Tinto Maps #9 Carpathia and Balkans Feedback

[EneaBako]

Reasonably, I don't think Aromanians overshadowed anyone in the Balkans. It's as Ludi said. For most of their history the Aromanians were a minority who were gradually assimilated by either the Greeks, Bulgarians, Turks and when in the 19th century a big part of them moved to Romania, by Romanians.

But they did have their small moment in history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vlachia although by 1337 that period was long gone.

Be reasonable, what mentions we have on Albanians in the region? I'm not that familiar with the region, and clearly the Albanians didn't just spawn, but I believe this is again one of those cases where the region is not very accurately documented and of course with a lot of competing claims.

I dont know why we are mentioning youtubers; when im trying to mention historical books as much as i can and due to wikipedia being based on historical books based on a variety of authors then i can say what mentions we have; again ; for reliable source im mentioning Authors from neighboor countries;
There is evidence to support the presence of Albanian-speaking populations in southern Albania, in the region around Devoll (modern-day Korça, Bilisht, Pogradec).

-Greek sources like Anna Komnena mention "Albanoi" as active in the Byzantine political sphere. - This shows that Albanians were known in the region, and the term “Albanoi” refers to the ancestors of today’s Albanians.
Regarding the language continuety;
The place names in southern Albania, including Devoll, point to a long standing Albanian or Illyrian presence. The continuity of place names (which are often linked to Albanian language and culture) supports the idea of a stable, Albanian settlement in the region.
The Vlachs were present in the region, but they were a minority and often assimilated into the larger Albanian-speaking population. It’s important to remember that during this period, the majority of the population in southern Albania was Albanian-speaking, and the Vlachs were scattered and not a dominant force in the region...
Furthermore;
In the medieval period, especially during times of political instability, many regions lacked detailed documentation like you require, and the balkans was indeed the place of political instability. However, the presence of Albanian-speaking communities is reflected in "place names" and the political influence of Albanians in Byzantine and later "Ottoman records."
There is enough evidence to suggest that Albanian-speaking populations existed in southern Albania, including the Devoll region, during the 1300-1400 period. The focus on Vlachs does not overshadow the historical Albanian presence in the area.

In additon to that we have Archaelogical studies wich will be included in this book made possible in english for you: https://www.bashkiadevoll.gov.al/wp...12/Guida-Arkeologjike-e-Devollit-Anglisht.pdf

https://www.bashkiadevoll.gov.al/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Guida-Arkeologjike-e-Devollit-Anglisht.pdf

- I am also including a picture to create and idea of the region around Devoll, (modern-day Korça, Bilisht, Pogradec).

 

[sinisa mali]

I don't fully buy the idea that the Slavs there are just direct continuation of the white croats or whoever, any such claim needs further argumentation. East Slavs were not born as Orthodox Rus people, they became so during the late 9th and mid 10th century and if the Rusyn took part in that change despite being part of Hungary it should leads us to question how that process happened.

What makes you think that only "some" Slavs came? What exact evidence is there of a continuous independent Rusyn community? Like to me I can't see how we can be sure the Rusyn community was not formed by short distance migrations from Galicia(just like Occitan spread to Catalonia and many other similar examples) during the high middle ages preceding 1337, which as you mentioned did happen.

i said some galician slavs because various people came in waves to podkarpatska from the first migrations to 1337. from vlachs, normans, various other slavs, hungarians and of course, slavs from galicia. the diversity of the groups which settled here contributed to the separation of modern rusyns from the rest of the eastern slavs, and those divides were already distinct by the 14th century, on top of the already settled white croats.

so what i want to say is, while migrations of eastern slavs from neighboring regions did play a part in solidifying slavic identity amongst rusyns, they were still just one of the many diverse influences on the rusyn people, and by 1337, this melting pot of cultures separated by geography and politics, was distinct enough to be different from other eastern slavic cultures. and as i said, only the confusing nature surrounding the names of eastern slavs throughout history is the reason why this problem even exists.

 

[Wildrake]

South Slavic influence being more pervasive is a given. Considering that during the slavic migration those that had first contact with Romanians were the would be South Slavs. South Slavs is what made the Daco-Romans from Dacian + Roman to Dacian + Roman + Slavic.

View attachment 1222687

This is rather speculative. Even if Moldavian doesn't have loanwords from East Slavic before 1100, it doesn't say anything about the location. They may as well have made contact on the Dniester river in 1100.

