Medieval Kingdoms Total War: Voivodate of Wallachia

[finix]

Absolutely I think together we are stronger Empire of Blucharia!

[Visarion]

Agreed!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Darios]

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

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.

The book you are quoting was written by one, István Vásáry. I cannot comment much on his education or historical studies, for all I know he is a man of considerable knowledge and talent. However, he is also Hungarian. Mind you, a Hungarian writing on the history of Vlachs is like a Russian trying to write the history of Ukraine. Beginning during the 19th century (during a period of intense Magyarization policies in the Austro-Hungarian Empire), it became popular for Hungarian academics to not only claim that the Huns were their ancestors, but that the Romanians/Vlachs were not native to the lands north of the Danube and had in fact, migrated northwards from Albania.

The irony of this is that the earliest Hungarian chronicle, the Gesta Hungarorum, mentions that Transylvania was inhabited by "local Vlachs and Slavs" when they first conquered the region.

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.

It does sort of irk me that whenever a Westerner (Hungarians or Germans) argues something about Eastern Europe, it is accepted as academic without any nationalistic overtones (despite the territorial claims their peoples may have/had in the region), simply because it appears in a published book and that (Germans in particular) they are seen as a more 'familiar' source. If someone who represents the interests of "Balkans peoples" argues something, it is seen as whiny "they're suppressing our history" Balkans nationalism. It fails to analyze factors such as literacy or socio-economic status in the territory among the people being discussed. Romanian historiographic tradition is far younger than Hungarian, therefore Hungarian theories (nationalistic or not) concerning the region tend to get the benefit of being accepted as academic. What comes off as worse is that champions of the "immigrationist" theory (largely Hungarians) like to argue that if Vlachs indeed lived north of the river then "why didn't they write any books?"/"show me something academic to prove otherwise?!" knowing very well that Romanians were hardly literate before the founding of the Moldovan and Wallachian principalities during the 15th century. When they did began writing their own chronicles during the 17th century, they did not mention anything about immigrating into the region. Meanwhile in Transylvania, Vlachs under Hungarian rule were not given any political or economic rights and were essentially excluded from 'settled' society unless they converted to Catholicism and essentially "became Hungarian." Noticing a pattern here....?

In any regard, while I am certain that Vlachs lived in the region and constituted an ethnic majority, I find the idea for a 13th century Vlach faction to be extremely porous at best. In fact, seeing the ridiculous level that this thread has devolved to, I consider myself on the side of those arguing that there shouldn't be a Vlach faction in this mod.

[zsimmortal]

It does sort of irk me that whenever a Westerner (Hungarians or Germans) argues something about Eastern Europe, it is accepted as academic without any nationalistic overtones (despite the territorial claims their peoples may have/had in the region), simply because it appears in a published book and that (Germans in particular) they are seen as a more 'familiar' source. If someone who represents the interests of "Balkans peoples" argues something, it is seen as whiny "they're suppressing our history" Balkans nationalism. It fails to analyze factors such as literacy or socio-economic status in the territory among the people being discussed. Romanian historiographic tradition is far younger than Hungarian, therefore Hungarian theories (nationalistic or not) concerning the region tend to get the benefit of being accepted as academic. What comes off as worse is that champions of the "immigrationist" theory (largely Hungarians) like to argue that if Vlachs indeed lived north of the river then "why didn't they write any books?"/"show me something academic to prove otherwise?!" knowing very well that Romanians were hardly literate before the founding of the Moldovan and Wallachian principalities during the 15th century. When they did began writing their own chronicles during the 17th century, they did not mention anything about immigrating into the region. Meanwhile in Transylvania, Vlachs under Hungarian rule were not given any political or economic rights and were essentially excluded from 'settled' society unless they converted to Catholicism and essentially "became Hungarian." Noticing a pattern here....?

I'm not going to argue the merits of various national scholarship levels, but this is not simply a Balkan problem. I read the same thing from a scholar in Lithuania who criticized his colleagues for their 'factional' style of presenting history. I don't believe it is something that is a net negative, because every single country has gone through the process of building up their historiographic base and developing criticism to it, it's a necessary development. That said, we are generally rigorous in terms of historical documentation supporting both elements on the campaign level and with regards to building up units and their equipment, only resorting to projecting backwards through time when absolutely necessary. I can't say at any point that I have thought that the Vlach presence North of the Danube was ever something that required a faction in 1212, when simply having an emergent faction (Wallachia) and regional units (inspired by Wallachian history) was quite sufficient, imo.

In any regard, while I am certain that Vlachs lived in the region and constituted an ethnic majority, I find the idea for a 13th century Vlach faction to be extremely porous at best. In fact, seeing the ridiculous level that this thread has devolved to, I consider myself on the side of those arguing that there shouldn't be a Vlach faction in this mod.

