Tinto Maps #9 Carpathia and Balkans Feedback

[BeyondExpectation]

...because there's several intervening empires in the period between the Middle Ages and the Victorian era?

Are you saying that the Montenegrins did regress in political sophistication? Without you making it explicit it's not clear.

If they did, then the obvious thing for the game to include is such a thing happening; the formation of SOPs in the Balkans. Would people support that?

 

[Ispil]

Are you saying that the Montenegrins did regress in political sophistication? Without you making it explicit it's not clear.

If they did, then the obvious thing for the game to include is such a thing happening; the formation of SOPs in the Balkans. Would people support that?

...you know that the period for Project Caesar is before the Victorian era, right?

Like, what do you mean by "regress" here? Is there some previous Montenegrin polity from before 1337 that you're saying they regressed from? I'm completely lost about what point you're even trying to make.

 

[Linbot#6018]

Maybe I didn't really understood what the SoPs are supposed to represent that's fair, but claiming there was stil a group of tribal slaves especially in Montenegro is pretty far fetched. Regarding people who escape from state power control like Maronites who fled to the mountains or Ruthenians in the wild fields or Hungarians who fled to the forest to escape the ottomans I don't know how paradox would design these groups and calling them tribals seems weird

...you know that the period for Project Caesar is before the Victorian era, right?

Like, what do you mean by "regress" here? Is there some previous Montenegrin polity from before 1337 that you're saying they regressed from? I'm completely lost about what point you're even trying to make.

According to this, that polity is the principality of Zeta.

I think "regress" has a fairly obvious meaning, they used to be a state, but then became a group of tribes.

 

[Ispil]

According to this, that polity is the principality of Zeta.

I think "regress" has a fairly obvious meaning, they used to be a state, but then became a group of tribes.

But even that Zeta was a remnant of the Serbian empire, which didn't even yet exist in 1337.

Regress does have an obvious meaning, and that's where my confusion comes from: what state existed prior to 1337 that Montenegro "regressed" from?

Honestly I think I've just kinda lost what was being argued at this point.

 

[Ispil]

Alright, fine. I read some Wikipedia articles to make sure I at least have some grasp of what's even being talked about.

As far as I can glean from these articles, there is in fact a regression.

Looks like most of the tribes of Montenegro came about only after the Ottoman conquest, and not as a consequence of the migrations of the period. Rather, a collapse of state power (the collapse of the Serbian Empire, its replacement with noble houses ruling the territory as a patrimonial holding, the destruction of those noble houses followed by an off-hands rule of the territory by the Ottomans) resulted in the people effectively having to fend for themselves and create some sort of order without any actual authority to work with. So they went with some combination of kinship or proximity or whatever else because they needed something by which to actually organize around because the entire fundamental notion of a "state" in which they occupied had not only ceased to be but also was then prevented from being (what with Ottoman suzerainty and all), resulting in formulating some sort of structure that allowed any amount of social organization at all without running afoul of the state which ostensibly ruled over them.

So... low control + hostility of ruling state to culture and religion of pops = peasant pops becoming tribal pops? Either way, nothing to be done for the game's start date, but rather a broader mechanic for low-control locations and people in those locations having hostility towards their overlords.

And again, not an SoP. That is not what those are meant to represent.

 

[Linbot#6018]

And again, not an SoP. That is not what those are meant to represent.

I don't think the developers have consistently made it clear what SOPs actually are supposed to represent, or what tribal pops are supposed to represent, so it's hard to actually make this judgement.

 

[Ispil]

I don't think the developers have consistently made it clear what SOPs actually are supposed to represent, or what tribal pops are supposed to represent, so it's hard to actually make this judgement.

The devs still seem fully committed to the idea of SoPs being cultural monoliths despite the lack of a mechanical requirement. For Montenegro, you're looking at a combination of Albanian, Serbian, "Vlach" (scare quotes because it's not really clear in sources whether this is referring to ethnicity or lifestyle), and some vague notion of pre-Slavic Illyrian somethingorother that as far as I can tell isn't likely unique to Montenegro anyway.

