• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I didn't know that, good to know.
Ok, I went to check, but I can not find specific claim of it

What I did found is Constantinople (ps wrong it is entire Byz)
IMG_3795.png
Wich has 18 Bulgarian and no stripes so, so I guess it’s my error here.

P. S. On the next page there is a quote from devs that it is >10% for minorities to be drawn
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I am strongly confused by your proposal

1. you take a map, but then say that some parts of it are incorrect. This is some sort of cherry-picking for me. Especially when you defend it with

Like. You should understand that a Romanian person used exactly the same narrative of ancient Dacians to make the entire land almost fully Romanian.

Therefore I believe those arguments should be reworded or presented differently. Maybe you shouldn’t trust a map that depicts incorrect areas and use previous one more.

2. your proposal is like half implemented already. And this I don’t understand at all. Red circles is Hungarian magority. But half of your circles are already around Hungarian majority regions. Ones in Slovakia for example are all Hungarian majority as I see. And if I remember minorities are drawn if >10%. So all regions can be 90% Hungarian. And I just don’t understand what is complain about specifically them then?
View attachment 1227180
The term of "ancient Hungarian" refering to the Hungarians who arrived to the Carpathian basin during the 9-10th century. The Hungarian population picked the plains as their land to settle down, (it matched their nomadic, half-nomadic lifestyle) the mountainous regions remained unpopulated and were used as "gyepű" which was a natural buffer zone.


And the difference between ancient Hungarians and "ancient romanized dacians" that you can find ancient Hungarian burials, especially in those region that were listed as Hungarian majority - see Kniezsa's map listed above - but you cant find "ancient romanized dacian" burials. So one is proven by archaeology and the other one is not.


The local Hungarian population during the medieval ages remained on the same exact spot that they claimed with their arrival. Fewer expansions from the population happened to colonize uncolonized lands but not in a very significant number. The uninhabited lands later were filled with foreign settlers (germans, vlachs, ruthenians) who settled down on the already mentioned "gyepű" area as multiple deforestations occured.


On the cultures map there are regions where Romanians were presence at the time (Banat, Partium, North-Transylvania) and also Serbs (South-Banat), yet they didn't lived there at this time around. Also further territories where Ruthenians are overpresented (Ungvár-Beregszász-Munkács region, where they seem to be the majority) they didn't even reached Transcarpathia in this great numbers at the time.


The Slavic-Hungarian mixed population in the Börzsöny-Buda and Borsod area is pretty much impossible as I pointed out that the slavic language islands or slavic population couldn't be presence in that region in the 14th century as most of the slavs were already assimilated on the plains, and the slavic population remained in the wooded and mountainous regions. Also many of these slavic-hungarian territories presented on the map got overrun by Hungarians in the 9-10th century, and after 300-400 years later as i said its more than unlikely to have a slavic-mixed population at these areas.


And I understand that some people think that at the borders cultures were mixed, but if a peasant left it's homeland without his lord's permission he was enslaved or executed. This was due to the fact that peasantry was treated as a property by it's lord. It was also forbidden to move from one village to another within the same country or county - if the peasant was unhappy with it's lord - without a permission. If someone did this then the person was treated as an outlaw. So the population mobility was not as free as many people think. Most of the people lived in a 30km2 area and havent even see more of the world. The permissions were only given to the peasants to leave their homeland if they paid the "farewell money" (meaning they paid the price for their belongings) and paid all the debts back to their lord, if they had any. But this was highly expensive and not every peasant had the money to leave their homeland tho so mobility was really limited at the time. Later it was changed to the "röghözkötés" where you had no chance leaving your homeland.


And to be honest I've reached to the point when I've got tired of explaining myself, and the Hungarian history anyone on this forum. I'm so happy, that many of the people on this forum are really enlighted and well-educated by lecturing somebody by his history. And knows everything better than the other. It's also really weird that it's like necessary to convince other people of someone's history with no basic knowledge of that person country's history at all.


I won't start lecturing Albanians or Serbians or Greeks on their history cuz I don't even have the basic knowledge on the topic.


