transylvania before and during the Hungarian conquest. The anonymous chronicler refers to Gelou, a "Vlach" leader who resisted the Hungarian invasion in the 9th century. This is often cited as evidence of a pre-existing Romanian population.

Notitia Dignitatum and Roman Military Influence: Romanian historians point to administrative and military continuity in the region. Although the Roman Empire formally withdrew from Dacia in 271 AD, the presence of the Notitia Dignitatum, a 5th-century Roman administrative document, suggests that Roman military influence continued to persist in the region for some time. Romanian scholars interpret this as evidence that Romanized populations, particularly in the mountain valleys, maintained their presence well into the Middle Ages.

Archaeological Evidence: Romanian historians also rely on archaeological findings, such as cemeteries, pottery, and ecclesiastical structures, which they argue show continuity between Roman Dacia and medieval Transylvania. For instance, Christian artifacts found in certain parts of Transylvania are interpreted as evidence of a Romanized and Christianized population that persisted through the early Middle Ages.

Hungarian Historiography: Migration Theory.

Hungarian historiography, on the other hand, largely rejects the notion of a significant Romanian Vlach presence in Transylvania prior to the Hungarian conquest in the late 9th century. Hungarian scholars argue that the region was sparsely populated before the arrival of the Magyars and that the development of Transylvania as a political entity occurred primarily under Hungarian rule. This perspective is grounded in the idea that the region's medieval population was primarily formed through Hungarian colonization, along with the settlement of other ethnic groups such as Saxons and Szeklers. Historians such as László Makkai and Gyula Kristó have been prominent proponents of this view.

"Gesta Hungarorum" Reinterpretation: While Gesta Hungarorum is also a crucial source for Hungarian historiography, Hungarian historians often reinterpret the reference to the Vlach ruler Gelou. They argue that Gelou and his people were not necessarily representative of a widespread and well-established Romanian population in Transylvania, but rather a small, isolated community. They suggest that Anonymous’ descriptions are either exaggerated or symbolic, meant to emphasize the military prowess of the Hungarian conquerors, and do not reflect the actual demographic situation in Transylvania at the time of the conquest.

"Chronicon Pictum": The Chronicon Pictum, a 14th-century Hungarian illuminated chronicle, also provides key details regarding Hungarian expansion. It contains fewer references to the Vlachs than the Gesta Hungarorum, and Hungarian historians emphasize this as indicative of the lack of a substantial Romanized population in Transylvania during the early medieval period. They suggest that if there had been a large, organized Vlach presence, it would have been noted more explicitly in this chronicle.

Papal and Diplomatic Records: Hungarian scholars frequently refer to medieval papal records and royal charters, which document the settlement and organization of Transylvania under Hungarian rule. These sources, dating from the 11th century onwards, record the settlement of various ethnic groups, including Hungarians, Saxons, and Szeklers, but make little mention of Romanians. Hungarian historians argue that these early documents indicates that their presence in Transylvania was minimal or non-existent before this time.

By the 12th and 13th centuries, both Romanian and Hungarian historiographies agree that Vlachs (Romanians) appear more frequently in historical records.

However, the two historiographies differ in their interpretations of this presence.

Romanian historians argue that the increased documentation of Vlachs during this period reflects their ongoing, ancient presence in Transylvania, which began to be more formally acknowledged as the political landscape of the region changed. For example, by the mid-13th century, papal documents mention Vlachs in connection with the Cuman presence in the eastern Carpathians and the Kingdom of Hungary. There is no single piece of direct written evidence that conclusively demonstrates a continuous Romanian presence in Transylvania from the early medieval period through the 13th century. However, Romanian historians point to various indirect sources, such as mentions of Vlachs in chronicles, legal references, and papal documents, along with archaeological evidence, to support the argument for continuity.

Hungarian historians, on the other hand, argue that the emergence of Vlachs in historical records during this period reflects the migration of Romanian shepherds from the southern Balkans into Transylvania. There is no direct written evidence of a large-scale Romanian (Vlach) migration into Transylvania during the medieval period, but various indirect references in chronicles, papal documents, and charters have been interpreted differently by Romanian and Hungarian historians. Most historical records on the population of Transylvania prior to the 13th century are sparse and often ambiguous, making it challenging to determine the exact nature and scale of any migration or population movements.

However, even Hungarian historiography acknowledges that there was likely a Romanian Vlach population at the time of the arrival of the Hungarians, but their numbers were insignificant, likely 5% to 20% of the population of Transylvania, depending on the historian.

In what small regions of Transylvania the Romanians clearly are mentioned in the 9th century?

The presence of Romanians (Vlachs) in Transylvania during the 9th century is mentioned in a few key sources, though the evidence is indirect and often open to interpretation. In general, written records from this period are sparse, but several sources provide references to Vlachs or related groups in specific regions of Transylvania.

1. The Region of Bihor

Gesta Hungarorum (The Deeds of the Hungarians) One of the most cited references is found in the Gesta Hungarorum, written in the late 12th century by an anonymous chronicler. The Gesta describes the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin and mentions the Vlach leader Gelou, who is said to have ruled in the region of Bihor, which is located in western Transylvania. According to the chronicle, Gelou resisted the Hungarian invaders around the end of the 9th century. Although this account is written from a Hungarian perspective and its accuracy can be debated, it is often interpreted as evidence of a Vlach presence in this region during the late 9th century.

2. The Region of Mureș

Early Hungarian Chronicles and Legal Documents References in early Hungarian chronicles and legal documents occasionally mention Vlachs in the Mureș River region, located in central Transylvania. These references often appear in the context of Hungarian expansion and settlement efforts. For instance, there are mentions of Vlach communities in the Mureș Valley, though these documents are not always dated to the 9th century specifically. The mention of these communities is used by some historians to argue for the presence of Vlachs in central Transylvania around this time.

3. The Southern Carpathians and the Făgăraș Mountains

Byzantine and Western European Sources Although not as directly detailed as other regions, Byzantine sources and early Western European records sometimes refer to Vlach groups living in the broader Carpathian region, which includes parts of southern Transylvania such as the Făgăraș Mountains. These references are less specific but contribute to the broader understanding of Vlach presence in the Carpathian region.

4. The Eastern Carpathians

Medieval Chronicles and Later Records Later medieval sources, such as the Hungarian chronicles from the 12th and 13th centuries, also refer to Vlachs in the eastern Carpathians, which includes areas of eastern Transylvania. These references often describe Vlachs living in the mountainous and pastoral regions, suggesting a presence that could date back to the 9th century, although the documentation from this earlier period is less specific.

5) Ius Valachicum - Special Romanian Vlach Inheretance Law.

The concept of "Vlach law" primarily refers to the legal and social traditions of the Romanians north of the Danube, distinct from those followed by the Aromanians south of the river, who adhered to Byzantine customs. This distinction highlights not only the cultural differences but also the evolution of legal and social practices among these groups.

Special Title Names

In the historical context of Romanian Vlachs, various titles were used to denote different ranks and roles within the society. These titles reveal both the hierarchical structure and the influences of neighboring cultures:
- Mayor: Known as Jude or Judecătoare (plural: Juzi), this title denoted a local administrator or judge.
- Baron: The title Ban or Banesa (plural: Bani) was used for a regional lord, reflecting a status similar to that of a baron in other European contexts.
- Count: The term Cneaz or Cneaghina (plural: Cnezi) referred to a noble with administrative and military duties, a title likely derived from Slavic origins. This title indicated a ruler of a smaller region or domain.
- Duke: The title Voievod or Voievodeasa (plural: Voievozi) was used for a leader with broader authority, akin to a duke. Voievod is a term with Slavic roots meaning "warlord" or "military leader."
- King: Domnitor or Domnitoare (plural: Domnitori) was the term used for a ruler of a larger principality, such as Wallachia or Moldavia. The term Domnitor translates to "ruler," and its use became prominent with the formation of these principalities.
- Emperor: The Vlachs did not have an indigenous title for "Emperor" and simply used the term Împărat from the Latin Imperator.

Prior to the establishment of Wallachia and Moldavia, the hierarchy was characterized by a Voievod having several Cnezi under their command. Unlike the later titles, a Voievod did not necessarily have a Domnitor above them. The emergence of Wallachia and Moldavia introduced the title Domnitor, which explicitly denoted a ruler, emphasizing the evolution from the previous titles.

The titles Cneaz, Voievod, and Domnitor all connoted rulership, albeit with variations in their origins and implications. Cneaz likely has Slavic origins but evolved in meaning over time. Similarly, Voievod and Domnitor reflect different historical contexts and hierarchical shifts in Romanian governance.

Special Succession Law - Vlach Law

The Vlach legal system, known for its distinct practices, also featured specific rules regarding succession and social privileges:

- Count (Cneaz): The title was hereditary, with the oldest son inheriting all lands, the position and the responsibilities.
- Duke (Voievod): This title was elective. The Cnezi, or local nobles, elected the Voievod from among themselves, reflecting a more democratic or consultative approach within the Romanian cultural context.
- King (Domnitor): Similar to the Count, this title was hereditary, with succession passing to the oldest son.

The Vlach Law was characterized by several fundamental rights and responsibilities:

- Peasant Rights: Peasants had the right to travel freely, carry weapons, and hunt in any forest. These rights were integral to their autonomy and security.
- Labor and Taxation: Peasants were not subject to mandatory labor services but were expected to pay taxes in the form of livestock, food, or money. They were also required to participate in military service, with non-compliance resulting in additional taxes or severe penalties.
- Nobility and Leadership: The hereditary nature of the Count and King titles contrasted with the elective nature of the Duke title, illustrating a blend of tradition and evolving governance structures.

This legal framework explains why, in the time of Vlad the Impaler in Wallachia and Stephen the Great in Moldavia, peasants were legally mandated to carry weapons and undergo training. This practice was not a novel imposition but a continuation of established Vlach traditions. The rigorous enforcement of these laws underscores the historical significance of maintaining a ready and self-reliant peasantry in these medieval principalities.

The short version is:

As the Romanians named them:
Mayor -> Jude / Judecatoare / plural: Juzi
Baron -> Ban / Banesa / plural: Bani
Count -> Cneaz / Cneaghina / plural: Cnezi
Duke -> Voievod / Voievodeasa / plural: Voievozi
King -> Domnitor / Domnitoare / plural: Domnitori
Emperor -> just Emperor as the Vlachs never had an Emperor. Imparat.

Count -> Cneaz -> Hereditary, oldest son takes everything.
Duke -> Voievod -> Elective, the Cneaz of Romanian culture below them can vote.
King -> Domnitor -> Hereditary, oldest son takes everything.

In essence, the Vlach Law is that the Vlachs:

• Peasants always had the right to travel
• Peasants always had the right to carry weapons
• Peasants always the right to hunt in any forest.
• Peasants had no mandatory labour service.
• Peasants were expected to pay taxes with: livestock, food or money.
• Peasants where required to participate in war for these privileges, refusal to do so would result either in extra taxes or death.
• The Counts/Cnezi were a hereditary title.
• The Dukes/Voievozi were elected by the Romanian Cnezi under him.
• The Kings/Domnitori were a hereditary title.

