• 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.
Yeah, the cultures in Hungary look OK, and im alright with how Transylvania was handled. My only complaint is that serbs weren't that dominant in the south of Hungary, most of them still lived around the border. They only started migrating inwards in larger numbers later.

Just to illustrate my point, here is a map from a hungarian textbook, the ethnic lines are somewhat vague, but this is technically how they looked like in the late 13th century/early 14th:
1732544886568.png
 
  • 14Like
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
Why aren't Naxos and Negroponte vassals of Venice?!?
Naxos is a subject of Achaia, which is in turn a subject of Naples. The Triarcy of Negroponte was quite autonomous at this stage, and it didn't become a clear subject of Venice until 1383-1390.
 
  • 35
  • 14Like
Reactions:
View attachment 1221270
Please devs can you change the colour between Aromanian and Albanian. It is legitimately impossible to tell who is what in wich province except for the really obvious ones. I still couldnt tell you what is aromanian and what is albanian outside of the obvious examples like provinces directly bordering albanian culture.
Ditto for greek-bulgarian-turkish.

They're too damn similar, and one would imagine that cultures that close together that are quite distinctly unrelated in origin should be easier to tell apart instead of being a great, off-white blob.
 
  • 18
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
5. Kingdom. Yes, the word 'Tsar' comes as a mimic of the Roman 'Caesar'; however, we only have two empires in Europe by 1337 - the Eastern Roman, and the Holy Roman.
But it's referred as the Second Bulgarian Empire, even if it was in decline by 1337 and didn't have a clear distinction as the kingdom of Serbia and the Serbian Empire it was officially considered as an empire by themselves
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
A few notes:

1.) Why is Bulgarian not a South Slavic Language?

2.) Can you please give Greek, Turkic and Bulgarian Languages/Cultures more distinct colors.

3.) Shouldn't Bratislava/Pressburg and Sopron be majority German at this time?
1. All the Languages and Dialects in the region are a bit WIP right now, so we decided to use this thread to gather further feedback about them, now that the Culture and Language mechanics are disclosed.
2. It's in our list of TODOs, yes!
3. We'll check.
 
  • 41Like
  • 4
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Cultures.png

There are also some changes in this distribution. The most important ones are the Rusyn culture being replaced by Halychian, and Moldovan being its own culture in the setup.


Why is the distribution of the Ruthenian or Slavic population so low?
It should be from 30% to 40% of the entire duchy of Moldavia (Area of Moldavia) by different sources. I do not see this on the presented map at all. Sources presented below under Research.

Historically there was a big concentration of the Slavic speaking population
Tivertsi and Ulichs are briefly mentioned in early Ruthenian manuscripts, 863 being the earliest reference, and 944 being the latest. The Primary Chronicle from the Laurentian Codex (the oldest copy) mentions that they lived by the Dniester and Danube down to the sea (evidently, the Black Sea).
…улучи и тиверцы седяху бо по Днестру, присѣдяху къ Дунаеви; бе множьство ихъ, сѣдяху по Днестру оли до моря, и суть гради их и до сегодне
The Hypatian Codex (later re-copy) replaces the Dniester with the Dnieper.
Igor's expeditions in 944, the latter year, are the last references to Tivertsi in early East Slavic manuscripts.
So the lands in our question were the edges of their habitat at worst.

1732544030670.png
1732543992220.png
1732544007886.png
1732544042973.png



Next, come Bolokhovians

Some Romanian scholars argue that they were not Slavic but Romanian instead. Here I want to prove that they were Slavic

In official English sources, they are referred to as Bolokhovians. But in the Hypatian chronicle, they are called „Болоховьскими“, Bolokhovskimi so the nominative form is Bolokhovskiye - people of the region Bolokhov. There is a village called exactly like that in Western Ukraine(Bolokhiv), but it is probably not connected with Bolokhovian people.

