Tinto Maps #9 Carpathia and Balkans Feedback

[ZigTheNorweigan]

I don't want to cloud up the thread with any more noise but you guys should seriously just chill out and stop going off at one another and filling up this thread with useless noise that will just make it harder for the devs to gather good feedback

 

[Makkasag]

Sixth.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

I am glad that Armenians and Azeris can't afford the internet because the Caucasian discussion would be a hundred times worse than this one

 

[Ronin Szaky]

Btw ArVass, since you are pretty much the champion of hungarians on these threads, what's your take on the Croatia situation?

And what about the Vajdaság situation? I was hoping others could chip in on the ethnic makeup of Southern Hungary, specifically the parts (around Csongrád and Csanád?!) that are currently shown as Serbian majority regions.

 

[Zeprion]

The secret service strikes again

Do they now?

 

[Makkasag]

And what about the Vajdaság situation? I was hoping others could chip in on the ethnic makeup of Southern Hungary

It was mentioned 2-3 times. It's currently wrong. When the devs get back to us they will fix it.

Or not.

Do they now?

God bless tax payer money.

 

[sinisa mali]

wait so why was rusyn removed? from a rusyn perspective (im a rusyn), i think it's a bit stupid since carpatho-rusyns aren't even galician. that separation happened almost instantly since there's an entire mountain range dividing galicia and podkarpatska.

 

[Árpád Álmosfi]

And what about the Vajdaság situation? I was hoping others could chip in on the ethnic makeup of Southern Hungary, specifically the parts (around Csongrád and Csanád?!) that are currently shown as Serbian majority regions.

I did mentioned it earlier, even posted a map. Yeah its egregious, the serbs were nowhere near as north as they are in game. Only the most southern land on the other side of the danube had any majority. The rest barely even had serbs

 

[Mingmung]

I did mentioned it earlier, even posted a map. Yeah its egregious, the serbs were nowhere near as north as they are in game. Only the most southern land on the other side of the danube had any majority. The rest barely even had serbs

Yeah, that's basically the result of the Ottoman wars in the Balkans, which haven't happened yet, obviously. So, I agree with you guys.

 

[Ronin Szaky]

View attachment 1222654

It was mentioned 2-3 times. It's currently wrong. When the devs get back to us they will fix it.

Or not.


God bless tax payer money.

Exactly why I was hoping we could come up with some additional sources. After researching/reading about Csángós I was like:

wait so why was rusyn removed? from a rusyn perspective (im a rusyn), i think it's a bit stupid since carpatho-rusyns aren't even galician. that separation happened almost instantly since there's an entire mountain range dividing galicia and podkarpatska.

A bunch of us have already laid out some arguments against the decision, but additional feedback would be appreciated!

 

[Linbot#6018]

They are literaly called Transylvanian Saxons.

Transylvanian Saxons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, they ARE literally called Transylvanian Saxons. They're not called Transylvanians. Therefore calling them "Transylvanians" (or the German translation for it) is absurd. Literally just name the culture Transylvanian Saxon.

 

[cup_of_kittens]

and there are a few necessary location changes (@Pavía please split Szeged from Csongrád, it's one of the most important Free Royal Cities of this period and an important stop on the Transylvanian Salt Road

I totally agree. Szeged was and still is very important. Devs should create a new one from Csongrád and Makó and name it Szeegd.

I'd like to present my proposal for a better location split in Hungary as well, in addition to your Szeged and Csongrád split.

The Kecskemét and Cegléd split. In my opinion, the red circle should be the rough outline for Kecskemét, while the pink circle should be the rough outline for Cegléd.

According to Nándor Ikvai's 1982 Cegléd Története, page 88, the city was mentioned in a charter in 1444 as a city. Furthermore, it could choose its own judges from 1420 and was allowed to hold its own markets from 1448. Ikvai cites page 88 of László Makkai's Pest Megye Története from 1961, as well as records from the Hungarian National Archives. I think, considering that many historical maps show Kecskemét's extent to be oriented towards its west and east, this might be a worthwhile redraw for better accuracy. Do note that this would give Kecskemét a Cuman minority as there are several Cuman settlements to the west. The remaining land from Jakabszállás should be renamed to Félegyháza, while Kiskunfélegyháza gets renamed to Halas.

