Tinto Flavour #9 - 7th of March 2025 - Hungary

[Materloo]

Hopefully they will change

 

[Materloo]

My main problem is that some of the minor, easy-to-fix but still very jarring errors haven't really been addressed; this includes correcting the typo in Szatmár and Fejér, renaming "Eger" province to Heves, moving the location of Zenta to the province of Bácska (Bács), some minor location names to be fixed, Carpathian terrain fix etc.

It leaves a sour aftertaste because it's otherwise very great, and these would take minimal effort to correct imo

I understand that a development team can’t cover every region in full depth, but I believe Paradox really needs to hire - or at least consult with - historians who specialize in different time periods and specific countries. I know this could lead to disagreements - like the debate about whether Charlemagne (Karl the Great) was French or German - especially in complex regions such as the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin.


It’s difficult to stay fully objective in a strategy game that creates alternate history timelines, but honestly, I’m growing tired of how Hungarian history is consistently underrepresented. I’m not even talking about missing mission trees, unit models, or cosmetic content - I mean the deeper issue of how Hungary's history is shaped in the gaming industry by non-Hungarian historians.


For example, the supposed figure of a 56% Hungarian majority in some regions. I have no idea how the developers came up with that number or the other demographic data, but I highly doubt they read any Hungarian history books or spoke to a Hungarian historian. Unfortunately, this feeds into an ongoing “history war” where Slovak, Serbian, Ukrainian, and Romanian historiographies often push the narrative that Hungarians were always a minority, or that they never went over 60% of the population - which is simply not true.

It’s also frustrating that players unfamiliar with Hungary’s history will accept these distorted and biased representations at face value. They’ll experience the country through a non-Hungarian lens, which is not only inaccurate but often anti-Hungarian in tone.

There are also deeply ingrained issues in how neighboring countries frame Hungarian history. For instance, Slovakia refers to the Kingdom of Hungary as "Uhorsko" and calls present-day Hungary "Maďarsko," as if modern Hungary were not the legal and cultural successor to the medieval Kingdom. Similarly, in Romanian historiography, it's often taught that the Kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist after the Battle of Mohács in 1526, and only reappeared on the map in 1921. That’s not accurate - while Hungary was part of the Habsburg Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary still existed as a legal and administrative entity. Meanwhile, the Kingdom of Bohemia was abolished after the defenestration, was incorporated to the "Habsburgische Erblande" and its name became merely a ceremonial title, like the "Kingdom of Rama" or "Kingdom of Jerusalem."

My favorit one is that "Ukranians" are tend to claim the "Transcarpathia was always an Ukranian land", first - the "Kievan Rus" has ruled the territory before the Hungarians, and then - since Ukraine never existed during the medieval ages -, ukranians see the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia as the "Medieval Ukranie". And they claim the Leo - king of Galicia-Volhynia has annexed the territory to his Kingdom because some of the sources do mention him in the region, and you can find the 13-14th century maps of Ukraine as Transcarpathia was part of Galicia-Volhynia. Yet this is something i have never heard from Hungarian history, that we would've lost those territories to the "ukranians". So I did a little bit of research, and this case has been closed by many Hungarian historians, like Engel, Kristó etc. and i did edited the English wiki due this research, as the english wiki claimed, that Leo indeed annexed the territory - lol.

"At the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th century, during the collapse of the central power in the Kingdom of Hungary, the region was part of the domains of semi-independent oligarchs Amadeus Aba and Nicholas Pok. Although King Leo I of Galicia–Volhynia (Lev Danylovych) attempted to extend his influence over parts of the Carpathian region during the late 13th century, there is no reliable historical evidence that north-western Carpathian Ruthenia was permanently annexed to his kingdom.[18] Contemporary Hungarian royal charters from the period confirm that the region — including key fortresses like Huszt and Munkács — remained under the control of the Kingdom of Hungary.[19]

Historians such as Gyula Kristó and Pál Engel agree that Leo's interventions were temporary and opportunistic, taking advantage of internal conflicts within Hungary, but they did not lead to lasting occupation.