Their cities are also mentioned:
слъıшавъ же Данилъ приходъ Ростиславль . со кнѧзи Болоховьскими . на Бакотоу . абье оустремисѧ на нѣ . грады ихъ ѡгневи предасть . и греблѧ ихъ . раскопа . [...] Данилъ же возьма плѣнъ многъ вратисѧ . и поима грады ихъ . Деревичь Гоубинъ . и Кобоудъ . Коудинъ городѣць . Божьскыи Дѧдьковъ . приде же Коурилъ печатникъ кнѧзѧ Данила . со треими тысѧщами пѣшець . и трьими сты коньникъ . и водасть имъ взѧти Дѧдьковъ град̑ . ѿтоуда же плѣнивъ землю Болоховьскоую . и пожегъ . ѡставили бо ихъ Татарове . да имъ ѡрють пшеницю и проса . Данилъ же на нѣ болшоую вражьдоу держа. ӕко ѿ Тотаръ надежоу имѣахоу
In this quote is one of the biggest mentions of Bolokhovians. It tells about Daniil Galitsky subduing Bolokhovians. He did it because Bolokhovians with Rostislavl Chernihovskiy have tried to claim the Halych principality. It mentions the cities of Bolokhovians that Daniil had captured: Derevic, Gubin, Kobud, the town of Kudin, Boz'skyj, and Djad'kov. As you can see, all settlements have Slavic names.

Derevic: The “-vic” suffix is typical in Slavic place names. It is commonly found in Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian names, often indicating a geographical location or community.

Gubin: The “-in” ending is also common in Slavic languages and often reflects noble or family origins in place names. It suggests that the place could have been named after a person or family, possibly someone named "Guba."

Kobud: While less common, the “Ko-” prefix or “-bud” suffix is suggestive of Slavic origins. The “-bud” root can be linked to the concept of “dwelling” or “building” in Slavic languages (as in the Polish word “budować,” meaning “to build”).

Kudin (the town of Kudin): "Kudin" sounds Slavic, with the “Kud-” root often appearing in Slavic regions. It could also have been named after a person or family.

Boz'skyj: The root “Bozh” clearly indicates a Slavic origin, as it resembles the Slavic word for "God" (for example, “Бог” [Bog] in Russian). This suggests the place may have held religious significance or been named in connection with a divine or sacred element.

Djad'kov: The root “Djad’” (meaning “uncle” or “elder” in Slavic languages, like in Russian or Ukrainian) may indicate that the place was named after a respected or elder figure. The “-kov” ending is a common Slavic suffix used in place names to indicate possession or association (e.g., the land of "Djad").


During the Raykovets settlement (which was destroyed in 1240) research, they found not only military equipment but also Slavic vases with mythological patterns, wooden materials with Slavic patterns, and graves that show the Slavic burial process and all of it is assigned to Bolokhovian culture. And there was nothing that had any strong resemblance to only Vlach/Romanian culture.

Mikhail, Prince of Chernihiv, and Iziaslav, Prince of Novgorod-Seversk referred to Bolokhovian princes as their "brothers", the text also mentions that the Bolokhovian princes had family ties with boyars of the Principality of Halych. Princes of one nation mentioning Princes of Bolokhovian people as brothers means they were their brothers, either literally the same predecessor or in the sense of Slavic people. It proves that Bolokhovians were part of the diplomacy of Slavic principalities. The rulers of Bolokhovians had Slavic roots.

(Spinei 2009, pp. 161-162):
"...controversial is the ethnicity of the Bolokhovens, a population mentioned as living in the Rus region to the northeast from Moldavia.."
"..the idea that the Bolokhoveni were Rus is also supported by evidence of relations between Bolokhoven princes and Galician noble families...".

There are multiple variations of land they controlled
1732544115418.png

The "Bolokhovian Land", according to Alexandru V. Boldur. He also says that the Bolokhovians were located southeast of the present-day town of Ushitsa

1732544097213.png


Ovidiu Drimba - History of Romanian culture and civilization, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 1987, vol.2, pg.404

Right before and after the creation of the Moldavian principality, there was a lot of mentions of Ruthenians or Halychians.
1.
Chronicle "The tale of Igor's campaign" says that Galician ruler Jaroslav Osmomyls during the war with Cumans "reached Ugrian mountains (Carpathians)" and "locked Danubian gates" in 1185.

2.
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 Halychian fishermen".

Because of those and many other sources, Historians debate whether the Halych principality controlled the lands of entire Moldavia or only modern Bukovina
1732788117946.png
1732788172641.jpeg
1732789036660.png
1732788374308.jpeg
1732788281969.png
1732804142037.jpeg


3.
One city on the Danube, Galați before the Golden Horde was referred to as Malyi Halych (Little Halych)
source Arkas, M. Istorii︠a︡ Ukraïny-Rusi. [History of Ukraine-Ruthenia]. "Obshchestvennaia Polza" 1908.

4.
Acc. to 1334 Franciscans Order's register, Ruthenian vicariate (vicaria Russiae) included 13 missions in such settlements: Lemburgae (modern Lviv) , de Grodech (Horodok), de Colomia (Kolomyia), de Galciff (Halych), de Nostin (Sniatyn), Cusminen (Valia Kuzmyna), Cereth (Serit), Moldaviae (Baia), Caminix (Piatra Neamț), Scotorix (Iași), Cotcham (Galați) , Licostoni (Kiliia), Albi castri (Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi).
- Bullarium franciscanum romanorum pontifi cum constitutiones, epistolas, ac diplomata continens tribus ordinibus minorum, clarissarum, et poenitentium a seraphico patriarcha Sancto Francisco / [reverendissimi patris magistri L. C. de Signia]. T. 5. Apendix I. – P. 602, XLI

5.
A lot of cities in this region were listed in the List of Russian Cities, Far and Near(14th century). That means that there were a lot of people who could communicate in a Slavic language. Here is the map showing all the mentions. As you can see Bulgarian cities are included but Wallachians ARE NOT! Which means that it wasn’t based on religion.
1732544326488.jpeg
1732544338351.jpeg

The cities are mentioned as Vlach cities, but it was about who controlled them, as a lot of cities like for example Minsk or Toropets, are mentioned as Lithuanian. And some cities are Tverian or Ryazanian. Based on the dates of the foundation and political affiliation of certain cities, B. Leonid Yanin dated the original data of the List of 1375–1381. I want to stress that it is a political affiliation that cities were Vlach or Lithuanian all those cities were still on the list of Russian cities.
1734264166686.png
1734264226024.png

here is the comparison of the categorisation. As you can see Minsk is shown as Lithuanian.
In 14th century Moldavian duchy already controlled the cities of Cernivtsi, Siret, and Hotin and therefore all of them are considered Vlach

Here are two posts explaining that it can not be used to say there were Vlach majority based on the list.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ia-and-balkans-feedback.1717613/post-30072626
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ia-and-balkans-feedback.1717613/post-30072737

6.
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

7.
In Grigore Ureche's "Letopisețul Țării Moldovei" (1642-1647) edited in 1660-1670 by Moldavian chronicler Simion Dascălul there are mentions about the Slavic population in Moldova, living there, and becoming a part of new Moldavian duchy, while writing about the Moldavian legend of the foundation of Moldavia by Dragoș:
the country was created on the basis of two ethnic groups: Romanians [rumâni] and Ruthenians [ruși] and up to the present day Ruthenians made up half the country's population and the other half consisted of Romanians

In the preface of the Moldavian chronicle it is said that when the hunters [Dragoș, the first Voivode of Moldavia, and his people] killed the auroch, on the way back they saw places that pleased the soul and turned towards the area where the Suceava Fair is now located. Having smelled smoke and being near water in a small forest, they followed this smell and went down to the place where the Ețcanei Monastery is now located. Not far from there they found an apiary with hives and an old beekeeper who was Ruthenian by origin, his name was Ețco [Slavic name Yatsko]. When the hunters asked him who he was and from what country, he answered that he was Ruthenian [rus] from the Polish Country. They also asked him about this area - whose was it and to what ruler did it obey? Ețco said that these places were deserted and had no master - only animals and birds ruled here; "they extend down to the Danube and up to the Dniester, where they border on the Polish Country; these lands provide good food. Having understood his words, the hunters hurried to Maramorăs, from where they led their people to these places and encouraged others to do the same. At first they settled near the mountains and spread down Moldova River. And Ețco the beekeeper, having learned about the settlement of the Maramorăs people, immediately went to the Polish Country and brought a multitude of Ruthenians, and settled them up the Suceava and the Siret to Botoșani. And so the Romanians settled in the lower part, and the Ruthenians the upper part.
Predoslovie a létopisețului moldovenescu ce într-însa spune că este făcută țara den doao limbi, de rumâni și de ruși, de care lucru să cunoaște că și păn' astăzi este țara giumătate de ruși și giumătate de rumâni