It is also possible that the loanword could have been taken at a later date in 1300 or 1400. As what the text seems to say is that they were/were still neighbours when the change happened in East Slavic in 1100.

Do we have evidence of the Romanian-Ruthenian border at Dniester in 1100?
Chronicle "The tale of Igor's campaign" says that Galician ruler Jaroslav Osmomyls during war with Cumans "reached Ugrian mountains (Carpathians)" and "locked Danubian gates" in 1185.
Kyiv chronicle of Hypatean chronicle complex says that Ivan Rostyslavich in 1158 with help from Cumans "took Danubian cities, seized a lot of goods, two ships and harmed Galician fishermen".
Even from the previous discussion about Alcedar-Echimauti archaeology, a lot of scholars agree that it is a Tivertsian settlement with some arguing about mixed Slavic-Romanian nature.
The more concrete mentions of Vlachs in Moldova are the one referencing Vlachs of Cumanian bishopric in 1230s and the unknown mountainous country "Qara-Ulag" in 1241 which was invaded by Mongols from Bugeac. From this, it is rather likely to conclude that before 13th century Romanians in Moldova lived mostly between Pruth and Carpathians. I am not gonna argue about the ethnic affiliation of Berladnics, Brodnics or Bolokhovians because we don't know anything about them.

On top of that, this Polish source by Jan Dlugosz (1415-1480) claims next on page 1121:
Stephano Moldauiae Voievodae, apud Valachos mortuo, quorum maiores & aboriginarii de Italiae Regno pulsi (genus & natio Volscorum esse suisseque
creduntur). veteribus Dominis & colonis Ruthenis, primum subdole, deinde
abundante in dies multitudine, per violentiam expulsis, illam occuparunt,
in Ruthenorumque ritus & mores, quo facilior proveniret occupatio,
Which can be translated as:
Stephen, Voivode of Moldavia, died among the Vlachs, whose ancestors and natives were driven from the Kingdom of Italy (they are believed to be from Volscii). The old Lords and colonists of Ruthenia, first by cunning, then with an increasing number of people, having driven them out by violence, they took possession of it, the rites and manners of the Ruthenians, in order that the conquest might be more easily effected

This bit might indicate that Romanians took control of Moldavia by driving the Ruthenians population out.

And as you pointed out, in what ways were 1000 East and South Slavic different in 1000 CE? can we confidently say that we are able to tell what is South Slavic influence and East Slavic influence in regards to language before the [h]>[g] change in East Slavic?

Well, for example, from chronicles. Eastern Slavs called Romance-speakers "Volohs", Nestor Chronicler refers by this name to both French and Romanians, while South Slavs use "Vlah".

 

[Ronin Szaky]

When did the Rusyn community emerge? I'm not a big fan of "mountains = separation" because Rusyn live on both sides of the Carpathians technically, even if most live on the Pannonian side.

The common sense logic of "mountains are barriers" fails for groups like the Arpitans/Occitans on the Alps, Germans in the Alps, Romanians, Ossetians etc.

Upon looking into some sources, this is what I found about the origin of the term:

"From the 10th century onwards, Kievan Rus was referred to in Latin sources as Ruscia or Ruthenia, derived from the word Rus, and its inhabitants were called Ruthenians or Russians (Rutheni-Russi)." [Page 41]

"In the predominantly Latin-language sources of the 14th century, the Eastern Slavs living in the southwestern territories of the former Kievan Rus were called “Rutheni” or “Russi” and their lands were called “Rus-lands” or “Ukrainian” territories, the latter of which in the contemporary interpretation actually meant the border or ends." [Page 63]
"It is also important to highlight that the term "Rusyn" appeared relatively late, at the beginning of the 16th century, and only sporadically in some sources." [Page 64]

And how they arrived to the Kingdom of Hungary:

"The Ruthenians first appeared on the Hungarian side of the Northeastern Carpathians in 1254 on the border of Leszna and Csemernye (both in Zemplén County). István Szabó assumes that the Ruthenian people began to migrate to the mountainous region of the Forest Carpathians around the turn of the 12th-13th centuries." [Page 28]

"The Ruthenians first appeared in Máramaros in the middle of the 14th century. They first settled a valley section close to the mouth of the right tributaries of the Tisza." [Page 28]

