Medieval Kingdoms Total War: Voivodate of Wallachia

[Visarion]

Empire of the Bulgarians and Vlachs and you "forget" to mention Vlach in the official documents you mean!?

[finix]

Absolutely I think together we are stronger Empire of Blucharia!

[Visarion]

Agreed!

[Wallachian]

We're in 1212, not mid 13th century, not late 13th century, not 14th century. If you can't come up with a single name that could describe a Vlach polity that is a vital part of the founding of the Voivodeship of Wallachia, it's pretty damning evidence against the faction's presence at the start date.

As previously mentioned there are several names that are just as plausible. During the 13th century there was no centralised state in Wallachia but a series of small lordships ruled by warlords which owed their allegiance to the Bulgarians, then to the Hungarians, then to the Tatars etc. They regularly changed their allegiance and even their religion according to whoever was the strongest power. This doesn't mean that they did not exist at the time. Realistically, many of the factions in the mod weren't one single unified state but several tribes/lordships with various levels of confederation, especially factions like the Cumans or the Tatars.

I definitely prefer a generic name to include all these vlach lordships rather than choosing one. Many of them evolved from one to the other, were taken over, split up etc. As such the best suggestion would be Vlach Knezates.

But if you insist on picking a single one than i suppose you can choose either Voivodship of Seneslau or Terra Lytua/Voivodship of Litovoi.

It's up to you to just use one of the many suggestions we made, they are all equally valid.

Hahaha Look at you, want Wallachia to be playable and you can not even get a proper name. Stay province at Bulgaria and we will give you a glory name
Sorry I can't resist

Don't worry we are making great progress towards recovering Southern Dobrudja, one beach, club, disco and restaurant at a time. But just in the summer time

[Visarion]

And only if it's all inclusive and 5 ***** !

[Visarion]

Given the fact that the Voivodate of Seneslau will be the birthplace of the united Vlach states I choose this name and it's also the best option because the Voivodate of Lytua was together with the Hospitallers a deffensive entity financed by the Hungarians together with the reconstruction of the devastated citadel of Severin, ruled by a Ban loyal to Hungary, at the start of the timeframe, the title of Ban of Severin (Banatus Zewriniensis or Terra Zeurino) being united with the one of Voivode of Lytua (Terra Lytua). Lytuoy will turn against the Hungarians and will be defeated in battle after years of war and bloodshed. His brother Barbath will be ransomed by the inhabitants of Lytua and become the new Voivode, loyal to Hungary but with much lesser prerogatives and without the title of Ban of Severin nor Knyaz of Hatzeg or Duke of Fogaras, presumed additional titles of Lytua. Hatzeg will remain an adjuvant qvasi-independent privileged Vlach region of Transylvania. However the succesor state will be the one created by the Duke of Fogaras, Radu Negru who will establish a new centralised state in Longo Campo in 1292 accompanied by Orthodox and Catholic followers, Vlachs, Saxons and Pechenegs from the Teutonic Burzenland (Terra Bozza), former Terra Blacorum et Bissenorum. Possibly by the remaining Jasz as well because there is numerous evidence that they were present alongside the Pechenegs in Fogaras. Also Cumans were inhabiting the Kenazate of Hatzeg alongside the Vlachs. Teutones became qvasi-independent and established lots of wooden and rock castles including Kronstadt. Other Saxons constructed Klausenburg, Bistritz or Nosnerland and Hermannstadt. Longo Campo was also reached by the Teutones and Saxons who started building a country of their own into Cumania untill defeated by the Hungarians who feared a strong centralised Saxon state and preffered to have multicultural guard border factions, buffer states like Hermannstadt, Nosnerland, Szekelyfold, Szeklerland or Terra Siculorum, Banate of Severin, Dukedom of Fogaras, Voivodate of Maramaros and so on inhabited by Saxons, Szeklers, Csangos, Cumans, Pechenegs, Vlachs, Slavs, Khazars. Untill 1300 Longo Campo will be governed by the original Saxon ruler Laurencius de Longo Campo even after Radu Negru, possibly a Cuman or half Cuman will become the new hegemon accepted and embraced by the local populance as a saviour, protector, leader and unifier. They simply sought for his guidance.

