>> The Great Conflicts map.<<

[mircea]

I don't know what is this cry about .At that time Romania and eastern Hungary where bulgarian lands .Naither of two states exist at the time nor their peoples atleest not in today form .The name of the towns is bulgar or avar origine .I also notice that some of the places are in romanian witch is really unhistorical but i belive that NikeBg will know a better option . And please don't count on Gesta Hungarorum .It is ritten 300 years later .And in history resurch that is unsertant source

First of all, if you wouldn't be so biased maybe you would have realized that I replaced most names in Romanian to the names which are more accurately for that period than the much later Timisoara, Campulung, Galatsi or Chernovtsy.

Further more, while it is still a somewhat controversial topic, a large number of foreign academic sources consider that Romanians were present on this lands in early Middle Ages, but it is very clear that you do not use academic sources, otherwise you would not support the inclusion of the town Galatsi (Galati) on a map from 10th century.

And third, while Gesta Hungarorum is not exactly the most excellent source, it is nonetheless among the very few such sources for that period. And that makes it a much better and credible source than your sorely evident lack of historical knowledge concerning that period. Even more, Gesta was not the only source I used, the other being Constantine Porphyrogenitus' De Administratio.

Chernets is the medieval Bulgarian name of Severin and I think it's better to keep it that way.

I have to admit that this is the first time I've heard about the association between Severin and the name Chernets. Nonetheless, I beg to differ, explaining that the nearby city of Ursicia (now Orsova) is several centuries older than Severin. The fortress is also mentioned as Castrum Ursova, Urchow, Urscia, Orswe, Oroswe or Orsoua. By comparasion, Severin was founded in mid to late 11 century.

The main problem is that there's a great scarcity of sources for that region and some of those that we have are from later times and not completely reliable (like the already mentioned Gesta Hungarorum, which is, nevertheless, still among our best shots). Another problem is that I have next to no detailed knowledge about the historical geography of that region and we don't have a Romanian researcher either. Anyway, this is what I had posted in the dev forum on the matter:

Another suitable source is Constantine Porphyrogenitus' De Administratio, from mid 10th century, as well as archaeological evidences (which unfortunately do offer too many information about settlements older names).

"F.e. in the case of Bulgaria, many of those Transdanubian provinces can freely be united and that would even make much more historical sense, considering they were lower populated and much less urbanistic. Some examples the way I see it - Craiova should go to "Drobeta" (Chernets was my suggestion, IIRC), Bucuresti can go to Nikopol, Buzau to Fagaras, Campulung to Belograd etc. That way we can have less provinces for Bulgaria, depict that Transdanubian Bulgaria was less populated (which is why Krum and the other Bulgarian rulers always relocated the Byzantine captives to live there) and get rid of some settlements which probably didn't exist back then (or at least with those names)."

I think that your idea is very good, although I would have a few things to comment. I don't think that it would be ideal to merge provinces in Wallachia to provinces from Transilvania or Bulgaria. The reason is the fact that by 10th century, Wallcahia and Southern Moldova are included in the area of Pecheneg, later Cuman domination. As such, I suggest dividing Wallachia in 2 provinces: an Eastern one with the center at Urscia (as a variant to Chernts/Severin) and an Western one centered around Krakna (near nowadays Galati), a town mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus

" About the so-called Transdanubian Bulgaria, the Gesta Hungarorum might be potentially useful when it speaks about Ohtum (Bulgarian commander from Samuil's times), who was later defeated by the Hungarians. His seat was in Maroshvar (Morisena in Latin), modern day Chenad, and his realms were from Muresh river to the north to the Danube to the south. So we could take Maroshvar/Chenad into consideration as a potential city-replacement as well."

Agreed, although I suggest using Morisena (nowadays Cenad) in place of Arad, while Horom castle (mentioned in Gesta), on the Danube could be used instead of Timisoara

As I've said before, I'm not too familiar with these territories, but I think some of those locations might fit better than some of the current ones - f.e. Campulung seems to have been founded later on, so maybe it could be replaced with something else, like Rimnik, Brashov or something else (Wiki says Arges was probably founded later on too). Some others I think are rather important in Western Romania are Bihar and Turda (though Turda is too close to Belograd/Alba Julia). And if we include Maroshvar (modern Chenad), maybe it would be better to call it Morisena."