The reign of Caroberto and Louis the Great of Hungary is very well researched luckily and there are lots of researches available on the internet so feel free to read some if you want to know more about this time period.



But you can read about the arrivals of the Hungarians too.

And not bias sources... At all....
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I can't speak for the other areas, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the northernmost three circles on the Hungarian/Slovak border had enough Slavic population to be represented. The southernmost, probably not.

Those maps always funnily put Hungarians around Eperjes into places with purely Slavic toponyms where no Hungarians lived instead of the cities where they were present (but then again they were outnumbered by Germans in the cities), but I digress. Overall in the county the Hungarian population was the 3rd-4th most populous ethnic group though (behind Slovak and German for sure, eventually Ruthenian too) and as such should not show up on the map. I have provided (Hungarian!) sources proving that many pages back.
Wasn't there one particular source someone found in the previous thread that mentioned how the Presovian Germans had to employ a Hungarian translator to speak with the Hungarians in the neighboring villages surrounding the city?

Which was enough evidence that even you agreed on a 15% Hungarian presence in the area
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
And to be honest I've reached to the point when I've got tired of explaining myself, and the Hungarian history anyone on this forum.
Thats how this discussion works. Paradox employes aren't all historians either. Even if they were, knowledge of hungarian history outside the immediate neighbourhood is niche.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Thats how this discussion works. Paradox employes aren't all historians either. Even if they were, knowledge hungarian history outside the immediate neighbourhood is niche.
I totally get that, and by this I didn't mean the developers. But I don't think I need to explain anything to some guy on the forum when it comes to history while he probably doesn't even live in this region.

Having a debate on the history of Transylvania with the arrival of the Hungarians or the Romanians is a different topic of course.

This is pure history.

Kingdom of Hungary had Hungarian majority until the 16th century. So why do I have to explain that there were no romanians in the Partium in the 14th century?

Thats widely accepted and there is no nationalistic motivations behind this,

It was well known in the 18th century as well how Hungary got different waves of migration from the Serbs, from the Ruthenians and from the Romanians.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
But I don't think I need to explain anything to some guy on the forum when it comes to history while he probably doesn't even live in this region.
I dunno. If you can explain something to someone, that shows that you are sure in your knowledge. Your opinion being attacked, and you being able to defend it is even better.

It must be taxing, It happened before that I looked at a comment, thought about it, and then went "Yeah I am not replying to that."
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Btw Brašov sounds extremely Slavic, I'd bet on Bulgarians.
I think Slavic is the most likely aswell, although because the first attested form of the name was Barasu I'm definitely open to the possibility of it being Turkic (Pál Binder claims it could be from Pecheneg "barasu", meaning "white water")
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Wasn't there one particular source someone found in the previous thread that mentioned how the Presovian Germans had to employ a Hungarian translator to speak with the Hungarians in the neighboring villages surrounding the city?

Which was enough evidence that even you agreed on a 15% Hungarian presence in the area
Yeah but look at how they've redrawn the map, 15% is probably too generous for the Eperjes area. That said, it would still rank below the German percentage surely, meaning not being visible on the map...
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
And I understand that some people think that at the borders cultures were mixed, but if a peasant left it's homeland without his lord's permission he was enslaved or executed. This was due to the fact that peasantry was treated as a property by it's lord. It was also forbidden to move from one village to another within the same country or county - if the peasant was unhappy with it's lord - without a permission. If someone did this then the person was treated as an outlaw. So the population mobility was not as free as many people think. Most of the people lived in a 30km2 area and havent even see more of the world. The permissions were only given to the peasants to leave their homeland if they paid the "farewell money" (meaning they paid the price for their belongings) and paid all the debts back to their lord, if they had any. But this was highly expensive and not every peasant had the money to leave their homeland tho so mobility was really limited at the time. Later it was changed to the "röghözkötés" where you had no chance leaving your homeland.
While true, how is that relevant at all? It's not like peasants were settled by nationality or anything, in fact nationality was largely irrelevant in a pre-nationalism, multi-national kingdom whose official language was Latin and most of the kings weren't even Hungarian.