"Ruthenians settled in large numbers under the leadership of the Lithuanian prince of Podolia, Todor Korjatovics, at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries in the territory granted by King Sigismund of Luxembourg, in a part of Transcarpathia that cannot be precisely localized. Some authors date the settlement to 1365, but do not provide evidence for this." [Page 29]

Some additional population data from the 15th century when the Hungarian % was the highest in history:
"The population of the former counties of today's Transcarpathia in 1495 was 75,685 inhabitants in 21 cities and 592 villages in the four counties. According to ethnicity, he established the following proportions: Hungarian 51,900 (69%), Ruthenian 12,600 (16.8%), Slovak 5,300 (7.0%), Romanian 5,680 (7.5%)." [Page 29]


Frankly, I am more confused than I was before reading all this.

1. Wouldn't the points above suggest that calling them Ruthenians would be more correct? Or is that what Halychian is supposed to represent?
2. If the Ruthenian migration started slowly near the border around 12-13th centuries, does that already make them a distinct culture by the start date?
3. Also, if the major settlements only happened later, does that mean that they are actually overrepresented in the region?

 

[Zerodv]

Upon looking into some sources, this is what I found about the origin of the term:

"From the 10th century onwards, Kievan Rus was referred to in Latin sources as Ruscia or Ruthenia, derived from the word Rus, and its inhabitants were called Ruthenians or Russians (Rutheni-Russi)." [Page 41]

"In the predominantly Latin-language sources of the 14th century, the Eastern Slavs living in the southwestern territories of the former Kievan Rus were called “Rutheni” or “Russi” and their lands were called “Rus-lands” or “Ukrainian” territories, the latter of which in the contemporary interpretation actually meant the border or ends." [Page 63]
"It is also important to highlight that the term "Rusyn" appeared relatively late, at the beginning of the 16th century, and only sporadically in some sources." [Page 64]

And how they arrived to the Kingdom of Hungary:

"The Ruthenians first appeared on the Hungarian side of the Northeastern Carpathians in 1254 on the border of Leszna and Csemernye (both in Zemplén County). István Szabó assumes that the Ruthenian people began to migrate to the mountainous region of the Forest Carpathians around the turn of the 12th-13th centuries." [Page 28]

"The Ruthenians first appeared in Máramaros in the middle of the 14th century. They first settled a valley section close to the mouth of the right tributaries of the Tisza." [Page 28]

"Ruthenians settled in large numbers under the leadership of the Lithuanian prince of Podolia, Todor Korjatovics, at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries in the territory granted by King Sigismund of Luxembourg, in a part of Transcarpathia that cannot be precisely localized. Some authors date the settlement to 1365, but do not provide evidence for this." [Page 29]

Some additional population data from the 15th century when the Hungarian % was the highest in history:
"The population of the former counties of today's Transcarpathia in 1495 was 75,685 inhabitants in 21 cities and 592 villages in the four counties. According to ethnicity, he established the following proportions: Hungarian 51,900 (69%), Ruthenian 12,600 (16.8%), Slovak 5,300 (7.0%), Romanian 5,680 (7.5%)." [Page 29]


Frankly, I am more confused than I was before reading all this.

1. Wouldn't the points above suggest that calling them Ruthenians would be more correct? Or is that what Halychian is supposed to represent?
2. If the Ruthenian migration started slowly near the border around 12-13th centuries, does that already make them a distinct culture by the start date?
3. Also, if the major settlements only happened later, does that mean that they are actually overrepresented in the region?

1. All East Slavic cultures are Rus/Ruthenian/Rus-whatever, the etymology is the same. They are just Orthodox East Slavs, they are split in so many cultures because that's tinto design philosophy(in most of Europe anyway...)
3. Not necessarily, it could just have been thinly populated, not every place a Romanian/Ukrainian/German settled was Hungarian/West Slavic before. The pattern of settlement of these people was mainly settling less ueed regions, Germans had their own plough and agricultural techniqued as well as urban expertise, Carpatho Ukrainians and Romanian mastered the lesser used rugged terrain

 

[Markus111111]

Map is good but there should be more Croatian culture in slavonia and bosnia. Also Spalato should be a very good natural harbor like Ragusa

 

[Markus111111]

Bosnia should definitely have more Croatian culture considering the northern and western sections of the region were controlled by Croatia or Croatian lords from the 700s to the 1322 (Battle of Bliska) which saw the end of the Šubić Bribirski line's dominance over Bosnia. 1322 was only like 15 years before the start date of this project, so it would make sense...



