PDA

View Full Version : Transylvania



cegorach
11-16-2006, 22:06
The official thread will be used to add more information about the faction.


For now you can post anything you find useful including ideas for faction specific buildings, events, advisors etc MILITARY UNITS EXCLUDED - that is well researched and only later we will possibly need more details.

Mircea85
02-13-2007, 22:51
I have some historical information(economy, rulers, cities and castles, armies, and other things) for Transylvania as well for Walachia and Moldavia.

cegorach
02-14-2007, 21:45
That might be interesting.

City/castle plans and images. Data about economy and the political situation in 1570.
Detailed maps - all would be useful:book:

Military part is rather wll researched I will post the roster rather soon.

Mircea85
02-17-2007, 16:25
Transylvania was a vasal of the Otoman Empire since 1541. It was ruled by a Prince elected by the Diet and confirmed by the sultan. In 1570, the Prince of Transylvania was Stefan Bathory (1571-1583), also King of Poland since 1575
Cities: Cluj-Napoca (7400 people), Sibiu (5300), Bistrita (4800), Sighişoara, Brasov (4800), Alba Iulia (capital of the Principality), Orăştie (2000)
Economy: iron - Ghelar, Teliuc in Hunedoara county(near Orăştie), in Turda(near Cluj Napoca);
copper - Abrud, Zlatna, Baia de Criş in Apuseni Mountains;
gold - the same places with copper;
salt - Turda, Sibiu (Ocna Sibiu), Dej(near Cluj), in Maramurş
Castles: Oradea, Sibiu, Braşov, Satu Mare, Alba Iulia, Timişoara(held bz turks since 1552 ) Many of these castles were in fact walled cities, with walles made of stone and bricks.

Vazul's Ghost
04-29-2007, 12:44
Transylvania was basically the remains of hungary that wasn't swallode up by the ottomans/austrian hapsburgs. They were ruled by 90% hungarian 10%vlach and other nobles. However, along with the hungarians that settled in the 11th century, numerous other ethnic groups emerged over the years. During that period of time, the three major grups populatin transylvania were the hungarians, szeklers; hungarian settlers that spoke a slightly different dialect and were pid by the nobility to defend and maintain the border lands of transylvania, and "saxons". In this case, the term "saxon" is used to describe german settlers that made up a noticable minority in transylvania. They came to be known as transylvanian saxons, and owned there own land under the nobility. Although they dont exist today, during the period of the mod the saxons were often used to gaurd the land they owned, and made up a decent part of the transylvanian army.

For these reasons, possible military units for transylvania include hungarian hussars, who more distinctively used firearms and scimitars during that period of time (the skin curently used by the game is accurate however in later periods there uniform was blue, white and red distincitively), Szekler infantry who would be rather similar to the transylvanian peasants within the original game, and saxon infantry, best represented as offensive light infantry more reliable then fodder... if you know what i mean:beam: . Saxons are also a good candidate for mercenarys in the area, as that is how many of them chose to ply their trade rather then work the land.

It should also be noted that transylvania was a uniquely tolerant nation in the period. Although the nobility was predominantly catholic, christians sects of the reformation and counter reformation were allowed to own land and preach within transylvania. If it is possible, a transylvania would be accurately represented with numerous different religions holding precentages in the region, and with religous unrest having less an impact on public order. The only religion that was not tolerated by the nobility was romanian orthodox, this was largeley due to great mistrut between transylvania and their romanian neighbours. None the less vlachs did make up a small percentage of the poplation and owned land, however during this particular period they were not as influencial as the szekler and saxon minorities.

Hope this helps... and if any romanian/hungarian has any quams with what i have written, fair enough, as this is a particularly controversial sect of the two nations history. I apologise if I offended anyone and only wrote what i have read from both sources of history. Dont eat me alive for it please.:shame:

Vazul's Ghost
04-29-2007, 12:52
Castles: Oradea, Sibiu, Braşov, Satu Mare, Alba Iulia, Timişoara(held bz turks since 1552 ) Many of these castles were in fact walled cities, with walles made of stone and bricks.

... what about poenari, and on the topic, im not trying to insite an argument here, but it would be more historically accurate to name the cities and regions according to the hungarian term, as transylvania was rule and populated dominantly by magyars at the time.

Mircea85
04-30-2007, 15:57
First
According to the estimation made by Elek Fényes, the renowned Hungarian descriptive statistician (FÉNYES 1839-1840; 1842, p. 52b), it can be stated that in the 1830s and 40s a total of 62.3 per cent of the population of present-day Transylvania were Romanian, and only 23.3 per cent were native Hungarian speakers. - source http://www.kia.hu/konyvtar/erdely/erdang.
Second
Yes, the cities should be in hungarian or german, because the ruling class was made of hungarians and germans, while the pesants were of romanian nationality

Vazul's Ghost
05-02-2007, 08:35
...it can be stated that in the 1830s and 40s a total of 62.3 per cent of the population of present-day Transylvania were Romanian, and only 23.3 per cent were native Hungarian speakers...

Yes, 23.3 percent of the population WERE native hungarian speakers, however, you must remember that most historians, hungarian included, do not consider szecklers to be native hungarian speakers. Although szecklers consider themselves hungarian, they are classified differently due to their more archaic dialect of the hungarian language, and ther slightly different cultural and religous practices. What do you mean by romanian? vlach, roma, moldavian? At the time there was no 60% romanian majority, but rather a 60% 'other' of the population, which included szekler hungarians, and many other cultures that fled to transylvania in an attempt to flee their own wartorn lands. The only 'romanian' sect at the time would have been a religous romanian orthodox percentage, which was banned from holding any influence by the nobles due to the fear of transylvania losing its independant identity.

Mircea85
05-02-2007, 12:19
Szecklers were probably regarded as hungarians by Fényes, this is the logic move. Székely account for an important part of the Hungarian minority in Romania. source: official 2002 Romanian census.

vlach, moldavian, Aromanian are all romanians, the difference betwen szecklers and hungarians is much greater than that betwen a moldavian and a vlach(muntean), we all call ourselves romanian because we have the same language. The Romanian language cannot be neatly divided into separate dialects and Romanians themselves speak of the differences as accents or "speeches" (in Romanian: "accent" or "grai"
).

At the time of the 1869 census it is estimated that the proportion of Hungarians and Romanians was 24.9 per cent and 59 per cent respectively (VARGA E. 1997, p. 61). (Of the 3.3 per cent decrease in the proportion of Romanians, 1 per cent occurred among native Gypsy speakers who were regarded as Romanians by Fényes.) -so Roma (Gypsy) represented only 1 percent.

62.3 + 23.3 = 85.6, 100%-85.6%=14.4% Others(Ukrain. Serbian Croat. Slovak, probably germans). - simple math.

The 60% majority was made of romanian native speakers so it is safe to talk about a ROMANIAN MAJORITY and a ruling HUNGARIAN MINORITY(hungarians and Szecklers)

Vazul's Ghost
05-04-2007, 11:39
Fair enough about the romanians, however, the romanian population was greatly increased as part of the hapsburg attempts to weaken their rebellious hungarian subjects. Particularly in the middle 1800s many population increases and subsequent rebelions by saxons and vlachs were incited by the hapsburgs. This was their classic style of assimilating lands into their empire.
On the note of the szeklers, there is a degree of racism towards the szeklers by hungarians. I would not be surprised if a historian classified them as vlachs as part of this insult, despite the fact that they are magyars.
What i'm trying to establish here is that for the sake of historical accuracy, transylvania should be represented as a magyar based faction rather then a romanian based facton, and is the reason i have been arguing your posts, as many romanian historians seem to be on some kind of vendetta to manipulate the history of transylvania in order to give reason behind why its part of romania today.
I didn't mean to be apprehensive one just becomes that way after having to argue the same thing over and over again too countless people the second they mention transylvania, I just want historical accuracy.

Cronos Impera
05-04-2007, 15:46
Mister Vazul, Transylvania's history cannot be manipulated by Romanian historians even if they wanted so.
The Hapsburgs ware Catholic and the Romanians ware Orthodox.
The Romanians ware never favoured by Hapsburgs, although Empeorur Leopold din set the foundations of the Greek-Catholic Church to convert Orthodox Romanians.
In Transylvania you would have the "Privilaged Nations" system which allowed only Magyars, Szekely and Saxons to rule the land and reach high places. Romanian serfs remained serfs even after reforms elsewhere in Austria and Hungary.
Szekely ware, are and have always been a branch of the Magyar nation. And if there was a shread of racism towards szekely, they'd be now an independent ethnic group in their own independent Covasna county.
A historically accurate Transylvania would have basicly:
- Romanian levies ( Peasants and such as they formed the core of the population)
- Hungarian nobles ( As Hungarians ware the political masters of Transylvania)
- Saxon Militias (with muskets and such)
- Szekely Riders ( to represent the power of the szekelys)
The Romanians after Iancu de Hunedoara never really managed to hold any important Transylvanian office but that doesn't mean they waren't there or they ware few and insignificant. The Romanians formed the majority in Transylvania that is historical fact supported by records.


Do not mistake Romanian Catholics for Magyars. It's like saying that Al Quaeda is Arabian...and many people mistake religions for ethnicities.

Vazul's Ghost
05-05-2007, 03:42
I wasn't, mixing up religion and ethnicity, i never mentioned either the romanian orthodox or catholic religions in my response. The Vlachs only gained a population majority due to the massive hungarian losses in its numerous uprisings against the ottomans and later hapsburgs. The hapsburgs didnt care about religion, they only whanted land and power. Upon taking over hungary, transylvania included, they introduced numerous foreign policy reforms that incited the mass migration of other peoples into hungary. This also happened in southern hungary aroun nandorfehervar with serbs, northern hungary with slovaks, and western hungary, now austria. In transylvania romanian settlers formed armed warbands and many villages were destroyed, however they were eventually subdued at a cost of hungarian life further lowering the magyar population. None the less vlach settlers gained a population majority due to the hapsburg introduced foregn policy.
The only reason the hapsburgs would have introduced any attempt to convert romanian orthodox would have been that that would have made the vlachs easier for the hapsburgs to control.
For over 700 yeas before this period in time transylvania was by far populated by magyars in the majority.
I do agree with your choice of units, however hussars are definetely a must to include.

Russ Mitchell
05-08-2007, 02:56
The Habsburgs cared a LOT about religion... as anyone who could ask the "forty ministers" could tell you, it was an issue.

Dromikaites
05-30-2007, 22:23
I wasn't, mixing up religion and ethnicity, i never mentioned either the romanian orthodox or catholic religions in my response. The Vlachs only gained a population majority due to the massive hungarian losses in its numerous uprisings against the ottomans and later hapsburgs. The hapsburgs didnt care about religion, they only whanted land and power. Upon taking over hungary, transylvania included, they introduced numerous foreign policy reforms that incited the mass migration of other peoples into hungary. This also happened in southern hungary aroun nandorfehervar with serbs, northern hungary with slovaks, and western hungary, now austria. In transylvania romanian settlers formed armed warbands and many villages were destroyed, however they were eventually subdued at a cost of hungarian life further lowering the magyar population. None the less vlach settlers gained a population majority due to the hapsburg introduced foregn policy.
The only reason the hapsburgs would have introduced any attempt to convert romanian orthodox would have been that that would have made the vlachs easier for the hapsburgs to control.
For over 700 yeas before this period in time transylvania was by far populated by magyars in the majority.
I do agree with your choice of units, however hussars are definetely a must to include.
Humm, let's see if I've got it right: the Romanians became the majority in Transylvania because the Hapsburgs colonized them in great numbers?!