Scrie la létopisețul cel moldovenescu, la predoslovie, de zice că deaca au ucis acei vânători acel buor, întorcându-se înapoi, văzând locuri desfătate, au luat pre câmpi într-o parte și au nemerit la locul unde acum târgul Sucévei. Acolo aminosindu-le fum de foc și fiind locul despre apă, cu pădure mănuntă, au pogorât pre mirodeniia fumului la locul unde este acum mănăstirea Ețcanei. Acolea pre acelaș loc au găsit o priseacă cu stupi și un moșneag bătrân, de prisăcăriia stupii, de seminție au fost rus și l-au chiemat Ețco. Pre carele deaca l-au intrebat vânătorii, ce omu-i și den ce țară este, el au spus că este rus den Țara Leșască. Așijderea și pentru loc l-au intrebat, ce loc este acesta și de ce stăpân ascultă ? Ețco au zis: este un loc pustiiu și fără stăpân, de-l domnescu fierile și pasările și să tinde locul în gios, păn' în Dunăre, iar în sus păn' în Nistru, de să hotăraște cu Țara Leșască, și este loc foarte bun de hrană. Înțelegând vânătorii acest cuvânt, au sârguit la Maramorăș, de ș-au tras oamenii săi într-această parte și pre alții au îndemnat, de au descălecat întăi supt munte și s-au lățit pre Moldova în gios. Iar Iațco prisecariul, deaca au înțeles de descălecarea maramorășénilor, îndată s-au dus și el în Țara Leșască, de au dus ruși mulți și i-au descălecat pre apa Sucévei în sus și pre Sirétiu despre Botoșiani. Și așa de sârgu s-au lățit rumănii în gios și rușii în sus.
It claims that HALF of the population was Ruthenian. But I believe it's in a sense of a sizable minority on par with them:

8.
On the period of the Moldavian foundation, 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 affected

This suggests that Moldavia was natively populated by Slavs who were driven out during the foundation of Moldavia. The founding of Moldavia (Romanian: Descălecatul Moldovei) began with the arrival of a Vlach (Romanian) voivode, Dragoș, soon followed by his people from Maramureș, then a voivodeship, to the region of the Moldova River.

At the end of 40 pages of "civil discussions" I think we came to the best conclusion, to rely on toponymic analysis as a source of ethnic borders. People have named the cities in their language with roots, suffixes and features of that language, features that can differentiate the languages apart even with borrowing.

This research approximates the Slav/Romanian population of Moldavia principality at the start of the 14th century. This research is the closest we have to 1337(game start date). It analyses sources from the 14-15th centuries. This removes any speculation about when Moldavian people came to this area.
Map of areas of toponyms in the 14-15 century (so after the establishment of the Moldavian duchy, and for me after migration)
It is a detailed paper that was written by Lazar Polevoy (L. L. Polevoĭ)

1732544142248.png
1731616696373.png

author analyzed the names of rural settlements of Moldavia in the 14th – mid-15th centuries and concluded that the East Slavic (Ruthenian) population of the entire Moldavian principality in the middle of the 14th century was 39.5%, and in the first third XV century – 26.5% (Polevoy 1979: 113).

1732804855402.png

More detailed image with dot 1-3 showing big cities and 4 - Moldavian cities, 5 - Slavic cities, 6 - Golden Horde cities.

According to geographer Vadzim Žučkevič, of the 151 names of rivers in Moldova and the Chernivtsi region of Ukraine, 72 are of Slavic origin, 24 are Romanian, 18 are Hungarian, and 7 are Tatar.

One more read about it: Суляк Сергей Георгиевич Русинская топонимика Карпато-Днестровских земель как источник сведений об этническом составе населения Молдавского княжества // Русин. 2018. №1 (51).

1732544303594.png
1732544311857.png


he also outlines the cities that have Slavic names

An additional information
https://archaeolog.ru/media/books_arch_ussr/ArchaeologyUSSR_06.pdf

This paper shows archaeological fortifications made by Rus' people between X and XIII centuries
1737557922208.png
1737558025614.png
1737558034513.png

here is my post going over it

here I went deep into this research:
It is a detailed paper that was written by Lazar Polevoy (L. L. Polevoĭ)

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

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

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

Next, he talks about the presumed population of the land


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

measuring the entire population to be 78 thousand people

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

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

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

He also writes not Romanian but specifically Moldovian.

I believe based on everything I have presented that the map should look closer to:

1732616142758.png
1732616125985.png
1732545097365.png

Where minorities mean 30-40% of the population (as there were both Slavic and Romanian settlements). all based on 14-15th century toponyms.