So, bottling those up into several SoPs has a few problems given that all of those cultures also happen to be present in a lot of places that aren't Montenegro, leading to a lot of weird potential SoP expansionism that doesn't really make a lick of sense. Creating one unified "Zeta" culture... well, neither coincides with reality (much too early for that) and muddles a bunch of categories that weren't muddled together for the bulk of this period. Using SoPs at all doesn't really capture how the Ottoman state dealt with this at all, or even how the Prince-Bishops of Montenegro dealt with this all too well.

 

[Inzano]

...you know that the period for Project Caesar is before the Victorian era, right?

Like, what do you mean by "regress" here? Is there some previous Montenegrin polity from before 1337 that you're saying they regressed from? I'm completely lost about what point you're even trying to make.

The name of the Zeta region must have originated in the 12th or 13th century, because Lower and Upper Zeta are mentioned as early as 1356. In order for the region to be divided in half, the name Zeta for the common region must have existed for a longer time. However, during this time it probably had the title of lordship rather than principality or county. But that's it.

Source

 

[Ispil]

The name of the Zeta region must have originated in the 12th or 13th century, because Lower and Upper Zeta are mentioned as early as 1356. In order for the region to be divided in half, the name Zeta for the common region must have existed for a longer time. However, during this time it probably had the title of lordship rather than principality or county. But that's it.

Source

Right; see my more recent point that there was a regression. The problem was that they were pointing to the Victorian-era state and then saying there was a regression, which was what led to my confusion.

 

[Znikii]

Lordship/principality/duke/.... is usually more of a question og language and translattion ratjer then anything else....

 

[Slime99]

Here's a map of archaeological sites of Russians from the 14th century. It's not exhaustive but it shows a lack of settlements by Russians in Dniestr-Prut interfluve at this time.

For comparison this was the situation back in the 9th century.

https://archaeolog.ru/media/books_arch_ussr/ArchaeologyUSSR_06.pdf

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Here's a map of archaeological sites of Russians from the 14th century. It's not exhaustive but it shows a lack of settlements by Russians in Dniestr-Prut interfluve at this time.
View attachment 1243990
For comparison this was the situation back in the 9th century.
View attachment 1243991

https://archaeolog.ru/media/books_arch_ussr/ArchaeologyUSSR_06.pdf

The map actually confirms that areas around Khotyn – Chernivtsi, northern Bukovyna, Pocutia must belong to Halych or at least have a significant Halychian/Ruthenian majority in 1337.
All the proposed maps only emphasised this fact plus a Ruthenian/Halychian minority along the Prut and Dnister a bit more to the south.
Noone said about dominant presence of Ruthenians in the whole area between these rivers.
But at least the fact that Moldova adopted Ruthenian language as its second court language speaks that Ruthenian presence in the area cannot be neglected.

 

[Zeprion]

The map actually confirms that areas around Khotyn – Chernivtsi, northern Bukovyna, Pocutia must belong to Halych or at least have a significant Halychian/Ruthenian majority in 1337.
All the proposed maps only emphasised this fact plus a Ruthenian/Halychian minority along the Prut and Dnister a bit more to the south.
Noone said about dominant presence of Ruthenians in the whole area between these rivers.
But at least the fact that Moldova adopted Ruthenian language as its second court language speaks that Ruthenian presence in the area cannot be neglected.

You cannot consider the 9th century map as relevant for the 14th century when there is a known migration in 10-11th centuries and also posses a 14th century map. It's the equivalent of using a 4th century map for the 9th century.
The archaeological sites of Russians from the 14th century are more relevant than the archaeological sites of Russians from the 9th century when the game starts in 1337.
Especially when the Vlachs migrated from the mountains in 10th and 11th centuries, which also coincides with a drop in Slavic sources at the same time.
Moldova did not adopt Ruthenian language as its second court language but a special version of Old Church Slavonic that was more similar to Bulgarian than Ruthenian.

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

You cannot consider the 9th century map as relevant for the 14th century when there is a known migration in 10-11th centuries and also posses a 14th century map. It's the equivalent of using a 4th century map for the 9th century.
The archaeological sites of Russians from the 14th century are more relevant than the archaeological sites of Russians from the 9th century when the game starts in 1337.
Especially when the Vlachs migrated from the mountains in 10th and 11th centuries, which also coincides with a drop in Slavic sources at the same time.
Moldova did not adopt Ruthenian language as its second court language but a special version of Old Church Slavonic that was more similar to Bulgarian than Ruthenian.

I wrote about the XIV century map.

 

[Zeprion]

I wrote about the XIV century map.

I must have misunderstood then. How does the 14th century map confirms that Khotyn, Chernivtsi, northern Bukovyna, Pocutia must belong to Halych or have a significant Halychian/Ruthenian majority in 1337, when there are no settlements left in the region in the 14th century but they used to be in the 9th century before the Vlach migration? seems counter-intuitive.
We have 2 confirmed Vlach voivodships (sort-of duchies) in the region in 1337, in Onut (near Hotin) and Hansca (in the Lăpușnei region). They are mentioned to be ruled by Vlachs, meaning it couldn't have been part of Halych as they are listed as vassals to the Golden Horde and had a significant Vlach population else they wouldn't be ruled by a Vlach.
We also have further mentions of "tari" and "codrii" in in Onut, Bacota, Ușița, Cucelmin, Calius and North Bukovina, these essentially were Vlach political formations smaller than a voivodship.
We also have Niketas Choniates's chronicle about the Vlachs who captured Andronikos Komnenus in 1164 at the borders of Galicia. And the book Medieval Towns in the Romanian Principalities says that in 1352, the south-east border of Poland had reached the Ceremu river, near the lands inhabited by Romanians.
All of these point out to a significant Vlach population in the 14th century.

I believe there was a Ruthenian population in northern Moldavia, as also shown by the 14th century map with the remaining settlements, but it couldn't have been under Halych or ruled by Ruthenians as we have historical sources telling otherwise.
And given the mentions of Vlachs and especially the regions being ruled by Vlachs rather than Ruthenians, I believe it's more likely that the Vlachs were the majority in the region, although both populations existed.

 

[Slime99]

There are Old Russian archaeological sites in the territory of Khotyn. Apparently Khotyn was part of "Shipinskaya land" which slipped out of control of Galicia-Volhynia after the Mongol invasion.

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

I must have misunderstood then. How does the 14th century map confirms that Khotyn, Chernivtsi, northern Bukovyna, Pocutia must belong to Halych or have a significant Halychian/Ruthenian majority in 1337, when there are no settlements left in the region in the 14th century but they used to be in the 9th century before the Vlach migration? seems counter-intuitive.
We have 2 confirmed Vlach voivodships (sort-of duchies) in the region in 1337, in Onut (near Hotin) and Hansca (in the Lăpușnei region). They are mentioned to be ruled by Vlachs, meaning it couldn't have been part of Halych as they are listed as vassals to the Golden Horde and had a significant Vlach population else they wouldn't be ruled by a Vlach.
We also have further mentions of "tari" and "codrii" in in Onut, Bacota, Ușița, Cucelmin, Calius and North Bukovina, these essentially were Vlach political formations smaller than a voivodship.
We also have Niketas Choniates's chronicle about the Vlachs who captured Andronikos Komnenus in 1164 at the borders of Galicia. And the book Medieval Towns in the Romanian Principalities says that in 1352, the south-east border of Poland had reached the Ceremu river, near the lands inhabited by Romanians.
All of these point out to a significant Vlach population in the 14th century.

I believe there was a Ruthenian population in northern Moldavia, as also shown by the 14th century map with the remaining settlements, but it couldn't have been under Halych or ruled by Ruthenians as we have historical sources telling otherwise.
And given the mentions of Vlachs and especially the regions being ruled by Vlachs rather than Ruthenians, I believe it's more likely that the Vlachs were the majority in the region, although both populations existed.

These things have been discussed multiple times. So I post my last reply on the topic.

• Firstly Ukrainian sources with multiple references write that Moldova got full control over that land (Northen Bykovyna, Shypyntsi land) only in the second half of the XIV century after a long struggle with Poland and Hungary, for example: link. But even if will ignore them, there are things that cannot be ignored.
• The map with topography names and their origin research where N. Bukovyna has ~99% of Slavic naming has been mentioned and shown several times here.
• Similarly to Lithuania, a widespread adoption and use of Slavic languages in Moldova shows that Slavic presence was significant in the whole Moldavian duchy, probably up to tens of %. So depicting Slavic population as just border minorities feels really wrong.
• Btw, this book is a collection of XIV century documents in the Ruthenian language, among them there are 9 Moldavian documents from 1388 till 1400, so it was not only about the Church Slavonic).

If we have a look at later times:

• All Austrian-Hungarian censuses since the annexation of Bukovyna in 1774 show the same: N. Bukovyna to the north of Chernivtsi was Ruthenian, S. Bukovyna was Romanian.
• Here is a Romanian study of the 1774 Russian census in Moldova and Bukovyna population in particular (Summary/Abstract):

According to the mentioned census in 1774 there were leaving approximately 68.700 persons (nearly 40.920 Rumanians, 59,6%, and nearly 22.810 Ukrainians (Ruthenians and Hutsulians), 33,2%) in the area of future Bukovina. The Ruthenians lived more densely in the north-west of Bukovina, especially in the zone between Prut and Nistru and the hutsulians were concentrated in the mountain zone in the west of the province, especially in the zone of the rivers Ceremus and Putila.

• And do not say that is anachronistic. The census was carried out literally after the direct 300-year Moldovan Rule (one year before the Austrian annexation of Bukovyna).
• I cannot imagine, how come the Vlachs disappeared from the territory to the north of Chernivtsi, that had been ruled by the Vlachs for 300 years if they were a majority in the XIV century there?

(here is an ethnic map from the 1910 census that generally shows the same as 1774 Russian census and earlier A-H censuses, added just for visualisation):

• I can believe in some Vlach population there.
• I can believe in some kind of Vlach autority in 1337 there.
• But rule does not mean being majority at all (like the Lithuanians ruled over the whole modern-day Belarus without being a majority at that time).
• I also do not insist that territory must belong to Halych.

But the idea that there was a Vlach majority and then during their 300-year rule Vlachs just disappeared from the whole area to the north of Chernivtsi is really ridiculous, sorry. To me that only means thar they had just military and administrative control over that land.
On top of that, they did not leave names for 99% of toponyms and hydronyms there.

 

[Zeprion]

These things have been discussed multiple times. So I post my last reply on the topic.

• Firstly Ukrainian sources with multiple references write that Moldova got full control over that land (Northen Bykovyna, Shypyntsi land) only in the second half of the XIV century after a long struggle with Poland and Hungary, for example: link. But even if will ignore them, there are things that cannot be ignored.
• The map with topography names and their origin research where N. Bukovyna has ~99% of Slavic naming has been mentioned and shown several times here.
• Similarly to Lithuania, a widespread adoption and use of Slavic languages in Moldova shows that Slavic presence was significant in the whole Moldavian duchy, probably up to tens of %. So depicting Slavic population as just border minorities feels really wrong.
• Btw, this book is a collection of XIV century documents in the Ruthenian language, among them there are 9 Moldavian documents from 1388 till 1400, so it was not only about the Church Slavonic).

If we have a look at later times:

• All Austrian-Hungarian censuses since the annexation of Bukovyna in 1774 show the same: N. Bukovyna to the north of Chernivtsi was Ruthenian, S. Bukovyna was Romanian.
• Here is a Romanian study of the 1774 Russian census in Moldova and Bukovyna population in particular (Summary/Abstract):
• And do not say that is anachronistic. The census was carried out literally after the direct 300-year Moldovan Rule (one year before the Austrian annexation of Bukovyna).
• I cannot imagine, how come the Vlachs disappeared from the territory to the north of Chernivtsi, that had been ruled by the Vlachs for 300 years if they were a majority in the XIV century there?

(here is an ethnic map from the 1910 census that generally shows the same as 1774 Russian census and earlier A-H censuses, added just for visualisation):

View attachment 1245887​

• I can believe in some Vlach population there.
• I can believe in some kind of Vlach autority in 1337 there.
• But rule does not mean being majority at all (like the Lithuanians ruled over the whole modern-day Belarus without being a majority at that time).
• I also do not insist that territory must belong to Halych.

But the idea that there was a Vlach majority and then during their 300-year rule Vlachs just disappeared from the whole area to the north of Chernivtsi is really ridiculous, sorry. To me that only means thar they had just military and administrative control over that land.
On top of that, they did not leave names for 99% of toponyms and hydronyms there.

They have indeed, which is why I'm surprised the North Moldavia Ruthenian claim is still made.

• From what I can google translate the Ukrainian source, it says that it was part of Moldavia but not incorporated into Moldavia proper. It does not seem to contradict this Moldovan source, according to which the territory of Moldavia in 1367 at the death of Bogdan I the founder was only Western Moldavia + Shypyntsi land. Taking control of the Purt-Dniester territory only during the reign of his successor and in 1388 Pokutia in Galicia.
• The issue with the Russian topography map (where it doesn't say N. Bukovyna has ~99% of Slavic) was discussed, namely that if it is possible in the 21st century for people to inhabit localities with names which hold no meaning for them, it was no less possible in the 1337, as toponyms merely explain the name of those who founded the cities. Not the ones who currently live in them in 1337. Considering we have strong slavic presence in 9th century followed by a Romanian migration in 10th-11th centuries, it's very possible many of the old names remained. At the same time, the Romanian hydronyms map which contradicts it was also mentioned and shown several times here. Unlike the Russian topography map, the Romanian hydronyms map makes the difference between toponyms of Slavic origin and toponyms of Romanian origin derived from Slavic.
• Unlike Lithuanians, the Romanians themselves are a Dacian-Roman-Slavic mix. This Romanian source speaks about how the Romanians assimilated the slavs, borrowing many things from the slavic world during the slavic migrations and during the time of the First Bulgarian Empire. Meaning that even by 900 AD the Vlach/Romanian already had a strong slavic influence, as such no significant slavic population was needed since they already had slavic infleunces for centuries.

For later times:

• 1910 is not generally the same as 1774, but very very different.
• Regarding the Romanian study you posted, the estimations in 1774 are 40.920 Rumanians (59,6%) and 22.810 Ruthenians and Hutsulians (33,2%). Almost twice as many Romanians overall. But there are other 1774 estimations, namely 52,750 Romanians (73.5%), 15,000 Ruthenians and Hutsuls (20.9%) by Ion Nestor or 64,000 Romanians (85.33%) and 8,000 Ukrainians (10.6%) by Keith Hitchins.
• This is to say that the study you posted is a conservative estimate (60% Romanians) when compared to others that puts them at 73% or 85%.
• Regardless which of them is true, all sources seem to agree that there was a constant decrease of Romanians and increase of Ukrainians since 1774:

ln result of an intensive emigration to Moldova (especially during the period of time 1786-1816) the rate of Romanians had decreased but the rate of Ukrainians and of representatives of other nationalities had increased. The most drastic decrease of population of Bukovina occurred in 1814 – 1816, when the number of inhabitants registered a decrease of 28.453 of individuals or about 12,4% of the total population.

The Austrian census of 1850–1851, which recorded data regarding languages spoken, shows 48.50% Romanians and 38.07% Ukrainians. Subsequent Austrian censuses between 1880 and 1910 reveal a Romanian population stabilizing around 33% and a Ukrainian population around 40%. From 1774 to 1910, the percentage of Ukrainians increased, meanwhile the one of Romanians decreased.

The map you posted is from 1910, where Romanians are 34% and Ukrainians 38%. While in 1774 the estimations we have range between 60-85% Romanians and 10-33% Ukrainians. Meaning, a 1774 map and a 1910 map of Bukovina would look very different.

This is a 1930 ethnic map of Bukovina where the Romanians increased to from 34% in 1910 to 44%. There is already significantly difference from the 1910 map with a 10% increase. A 1774 map would be even more purple with a further 15%-35% increase, from 44% to 60-85%.

LATE EDIT: I actually found this maps from 1774 from Constantin Ungureanu (the same person who made the study you provided), Populația Bucovinei și Basarabiei sub stăpâniri străine (1774/1812 – 1918), Editura “Karl A. Romstorfer”, Suceava, 2020

It's only that northern part of Bukovina because the rest of it was almost 100% Romanian. For the city of Chernivtsi, out of 356 families there were 210 Romanian (59%), 100 Jewish (28%), 25 Ukrainian (7%), 13 Russian, 4 Gypsy and 3 other ethnicities. Between the Prut-Dniester region of Bukovina there were about 30% Romanians and 60% Ukrainians. The region west of Chernivtsi next to the Cheremosh river was more balanced but with an Ukrainian majority, while the region around Chernivtsi had a clear Romanian majority.

• I too believe there was some Ruthenian population there.
• But I do not see evidence of them being majority at all. Lithuanians were already a strong military power, it is how they managed to form the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and rule over slavs. The Vlachs in 1337 on the other hand, were the furthest thing away from a military power. And the circumstantial evidence we have like mentions of the voivodships, codrii and tari, seem to be exclusively of Vlachs. The Lithuanians were stronger than the Slavs so they could rule over them, the Vlachs were not stronger than the Slavs so why would they rule over them? Doesn't make any sense why the Ruthenians would allow a Vlach military and administrative control unless they were a minority.

The reason this is anachronistic is because you speak of 1774 yet show a 1910 map. This is not literally after the direct 300-year Moldovan Rule. This is literally after the Vlach population dropped from 60-85% to 34%. A 1774 map is almost all Romanian with that small mixed population in the north.
On top of that, the Romanian hydronyms map shows a completely different story from the Russian toponyms map.

Dark Red (1) is 90% Romanian
Light Red (2) is 80% Romanian + Slavic
Light Yellow (3) is 75% Romanian + Hungarian
Yellow (4) is 80% Romanian + Slavic + Turkic
Light Green (5) is 60% Romanian + Slavic
Purple (6) is 50% Romanian + 50% Turkic
And the red line is the area with Romanian majority.

 

[Linbot#6018]

Can we not please?

If I see someone mention the Ruthenian population in Moldova one more time I am going to combust. There is absolutely NOTHING further to be said. In fact we passed the point of NOTHING further to be said months ago. Surely you all have something better to do.

 

[Zeprion]

Yes. this is senseless. Like Ludi said in his video "I know that your sources in Ukraine and in Soviet Russia say that, but I also have sources that say the complete opposite, that they are all Romanians, which I don't agree with because there was a mixture". At the end of the day it's what source you choose to believe, cause the Russian toponyms and Romanian hydronyms sources contradict each other. And there are also other circumstantial sources. I did not want to start another Moldavian talk, I was exclusively curious why Kotyk considers the 14th century map with a lack of settlements by Russians in Dniestr-Prut interfluve as evidence for Ruthenian majority when the map itself shows... a lack of such Russian settlements. But I should have known this leads to another Moldavia discussion, yeah, I'll drop the broader Moldavian talk.