And to be honest I've reached to the point when I've got tired of explaining myself, and the Hungarian history anyone on this forum. I'm so happy, that many of the people on this forum are really enlighted and well-educated by lecturing somebody by his history. And knows everything better than the other. It's also really weird that it's like necessary to convince other people of someone's history with no basic knowledge of that person country's history at all.


I won't start lecturing Albanians or Serbians or Greeks on their history cuz I don't even have the basic knowledge on the topic.
You're literally lecturing Slovaks, Ruthenians and Romanians upon our history, don't you see how that's equally grating?
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Once again, like 3 pages of meaningless bloat have been added to the chat with only little informational value. Please make Aldaron's work easier if you really do want the feedback to actually land and not missed among the hundreds of back and forth that doesn't go anywhere
 
  • 10
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Once again, like 3 pages of meaningless bloat have been added to the chat with only little informational value. Please make Aldaron's work easier if you really do want the feedback to actually land and not missed among the hundreds of back and forth that doesn't go anywhere
We can go back to page 1 and start looking for good stuff to add to my list,

We can go to the hungarian flavour thread and start bloating that beauty up,

Or I can start writing that essay that I should have written a good while ago.

Choices, choices.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I dunno. If you can explain something to someone, that shows that you are sure in your knowledge. Your opinion being attacked, and you being able to defend it is even better.

It must be taxing, It happened before that I looked at a comment, thought about it, and then went "Yeah I am not replying to that."
I love how this thread is ether
  • why you disagree and don’t comment, please write. He disagreed with me so fast *Isert picture from phone of 3 Respectfully Disagree reactions*
  • I’m tired of replying to disagreeing comments. “I don't think I need to explain anything to some guy on the forum“

And the funniest part is - it’s the same person
Im still waiting to your comments on what topics do you disagree with my posts ;)
I guess silent disagreement again it is.
 
While true, how is that relevant at all? It's not like peasants were settled by nationality or anything, in fact nationality was largely irrelevant in a pre-nationalism, multi-national kingdom whose official language was Latin and most of the kings weren't even Hungarian.


You're literally lecturing Slovaks, Ruthenians and Romanians upon our history, don't you see how that's equally grating?

It's funny how you refer to something as "history" which is clearly lack of historical and archaeological sources and hard to prove, and had only one purpose to spread anti-hungarian sentiment and fabricating territorial claims. (like the Dacian-Roman continuity, but Csák Máté's slovak origin, and " his attempts to create an idependent medieval Slovakia" worth mentioning too...)


And as I said, I'm tired explaining this topic all over again. This is probably the last time replying with a longer post.


You are also cherrypicking - the map that you are refering to when it comes to the Hungarians between Kassa and Eperjes is from 1495. It was after the Hussite wars - which also had affects on the population at the region - and after the great plague.


Furthermore the German population of Kassa was settled down in a larger scale during the mid - 14th century, probably thanks to Caroberto of Hungary, later Kassa was granted the "libera regiae civitas" in 1347 - as a free city of the crown. This can be of course due to the increased local german population, other cities that had such privilages during the time had the "civitas" promotion too with significant german population. Although this given city right might tried to counterbalance/or expand further/overwrite the Magdeburg rights, which was a german city right usually brought by the hospites. This right spred all across East-Central Europe, as many important medieval cities were founded by german hospites Prague, Krakow, Buda. This is the "Drang nach osten". Yet you think that the local German population at the area outnumbered the local Hungarians who happened to live in the region centuries before the arrival of the germans, and Eperjes/Kassa only played role as german language islands.


The city probably remained multi-ethnic after the arrival of the germans too. Like after when Buda was founded in 1240's - during the 1300's the Germans of Buda lived near to the modern day "Matthias Church" but the local Hungarians lived to the North near to the modern day "National Archives" building with the local jewish population in - (Táncsics Mihály utca), and the latin merchants and artisans lived in the Országház (Olasz) utca.