[zsimmortal]

As previously mentioned there are several names that are just as plausible. During the 13th century there was no centralised state in Wallachia but a series of small lordships ruled by warlords which owed their allegiance to the Bulgarians, then to the Hungarians, then to the Tatars etc. They regularly changed their allegiance and even their religion according to whoever was the strongest power. This doesn't mean that they did not exist at the time. Realistically, many of the factions in the mod weren't one single unified state but several tribes/lordships with various levels of confederation, especially factions like the Cumans or the Tatars.

I definitely prefer a generic name to include all these vlach lordships rather than choosing one. Many of them evolved from one to the other, were taken over, split up etc. As such the best suggestion would be Vlach Knezates.

But if you insist on picking a single one than i suppose you can choose either Voivodship of Seneslau or Terra Lytua/Voivodship of Litovoi.

It's up to you to just use one of the many suggestions we made, they are all equally valid.

As far as I know, all the names pointed to beyond the Vlach Knezates are terms that post-date the mod's starting date. While Knezates might be the most accurate, it's not an appealing name, just like the very non-defining 'Yatvingians' or 'Cumans'.

[Visarion]

Yes but you must take in consideration that there are mentionings of a certain Vlach Voivode defeating or at least facing the Mongols, which would be 1240-1242. We have mentionings both from the west, the French and from the east, the Persians. Persians also mention that the Mongols managed to defeat the Saxons but only after three succesive battles. We have a mentioning about a united Vlach and Szekler force waiting for the Mongols after they crushed the remaining Cuman lords, survivors of the Khalka massacre as well. And from here we have another option for the faction "Tiers as Blas". This brings us back to Terra Blacorum. It would only be fair to mention the Pechenegs as well as they were essential at Posada due to their archery skills so as to represent the evolution of the medieval state of Wallachia and it's elite limited Turkic-Vlach-Saxon core without making discriminations we have Terra Blacorum et Bissenorum, the Land of the Vlachs and Pechenegs/Cumans. It's worth mentioning also that the medieval Vlachs were the result of the merging of the original Romanised populance with the Slav migrants.

[zsimmortal]

Yes but you must take in consideration that there are mentionings of a certain Vlach Voivode defeating or at least facing the Mongols, which would be 1240-1242.

No, we don't. And like I said, you keep making great arguments for the faction being emergent, not a starting one.

A much better case can be made for Prussian hordes at the start date than Vlachs.

[Visarion]

Also there exists another hypothesis that in fact Ilaut is not reffering to Terra Lytua or Oltenia but to Terra Alaut (Fogaras or Tara Oltului).

And I don't even want to presume that you consider that an army able to face the Mongols appeared suddenly do you?

[zsimmortal]

And I don't even want to presume that you consider that an army able to face the Mongols appeared suddenly do you?

Who said anything about appearing? No one denies that the Vlachs didn't sprout from the earth, they simply did not have an identifiable polity in 1212 from which to make a faction out of.

All emergents (that actually existed) share that same characteristic. It is a mystery to me why Wallachia was given preferential treatment.

[Visarion]

One name: Joannes Kinnamos.

[Visarion]