You are right, Campulung was founded slightly before 1300, Brasov was founded by late 12th century, Ramnic (Valcea) was first mentioned in 1386, while archaeological diggings founded remains of a voievodal court at Arges from around 1200. The most important archaeological evidences from 9-10th centuries were uncovered at Dridu, as well as Slon-Cerasu, where a stone fortress was discovered, which was considered as being used to control the salt road that connected Transylvanian salt mines to Bulgaria.

Further, I would suggest merging Daboka and Fagaras with the Beograd ( maybe Belgrad/Balgrad)province, due to the fact that the latter town was pretty much the only major town in the area.

[NikeBG]

Archaeology can obviously be very helpful, yes, but it rarely gives us the names of the respective settlements. F.e. Dridu is a modern name and I'm not sure how fitting it would be. Of course, that poses another problem - we have archaeologically testified settlements with "no names" and we have later settlements with names (although I've read Severin was only rebuilt/"upgraded" in the 11th century, but existed in TGC's times as well), so which should we choose? Both options are obviously not good enough.
Btw, my map shows Kraknakate up there, in the north-east (as nr. 10).

P.S. I would also recommend you watch your tone and not tell other people how much they know or not know.

[AnthoniusII]

Guys as i have said in other threads also...
We do not claim that we know everything.
We do not claim that we are 100% corect.
That is why we have such threads open and not closed that could mean "take it or leave it".
But please make your sugestions or post or ideas or what you happen to know
in a civilised and polite manner.
Be sure that we always keep an eye to all sugestions.
AnthoniusII
Member of TGC/CBUR fellowship.

[absinthia]

the settlements that i picked were chosen on two conditions; historical importance in mods time-frame, and balance of region sizes/distance to other settlements. obviously the first condition was most important.
as i do not live on the map area i have no general knowledge of such locations and had rely on various internet maps and wikipedia. in those areas that was left wide open with huge regions i used google-maps to find existing locations and looked up their historical relevance. this was a tedious process with great deal of chance that some important locations has been left out.
when it came to areas where archaeological finds suggest has been populated since ancient times, i simply had to use more modern names when i found no alternative. so in many cases there might very well be better names or even better locations than those used now.
during the course of mod development there has been made quite a lot of changes to settlement and region names, as well as regional borders. many of those changes has been due to comments in this here thread.
obviously such changes are easier scrutinized and implemented if they are supported by links(wikipedia or other) and preferably some sort of graphic map. just use our map and write/draw on it to explain what and where you are commenting on. some people do and it has helped us a lot.
it is easy to comment on ones own chosen area of interest, usually ones home country, with a limited amount of settlements. but keep in mind that the mapper has to deal with all 199, most of them in unfamiliar parts of the world.

the problem is that the romans are overpowered not in the west but in the east since there is only one islamic faction that stand in the way and only held a strip of land which if i m roman i will just conquered that strip of land and recapture egypt and then focus on the Bulgarians (or both) at the same time and had to abandon italy or Sicily since its way too far from the centre.................

still with a civil then it might be an interesting thing to make over-powered factions not as powerful but how to trigger it then? low authority, low loyalty? or some civil disturbance

btw the Lombards only had one starting position which is quite underpowered since they can be crush easily by the romans (even they had 3 provinces in southern italy instead of one for lombards) and who would united northern italy?

having a lot of regions and a versatile roster does not make a faction overpowered. economy and civil unrest can tear apart the biggest empires, as history show numerous times.
the Romans perhaps seem quite safe in their eastern part, but Bulgaria is also big and close by.
for the Romans to expand through North-Africa they need time to convert each settlement to their culture or leave a large garrison to prevent revolt. so taking the Levant and Egypt may prove time-consuming and expensive, while at the same time fending of the Bulgars in the west and securing their holdings in Italy. in addition there will come some invading peoples from east, that is how Constantinople today are named Istanbul...

again, in Italy most rebel settlements share culture with Lombards, so they can quite easily expand. the Romans can not and they need to support their holdings over a large area.
a unified Lombardia is not an option, as it did not exist at this time. and including more Lombard duchies would not make it any easier for them, so it is not an option either.

