Romanian Factions Requierd

[Speiz_Bankurt]

It would be a mistake to include Transilvania as an independent or a Romanian facton. The province of Transilvania has been ethnically and culturally Hungarian (or Magyar if you will) throughout the entire medieval period. When it was independant for a while, it was only because the rest of Hungary was lost to the Turks and the Habsburgs.

Otherwise, including Wallachia as a faction may not be a bad idea, I mean they were there and they did fight off the advancing Turks on many occasions.... but of course this is up to the developers of the mod who have to look at game balancing issues etc.

Also another note; Romanian historians like to hijack Hungarian historical personalities by changing their names and pretending they were Romaninans. Especially if they accomplished something noteworthy. If this mod is intended to be a total realism mod, it would be a good idea to ignore the Romanian version of history of that region as a reference.

Cheers

[Cronos Impera]

Iancu de Hunedoara was a Catholic Romanian for Zeus's sake.
His father was Voicu Corbu, the descendant of Ion Corbu, a pretender to Litovoi's Kingdom. He was a Romanian baptised in the Roman-Catholic religion. Why must any Catholic in Medieval Erdely be a Hungarian beats me. Religion is different from ethnicity and Romanian historians knew that.

[Kavhan Isbul]

If this mod is intended to be a total realism mod, it would be a good idea to ignore the Romanian version of history of that region as a reference.

Cheers

Second that!

[edyzmedieval]

Second that!

Maybe perhaps the Romanian kings should have allied with the Ottomans and leave the Turks to concentrate on Western Europe.

Remember Nikopole? Remember the thrashing the Crusaders got?
Maybe perhaps you don't know the history. Mircea the Old said: "Let's wait and see what they will do."

But nooo, we are Crusaders! Men of God, we'll never get defeated!!!
You won't, because they were in Heaven from the first moment they engaged the Janissaries.

[Kavhan Isbul]

Maybe perhaps the Romanian kings should have allied with the Ottomans and leave the Turks to concentrate on Western Europe.

Remember Nikopole? Remember the thrashing the Crusaders got?
Maybe perhaps you don't know the history. Mircea the Old said: "Let's wait and see what they will do."

But nooo, we are Crusaders! Men of God, we'll never get defeated!!!
You won't, because they were in Heaven from the first moment they engaged the Janissaries.

Romanian kings, you mean from Alexandru to Mihai?

And trust me, I know my history, just disagree with mainstream Romanian historiographers, especially when it comes to their attempts to steal and misrepresent the medieval history of their nowadays neighbors.

Therefore, as far as this mod is concerned, I second Speiz_Bankurt's advice - Romanian interpretations of history are to be taken with a grain of salt, at best, especially when they come from angered teenagers, who start sentences with "maybe perhaps".

[edyzmedieval]

What's wrong with the fact that some dukes, like Janos Hunyadi (Iancu de Hunedoara) was born in Alba Iulia?

Romanian kings, from Basarab I to Mihai the Brave.

Angered, no. Annoyed, yes.
We couldn't make our imprint on history because we were always in the middle. We were forced to defend, and we rarely attacked. How could you possibly attack when you got Hungarians, Poles, Mongols, Byzantines, Ottomans and Kievans at your gates?

Ok, if we take it like this. Why should Bulgaria and Serbia be included? Hungary, ok, because they were important. But why Bulgaria and Serbia should?

[Kavhan Isbul]

Well, Serbia and Bulgaria not only existed for most of the Middle Ages, but both of them suceeded in establishing Empires in the Balkans. Bulgaria actually controlled Vallachia for a large period of time.
The "Romanian kings" you have listed, first of all, were not kings, and second, not Romanian, for such a notion did not exist before the 19th century.
You should go and check the Pike and Musket mod, which as far as I know will include Vallachia and Moldova, and starts at a time when these principalties did play a significant role.

[edyzmedieval]

Since when was Bulgaria controller of Wallachia? Bulgaria had it's expansionist rule when the Asan brothers (ironically, they were Vlachs, and don't negate it...) started thumping the Byzantines. They grew, but they were finally defeated by the Ottomans.

And while the Bulgars and Serbs were absorbed in the Empire, at least we maintained a small independency.

[Incongruous]

Second that!

Third it!

At the start of this period the Vlach were, in all respects a minor semi-nomadic people. Whereas by the the end of the 11th century the Serbians had proved themselves to be the major Slavoc power. Not only that, but gameplay wise, the Serbian millirtary has some really interesting options. What with thier adoption and adaptation of Magyar, Latin and late Ottoman arms and armour.

[Mircea85]

Also another note; Romanian historians like to hijack Hungarian historical personalities by changing their names and pretending they were Romaninans. Especially if they accomplished something noteworthy. If this mod is intended to be a total realism mod, it would be a good idea to ignore the Romanian version of history of that region as a reference.

Good joke!!! Every nation likes to hijack the history of their country and their region (Hungarians included, Romanians too).

The province of Transilvania has been ethnically and culturally Hungarian (or Magyar if you will) throughout the entire medieval period.

Another good joke!!! Culturally yes (the social elite of Transilvanya was hungarian or more exactly catholic, because they were orthodox, the romanian nobles were excluded), but ethnically, NO, the bulk of Transylvania's population was and still is of romanian entichity. Because of their religion, romanian were excluded from nobility, and they were peasants. For more about this you should read the book Ardeal, a romainan land by the american writer Milton Lehrer and especially Gesta Hungarorum by Annonymus (a medieval hungarian official), chronicle of Simon of Keza, Descriptio Europæ Orientalis, Chronicon Pictum of Vienna, about monk Ricardus.

About a romanian faction in XI century: the first true romanian state, Wallachia gained the independence in 1330 (battle of Posada), the second, Moldavia, in 1359. Before those dates, the romanians north of Danube and Charpatians were organized in little duchies called cnezate or voievodate which payed tribute to the nomadic tribes(cumans, pechenegs, mongols) E.g. Gelu , Glad and Menumorut in Transylvania and Salunus in Pannonia (IX century), Litovoi, Ioan, Farcas, Seneslau in Wallachia (XIII century).
The area of today Romania should be populated by romanian rebels with armies made of archers and peasants. The largest town in romania should be Campulung, town founded by romanians and germans from Transylvania led by the semi legendary voievod Radu Negru or Negru Voda (XIII century)
A bulgarian doomination, north of the Danube was a formal one and not a real one. The romanians north of the Danube helped bulgarains led by Asan brothers (they were at least partialy of aromanian origin).

[Russ Mitchell]

Sorry, Mircea, but you're presenting a serious geographic distortion. Seneslau was a voivode in *Oltenia,* which, just like *Muntenia,* was trans-Carpathian... and had fark-all to do with Hungarian transylvania except in the middle of the 14th century, when certain Hungarian kings decided they wanted to extend their power to exercise more than nominal rulership over the region (and then got his butt kicked in a running mountain ambush).

Having gotten your history from the unfortunately not-dead-yet Ceaucescu-era "support-this-historiography-or-lose-your-job" narrative is one thing -- I can understand that, having had to engage in some serious de-programming regarding how I teach several episodes in U.S. History that are not at all what students have been taught to believe previously. But presenting minor Oltenian lords as if they somehow have *anything* to do with medieval Transylvania, on the other side of the Carpathians (let alone suggesting that the Vlachs were any sort of serious presence in 9th-century Pannonia), is simply dishonest.

[edyzmedieval]

Russ, you cannot deny the fact that more than 70% of Transylvania's population was made of Romanians. The nobility was fully Magyar, but the rest, you have to be kidding.

[Russ Mitchell]

We can't have this conversation until we all agree to use medieval terms. Romania is founded, and "Romanian" delineated, as a 19th-century concept, and present-day history is simply not relevant.

To then answer the "I can't deny"... no, I can't, because you're asking me for the square root of negative one. It is, however, *not true* that 70% of Transylvania was ever Vlach in the middle ages... and I don't know the figures after that, because I don't do the early-modern period in any scholarly way.

I am *not* a Hungarian or Hungarian-sympathizing irredentist. I am a complete stranger who thinks the actual history of your region is fascinating, and who wants to spit after having to listen to Romanian scholars sadly wishing that they could practice their craft without constantly having to toe a 20th-century ideological line.

But when you say "Romanians," you are using a modern concept (describing people on the basis of a nation-state), rather than a tribal one. Even the folks still defending the Daco-Roman continuity theory (which does have some good points) describe Dacians and then Vlachs. This is not how medieval people thought: you could be a Jasz Hungarian, a Pecheneg Hungarian, a Saxon Hungarian, a Magyar Hungarian, or a Vlach Hungarian. The modern tribalism is a mindset that is just that.. modern. In the middle ages, nobody cared. What they cared about was, to whom did you owe your fealty?

[Mircea85]

Gesta Hungarorum by Annonymus, chronicle of Simon of Keza, Descriptio Europæ Orientalis, Chronicon Pictum of Vienna, monk Ricardus, Decree of Turda of king Louis I of Hungary are historical sources of european or even hungarain origin (Annonymus), not of romanian origin, so your statemant about Ceaucescu-era historiography falls. Or, mayby, those writers forged the history because they knew that they would support the claims of romanians over Transylavania. L-)

Every nation likes to hijack the history of their country and their region (Hungarians included, Romanians too). Do you agree this statemant, or mayby, hungarians are saints and they do not forge parts of their history???

But presenting minor Oltenian lords as if they somehow have *anything* to do with medieval Transylvania, on the other side of the Carpathians (let alone suggesting that the Vlachs were any sort of serious presence in 9th-century Pannonia), is simply dishonest.

About a roamanian(vlach) and slavic presence in Pannonia talks Gesta Hungarorum. But I didn't said that Seneslau had any conection with Transylvania, but Gelu, Glad and Menumortu had (about them talks Annonymus).

The only serious geographic distortion is yours, Senslau is in Muntenia, Litovoi is in Oltenia

and had fark-all to do with Hungarian transylvania except in the middle of the 14th century

Litovoi fouhgt with Hungary in 13 century.

So, long live Trianon and cheers