View attachment 1222714

Yeah, Slavonia and Bosnia should be more Croatian culture. Spalato should also be a very good natural harbor like Ragusa

 

[EneaBako]

To maintain historical accuracy, I recommend revising the representation of southern Albania to emphasize the predominance of Albanians in the region during this time. The inclusion of Aromanians is understandable as a migratory or secondary group, but their cultural dominance in southern Albania is historically unsubstantiated for the 1300-1400s.

I hope this feedback helps in improving the map’s accuracy and historical representation. Thank you for considering this perspective, and I’m happy to provide references or discuss further if needed.

Best regards,
Enea

 

[lildaddy]

I was thinking more

View attachment 1221428 16 / 81 / 113 for naples

View attachment 1221429 then again i would personally like BYZ to be closer to 82 / 36 / 95 in shading

Perfection!!!

 

[Fehervari]

It looks like the devs relied quite a bit on Hungary's pre-WW1 municipalities map, specifically this one:

It's a pretty good base approach overall (I also used it), but I think they might have overdid it a bit. This map certainly shouldn't be relied on for location names, for example. Hungary's settlement structure went through a very significant transformation between the 14th and early 20th centuries. From this pov, the worst offenders are Károlyváros(Karlovac) and Újvidék(Novi Sad).

 

[Albchannel]

I read about dynamic names and I think these should be included, mentioned in tax records and used by people of interest.
Aleksander Andrea Anton Arianit Bardhan Bua Dash Ded Dep Dhimitër Dod Engjëll Fisnik Frang Gjergj Gjin Gjik Gjon Gojk Grigor_Gregory Golem_William Jakub_Jacob Karl Koj Kol Kostandin_Constantine Lek Llesh Losh Lul Mark Mhill Mirdit Moisi Muriq Murr Naum Ndue Ndokë Pal Pjetër_Peter Prek Prel Premal Progon Pëllumb Tanush Teodor Ulk Vladan Zamrak Zenebish Zojz Zotomadh and more
By dynamic I guess (unlike another game) christian Albanians won't get a christian heir named Xhemal, and vice versa, so muslim names for Albanians if they convert should include Zognush, Abdyl, Sami, Naim, Jakup, Sulejman, Ahmet, Behar, Ramadan, Bajram, Mustafë. Esat. Mit'hat, Rexhep, Çaush, Kasëm, Hamza (these names mentioned by Chelebi or influental muslim Albanians)

 

[Pavel.czv]

It is funny to see how flat they made Slovakia when you know that it has the highest peak of all of the Carpathians.

Low Tatras? Never heard of them! Must be some hills and flatlands.

Also Scottland has more mountainous locations (8) than Slovakia (5 + 2 plateaus).

 

[Dechoh.no]

Part 1: It won't let me post it all in one, the rest is below

I never got to posting a reply on the original Balkan Tinto Maps, but I'm surprised a lot of what I was going to recommend you guys already did. Here are my remaining recommendations.

I'm not from the region but I work every summer in Archaeology in North Macedonia and am somewhat familiar with the area and its history.

Province Names:
- Upper Macedonia is fine (although historically the locations of Florina, Bitola, and maybe even Ohrid were part of it)
- Central Macedonia should be called Lower Macedonia. This is the historical location of Lower Macedonia partially in reference to the downstream flow of the Haliacmon and Loudias Rivers.
- Lower Macedonia should NOT be called Lower Macedonia, its an inaccurate description of its location. Historically this area has never been called Lower Macedonia as the area around Veria, Edessa, Giannitsa, and Thessoloniki has always held that name. It's name should be Eastern Macedonia, or something like that.
- Prilep is a fine name but I think the term Pelagonia would be a better name as it accurately encompases most of the provinces (Prilep, Bitola, Florina, and maybe Kicevo). It is also a contemporary name with the time period.