So we already have Persian, French, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, German and Slavic sources stating that Vlachs had a land of their own. After the mentioning of the Byzantine chronicler of an existing polity of Vlachs in 1166 we also have mentionings of a Terra Blacorum near a Terra Siculorum in 1222, a Sylva Bissenorum et Blacorum in 1224 and a Terra Blachorum in 1231 alongside the Teutonic Sieben Burgen (Seven Cities) of 1211, some Saxon settlements being present since mid 12th century in Altland or Hermannstadt, German populance from Luxembourg and Mossele River. Others established later in Nose, Nosnerland and Klausenburg as well as in Kronstadt, Schasburg and so on from the old Lotharingia, the Southern Low Countries (Netherlands), Rhineland, Thuringia, Bavaria, Mossele and France. They were nominally called Saxons or Teutones. So there we have it if you want the earliest mentioning it would be simply Terra Blacorum or Sylva Bissenorum et Blacorum. If you want other names those would be Duchy of Fogaras, Ilaut, Terra Alaut or Tara Oltului from the Olt river, a mountainous fortified region as the plains were roamed by nomads, especially the Cumans. As the Cumans and Pechenegs were divided and many times fought each other, some retreated in the mountain sanctuaries of the Vlachs as was the case with the Basarabids. Note: Terra Alaut not to be confused with Terra Lytua mentioned in 1247 by Anonymous. So we have three polities alongside the 615 km navigable Olt river affluent of the Danube that links the Carpathians to the Black Sea and the Genoan and Venetian merchants with the Saxon, Polish and Lithuanian merchants: the Saxon Altland since 1192 ruled by the Teutones between 1211 and 1225, Vlach, Cuman, Pecheneg and Saxon Terra Alaut and the Vlach Terra Lytua, ruled by Lytuoy, ally of the Hospitallers and Hungarians, Voivode of Lytua and Ban of Severin. Saxons also settled near the Bistritz river, in a polity called Nosnerland, a separate entity. We also have the Royal Forrest of Maramaros mentioned since 1199 which I strongly suggest as a playable horde entity representing the Voivodate of Maramarus which will establish the Voievodate of Moldavia, the other major medieval Christian gate alongside the Carpathians.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ulorum&f=false

[zsimmortal]

So we already have Persian, French, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, German and Slavic sources stating that Vlachs had a land of their own.

No such evidence has been brought forth to this effect either here or in the older Wallachian discussions. No document has ever mentioned Vlach polities outside of Bulgaria (the second empire which they helped found) prior to 1235 as far I know, and nothing you have brought forward mentions anything to the contrary.

After the mentioning of the Byzantine chronicler of an existing polity of Vlachs in 1166 we also have mentionings of a Terra Blacorum near a Terra Siculorum in 1222, a Sylva Bissenorum et Blacorum in 1224 and a Terra Blachorum in 1231 alongside the Teutonic Sieben Burgen (Seven Cities) of 1211, some Saxon settlements being present since mid 12th century in Altland or Hermannstadt from Luxembourg and Mossele River. Others established later in Nosnerland and Klausenburg as well as in Kronstadt, Schasburg and so on. So there we have it if you want the earliest mentioning it would be simply Terra Blacorum or Sylva Bissenorum et Blacorum. If you want other names those would be Duchy of Fogaras, Ilaut, Terra Alaut or Tara Oltului from the Olt river, a mountainous fortified region as the plains were roamed by nomads, especially the Cumans. As the Cumans and Pechenegs were divided and many times fought each other, some retreated in the mountain sanctuaries of the Vlachs as was the case with the Basarabids. Note: Terra Alaut not to be confused with Terra Lytua mentioned in 1247 by Anonymous. We also have the Royal Forrest of Maramaros mentioned since 1199 which I strongly suggest as a playable horde entity representing the Voivodate of Maramarus which will establish the Voievodate of Moldavia, the other major medieval Christian gate alongside the Carpathians.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ulorum&f=false

The argument has never been a lack of settlements or the existence of Vlachs in 1212, but rather a complete lack of acknowledgement of a ruler that held a certain amount of territory outside of Bulgaria. I had posted in the last thread that the Vlach migration North of the Danube from Bulgaria had NOT happened until after the start date. Therefore, mentions of rulers and 'duchies' or voivodeships prior to that is speculative at best based on post-facto situations.

But even if we take for granted that a generation or two is not sufficient for the foundation of some kind of organized society and that there must be something prior to its existence that is quite similar, does the modding team not then have to repeat the same exercise for every single faction that is omitted in the starting date? I do not believe so, as the rules for determining which factions make it or not in the starting position are quite clear. Therefore, Wallachia is no different and theoretically has no business in the 1212 start date.

[Visarion]

You keep forgetting that Vlachs were called the Romanised Thracians of southern bank of the Danube as well as much as Rhomios was a Greek Roman, I myself am a speaker of Rhoumaika. Plus why would Greeks state in 1166 that the Vlachs of the Carpathians were there since the time of the Italians if they migrated from Bulgaria? Also indeed there were north Carpathian Vlachs loyal to Bulgarians but in the plains, on the opposite side of Vidin, near the Danube. Vlachs that shared their lands with the Cumans and nomad style living Pechenegs. There were nomad Cumans and Pechenegs and the settled ones. Most "Italian" Vlachs retreated in the Carpathian mountains however due to the numerous nomad attacks in the plains, in fortified regions as was the case with Fogaras in a similar fashion as the "Macedonian-Greek-Bulgarian" Vlachs retreated in the Balkan mountains after the Bulgarians took the country for their own and sent the Vlach nobility into exile. The Aromanians, Megleno and Istrians are the remnants of those Vlachs that tried to form a country in Thessaly and later between Epirus and Albania, around Moskopolis. In Dalmatia, Croatia lived also the Morlachs. Most Greek Vlachs live even nowadays in Epirus, Thessaly and Greek Macedonia. Greeks to differentiate the Greek speaking Romans from the Latina Vulgara or Neo-Latin speaking Romans called the latter Vlachs and so did the Germans but the so called Vlachs identify themselves as Romans and call themselves thus. My people, remnants of the Byzantine Empire and fighters for the restauration of the Empire of the Romans called the Romanians Vlachs untill early 20th century even if living in Romania since Dobrudja was annexed in 1877-1878. They came here from Odessa and Crimea in 1821, part of the Filiki Eteria. In Crimea and Mariupol they were colonists invited by the Russians since mid 18th century and left from the Greek Macedonia with ships provided by the queen in order to neutraluse the Tartars. The old Greek and Gothic inhabitants were privileged and received tax exampts from the Tarists who shifted the minority into a overwhelming majority and the ethnic and linguistic base of Crimea changed drastically by inviting the opressed Byzantine remnants from all over the Black Sea areas and Germans to increase the numbers of the original settlers. Tartar refugees were embarked on ships and sent to perish but some were lucky enough to anchor in southern Dobrudja, Constantina.

[Wallachian]

I don't think there is any point in an academic discussion in regards to the origin of the Vlachs since there is ample discussions among the historic community about this. To not derail the thread can you point me into the direction of the document you mentioned regarding the vlach migration north of the Danube. To my knowledge there is no actual evidence regarding this and it is not accepted by the general academic community other than a few scholars.

As far as I know, all the names pointed to beyond the Vlach Knezates are terms that post-date the mod's starting date. While Knezates might be the most accurate, it's not an appealing name, just like the very non-defining 'Yatvingians' or 'Cumans'.

Not sure why the generic name is not appealing. It is not the equivalent of the Cumans but rather the equivalent of the name 'Cuman Khanate'. The name Vlach Knezate would represent every single one of the statelets in existence at the time.

You mention that the names provided post-date the mod's starting date. But we are talking of about 20 years difference maximum. We have sources from 1234, these states did not just come into existence in the 14 years between 1220 and 1234. They had existed there before but we just don't have the names of the rulers.

[zsimmortal]

I don't think there is any point in an academic discussion in regards to the origin of the Vlachs since there is ample discussions among the historic community about this. To not derail the thread can you point me into the direction of the document you mentioned regarding the vlach migration north of the Danube. To my knowledge there is no actual evidence regarding this and it is not accepted by the general academic community other than a few scholars.

I read it in Cuman and Tatars, though I do not have access to the book anymore, so I can't follow up on the scholarship root of the statement. There's a whole section that is partially dedicated to Vlachs, which is where the statement was made.

Not sure why the generic name is not appealing. It is not the equivalent of the Cumans but rather the equivalent of the name 'Cuman Khanate'. The name Vlach Knezate would represent every single one of the statelets in existence at the time.

I was merely stating that generic names are unappealing in my opinion. The main difference is that there is no such thing as the Vlach Knezate as there was never a united entity, only groups that migrated from South of Danube.

You mention that the names provided post-date the mod's starting date. But we are talking of about 20 years difference maximum. We have sources from 1234, these states did not just come into existence in the 14 years between 1220 and 1234. They had existed there before but we just don't have the names of the rulers.

Once again, 20 years is the same as not in 1212. The policy is precisely that 1212 is the only thing that matters for faction inclusion. Once you start making exceptions, you create the perfect grounds for endless whining. Wallachia has clearly been given an unprecedented and unrepeated preferential treatment.

Look at it from the other side. The Prussian tribes (except for the Sudovians) are notably absent from the mod despite being well-documented all the way to 1212. How can the Vlachs be considered such an obviously well defined group when no one can even bring up a single known Vlach political entity that existed in 1212 or before?

[Visarion]

Again 1166 Byzantine source. The Vlachs that came from Italy and were allies against the Hungarians in a very meticulous and long campaign. Faction name: Vlachs. Leader: Bezerenbam or Miseslav. Your choice.

[Darios]

...only groups that migrated from South of Danube.

There are scattered references to Vlachs living north of the river Danube from as early as the 6th century. During the campaign of Komentiolos against the Avari and Slavs in Wallachia in AD 587, Theophylaktos Simokattes wrote of an incident regarding Latin speaking soldiers in the Roman army who were "speaking the language of the land." That's just among one of many...including an incident where the Emperor Andronikos was captured by Vlachs in Moldova in 1165.

Of course, that has little to nothing to do with your mod and the Vlach Knezates (I couldn't care less if the faction appears or not) but using the argument that Vlachs migrated from south of the Danube is un-academic at the best. You have to understand that the early medieval Vlachs were a semi-nomadic/pastoral/illiterate society that were ruled over by other nomadic/illiterate societies (Avars, Pechenegs, Cumans, etc) so you do not get too many stories about Vlachs in the region during the period.

However, whenever Roman influence/doings crept north into the region or Kievan influence/doings crept south into the region, they did not seem to have a problem acknowledging that the area was inhabited by Vlachs.

[zsimmortal]

There are scattered references to Vlachs living north of the river Danube from as early as the 6th century. During the campaign of Komentiolos against the Avari and Slavs in Wallachia in AD 587, Theophylaktos Simokattes wrote of an incident regarding Latin speaking soldiers in the Roman army who were "speaking the language of the land." That's just among one of many...including an incident where the Emperor Andronikos was captured by Vlachs in Moldova in 1165.

Of course, that has little to nothing to do with your mod and the Vlach Knezates (I couldn't care less if the faction appears or not) but using the argument that Vlachs migrated from south of the Danube is un-academic at the best. You have to understand that the early medieval Vlachs were a semi-nomadic/pastoral/illiterate society that were ruled over by other nomadic/illiterate societies (Avars, Pechenegs, Cumans, etc) so you do not get too many stories about Vlachs in the region during the period.

However, whenever Roman influence/doings crept north into the region or Kievan influence/doings crept south into the region, they did not seem to have a problem acknowledging that the area was inhabited by Vlachs.

I am no scholar in Balkan historiography, but here is some that I had read prior to the original discussion (p. 28) :

It is not our task here to trace the process of the immigration and set-tlement of the Vlakhs north of the Danube. Suffice it to mention a few facts that facilitate the understanding of this process. Though the Vlakhs may have settled sporadically on the left bank of the Danube before the thirteenth century (this possibility cannot be excluded in the case of nomads such as the Vlakhs), the fact remains that the first occurence of the termVlakh north of the Danube can be dated to 1222.

From Cumans and Tatars (http://www.academia.edu/5037485/I._V...Cambridge_2005), which I found an online version of. There's a long section on the founding (re-birth) of Bulgaria and Vlakhs in that period which details the source material on the subject.

Needless to say, I'd love some actual academic work which suggests anything that has been brought up in this thread and the past one (on Wallachia), because this looks a lot more like the typical 'they're suppressing our history/they're stealing our history/they're making up history' factionalism you see in (Balkan) historical arguments. I even checked the burning tire fire of a thread on the forums on the origins of Vlachs and there seems to be little (to no) solid evidence prior to the 13th and 14th century.