1734264648595.png

Cities like: Chernivtsi, Soroca, and Hotin are surrounded by a great amount of Slavic villages, however, the Vlach villages are extremely low around them.
As there was a HUGE concentration of Slavic villages of the 14th century in the Northern Regions and around Soroca and Orhei. It is sad that Tinto chose to ignore all of that.

1732544449017.png
1734352701685.png
1734352793420.jpeg

Chernivtsi is still a Slavic city, even in Austrian censuses a lot of villages around it were Slavic. Why is it here with a Moldavian majority? Even though there are dozens of Slavic villages everywhere both now and in the 14th century?


1732616423304.png
1732616478424.png

With minorities around 10%, I think this should be the distribution as there are a lot of disorganised Slavic villages in Moldavian proper


the description of my proposal (it also describes why I went with Crimean culture as a majority in Budjak and Jasz minority):
So, After a long battle of speculations, I think it is fair to go with the best we have here. Toponymic analysis. All the rest were ifs and probabilities.

The research have been conducted for the middle of the 14th century

It is structured in a way to be most accurate, dating the founding of cities and relying only on those, which were built in the 14th century

here is the overlay of the map from it
View attachment 1218516

here is my map proposal based on it
View attachment 1218654View attachment 1218653

The regions with stripes - are regions where both cultures have been found. There is no estimate of the percentage, but looking at places like Orhei, it is pretty close, like 40 to 60
View attachment 1218519
The black dots are Moldavian and the white are Slavic.

Jasz population is a hole. I can't find any direct source stating they have stayed there until 1337. Everyone indicates their fast assimilation with Moldavians in the 14th century. Here is some statements about it I found
View attachment 1218525
Translation

here is Bulgarian work (download only)
View attachment 1218539View attachment 1218538
It mentions the connection of the city of Iași (Yasi) and the principality of Iașko (a little-known Alan principality north of the Danube). This principality is noted as being among the allies of Michael III Shishman, the Bulgarian tsar, during his wars with Serbia in 1330. This is reportedly mentioned in the "Zakonik" of Stefan Dušan from 1349 (see contemporary commentary by S. Ćirković and others, in "Zbornik," vol. 5, p. 208, note 107)

So I have put stripes for them as a compromise. It can be argued both ways to either increase or remove them.


Regions that are not painted - tough

It showcases that there was no villages of Moldavian or Slavic origin in any document. I have painted some, like Mountains, with Moldavians and Csangos, and some with Slavs, to connect distant cities. The latter place should be empty tho, as no settlements are found there, while mountains were outside of the scope

The steppes of Budjak - double hard. We have no settlements here except Port cities like Moncastro
View attachment 1218542

Here I have some Bulgarian papers stating that the lands around Dniestr were Cumans, Alans and Black Klobuks
View attachment 1218536

So, all we have are a few tatar settled cities, like Shehr al-Jadid (Romanian: Şehr al-Djedid), where we have coins, ceramics and other
View attachment 1218546

this Tatar city is believed to have been established toward the end of the 13th century on the rocky banks of the Răut River. Between 1363–65, Orheiul Vechi served as the residence of the future leader of the Horde, Khan Abdullah (1367–68).
According to: Gheorghe Postică, Orheiul Vechi. Cerecetări arheologice (1996–2001), Iași, Editura Universitășii A.I. Cuza, 2006, p. 56

My source says
View attachment 1218552
That Golden Horde colonised this area bringing people, to manufacture goods there

the tourist guide

It states that there was a presence of Islam and Mosque was constructed

Based on population density I propose this, with the addition of Moncastro
View attachment 1218565View attachment 1218567

Here is the population density based on the research
1732805864112.png
1732805689638.png

White - almost no people
Yellow - not highly populated
Red - majority of the population (combines tree types of striped lines from the source)
 
Last edited:
  • 23Like
  • 11
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Can we see the town/city map please?
I'm a bit reluctant, as we have a lot of balancing work yet to be done, so asking for feedback at this stage won't really be that useful. But we're looking forward to sharing those maps later on, yes!
 
