in this very thread it has already been said how the invasion of Hungary to Bulgaria was through Wallachia. Hungary and Bulgaria do not need to share a border.
If that's so, then I can't find the post. Are you saying that Hungary owned part of Wallachia bordering Bulgaria? Why isn't that reflected in the map? If you're instead saying that Hungary used "military access" through Wallachia to attack Vidin, that's one thing... But how did they establish a 4-year long province centered on the city and incorporate it into their administrative apparatus if it wasn't even geographically connected to Hungary? It's difficult for me to comment on a source I can't see, but what I do know is that there's a post in this thread proving that the fortress of Kladovo east of the Timok valley was in Bulgarian hands during the late 14th century:
And an interesting historical fact we know about it is that, according to a Hungarian charter from 1396, and I'm pulling this straight from the
Bulgarian wikipedia page of the city, just translated to English: "On August 18, 1396, the Hungarian King Sigismund, during the Danube Crusade he led, crossed the Danube at Kladovo and entered Bulgaria, and in the charter from Neograd of the same year, he noted the city as Bulgarian."
This is supported by another comment from 14th-century German traveler Johann Schiltberger stating that Bulgaria starts at the Iron Gates (east of the Timok valley):
I was in three regions, and all three were called Bulgaria. The first Bulgaria extends there, where you pass from
Hungary through the
Iron Gate. Its capital is called
Vidin. The other Bulgaria lies opposite
Wallachia, and its capital is called
Tarnovo.
The third Bulgaria is there, where the Danube flows into the sea. Its capital is called Kaliakra.
Considering that Serbia and Bulgaria's last confrontation was at Velbazhd in 1330, there's no way this land could've been Serbian in 1337 and seized by Bulgaria somewhere down the line. From my side of things, and indeed, most people on this forum, Hungary and Bulgaria sharing a border in the Timok valley is the most logical and straightforward explanation here. I've said this before, but the Manchuria map is chock full of speculative borders and historically untestified tribal locations, so why is the barrier of entry so high for sources pertaining to the Balkans but not elsewhere?
Third, the existence of the Despotate is one of those things quite up to interpretation/debate. There is not a clear and undisputed source that proves its existence, at most we can guess.
Wait a minute... Are you saying that you think the Despotate never exist at all? Well that's a big reversal from what Pavia said, it's also easily disproven by a cursory search on the topic revealing that numerous Southern, Central, and Eastern European sources referenced an independent domain in Dobruja, one of which I already quoted in this post. Dobruja's rulers also issued their own coinage, but the evidence is already so overwhelming that this fact is basically redundant, you might as well question the existence of any 14th-century Balkan polity if your standards are that high.
I'll assume you meant that there isn't a source directly telling us when the Despotate was established. In that sense, you're right that we have to "guess", but we can make an extremely educated guess given the strong evidence suggesting that its existence precedes 1337. I'm just going to quote my own post on the matter, which I think does a good job justifying that position:
In short, the Despotate was a domain of the Terteroba clan, which lost the imperial throne of Bulgaria to Michael I Shishman in 1323 but retained their authority in Karvuna, later expanding it to Silistra and the Danube delta. Initially, Balik accepted the Byzantine title of Archon and embraced the Patriarchate of Constantinople to assert his independence from Tarnovo. Indeed, the first record of an autonomous ruler in Dobruja is from 1346, when Balik intervened in the Byzantine civil war (1341-1347) on behalf of Anna of Savoy. However, the first mention of Varna under the ecclesial jurisdiction of the Constantinople rather than Tarnovo comes from a 1323 codex, indicating that Balik likely created his domain that same year – which coincides with the dethronement of the Terteroba clan in Bulgaria. Despite this, the exiled Terterids never surrendered their political identity – Venetian, Lithuanian, and German sources all used the name Bulgaria as a synonym for the Despotate. (Source: ДОБРУДЖАНСКОТО ДЕСПОТСТВО - КЪМ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАТА, ЦЪРКОВНАТА, СТОПАНСКАТА И КУЛТУРНАТА ИСТОРИЯ НА ДОБРУДЖА ПРЕЗ ХІV ВЕК, page 67, page 197)
All of this info is available in Georgi Atanasov's "ДОБРУДЖАНСКОТОДЕСПОТСТВОКЪМ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАТА, ЦЪРКОВНАТА,СТОПАНСКАТА И КУЛТУРНАТА ИСТОРИЯ НАДОБРУДЖА ПРЕЗ ХІV ВЕК", available on academia.edu and partially translated into English. Atanasov doesn't get everything right, but he's the preeminent Bulgarian historian on Dobruja and he always cites his sources.
You said that the date of Karvuna's establishment is up to debate, and I'd like to ask, where is the other side of this debate? I see that the Despotate's wikipedia page (which is awful, by the way) states 1356 as the year of its inception, but that's totally unsourced.
We know the following things:
- The Despotate was ruled by the Terteroba clan
- The Despotate was in ecclesiastic union with Constantinople, its earliest ruler also carrying a Byzantine title and acting on a military alliance with Byzantine empress Anna of Savoy
- The Terteroba clan was dethroned in Bulgaria's imperial capital in 1323
- The first reference to Varna, the largest city in Balik's domain, as an ecclesiastic holding of the Patriarchate of Constantinople coincides with the year that the Terteroba clan lost power in Tarnovo (1323)
Given the strength of Atanasov's case, I'd really like to see what the argument for Karvuna coming into existence at a later date is.
Fifth, suggestions are only that. We do check them, research them to check that things are correct and implement them when our schedule allows if we agree to introduce them.
Here's the issue. People are under the impression that if they put in the time, cite their sources, elaborate in sufficient detail, dot their i's and cross their t's, etc... that Paradox can be persuaded to change the game accordingly. Exceedingly little of that has happened in the Balkans, and in Bulgaria in particular. The justification is usually some vague and impossible to debate statement about conflicting sources, which is very handwavey behavior. If you were laying those sources bare and putting them up for debate, that would be one thing, but you aren't. I hope you can understand that from my -- and not only my perspective -- I see no way to interpret this as anything other than a) a lack of interest in the region's history, or b) a refusal to deviate from a pre-established vision for reasons unknown to us, the users.
I do not like policing people, so feel free to think whatever you want. I also have no intention of looking for a confrontation, but people should really calm down a bit and be more respectful, nobody here is trying to downplay any region.
People have been giving Paradox the benefit of the doubt, and most continue to do so. At the end of the day, we're all unpaid fans sinking our time into these suggestions because we want to see the game become the best that it can be. It's just very demoralizing to see that it's been handled this way, and I think you'll see diminishing returns on community feedback if you stay the course.