Thus, the claim that north-western Carpathian Ruthenia belonged to the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia between 1280 and 1320 is not supported by primary sources or mainstream historical scholarship.[20]"

It’s exhausting having to constantly debate people from these neighboring countries who try to lecture Hungarians on the Hungarian history lol. Just because their voices are louder, or they are more in number, and their narratives are repeated in mainstream and English-language sources, doesn’t make them inherently more accurate. Unfortunately, this often means Paradox developers simply accept these versions as fact - especially when they appear on English Wikipedia or in widely available books. - but i doubt that they do deep researches on specific topic, and I don't even expect to do so. Wiki can be a good source sometimes, but the english one is also edited by everyone.

What’s being overlooked is that the Middle Ages have been studied since the 19th century, long before the rise of modern nationalism. Hungarian historiography from that era relied on documented sources, not nationalistic sentiment. Many of these primary documents are still housed in Hungary or Vienna, and they’ve been rigorously studied by Hungarian historians. What’s more, these written sources often align with archaeological evidence. This isn’t just invented history. Archaeology is essential to understanding eras where records are scarce - such as the Mongol invasion, or the Hunnic and late/post-Roman periods in the Carpathian Basin.

 

[Materloo]

 

[Zbbts]

I wonder how many székely people are in the country (they are the first one not seen written next to the pie chart, looks a little bit less than half of the serbian population-around 100k max). I have no research about this, and I am no expert at all, but I would've imagined them to be a bit more in numbers. Counting them to the hungarian population and excluding the croatian population would make the 56% figure to a 63,7% (2,257+0,1 million out of 4,04-0,34 million pops). Which is still quite thin. Some people argued that serbians were not settled in southern Hungary in great numbers at the time, flipping those pops (5,53%) would be still short to ramp up the numbers to 70%, which are the lower estimates btw. Even with some compromise on top of this (cumans and jassic people will assimiliate just like they did in real life so let's count them in), some changes are needed from what we see now.

 

[Makkasag]

Now that I think about, is 4 million correct? Isn't that a bit much? Or the number I am thinking of will be after the black plague?

I wonder how many székely people are in the country

Kubinyi puts it beetwen 76 000 and 86 000 in 1495. How much should that be in 1337, I really have no idea.

 

[Zbbts]

Now that I think about, is 4 million correct? Isn't that a bit much? Or the number I am thinking of will be after the black plague?

Best I can do is to summon wikipedia on this (sorry). Seems like 4 million is halfway through the two sources. On the other hand, that means half the country died from the plague, which seems kind of extreme. (and the 3 million are the hungarian sources, while the 5 million is not). Actually the 2,2 million hungarians in-game with 3 million population would fit well with the 70-80% ratio.

Edit: One thought I had after posting this. Maybe the devs added more pops pre-emptively based on the nationalities that moved in the country later than the start date so they don't have to simulate this migration later? Sounds silly but this is what comes to mind for me if this pop ratio is thought-out and intentional.

Kubinyi puts it beetwen 76 000 and 86 000 in 1495. How much should that be in 1337, I really have no idea.

Thanks. Then their number is probably correct and less than my guess was (I was just guessing based on the pie/circle chart, but it's hard to guess based on that).

 

[Uskok]

First of all i would like to thank everyone at the studio for the excellent work in presenting history and translating it into the game. hard work but the result in my opinion will be superb.

I would have one suggestion regarding the territory under hungarian rule.

1308–1310 – Charles I Robert (Anjou) gains control of Hungary → Gradual recognition of his authority by Slavonian nobles.
1322 – Ivan Babonić recognizes the authority of King Charles I → Practically rules a large part of Slavonia as a ban, with increasing independence.
1340s – Babonić's power weakens, Frankopans and other nobles strengthen → Slavonia becomes more and more integrated into the Croatian banal system of government, less under the direct influence of Buda.
1364 – Louis I of Anjou formally abolishes the separate Slavonian banate → From then on, Slavonia is governed by the same government as Croatia and Dalmatia – a unified banal administration.