  • 36Like
  • 7
Reactions:
Great changes, one note I would suggest. Bolekhiv settlement in Halychia territory is named after Vlachs (Romanians), one part of the town is still called Vlach village to this day. The town first mentioned in 1371 but there are a lot of other Vlach-referencing toponyms in this area since 1297 (like Valasske Mezirici in Moravia). I think that Carpathian provinces of Halychia and northern Moldavia should have a more mixed Ruthenian-Romanian population, more Ruthenians in Moldavia, more Romanians in Halychia
1732544542652.png



Nogai, on the other hand, is placed accurately, but I would add Sehr al-Djedid under Golden Horde as well, and added more Nogai pops in the area because Golden Horde moved a lot of colonists to the area, before them area was controlled by Cumans, so Turkic population should have a stronger presence in Golden Horde controlled land.

Isaccea, on the other hand, should be majority Nogai as well, according to geographer Abu al-FIda. Abulfeda is the best source we have of the ethnic makeup of this land.
In general, Dobruja was on a way of Turkic migration, so it should be more mixed with Turkic and Bulgarian population outnumbering Vlachs

1732546672388.png
 
Last edited:
  • 9Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Naxos is a subject of Achaia, which is in turn a subject of Naples. The Triarcy of Negroponte was quite autonomous at this stage, and it didn't become a clear subject of Venice until 1383-1390.
I understand for Naxos(even though Angevin rule was pretty much nominal) but Negroponte was a under the protection of Venice since 1209, even if Venice didn't have complete control of their givernment they should be considered as some kind of vassal.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The city itself absolutely should be. It kept it's german majority until the 1920s.

If the county is bigger than the city then that might influence the map colour.
Most larger cities in Hungary were german majority, and many had larger jewish communities. But yeah if the surrounding area is counted as well it wouldn't be majority german, but mostly a mix of slovak/hungarian
 
  • 5Like
  • 3
Reactions:
hurray, you finally added Nola, tho it's part of the Kingdom of Naples. Still better than nothing tho. Still, no Amalfi / Sorrento location and especially it's baffling to have a "Terre d'Otranto" province without actually Otranto. It literally is "Otranto's lands" without Otranto on the damned map, it looks silly. It's like saying Île de France without Paris

Also why did you turn Salento back into Sicilian culture? It makes no sense, especially since you included a culture map mode too
 
  • 4
Reactions:
@Pavía there are a few things that I found and are missing:
1-Cetatea Alba was owned by Genoa in 1337, not just a trade post or the fortress but also the city(known as Maurocastro)
2-In 1337 the lordship of Argos amd Nauplia was ruled by Walter II(or the VI) Count of Brienne who by 1337 also ruled over the island of Leukás and fortress of Vónitsa conquered in 1331 from the Byzantines and Epirotes during a expedition to reclaim the duchy of Athens of which he's still the titular duke of(he should still have cores at the start since his father owned them) from the catalans in a crusade appoved by the Pope(see the anti-catalan crusade)
3-Corfu was owned officially(indirectly) by the king Albania(or at least we know it was in Angevin hands, Venice did owned in the past and it will take it back in the future though
4-Samos and Ikaria have been taken by Byzanthium since 1329, Genoa will only fully take them back by 1346
5-Naufpaktos/Lepanto was still controlled by the Angevins(supposedly Achaea) in 1337, apparently after the failed invasion of the Despotate of Epirus by Philip I of Taranto the Epirotes were able to take the city back but after making peace in 1306 they gave it back to the Angevins which held it until the 1350s/1360s
There's this book that talks of the crusader states in Greece after the fourth crusade that I took some of my informations here from called "The Latins in the Levant: a History of Frankish Greece(1204-1566)" by William H. Miller
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
May I ask for what modifiers the terrain, climate and vegetation give? IIRC we only saw +10% food production for continental in one of the economy TTs.

eventually.
 
  • 27Like
  • 6
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
Why don't Hungary and Bulgaria share a border? How is the war which broke out between the 2 in 1365 going to occur? Why isn't there a breakaway polity in Karvuna/Dobruja when it likely came to be all the way back in 1321? Why isn't Vidin at least autonomous when it was still ruled by a member of the Shishman dynasty in 1337? Why aren't there any Jasz people in Iasi?
1. This is one of the trickiest issue we had to tackle, as the historical sources are not clear at all, and give quite different information.
2. We consider that this is the most likely border in 1337, and that doesn't really affect a war, which can still happen.
3. That's something that we also discussed, and we're very likely to implement an event to let Karvuna split off Bulgaria.
4. Something that we also discussed, we think that the best way to portray it is as a low-control province, as we don't have good data either about who was ruling over it in 1337.
5. There are Jasz in the region.
 
  • 30
  • 17Like
  • 5
Reactions: