The Danube and the Carpatian mountains

[Thufir Hawat]

Firstly, congratulations on your great job so far.
Secondly I would like to point out a few things I have noticed in almost all of the modes.

1) The Bulgarian Empire emerging in 1185 was basically more Romanian than Bulgarian at first. Asan, his brother John, then John Kaloianos and Borila Asan were both Wallachian and Bulgarian, they drew their strength equally from the north and south of the Danube. It was not until John II Asan(1218-1241) that it became a more Bulgarian state, the capital being Tarnovo. So it should spawn as a rebellion on both sides of the Danube against the Byzantines.

2) If it reemerges as Walachia, it should reemerge only north of the Danube, since Basarab I, forger of the Wallachian Voyvodat was a rebel against Hungary and not the Byzantines. You should also take notice that the rivers running north of the Danube are much larger than those south, and thus should be represented accordingly: Mures, Tisa, Olt, Prut, Siret.

3) There is always something wrong with the cities based in nowadays Romania. Those in Transylvania shoul have their Hungarian names, since they were founded or rulled by the Hungarian Crown, or German colonists. So Satu Mare should be Szatmar, Sibiu Hermanstadt and so on. In the 11-12th centuries the regions east and south of the Carpatian mountains were not densely populated, and their cities emerged much later(14th-15th century), firstly in the immediate vicinity of the Carpatians. SO in Wallachia you should have Campulung, Curtea de Arges, Poenari, Targoviste, and in Moldova Suceava, Baia, Campulung(another one). Also, Transylvania was one of the most densely populated regions at the time, so place a large amount of rural population to represent this accordingly. In Moldova and Wallachia, the population was rather scarce.

4) Transylvania was not fully controlled by Hungary in the 11th century. In fact, it was so hard to control that Hungarian kings always named a Voyvod(not duke!) to rule it for them. It was not until the 14th century that Hungary controlled Transylvania effectively, and still they named a voyvod as their enforcer. Represent this thouroughly, I think this should be a region capable of rebelling, and very hard to control and centralise.

5) The Carpatians were a very hard obstacle, impeding the progress of any army. This is hugely important, as it should shield the Hungarian - controlled Transylvania to fend against attacks from the east and south.

6) There are 2 extremely important cities you must represent: Chilia and Cetatea Alba(meaning White Castle in Romanian, also called Moncastro by the Genoese and Asprokastron by the Byzantines). It was a very important commercial point on the route that tied Constaninople to the Baltic Sea. And so was Chilia, they were hugely important economically and strategically until the 17th century.

Those were my thoughts. Take notice of them if you like and keep up the good work. Cheers!

[NikeBG]

1) The Bulgarian Empire emerging in 1185 was basically more Romanian than Bulgarian at first. Asan, his brother John, then John Kaloianos and Borila Asan were Wallachian and not Bulgarians, they drew their strength equally from the north and south of the Danube. It was not until John II Asan(1218-1241) that it became a more Bulgarian state, the capital being Tarnovo. So it should spawn as a rebellion on both sides of the Danube against both Byzantines.

Excuse me? May I have your sources for this... claim?

[Thufir Hawat]

Excuse me? May I have your sources for this... claim?

Try Nicolae Iorga "Romanians South of the Danube"(Românismul la sud de Dunăre). And don't turn all nationalist now. They were Wallachian as well as they were Bulgarian(the Asan dinasty I mean) until 1218. Ioan Asan II was the first undoubtedly Bulgarian tzar. I have learned these things in school and at home. In fact until the early 14th century Wallachians(Romanians) played a major role south of the Danube, and the early leaders of the Wallachian ruling family seemed to have royal ties with both the Bulgarian and the Serbian ruling families.

[NikeBG]

I meant primary sources. F.e. like Tsar Kaloyan who called himself "tsar of the Bulgarians" in home-sources and "imperator Bulgarorum et Blachorum" in international (to point out his imperial status). Or in his correspondence with Pope Innocent III where he claimed he and his brothers are descendants of the old Bulgarian tsars Simeon, Petar and Samuil (where he calls them "tsars of Bulgaria" and "tsars of the Bulgarians and Wallachians" (those are tsars from the First Bulgarian Empire, which was clearly non-Romanian (or you'd disagree?); for explanation see below)) and are just restoring what belonged to their forefathers. And this argument was also used by the Pope himself in his letter to the Hungarian king Imre where he says "...But at the end, as the Greeks proved stronger, the Bulgarians lost their statelyhood and were even put under the heavy yoke of Constantinople, until recently two brothers, namely Peter and Ioanicius, descendants of the kin of their old tsars, started not to conquer, but to restore the lands of their fathers and in one day they won a miraculous victory over great rulers and countles peoples...". Or perhaps Nicetas Choniates who explicitly says in his "History" that the Byzantine emperor, with his foolish actions, turned against himself and against the Romans "the barbarians from the Haemus (Balkan) mountains which were previously called Moesians (i.e. Bulgarians from Northern Bulgaria (Moesia) from the time of the FBE) and are now called Wallachians. They, by relying on their narrow passes and numerous fortifications in the inaccessible peaks, were even before haughty towards the Romans and now gained a reason to rebel..." (I believe there's no need to point out that the mountain fortresses in the Balkan mountains are a well-known part of the Bulgarian defences since about 4-5 centuries before that). Not to mention the more than numerous logical conclusions from the claims and actions of the three brothers themselves.
Otherwise, much has been said and written in secondary sources about how "Wallachians" was used almost entirely in international sources, while in home-sources it was mostly "Bulgarians". F.e. you can try the late Petar Mutafchiev's "The origins of the Asens" where he clearly explains the passage of Choniates and how at that time "Bulgarians" was used for the people from thema Bulgaria (present day Macedonia, Eastern Serbia, Western Bulgaria"), while Moesians (and from there - Wallachians) - for the people of thema Paristrion (present day Northern Bulgaria). Or you can try one of the best Byzantinists, Georgii Ostrogorski, who basically says that the basis of the state is Bulgarian, most of its population is Bulgarian and only eventually the three brothers might have had a Bulgarian-Wallachian origin (which is hardly probable, see below). But even if the brothers were half-Wallachian, half-Bulgarian, that wouldn't really change much, would it? The later Bulgarian dynasties (Terter, Shishman) were quite surely Cuman-influenced too, but that didn't change anything either - the state was Bulgarian, the people were Bulgarians, the language was Bulgarian (though it was used as the official one in Wallachia up till around the 18c. as well), the religion was Bulgarian Orthodox.
So, indeed, much has been said and written on these matters and I'm surprised they still teach such old and poorly supported claims in Romanian schools, especially when the main debates in the international historical circles now are not the old ones about the so-called "Romanian involvement", but whether the Asen (there's no Asan btw) dynasty too was Cuman or half-Cuman (because of the names Asen and Belgun which have a Turkic etymology) or not (which could explain how they received so easily the help of the Cumans from the so-called Cumania in the north of the Danube (what would later become Wallachia), the presence of Cuman nobles in the Bulgarian aristocracy (the voivod Manastar) etc).