I believe that Banska Slavonia should be shown on the map with a greater degree of integration and a later event that both banovinas (Croatia and Slavonia) unite. Since that is how it was throughout history.

 

[koreanjesus218]

First of all i would like to thank everyone at the studio for the excellent work in presenting history and translating it into the game. hard work but the result in my opinion will be superb.

I would have one suggestion regarding the territory under hungarian rule.

1308–1310 – Charles I Robert (Anjou) gains control of Hungary → Gradual recognition of his authority by Slavonian nobles.
1322 – Ivan Babonić recognizes the authority of King Charles I → Practically rules a large part of Slavonia as a ban, with increasing independence.
1340s – Babonić's power weakens, Frankopans and other nobles strengthen → Slavonia becomes more and more integrated into the Croatian banal system of government, less under the direct influence of Buda.
1364 – Louis I of Anjou formally abolishes the separate Slavonian banate → From then on, Slavonia is governed by the same government as Croatia and Dalmatia – a unified banal administration.

I believe that Banska Slavonia should be shown on the map with a greater degree of integration and a later event that both banovinas (Croatia and Slavonia) unite. Since that is how it was throughout history.

I'm no expert on Slavonia, but where do those dates come from? As far as I'm aware:

1322 - Wasn't Ivan dismissed as ban in 1322, and replaced by someone from the Gutkeled clan? Not exactly a move towards Slavonian independence
1340s - By this point, for decades, and a century to come, pretty much all bans were Hungarian nobles, weren't they?
1364 - This is the one I couldn't find a source for at all, as everywhere I read, the banates were merged in 1476.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if I messed up somewhere, but from what I know, the ban of Slavonia was still very much an office, not a title for a bit longer than 30 years after game start. I personally wouldn't be against portraying the offices tied to land as seperate tags, due to their historical importance in giving rise to many of the most influential noble families, but I'm not sure it would be very consistent.

 

[Uskok]

I'm no expert on Slavonia, but where do those dates come from? As far as I'm aware:

1322 - Wasn't Ivan dismissed as ban in 1322, and replaced by someone from the Gutkeled clan? Not exactly a move towards Slavonian independence
1340s - By this point, for decades, and a century to come, pretty much all bans were Hungarian nobles, weren't they?
1364 - This is the one I couldn't find a source for at all, as everywhere I read, the banates were merged in 1476.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if I messed up somewhere, but from what I know, the ban of Slavonia was still very much an office, not a title for a bit longer than 30 years after game start. I personally wouldn't be against portraying the offices tied to land as seperate tags, due to their historical importance in giving rise to many of the most influential noble families, but I'm not sure it would be very consistent.

It is true that in the area of the Banate of Slavonia the influence of the Hungarian king is stronger than in the Croatian Banate. since 1325 the Banates have been changing, at first only Hungarians and then also Croats. there is a book Croatian Banates by Viktor Živčić.
Therefore i think that the Banate of Slavonia should be shown in the game but only with a greater degree of integration (the office of the Banate of Slavonia was based on the territory of the Banate of Slavonia which he governed) than the Banate of Croatia which was more distant from Hungary.

Short list of Banates (among the Hungarians there are also Croats):
• Ivan Babonić 1316. - 1322. (Although he was removed from his position as Ban, he still had great influence in the area of Slavonia due to the large estates held by the Babonićs)
• Nikola Omodejev 1322. - 1324.
• Mikac Mihaljević 1325. - 1343.
• Nikola Bánffy 1343. - 1345.
• Leustahije Ratold 1356. - 1361.
• Stjepan Kaniški 1362. - 1366.
• Nikola Széchy 1366. - 1368.
• Petar Cudar 1368. - 1380.
• Stjepan i Ivan Bánffy 1381. - 1385.
• Ladislav od Lučenca 1387. - 1389.
• Detrik Bubek 1389. - 1392.
• Ladislav Petrov 1392.
• Detrik Bubek 1394. - 1397.
• Pavao Čupor 1412. - 1415.
• David Lacković 1416. - 1418.
• Dionizije Marcali 1419. - 1421.
• Herman Celjski 1423. - 1435.
• Matko Talovac 1436. - 1444.

