1337 History of EU5 Balkans STARTED A 2nd FORUM WAR

[@LudietHistoria]

Tired of eu5 videos ? Watch some vic3 japan next kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3K4hWqql5aMrtk

[@jjjace2152]

Ludi I’m not entirely sure but I feel like the shaded lines don’t suggest minority but maybe just acceptance? Eg Hungarian is the state culture and the Transylvanians aren’t but they’re still the main culture in the area?

[@justlegeek]

I can't be bored of videos about the next BANGER of Paradox Strategy games

[@borisbodt]

Hey Ludi! Love your videos. Let’s make opinions even more balkanised. 😂 I heard that you probounced Occitan as “ossitan”, it is however pronounced with a hard C. So like OK-Sita(n). Half-Silent n of course 😂 . The original spelling would even be with an X instead of two C’s.

[@edwxx20001]

Tired of EU5 videos, prehaps. Tired of Project Cesar, Never!

[@Bullshlaha]

VicU 5

[@marcparairaserra8668]

Yet another war that started in the Balkans... 🤣

[@L1ghtZ1vr]

they didnt learn 😂😂

[@miraculoushero-k6h]

@@marcparairaserra8668 You could call it... "The Second Balkan War"

[@orthodox-mp6hv]

@@miraculoushero-k6h Third, there already was a second one in 1913.

[@MiyukiSone31]

berlin civil war

[@nildzrecastellanos]

@@miraculoushero-k6h Second? More like 15th

[@them4601]

Have they ever tried to fight it out maybe?

[@catalinmarius3985]

Yes, in the Serbo-Bulgarian War, First Balkan War, Second Balkan War, World War 1, World War 2

[@Celeste__ch.]

@@catalinmarius3985 but have they considered winning?

[@kazaddum2448]

@@Celeste__ch. See above, some balkan country always was on the winning side.

[@stefansmiljanic1697]

@@kazaddum2448 winning is a big word, we usually just get cucked by the great powers that later tag the balkans as a powder keg just so they can expalin their own imperialism in the region, so the best way to say it, in the balkans you never win you only get cucked

[@catalinmarius3985]

@@Celeste__ch. Yes, beat the Turks in First Balkan War, but the English and the Russians stepped in to protect the Turks.

[@Palman97]

"I'm not super familiar with the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian history so I won't comment too much" GOOD ONE LUDI, YOU SAVED YOURSELF

[@LudietHistoria]

@@Palman97 hey man I got enough haters already xD

[@Koridor777]

​@LudietHistoria Don't worry Ludi. I am a Serb and I would still love you 😂

[@Gulitize]

The Nogais are correct, they letter got deported by the Russians or fled prosecution into the ottomans. the Crimean Tatars also included Nogais, the question is where you draw the line and considering the early start date I can understand that they split of the Bessarabian Nogais from the Crimean Tatars considering that it is still all golden horde and a unified Crimean identity hasn't developed yet.

[@LudietHistoria]

that's a good point you make.

[@SuperLexxe]

The Nogai are likely there because the Nogai Ulus (not to be confused with the Nogai horde) was based in far Western Golden Horde, and they were the last ones to launch any significant campaigns into Hungary and the Balkans, but were so thoroughly defeated that from then on the Golden Horde only conducted minor raids or skirmishes. (There were several ulus' inside the Golden Horde itself)

[@СеменТрубицинСС]

@@Gulitize именно поэтому ногайцы до сих пор живут в Дагестане и западном Казахстане...

[@92Locutus]

Transilvania had no western border prior to 1541, so you can draw it wherever you want. Also I want to comment just for you, the full south of kingdom of hungary (now eastern croatia and north serbia) was heavly forested hardly passable woodlands with very old very big trees, now depiced as 'grasslands'. They started to cut these woodlands in the late 17. century and built the entire mine shaft system of the carpathian basin out of this very good hardwood.

[@TheWanderingPlayer]

Paradox probably based Transylvanian numbers on the Papal tithes from 1332-1337. Accoding to this register 310,000 (Catholic) Hungarians, 21,000 (Catholic) Saxons and 18,000 (Orthodox) Romanians lived in Transylvania during that time.

[@catalinmarius3985]

The problem with the Papal tithes from 1332-1337 is that they were only interested in documenting the Catholics. If you look at the Papal tithes itself, there is more empty space than not in Transylvania, even in the fields, this could have easily been the place where the Romanians lived but the Papacy simply wasn't interested in them.

[@alexandrub8786]

@@TheWanderingPlayer >papal tithes >(orthodox) The uniate church was not invented yet so i am pretty sure those romanians are only roman catholic romanians since giving the tithe to the pope as an orthodocs would be the same as recognising his superiority. Thus just as anachronistic and antithetical as a papal-supremacist protestant church or a catholic who doesn't follow the pope(i know of the seds, they are weird)

[@agostontoth8782]

@@alexandrub8786 We have assumtions the number of the overall villages in Translyvania. So theoritcally, you could get how many romanian villages are-they dont pay the pope-but the tithle list doesn't contain the number of villages that form one parish, and the population of villages either. Romanian researchers used this to "prove" romanian majority, but the truth is the papal thitle list cant be used to determine the ethnic composation by itself, even if its the best source we have.

