-
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 slavic population in Transylvania.
Judging from river-names and archaeological finds, at the time of the Hungarian Conquest, a population that spoke a Slavic language and had a Slavic material culture could be found where the mountains met the plains and in most other regions of Transylvania. By that time, three great Slavic language-groups had emerged — the eastern (Russian), western (Polish, Czech-Moravian, Wendish-Sorbian), and the southern (Bulgar, Serbo-Croatian, Slovene). Hungarian settlers encountered all of the linguistically-differentiated Slav groups, except for the Serbs, who still lived in {1-358.} isolation from the Hungarians, and the Elbe Slavs. The Hungarians called these people by their own names, and in accordance with their current political status: Orosz (Russian), Lengyel (Pole), Cseh (Czech), Marót (Moravian), Nándor or Lándor (Onogundur Turkic names for Bulgaro-Slavs), and Horvát (Croat). Such names figure among the 10th–13th century toponyms in several regions of Hungary (e.g. Orosz, Oroszi), where they identify the presence among the Hungarians of a residual ethnic settlement.
Most likely Bulgarians. Slavic or turkic.
A different ethnic composition is revealed by the names of the Olt's tributaries. A striking proportion of the names is of unknown (i.e. definitely not of Slavic, Hungarian, German, or Romanian) origin; some are said — more or less plausibly — to be derived from a Turkic language (Barót, Tömös, Barca, Tatrang, Brassó, Zajzon). The Slavic, Hungarian, and German river-names (and those with variants in all three languages) are intermingled. The tributaries to the right of the Olt are called Árapatak — Arpatac, ?Barót — Baraolt?, Kormos — Cormoş, Vargyas — Varghiş, Homoród — {1-357.} Homorod — Hamruden, Kozd (< Kövesd, 1206) — COSDU — Kosbach, Hortobágy — HÎRTIBAV/Hîrtibaciu — Harbach, CIBIN — ŢIBIU — Zibin, Feketevíz — Cernavoda — SCHWARZWASSER, Sebes — Sebeş — Schewis, and Cód — Sad — Zoodt; the ones of the left at the Feketeügy — Fechetig, Kászon — Caşin, Kovászna — Covasna, ?Tatrang — Tîrlung?, ?Zajzon — Zizin?, ?Tömös — Timiş?, ?Brassó — Braşov?, VIDOMBÁK — GHIMBAV — WEIDENBACH, ?Barca — Bîrsa — Burze?, Hamaród — Hamarud — SCHELLENBACH, Sebes — Sebeş, Árpás — Arpaş, BESINBÁK — BEŞINBAV — BESCHENBACH, and ?Porumbák — Porumbac?. These names suggest that the Olt region's earlier inhabitants were Slavs and another, perhaps Turkic people (just like in the Küküllő region to the north), both of whom were still present when the Hungarians, Germans, and Romanians arrived.
- 5
Russian is a misnomer here, better call it Ruthenian, considering that modern Russian is barely Slavic. Moravian, sure, but Czechs in Transylvania, most assuredly not.
- 1
I have no idea. Here is a part of the larger work I was quoting from, if you are interested.
Pic unrelated
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
It has no Hungarian absolute majority, it has a mixed population which is very unlikely. The Hungarian burials from the 9-10th century are already present at these locations, and from the Hungarian arrival i highly doubt that any of the slavic population could survive as linguistic islands or as a mixed population near to the Danube while the language border spreads up until Nitra.
Brassó can be slavic but it was mentioned as "Terra Saxonum de Barasu" So the "Barasu/Baraso" could be the original form, which has turkic origin from "baraso" (turkish - beyaz su) - white water which could refers to the waterfalls nearby. And since bulgarians were a mixed turkic-slavic population at the time there is a slim chance that it's indeed of turkish origin.
"It also seems like even Materloo sees the Hungarian Sáros as nonentity (correct me if wrong)."
Well that little piece upnorth would be the Hungarians of Sáros. I just don't know if it is possible to represent ingame properly.
That valley is also presented as a Hungarian populated area from the map of István Kniezsa during the 11th century. Most likely because of it's Hungarian toponyms, like (Eperjes, Nagysáros, Kellemes) and based on it's Hungarian archaeological finds from the 8-9th century.