[Silesian_Noble]

Further, I would suggest merging Daboka and Fagaras with the Beograd ( maybe Belgrad/Balgrad)province, due to the fact that the latter town was pretty much the only major town in the area.

Doboka and Fagaras might be sparsely populated area in TGC timeframe and might not have important settlements in year 872 but had great salt/metals resource deposits that were later but still in TGC timeframe explored by Magyars and were extremely important land for Magyar economy. This is why this area in my eyes should stay as it is now. The population levels in TGC starting date for that regions will be properly low but mining potential for them will be great. This way we will follow historical importance of that area.

[Bagatyr]

Further more, while it is still a somewhat controversial topic, a large number of foreign academic sources consider that Romanians were present on this lands in early Middle Ages, but it is very clear that you do not use academic sources, otherwise you would not support the inclusion of the town Galatsi (Galati) on a map from 10th century.

Sorry but there are no evidence that romanians exist at that time nor that they live in the lands that are now known as Romania .I have read academic sources and there is no such think as romanians or vlach by history sources from that era and our (bulgarian academy science) academic books .
I have not suport enything about Galatsi.Generealy i am not part of TGC team and only helping some time when i can with information .

And third, while Gesta Hungarorum is not exactly the most excellent source, it is nonetheless among the very few such sources for that period. And that makes it a much better and credible source than your sorely evident lack of historical knowledge concerning that period. Even more, Gesta was not the only source I used, the other being Constantine Porphyrogenitus' De Administratio.

The information from the Gesta that is good about the period is not more then 10-15 % - some general legendary memory of what actually took place .But there are mention of thinks that are not relevant for the period so i don't think is reliable source.

The reason is the fact that by 10th century, Wallcahia and Southern Moldova are included in the area of Pecheneg, later Cuman domination

Actually between second half of 11 century until end of 12 century when Bulgaria restor control over the region .

[torzsoktamas]

Wallachia and Moldova was under Bulgarian rule quite mutch time in my knowledge.Even in the begining of the 14. century.

[NikeBG]

Wallachia and Moldova was under Bulgarian rule quite mutch time in my knowledge.Even in the begining of the 14. century.

That's rather controversial (about the 14th century), but also quite irrelevant to TGC and its timeframe.

Anyway, as I've said before, I'm not too familiar with Romanian archaeology and historical geography and I also don't have much time to check even the Wiki, so all suggestions and discussions on the matter are welcome (as long as we keep it civil, of course). (Though I have to admit I'm glad some of my wild guesses, like Morisena and Bihar, seem to fit with Mircea's suggestions (from the 2nd of February))

[torzsoktamas]

That's rather controversial (about the 14th century), but also quite irrelevant to TGC and its timeframe.

Anyway, as I've said before, I'm not too familiar with Romanian archaeology and historical geography and I also don't have much time to check even the Wiki, so all suggestions and discussions on the matter are welcome (as long as we keep it civil, of course). (Though I have to admit I'm glad some of my wild guesses, like Morisena and Bihar, seem to fit with Mircea's suggestions (from the 2nd of February))

Well talking about the 14. century is irelevant to this mod,but I wanted to suggest that Wallachia and Modlova was under Bulgarian rule for quite mutch time(even Transilvania until the hungarians came).So the best solution would be naming these cities in bulgarian and not hungarian or romanian.

[mircea]

Guys as i have said in other threads also...
We do not claim that we know everything.
We do not claim that we are 100% corect.
That is why we have such threads open and not closed that could mean "take it or leave it".
But please make your sugestions or post or ideas or what you happen to know
in a civilised and polite manner.
Be sure that we always keep an eye to all sugestions.
AnthoniusII
Member of TGC/CBUR fellowship.

I'm sorry if my remarks were perceived as critical to your (and others) works, it was not my intention, and knowing how hard it is, I have all my appreciation for you work. On the other hand, I stand by harsh reply to Bagatyr, which has been prompted by the insolence in his post.

Archaeology can obviously be very helpful, yes, but it rarely gives us the names of the respective settlements. F.e. Dridu is a modern name and I'm not sure how fitting it would be. Of course, that poses another problem - we have archaeologically testified settlements with "no names" and we have later settlements with names (although I've read Severin was only rebuilt/"upgraded" in the 11th century, but existed in TGC's times as well), so which should we choose? Both options are obviously not good enough.

Unfortunately, I cannot find any info about the Severin fortress before late 11th century. All archaeological data seem to confirm that the fortress was abandoned in 6th century, and was later constructed by Hungarians, in late 11th century. On the other hand, the nearby Orsova (Castrum Ursova, Urchow, Urscia, Orswe, Oroswe or Orsoua)was attested much earlier, and I think is a better choice compared to Severin.

The only other major fortification in that period in Wallachia was discovered in the area Slon-Cerasu,which is hypothesized that controlled the road connecting Transylvanian salt mines to the area south of Danube. While we do not know its medieval name, I think a solution would be to use what could be plausible name, such as Castrum (or Bulgarian equivalent) + the (Slavic) name of a river (such as Prahova or Teleajen).

Btw, my map shows Kraknakate up there, in the north-east (as nr. 10).

I don't know exactly on what research the map is based, although I more inclined to believe the arguments presented in Stelian Brezeanu's 'Toponymy and Ethnic Realities at Lower Danube', which bring proofs in regard to identification of Krakankatai with the discoveries in the area of nowadays Galati

the settlements that i picked were chosen on two conditions; historical importance in mods time-frame, and balance of region sizes/distance to other settlements. obviously the first condition was most important.
as i do not live on the map area i have no general knowledge of such locations and had rely on various internet maps and wikipedia. in those areas that was left wide open with huge regions i used google-maps to find existing locations and looked up their historical relevance. this was a tedious process with great deal of chance that some important locations has been left out.
when it came to areas where archaeological finds suggest has been populated since ancient times, i simply had to use more modern names when i found no alternative. so in many cases there might very well be better names or even better locations than those used now.
during the course of mod development there has been made quite a lot of changes to settlement and region names, as well as regional borders. many of those changes has been due to comments in this here thread.
obviously such changes are easier scrutinized and implemented if they are supported by links(wikipedia or other) and preferably some sort of graphic map. just use our map and write/draw on it to explain what and where you are commenting on. some people do and it has helped us a lot.
it is easy to comment on ones own chosen area of interest, usually ones home country, with a limited amount of settlements. but keep in mind that the mapper has to deal with all 199, most of them in unfamiliar parts of the world.

I totally understand your issue, knowing very well how daunting it is to find the right settlements. I'm glad that you're open to suggestions, and hope I could aid a little.

Doboka and Fagaras might be sparsely populated area in TGC timeframe and might not have important settlements in year 872 but had great salt/metals resource deposits that were later but still in TGC timeframe explored by Magyars and were extremely important land for Magyar economy. This is why this area in my eyes should stay as it is now. The population levels in TGC starting date for that regions will be properly low but mining potential for them will be great. This way we will follow historical importance of that area.

While you're right that Transylvania was highly economically profitable not just for Magyars, but for Bulgarians too, most of the resources (primarily salt, but also gold and iron) were located in the Western area of the region, close to Alba Iulia (Balgrad) or toward Cluj. As such, we have salt mines at Turda, Ocna Dej, Cojocna, Sic, Ocna Mures, Ocna Sibiu. For gold and iron we have Apuseni Mountains. The eastern part of the region was and still is much more poorer, with very few mineral resources, but heavily forested.

Sorry but there are no evidence that romanians exist at that time nor that they live in the lands that are now known as Romania .I have read academic sources and there is no such think as romanians or vlach by history sources from that era and our (bulgarian academy science) academic books .

Yes the lived on Mars, and came with spaceships from there While it has been discussed and over discussed, the arguments for Romanian continued presence in this region is supported by a large majority of foreign academics, unlike the fringe migration theory, supported mainly by just Magyars and Bulgarians. Ironically, among the main people that politically dominated the region in that area, so they have no reason to be biased, right??

The information from the Gesta that is good about the period is not more then 10-15 % - some general legendary memory of what actually took place .But there are mention of thinks that are not relevant for the period so i don't think is reliable source.

Really, well trained historians say otherwise.

Actually between second half of 11 century until end of 12 century when Bulgaria restore control over the region .

And that's saying pretty much of how good as historian you really are. By 948, Constantin Porfphyrogentos already mentions Pechenegs tribes on Prut (Yula) and Lower Danube (Kapan). By that date, Pechenegs were already heavily involved in the conflict between Bulgaria, Byzantine Empire and Kiev. As such, by mid 10th century (not 11th century), the Wallachian plains was the battleground of Pecheneg and Bulgarian influences, with the former imposing its dominance by early 11th century.

[torzsoktamas]

Mircea:Actually Bagatyr is right.There is no evidence that romanians lived in this area(modern day Romania).Actually there is no mention about romanians until the late 13. century.I know what is taught at schools,but that is not even close to reality.Wallachia and Moldova was under Bulgarian rule from the early 600ies to the early 1300s.If you don't believe it,just look after it,but don't trust school books.You can read from wikipedia,or you can look after maps of bulgarian kingdom/empire and you will see.

EDIT:In my opinion settlements in Wallachia,Moldova and Transilvania should be named in bulgarian names.In 872 bulgarians lived in those lands so I think most fair is to name the settlements in bulgarian.

EDIT2:I hope I didn't offended you mircea,or any othar romanian,...it os just my sence of historicality.I don't like when people teach,believe and tell things that aren't true.Again my aopolies if you got offended,...was not my intention.

[Bagatyr]

Yes the lived on Mars, and came with spaceships from there While it has been discussed and over discussed, the arguments for Romanian continued presence in this region is supported by a large majority of foreign academics, unlike the fringe migration theory, supported mainly by just Magyars and Bulgarians. Ironically, among the main people that politically dominated the region in that area, so they have no reason to be biased, right??

1.I don't know source from medieval era and especially before year 1300 to talk about people called ''romanians'' in the lands of Transilvenia ,Wallachia or Moldova .The sources thalking about vlahs in this lands dated from the 13 century and beyond .And again there is a big problem with this turm because is used for different ethnicities or mixed people (mixo-barbarians) - a turm that shows people of bulgarian,byzantine or serb origine mixed with the invaiding nomads from the east as pechenegs,cumans,uz,torkils,hazars.This nomads gain from Constantinople rights to settled and lived in Bulgaria .In time they mixed with the local but preserv meny of theyr habits as the nomad live and shepherds.
2.Yes afcorse the foreign academics .Let me gess french the most .It is well known about the big suport of France for romanian ideology and popularization of romanian history view (According to some even the forming of romanian nation is work of France during the 19 century ).
Also i don't think that some academics that live too far from this region and are not well known with his problems can know better then the historians of the region .
And yes the hungarian and bulgarian historians are enough competent since the history of theyr people and staits is connected with this lands .And let us not forgeth that 70 % of the toponims of places in modern Romania are bulgarian and magyare origine .The texts of inscriptions in churches, plates, rings and documents from Romania (7-16/17 century) is on medieval bulgarian(known as the gental turm old slavic) or latin (the official language of Kingdom of Hungary ).

Really, well trained historians say otherwise.

surely since they are well trained in romanian propaganda ....

And that's saying pretty much of how good as historian you really are. By 948, Constantin Porfphyrogentos already mentions Pechenegs tribes on Prut (Yula) and Lower Danube (Kapan). By that date, Pechenegs were already heavily involved in the conflict between Bulgaria, Byzantine Empire and Kiev. As such, by mid 10th century (not 11th century), the Wallachian plains was the battleground of Pecheneg and Bulgarian influences, with the former imposing its dominance by early 11th century.

I know the source of Porfphyrogentos .The mention of some tribes in this area doesn't meen enything about Bulgaria loosing control over Wallachia or Moldova .Don't forgeth that tribes like pechenegs can settel in difrend places that recognize some one suzereneti .There are alot of tribes of difrend peoples that have settel and live for some time in Roman empire (Byz) but the region is still belonged to Constantinople .It is one think that tribe live on some place it is onather think to take control over the area and creat some form of state .Also if you know so much of history you should be familiar with the fact that pecheneg tribes are one of the most loyal allies and mercenaries of the Bulgarian empire during the Dark Age period .And back in 948 there is still no conflict between Bulgaria ,Byzantine empire and Kiev rus .The war will ocure in 968 !
And there is know source about Bulgar-pecheneg war in Wallachian plains during mid 10 century .It is just the imagenery wish of modern romanians that try to present the lands of theyr state as some neutral place if posible or atleest present it with tribes of extinct ethnicities (becuase as we know in eastern Europe it is much more safe to present some artifacts as belonging to people that are not existing eny more and can't pretend theyr historical raiths then some of your neighbors )

This is from me .I don't want to talk about this eny more since the topic has little conection with it .If you want so much to give me an ancer do it in privet

[torzsoktamas]

Couldn't have said it better,Bagatyr!
Also I learned in school that the first romanian chronicles apeared in the 15. century and were writen in slavic language.This supports the bulgarian origin of the romanians and what I said:name the settlements in bulgarian in TGC.

[mircea]

f you don't believe it,just look after it,but don't trust school books.You can read from wikipedia,or you can look after maps of bulgarian kingdom/empire and you will see.

Do not be naive to believe that your talking with a novice who has barely read an history book in his life, cause you might be up for a rude awakening

EDIT2:I hope I didn't offended you mircea,or any othar romanian,...it os just my sence of historicality.I don't like when people teach,believe and tell things that aren't true.Again my aopolies if you got offended,...was not my intention.

Don't worry, I'm rather amused of your "arguments" as well as worried by the quality of education in some schools in your country.

Also i don't think that some academics that live too far from this region and are not well known with his problems can know better then the historians of the region .
And yes the hungarian and bulgarian historians are enough competent since the history of theyr people and staits is connected with this lands .

The advantage with foreign researchers is that they are more objective, being less predisposed to biased for the simple fact that they are not affected by nationalistic sentiments, being less involved in local politics. But hey, since Hungarian and Bulgarian historians are competent due to the fact that they are connected to this land, than Romanians are at least as competent as them, since they pretty much live on this land. Right???

And there is know source about Bulgar-pecheneg war in Wallachian plains during mid 10 century .It is just the imagenery wish of modern romanians that try to present the lands of theyr state as some neutral place if posible or atleest present it with tribes of extinct ethnicities (becuase as we know in eastern Europe it is much more safe to present some artifacts as belonging to people that are not existing eny more and can't pretend theyr historical raiths then some of your neighbors )

^^Waste of words to say nothing

"And so the Bulgarians also continually struggle and strive to maintain peace and harmony with the Pechenegs. For from having frequently been crushingly defeated by them, they have learned by experience the value of being always at peace with them" (DAI, Constantin Phyrogenetos)<sup>1

1</sup>apud. Paul Stephenson, Byzantium's Balkan Frontier, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p.30-31

"In 917, Pecheneg has been incited to do just that, but were prevented when the Byzantine droungarios Romanus failed to transport them across the Danube. In 924, Nicholas Mysticus wrote to Symeon of Bulgaria warning him of a grand alliance of Northern people including Pechenges, Alans and many other Scythians."^2
2 Paul Stephenson, Byzantium's Balkan Frontier, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p.31

"Patzinacia is distant a five days journey from Uzia and Chazaria, a six days journey from Alania, a ten days journey from Mordia, one day's journey from Russia, a four days journey from Turkey, half a day's journey from Bulgaria; to Cherson it is very near, and to Bosporus closer still." DAI on a page of University of Washington

Couldn't have said it better,Bagatyr!
Also I learned in school that the first romanian chronicles apeared in the 15. century and were writen in slavic language.This supports the bulgarian origin of the romanians and what I said:name the settlements in bulgarian in TGC.

I see that the fail is strong in your post

1.I don't know source from medieval era and especially before year 1300 to talk about people called ''romanians'' in the lands of Transilvenia ,Wallachia or Moldova .The sources thalking about vlahs in this lands dated from the 13 century and beyond .

Mircea:Actually Bagatyr is right.There is no evidence that romanians lived in this area(modern day Romania).Actually there is no mention about romanians until the late 13. century.I know what is taught at schools,but that is not even close to reality.Wallachia and Moldova was under Bulgarian rule from the early 600ies to the early 1300s.

And let us not forgeth that 70 % of the toponims of places in modern Romania are bulgarian and magyare origine .The texts of inscriptions in churches, plates, rings and documents from Romania (7-16/17 century) is on medieval bulgarian(known as the gental turm old slavic) or latin (the official language of Kingdom of Hungary ).

In respect for the excellent work done by the modders, and which do not deserve to be polluted by your elucubrations, I will refrain from commenting anything in concern to the origin of Romanians. Further I urge you to start reading real and objective academic books, and if you are still bewildered I recommend opening a relevant thread in Vestigia section

P.S. To the modders: Thanks for patience and I'm sorry that my suggestions ignited the fire in nationalists' nest

[torzsoktamas]

Where do you live mircea,becuase I live in Romania?
Don't think I didn't read history.Actually you should look a bit after the history of these lands(Wallachia and Moldova)and take a look how many nations and for what time they were here.The bulgarians ruled these lands from the early 600ies to the early 1300ies.If you don't believe look after it.And don't trust any academic books,because there is a BIG propaganda concerning the origin of the romanians.

Besides I am curious:Could you send me a PM about what you think about this.I am extrimely curious what happened to the romanians from 271(when the romans left)until Mircea cel Batran.In school I learnt nothing about this time(between 271 and the 1400s).I had to look after these years in the internet.But I am curious what you think.Send me a PM about what you think are the romanians ancestors.

EDIT:Just take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bulgarian_Empire

It is about the second bulgarian empire.Take a look at the map and read a bit.See who ruled Wallachia and Moldova.

[NikeBG]

Unfortunately, I cannot find any info about the Severin fortress before late 11th century. All archaeological data seem to confirm that the fortress was abandoned in 6th century, and was later constructed by Hungarians, in late 11th century. On the other hand, the nearby Orsova (Castrum Ursova, Urchow, Urscia, Orswe, Oroswe or Orsoua)was attested much earlier, and I think is a better choice compared to Severin.

Ok, then we could have Orsova instead of Chernets then.
Though maybe Chernets was a nearby castle then (I'm not familiar with that area, as I've said)? There are such cases where one town changes location to a few kilometres nearby. F.e. I recently found out about one modern Bulgarian town (Sevlievo), whose medieval predecessor (Hotel/Hotalich, supposedly the biggest in land area after the capitals) was 4 km away from the modern town.

Yes the lived on Mars, and came with spaceships from there While it has been discussed and over discussed, the arguments for Romanian continued presence in this region is supported by a large majority of foreign academics, unlike the fringe migration theory, supported mainly by just Magyars and Bulgarians. Ironically, among the main people that politically dominated the region in that area, so they have no reason to be biased, right??

Are you sure about the Bulgarians? From what I've seen, we generally oppose the migration theory (after all, the migration theory claims the Vlachs came to Romania through and from our lands).

And that's saying pretty much of how good as historian you really are. By 948, Constantin Porfphyrogentos already mentions Pechenegs tribes on Prut (Yula) and Lower Danube (Kapan). By that date, Pechenegs were already heavily involved in the conflict between Bulgaria, Byzantine Empire and Kiev. As such, by mid 10th century (not 11th century), the Wallachian plains was the battleground of Pecheneg and Bulgarian influences, with the former imposing its dominance by early 11th century.

This is not the thread for such discussions, but I would beg to differ, especially considering the Pechenegs were pretty much gone by the time of the SBE.
Anyway, everyone has the right to believe in whatever he wills. This thread, however, is not meant for such off-topic discussions, so (all of you) stick to the topic and the TGC map and its regions and settlements.

[torzsoktamas]

Here is a map of Medieval Bulgaria:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bu..._(893-927).svg

The map is a bit later than the mods starting date,but is close enough in my opinon.It shows a few settlements/castles (don't know exactly what they are).I taught it might be usefull.

[Diodredai]

Woaaah what a fire I started with mentioning Transylvanian and Wallachian inaccuracies .

I'm too lazy to quote the gentleman in question however, he who shall not be named that cited the fact that archeological evidence unfortunately does not give us the contemporary name of the town is completely right.

I'd suggest we find ourselves a common denominator, persay the Avar/Bulgar/Latin name and choose which is the most appropriate for the period. Then again one must question: is the TGC team interested in a fortress/town that loses it's importance a few decades after the TGC timeline start?

If I may give my two cents regarding this most delicate subject:
First let me state that I am Hungarian. If that makes me biased, so be it.

1. The use of Romanian names in the time period is historically incorrect. Let us asume for a second that the heavily debated Daco-Romanian theory is correct, and certain settlements have a Romanian population that speaks an ancient dialect of Romanian. That does not mean that the modern day Romanian name (Timișoara to cite an example) is accurate.

Example of how a Transylvanian town got it's name today:
Clusiensis (latin) [1177] de castro Clus [1213] Kulusuar [1257] Koloswar [13th century] Kolozswar [15th century onward] Kolozsvár [16th century onward] after WW1 (Transylvania becomes part of Romania) Cluj [1987] Cluj-Napoka.

That isa prime example of how much the name of a town can change is just 900 years. Regarding the Gesta Hungarorum as I've stated before it's not a credible source at all, but what does one do when sources are so scarce?

Let us not however forget what period the Gesta was written (~1200s). The whole reason for the Gesta was to prove that the Hungarians are the descendants of Attila's huns (a quite far fetched allegation by modern standards), and that the Árpád dynasty were therefore the rightful rulers of the Carpathian basin, as they came to upload Attila's heritage. Therefore one must tread lightly when using such a source, as the writer (Anonymus) mixed in legends, rumor and myth, and historical data from his own age with the valuable information.

2. I'll have to agree on several points my both my Romanian, and Bulgarian colleges bring up in the discussion, however Mircea cites his sources, whenever one engages in a historical debate: always cite your sources gentlemen! One must back up a statement with proof behind him, otherwise we are no better then old wives telling rumors and heresay. We do live a civilized age, let us debate in a civilized manner aswell!

However, I must also say that my views regarding the origin of the Romanians are quite contrary, but I won't even get into that, let us honor our TGC hosts with the utmost respect, and let us not derail this discussion any further!

But please excuse me NikeBG, let me address a few points that might have been misunderstood due to the language barrier existing between our people!

Mircea is correct. Szörényvár (Severin) doesn't gain importance until the medieval ages (The Cumans request to be let into Hungary in 1227, therefore the castle was built to watch over the Cuman inhabitants) . Evidence suggests that due to it's strategic location the Romans built a few minor fortifications (and a bridge) the area was otherwise uninhabited. I'd suggest that Severin be discarded.

Again Mircea is correct regarding the mines of Transylvania. The reason Hungary becomes the richest nation in the whole of Europe during the reign of King Charles I of Hungary is due to the fact that previously scarcely or completely uninhabited areas (densely forested and mountainious areas) were being opened up, and new mines were established in the area - whereas most of western Europe had already depleted the rich mineral veins that were first opened in the Roman period.

The eastern part of Transylvania during this period was inhabited by a Turkic ethnic group (that still resides in Romania today) called the Szeklers. They were present during the Avar period, so if you want a settlement in eastern Transylvania I'd suggest a Szekler settlement be chosen. That would be historically correct later on aswell, due to the fact that when the Magyars arrive to the Carpathian basin, the Szeklers became part of the Hungarian state, as an autonomous entity within the Kingdom of Hungary.

I think Mircea pretty much answered the whole "romanian bias" argument pretty well. I have my reservations with certain foreign academics (the good old rub my back I'll rub your back argument comes to mind), but accusing him based on his nationality isn't a good argument gents! One must systematically disprove the other debaters points through careful research.

Bottom line: don't use Hungarian or Romanian names dear modders.

[Wareg]

Wasn't Cieszyn more important than Ratibor?

[Silesian_Noble]

Hard to say. Both were built in IXc and both were local administration centres. The problem with Cieszyn is that there were two settlements: Stary (Old) Cieszyn and Nowy (New) Cieszyn and both were important. If you are able to proove that Cieszyn (but which one?) was more important then Ratibor - I may change the settlements on the map. From the gameplay reason there is no difference as both settlements were centres of the same tribal confederation (Gołęszyce) and were located not far from each other.