This resulting at least 4 different nationalities in the city, and based on the size of the German church (modern day Matthias church - well its a 19th century copy, but the original was similar in size) and based on the Hungarian (Magdalene Church in Buda castle) it's safe to say that both of the Hungarians and the local Germans had similar numbers when it comes to the population. And when you add the other population of the region of Buda the german population drops further more.


Otherwise the Hungarians would've had a smaller church, as the local jewish population had a smaller synagouge in size.


So I can hardly believe that by the 1300's when most of the germans were settled down in Kassa they massively outnumbered the already present Hungarian population.


This is somewhat similar to Bozen/Bolzano. Bozen was an ethnic austrian city but they started to settle down Italians in town during the reign of Mussolini. The Austrians from absolute majority dropped to 25-30% yet in the area the rural territories remained Austrian so even with Bozen combined Südtirol had 75% ethnic Austrian population until this day.


So when it comes to Eperjes or Kassa even if the local germans had majority you also have to count with the previous local Hungarian population within the city and thats combined with the Hungarian population living in the rural regions the German population will not make the absolut majority. This of course could've changed, and probably changed due to further migrations of german hospites to Kassa and Eperjes, but we are talking about the 1330's not the 1490's.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I love how this thread is ether
  • why you disagree and don’t comment, please write. He disagreed with me so fast *Isert picture from phone of 3 Respectfully Disagree reactions*
  • I’m tired of replying to disagreeing comments. “I don't think I need to explain anything to some guy on the forum“

And the funniest part is - it’s the same person

I guess silent disagreement again it is.
You didn't came up with your arguments, you only were mocking mainly the post by it's terms and structures.

Like dont use terms like "ancient Hungarians" - okay, i will use the Hungarian term: honfoglaló magyarok. Is that any better?

Hungarian publications go with the "ancient Hungarians" and by ancient Hungarians they mean the Hungarians who used to live in Etelköz, Levédia, and then later they arrived to the Carpathian basin, as "honfoglaló hungarian" could be misleading, or could cause confusion within non-hungarian readers.

The 3 map that I came up with had different time periods. The one that all of my further culture borders were based on was the one from the late 13th century.

The other two were from the late 15th century but the two maps contradicted each other - I've pointed that out, that on the migration map the Ruthenians are overpresented, on the MTA's map hovewer the Ruthenians are not really represented as Transcarpathia was shown as a huge white blob. I just inserted the late 1490's map so everyone can see how the ethnic composition changed in 150+ years due to the great plague and the Hussite wars which also was mentioned in the post.

And none of the people who gave the "respectful disagree" button came up with any questions like why? how? what? or any disproof or further questions.

Feel free to prove why the Romanians were present in the Partium during the 14th century or the Ruthenians in Transcarpathia if you don't agree with it.
 
  • 7Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
It's funny how you refer to something as "history" which is clearly lack of historical and archaeological sources and hard to prove, and had only one purpose to spread anti-hungarian sentiment and fabricating territorial claims. (like the Dacian-Roman continuity, but Csák Máté's slovak origin, and " his attempts to create an idependent medieval Slovakia" worth mentioning too...)


And as I said, I'm tired explaining this topic all over again. This is probably the last time replying with a longer post.


You are also cherrypicking - the map that you are refering to when it comes to the Hungarians between Kassa and Eperjes is from 1495. It was after the Hussite wars - which also had affects on the population at the region - and after the great plague.


Furthermore the German population of Kassa was settled down in a larger scale during the mid - 14th century, probably thanks to Caroberto of Hungary, later Kassa was granted the "libera regiae civitas" in 1347 - as a free city of the crown. This can be of course due to the increased local german population, other cities that had such privilages during the time had the "civitas" promotion too with significant german population. Although this given city right might tried to counterbalance/or expand further/overwrite the Magdeburg rights, which was a german city right usually brought by the hospites. This right spred all across East-Central Europe, as many important medieval cities were founded by german hospites Prague, Krakow, Buda. This is the "Drang nach osten". Yet you think that the local German population at the area outnumbered the local Hungarians who happened to live in the region centuries before the arrival of the germans, and Eperjes/Kassa only played role as german language islands.