As for the yellow borders, I think that could be a new province. Now, it's fine if you keep it as it is, but I have a preference for natural borders where its possible to achieve them. So, in my opinion, Kalocsa and Solt shouldn't be a part of Fejér (with a J, not with an H.) The northern bit of Solt looks like a part of Csepel island, which I believe should be owned by a different location. Nowadays its more meaningful cities are closer to the capital and to Székesfehérvár, so it should either be owned by Székesfehérvár or Buda. It's probably okay to keep it as it is now

 

[EneaBako]

I did not start anything. You already started to give me dislikes for no reason. Before I even read your posts.

So you started it and you finished it.

Congrats I guess...

I have seen the posts about Devoll, I know about the city and the district. Is Devoll now in the feedback map? I've seen a region called Deavolis, I assumed it must be that.

@bokorthedust Albanians support the continuity theory
View attachment 1222642
Because if there are Vlachs in the south there's not enough space for greatestest Albania.

On the presence of Vlachs in southern Albania:
The Vlachs were a migratory population in the Balkans, including parts of modern-day southern Albania, but their historical presence does not overshadow the Albanian continuity in the region. Both Greek and Bulgarian sources from the Byzantine period confirm that southern Albania, particularly the region around Devoll, was predominantly inhabited by Albanians. For example;
- Greek sources like Anna Komnena (12th century) mention "Albanoi" as active participants in the Byzantine political sphere in these areas.
- Bulgarian studies, such as those by St. Mladenov, acknowledge that the region’s toponymy, including names like Devoll (possibly derived from Thracian origins), reflects an older Illyrian-Albanian presence.
I am refering to books from other authors and historians from neighboor countries regarding the region at the years 1300-1400 this has nothing to do with greater Albania.

 

[domagoj222]

Simplification: Ban of Slavonia and Ban of Croatia-Dalmatia (and Herceg ) was in open rebbelion against crown of Hungary-Croatia from 1322 - 1344. In 1337 ban of Slavonia was fighting on side of kingdom of Hungary-Croatia.

In the battle for the throne between the Arpadovics and the Anjou from 1292 - 1301, Prince Pavao Šubić, who was also the ban of Croatia - Dalmatia, took advantage of the opportunity, as a reward for helping Charles I Robert of Anjou, he received the dominion of the whole of Croatia as well as the hereditary title of Ban of Croatia - Dalmatia. When in the war against the Serbian king Uroš II. Milutin (1319 – 1320), Charles I succeeded in capturing Mačva by penetrating from the north, ban Mladen Šubić disinterestedly acted as support from the west through Bosnia. This inactivity of ban Mladen angered Charles I. He proclamed new ban of Croatia - Dalmatia (Slavonian ban Ivan Babonić) whom he sent with combined forces of Prince Frankopan against ban Mladen, who defeated him in the battle of Blizna in Poljici in 1322. Also after his defeat, Bosnia was given to Ban Stjepan Kortomanić. Ban Mladen was deposed and taken to Hungary. In 1324 Charles I also attempted to reinstate royal authority in Croatia and Slavonia. He dismissed the Ban of Slavonia, Ivan Babonić, replacing him with Mikcs Ákos in 1325. Ban Mikcs invaded Croatia to subjugate the local lords who had seized the former castles of Mladen Subić without the king's approval, but one of the Croatian lords, Ivan I Nelipac, routed the ban's troops in 1326. Consequently, royal power remained only nominal in Croatia during Charles's reign. The Babonići and the Kőszegis rose up in open rebellion in 1327, but Ban Mikcs and Alexander Köcski defeated them. So civil war raged in Croatia from 1320 - 1344. in that period, the king of Hungary and Croatia did not have any control over Croatia, but the real control was held by the Bans. Likewise, at the very beginning, an event could be held for Hungarian-Croatian relations. "Povijest Hrvatske I, Rudolf Horvat, Zagreb 1924.( 38;39;40. chapter)" , "Ugarsko kraljevstvo i Hrvatska u srednjem vijeku, Márta Font, Pécs Hungary 2005." both sources are supported by historical archives.