Attachments
- 3
- 3
- 1
I don't have access to it either, but a neat trick is to look into documents that cited it.
Here's a relevant ChatGPT translation from a Ukrainian paper:
"Conclusions: The province "Marchia Ruthenorum" emerged on the eastern border of the Carolingian Empire along the Upper Danube around the middle of the 9th century. Its name was derived from the activity of international merchants in this region, who traded between the Carolingian Empire and Eastern Europe and were known as the Rus. The primary goods exported by these merchants from Slavic lands included slaves, wax, and horses. At that time, only merchants could bear this name, not a state, and certainly not any Slavic ethnic community. Therefore, attempts to trace the origins of the Rusyns of Transcarpathia as an independent ethnic group stemming from the "March of the Ruthenians," which existed as early as the 9th century, lack any historical basis.
In this context, the presence of an ethnic community in Transcarpathia identifying itself as Rusyns reflects the spread of Kyivian princely power in the region. In this light, Transcarpathia’s subjugation to Kyiv can be confidently placed in the late 10th to 11th centuries, as the process of assimilating the Varangian elites, which laid the groundwork for the spread of Rus identity among the Slavs, only began after the adoption of Christianity. The title of the Hungarian prince as "prince of the Rus" in the early 11th century does not contradict this, as the title signified either claims to the "March of the Ruthenians" in the Carolingian Empire or control over the adjacent region. In short, the historical name "Rusyns" among the population of Transcarpathia, who identify as Slavs, and the absence of competing self-designations among them, means only one thing: a shared historical existence with the ancestors of the Ukrainians in the state of Rus. References to the existence of a separate state among the ancestors of the current Rusyns of Transcarpathia, called the "Ruthenian March," contradict the content of historical sources." [Page 13-14]
TL;DR: There were no indigenous Rusyns but Slavic tribes that were converted and assimilated by the ancestors of Ukrainians.
It is rather funny to see that the Ukrainians also have a claim on assimilating the original Slavs living in Transcarpathia, I wonder what the Slovak claim is.
At any rate, I am not entirely sure what the "10th to 11th century subjugation" implies in this context/translation [perhaps the start of the Ruthenian influence?!]. Hungarian scholars were adamant in stating that Ruthenian migrations only started later (12th-13th century) and intensified long after that (18th century and on). Given that the area was part of the borderlands, I can definitely see how the process may have started earlier, but I am hesitant to believe that it was much beyond the immediate border as the Hungarian settlements were also expanding significantly at the time.
- 1
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.
1. There is no Slovak claim to Transcarpathia, outside some fringe deranged Nazis maybe. At no point in history could that land be considered Slovak, maybe parts of it were fringe of Great Moravia but the local Slavs were hardly Moravian or Slovak.
2. I have seen the 10th-11th century subjugation mentioned in multiple sources, but it's never very detailed. Seems like the area was a poorly controlled borderland claimed/controlled by both Hungary and Kievan Rus in some manner?
- 2
For the settlements' names here are some of my suggestions:
rename Újvidék to Vásárosvárad, or to Baksafalva, or to Kőszentmárton - As Újvidék "Novi Sad" was newly founded settlement due to the Habsburg's resettlement activities and it was mainly Pétervárad at the region which was considered as an important settlement, but Pétervárad is already present on the map.
Instead of "Nagykikinda" I would recommend to change it "Zombor". Zombor was an important medieval settlement near to the Maros river in the Banat. It also has a 12-13th century built circular church (which the only in the region), and it could've been one of the headquarters of Ajtony / Zombor gyula. Ajtony had it's fortress at Marosvár which later became Csanád, as the territory was given to chief Csanád.
Zombor known as "Kiszombor" in our modern days because "Czoborszentmihály" became Zombor after the turkish occupation for some reason (probably the Czobor transformed into Zombor) so the "Kis" (small) was given as a prefix to distinguish "Kiszombor" from the Zombor located in the Bácska.