6) Vlach Themed Legends.

1. St. Andrew and the Great White Wolf -> Just as the Celts start the year on the All Hallows, Dacians - the ancient population that lived on the approximate territory of current Romania almost 2000 years ago celebrated the New Year on the 30th of November. The day is known as "Andrew’s head of winter" enabling both Good and Evil to emerge in this world. This is why Romanians observe this day in rest and prayer. No chores are done around the household. Rest is advised. According to ancient beliefs, the spirits of the dead are now allowed to re-enter, just for one night, into the world of the living. Seems familiar?

The Legend of the Great White Wolf states that in lost times, a high priest of Zamolxis was roaming through Dacia’s forests in order to help the needy. Zalmoxis realizing the potential of his servant, called him into the sacred mountain Kogaionon to be close to him. Far beyond human territory, the beasts of Dacia considered him their leader, wolves appreciating him the most. After some time Zalmoxis summoned him and asked him to serve in another way, and with his approval, the deity transformed him into a large and mighty White Wolf, the most respected and feared beast from all of Dacia. His purpose was to gather all the wolves from the forests and protect Dacia when needed. Whenever the Dacians were in danger, the wolves came to their aid when they heard the howl of the Great White Wolf.

When St. Andrew came to Dacia, he tried to convert a fortress to Christianity, speaking about God and Jesus to the Dacians who worshipped Zamolxis, the Dacians killed him and threw his body in the forest. The next day, St. Andrew came back to the fortress unscathed and with the Great White Wolf next to him, protecting him. The Dacians converted without a word being spoken, they were the first Dacians to convert to Christianity.

2. Satudary's Water (Sambata's Water) -> The Saturday's water is a river that drains into hell, everything that falls into that water cannot be recovered. The Saturday's water springs from the Evergreen of Life, a sort of tree of life located in Paradise. The Satudary's water was also called the Dead's water, and its patron was the Holy Saturday, who was the guardian between the world of the living and the dead. At the soruce, the Satudary's water is crystal clear but gradually gets more and more dark as it gets closer to the center of the earth, until it eventually becomes a river of fire and drains into hell.

Because of this, there is a traditional custom, that objects that cannot be given away or need to be thrown away but cannot be destroyed, usually religious items such as candle scraps, damaged icons, broken candles, are to be sent a wooden raft on a river, because all rivers drain into the Saturday's water and the objects will be sent to the other side. (It's fascinating how a society changes or advances but pieces of an old faith remain alive as costum or traditions and they blend with the current ones)

The Satudary's water surrounds the earth 9 times (like the 9 cyrcles of hell) before heading towards hell. Before going to hell, the Satuday's water passes the island of the Gentle ones, this is an island that rests the souls of those who were gentle and just in life but also lazy. Although guilty of a cardinal sin, God was softened by their kindness and left them on an island before entering hell, where the Saturday's water passes.

Every item or person thrown into the Saturday's water is lost forever to the other realm. And every river eventually drains into the Satuday's water, so don't stay to long in a river. This means, that every river represents a connection between the world of the living and the dead. On the Easter of the Gentle, the Romanians would send red eggs and sweet bread sanctified by the church on a wooden raft on a river to share them with the Gentle ones.

The Romanians would also throw in the Satuday's water: objects of a recently dead relative that they considered should go with them or old objects that were no longer of use, because those objects are no longer of use, they belong to the ancestors and have to go to the ancestors.

3. The Mother of Waters and the Father Sun -> The Mother of Waters is a female evil entity who is the patron of heavy rains. When there was continous heavy rains, the Romanians would go to a fountain and make 2 human faces out of clay. The man is the father sun while the woman is the mother of waters, the mother of waters is then buried in a similar fashon to a funeral, this way, the heavy rain would also be buried. When there was no rain in a long time, the same thing would happen except the father sun would be buried. (Proving that Romanians switched sides long before Italy)

4. The Demons in the Water -> The waters can also be sanctuaries for demons. Especially stagnant waters, lakes or ponds with turbid color and foul smell. "The one from the pond" used to be a synonim for the demon. On the other hand, clean waters did no harm and some had healing properties.

5. The Days of the Week as Demons or Angels -> The days of the week are named after angels and demons.
Monday (Luni) -> Demon, is a man and is the symbol of the beginnings and ruler of the dead together with Saturday (Sambata), it's not okay to travel on Monday, it's not okay to bury someone on monday, however it's a good day for spells, whether good or bad.
Tuesday (Marti) -> Demon, is a man and the worst of them all, the demon of misfortune, also it's not okay to travel on Tuesday, the child born on Tuesday is going to be unlucky in life, it's not okay to marry on Tuesday, the Ielele appear on Tuesday.
Wednesday (Miercuri) -> Angel, is a woman and is the angel of the sun, she takes care of animals especially the wild ones who have no caretaker, and heals the sick, it's good to do work on Wednesday, but it's not good to party on Wednesday or engage in debauchery.
Thursday (Joi) -> Angel, half-man half-woman, is the angel of duality and luck, the best days to marry or to be born are on Thursday and Sunday. It's the best day for good spells, it's the best day to clean the house.
Friday (Vineri) -> Angel, is a woman and is the protector of women, she is very old and very mercyful, women should not work on this day.
Satudary (Sambata) -> Demon, is a man, ruler of the dead together with Monday (Luni), this is the day when you should bring offerings to the dead, including sending some items on the Saturday's waters, they should be celebrated on Saturday just as we celebrate the living on their birthdays else we risk the wrath of Sambata, it's a good day for dark magic, on Saturday the worlds of the living and of the dead are connected and souls can come back to earth.
Sunday (Duminica) -> Angel, is a woman, the angel of premonition, she helps people by giving them dreams warning them of danger such as certain problems that may arise in the future, wars, diseases, so if you had a dream on Sunday it's very likely it was a warning from Duminica.

6. Iele -> Multiple hot naked women who dance on a cyrcle around a firecamp at night singing. They mostly appear Tuesday at night by moonlight, dancing Horas (traditional Romanian dance), in secluded areas such as glades, the tops of certain trees (maples, walnut trees), ponds, river sides, crossroads or abandoned fireplaces, dancing naked, with their breasts almost covered by their disheveled hair, with bells on their ankles and carrying candles. In almost all of these instances, the Iele appear to be incorporeal. Rarely, they are dressed in chain mail coats. The place where they had danced would after remain carbonized, with the grass incapable of growing on the trodden ground, and with the leaves of the surrounding trees scorched. Later, when grass would finally grow, it would have a red or dark-green color, the animals would not eat it, but instead mushrooms would thrive on it. If someone is foolish enough to come to the Iele, they abduct the victim, punishing the "guilty" one with magical spells, after which they dance around their victim, who is abducted, to disappear forever without a trace. However, in rare cases the Iele may take a liking of you, if this happen you will leave that night with super human powers.

7. Strigoi -> Evil spirits who can control the weather and weaken people. Strigoi is a Romanian word that originated from a root related to the Latin terms strix or striga. The strigoi are said to be bald on top of the head, does not eat garlic and onions, avoids incense, and towards the feast of Saint Andrew he sleeps outside. Its spine is elongated in the form of a tail, covered with hair. Strigoi were once humans, who either killed themselves or died before the time fixed by God due to various causes such as dark magic. Only the relatives of the strigoi can see his human form. They want to take revenge on humans because because of them they couldn't finish their fate. How? killing them, making them sick, making them lose their mind, making them get lost on the road, sending them in empty places or attacking them directly and violently. They are the horror of death personified.

9. Moroi -> The moroi are the souls of those children who die unbaptized, but especially of those who are made by an unmarried girl and killed or buried alive by her. These souls do not become moroi all of a sudden, but 7 years old after their death. When 7 years have been fulfilled after his birth, the child's soul cries out from the pit: "baptize! baptize!" or "cross! cross!" If someone then hears him and says the words of baptism: "Let the son or daughter of God, Ion or Mary, be baptized, in the name of the Father, amen! and in the name of the Son, amen! and in the name of the Holy Spirit, Amen! Now and forever and ever, amen!" and throws at the place from where he heard the voice, a piece of cloth, even torn from his shirt or kerchief, then the child is baptized, calms down and remains in the grave until the second coming: he is saved. And if no one hears it, then the child's soul comes out of the grave, and begins to roam the world to the misery of people, flying through the air and walking on the earth.

10. Pricolici -> Malicious, violent men are often said to become pricolici after death, in order to continue harming other humans. When a soul is so evil, so corrupted, that the demons are impressed, they send him back to life in the form of Pricolici to torment people. The pricolici si an aggressive wolf-like undead who can shapeshift is a werewolf/vampire fusion in the Romanian folklore. Similar to a vârcolac, although the latter is not undead and not necessarily evil, whereas the Pricolici always has more aggressive wolf-like and undead-like characteristics, they have the ability to transform into ordinary people or animals. And they are hungry, always hungry. Pricolici, similar to strigoi, are undead souls that have risen from the grave to harm living people. The etymology of the word is unknown; although it probably has Dacian origins.

11. Innecatii -> Remember number 4 with the demons in the water? Demons live in dark waters, tolerated, because they made a deal with Saturday (Sambata) that they will give him human soul (talking about paying your rent). Innecatii means literally "the Drowned", they are the souls of those who died by drowning, fated to haunt the places where they died until they find a replacement. They have to drown and kill someone else in the place where they died, in order to be free to die, and the victim would become an innecat, who in turn had to again look for another victim. They are the strongest when the clock reaches the hour that they died. They can take human form and leave the waters then. They often lure their pray by screaming for help that they are drowning.

7) The Issue of Vlach Personal & Family Names in the Game.

