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

[Znikii]

Let's make a compromising deal of Moldavian population makeup in 1337, which was:

• 1% Jewish,
• 2% Crimean,
• 2% Greek,
• 6% Hungarian,
• 6% German,
• 16% Slavic,
• 26% Wallachian,
• 41% Moldavian.

German concentrated in urban settlements in southern Carpathian mountains. Jews and Greeks in any urban trade center of importance. Slav in the north and south. Hungarians in western side of the mountains. Majority of Wallahs in the south-west, but with significant minority on eastern side of the mountains. Something like this:

You can see the source for most accurate Moldavian population census of 1337 (Znikii, 2024).

 

[ArVass]

Let's make a compromising deal of Moldavian population makeup in 1337, which was:

• 1% Jewish,
• 2% Crimean,
• 2% Greek,
• 6% Hungarian,
• 6% German,
• 16% Slavic,
• 26% Wallachian,
• 41% Moldavian.

German concentrated in urban settlements in southern Carpathian mountains. Jews and Greeks in any urban trade center of importance. Slav in the north and south. Hungarians in western side of the mountains. Majority of Wallahs in the south-west, but with significant minority on eastern side of the mountains. Something like this:
View attachment 1218952

You can see the source for most accurate Moldavian population census of 1337 (Znikii, 2024).

Thoroughly cursed

 

[Makkasag]

Let's make a compromising deal of Moldavian population makeup in 1337, which was:

• 1% Jewish,
• 2% Crimean,
• 2% Greek,
• 6% Hungarian,
• 6% German,
• 16% Slavic,
• 26% Wallachian,
• 41% Moldavian.

German concentrated in urban settlements in southern Carpathian mountains. Jews and Greeks in any urban trade center of importance. Slav in the north and south. Hungarians in western side of the mountains. Majority of Wallahs in the south-west, but with significant minority on eastern side of the mountains. Something like this:
View attachment 1218952

You can see the source for most accurate Moldavian population census of 1337 (Znikii, 2024).

I love it. Keep up the good work.

 

[purplephoton]

I‘m sad. Also, I do not see a lot of Moldavian villages up north, however, there are Slavic ones where you put Germans in. So I don’t understand why you claim they were second by population.

We don’t know when those villages stopped being Slavic (except probably Siret, which probably had a significant Slavic population in 1337), but we do know that there was a lot of German settlement there after 1100. Which parts should be striped Slavic and which ones German are unclear; I did it to show presence more than to show whether the Slavs or the Germans were more common

 

[Znikii]

We don’t know when those villages stopped being Slavic (except probably Siret, which probably had a significant Slavic population in 1337), but we do know that there was a lot of German settlement there after 1100. Which parts should be striped Slavic and which ones German are unclear; I did it to show presence more than to show whether the Slavs or the Germans were more common

I woudn't call few Teutonic forts build in that area as major German colonization. And besides those forts were razed by the Crimeans before the game starts, so any German left in that area is probably already on the way to Theodosia to be sold to Venetians as freshly harvested slave good.
On the other hand, southern Carpathian mountains and its mining towns received much more significant and permanent German settlement due to the sponsorship and protection of Hungarian kings.....
btw, have you maybe consider those villages could be of mixed nationality? why the blind need for monocultural settlements. They are very much ahistoric for this time period.

For more accurate data refer to my map I posted few posts above....

 

[ibvfteh]

We don’t know when those villages stopped being Slavic (except probably Siret, which probably had a significant Slavic population in 1337), but we do know that there was a lot of German settlement there after 1100. Which parts should be striped Slavic and which ones German are unclear; I did it to show presence more than to show whether the Slavs or the Germans were more common

The villages analyzed in the paper were founded in the middle of the 14th century(the author has dated all of them), there is no case for them stopping being Slavic right after their creation. And they are all clustered together. It is unreasonable to assume they all jointly have lost their identity without any evidence to back it up.