I think we can agree that the Ban of Slavonia, regardless of whether he was Croat or Hungarian, ruled the area of Ban Slavonia and as such should be shown on the map, but with a slightly greater degree of integration compared to the neighboring Croatian banovina.

P.S. attached is the book Banovi in Croatian, but it is in Croatian, so it can be translated if someone wants

 

[ArVass]

View attachment 1294417View attachment 1294418

It appears that they have recoloured Orthodox (a welcome change), but it appears that Transylvanian Romanian and Transylvanian Saxon still have way too similar colours. One of them desperately needs a new colour.

 

[ArVass]

It is true that in the area of the Banate of Slavonia the influence of the Hungarian king is stronger than in the Croatian Banate. since 1325 the Banates have been changing, at first only Hungarians and then also Croats. there is a book Croatian Banates by Viktor Živčić.
Therefore i think that the Banate of Slavonia should be shown in the game but only with a greater degree of integration (the office of the Banate of Slavonia was based on the territory of the Banate of Slavonia which he governed) than the Banate of Croatia which was more distant from Hungary.

Short list of Banates (among the Hungarians there are also Croats):
• Ivan Babonić 1316. - 1322. (Although he was removed from his position as Ban, he still had great influence in the area of Slavonia due to the large estates held by the Babonićs)
• Nikola Omodejev 1322. - 1324.
• Mikac Mihaljević 1325. - 1343.
• Nikola Bánffy 1343. - 1345.
• Leustahije Ratold 1356. - 1361.
• Stjepan Kaniški 1362. - 1366.
• Nikola Széchy 1366. - 1368.
• Petar Cudar 1368. - 1380.
• Stjepan i Ivan Bánffy 1381. - 1385.
• Ladislav od Lučenca 1387. - 1389.
• Detrik Bubek 1389. - 1392.
• Ladislav Petrov 1392.
• Detrik Bubek 1394. - 1397.
• Pavao Čupor 1412. - 1415.
• David Lacković 1416. - 1418.
• Dionizije Marcali 1419. - 1421.
• Herman Celjski 1423. - 1435.
• Matko Talovac 1436. - 1444.

I think we can agree that the Ban of Slavonia, regardless of whether he was Croat or Hungarian, ruled the area of Ban Slavonia and as such should be shown on the map, but with a slightly greater degree of integration compared to the neighboring Croatian banovina.

P.S. attached is the book Banovi in Croatian, but it is in Croatian, so it can be translated if someone wants

While a separate (vassal) Slavonia (and, similarly, Voivodeship of Transylvania, Banate of Severin, and Banate of Mačva) could be good flavour, the devs explained that their design choice when it comes to Hungary in 1337 was to portray Charles I's centralization tendencies and near-absolute rule. Pretty sure these titles are all releasable and can appear dynamically, though

 

[Materloo]

It appears that they have recoloured Orthodox (a welcome change), but it appears that Transylvanian Romanian and Transylvanian Saxon still have way too similar colours. One of them desperately needs a new colour.

Well, Transylvanian romanians are still overrepresented in the region compared to Transylvanian Saxons. I'm 100% that at the time, Transylvanian Saxons were larger in numbers compared to Romanians. IF not larger, maybe even. Probably 15-15% of the Transylvanian pop. Just by the fact, that Saxons lived in larger towns and also many Saxons lived in Hungarian towns too, like in Kolozsvár and Gyulafehérvár. Also during this time mostly bordering provinces to Wallachia - like East-Banat, Hunyad county and the southern and western parts of the "Erdélyi-középhegység, Munții Apuseni, Apuseni Mountains" were inhabited by vlachs in larger numbers, this is very well recorded, thanks to the first mentions of many settlements, which indeed has romanian origin in toponyms, but only were recorded firstly in the 13-14th century. It is called "Țara Moților" - "Mócvidék". You can see how the Romanian blue is wedged into the red-pink Hungarian majority in Transylvania on the south.