For example, Diamandy is not a Vlach name.:

One could try: Mâtniceni, Calian, Vancu, Motorga, Sterea

From Crusader Kings III\game\common\culture\name_lists/00_south_slavic file (open with Notepad++; scroll down to Vlach)

male_names = {
Adrian Alexandru Anghel Aron Bajan Balc Barbat Basarab Bogdan Carol Ciprian Ciubar Claudiu
Corneliu Costin Damjan Dan Dragos Dumitru Emerik Florin Franjo Gavril Gheorghe Grigore Iacob
Iancu Ieremia Ilie Ioan Iorghu Iosif Iuga Janos Ladislau Latcu Laurentiu Litovoi Lucian Marin
Mihai Milos Mircea Moise Nicolaie Petre Pirvu Radovan Radu Roman Sas Seneslav Sergiu Simion
Stefan Stelian Teodor Tepes Tibor Tihomir Timotei Tudor Valentin Valeriu Vasile Veaceslav
Victor Vilhelm Vintila Vlad
}

female_names = {
Adelina Adriana Afina Alexandra Alexia Ana Anastasia Angela Arina Christina Clara Dana Ecatarina
Elena Elisabeta Emilia Eufroysina Felicia Floarea Iacoba Ioana Ionela Irina Iulia Maria Monica
Natalia Olimpia Paraschiva Petra Roxana Ruxandra Smaranda Sophia Stana Stefana Stefania Teodora
Tereza Vasilica Violeta Voica Zina
}

There is a significant amount of wrong personal names:

Damjan -> Damian
Emerik -> Emil
Franjo -> Farcas
Iorghu -> Iorgu
Janos -> Iancu
Milos -> Mihail (both Mihai and Mihail were used, but no Milos)
Petre - Petru
Seneslav - Seneslau
Veaceslav ?? (never heard of it and have a hard time pronouncing it, "eace" doesn't sound Romanian, probably Russian but nothing that was adopted into Romanian; found 2 people with this name from Republic of Moldova on Google, probably of Russian ancestry as one of them, the one on Wikipedia, seems to have Russian citizenship also. Also "vece" is an old word for "toilet" in Romanian, so I doubt anyone would name their kids "toiletslav".)
Vilhelm ?? (no way, Kaiser Wilhelm II was Romanian? joke aside, I think the Romanian Vilhelm is Victor that is already on the list)

Arina ?? -> Alina (Arina also sounds Romanian but the version I know of is Adina or Alina, maybe Arina is an older variation. Or maybe the Romanian variation for Arina is Irina. After Google; turn out Arina is very uncommon in Romania. I could find Alina as an old Romanian name but no Arina. Found an website saying that "Arina" means "peace" in Romanian, doesn't mean peace, however Alina means "to put at ease, caretaker", which is true, "a alina" means "to put at ease", to comfort someone. Dubious because Arina sounds like it could be Romanian unlike Veaceslav or Eufroysina, but maybe it's just a coincidence. Apparently is a Russian origin name that means "peace", in Russian. Dubious, I'm not excluding it as a possibility, but couldn't find anyone in Romanian history with that name. I'm going to go with Alina at least this one is confirmed).
Christina -> Cristina
Ecatarina -> Ecaterina
Eufroysina ?? (closest thing I can think of is also Ecaterina or Elisabeta but both are already on the list; Googled it, it's the name of a Saint of Kiev, translated as "Eufrosina" in Romanian, but couldn't find anyone actually called Eufroysina or Eufrosina, also doesn't sound Romanian)
Sophia -> Sofia

The ones with ?? are not Romanian names, and I can't think of no Romanian equivalent.

(Fixed/Removed wrong names & Googled medieval Romanian noble houses and checked names of the members to make sure it's a medieval name)

male_names = {
Adrian Alexandru Andrei Anghel Anton Aron Bajan Balc Bărbat Basarab Bogdan Călin Carol Cătălin Ciprian Ciubar Claudiu
Constantin Coman Cornel Corneliu Costin Daniel Damian Dan Dragoș Dumitru Emil Farcaș Florin Gabriel Gavril Gelu Gheorghe Grigore Iacob
Iancu Ieremia Ilie Ioan Iordache Iorgu Iosif Iuga Iancu Ladislau Latcu Laurentiu Lazăr Litovoi Luca Lucian Marin
Mihai Mihail Mihnea Mircea Moise Nicolaie Pavel Petru Pîrvu Radovan Radu Roman Saș Seneslau Sergiu Silviu Simion Sorin
Stan Ștefan Stelian Teodor Țepes Tibor Tihomir Timotei Tudor Valentin Valeriu Vasile
Victor Vintilă Vlad
}

female_names = {
Adelina Adriana Afina Alexandra Alexia Ana Anca Anastasia Angela Alina Cătălina Cristina Clara Dana Doina Ecaterina
Elena Elisabeta Emilia Ecaterina Felicia Floarea Iacoba Ioana Ionela Irina Iulia Maria Magdalena Marina Margareta Mihaela Monica
Natalia Nastasia Oana Olga Olimpia Paraschiva Petra Rada Roxana Ruxandra Smaranda Sofia Stana Stanca Ștefana Ștefania Teodora
Tereza Vasilica Violeta Voica Zîna
}

Looking at the dynasty names. A lot don't sound Romanian at all. I'll remake the random dynasty names list using already existing vlach noble family names from 14th-15 century:

Some are good so I'll just copy-paste what's on the left, but plenty are not. I'll color the ones changed.

dynasty_names = {
"dynn_Basarab" -> Basarab
"dynn_Dragusin" -> Dragușin
"dynn_Basarab" -> Bucur (Why is Basarab twice? replaced with Bucur)
"dynn_Litovoi" -> Litovoi
"dynn_SelimoviC_" -> Coman (Not a Vlach name, replaced with a Vlach name instead)
"dynn_CsA_ky" -> Gâlman (Not a Vlach name, replaced with a Vlach name instead)
"dynn_DezsO_fi" -> Șolda (Not a Vlach name, replaced with a Vlach name instead)
"dynn_Guthi-OrszA_gh" -> Nămescu (Not a Vlach name, replaced with a Vlach name instead, you understand when idea, whenever there is a completely different name, this is the reason)
"dynn_MarczaltO_vi" -> Mușat
"dynn_Petenye" -> Carp
"dynn_Tibai" -> Hașdeu
"dynn_ZA_ch" -> Negrești
"dynn_Szapolyai" -> Miclescu ........... (TO HERE, are diacritics or combination of letters that don't exist in Romanian.
"dynn_VA_rdai" -> Vărdai
"dynn_ProdaniC_" -> Ferești
"dynn_Odescalchi" -> Bedeu
"dynn_Costin" -> Giulești (Costin is a Romanian name but not a family name, not sure how old it is but it's likely old, however not as a family name, I'll play it safe and replace with something certain. But it is a case of could be but I'm not sure. Never heard of the Costin dynasty but I'm not excluding the possiblity of a minor house. Just checked the name lists, it's already listed as a name. So I'll replace it with Giulești which I know for sure is a Romanian dynasty name because they existed)
"dynn_BA_dA_rA_u" -> Bădărău
"dynn_BA_lA_ceanu" -> Băiăceanu
"dynn_Bosie" -> Călinesti
"dynn_BrA_iloi" -> Brăilor
"dynn_BuS_ilA_" -> Bușilă
"dynn_Calerghi" -> Sighet
"dynn_Callimachi" -> Bârsan
"dynn_Cantemir" -> Cantemir
"dynn_Carianopol" -> Bud
"dynn_Crihan" -> Rațiu
"dynn_Carionfil" -> Mărgărit
"dynn_Cristescu" -> Cristescu
"dynn_Casassovici" -> Brâncoveanu
"dynn_Cesianu" -> Ceșianu
"dynn_ChinteS_ti" -> Chintești
"dynn_Chirescu" -> Chirescu
"dynn_CoteS_ti" -> Cotești
"dynn_CraioveS_tilor" -> Craiovești (NOTE: "Craioveștilor" means "the Craiovești". Such as, if you want to say "Orasul Craiova belongs to the Craiovesti House", you say "The city Craiova apartine Craiovestilor". But the name of the house itself is Craiovești, so I cut the "lor". On the same logic I'll remove the "lor" from Dănești and Drăculești. "Brăilor" is an exception because that was their name.)
"dynn_CrA_snaru" -> Crăsnaru
"dynn_Dinastia" -> Neamț (This one was literally called "Dynasty". Prepare for Lord Lord of the dynasty Dynasty, he has a son named Son)
"dynn_DA_neS_tilor" -> Dănești
"dynn_Diamandy" -> Menumorut
"dynn_DrA_culeS_tilor" -> Drăculești
"dynn_DrugA_" -> Drugă
"dynn_Eliescu" -> Eliescu
"dynn_Emandi" -> Serețchi
"dynn_Filipescu" -> Filipescu
"dynn_Florescu" -> Florescu
"dynn_FundA_T_eni" -> Fundățeni
"dynn_Giosani" -> Gioșani (diacritics here, but didn't change the color when only the diacritics were missing)
"dynn_Golescu" -> Golescu
"dynn_GrA_diS_teanu" -> Grădișteanu
"dynn_Greceanu" -> Greceanu
"dynn_Hagi" -> Hagi (Really, house Hagi? like Gica Hagi? well, could be a nice easter egg, I like it, but if you don't like the easter egg replace it with Mâtniceni)
"dynn_HA_jdA_u" -> Hâjdău
"dynn_Jianu" -> Jianu
"dynn_Korne" -> Moga
"dynn_Lecca" -> Peșteana
"dynn_LereS_ti" -> Lerești
"dynn_Magheru" -> Magheru
"dynn_Marineanu" -> Marineanu
"dynn_Miclescu" -> Miclescu
"dynn_MovilA_" -> Movilă
"dynn_MA_nA_stireanu" -> Mănăstireanu
"dynn_Niculescu_DorobanT_u" -> Dorobanțu
"dynn_PA_cleanu" -> Păcleanu
"dynn_Pisoschi" -> Danciu
"dynn_PleS_ia" -> Pleșia
"dynn_PleS_nilA_" -> Pleșnilă
"dynn_PleS_oianu" -> Pleșoianu
"dynn_RacovitzA_" -> Racovită
"dynn_RA_S_canu" -> Râșcanu
"dynn_Rallet" -> Dejești
"dynn_Rosetti" -> Rosetti
"dynn_RusA_neS_ti" -> Rusănești
"dynn_Savoia" -> Savoia
"dynn_Stoicescu" -> Stoicescu
"dynn_S_oarec" -> Șoarec
"dynn_S_oldan" -> Șoldan
"dynn_TurbureS_ti" -> Turburești
"dynn_UrlA_T_eni" -> Urlățeni
"dynn_VidraS_cu" -> Vidrașcu
"dynn_Yarka" -> Bizereni
}

Left - old one. Right - good. Again, this was made by Googling medieval Romanian noble houses and checked names of the members. This is not bulletproof, but it's 95% better than what we already got. Consult any historian, 80% of the Romanian family names in game, are not Romanian family names.

The Cadet Dynasty names are also bad. But rather than unique names, they are copy-paste of some names from Dynasty Names, since everything in Dynasty Names was fixed and replaced, for the Cadet I would like to list some other unique names. Names for Cadet so that you won't use names that also exist in Dynasty:

- Turț
- Mocioni
- Șoldan
- Pogănești
- Lupsa
- Dejești
- Chiliman
- Borcea
- Calian
- Vancu
- Motorga
- Sterea
- Vlaicu
- Balș
- Bibescu
- Voicu
- Ghica
- Kogălniceanu
- Văcărescu

8) Vlach Dynasties Coats of Arms.

Ruling houses of Wallachia (only the first 5 are in the middle ages):

Ruling Houses & Nobility of Moldavia:

Other Ruling Houses:

9) A funny narrated video on the history of Romanians and Aromanians.

The author is no historian and the borders of the maps aren't 100% accurate, but the information he is saying is correct, and at the same narrates this complex issue in a very simple way.