I have mentioned it in my paper breakdown:

So, I went deeper into this subject, and I found the Original source - what have I shown before was not and I apologise.
It is a detailed paper that was written by Lazar Polevoy (L. L. Polevoĭ)

The method he used was categorising names used in Slavic-Romanian sources by three groups.
Bear in mind this is my bad translation of the methodology:
1. Starting form, when the name of the village is not solidified at all. example: "village, where Negesh lives" or "village, where the house of Pitik is"
2. Changing form, where villages are using the name with the addition of the founder
3. Full form, where we have only the name of the village

then based on the cases where dates are described he formulated a pattern of date estimation of village founding. Example:
View attachment 1218057
Here is an example of calculated dates of founding the villages.

He is the accumulation of the research on the cities showing how many villages were founded at every timestep (Growth rate of number of villages)
View attachment 1218058
He also mentioned that the bigger cities were founded by the consolidation of the population around them in the start of the XIV century.

Next, he talks about the presumed population of the land


SO about migration he also has notes.
View attachment 1218065
Here are the mentions of the colonisation of southern lands by the Golden Horde, by forcing settlers.

View attachment 1218066
here are the mentions of empty lands from the Moldavian chronicle.
The author also supports this with "сказание в кратце о молдавских государях" and as I understand Chronica Hungarorum (please fact check me Hungarian speakers) contains works of Küküllei János where we have a separate volume XLIX titled: chapter How did Moldavia, which was previously depopulated, receive new inhabitants. I can not read that but I did find it

Does it say the lands were abandoned a long time ago because of Tatars? (Translation has been done by Makkasag in the next post)

Also it includes Naum Râmniceanu chronicle also includes phrases claiming Moldavia was sparse (can't find it)

Here he includes many sources to say that all propose that disorganised migration (not connected with the political stuff of Bogdan) did happen from the mountains and happened right before the Moldavian kingdom's creation
View attachment 1218085
sources like
View attachment 1218086
and others

Here, he notes that the biggest population density in the XIV century was around rivers Tazlau, Trotuș, Bistrița, Nemțișor and limited by Siret, Moldova and Suceava River., Bukovina and Codru are also highly populated. The only additions are Chilia and Bilhorod/Cetatea Albă
View attachment 1218076

He also states here that
View attachment 1218077
The repelment of Tatars created a better environment for the colonisation of lands, away from the Carpathians.

lands in question are Barlad plato, rivers Vaslui, Tutova and rivers I do not know. And with an increase of population in Moldova after XIV those areas became more leveled with the previously mentioned highly populated

The villages in this area are much more sparse and highly condensed instead of being spread out, which can indicate a recent settlement of groups of people

here is the population estimates of the entire duchy in the middle of the XIV century
View attachment 1218078

measuring the entire population to be 78 thousand people

And again we have our map where he drew his research on
View attachment 1218079

here are the locations of all the cities he looked into with the population density map in the corner.
View attachment 1218080

As a side fact which will influence how the paper is perceived autor mentioned Karl Marx in the Introduction
View attachment 1218082
Which is highly laughable but is a thing a lot of research of Soviet times does.

He also writes not Romanian but specifically Moldovian.

and the whole "we do know that there was a lot of" was fought here for 30 pages or even more.

 

[Makkasag]

What do you guys think about Societal Values from the new TT? What would the balkan countries lean towards and by how much?

 

[Inzano]

Let's make a compromising deal of Moldavian population makeup in 1337, which was:

• 1% Jewish,
• 2% Crimean,
• 2% Greek,
• 6% Hungarian,
• 6% German,
• 16% Slavic,
• 26% Wallachian,
• 41% Moldavian.

German concentrated in urban settlements in southern Carpathian mountains. Jews and Greeks in any urban trade center of importance. Slav in the north and south. Hungarians in western side of the mountains. Majority of Wallahs in the south-west, but with significant minority on eastern side of the mountains. Something like this:
View attachment 1218952

You can see the source for most accurate Moldavian population census of 1337 (Znikii, 2024).

Please, don't start a next Moldova war.

 

[Makkasag]

Please, don't start a next Moldova war

 

[Inzano]

@Znikii I see you're a little more active again. As a dear Slovenian, I have to give you a little tug on the sleeve. XD

What do you think of this proposal?
Do you have any advice on this dilemma.

 

[purplephoton]

What do you guys think about Societal Values from the new TT? What would the balkan countries lean towards and by how much?

All Balkan coutries:
Ultranationalism vs Pluralism: +99 towards ultranationalism

 

[Makkasag]

All Balkan coutries:
Ultranationalism vs Pluralism: +99 towards ultranationalism

The Habsburgs will get a permanent annoyance 500 years earlier than expected. Interesting.

But now seriously.

 

[purplephoton]

But now seriously.

Most would be in serfdom and vaguely communalist.
Hungary would probably lean slightly decentralized, spiritualist, aristocratic, defensive, land, traditional economy, outward.
Ragusa would be a hotbed of naval, capital economy, and plutocracy.
Byzantium might be conciliatory due to vassals like Morea, but that's in the future.
Serbia and Bulgaria I'm less confident on - probably spiritualist, aristocratic, belligerent, land, inward.

 

[Makkasag]

Hungary would probably lean slightly decentralized

Even under Charles I?

In general you are absolutely correct in this one, I am just not sure this is the case for the 2 Anjous.

 

[Inzano]

Most would be in serfdom and vaguely communalist.
Hungary would probably lean slightly decentralized, spiritualist, aristocratic, defensive, land, traditional economy, outward.
Ragusa would be a hotbed of naval, capital economy, and plutocracy.
Byzantium might be conciliatory due to vassals like Morea, but that's in the future.
Serbia and Bulgaria I'm less confident on - probably spiritualist, aristocratic, belligerent, land, inward.

Croatia would be spiritualist, aristocratic, land, but possible more centralized, offensive

 

[purplephoton]

Even under Charles I?

In general you are absolutely correct in this one, I am just not sure this is the case for the 2 Anjous.

That's a fair point, but also we don't know yet how rulers will influence it.

 

[Fehervari]

First quick attempt to assign societal values to Hungary:

centralization_vs_decentralization = -50
aristocracy_vs_plutocracy = -60
serfdom_vs_free_subjects = -40
traditionalist_vs_innovative = -20
spiritualist_vs_humanist = -20
mercantilism_vs_free_trade = -30
offensive_vs_defensive = -60
land_vs_naval = -60
quality_vs_quantity = 0
belligerent_vs_conciliatory = -20
capital_economy_vs_traditional_economy = 80
individualism_vs_communalism = 20
outward_vs_inward = -40​

I will need to revise this a few times, probably.

 

[Makkasag]

I wonder what countries they will put innovative at the start.

 

[purplephoton]

I wonder what countries they will put innovative at the start.

Maybe something in Western Europe, like Portugal (responsible for developing various sailing vessels shortly after the start of the game).

 

[Znikii]

@Znikii I see you're a little more active again. As a dear Slovenian, I have to give you a little tug on the sleeve. XD

What do you think of this proposal?
Do you have any advice on this dilemma.

Yeah, had to take a break for a while. And now that I have too much other work to do, I am here back again.

Yeah, I have seen it, and had quite a long thought and a bit of research on it. But it is such a complicated mess of different things I had to put it back into the closet for a while, to get more cozy with the other skeletons I've tucked away...

But since you are asking, I think this is the right time to pick it up again...