Also Zombor later became a "mezőváros" (like a market town) (donated by Sigismund) at the end of the 14th century so it became a more important medieval settlement. It's more than likely that it was more important than Makó(falva) at the time.
Please also rename every city which starts with "Kiskun", "Nagykun", "Jász" or "Hajdú"
As hajdú-s only appeared in the 16-17th century, and cities like "Hajdúszoboszló" was known only as "Szoboszló"
Same with "Kiskunfélegyháza" as it was known as "Félegyháza" and also "Jászberény" was mentioned only as "Berény" in the 14th century.
These hajdú/jász/nagykun-, kiskun prefixes only appeared during the 18-19th century refering to their regions.
Also please use the name of "Várad" instead of "Nagyvárad" as the city was called only "Várad" at the time.
The name of "Vajdahunyad" was only used from the 16th century. The Romanian "Hunedoara" did preserve the Hungarian form as the hungarian "castle" "vár" became "oara" (Segesvár - Sigisoara, Temesvár - Timisoara) in Romanian so it's Huned+oara ---> Hunyadvár. In 1409 it was mentioned as Hwnyadwar - Hunyadvár which confirms this form.
Temesrékas to "Rékas" - the "Temes" prefix appeared only from 1888
Many thanks
Last edited:
- 5
- 2
These Hungarians are relentless
If only other parts of the world had such erudite nationalists on the internet...
If only other parts of the world had such erudite nationalists on the internet...
- 6
- 3
- That makes sense!
- Borders were not as clear cut as they are painted on our modern maps, so that's a possibility.
- 2
God bless tax payer money.
Btw, @Fehervari Are you planning on posting a full suggestion/analyses in the future? Is it just a question of time?
Dude, just because somebody has a little bit of knowledge in history, and wants his country to be represented as accurately as possible it doesn't make him a nationalist.
I was quite furious when I installed Medieval 2 Total war and i saw "Budapest" as the capital of Kingdom of Hungary which didn't even existed at the time, and "Alba Iulia" in Transylvania which is also a nonsense based on the name itself. As I pointed out previously that its only an artifical name and it was not called as "Alba Iulia" at the time.
But I do understand that some people don't care about other people's history, then just please stop mocking them, if these people are enthusiastic enough and willing to give advices and they do some research.
- 2
I think the comment was positive.
Nationalist in itself is not a negative term. Chauvinist, extreme nationalist is.
Wouldn't call someone erudite if I was insulting them.
- 4
- 1
I was only joking, I myself write huge essays about my country too, and believe me, I get a lot more upset whenever I see something incorrecly done about Georgia in any historical game. After all, there's so much more to mess up about a country so much less tangible to the developers, than with, say, a properly European country like Hungary.
Orban Viktor has joined the chat
- 4
- 2
I really don't want to go off-topic, but he is a simple populist. The only political party that is chauvinistic in hungary is Mihazánk. Although even they are accused of being Fidesz puppets.
Eh lets not talk about politics.
- 3
It's not just about the Eperjes or Kassa as main cities with significant Hungarian and German population, but the valley had significant Hungarian population too since the arrival of the Hungarians. So the 14th century Hungarians of the valley of Kassa and Eperjes are prolly the descendants of the 9-10th century Hungarians in the area. And I highly doubt that in the area they were outnumbered by the german settlers as they were mainly presence in cities as in Buda for example. And you couldn't say just becase 700 germans lived in Buda they were the majority in the Buda region. Outnumbered all the Hungarians combined.
- 1
Outnumbered where? In Kassa area? No. In Eperjes? Most definitely, there were multiple large German towns and the extension of Kassa valley ends in Eperjes, 90% of the in-game province is mountainous & without Hungarian presence. For confirmation from Hungarian source, see my post #570
.png){kind=avatar}
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. Minorities are drawn if >10%. So those regions can be 90% Hungarian. Ones in Slovakia for example are all Hungarian majority as I see. And I just don’t understand what is complain about specifically them then?
3. there are locations, your proposal doesn’t assign to Hungarian culture, however by Tinto devs they have Hungarian majority. What should be done with them than?
Last edited:
- 2
I didn't know that, good to know.
He is saying that the population wouldn't be mixed there.
- 3