 

[Camnom]

It might be worth revisiting some already in-game characters and re-casting them as "historical characters." For example, I think Hereward Wake (I'm sure there are several others -- for whatever reason he came to mind) is already in-game as a courtier somewhere, but he would probably be better served by the new system.

 

[Ykme]

Can we get Balian of Ibelin as a historical character, and based on the real one and not the one from the movie?

 

[WestuHal]

It might be worth revisiting some already in-game characters and re-casting them as "historical characters." For example, I think Hereward Wake (I'm sure there are several others -- for whatever reason he came to mind) is already in-game as a courtier somewhere, but he would probably be better served by the new system.

Hereward will be a bookmarked unlanded character in the new update - I believe he’s getting some special story content too.

 

[Gurkhal]

Hey, I know it's a bit late to the party, but please consider some of this information for the Roads to Power.

Content:
- 1) There are actually 4 types of Vlachs, but I think that 2 are relevant enough.
- 2) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in Northern Moldavia in 867, 1066 and 1178.
- 3) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in the Duchy of Maramures in 867, 1066 and 1178.
- 4) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in Transylvania in 867, 1066 and 1178.
- 5) Ius Valachicum - Special Romanian Vlach Inheretance Law.
- 6) Vlach Themed Legends.
- 7) The Issue of Vlach Personal & Family Names in the Game.
- 8) Vlach Dynasties Coats of Arms.

1) There are actually 4 types of Vlachs, but I think that 2 are relevant enough.

Latin Group -> Eastern Romance/Vlach -> split into 4:
- Romanian (sometimes called Daco-Romanian to avoid confusion)
- Aromanian
- Menglenoromanian
- Istroromanian

View attachment 1185548
View attachment 1185549

While Menglenoromanian and Istroromanian were small, Aromanian may be large enough to be passable as one of those obscure cultures in the game.

Because:
- The provinces of Thessaliotis and Metzovo were predominantly culturally Aromanian in 1066 and 1178.
- Aromanian Beriboos was the count of Thessaliotis in 1066. (loyal to the Byzantine Empire, confirmed to be Aromanian)
- Greek Nikoulitzas Delphinas was the count of Thessaly in 1066. (unknown origin, likely Greek, but respected by Aromanians, led a failed Aromanian revolt in 1066)
- Aromanian Dobromir Chrysos was the count of Prosek in North Macedonia in 1178. (he revolted against the Emperor but eventually settled for a peace with a marriage)

Nikoulitzas Delphinas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nikulitsa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dobromir Chrysos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It would be an interesting flavor to hose these 1 Aromanian count in 1066, and 1 Aromanian count in 1178.
View attachment 1185550
Both of these rulers, recorded to have existed and confirmed to be Aromanians.

Aren't Romanian and Aromanian modern terms?

The term "Romanian" is far from a modern invention; rather, it is an endonym, a term used by a group to identify themselves, similar to how Greeks refer to themselves as "Hellenes" rather than "Greeks." Historically, Romanians have consistently referred to themselves as "Romanians" rather than "Vlachs," which is an exonym applied by others.

The term "Romanian" has deep historical roots. The people known today as Romanians have used this designation since their earliest recorded history. For example, Wallachia was historically referred to in Romanian as "Țara Românească," meaning "The Romanian Land," indicating a self-identified connection to the Roman heritage.

The designation "Wallachian" or "Vlach," on the other hand, is an exonym derived from a Proto-Germanic term meaning "stranger," which was used broadly to describe Romance language speakers. This term was used by neighboring peoples such as the Hungarians and Slovenians, who also had their own terms for Italians based on similar roots, like "olász" for Italians in Hungarian and "Lahi" in Slovenian.

The use of the term "Romanian" to describe the people of Wallachia and Moldavia predates the formal unification of these regions in 1859. Historical records from various periods confirm that the inhabitants referred to themselves as "Romanians" long before this political event.

For instance, the historian Johann Lebel, writing in 1542, noted that "common Romanians call themselves 'Romuini'." Similarly, the Polish humanist Stanislaus Orichovius, in 1554, observed that the descendants of the Dacians called themselves "Romini" in their own language. The Dalmatian humanist Antonius Verantio, who settled in Transylvania and later became a cardinal, recorded in 1570 that "the Wallachians call themselves Romans," illustrating that the term was in active use among the people themselves.

Further attestations include Jesuit theology professor Martinus Szent-Ivany, who in 1699 cited Romanian expressions like "Sie noi sentem Rumeni," which translates to "We are Romanians," reflecting the continuity of the term. In 1754, the geographer Anton Friedrich Busching observed that "the Wallachians, who are remnants and progeny of the old Roman colonies, thus call themselves Romanians," underscoring the historical self-identification with Roman heritage.

In the early 19th century, Hungarian writer András Dugonics described the language spoken by the Romanians as a blend of Latin, Slavic, and Dacian elements, and referred to them as "Rómaiak," meaning Romans. Similarly, English author John Paget, in his 1839 work "Hungary and Transylvania," noted that contemporary Wallachians called themselves "Rumunyi," reflecting a continued pride in their Roman ancestry.

In conclusion, the term "Romanian" has a long-standing history as an endonym, used by the people themselves to assert their identity and heritage. The consistent use of this term throughout history, as documented by various scholars and observers, illustrates its deep-rooted significance and continuity, far preceding its adoption by other nations in the modern era.

While the Aromanians, also known as "Macedonian Vlachs," have identified themselves through various terms that reflect their connection to the Roman heritage and their distinct place within the Balkan region. Unlike the Romanians north of the Danube, who referred to themselves as "Romanians," the Aromanians have traditionally used the term "Aromân" or "Armân" to denote their ethnic identity. This self-designation emphasizes their Roman heritage and differentiates them from their neighbors.

The use of "Aromanian" as an identifier has been documented for centuries. In the medieval and early modern periods, the Aromanians were often known by terms that indicated their Roman heritage, such as "Vlach," a term used by other peoples to describe Romance language speakers. However, "Vlach" was an exonym applied by neighboring groups, and it did not reflect how the Aromanians saw themselves. They used terms derived from their own language to assert their identity, reflecting their Roman ancestry and cultural distinctiveness.

2) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in Northern Moldavia in 867, 1066 and 1178.

This is the cultural map from the game:
View attachment 1185551

I do not understand the reason why there is a dominant Ruthenian culture in Northern Moldavia when no source says such a thing.

In the year 938, Ibn al-Nadīm published the work Kitāb al-Fihrist (The Index of Arab Books) in which he mentioned "the Turks, Bulgarians, Vlachs" (using the term Blagha' for the Vlachs) and other peoples. Another document, by the Arab chronicler Mutahhar al-Maqdisi, who lived in the 10th century, mentioned among the neighbors of the Turkic peoples the Slavs, Waladj (Vlachs), Alans, Greeks, and other peoples.

In 1019, the Pechenegs and the warriors called "Blokumenn" in Scandinavian documents (likely the Bolokhoveni or Romanians) fought in the Battle of the Alta River (near the Dnieper River) on the side of Sviatopolk I of Kiev against Yaroslav the Wise. This information is one of the oldest references to the Vlachs/Romanians in the region of Moldova. It is the only battle in which the Vikings (from Yaroslav's army) fought against the Romanian Vlachs (from Sviatopolk's army). The information is based on the chapter "Eymundar Þáttr Hringssonar" from the saga of King Olaf Haraldsson (1015–1028), which mentions that Sviatopolk prepared an army against Yaroslav, composed of Turks (Pechenegs), Blokumen (Vlachs/Romanians), and other peoples.

In 1040, Casimir, Duke of Poland, formed an alliance with Yaroslav the Wise, Duke of Kiev, and received 1,000 foot soldiers to reclaim his lost territories in Poland. On this occasion, an army composed of Ruthenians, Prussians, Dacians, and Getae (possibly Romanians) is mentioned.
In 1068, the Vlachs/Romanians from Moldova and the Pechenegs led by Osul took part in a raiding campaign in Transylvania and Hungary, which ended with the Battle of Chiraleș in Transylvania, where they were defeated. The events are recorded in a Russian chronicle.

In 1070, the Vlachs/Romanians from Moldova, along with the Pechenegs and Ruthenians, were involved in an expedition by King Bolesław of Krakow. The campaign is commented on by the Polish chronicler Długosz.

On the border between Halych and the Brodniks, in the 11th century, a Viking by the name of Rodfos was killed in the area by Romanian Vlachs who supposedly betrayed him. In 1164, the future Byzantine Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos, was taken prisoner by Romanian Vlachs around the same region.

The Bolohoveni, a Romanian Vlach population, is mentioned by the Hypatian Chronicle written in the 13th century. The chronicle shows that this land is bordered on the principalities of Halych, Volhynia and Kiev. Archaeological research also identified the location of 13th-century fortified settlements in this region. Alexandru V. Boldur identified Voscodavie, Voscodavti, Voloscovti, Volcovti, Volosovca and their other towns and villages between the middle course of the rivers Nistru/Dniester and Nipru/Dnieper. The Bolohoveni disappeared from chronicles after their defeat in 1257 by Daniil Romanovich's troops.

In the early 13th century, the Brodniks, a possible Slavic-Romanian hybrid culture, vassal state of Halych, were present, alongside the Romanians Vlachs, in much of the region's territory, towards 1216, the Brodniks are mentioned as in service of Suzdal.

There are plenty of sources mentioning the Romanian Vlachs in Northern Moldavia. However, when it comes to the Ruthenian presence, we only have evidence of Ruthenian in the northern half of the Duchy of Bukovina as far as the future Kingdom of Moldavia is concerned.

So rather than half of Moldavia being Ruthenian, only half of Bukovina should be.

3) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in the Duchy of Maramures in 867, 1066 and 1178.

Looking back at the previous map, there is no presence of Vlachs in the Duchy of Maramures.
View attachment 1185552

The Duchy of Maramures is first documented under this name in 1199, during the period of Hungarian expansion into Transylvania. At that time, there was a Romanian population throughout the entire Maramureș region, as well as in neighboring regions to the west, Ung, Bereg, and Ugocea. For these latter regions, the kings of Hungary guaranteed the Romanians the right to elect their own voivode (Duke) and to be judged according to "Vlach law" (ius valachicum).

In the early centuries of the second millennium, the Voivodeship of Maramureș was led by local voivodes and organized into valley kneziates (territories governed by local leaders).

We do not know who was the voivode of Maramureș in 867 and 1066. But we know that from 1320 (first reference of the name of the Voivod of Maramures) to 1402 Maramureș was only ruled by Romanian Vlach voivodes (Dukes).

Reason stands that it was ruled by Romanian Vlachs ever since it was first documented in 1199.

These are the known ruling families of Maramures, since the name of the families and rulers were first documented, all 3 being Romanian Vlachs:
View attachment 1185553View attachment 1185555View attachment 1185556

*House of Dragos was renamed into Bedohaza after Mayarization in the 15th century, made of it here:
View attachment 1185558

But what about the Vlach population, it was ruled by Romanian Dukes, but was it populated by Romanians? According to what we know about the founding of Moldavia, yes. We do not have evidence of Maramures being populated by Hungarians or Rusyn until much later. But for Romanian Vlachs we have the first references.

The social organization of Maramureș during the Middle Ages was also very specific. The people in many mountain villages, where each family had a considerable domain, were called free peasants. In Romanian-speaking areas, these were called nămeși [nameshi] or free peasants. The Romanian term indicates belonging to a small clan, from the Romanian neam (bigger old family). This term has been preserved to this day, both in the areas that remained Romanian and in those which later gradually became Slavic. Hungarian and German terms also existed for similar circumstances in Hungarian and German-settled areas.

Between the 12th and 15th centuries, Maramureș and surrounding areas were the source of an emigration. The Romanian population was gradually being assimilated into new-coming Slavic populations, but sometimes strongly influenced the local culture. In the southeastern corner of modern Poland, where "lex vallachorum" (Vlach Law) was in force as late as the 16th century, or eastern Moravia, where their autonomy was devastated by Wallenstein during the Thirty Years' War.

The Founding of Moldavia, and how it related to the Duchy of Maramures being mostly Romanian Vlach:

The founding of Moldavia is a story of migration, conflict, and state-building, involving the movement of Romanian (Vlach) nobility, from the mountainous regions of Maramureș into the territories of Moldavia, twice. This process, which unfolded during the 14th century, saw the rise of local leaders who shaped a new principality, establishing it as a distinct political entity.

The Kingdom of Hungary, under kings like Charles I of Anjou and his successors, was actively expanding its influence in Transylvania and its eastern frontiers. During this time, Hungarian kings sought to secure their borders and establish control over the regions to the east of the Carpathian Mountains, which were sparsely populated by Slavs, Vlachs, and Turkic tribes like the Pechenegs and Cumans.

This was the backdrop for the foundation of Moldavia, where local Romanian nobility from the Voivodeship of Maramureș, a mountainous region, played a central role in expanding their influence into the territories beyond the Carpathians.

Dragoș and the Establishment of Hungarian Control.

The first significant attempt to establish political control over Moldavia came from Dragoș, a kneaz from Maramureș. Dragoș was a vassal of the Duke Bogdan of Maramureș and of the Hungarian King Louis I of Anjou, who sought to extend Hungarian control eastward to secure the frontier against the Mongols and the Tatars of the Golden Horde. Around 1351, Dragoș was tasked by Louis to lead an expedition into the eastern territories, crossing the Carpathian Mountains and establishing a defensive presence in the region.

Dragoș succeeded in this expedition, establishing a small polity in the region near the Moldova River, where he founded the town of Baia, which became the first capital of Moldavia. Dragoș's mission was primarily military: to protect Hungarian interests and secure the Carpathian passes from Mongol and Tatar raids.

Dragoș became the voivode of Moldavia and now an equal of Bogdan, giving his lands in Maramureș to his brothers. As a Hungarian vassal, his rule over Moldavia was tied to Hungarian sovereignty, and while he established the basic political structures of the principality, Moldavia remained under Hungarian influence during his reign.

However, Dragoș's role was transitional. His descendants, who continued to rule as Hungarian vassals, faced increasing pressure from local Romanian nobility in Moldavia who sought greater independence from Hungarian control.

Bogdan I and the True Independence of Moldavia.

The real establishment of an independent Moldavian principality came with the actions of Bogdan I, another prominent voivode from Maramureș. Bogdan had long been a powerful noble in the region but became increasingly hostile to Hungarian domination. His conflict with the Hungarian crown, particularly over issues of autonomy and land rights in Maramureș, led him to seek opportunities beyond the Carpathians.

In 1359, Bogdan led a migration of Romanian nobility, warriors, and their followers from Maramureș into Moldavia, crossing the Carpathian Mountains and challenging the Hungarian-appointed rulers descended from Dragoș. Bogdan deposed the ruling family loyal to Hungary and established himself as the independent ruler of Moldavia, effectively severing ties with the Hungarian crown.

Bogdan’s actions marked the true foundation of Moldavia as an independent principality. He established his capital at Suceava, which would remain the center of Moldavian power for centuries. Under his leadership, Moldavia gained recognition as a sovereign state, no longer a vassal of Hungary. This marked a critical turning point in the region’s history, as Moldavia emerged as a political entity distinct from the other Romanian principalities and neighboring powers.

Essentially, Hose of Bogdan is the green one & house of Dragos is the blue one.

4) The Romanian Vlachs were also present in Transylvania in 867, 1066 and 1178.

Looking back at the previous map, as well as Gelu from CK2's Iron Century, there are no presence of Vlachs in Transylvania.
View attachment 1185559

There is evidence of Romanians in Transylvania but scarce.

According to Jean W. Sedlar, the oldest extant documents from Transylvania, dating from the 12th and 13th centuries, make passing references to both Hungarians and Romanian Vlachs.

In 1213, an army of Romanian Vlachs, Saxons and Pechenegs, led by the Count of Sibiu, Joachim Türje, attacked the Second Bulgarian Empire - Bulgarians and Cumans in the fortress of Vidin. After this, all Hungarian battles in the Carpathian region were supported by Romance-speaking soldiers from Transylvania.

A royal charter from 1223 mentions that Cârța Monastery in Transylvania founded on the lands taken from the Romanians. Cârța Monastery was finished in 1202.

Similar charters mentioning land taken from the Romanians exist for Zarand in 1318, Bihor in 1326 and Turda from 1342.

According to the Diploma Andreanum issued by King Andrew II of Hungary in 1224, the Transylvanian Saxons were entitled to use certain forests together with the Vlachs and Pechenegs.

However, the debate over the population and ethnic composition of Transylvania during the period between 800 and 1300 is a deeply contentious issue in both Romanian and Hungarian historiographies.

This debate is critical because it shapes the historical narratives surrounding the origins of modern Romania and Hungary, as well as the region's medieval political landscape. Both Romanian and Hungarian historians have produced extensive arguments regarding the presence and role of their respective populations Romanians and Hungarians during this period, often drawing on different primary sources and archaeological evidence to support their claims.

Romanian Historiography: Continuity Theory.

Romanian historiography emphasizes the concept of Daco-Roman continuity, arguing that Romanians are the descendants of the Romanized Dacians who remained in the Carpathian-Danubian region after the withdrawal of the Roman Empire in the early 3rd century AD. According to this view, the ancestors of the modern Romanians inhabited the region continuously from Roman times through the early Middle Ages, including the period between 800 and 1300. This theory is rooted in the work of early modern Romanian historians such as Nicolae Iorga and Alexandru Xenopol, and it has been carried forward by modern scholars like Ioan Aurel Pop and Constantin C. Giurescu.

"Gesta Hungarorum" by Anonymous: One of the most cited sources by Romanian historians is Gesta Hungarorum (The Deeds of the Hungarians), written in the late 12th century by an anonymous Hungarian chronicler. This chronicle describes the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin around 895 and includes references to various local populations encountered by the Hungarians, including the Vlachs. Romanian historians argue that these mentions of Vlachs indicate the continuous presence of a Romanized population in Transylvania before and during the Hungarian conquest. The anonymous chronicler refers to Gelou, a "Vlach" leader who resisted the Hungarian invasion in the 9th century. This is often cited as evidence of a pre-existing Romanian population.

Notitia Dignitatum and Roman Military Influence: Romanian historians point to administrative and military continuity in the region. Although the Roman Empire formally withdrew from Dacia in 271 AD, the presence of the Notitia Dignitatum, a 5th-century Roman administrative document, suggests that Roman military influence continued to persist in the region for some time. Romanian scholars interpret this as evidence that Romanized populations, particularly in the mountain valleys, maintained their presence well into the Middle Ages.

Archaeological Evidence: Romanian historians also rely on archaeological findings, such as cemeteries, pottery, and ecclesiastical structures, which they argue show continuity between Roman Dacia and medieval Transylvania. For instance, Christian artifacts found in certain parts of Transylvania are interpreted as evidence of a Romanized and Christianized population that persisted through the early Middle Ages.

Hungarian Historiography: Migration Theory.

Hungarian historiography, on the other hand, largely rejects the notion of a significant Romanian Vlach presence in Transylvania prior to the Hungarian conquest in the late 9th century. Hungarian scholars argue that the region was sparsely populated before the arrival of the Magyars and that the development of Transylvania as a political entity occurred primarily under Hungarian rule. This perspective is grounded in the idea that the region's medieval population was primarily formed through Hungarian colonization, along with the settlement of other ethnic groups such as Saxons and Szeklers. Historians such as László Makkai and Gyula Kristó have been prominent proponents of this view.

"Gesta Hungarorum" Reinterpretation: While Gesta Hungarorum is also a crucial source for Hungarian historiography, Hungarian historians often reinterpret the reference to the Vlach ruler Gelou. They argue that Gelou and his people were not necessarily representative of a widespread and well-established Romanian population in Transylvania, but rather a small, isolated community. They suggest that Anonymous’ descriptions are either exaggerated or symbolic, meant to emphasize the military prowess of the Hungarian conquerors, and do not reflect the actual demographic situation in Transylvania at the time of the conquest.

"Chronicon Pictum": The Chronicon Pictum, a 14th-century Hungarian illuminated chronicle, also provides key details regarding Hungarian expansion. It contains fewer references to the Vlachs than the Gesta Hungarorum, and Hungarian historians emphasize this as indicative of the lack of a substantial Romanized population in Transylvania during the early medieval period. They suggest that if there had been a large, organized Vlach presence, it would have been noted more explicitly in this chronicle.

Papal and Diplomatic Records: Hungarian scholars frequently refer to medieval papal records and royal charters, which document the settlement and organization of Transylvania under Hungarian rule. These sources, dating from the 11th century onwards, record the settlement of various ethnic groups, including Hungarians, Saxons, and Szeklers, but make little mention of Romanians. Hungarian historians argue that these early documents indicates that their presence in Transylvania was minimal or non-existent before this time.

By the 12th and 13th centuries, both Romanian and Hungarian historiographies agree that Vlachs (Romanians) appear more frequently in historical records.

However, the two historiographies differ in their interpretations of this presence.

Romanian historians argue that the increased documentation of Vlachs during this period reflects their ongoing, ancient presence in Transylvania, which began to be more formally acknowledged as the political landscape of the region changed. For example, by the mid-13th century, papal documents mention Vlachs in connection with the Cuman presence in the eastern Carpathians and the Kingdom of Hungary. There is no single piece of direct written evidence that conclusively demonstrates a continuous Romanian presence in Transylvania from the early medieval period through the 13th century. However, Romanian historians point to various indirect sources, such as mentions of Vlachs in chronicles, legal references, and papal documents, along with archaeological evidence, to support the argument for continuity.

Hungarian historians, on the other hand, argue that the emergence of Vlachs in historical records during this period reflects the migration of Romanian shepherds from the southern Balkans into Transylvania. There is no direct written evidence of a large-scale Romanian (Vlach) migration into Transylvania during the medieval period, but various indirect references in chronicles, papal documents, and charters have been interpreted differently by Romanian and Hungarian historians. Most historical records on the population of Transylvania prior to the 13th century are sparse and often ambiguous, making it challenging to determine the exact nature and scale of any migration or population movements.

However, even Hungarian historiography acknowledges that there was likely a Romanian Vlach population at the time of the arrival of the Hungarians, but their numbers were insignificant, likely 5% to 20% of the population of Transylvania, depending on the historian.

In what small regions of Transylvania the Romanians clearly are mentioned in the 9th century?

The presence of Romanians (Vlachs) in Transylvania during the 9th century is mentioned in a few key sources, though the evidence is indirect and often open to interpretation. In general, written records from this period are sparse, but several sources provide references to Vlachs or related groups in specific regions of Transylvania.

1. The Region of Bihor

Gesta Hungarorum (The Deeds of the Hungarians) One of the most cited references is found in the Gesta Hungarorum, written in the late 12th century by an anonymous chronicler. The Gesta describes the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin and mentions the Vlach leader Gelou, who is said to have ruled in the region of Bihor, which is located in western Transylvania. According to the chronicle, Gelou resisted the Hungarian invaders around the end of the 9th century. Although this account is written from a Hungarian perspective and its accuracy can be debated, it is often interpreted as evidence of a Vlach presence in this region during the late 9th century.

2. The Region of Mureș

Early Hungarian Chronicles and Legal Documents References in early Hungarian chronicles and legal documents occasionally mention Vlachs in the Mureș River region, located in central Transylvania. These references often appear in the context of Hungarian expansion and settlement efforts. For instance, there are mentions of Vlach communities in the Mureș Valley, though these documents are not always dated to the 9th century specifically. The mention of these communities is used by some historians to argue for the presence of Vlachs in central Transylvania around this time.

3. The Southern Carpathians and the Făgăraș Mountains

Byzantine and Western European Sources Although not as directly detailed as other regions, Byzantine sources and early Western European records sometimes refer to Vlach groups living in the broader Carpathian region, which includes parts of southern Transylvania such as the Făgăraș Mountains. These references are less specific but contribute to the broader understanding of Vlach presence in the Carpathian region.

4. The Eastern Carpathians

Medieval Chronicles and Later Records Later medieval sources, such as the Hungarian chronicles from the 12th and 13th centuries, also refer to Vlachs in the eastern Carpathians, which includes areas of eastern Transylvania. These references often describe Vlachs living in the mountainous and pastoral regions, suggesting a presence that could date back to the 9th century, although the documentation from this earlier period is less specific.

5) Ius Valachicum - Special Romanian Vlach Inheretance Law.

The concept of "Vlach law" primarily refers to the legal and social traditions of the Romanians north of the Danube, distinct from those followed by the Aromanians south of the river, who adhered to Byzantine customs. This distinction highlights not only the cultural differences but also the evolution of legal and social practices among these groups.

Special Title Names

In the historical context of Romanian Vlachs, various titles were used to denote different ranks and roles within the society. These titles reveal both the hierarchical structure and the influences of neighboring cultures:
- Mayor: Known as Jude or Judecătoare (plural: Juzi), this title denoted a local administrator or judge.
- Baron: The title Ban or Banesa (plural: Bani) was used for a regional lord, reflecting a status similar to that of a baron in other European contexts.
- Count: The term Cneaz or Cneaghina (plural: Cnezi) referred to a noble with administrative and military duties, a title likely derived from Slavic origins. This title indicated a ruler of a smaller region or domain.
- Duke: The title Voievod or Voievodeasa (plural: Voievozi) was used for a leader with broader authority, akin to a duke. Voievod is a term with Slavic roots meaning "warlord" or "military leader."
- King: Domnitor or Domnitoare (plural: Domnitori) was the term used for a ruler of a larger principality, such as Wallachia or Moldavia. The term Domnitor translates to "ruler," and its use became prominent with the formation of these principalities.
- Emperor: The Vlachs did not have an indigenous title for "Emperor" and simply used the term Împărat from the Latin Imperator.

Prior to the establishment of Wallachia and Moldavia, the hierarchy was characterized by a Voievod having several Cnezi under their command. Unlike the later titles, a Voievod did not necessarily have a Domnitor above them. The emergence of Wallachia and Moldavia introduced the title Domnitor, which explicitly denoted a ruler, emphasizing the evolution from the previous titles.

The titles Cneaz, Voievod, and Domnitor all connoted rulership, albeit with variations in their origins and implications. Cneaz likely has Slavic origins but evolved in meaning over time. Similarly, Voievod and Domnitor reflect different historical contexts and hierarchical shifts in Romanian governance.

Special Succession Law - Vlach Law

The Vlach legal system, known for its distinct practices, also featured specific rules regarding succession and social privileges:

- Count (Cneaz): The title was hereditary, with the oldest son inheriting all lands, the position and the responsibilities.
- Duke (Voievod): This title was elective. The Cnezi, or local nobles, elected the Voievod from among themselves, reflecting a more democratic or consultative approach within the Romanian cultural context.
- King (Domnitor): Similar to the Count, this title was hereditary, with succession passing to the oldest son.

The Vlach Law was characterized by several fundamental rights and responsibilities:

- Peasant Rights: Peasants had the right to travel freely, carry weapons, and hunt in any forest. These rights were integral to their autonomy and security.
- Labor and Taxation: Peasants were not subject to mandatory labor services but were expected to pay taxes in the form of livestock, food, or money. They were also required to participate in military service, with non-compliance resulting in additional taxes or severe penalties.
- Nobility and Leadership: The hereditary nature of the Count and King titles contrasted with the elective nature of the Duke title, illustrating a blend of tradition and evolving governance structures.

This legal framework explains why, in the time of Vlad the Impaler in Wallachia and Stephen the Great in Moldavia, peasants were legally mandated to carry weapons and undergo training. This practice was not a novel imposition but a continuation of established Vlach traditions. The rigorous enforcement of these laws underscores the historical significance of maintaining a ready and self-reliant peasantry in these medieval principalities.

The short version is:

As the Romanians named them:
Mayor -> Jude / Judecatoare / plural: Juzi
Baron -> Ban / Banesa / plural: Bani
Count -> Cneaz / Cneaghina / plural: Cnezi
Duke -> Voievod / Voievodeasa / plural: Voievozi
King -> Domnitor / Domnitoare / plural: Domnitori
Emperor -> just Emperor as the Vlachs never had an Emperor. Imparat.

Count -> Cneaz -> Hereditary, oldest son takes everything.
Duke -> Voievod -> Elective, the Cneaz of Romanian culture below them can vote.
King -> Domnitor -> Hereditary, oldest son takes everything.

In essence, the Vlach Law is that the Vlachs:

• Peasants always had the right to travel
• Peasants always had the right to carry weapons
• Peasants always the right to hunt in any forest.
• Peasants had no mandatory labour service.
• Peasants were expected to pay taxes with: livestock, food or money.
• Peasants where required to participate in war for these privileges, refusal to do so would result either in extra taxes or death.
• The Counts/Cnezi were a hereditary title.
• The Dukes/Voievozi were elected by the Romanian Cnezi under him.
• The Kings/Domnitori were a hereditary title.

6) Vlach Themed Legends.

1. St. Andrew and the Great White Wolf -> Just as the Celts start the year on the All Hallows, Dacians - the ancient population that lived on the approximate territory of current Romania almost 2000 years ago celebrated the New Year on the 30th of November. The day is known as "Andrew’s head of winter" enabling both Good and Evil to emerge in this world. This is why Romanians observe this day in rest and prayer. No chores are done around the household. Rest is advised. According to ancient beliefs, the spirits of the dead are now allowed to re-enter, just for one night, into the world of the living. Seems familiar?

The Legend of the Great White Wolf states that in lost times, a high priest of Zamolxis was roaming through Dacia’s forests in order to help the needy. Zalmoxis realizing the potential of his servant, called him into the sacred mountain Kogaionon to be close to him. Far beyond human territory, the beasts of Dacia considered him their leader, wolves appreciating him the most. After some time Zalmoxis summoned him and asked him to serve in another way, and with his approval, the deity transformed him into a large and mighty White Wolf, the most respected and feared beast from all of Dacia. His purpose was to gather all the wolves from the forests and protect Dacia when needed. Whenever the Dacians were in danger, the wolves came to their aid when they heard the howl of the Great White Wolf.

When St. Andrew came to Dacia, he tried to convert a fortress to Christianity, speaking about God and Jesus to the Dacians who worshipped Zamolxis, the Dacians killed him and threw his body in the forest. The next day, St. Andrew came back to the fortress unscathed and with the Great White Wolf next to him, protecting him. The Dacians converted without a word being spoken, they were the first Dacians to convert to Christianity.

2. Satudary's Water (Sambata's Water) -> The Saturday's water is a river that drains into hell, everything that falls into that water cannot be recovered. The Saturday's water springs from the Evergreen of Life, a sort of tree of life located in Paradise. The Satudary's water was also called the Dead's water, and its patron was the Holy Saturday, who was the guardian between the world of the living and the dead. At the soruce, the Satudary's water is crystal clear but gradually gets more and more dark as it gets closer to the center of the earth, until it eventually becomes a river of fire and drains into hell.

Because of this, there is a traditional custom, that objects that cannot be given away or need to be thrown away but cannot be destroyed, usually religious items such as candle scraps, damaged icons, broken candles, are to be sent a wooden raft on a river, because all rivers drain into the Saturday's water and the objects will be sent to the other side. (It's fascinating how a society changes or advances but pieces of an old faith remain alive as costum or traditions and they blend with the current ones)

The Satudary's water surrounds the earth 9 times (like the 9 cyrcles of hell) before heading towards hell. Before going to hell, the Satuday's water passes the island of the Gentle ones, this is an island that rests the souls of those who were gentle and just in life but also lazy. Although guilty of a cardinal sin, God was softened by their kindness and left them on an island before entering hell, where the Saturday's water passes.

Every item or person thrown into the Saturday's water is lost forever to the other realm. And every river eventually drains into the Satuday's water, so don't stay to long in a river. This means, that every river represents a connection between the world of the living and the dead. On the Easter of the Gentle, the Romanians would send red eggs and sweet bread sanctified by the church on a wooden raft on a river to share them with the Gentle ones.

The Romanians would also throw in the Satuday's water: objects of a recently dead relative that they considered should go with them or old objects that were no longer of use, because those objects are no longer of use, they belong to the ancestors and have to go to the ancestors.