The city probably remained multi-ethnic after the arrival of the germans too. Like after when Buda was founded in 1240's - during the 1300's the Germans of Buda lived near to the modern day "Matthias Church" but the local Hungarians lived to the North near to the modern day "National Archives" building with the local jewish population in - (Táncsics Mihály utca), and the latin merchants and artisans lived in the Országház (Olasz) utca.


This resulting at least 4 different nationalities in the city, and based on the size of the German church (modern day Matthias church - well its a 19th century copy, but the original was similar in size) and based on the Hungarian (Magdalene Church in Buda castle) it's safe to say that both of the Hungarians and the local Germans had similar numbers when it comes to the population. And when you add the other population of the region of Buda the german population drops further more.


Otherwise the Hungarians would've had a smaller church, as the local jewish population had a smaller synagouge in size.


So I can hardly believe that by the 1300's when most of the germans were settled down in Kassa they massively outnumbered the already present Hungarian population.


This is somewhat similar to Bozen/Bolzano. Bozen was an ethnic austrian city but they started to settle down Italians in town during the reign of Mussolini. The Austrians from absolute majority dropped to 25-30% yet in the area the rural territories remained Austrian so even with Bozen combined Südtirol had 75% ethnic Austrian population until this day.


So when it comes to Eperjes or Kassa even the local germans had majority you also have to count with the previous local Hungarian population and that combined with the population living in the rural regions the German population will not make the absolut majority. This of course could've changed, and probably changed due to further migrations of german hospites to Kassa and Eperjes, but we are talking about the 1330's not the 1490's.
What kind of strawman nonsense is this? Where have I said Germans outnumbered Hungarians in Kassa province??? And WTF is that Csaky nonsense? That's believed by the same kind of people that believe in Turuls and Hungarian Attila in Hungary!

Germans outnumbered Hungarians in Sáros county. That is a fact, attested by census data and Hungarian sources I cited in post 570. No matter how much obfuscating nonsense you'll spout, it's not gonna change a thing. They also outnumbered Hungarians in both Eperjes and Kassa towns, as your very own map proves:
1733526935483.jpeg


This is a Hungarian map which no one in their right mind can accuse of trying to diminish and marginalize Hungarians, yet it CLEARLY paints Eperjes and Kassa (and its immediate environs) as German.

The yellow in Eperjes + Seben + Bardfeld + the other areas (which were actual towns) easily outnumbers the supposedly Hungarian countryside. And just to show how much this maps exaggerates the supposedly Hungarian areas, check the areas in red. This is supposedly inhabited by Hungarians, yet most of the area is basically empty to this day and was never inhabited. I guess a single Hungarian shepherd was enough to paint an area.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Germans outnumbered Hungarians in Sáros county. That is a fact, attested by census data and Hungarian sources I cited in post 570.
Yes. And Materloo listed a couple reasons why he believes that the ethnic situation in 1337 is different than 158 years later.

Because the map is about the ethnic situation of Hungary in 1495.

Funfact: We only have that map, or rather the data to be able create that map, because of one guy's corruption.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
Yes. And Materloo listed a couple reasons why he believes that the ethnic situation in 1337 is different than 158 years later.
Wishful thinking and conjecture. Both cities were majority German long before, in 1241

Habitation in the area around Prešov dates as far back as the Paleolithic period. The oldest discovered tools and mammoth bones are 28,000 years old. Continuous settlement dates back to the 8th century.

After the Mongol invasion in 1241, King Béla IV of Hungary invited German colonists to fill the gaps in population. Prešov became a German-speaking settlement, related to the Zipser German and Carpathian German areas,[5] and was elevated to the rank of a royal free town in 1347 by Louis the Great.[
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Wishful thinking and conjecture. Both cities were majority German long before, in 1241
Yeah this is what you should have posted 16 minutes ago as a reply.

Now he either gives an adequate answer, or he doesn't.

Since it's half an hour past midnight, I will check on this conversation in the morning.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: