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

[Materloo]

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.

Serbians did not live in Hungary at the time in great numbers, but there were few indeed. It was mainly the "Srem/Szerémség" and the southern part of East-Banat. The "Szerémség" at the time had a huge Hungarian population, as the Szerémség was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, and not the Kingdom of Croatia, nor the Banate of Slavonia. It was directly controlled by the Hungarian crown. It was only given officially to Kingdom of Croatia with the Croatian–Hungarian Settlement in 1868 for the city of Fiume/Rijeka.

However, is still believe that both the "Transylvanian culture" population which is obviously "secretly" the transylvanian romanian/vlach population and the "Slovak" population is highly overrepresented. We are talking about 2 regions which are highly mountainous and forested.

With the German settlers in the region new cities and villages were founded which happened in the 13th century, but this is resulted more German in the region not Slovak or Vlach.

There is the "campus Lucsko/Lucké pole" part, which is the Morva river valley between Moravia and modern-day Slovakia. That territory as I mentioned before did belong to the Kingdom of Hungary, but due to the succession wars in Austria in the 13th century it was lost to the Bohemian Crown.

That territory served as "gyepű" since the 10th century for the Hungarians up until the 13th century, so it was basically a forestry "no man's land". However after the territory was ceded to Bohemia the Bohemian king started to fortify the region, that was the time when cities like "Uherské Hradiště" were founded. The territory later became an important agricultural land, but it was barely populated in the previous century.
This is a good example what was the thing with the Upper-land. The mountainous and forestry parts were simply not inhabited. The population density was the highest in the river valleys next to the cities and also on the plains which is the southern part of modern-day Slovakia, but that was mainly 85-90% Hungarian, and the language border was even more to the north - it has reached the Nagyszombat - Nyitra - Selmecbánya - Zólyom - Eperjes line. It was obviously not 100% ethnic Hungarian, but the language border did extend to this region, which later shrunk to the 1910 situation.
So considering how sparsely populated was the Upper-land during at the time, which affected the local slavic population the most, I can barely believe that the population of the slavs in the region has reached 500k. 200-250k at most, 300k at best (5-7.5%).

Also, the same with the vlachs. The region that they inhabited at the time in Transylvania was like what? Maybe 2–3 counties in Transylvania? And those territories were mainly uninhabited beforehand (like Máramaros), that's why they were invited to the region in the first place. I would estimate their population to 150k-200k (3,75-5%).

Serbians would be around 50-75k 1.25-1.75%

And with the saxons in the Upperland and in Transylvania i think their population is 200-250k probably, which 5-6.25%. Which would result a 78-80% Hungarian majority which is more reasonable than the 56%.

 

[ArVass]

Serbians did not live in Hungary at the time in great numbers, but there were few indeed. It was mainly the "Srem/Szerémség" and the southern part of East-Banat. The "Szerémség" at the time had a huge Hungarian population, as the Szerémség was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, and not the Kingdom of Croatia, nor the Banate of Slavonia. It was directly controlled by the Hungarian crown. It was only given officially to Kingdom of Croatia with the Croatian–Hungarian Settlement in 1868 for the city of Fiume/Rijeka.

However, is still believe that both the "Transylvanian culture" population which is obviously "secretly" the transylvanian romanian/vlach population and the "Slovak" population is highly overrepresented. We are talking about 2 regions which are highly mountainous and forested.

With the German settlers in the region new cities and villages were founded which happened in the 13th century, but this is resulted more German in the region not Slovak or Vlach.

There is the "campus Lucsko/Lucké pole" part, which is the Morva river valley between Moravia and modern-day Slovakia. That territory as I mentioned before did belong to the Kingdom of Hungary, but due to the succession wars in Austria in the 13th century it was lost to the Bohemian Crown.

That territory served as "gyepű" since the 10th century for the Hungarians up until the 13th century, so it was basically a forestry "no man's land". However after the territory was ceded to Bohemia the Bohemian king started to fortify the region, that was the time when cities like "Uherské Hradiště" were founded. The territory later became an important agricultural land, but it was barely populated in the previous century.
This is a good example what was the thing with the Upper-land. The mountainous and forestry parts were simply not inhabited. The population density was the highest in the river valleys next to the cities and also on the plains which is the southern part of modern-day Slovakia, but that was mainly 85-90% Hungarian, and the language border was even more to the north - it has reached the Nagyszombat - Nyitra - Selmecbánya - Zólyom - Eperjes line. It was obviously not 100% ethnic Hungarian, but the language border did extend to this region, which later shrunk to the 1910 situation.
So considering how sparsely populated was the Upper-land during at the time, which affected the local slavic population the most, I can barely believe that the population of the slavs in the region has reached 500k. 200-250k at most, 300k at best (5-7.5%).

Also, the same with the vlachs. The region that they inhabited at the time in Transylvania was like what? Maybe 2–3 counties in Transylvania? And those territories were mainly uninhabited beforehand (like Máramaros), that's why they were invited to the region in the first place. I would estimate their population to 150k-200k (3,75-5%).

Serbians would be around 50-75k 1.25-1.75%

And with the saxons in the Upperland and in Transylvania i think their population is 200-250k probably, which 5-6.25%. Which would result a 78-80% Hungarian majority which is more reasonable than the 56%.

I mostly agree with your numbers but please don't put cultures' names in quotation marks, because it's disrespectful and defeats the purpose of a respectful discussion.

I think most of the map is fine; judging by the numbers, the mountainous parts of Transylvania with Romanian majority might be more densely populated than they likely were historically, and the Serbians constitute the majority of the Banat where they shouldn't at this point in time.

However, I am more concerned about the location/province/area fixes that are easy fixes that still haven't been addressed yet because the developers dread even opening any of the Balkan threads due to the endless pointless ethnic arguments

 

[Materloo]

I mostly agree with your numbers but please don't put cultures' names in quotation marks, because it's disrespectful and defeats the purpose of a respectful discussion.

I think most of the map is fine; judging by the numbers, the mountainous parts of Transylvania with Romanian majority might be more densely populated than they likely were historically, and the Serbians constitute the majority of the Banat where they shouldn't at this point in time.

However, I am more concerned about the location/province/area fixes that are easy fixes that still haven't been addressed yet because the developers dread even opening any of the Balkan threads due to the endless pointless ethnic arguments

Well at the time the term and the national identity of the Slovaks did not exist. The Slavs in the Upperland did not form a united ethnicity/nationality. The Upperland was mixed in terms of slavic population. It had polish, moravian/czech, rusyn settlers and the original remnants of the slavic population since the "Honfoglalás" in the region.

That's why many maps refers to that population as "Slav" or "Western-Slavs" and not "Slovaks".

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

My favorit one is that "Ukranians" are tend to claim

Dude, you use them referring to nowadays too.
This way all your arguments just look like a nationalis bs even if you are right in some aspects.

 

[Materloo]

Well at the time the term and the national identity of the Slovaks did not exist. The Slavs in the Upperland did not form a united ethnicity/nationality. The Upperland was mixed in terms of slavic population. It had polish, moravian/czech, rusyn settlers and the original remnants of the slavic population since the "Honfoglalás" in the region

Dude, you use them referring to nowadays too.
This way all your arguments just look like a nationalis bs even if you are right in some aspects.

So, can you please tell me and refute my statement who were the Ukrainians in the 13-14th century exactly? Because many sources do mention the people in Galicia-Volhynia as "little Russians" and "Ruthenian" since the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia and the Halych holdings were referred to as "Little Russia". But this is only the western parts of modern day Ukraine, what about the other ones? These names were used in the 19th century as well.

I know this might frustrate your national identity, but there is simply no such thing at the time as "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian". Also, the Ukrainian identity formed in Zaporizhzhia with the Cossack Hetmanate region, not in Galicia-Volhynia.

So terms like "Ukrainian" doesn't exist at the time.

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

So, can you please tell me and refute my statement who were the Ukrainians in the 13-14th century exactly? Because many sources do mention the people in Galicia-Volhynia as "little Russians" and "Ruthenian" since the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia and the Halych holdings were referred to as "Little Russia". But this is only the western parts of modern day Ukraine, what about the other ones? These names were used in the 19th century as well.

I know this might frustrate your national identity, but there is simply no such thing at the time as "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian". Also, the Ukrainian identity formed in Zaporizhzhia with the Cossack Hetmanate region, not in Galicia-Volhynia.

So terms like "Ukrainian" doesn't exist at the time.

I did not say anything about the XIV century. In that paragraph you clearly write about modern-day Ukrainians “that claim something” and also used quotation marks.

And Ukrainians do not need your teaching about how they should trace their identity.