At this point, I do consider that because of the excellent work done, there is no real point in simply moving the faction back to emergents. Since people can't seem to really agree on a faction (and a name) that would adequately represent the Vlachs without being needlessly vague, I'm simply going to say that it may as well be the 'Voivodeship of Wallachia' and just deal with the hit to historical integrity.

[Darios]

I'm not going to argue the merits of various national scholarship levels, but this is not simply a Balkan problem. I read the same thing from a scholar in Lithuania who criticized his colleagues for their 'factional' style of presenting history. I don't believe it is something that is a net negative, because every single country has gone through the process of building up their historiographic base and developing criticism to it, it's a necessary development. That said, we are generally rigorous in terms of historical documentation supporting both elements on the campaign level and with regards to building up units and their equipment, only resorting to projecting backwards through time when absolutely necessary. I can't say at any point that I have thought that the Vlach presence North of the Danube was ever something that required a faction in 1212, when simply having an emergent faction (Wallachia) and regional units (inspired by Wallachian history) was quite sufficient, imo.

This type of factionalism occurs in Romanian historiography as well, as many of the 'sacred' works of Romanian history were written during the 19th and early 20th centuries...a time when Romanians felt culturally "close" to France and were very antagonistic towards Imperial Russia. As a result, there was historically more of a focus on Rome's 150 year rule of Dacia than the nearly 1000 years of direct Slavic influence in medieval Wallachia/Moldova in school textbooks. That's just an example.

As a result, I try to keep an open mind towards these things and if the writer may be particularly slanted towards one point or view or the other. The book from which Wallachian posted excerpts from is very good and really does explain the evolution of the medieval Balkans in an interesting and (in my opinion) - accurate detail.

At this point, I do consider that because of the excellent work done, there is no real point in simply moving the faction back to emergents. Since people can't seem to really agree on a faction (and a name) that would adequately represent the Vlachs without being needlessly vague, I'm simply going to say that it may as well be the 'Voivodeship of Wallachia' and just deal with the hit to historical integrity.

There are legit arguments both ways but if it were up to me, I would be against the inclusion of Wallachia as a faction in a 13th century mod. However, it is totally the call of you and your team. The use of the name "Wallachia" at this point is a fine generic point, especially considering that it simply refers to "Land of the Vlachs." I don't know the type of units you guys have planned but perhaps they could start off as something 'simple' like Vlach peasant troops, Cuman horse archers, random groups of Saxons, etc a mixture of the peoples who inhabited/marched through the land during the 13th century but in late game perhaps include some kind of reforms that would transform the army with units reflecting the new level of organization of a unified voivodeship with social cohesion.

FrozenmenSS - I understand your point of view regarding balance and it makes perfect sense to me - as vassals are one of the neat features of this game's engine. Wallachia would make a fine vassal for the Second Bulgarian Empire.

Something to keep note of - The term "Moldova" did not exist before the 14th century. You would be better off referring to the region as "Voivodeship of the Brodniks" as they (whoever they were - probably a mixed Vlach-Slavic group) ruled the lands between the Prut and Dniestr rivers before the Mongol conquest and were instrumental in helping the Mongols defeat the Rus' at the Battle of the Kalka River.

[FrozenmenSS]

The book you are quoting was written by one, István Vásáry. I cannot comment much on his education or historical studies, for all I know he is a man of considerable knowledge and talent. However, he is also Hungarian. Mind you, a Hungarian writing on the history of Vlachs is like a Russian trying to write the history of Ukraine. Beginning during the 19th century (during a period of intense Magyarization policies in the Austro-Hungarian Empire), it became popular for Hungarian academics to not only claim that the Huns were their ancestors, but that the Romanians/Vlachs were not native to the lands north of the Danube and had in fact, migrated northwards from Albania.

The irony of this is that the earliest Hungarian chronicle, the Gesta Hungarorum, mentions that Transylvania was inhabited by "local Vlachs and Slavs" when they first conquered the region.



It does sort of irk me that whenever a Westerner (Hungarians or Germans) argues something about Eastern Europe, it is accepted as academic without any nationalistic overtones (despite the territorial claims their peoples may have/had in the region), simply because it appears in a published book and that (Germans in particular) they are seen as a more 'familiar' source. If someone who represents the interests of "Balkans peoples" argues something, it is seen as whiny "they're suppressing our history" Balkans nationalism. It fails to analyze factors such as literacy or socio-economic status in the territory among the people being discussed. Romanian historiographic tradition is far younger than Hungarian, therefore Hungarian theories (nationalistic or not) concerning the region tend to get the benefit of being accepted as academic. What comes off as worse is that champions of the "immigrationist" theory (largely Hungarians) like to argue that if Vlachs indeed lived north of the river then "why didn't they write any books?"/"show me something academic to prove otherwise?!" knowing very well that Romanians were hardly literate before the founding of the Moldovan and Wallachian principalities during the 15th century. When they did began writing their own chronicles during the 17th century, they did not mention anything about immigrating into the region. Meanwhile in Transylvania, Vlachs under Hungarian rule were not given any political or economic rights and were essentially excluded from 'settled' society unless they converted to Catholicism and essentially "became Hungarian." Noticing a pattern here....?

In any regard, while I am certain that Vlachs lived in the region and constituted an ethnic majority, I find the idea for a 13th century Vlach faction to be extremely porous at best. In fact, seeing the ridiculous level that this thread has devolved to, I consider myself on the side of those arguing that there shouldn't be a Vlach faction in this mod.

Darious,I agree with you from academic stand point,but the real problems here with the Vlachs are others.I can tell you how it was reached the decision the Vlachs to be at the start of the Campaign map at turn 1 and where the problem was created.


If Someone dont know the real problem is Campaign AI for multible factions in Eastern Europe,Because who holds the Vlach regions Makes or Brakes the Campaign for multible factions in the East to act just like the Western and Eastern Roman Empires in Vannila Attila with no balancing. Some will be having Easy Campaigns vs the Campaign AI,others more harder campaigns than WRE/ERE with less regions(both player and AI) at the start.The most Broken are the Cumans when trying to fight at 4-5 wars in the first 10+ turns with regions no way of defending any of the core regions,because they dont have any - all of their Regions are border regions,Bordering 15 Factions as of Right now,and they were hated by most neighbours in the east.And As we all know how the Campaign AI in Attila loves to focus/prioritize only the player's faction like a lazer guided rocket this is a Huge Problem for some Factions(not only the Cumans) .And on top of that the Tatars/Mongols will got the respawning Army stacks just like the Huns in Attila's Grand campaign. A harder legendary Campaign than the WRE campaign with the Cumans isnt a good Design - its the opposite - a really bad design from Balancing reasons.

So where are the Vlachs in all this:

At the start Wallachia was a region under the direct rule of the Second Bulgarian Empire(Moldavian region is still given to the Cumans ) and after the decision to fragment the Latin Empire from holding 5 regions to having 3 regions and 2 Vassal factions I proposed doing the Same for the Second Bulgarian Empire's Lands north of the Danube for Campaign Balancing Pourposes against the Hungary's and the Latin empire's CAI and Helping the Bulgarian and Cuman CAI a bit more - Moldavia and Wallachia.

So why fragmenting of a Faction is better in the long term? Fast example:Why the fragmented Sassanids CAI with its vassals in Attila 95% beat the Eastern Roman empire CAI in the Middle east in the Attila Grand Campaign? Because by fragmenting a faction into Overlord and vassals there is more money per each faction,More max armies per imperium level ect.When you combine their forces/money budgets against an Unitarian Faction like the Eastern Roman Empire - This is why the romans loose. And there is another Reason - If one Faction is Too big it falls apart really fast when attacked by smaler factions - of the biggest problem for Attila's CAI after the Lazer Guided CAI,focused defeating the player's faction.A problem also pronounced in well in Rome 2 more or less with Factions like Rome and the Selucids.


Bulgaria was having 4 Regions at the time and I proposed Bulgaria to have core 3 regions and 2 vassals - Making the Moldavian and Wallahian emergent factions be at the start of the Campaign and be vassals to the Bulgarian Empire ,because of a Compromise Decision the Vlachs to be represented (for the Romanian players, who together with the Turkish fans were asking their nations berepresented in Medieval kingdoms 1212ad the loudest) both as part of the Bulgarian Empire and be factions of its own at Turn 1,but unplayable in the Campaign,but playable in the Custom/Multiplayer battles.From a Historical stand point the Second Bulgarian Empire until the Mongol/Tartar Hordes came in the 1240s always held them by form a Political vassalage the Vlachs and the Cumans in Moldavia and Wallachia and the Title of the Bulgarian Tzar was ''Tzar of the Bulgarians and Vlachs'' with the later addition of ''and Greeks''.The ruling Asen dynasty in the Second Bulgarian Empire even to the present day is debatable were they Bulgarians,Vlachs or Cumans in their origin so thats another Plus for maiking the Vlachs part of the Bulgarian Faction in the form of a vassals.After the Arival of the Mongol/Tartar Hordes the Hungarians,Bulgarians and the Tatars were competing eachother for that control over the Vlach lands and weakened themselfs and the Vlachs became slowly step by step Independant in the late 14th century with the Arrival of the Ottoman Turks in the Balkans. And by looking at the early unit rosters of the Bulgarians and the Vlachs the Cumans are represented in them well and there isnt a problem with the Question" Where were the Cumans in Moldavia and Wallachia in all of this?"

So... By taking the Moldavian region from the Cuman Faction ,the Campaign AI and the player dont have to deal with and the Balkan Factions and the Hungarians to the West and Focus on the Fighting the Mongol/Tatar Hordes to the east ,the Georgians to the south,The Rus to the North and the only more or less stable in Diplomacy with Volga Bulgaria.Also the Cumans will be Bordering not 15 Factions as of Right now,but only 10 - something that will be still the Hardest Campaign in Medieval Kinfdoms 1212ad,but more manageable and more fun overall against the already lazer guided focused CAI on waging the War against the player. Some people will say them "Wait what about the Relations between the Hungarians,Vlachs,Bulgarians and the Cumans at the start of the campaign?" A simple non-agresion pact between them with the Cumans can do the Trick,without trading with Moldavia on top of that.And of top of that the Cuman faction already got the unit'''Moldavian Warriors'' in its unit roster to represent their control over Moldavia

The other Big problem with the Cuman-Kipchack Khanate as a faction,that is represented in the mod by the name Cuman Khanate as a centralised Faction,but in fact it was nothing like that all.Im mather of Fact it was one of the most disunited realms in Europe before the arival of the Mongols. I have proposed also in the past to Fragment the Cumans also of having at the start 3 regions:Bilgorod,Tana and Sharukan and their other 3 regions of the Cumans in the east be given to the Kipchacks(unplayable faction on the campaign) and making them from emergant to be a starting faction in the campaign with the regions of Kyzul Qala,Saqsin and Derbent and making the Cumans and the Kipchacks Defencive allies represeenting the Cuman-Kipchak confederation as much as possible. And with this Move The Cuman Faction will be still be Bordering with 7 Factions. Another Plus of this aproach presesenting the Cumans is it will give time for the player will be giving them some time before the Mongols come and declare war on their Defencive allies - the Kipchacks.Will he go try to help them with the Mongos right Away or build his forses and buy some time before the Mongols declare war on the Cumans.

And Finnaly the Campaign AI for all factions in Eastern Europe will be balanced for both each CAI faction and each faction the player choses to play as.

As for Hungary if the Mod team wants to represent all of the Transylvanian etnic groups and dont want to give the Hungarian another 15 units in its already huge unit roster they can also make the emergant Transylvanian faction be also at the start of the Campaign as vassal to the Hungarians. In its roster Transylvanian faction can have Saxon,Cuman,Teutonic order(this way the biggest critism for the Teutonic order of being too early in the Baltic region in 1212ad will be fixed,without compromising their holdings in the Baltics right now)units and some Vlach units also,but dominantly their unit roster will be represented by the Hungarian units.No new units will have to be created.It will need only need a mixture of the already created units from the Hungarian,Cuman,Saxon,Teutonic order and Vlach units and all Transylvanian etnic groups will be represented in a balanced way for evrybody. At the end Hungary will be having 4 core regions with 2 Vassal states:Croatia with 2 regions and Transylvania with one.

As For the names of the Moldavian, Wallachian and Transylvanian factions I have been proposing always the names:
''Voivodeships of Moldavia''
''Voivodeships of Wallachia''
''Voivodeships of Transylvania''

Older Version of the Starting Campaign Map

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The last update on the Starting campaign map.Over a year Ago.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ok that was my proposals 2 years ago about the Eastern Europe. So what went Wrong? At the time jan_boruta was making those campaign maps.Close before he left the mod team in his last update of the maps (judging at looking at his lack of activity over the last year+,I may be wrong) he only took the idea of adding the Wallachian Faction into the starting campaign map and this didnt fixed the core problems with the CAI for all factions in Eastern Europe at all after he Fragmented the Latin Empire.So this is why we are in this place debating why the Vlachs this ,vlachs that... over and over again.

Also on the Campaign maps there are problems with some of the regions in the Iberia,2 of the Italian factions and I dont know if they will be addressed:
1)Pisa was controling both Corsica and Sardinia in 1212ad
2)Bolongna region being part of the Lombard league
3)Castile loosing 3 out of 4 of its regions:Kingdom of Leon having 2 northern regions and Badajoz be given to the Almohads,But Castile to have the Biggest starting Army out of all iberian Cristian Factions with Toledo at its Capital and single region.
4)The Valencia emergant factionto become a Vassal to the Almohads and its early tier 1 units be muslim Almohads units with later Tier 2 and later Tier units to be Cristian(Aragon units maybe) ones due to Muslim Fragmentation from the Almohads at the time and a little help for the Muslims in Spain before the smaller Iberian factions steamroll the Almohads.

[Wallachian]

While i definetly agree that the topic is very muddy there is evidence of 'blakumen' north of the danube in the XIth century too first mention being 1050. And there is literally zero sources on any sort of mass migration. Seeing as the romans controĺled these lands south of the danube in this period there should be at least a sporadic mention.