It must have been really high numbers. At the time there was no contraceptive pill. Hungarian and Romanian birth rates must have been the same. Sharing the same territory would imply diseases, food shortages and any sort of catastrophies must have hit both populations the same. As such the Hapsburgs must have been pouring in Romanians in huge quantities to the point their number in Transylvania increased faster than their birth rate. This however rises a few questions:

1. Where did the Habsburgs bring those Romanians from? It couldn't have been from Wallachia and Moldova because then the result would have been depopulating those 2 countries while having a much higher density of population in Transylvania. If the Habsburgs would have brought Romanians to Transilvania faster than their birth rate that would have ment the birthrate in Moldova and Wallachia couldn't compensate for the population outflow.

2. Where would those people be settled and how? There was no free land like in the American Far-West. Placing people on some noblemen's or even crown's land had tax implications. Giving them their own land would have had both tax and land registry implications. The Transylvanian tax records and land registry books exist before the Hapsburgs took over and "surprisingly" there is no proof of such a massive colonization. There are historians specialised in "boring" aspects like reading tax registries both in Hungary and Romania. While we might suspect the Romanians to be silent on the issue, funny enough no Hungarian came up with such proofs either.

3. By what miracle the Hungarians got to make 90% of the population of Transylvania before the 18th century? The Romans conquered that territory after two very hard-fought wars (101 - 102 AD and 105 - 106 AD). Hard fought wars need to be fought aganist somebody, so the land wasn't empty. Then they've handed over that territory to the Goths. The Goths packed and left when the Huns came, etc. The thing is no matter who was in charge, archeology shows people continued to live there. The attacks of all those barbarians across the Danube might have resulted in depopulating the border regions of the Roman and later of the Byzantine empire but north of the Danube those barbarians were at home. As such they had zero interest in killing their taxpayers. Not only they were not exterminating the population north of the Danube river, but we have historical records like Priscus' report on his mission to Attila stating that many Romans were crossing the Danube into the Hun-controled territory in order to enjoy lower taxation. We also have Byzantine accounts about the Slavs, the Cumans and the Patzinaks relocating the population from the Byzantine territory to the territories they were controlling north of the Danube. Whatever those barbarians did, for sure they were not depleating the territories north of the Danube river of inhabitants but on the contrary, they were bringing in more. The Latin speaking population north of the Danube left behind when the Romans withdrew in 273 AD from Dacia was supplemented with more Latin speaking population kidnapped or lured by the lower taxes in the centuries which followed. The language of the masters of the place changed but the language of the subjects was constantly "re-Latinized" during all that time. No wonder then the Romanians still speak a Romance language (the closest to Latin, by the way).

Then in the 12th century we have Manuel I Komenenos' attack on the Hungarian kingdom using the surprise route through Transylvania. The Byzantine chronicles state his guides were Vlachs, which indicates that at least in the 12th century the Romanians were there in large numbers, otherwise what use would be to have Vlach guides? For those less familiar with the Balkans, Vlachs are a population living in present day Albania, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria, speaking a language very close to Romanian.

Every other invader before the Hungarians didn't exterminate the population (some even added to it) so how exactly could have the Hungarians get to represent 90% of Transylvania's population before the Hapsburgs?!

Of course for the purpose of the mod it's accurate to have the principalty of Transylvania as a Hunagrian faction. However this would be due to the fact during the time span of the mod the Hungarians were making 99% of the ruling class, just like the Germanic Franks did the same in France during Charlemagne's time.

cegorach
06-01-2007, 20:38
Regardless of the discussion here Transylvania will remain essentially a Hungarian state in the mod.

Unit names, titles, ancilliaries etc will be in Hungarian.

Especially because I have most of it already researched.

Dromikaites
06-05-2007, 21:16
Regardless of the discussion here Transylvania will remain essentially a Hungarian state in the mod.

Unit names, titles, ancilliaries etc will be in Hungarian.

Especially because I have most of it already researched.
That's the way it should be - the only way the Transylvanian Romanians could be accurately represented in the mod would be through the peasant unit.:laugh4:

The Romanians can have fun playing as Wallachia and replicating Michael the Brave's campaign. No doubt the Hungarians would play as Transylvania and sack Bucharest :laugh4:.

Vazul's Ghost
06-28-2007, 17:58
I wasn't, mixing up religion and ethnicity, i never mentioned either the romanian orthodox or catholic religions in my response. The Vlachs only gained a population majority due to the massive hungarian losses in its numerous uprisings against the ottomans and later hapsburgs. The hapsburgs didnt care about religion, they only whanted land and power. Upon taking over hungary, transylvania included, they introduced numerous foreign policy reforms that incited the mass migration of other peoples into hungary. This also happened in southern hungary aroun nandorfehervar with serbs, northern hungary with slovaks, and western hungary, now austria. In transylvania romanian settlers formed armed warbands and many villages were destroyed, however they were eventually subdued at a cost of hungarian life further lowering the magyar population. None the less vlach settlers gained a population majority due to the hapsburg introduced foregn policy.
The only reason the hapsburgs would have introduced any attempt to convert romanian orthodox would have been that that would have made the vlachs easier for the hapsburgs to control.


In response to everyone who has slandered the above statement, fair enough... i just read over it and realised what i actually wrote. I still stick by my other statements though, i lost the plot with that one.

Mircea85
06-28-2007, 18:53
For over 700 yeas before this period in time transylvania was by far populated by magyars in the majority.
You should also retract this one too.

Vazul's Ghost
07-01-2007, 06:01
Not going to happen. Over the past few months i have not been posting as i have been studying texts from hungrian, british and american sources (in some cases australian), (i couldn't find any romanian sources), and the only reason i retracted my statement was that I posted it based of the opinions of people i had spoken too, without any historical proof from primary or more reliable secondary sources. I believe this entire debate has stagnated, and only felt that i was responsible for taking back anything i said that was unfounded, and i did.

Mircea85
07-04-2007, 11:14
For over 700 yeas before this period in time transylvania was by far populated by magyars in the majority.
And this is founded on what?

christof139
07-05-2007, 16:27
Magyars in the main settled in Hungary, not Transyvania. Transylvania was occupied by Transylvanians, Romanians or Roumanians.

By Dracula's time and slightly before, many Germans had been also had been invited and encouraged to settle in Transyvania by Dracul etc.

Good book about Vlad Tepisch is 'Dracula, Prince of Many Faces, His Life and Times', by Radur R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally, ISBN 0-316-28656-7 (paperback). Florescu is a descendant of a Roumanian noble family that was in opposition to Dracula.

Chris

christof139
07-05-2007, 16:35
PS: Even though there were many Hungarians in Transyvania, there were more native Roumanians. Is what Hungary and Roumania were always arguing about, that is did Transyvania belong to Hungary or Roumania. :wall: :furious3: :dizzy2:

Chris

The historian
07-11-2007, 19:32
Just a thought.Can everyone keep their own opinion and get back to the game.Vazul is never going to convince any of us anyway and we are not going to convince Vazul. Transilvania should be a hungarian state as it actually was some romanian peasant units's should be included an the city should have a lot of orthodox population since it represents the province. Also a certain trend towards rebellion should be present.

cegorach
07-16-2007, 07:47
Romanian population of that state will be represented by area of recruitment of haiduk mercenaries (several haiduk units will be in the mod) and possibly one of Wallachan/Moldavian cavalry units, but nothing really more.

I don't recall any larger rebellion in Transylvania with a degree of romanian national awareness at that time - 1570-1700, though you might prove me wrong - if so we can discuss adding something 'romanian' in addition to AoR for some units.:book:

Vazul's Ghost
07-27-2007, 15:45
Just a thought.Can everyone keep their own opinion and get back to the game.Vazul is never going to convince any of us anyway and we are not going to convince Vazul. Transilvania should be a hungarian state as it actually was some romanian peasant units's should be included an the city should have a lot of orthodox population since it represents the province. Also a certain trend towards rebellion should be present.

Seconded... Not one more non game related peep from me... promise.

christof139
08-06-2007, 03:25
Yeah. Guess it's OK to go and have a meal at the Hungarian Village restaurant now. Pierogis are a unifying pan-Slavonic item, even assimilated Magyars make and enjoy them.

Chris