 

[Zbbts]

I watched Ludi's video (not the first gameplay from announcement day, but the longer one where he explains things more thoroughly) and he says that in 100 years he managed to convert 100% bulgarian lands to 80% greek culture. (actively using cabinet members, buildings, etc. so you will only be able to do it this fast in a few locations at once with very concentrated effort). They will probably tweak this somewhat, but it shows me that even if they don't change the current culture map (which seems to me displeases everyone equally so it's kind of a compromise) you will be able to swallow whole cultures during the course of a gameplay. And let's be honest, everyone who argues here about the map will do it so. In the end it will only influence the first 100 years of the game. The starting situation may or may not be perfectly historical, but I guess the devs don't want to displease anyone so much that they wouldn't buy the game because of this. It is a hot topic which caused many heated arguments so far.
In short: even if it stays this way it's not the end of the world gameplay/roleplay-wise. Although for the sake of accuracy it never hurts to share sources and discuss things in a civil, non-too confrontative manner. Just my opinion though.

 

[ArVass]

Although we appreciate that Hungarian names use the appropriate name order, I believe the regnal number and nicknames should follow the name in the manner it does in English transcription, rather than how it does in Hungarian.

How the game currently does it:
King I "the Great" Anjou Lajos (we don't know if the number or nickname comes here first, but it's weird either was)

How the Hungarian language does it:
I. "Nagy" (Anjou) Lajos király (the placement

How English does it:
King Louis I the Great (d'Anjou)

As you can see, the game currently does a weird mix of the Anglophone and Hungarian ordering and localisation, which ends up with weird situations such as "King the Great Lajos"; that is not ideal, especially in the case of nicknames with the "the" article. The game also appears to use the preceeding regnal number without a dot, while it should have one in Hungarian. I propose that instead of the current system, you move the number and epithet to where they would be in English:

King Anjou Lajos I the Great

You should likely follow this order if you have regnal epithets in English; if by any chance you have untranslated Hungarian epithets somewhere in the game, those should preceed the name in a similar fashion as the game currently does.

 

[Fehervari]

I personally think Croatia shouldn't merely be in personal union with Hungary. Croatia was much more so an extension of Hungary with some significant autonomy, an "attached part of the country", than a completely separate country. The exact legal position of Croatia vis-a-vis Hungary is a matter of dispute between historians, but de facto Croatia(-Dalmatia) wasn't governed much differently from Slavonia or Transylvania. For this reason, I believe Croatia should be more integrated into Hungary than it currently is in the game. If I'm not mistaken there's a status called "Dominion" in the game (Scania for example is a Dominion of Denmark, AFAIK). Could that perhaps be a more fitting status for Croatia?

On another note, I believe Bosnia should be a vassal of Hungary, with particularly good relations, even. Stephen II of Bosnia was a steadfast ally of both Charles I and Louis I of Hungary. Louis even married Stephen's daughter (in 1353).

 

[Vladechni]

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.

I did manage to track down where that claim comes from for the 1712-1713 census (https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/280.html)

This overview of immigration and emigration allows for some assessment of the ethnic composition of Transylvania's population in the early 1700s. In Benedek Jancsó's estimation, there were 150,000 Hungarians, 100,000 Saxons, and 250,000 Romanians in Transylvania at the beginning of the 18th century. István Szabó also puts the number of Romanians at 250,000, but he estimates that, in the 1710s, Transylvania's total population stood at around 800,000; thus, bearing in mind the growth in the number of Romanians in the {2-527.} first 10–15 years of the century, they must have accounted for some 30 percent of the population. This hypothesis is consistent with an official estimate, dating from 1712–13, according to which 34 percent of Transylvania's inhabitants were Romanians, 47 percent Hungarians, and 19 percent Saxons. Later population figures also tend to support this estimate, although the number of Romanians may have been rounded up to allow for the more 'elusive' shepherds among them. If the Romanians accounted in 1712–13 for 34 percent of the population, that proportion translates into some 60,500 families, or around 262,500 individuals. The Romanian church census of 1733 enumerated 85,500 heads of household, and another 3,000 are said to have been omitted. Petru Dobra's contemporary estimate, of 80,000 Romanian families around 1740, may be more realistic. Thus, between 1712–13 and 1740, the number of Romanian families grew by some 20,000, or 33 percent. That seems like a realistic estimate, and indicates only a small surplus of Romanian immigrants over emigrants, especially if one bears in mind that there were some Romanians among the emigrants to Hungary, and even more among those going to the Banat.

Apparently they don't seem to state any source for that "official estimate", just stating it as such, until they actually say which one it is I wouldn't really believe the numbers saying the Romanians were a minority.
Also the site and paper seems to have some passive to overtly aggressive attitude towards any mention of Romanians so that's also makes whatever claims they make even more shaky.

 

[Makkasag]

I wouldn't really believe the numbers saying the Romanians were a minority.

Are you of the opinion that they were already the majority by this point?

According to hungarians it was in the 18th century that romanians became the majority.

Research so far indicates that the proportion of Romanians in Transylvania's population rose from 34 percent in 1712–13 to 60 percent around 1760.

Apparently they don't seem to state any source for that "official estimate"

I found it for you in the bibliography part.

I am sadly not a professional, maybe Materloo could help. The abominable intelligence tells me that this could mean "Chanchellory of Transylvania, Acta Generalia, 1713: 70. The 70th document in 1713? No idea.

Also the site and paper seems to have some passive to overtly aggressive attitude towards any mention of Romanians

The work uses Romanians sources too. Alongside with german and hungarian ones aswell.

Not sure about the agressive attitude, been a while since I read it. I know that the romanian government took it as an attack since it went against the Daco-Roman continuity theory. The Securitate knew about the work long before it was published since one of the writers was roped in and reguarly reported information. When it was published Ceaușescu decided that it needs to be discredited both abroad and particularly infront of Gorbachov.

Edit: Sorry, since you said paper and page I really should have included this in the original comment.

The work we are both talking about is "The History of Transylvania in 3 Volumes" by the Institute of History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciencies. (1986)

 

[ArVass]

I personally think Croatia shouldn't merely be in personal union with Hungary. Croatia was much more so an extension of Hungary with some significant autonomy, an "attached part of the country", than a completely separate country. The exact legal position of Croatia vis-a-vis Hungary is a matter of dispute between historians, but de facto Croatia(-Dalmatia) wasn't governed much differently from Slavonia or Transylvania. For this reason, I believe Croatia should be more integrated into Hungary than it currently is in the game. If I'm not mistaken there's a status called "Dominion" in the game (Scania for example is a Dominion of Denmark, AFAIK). Could that perhaps be a more fitting status for Croatia?

There is a Fiefdom vassal type, which is "a junior title that is in the possession of the overlord", or something like that; so basically a "PU with your own vassal" if I understand correctly. This may work, although Croatia, while closely integrated into Hungary, nominally wasn't subservient to the Hungarian Crown, so idk.

On another note, I believe Bosnia should be a vassal of Hungary, with particularly good relations, even. Stephen II of Bosnia was a steadfast ally of both Charles I and Louis I of Hungary. Louis even married Stephen's daughter (in 1353).

Bosnia indeed was, nominally a vassal of Hungary at the time (the title of Ban also indicates that), however they, to my knowledge, didn't really do most of the things vassals in this game are supposed to do (like pay vassal obligations).

I think Hungary should have access to a special Banate subject type, used for most historical Hungarian vassals in the Balkans (historical examples like Macva, Vidin, Severin etc.) with similar mechanics as March subjects, but likely even lower tax obligations, the possibility to freely reassign the Ban, and the possibility to integrate etc.
However, Bosnia's freedom in this century was a lot higher than other historical Banates, and their succession was largely hereditary primogeniture instead of the temporary assignation of Bans in other Banates, and they also got to upgrade to a Kingdom rather soon after; maybe they should be an ally instead, perhaps some sort of "protectorate" (or however is it called when one country guarantees the independence of the other)?

 

[Materloo]

I did manage to track down where that claim comes from for the 1712-1713 census (https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/280.html)



Apparently they don't seem to state any source for that "official estimate", just stating it as such, until they actually say which one it is I wouldn't really believe the numbers saying the Romanians were a minority.
Also the site and paper seems to have some passive to overtly aggressive attitude towards any mention of Romanians so that's also makes whatever claims they make even more shaky.

Thanks for the constant downvoting on my every single comment. If you can't face the truth of the history of Transylvania, go watch Ludi's videos.

It's funny how you won't believe something without a source, yet the stories of "Gelou" and "Glad" rely solely on Anonymus, and Romanian history has been built on them nonetheless. Don't apply source criticism selectively apply it to Anonymus as well. And to all the other cases that promote the Dacian-Roman continuity theory.

 

[Makkasag]

Thanks for

Besides the fact that this is quite possible the worst way to reply to someone, what do you know about "EK: AG 1713: 70" ?

Was the ai correct?

 

[Vladechni]

Are you of the opinion that they were already the majority by this point?
According to hungarians it was in the 18th century that romanians became the majority.
I found it for you in the bibliography part.
View attachment 1302136

I am sadly not a professional, maybe Materloo could help. The abominable intelligence tells me that this could mean "Chanchellory of Transylvania, Acta Generalia, 1713: 70. The 70th document in 1713? No idea.