In the 18th century Transylvania had (1712-1713 Verwaltungsgericht) approximately 47% Hungarian 34% Romanian and 19% German population. German was decreasing it has dropped to 8.7% by 1910, as Hungarian dropped to 34.2% - due to ethnic cleansing - Avram Iancu, the last "mongol invasion" (utolsó tatárjárás) thanks to Ferenc II Rákóczi and by further Romanian migration to the region. So if the Germans had 20% in the 18th century, they had to had larger numbers previously. Especially in the 15-16th century, when the union of 3 nations has been enacted.

But yeah, new color would be nice. I just don't get the cultural splitting, either. Just call them "Vlach"-s and paint them blue and it's done.

 

[koreanjesus218]

It is true that in the area of the Banate of Slavonia the influence of the Hungarian king is stronger than in the Croatian Banate. since 1325 the Banates have been changing, at first only Hungarians and then also Croats. there is a book Croatian Banates by Viktor Živčić.
Therefore i think that the Banate of Slavonia should be shown in the game but only with a greater degree of integration (the office of the Banate of Slavonia was based on the territory of the Banate of Slavonia which he governed) than the Banate of Croatia which was more distant from Hungary.

Short list of Banates (among the Hungarians there are also Croats):
• Ivan Babonić 1316. - 1322. (Although he was removed from his position as Ban, he still had great influence in the area of Slavonia due to the large estates held by the Babonićs)
• Nikola Omodejev 1322. - 1324.
• Mikac Mihaljević 1325. - 1343.
• Nikola Bánffy 1343. - 1345.
• Leustahije Ratold 1356. - 1361.
• Stjepan Kaniški 1362. - 1366.
• Nikola Széchy 1366. - 1368.
• Petar Cudar 1368. - 1380.
• Stjepan i Ivan Bánffy 1381. - 1385.
• Ladislav od Lučenca 1387. - 1389.
• Detrik Bubek 1389. - 1392.
• Ladislav Petrov 1392.
• Detrik Bubek 1394. - 1397.
• Pavao Čupor 1412. - 1415.
• David Lacković 1416. - 1418.
• Dionizije Marcali 1419. - 1421.
• Herman Celjski 1423. - 1435.
• Matko Talovac 1436. - 1444.

I think we can agree that the Ban of Slavonia, regardless of whether he was Croat or Hungarian, ruled the area of Ban Slavonia and as such should be shown on the map, but with a slightly greater degree of integration compared to the neighboring Croatian banovina.

P.S. attached is the book Banovi in Croatian, but it is in Croatian, so it can be translated if someone wants

The list seems right, it's kinda fun trying to recognise the Hungarian names there (Kaniški -> Kanizsai) though it seems there are a few missing? Anyways, my main argument was I'm pretty sure the banates merged much later on, as for example, as you have here, Ivan Bánffy (or Bánffy János) was ban of Slavonia as far as I'm aware, but during that time, from 1380-1383, the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia was Bebek Imre.

As for ruling, I think governing is a more apt term, much like in Transylvania. The main problem with portraying it as a seperate tag, is technically the land was not owned by the Ban, they merely governed it on behalf of the king, with varying degrees of autonomy. Especially after the Babonić's were defeated, I don't think we can talk of much Slavonian autonomy.

Nevertheless, my main fear for EU5 is the portrayal of the rise of specific nobles. If we can't have the Bans/Voiovodes of Hungary without an actual tag on the map, then I think they should be portrayed as "vassals" on the map. But due to them being appointed and dismissed, just in the 14th century there were about 26 bans of Slavonia, it could get messy. Add to that all the banates during the game's timeframe; the Ban of Macso, Szoreny, Croatia-Dalmatia, Bosznia, etc + Voivode of Transylvania, how would they handle the "appointment succession" without it being annoying?