3. The Mother of Waters and the Father Sun -> The Mother of Waters is a female evil entity who is the patron of heavy rains. When there was continous heavy rains, the Romanians would go to a fountain and make 2 human faces out of clay. The man is the father sun while the woman is the mother of waters, the mother of waters is then buried in a similar fashon to a funeral, this way, the heavy rain would also be buried. When there was no rain in a long time, the same thing would happen except the father sun would be buried. (Proving that Romanians switched sides long before Italy)

4. The Demons in the Water -> The waters can also be sanctuaries for demons. Especially stagnant waters, lakes or ponds with turbid color and foul smell. "The one from the pond" used to be a synonim for the demon. On the other hand, clean waters did no harm and some had healing properties.

5. The Days of the Week as Demons or Angels -> The days of the week are named after angels and demons.
Monday (Luni) -> Demon, is a man and is the symbol of the beginnings and ruler of the dead together with Saturday (Sambata), it's not okay to travel on Monday, it's not okay to bury someone on monday, however it's a good day for spells, whether good or bad.
Tuesday (Marti) -> Demon, is a man and the worst of them all, the demon of misfortune, also it's not okay to travel on Tuesday, the child born on Tuesday is going to be unlucky in life, it's not okay to marry on Tuesday, the Ielele appear on Tuesday.
Wednesday (Miercuri) -> Angel, is a woman and is the angel of the sun, she takes care of animals especially the wild ones who have no caretaker, and heals the sick, it's good to do work on Wednesday, but it's not good to party on Wednesday or engage in debauchery.
Thursday (Joi) -> Angel, half-man half-woman, is the angel of duality and luck, the best days to marry or to be born are on Thursday and Sunday. It's the best day for good spells, it's the best day to clean the house.
Friday (Vineri) -> Angel, is a woman and is the protector of women, she is very old and very mercyful, women should not work on this day.
Satudary (Sambata) -> Demon, is a man, ruler of the dead together with Monday (Luni), this is the day when you should bring offerings to the dead, including sending some items on the Saturday's waters, they should be celebrated on Saturday just as we celebrate the living on their birthdays else we risk the wrath of Sambata, it's a good day for dark magic, on Saturday the worlds of the living and of the dead are connected and souls can come back to earth.
Sunday (Duminica) -> Angel, is a woman, the angel of premonition, she helps people by giving them dreams warning them of danger such as certain problems that may arise in the future, wars, diseases, so if you had a dream on Sunday it's very likely it was a warning from Duminica.

6. Iele -> Multiple hot naked women who dance on a cyrcle around a firecamp at night singing. They mostly appear Tuesday at night by moonlight, dancing Horas (traditional Romanian dance), in secluded areas such as glades, the tops of certain trees (maples, walnut trees), ponds, river sides, crossroads or abandoned fireplaces, dancing naked, with their breasts almost covered by their disheveled hair, with bells on their ankles and carrying candles. In almost all of these instances, the Iele appear to be incorporeal. Rarely, they are dressed in chain mail coats. The place where they had danced would after remain carbonized, with the grass incapable of growing on the trodden ground, and with the leaves of the surrounding trees scorched. Later, when grass would finally grow, it would have a red or dark-green color, the animals would not eat it, but instead mushrooms would thrive on it. If someone is foolish enough to come to the Iele, they abduct the victim, punishing the "guilty" one with magical spells, after which they dance around their victim, who is abducted, to disappear forever without a trace. However, in rare cases the Iele may take a liking of you, if this happen you will leave that night with super human powers.

7. Strigoi -> Evil spirits who can control the weather and weaken people. Strigoi is a Romanian word that originated from a root related to the Latin terms strix or striga. The strigoi are said to be bald on top of the head, does not eat garlic and onions, avoids incense, and towards the feast of Saint Andrew he sleeps outside. Its spine is elongated in the form of a tail, covered with hair. Strigoi were once humans, who either killed themselves or died before the time fixed by God due to various causes such as dark magic. Only the relatives of the strigoi can see his human form. They want to take revenge on humans because because of them they couldn't finish their fate. How? killing them, making them sick, making them lose their mind, making them get lost on the road, sending them in empty places or attacking them directly and violently. They are the horror of death personified.

9. Moroi -> The moroi are the souls of those children who die unbaptized, but especially of those who are made by an unmarried girl and killed or buried alive by her. These souls do not become moroi all of a sudden, but 7 years old after their death. When 7 years have been fulfilled after his birth, the child's soul cries out from the pit: "baptize! baptize!" or "cross! cross!" If someone then hears him and says the words of baptism: "Let the son or daughter of God, Ion or Mary, be baptized, in the name of the Father, amen! and in the name of the Son, amen! and in the name of the Holy Spirit, Amen! Now and forever and ever, amen!" and throws at the place from where he heard the voice, a piece of cloth, even torn from his shirt or kerchief, then the child is baptized, calms down and remains in the grave until the second coming: he is saved. And if no one hears it, then the child's soul comes out of the grave, and begins to roam the world to the misery of people, flying through the air and walking on the earth.

10. Pricolici -> Malicious, violent men are often said to become pricolici after death, in order to continue harming other humans. When a soul is so evil, so corrupted, that the demons are impressed, they send him back to life in the form of Pricolici to torment people. The pricolici si an aggressive wolf-like undead who can shapeshift is a werewolf/vampire fusion in the Romanian folklore. Similar to a vârcolac, although the latter is not undead and not necessarily evil, whereas the Pricolici always has more aggressive wolf-like and undead-like characteristics, they have the ability to transform into ordinary people or animals. And they are hungry, always hungry. Pricolici, similar to strigoi, are undead souls that have risen from the grave to harm living people. The etymology of the word is unknown; although it probably has Dacian origins.

11. Innecatii -> Remember number 4 with the demons in the water? Demons live in dark waters, tolerated, because they made a deal with Saturday (Sambata) that they will give him human soul (talking about paying your rent). Innecatii means literally "the Drowned", they are the souls of those who died by drowning, fated to haunt the places where they died until they find a replacement. They have to drown and kill someone else in the place where they died, in order to be free to die, and the victim would become an innecat, who in turn had to again look for another victim. They are the strongest when the clock reaches the hour that they died. They can take human form and leave the waters then. They often lure their pray by screaming for help that they are drowning.

7) The Issue of Vlach Personal & Family Names in the Game.

For example, Diamandy is not a Vlach name.:
View attachment 1185560
One could try: Mâtniceni, Calian, Vancu, Motorga, Sterea

From Crusader Kings III\game\common\culture\name_lists/00_south_slavic file (open with Notepad++; scroll down to Vlach)

male_names = {
Adrian Alexandru Anghel Aron Bajan Balc Barbat Basarab Bogdan Carol Ciprian Ciubar Claudiu
Corneliu Costin Damjan Dan Dragos Dumitru Emerik Florin Franjo Gavril Gheorghe Grigore Iacob
Iancu Ieremia Ilie Ioan Iorghu Iosif Iuga Janos Ladislau Latcu Laurentiu Litovoi Lucian Marin
Mihai Milos Mircea Moise Nicolaie Petre Pirvu Radovan Radu Roman Sas Seneslav Sergiu Simion
Stefan Stelian Teodor Tepes Tibor Tihomir Timotei Tudor Valentin Valeriu Vasile Veaceslav
Victor Vilhelm Vintila Vlad
}

female_names = {
Adelina Adriana Afina Alexandra Alexia Ana Anastasia Angela Arina Christina Clara Dana Ecatarina
Elena Elisabeta Emilia Eufroysina Felicia Floarea Iacoba Ioana Ionela Irina Iulia Maria Monica
Natalia Olimpia Paraschiva Petra Roxana Ruxandra Smaranda Sophia Stana Stefana Stefania Teodora
Tereza Vasilica Violeta Voica Zina
}

There is a significant amount of wrong personal names:

Damjan -> Damian
Emerik -> Emil
Franjo -> Farcas
Iorghu -> Iorgu
Janos -> Iancu
Milos -> Mihail (both Mihai and Mihail were used, but no Milos)
Petre - Petru
Seneslav - Seneslau
Veaceslav ?? (never heard of it and have a hard time pronouncing it, "eace" doesn't sound Romanian, probably Russian but nothing that was adopted into Romanian; found 2 people with this name from Republic of Moldova on Google, probably of Russian ancestry as one of them, the one on Wikipedia, seems to have Russian citizenship also. Also "vece" is an old word for "toilet" in Romanian, so I doubt anyone would name their kids "toiletslav".)
Vilhelm ?? (no way, Kaiser Wilhelm II was Romanian? joke aside, I think the Romanian Vilhelm is Victor that is already on the list)

Arina ?? -> Alina (Arina also sounds Romanian but the version I know of is Adina or Alina, maybe Arina is an older variation. Or maybe the Romanian variation for Arina is Irina. After Google; turn out Arina is very uncommon in Romania. I could find Alina as an old Romanian name but no Arina. Found an website saying that "Arina" means "peace" in Romanian, doesn't mean peace, however Alina means "to put at ease, caretaker", which is true, "a alina" means "to put at ease", to comfort someone. Dubious because Arina sounds like it could be Romanian unlike Veaceslav or Eufroysina, but maybe it's just a coincidence. Apparently is a Russian origin name that means "peace", in Russian. Dubious, I'm not excluding it as a possibility, but couldn't find anyone in Romanian history with that name. I'm going to go with Alina at least this one is confirmed).
Christina -> Cristina
Ecatarina -> Ecaterina
Eufroysina ?? (closest thing I can think of is also Ecaterina or Elisabeta but both are already on the list; Googled it, it's the name of a Saint of Kiev, translated as "Eufrosina" in Romanian, but couldn't find anyone actually called Eufroysina or Eufrosina, also doesn't sound Romanian)
Sophia -> Sofia

The ones with ?? are not Romanian names, and I can't think of no Romanian equivalent.