Not sure about the agressive attitude, been a while since I read it. I know that the romanian government took it as an attack since it went against the Daco-Roman continuity theory. The Securitate knew about the work long before it was published since one of the writers was roped in and reguarly reported information. When it was published Ceaușescu decided that it needs to be discredited both abroad and particularly infront of Gorbachov.

Edit: Sorry, since you said paper and page I really should have included this in the original comment.

The work we are both talking about is "The History of Transylvania in 3 Volumes" by the Institute of History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciencies. (1986)

My opinion is that the sources seem to contradict eachother and it's up in the air

Thank you for finding that in the bibliography part, it might just be where they got that info from, which would give them credence.

As for the aggressive attitude I am specifically talking about how the paper words things, nothing much, just a lot of micro-aggressions that you pick up on as you read through it. It also disregarding Daco-Roman continuity is something separate from that.

 

[Vladechni]

Thanks for the constant downvoting on my every single comment. If you can't face the truth of the history of Transylvania, go watch Ludi's videos.

It's funny how you won't believe something without a source, yet the stories of "Gelou" and "Glad" rely solely on Anonymus, and Romanian history has been built on them nonetheless. Don't apply source criticism selectively apply it to Anonymus as well. And to all the other cases that promote the Dacian-Roman continuity theory.

Mate the way you talk and word things is precisely why no one is taking you seriously.
Also, who brought up Ludi or Anonymous' work in this, exactly?

 

[Zbbts]

I could only watch the new TT on my phone during the day, but now that I could watch it on normal screen I just realised these are hungarian soldiers (now that I'm properly seeing the shields):

Also based on the color palette, these are probably too:

Last army is out of Hungarian Standard Issue™ moustaches, and I know these are generic sprites not flavour ones, but still, I find them nice. (Especially that they didn't give the last ones white coats like the hungarian tier 3 in EU4, this feels way more alt-historical independent Hungary line infantry).

 

[ArVass]

I could only watch the new TT on my phone during the day, but now that I could watch it on normal screen I just realised these are hungarian soldiers (now that I'm properly seeing the shields):
View attachment 1303795
Also based on the color palette, these are probably too:
View attachment 1303798
View attachment 1303796
Last army is out of Hungarian Standard Issue™ moustaches, and I know these are generic sprites not flavour ones, but still, I find them nice. (Especially that they didn't give the last ones white coats like the hungarian tier 3 in EU4, this feels way more alt-historical independent Hungary line infantry).

Actually, I hope that late Hungarian units could be wearing a shako/csákó or a busby/kucsma instead. While these tricornes indeed were what the Hungarian infantry wore under the Habsburgs, the other two were popularized in the entirety of Europe by Hungarian Hussars, and they are iconic.
Although if infantry wears this and the cavalry units wear csákó/kucsma, and dolman+mente clothing, that may be fine too.
I'm curious if the Age of Reformation units have an 'Ideal' and if yes, is this an achievable physique:

 

[Zbbts]

Actually, I hope that late Hungarian units could be wearing a shako/csákó or a busby/kucsma instead. While these tricornes indeed were what the Hungarian infantry wore under the Habsburgs, the other two were popularized in the entirety of Europe by Hungarian Hussars, and they are iconic.
Although if infantry wears this and the cavalry units wear csákó/kucsma, and dolman+mente clothing, that may be fine too.
I'm curious if the Age of Reformation units have an 'Ideal' and if yes, is this an achievable physique:

View attachment 1303809View attachment 1303810

Even if they won't have it on launch, I think they will get it in a DLC (and unlike in EU4, I think it will be sooner than later this time, because Hungary is one of the test countries, and also one of the major ones). Also the devs have some idea about the subject because this was the cover in TT#22 (although I hope the hats will look less like a Victorian-era tall hat and more like the one on the second picture):

Even if we have to wait for flavour sprites, today's TT about army sprites and what can change their composition (also separate units for levies, omg) outperformed my highest expectations, so right now I'm just happy about what we learned today.

 

[koreanjesus218]

I was just watching Redhawk's video where he answers a couple of questions about EU5, and there's something he says that I'm a bit confused about. In the part where he talks about personal unions, Hungary and Croatia are brought up as an example, and he says that the personal union is at the lowest level of integration, Croatia is not even a junior partner. They act almost completely autonomously, outside of having the same ruler and being in the "union".

I hope that this will be fixed. Croatia had some autonomy, sure, but it had been in a personal union with Hungary since the 12th century, it's nowhere near comparable to the personal union of Hungary and Poland under Louis the Great for example. (which would be similar to what was described) I would still advocate for it to be represented as a Banate (like it was proposed to have Slavonia as one), but if it remains a PU, it should definitely not have that amount of autonomy.