 

[Zerodv]

wait so why was rusyn removed? from a rusyn perspective (im a rusyn), i think it's a bit stupid since carpatho-rusyns aren't even galician. that separation happened almost instantly since there's an entire mountain range dividing galicia and podkarpatska.

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

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

 

[ibvfteh]

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

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

It’s a complex question that cannot be separate from other Ruthenian cultures.

When did Halychian and Volhynian emerged as separate cultures?

I don’t know for sure but I think Hungary conquered the lands where Rusyn people live earlier that Volhynia principality was established.

 

[Zeprion]

On the presence of Vlachs in southern Albania:
The Vlachs were a migratory population in the Balkans, including parts of modern-day southern Albania, but their historical presence does not overshadow the Albanian continuity in the region. Both Greek and Bulgarian sources from the Byzantine period confirm that southern Albania, particularly the region around Devoll, was predominantly inhabited by Albanians. For example;
- Greek sources like Anna Komnena (12th century) mention "Albanoi" as active participants in the Byzantine political sphere in these areas.
- Bulgarian studies, such as those by St. Mladenov, acknowledge that the region’s toponymy, including names like Devoll (possibly derived from Thracian origins), reflects an older Illyrian-Albanian presence.
I am refering to books from other authors and historians from neighboor countries regarding the region at the years 1300-1400 this has nothing to do with greater Albania.

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

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

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

 

[Zerodv]

We have barely any records of Romanian at this point in time, so this argument is frankly silly.

In lieu of direct evidence we should use linguistics arguments

From "Loanwords in the world's languages":

Spoiler

3.2.3. Later contact with Slavic languages

In addition to the comparatively early South Slavic influence, there was more localized contact between Romanian and individual Slavic languages at later dates. Thereis evidence of contact between Romanian and Ukrainian that must have taken placeafter the 12th century (as shown by the fact that borrowing took place after aUkrainian [h]>[g] change, dated around the 12th century, cf. Mih"il" 1973: 46) inthe north, of contact with Serbian since the 15th century in the east, as well as continuing contact with Bulgarian in the south. These regionally limited contactsituations were characterized by interaction, in most domains of everyday life, between the Slavic and the Romanian populations in the respective areas.

So after 1100-1200 is when Romanians likely reached North-Central Moldavia.

It’s a complex question that cannot be separate from other Ruthenian cultures.

When did Halychian and Volhynian emerged as separate cultures?

I don’t know for sure but I think Hungary conquered the lands where Rusyn people live earlier that Volhynia principality was established.

I'm skeptical of this, because Rusyn still carry the name Rus derived from the Novgoridan Scandinavian Rus and are Orthodox, which doesn't seem likely if they were just Slavs that happened to live there when Hungary expanded around the 10th century.

 

[WelshStalker]

The location of Methoni should 100% have a natural harbour because of Navarino Bay. The Ottomans and Egyptians stationed huge amounts of their naval forces in the bay during the Greek War of Independence prior to the Battle of Navarino in 1827 when the Brits, French and Russians destroyed the entire fleet. I'd also argue the same for the Gulf of Arta/Ambracian Gulf.

 

[Zeprion]

From "Loanwords in the world's languages":

Spoiler

3.2.3. Later contact with Slavic languages

In addition to the comparatively early South Slavic influence, there was more localized contact between Romanian and individual Slavic languages at later dates. Thereis evidence of contact between Romanian and Ukrainian that must have taken placeafter the 12th century (as shown by the fact that borrowing took place after aUkrainian [h]>[g] change, dated around the 12th century, cf. Mih"il" 1973: 46) inthe north, of contact with Serbian since the 15th century in the east, as well as continuing contact with Bulgarian in the south. These regionally limited contactsituations were characterized by interaction, in most domains of everyday life, between the Slavic and the Romanian populations in the respective areas.

So after 1100-1200 is when Romanians likely reached North-Central Moldavia.

I don't see how the source points to that. All it says is that these 2 cultures interacted after 1100, which is true as they were neighbours, but that's about all it says.

So the Romanians likely had contact with the Ukrainians over the Dniester river, which continued after the 12th century when the [h]>[g] change was made.