Let's start with some basics. First names are important for the Christian Church because you get baptized and thus accepted as a full member of the community by your first name.
Surnames/Family names matter for civil authorities. Why? Mostly for legal reasons, so the writing of wills and contracts is more precise.
Not surprisingly, lowborns usually didn't even have established surnames at the time. So they usually picked one—sometimes by their professions, other times from the general area where they lived. Some Slavic languages as well as Scandinavians use the father's name + -ev, -son, etc., suffix for a surname.
Due to successful Christianization and the rising power of the Church, almost all names used are of Christian-Judean origin. And as time went on, fewer and fewer Slavic/pagan names persisted. As you correctly mentioned, Slovenes lost most original surnames because we lost most of our upper echelon nobility quite early on in peasant rebellions, plus the naming tradition I will talk a bit later on erased almost all Carinthian surnames.

But first, let's maybe start with some lesser-known or not so obvious problems that we should consider:

No orthographic or grammatical rules for correct writing, let alone any kind of prescriptive, standardized, agreed-upon rules. Even Latin, with its long history and preferred language of choice for educated people, was so bad that Vulgar Latin became... whatever funny monstrosity it became. (Any people with knowledge in Old Greek/Hebrew/Sanskrit languages around that can enlighten us if they are any better at this?)
That means that even in a single language, even inside the same dialect, there could be multiple ways of how to write the same name. Phonetic orthography can be a funny and ungrateful thing. (Serbs have a funny saying about it: piši kao što govoriš—"Write as you speak.") [Apparently, the full origin of the quote is from the German theoretic Johann Christoph Adelung: "Write as you speak and read as it is written." Imagine if his approach had won, and nowadays German would have several official German languages… Austrian, Bavarian, Saxon... Hahaha, that would be funny. As I said before, Germania is just part of the Balkans)]

Secondly, it was not set in stone which language you used to write down your family name, regardless of the name's origin. So people usually used the language depending on the context and surroundings. Are we talking about a dedicated professional clerk? Then he would use Latin. Did a Slavic nobleman just move to German heartlands or get a new Hungarian overlord? Then he would either use a German or Hungarian spin on it, etc., etc.
Then you have different manuscripts and writing systems, with different scripts and alphabets in use at the same time in the same region, which is just crazy.
Just the above makes the tracking of the original family names a nightmare.

Furthermore, whenever a noble family permanently moved its main seat of power—regardless of whether this happened because of promotion, expansion, inheritance, formation of a cadet branch, or whatever the reason or the prominence of their close relatives—the noble family almost always adopted a new surname after the name of the place/castle/town of their new home seat of power. This was especially common practice in the HRE, much less so in Italy. I guess because patrician surnames that can be traced to Ancient Rome were such a huge deal, it meant as close to achieving godhood as possible without getting an inquisitorial visit...
So this lovely tradition further muddies the water for following the cultural heritage of people with all the movement.
Due to successful Christianization and the rising power of the Church, almost all names used are of Christian-Judean origin.

What I realized while studying the problem is the fact that nobility rarely wrote down their first name (in full) at all. It's almost always "Surname + seat of power." But not the kings… they almost always go by "first name + king of blabla."
And of course, so all this is not too easy, 18th-20th-century systematic Germanization efforts erased a lot. And we get things like changes/destruction of all the records, so Dukes of Carantania (regardless of whether they were Slovene or German Habsburg) are turned into Dukes of Carinthia, even if the Duchy of Carinthia hadn't even been established yet. Or Steiners become completely normal German 100% pureblooded...
At other times, we must also consider simple and honest human mistakes. Not many people were literate at the time, so whenever some clerk was writing down, mistakes happened, and he would write down whatever he heard. It's not like the other guy could even tell the difference...

So where does that leave us? And how to proceed from here...
Probably the family names of Slovene Princes of Carantania are forever lost to history. (Although the Church and the Venetians were phenomenal and very meticulous record keepers… maybe someone just needs to dig a little bit deeper...), as well as any other higher nobility that was closely connected to the Princes.
But as you said, we retained the lower nobility, which in our case lived and ruled on their lands. Nobles of German, usually Bavarian descent, mostly reigned over what was inherited/given to the ecclesiastical polities for the purpose of solidifying the frontier against the Magyars and as an outpost for further Christianization efforts… Places like Ptuj, Krško, Gorizia… while small in area, all of those places had significant economic power for centuries (tolls, bridges over rivers, mints, centers of trade—all three places are surrounded by fertile land with a good climate while also being centrally located in significant wine-growing regions, etc.).

So let us ask ourselves two questions.
First, what do you think, how different, if any, were the surnames of lower Carantanian/Slovene nobility to those of our lost higher aristocrats?
Secondly, how much different were the surnames of Slovaks, Czechs, and Croatian nobility compared to Slovenians?

...Just found out another thing doing some double-checking…
None of the early Slavic ruling nobility had surnames—not Moravians, not Croatians, not Pannonians (exceptions were in the 9th century, Přemyslids and Piasts, probably because both of those dynasties first rose to prominence in an area of significant urban development [Prague and central Poland], while the Princes of Pannonia, Carantania, Croatia, and Moravia, for example, ruled from castles). For example, Moravian princes only after several rulers adopted the family name of Mojmir, which was the first name of the father. The rest of Slavic rulers were usually just known as "first name + prince of blabla."
Moreover, I also noticed that all the names of those rulers from Poland to Croatia, including Carantania, mostly have a bunch of rather similar-sounding names... In short, first names were definitely of West Slavic origin. And unless the family lived in or very nearby a major urban settlement, they didn't have distinct surnames. "Kings, Princes of blabla" was enough.

So what would I do to improve the list?
Compile all the first and family names of Polish, Czech, Moravian, Slovak, Slovene, and Croat nobility from the 9th-13th century. And any family/name that is the same or similar in more languages, I would include in the list.
Secondly, I would compile all the geographical names in Friuli and Austria that are of Slavic etymology, then find their German translations and look for any German surname carrying the root. And include those as well.
And thirdly, a more difficult and slow but probably more fun way to find new names is to dig for old documents. I think you are wrong when you claim their names were never written down. Church records (death records, reports...), tax reports, contracts, invoices are best bets, and of course, reading scientific historiography and using it for further research (example: this one paper covering administration employed by Counts of Cilli is full of names, and a lot of them are of minor nobility). Also, mercenary work was the economic work of those minor nobles, so look for mercenary companies or major battles fought by local overlords—they always hired them. That's how the Counts of Cilli first raised their initial capital, which they smartly invested.
Ooh, and of course, bank/loan documentation. Italian bankers and merchants were great at record keeping. Did you know the archive of Venice holds intact records from Koper, and trade records go back to the early 10th century! The amounts of goods that passed through Koper at the time were staggering! And since the early 12th century, when Koper joined the republic, you can also find documents like population counts, businesses paying taxes, etc., etc.
And you can be sure the Slovene and Austrian nobles used the services of those bankers.
Or lists of abbots and bishops in Slovene churches and monasteries should also be a nice source of local names. Mayor and town councils of major urban towns (Maribor, Ptuj, Ljubljana, Kranj, and those documents listing in called ducal estete diats shoube be infomative as well. I ve read in one papaer that Counts of Ptuj were a major local nobility and participated in almost every diet called in Styria during late 13. and 14. centuy. There surely must exist such lists for duchy of carniola as well, especially when Maksimilian, or was it Ferdidnad.... cant remember the name at the momet,.... gave them special priviliges. iirc it must have been somewhere in the early parts of 15. centry....

Peter Štern, Ivan Kacianar, Melhior and Krištof Lamberg, Trojan Turjaški, Benedikt Kuripečič, Sigismund Višnjegorski, Nikolaj Thurn (Thurns, were French nobles with Italian heritage, many marriages to Austrian nobility, living in Slovenian lands with Slavic names... You see, that's why I detest the idea that aristocracy at the time had any cultural nationality).
A few surnames I quickly found that you missed—of course, there is much more to be done if we want a better list

Edit:

Spoiler: stupid AI

God, I hate when AI creates such a nice formating on the one hand and then proceed to ruin everything in my text by doing things it shouldn't!