 

[Dechoh.no]

Part 2:

Location Borders/Wastelands:
- It should NOT be possible to cross from Edessa to Prosek. You should have to go to Giannitsa First, as there are the Niedza/Voras Mountains in the way. This would also more accurately depict the importance of the fortress Prosek.
- It should NOT be possible to cross from Bitola to Prosek do to the ruggedness of the Mariovo region, you should have to cross to the location of Prilep first. This shows the importance of the fortress and pass near Prilep in defending the whole Pelagonia plain from invasions from the East. Prilep location should be the only location where it is possible to move into Prilep/Pelagonia Province from the East, with only Prilep bordering both Prosek and Veles.
- This can be done 2 ways, firstly by extending the wasteland to the southeast of Bitola north with a little arm, or secondly by extending Prilep Location to the Eastern section of Bitola location like in the current boundries of Prilep Municipality in modern times.
- Kitsabis should NOT border Skopje. Kitsabis (modern Kicevo) doesn't even have modern road (not even a dirt road) that goes from Kicevo to Skopje which avoids the Polog valley. the Polog valley is the same as the location of Tetovo. So to go from Kitsabis to Skopje you should have to go through Tetovo location.
- The importance of the Vale (Pass) of Tempe and the fortress of Platamon at the location of Stomio is completely not represented in this map. Stomio should either be extended north of the wasteland south so that Hatera location does not border Tyrnavos. In my opinion Stomio should also not border Demitrios as the coastline there is very mountainous and has no modern roads traversing it. To my knowledge there is also no record of an army ever crossing down the coast instead of going inland to Larissa first.

 

[Dechoh.no]

Part 3: It wont let me post source links so sorry about that

Additional Locations:

- Prespa
- Names: Greek: Prespa - Slavic: Prespa
- Subtropical (or Oceanic)
- Forest
- Mountains
- Materials: Fruit of Fish (Major Producer of Apples) (Unique Species of Trout [Prespa Trout])
- Culture: Bulgarian (Greek Minority?)
- Religion: Orthodox and Bogomils
- Borders Ohrid, Devol, Kastoria, Florina, Bitola, (Krushevo/Demir Hisar if Exists)
- My Case:
- In terms of Movement Prespa is remote, and being part of Ohrid does not make sense, as it would be quickest to travel from Ohrid to the south through Devol then Kastoria, showing the importance of the Tsangon/Cangonj Pass Between Devol and Kastoria, which is the site of major battles and Maneuvers from Alexander the Great's Battle of Pelium, Consul Sulpicius Galba's Route during the 2nd Macedonian War, and even the 1940 Italian Invasion of Greece.
- Prespa is also a major Religious center and town during the Byzantine and Slavic periods. Not only is it the proposed center of the Bogomilic movement outlined in the link above, but it is also the site of major Byzantine towns, Churches, and Monestaries. So many that some churches are already UNESCO World Heritage Sites and the whole region around the Lakes is on the Tentative List to become a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
- Prespa has churches from the 12th century, including the St George Kurbinovo Church (A UNESCO world heritage site), which depict the earliest renaissance styles known to exist. Many call the the precurser to the renaissance or the byzantine birth of it. - (Angeliki Lymberopoulou, Rembrandt Duits (2013)) - “According to some scientists, we can see the first signs of the pre-Renaissance period which we can see in the expression of the saints [but] also in their dresses,” explains Olivera Makrievska from the Institute for the Protection of Monuments-Museum Bitola. Although from 1191, an event about this Precursor to the renaissance would be very cool.
- The Capital of the First Bulgarian Empire in the 10th Century under Cometopuls was located on the shores of Lake Prespa.
- Overall Lake Prespa has had a variety of towns, most just called Prespa, which have been at the center of political empires and widespread cultural and religious life, and I beleive it deserves its own province. I do understand the graphical limitations with there being a big lake in the middle of the province however. Extending the province to the entirety of the Prespa basin (thin strips around the lake as well as a large chnk of territory to the north around modern Resen might be the best way to go about it.

- Aitoliko
- Names: Greek: Aitoliko - Latin Languages: Anatoliko
- Mediterranean
- Grasslands
- Marsh
- Materials: Salt
- Culture: Greek
- Religion: Orthodox
- Borders: Vonitsa, Angelokastro, Nafpaktos
- My Case:
- Angelokastro currently is a large province and represents modern Agrinio, which is rather far from the coast, so it could accommodate Aitoliko.
- Aitoliko started its development as a town in the 12th century based around a byzantine fortress.
- The town was Sold to the Venetians between 1406 and 1430 and was used as a fortress and producer of salt from the salt flats.
- Overall I think dding this province would visually look better and also add another port province for the Venetians to take.