(Fixed/Removed wrong names & Googled medieval Romanian noble houses and checked names of the members to make sure it's a medieval name)

male_names = {
Adrian Alexandru Andrei Anghel Anton Aron Bajan Balc Bărbat Basarab Bogdan Călin Carol Cătălin Ciprian Ciubar Claudiu
Constantin Coman Cornel Corneliu Costin Daniel Damian Dan Dragoș Dumitru Emil Farcaș Florin Gabriel Gavril Gelu Gheorghe Grigore Iacob
Iancu Ieremia Ilie Ioan Iordache Iorgu Iosif Iuga Iancu Ladislau Latcu Laurentiu Lazăr Litovoi Luca Lucian Marin
Mihai Mihail Mihnea Mircea Moise Nicolaie Pavel Petru Pîrvu Radovan Radu Roman Saș Seneslau Sergiu Silviu Simion Sorin
Stan Ștefan Stelian Teodor Țepes Tibor Tihomir Timotei Tudor Valentin Valeriu Vasile
Victor Vintilă Vlad
}

female_names = {
Adelina Adriana Afina Alexandra Alexia Ana Anca Anastasia Angela Alina Cătălina Cristina Clara Dana Doina Ecaterina
Elena Elisabeta Emilia Ecaterina Felicia Floarea Iacoba Ioana Ionela Irina Iulia Maria Magdalena Marina Margareta Mihaela Monica
Natalia Nastasia Oana Olga Olimpia Paraschiva Petra Rada Roxana Ruxandra Smaranda Sofia Stana Stanca Ștefana Ștefania Teodora
Tereza Vasilica Violeta Voica Zîna
}

Looking at the dynasty names. A lot don't sound Romanian at all. I'll remake the random dynasty names list using already existing vlach noble family names from 14th-15 century:

Some are good so I'll just copy-paste what's on the left, but plenty are not. I'll color the ones changed.

dynasty_names = {
"dynn_Basarab" -> Basarab
"dynn_Dragusin" -> Dragușin
"dynn_Basarab" -> Bucur (Why is Basarab twice? replaced with Bucur)
"dynn_Litovoi" -> Litovoi
"dynn_SelimoviC_" -> Coman (Not a Vlach name, replaced with a Vlach name instead)
"dynn_CsA_ky" -> Gâlman (Not a Vlach name, replaced with a Vlach name instead)
"dynn_DezsO_fi" -> Șolda (Not a Vlach name, replaced with a Vlach name instead)
"dynn_Guthi-OrszA_gh" -> Nămescu (Not a Vlach name, replaced with a Vlach name instead, you understand when idea, whenever there is a completely different name, this is the reason)
"dynn_MarczaltO_vi" -> Mușat
"dynn_Petenye" -> Carp
"dynn_Tibai" -> Hașdeu
"dynn_ZA_ch" -> Negrești
"dynn_Szapolyai" -> Miclescu ........... (TO HERE, are diacritics or combination of letters that don't exist in Romanian.
"dynn_VA_rdai" -> Vărdai
"dynn_ProdaniC_" -> Ferești
"dynn_Odescalchi" -> Bedeu
"dynn_Costin" -> Giulești (Costin is a Romanian name but not a family name, not sure how old it is but it's likely old, however not as a family name, I'll play it safe and replace with something certain. But it is a case of could be but I'm not sure. Never heard of the Costin dynasty but I'm not excluding the possiblity of a minor house. Just checked the name lists, it's already listed as a name. So I'll replace it with Giulești which I know for sure is a Romanian dynasty name because they existed)
"dynn_BA_dA_rA_u" -> Bădărău
"dynn_BA_lA_ceanu" -> Băiăceanu
"dynn_Bosie" -> Călinesti
"dynn_BrA_iloi" -> Brăilor
"dynn_BuS_ilA_" -> Bușilă
"dynn_Calerghi" -> Sighet
"dynn_Callimachi" -> Bârsan
"dynn_Cantemir" -> Cantemir
"dynn_Carianopol" -> Bud
"dynn_Crihan" -> Rațiu
"dynn_Carionfil" -> Mărgărit
"dynn_Cristescu" -> Cristescu
"dynn_Casassovici" -> Brâncoveanu
"dynn_Cesianu" -> Ceșianu
"dynn_ChinteS_ti" -> Chintești
"dynn_Chirescu" -> Chirescu
"dynn_CoteS_ti" -> Cotești
"dynn_CraioveS_tilor" -> Craiovești (NOTE: "Craioveștilor" means "the Craiovești". Such as, if you want to say "Orasul Craiova belongs to the Craiovesti House", you say "The city Craiova apartine Craiovestilor". But the name of the house itself is Craiovești, so I cut the "lor". On the same logic I'll remove the "lor" from Dănești and Drăculești. "Brăilor" is an exception because that was their name.)
"dynn_CrA_snaru" -> Crăsnaru
"dynn_Dinastia" -> Neamț (This one was literally called "Dynasty". Prepare for Lord Lord of the dynasty Dynasty, he has a son named Son)
"dynn_DA_neS_tilor" -> Dănești
"dynn_Diamandy" -> Menumorut
"dynn_DrA_culeS_tilor" -> Drăculești
"dynn_DrugA_" -> Drugă
"dynn_Eliescu" -> Eliescu
"dynn_Emandi" -> Serețchi
"dynn_Filipescu" -> Filipescu
"dynn_Florescu" -> Florescu
"dynn_FundA_T_eni" -> Fundățeni
"dynn_Giosani" -> Gioșani (diacritics here, but didn't change the color when only the diacritics were missing)
"dynn_Golescu" -> Golescu
"dynn_GrA_diS_teanu" -> Grădișteanu
"dynn_Greceanu" -> Greceanu
"dynn_Hagi" -> Hagi (Really, house Hagi? like Gica Hagi? well, could be a nice easter egg, I like it, but if you don't like the easter egg replace it with Mâtniceni)
"dynn_HA_jdA_u" -> Hâjdău
"dynn_Jianu" -> Jianu
"dynn_Korne" -> Moga
"dynn_Lecca" -> Peșteana
"dynn_LereS_ti" -> Lerești
"dynn_Magheru" -> Magheru
"dynn_Marineanu" -> Marineanu
"dynn_Miclescu" -> Miclescu
"dynn_MovilA_" -> Movilă
"dynn_MA_nA_stireanu" -> Mănăstireanu
"dynn_Niculescu_DorobanT_u" -> Dorobanțu
"dynn_PA_cleanu" -> Păcleanu
"dynn_Pisoschi" -> Danciu
"dynn_PleS_ia" -> Pleșia
"dynn_PleS_nilA_" -> Pleșnilă
"dynn_PleS_oianu" -> Pleșoianu
"dynn_RacovitzA_" -> Racovită
"dynn_RA_S_canu" -> Râșcanu
"dynn_Rallet" -> Dejești
"dynn_Rosetti" -> Rosetti
"dynn_RusA_neS_ti" -> Rusănești
"dynn_Savoia" -> Savoia
"dynn_Stoicescu" -> Stoicescu
"dynn_S_oarec" -> Șoarec
"dynn_S_oldan" -> Șoldan
"dynn_TurbureS_ti" -> Turburești
"dynn_UrlA_T_eni" -> Urlățeni
"dynn_VidraS_cu" -> Vidrașcu
"dynn_Yarka" -> Bizereni
}

Left - old one. Right - good. Again, this was made by Googling medieval Romanian noble houses and checked names of the members. This is not bulletproof, but it's 95% better than what we already got. Consult any historian, 80% of the Romanian family names in game, are not Romanian family names.

The Cadet Dynasty names are also bad. But rather than unique names, they are copy-paste of some names from Dynasty Names, since everything in Dynasty Names was fixed and replaced, for the Cadet I would like to list some other unique names. Names for Cadet so that you won't use names that also exist in Dynasty:

- Turț
- Mocioni
- Șoldan
- Pogănești
- Lupsa
- Dejești
- Chiliman
- Borcea
- Calian
- Vancu
- Motorga
- Sterea
- Vlaicu
- Balș
- Bibescu
- Voicu
- Ghica
- Kogălniceanu
- Văcărescu

8) Vlach Dynasties Coats of Arms.

Ruling houses of Wallachia (only the first 5 are in the middle ages):
View attachment 1185562
Ruling Houses & Nobility of Moldavia:
View attachment 1185563
Other Ruling Houses:
View attachment 1185564View attachment 1185565
View attachment 1185566View attachment 1185568View attachment 1185567

I don't know much about the history but good looking coat of arms with a solid variety.

 

[mcaso]

If you want to add some additional musicians of the era you can take a look at people like Hucbald of St Amand, Adam of St Victor, Pérotin, Philippe de Vitry, Francesco Landini, Guillaume de Machaut, Guillaume Dufay or Johannes Ockeghem.

Also I think you may want to consider adding some Castilian writers like the Archpriest of Hita or Gonzalo de Berceo.

 

[KoukuraAsahi]

Will another Fourth Crusade follow the restoration of ERE?

 

[General Dz]

Hey Devs (or anyone who knows),

For this new DLC, when playing as a wanderer, can we also select landless characters to start the game? Hrolfr de Normandie, Omar Khayyam, or El Cid?

Sorry if I missed this in a previous Dev Diary.

 

[neutrondecay]

Hey Devs (or anyone who knows),

For this new DLC, when playing as a wanderer, can we also select landless characters to start the game? Hrolfr de Normandie, Omar Khayyam, or El Cid?

Sorry if I missed this in a previous Dev Diary.

You can. This has been extensively covered in the dev diaries, and I recommend actually reading them so as not to miss what is in them.

nd

 

[diiter]

Will it be finally possible to add a dynasty prefix without savegame-editing?

 

[Knight of Flours]

There are some extremely renowned and accomplished people who you should add because they were also consummate travelers and fit the theme of the adventurer expansion.
- Jean Froissart, the most famous medieval chronicler, traveled across entire Western Europe back and forth, spent much time with high nobility, his Chronicles were well regarded in his time and he led very interesting life unusual for man of the cloth
- Sava Nemanjic, later archbishop and saint, but famous for his travels as much as for his writings, went to Holy Land, was guest of Egyptian ruler etc. Itinerant holy/wise man in Serbian folklore
- Michael Scot, Scottish scholar, educated at Oxford and Paris, worked in Bologna and Toledo, served as science adviser and court astrologer to Frederick II, translated Averroes and was the greatest public intellectual of his day.
- Ramon Llull, mystic, philosopher, theologian, poet, missionary, former knight and wandering troubadour
- John Hawkwood, by far the most successful and famous medieval mercenary, Englishman who fought all across Italy and France.

 

[DespotS]

There are some extremely renowned and accomplished people who you should add because they were also consummate travelers and fit the theme of the adventurer expansion.
- Jean Froissart, the most famous medieval chronicler, traveled across entire Western Europe back and forth, spent much time with high nobility, his Chronicles were well regarded in his time and he led very interesting life unusual for man of the cloth
- Sava Nemanjic, later archbishop and saint, but famous for his travels as much as for his writings, went to Holy Land, was guest of Egyptian ruler etc. Itinerant holy/wise man in Serbian folklore
- Michael Scot, Scottish scholar, educated at Oxford and Paris, worked in Bologna and Toledo, served as science adviser and court astrologer to Frederick II, translated Averroes and was the greatest public intellectual of his day.
- Ramon Llull, mystic, philosopher, theologian, poet, missionary, former knight and wandering troubadour
- John Hawkwood, by far the most successful and famous medieval mercenary, Englishman who fought all across Italy and France.

St. Sava was mentioned before, but we're getting new start date in which he should already be born and Stefan Nemanja, his father, already rules Serbia by then

 

[Tschobo]

I am surprised that there is no Walther von der Vogelweide, Dietmar von Aist and Wolfram von Eschenbach. They were rather important in the German regions.

 

[DONGHAIZHIDABIE]

This also means that there is now a legitimate way to convert to Hellenism in-game.

I sincerely hope that there will be someday a legitimate way to convert to Roman Culture in-game.

 

[thelaughingstocky]

Hodja going to travel from city to city making jokes for people? If so, I will definitely join him hahahaha (Maybe he become a court jester later)

Travelling from city to city jestering about is about the one career choice that might suit me as well, I'd grab a costume and go viral while I'm at it .