 

[Uskok]

While a separate (vassal) Slavonia (and, similarly, Voivodeship of Transylvania, Banate of Severin, and Banate of Mačva) could be good flavour, the devs explained that their design choice when it comes to Hungary in 1337 was to portray Charles I's centralization tendencies and near-absolute rule. Pretty sure these titles are all releasable and can appear dynamically, though

I hope so these titles are all releasable and can appear dynamically (Banate of Slavonia, Voivodeship of Transylvania, Banate of Severin and Banate of Mačva)

 

[Uskok]

The list seems right, it's kinda fun trying to recognise the Hungarian names there (Kaniški -> Kanizsai) though it seems there are a few missing? Anyways, my main argument was I'm pretty sure the banates merged much later on, as for example, as you have here, Ivan Bánffy (or Bánffy János) was ban of Slavonia as far as I'm aware, but during that time, from 1380-1383, the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia was Bebek Imre.

As for ruling, I think governing is a more apt term, much like in Transylvania. The main problem with portraying it as a seperate tag, is technically the land was not owned by the Ban, they merely governed it on behalf of the king, with varying degrees of autonomy. Especially after the Babonić's were defeated, I don't think we can talk of much Slavonian autonomy.

Nevertheless, my main fear for EU5 is the portrayal of the rise of specific nobles. If we can't have the Bans/Voiovodes of Hungary without an actual tag on the map, then I think they should be portrayed as "vassals" on the map. But due to them being appointed and dismissed, just in the 14th century there were about 26 bans of Slavonia, it could get messy. Add to that all the banates during the game's timeframe; the Ban of Macso, Szoreny, Croatia-Dalmatia, Bosznia, etc + Voivode of Transylvania, how would they handle the "appointment succession" without it being annoying?

It is true that the ban did not rule the entire area of the banate, but he was not a king either. They drew power from their role and the possessions they had. This game perfectly depicts the power of the king, the nobility, merchants and peasants. However, it is undeniable that the ban ruled the area of the banate and the other classes have/do not have privileges. That is why I believe that the banate of Slavonia should be depicted

In diplomatic historical sources of the High and Late Middle Ages, and especially in the titles of kings from the Arpad and Angevin dynasties (12th–14th centuries), each of the three kingdoms was mentioned separately (regnum Croatiae, regnum Dalmatiae, regnum Slavoniae). The actual non-existence of a single state entity in the Croatian state territory, until the mid-15th century, was expressed in documents issued by the bans. For example, in 1183–1279, diplomatic sources mention the coastal bans, in the 13th century, the bans of all Slavonia (totius Sclauonie), and in the mid-14th century, the bans of all Slavonia and Croatia briefly appear. Stronger unification among the three kingdoms is more pronounced from the mid-14th century. until 1476, when diplomatic sources still mention separately the bans of the Kingdom of Slavonia and the bans of the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia (1357–1531). However, although in 1476–1531 the authority of the ban was first extended to the territory of the Triple Kingdom and the title of ban of the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia was introduced, the person of the ban was not sufficient for a stronger political unification of the Croatian territory. The absence of a single state space of the Triple Kingdom was also reflected in the existence of two parliaments: the parliament of the Kingdom of Slavonia (from 1273) and the parliament of the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia (from 1350).

Trojedna kraljevina - Hrvatska enciklopedija

Hrvatska enciklopedija

www.enciklopedija.hr

The other banovies and duchies that would be shown would not affect the presentation itself, but would show the dynamism of Hungary with various vassals (e.g. France or Poland have a number of vassals) and a different degree of integration.

 

[Makkasag]

I hope so these titles are all releasable

I think we seen confirmation that they are.

In Transylvania's case I am 100% sure it's releasable because I corrected Pavia on the borders of it being inaccurate (it was corrected.)

 

[koreanjesus218]

However, it is undeniable that the ban ruled the area of the banate

That's the thing, I am denying it. Though I may just be pedantic about the terminology. I think "office" and "title" though the latter is often used in the former's stead, are good terms to use to differentiate between something like the Ban of Slavonia, and the Duke of Burgundy. Having Slavonia there from game start would be setting a precedent, that not only (semi-)autonomous titles are portrayed on the map, but also offices tied to land. The land in Slavonia, as in Transylvania, did not belong to the Ban or Voivode, they belonged to the king. They were merely governed on behalf of the king. They may have also owned land in Slavonia, but that merely served as a powerbase.

As long as it is properly implemented, I fully support portraying Slavonia on the map. Especially considering it had it's own "parliament" of sorts. But it should be made clear that it's not a title to be inherited, it's an office, like the palatine or the judge royal, but it's also tied to land. Otherwise, how would it be portrayed, for example that Hermann II, Count of Celje who already ruled an independent realm (well, a realm in the HRE), being appointed Ban of Slavonia? Or simply a nobleman with lands in Transylvania, or Northern Hungary?

 

[Uskok]

That's the thing, I am denying it. Though I may just be pedantic about the terminology. I think "office" and "title" though the latter is often used in the former's stead, are good terms to use to differentiate between something like the Ban of Slavonia, and the Duke of Burgundy. Having Slavonia there from game start would be setting a precedent, that not only (semi-)autonomous titles are portrayed on the map, but also offices tied to land. The land in Slavonia, as in Transylvania, did not belong to the Ban or Voivode, they belonged to the king. They were merely governed on behalf of the king. They may have also owned land in Slavonia, but that merely served as a powerbase.

As long as it is properly implemented, I fully support portraying Slavonia on the map. Especially considering it had it's own "parliament" of sorts. But it should be made clear that it's not a title to be inherited, it's an office, like the palatine or the judge royal, but it's also tied to land. Otherwise, how would it be portrayed, for example that Hermann II, Count of Celje who already ruled an independent realm (well, a realm in the HRE), being appointed Ban of Slavonia? Or simply a nobleman with lands in Transylvania, or Northern Hungary?

I think we can agree that we disagree about the terminology, but we can agree that the estates in Slavonia were not directly managed by the king, but by the nobles who inherited the land or received it as a reward from the king (but that land came into the king's possession due to the death of the heir and no one had the right to that estate or king took that land away due to a rebellion).

I don't know enough about the situation in Transylvania or Central Hungary, but among the Croatian nobility there was a "Pacta conventa" concluded between the king and the Croatian nobility, which regulated rights.

For example, when the king's power weakened, the noble families used their estates as bases for opposing the king (say through rebellions) or for privileges.

Therefore, it would be most optimal to present Slavonia as a vassal (like Croatia) but with a high degree of integration

 

[koreanjesus218]

I think we can agree that we disagree about the terminology, but we can agree that the estates in Slavonia were not directly managed by the king, but by the nobles who inherited the land or received it as a reward from the king (but that land came into the king's possession due to the death of the heir and no one had the right to that estate or king took that land away due to a rebellion).

Yes

I don't know enough about the situation in Transylvania or Central Hungary, but among the Croatian nobility there was a "Pacta conventa" concluded between the king and the Croatian nobility, which regulated rights.

That was one of my main issues, I'm not sure how the "liege" can interract with the vassal's internal politics/estates, but even then, it probably leans more towards needing Slavonia as a vassal.

Therefore, it would be most optimal to present Slavonia as a vassal (like Croatia) but with a high degree of integration

We have a bit of a different issue here, I'm pretty sure Croatia is not a vassal, but a personal union. Would you say Croatia should be a similar vassal to the Slavonia you suggested, but with perhaps slightly more autonomy? If they add Slavonia, but keep Croatia as is, it would be a bit inconsistent. Though they have often said they sometimes sacrifice historicity for the purpose of gameplay, so I don't know.

 

[Uskok]

We have a bit of a different issue here, I'm pretty sure Croatia is not a vassal, but a personal union. Would you say Croatia should be a similar vassal to the Slavonia you suggested, but with perhaps slightly more autonomy? If they add Slavonia, but keep Croatia as is, it would be a bit inconsistent. Though they have often said they sometimes sacrifice historicity for the purpose of gameplay, so I don't know.

You are right, i expressed myself wrong. The Kingdom of Croatia was a single entity consisting of three parts (croatia, slavonia and dalmatia). Since Croatia is shown in the game in a personal union, i think Slavonia should be the same for consistency. The only difference would be that Slavonia is with a higher level of integration because if i remember from the diaries Croatia is on a second level of integration.

I believe that from a historical point of view and dynamism Slavonia should be shown alongside croatia