Other Locations that I don't have time to make cases for are:

- Kozani
- Krushevo/Demir Hisar (Heart of multiple rebellions against the Ottomans)
- Herakleia (Modern Marmara Ereglisi)
- Some Location Encompasing the south of Thessoloniki Location
- Ormylia/Agios Nikoloas/Nikiti/Something on the Sithonia Pennensula
- Photice (Epirus)
- Maybe Stagoi/Kalabaka to represent Meteora

Also will the player be able to rename locations like in eu4? I would love to have that option.

 

[Perth1800]

I don’t think it makes sense to have Croatian pops in Bosnia without also having Serbian pops as well since now it is unclear what the Bosnian culture actually represents as there are pops of Bosnian and Croatian culture living in the same locations in Bosnia which implies that the Bosnian culture is not representing a regional identity (which was implied in previous posts) but an ethnicity. The provinces of hum and podrinje should therefore be Serbian as these areas were integrated into Bosnia not too long before the start date and to this day eastern Hercegovina in mostly Serbian. At the very least I think the locations which are predominantly orthodox should be Serbian.

 

[ibvfteh]

Do we have evidence of the Romanian-Ruthenian border at Dniester in 1100?
Chronicle "The tale of Igor's campaign" says that Galician ruler Jaroslav Osmomyls during war with Cumans "reached Ugrian mountains (Carpathians)" and "locked Danubian gates" in 1185.
Kyiv chronicle of Hypatean chronicle complex says that Ivan Rostyslavich in 1158 with help from Cumans "took Danubian cities, seized a lot of goods, two ships and harmed Galician fishermen".
Even from the previous discussion about Alcedar-Echimauti archaeology, a lot of scholars agree that it is a Tivertsian settlement with some arguing about mixed Slavic-Romanian nature.
The more concrete mentions of Vlachs in Moldova are the one referencing Vlachs of Cumanian bishopric in 1230s and the unknown mountainous country "Qara-Ulag" in 1241 which was invaded by Mongols from Bugeac. From this, it is rather likely to conclude that before 13th century Romanians in Moldova lived mostly between Pruth and Carpathians. I am not gonna argue about the ethnic affiliation of Berladnics, Brodnics or Bolokhovians because we don't know anything about them.

On top of that, this Polish source by Jan Dlugosz (1415-1480) claims next on page 1122:
Stephano Moldauiae Voievodae, apud Valachos mortuo, quorum maiores & aboriginarii de Italiae Regno pulsi (genus & natio Volscorum esse suisseque
creduntur). veteribus Dominis & colonis Ruthenis, primum subdole, deinde
abundante in dies multitudine, per violentiam expulsis, illam occuparunt,
in Ruthenorumque ritus & mores, quo facilior proveniret occupatio,
Which can be translated as:
Stephen, Voivode of Moldavia, died among the Vlachs, whose ancestors and natives were driven from the Kingdom of Italy (they are believed to be from Volscii). The old Lords and colonists of Ruthenia, first by cunning, then with an increasing number of people, having driven them out by violence, they took possession of it, the rites and manners of the Ruthenians, in order that the conquest might be more easily effected

This bit might indicate that Romanians took control of Moldavia by driving the Ruthenians population out.

Can I take your points for my post earlier? (I will add it to the rest)

 

[Silverbow]

And how they arrived to the Kingdom of Hungary:

"The Ruthenians first appeared on the Hungarian side of the Northeastern Carpathians in 1254 on the border of Leszna and Csemernye (both in Zemplén County). István Szabó assumes that the Ruthenian people began to migrate to the mountainous region of the Forest Carpathians around the turn of the 12th-13th centuries." [Page 28]

"The Ruthenians first appeared in Máramaros in the middle of the 14th century. They first settled a valley section close to the mouth of the right tributaries of the Tisza." [Page 28]

So who exactly do you think lived in the area before Hungarian conquest?

 

[Árpád Álmosfi]

So who exactly do you think lived in the area before Hungarian conquest?

The White Croats, but they either assimilated ot died out

 

[cumaethor]

The White Croats, but they either assimilated ot died out

Yeah. They really should be represented a little either as White Croats or Pannonian Slavs or Pannonians. Around lake Balaton in location Zalavár. Just few hundred. Should they be in south or west group?