[@LudietHistoria]

@@catalinmarius3985 exactly, the papal tithes only counted catholics and orthodox nobles with special priviledges EDIT: the romanian bit i mean

[@LudietHistoria]

@@agostontoth8782 we don't use this at all actually to prove anything. We prove Romanian majority from census of various times, both before and after the 1300s, as well as piece together various sources that talk about this area and ofc archeological finds, as many or few as they may be, depending on what we're talking about here.

[@PersimmonHurmo]

balkan were more important than russia in 1300s and england was just another part of france fighting other parts of france

[@joshuafrimpong244]

I'd make a better argument that the Balkans have always been important

[@mihajlomalcic936]

The Balkans were rich back then. Lots of mines, big roads, big coastal cities etc.

[@user-brittania-prima]

gotta thank the byzantines when they were powerful for the crazy investements

[@peterpetrov4809]

I agree with the importance of the Balkans in 1300's but England wasn't a part of France.

[@xeon39688]

@@peterpetrov4809 they literally spoke french

[@jorgosgustavus3183]

13:29 It was because of Turks who wiped out 1/4 of the Hungarian population during the Hungarian-Ottoman wars. After huge population decline, plagues, famines, emigration out of carpathia and land destruction Austria "took over" Hungary which sparked Austria-Ottoman wars which ended up racking to almost if not 1/3 Hungarian population dying or being displaced. Romanians (which Transylvanian culture should be named) mostly remained untouched, due to population living in VERY isolated parts of the Transylvanian mountains.

[@terminator2083]

Except Ottoman armies never stepped foot in Transylvania, nor occupied it (I implore you to find a source that ascertains that). So magically the Hungarian population of Transylvania poofed out of existence but the remote Romanian one was untouched and unaffected because they were a couple sheep herders that lived in the mountains, like listen to yourselves be for real….

[@jorgosgustavus3183]

@@terminator2083 Strawman. The Ottoman Empire invaded Transylvania several times. Most notable ones happened in 16th and 17th centuries. These invasions weren't singular, nor these centuries the only ones. Transylvania served as a focal point of interest and conflict during Austrian domination of Carpathia against Ottomans. Now tell me, are you saying Ottomans never set a foot in Transylvania? Because if you say so.. that's an historical inaccuracy which means you are uneducated, and if you say they did then you refute your own argument. Congrats

[@terminator2083]

@ Since you seem so confident give me the exact dates the Ottomans invaded Transylvania then, which regions they stepped foot in and which settlements they razed to the ground. Did the Ottomans happen to siege Cluj, or raze Brașov to the ground at any point in time? The burden of proof falls on YOU to prove that there was a catastrophic conquest (like in Pannonia proper) that could have spurred some sort of massive demographic transition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so where is it? Waving your hands and saying they invaded doesn’t make it any less of a fantasy. À propos, I’m from Transylvania and the local historical tradition of my home region acknowledges many invasions throughout time, like the Pechenegs, the Tatars, the Mongols etc. Never once has an “Ottoman Invasion” ever been mentioned, not even once in passing. So nice try, but you can’t fool us locals :))

[@toplil4118]

@@terminator2083 I think he's referring to the Battle of Guruslau on August 3rd, 1601 and the Battle of Brasov on July 17th, 1603, both between a Habsburg-Wallachian alliance and Ottoman-aligned Transylvanians. While I have no horse in this race, if any demographic shifts happened, they were most likely due to Transylvania falling between the Habsburg and Ottoman yokes for a couple centuries and all the surrounding wars that the region itself only saw some parts of. However, since historical records are sparse and contradictory, saying anything for certain is impossible.

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

So were Romanians (Româns/Vlachs) depopulated when the Hungarian/Magyar horde took over the Duchy of Gelu/Terra Blacorum under the Bulgarian Empire

[@christurner6330]

Romanians stayed unassimilated in Hungarian Transylvania because they were mostly herders in the mountains, and when Transylvania depopulated during the Ottoman wars, they started moving into the plains which were previously inhabited by Hungarians and later on Saxon immigrants. It's almost like assimilating mountanous peoples is near impossible even in 500 years.

[@MasterCriminal0]

truth.

[@soroksarcity]

which means that there can be no Romanian majority in Transylvania, the mountains can not sustain a large population. Couldnt back then cant now

[@sejt23]

it is similar to what persia was before and after the mongols i guess?

[@christurner6330]

@@sejt23 Pretty much! Persia is a great example considering also the fact that they didn't get entirely Arabized in a sense. Though the Mongols didn't assimilate anyone I don't think.

[@christurner6330]

@@soroksarcity That's true, but the Hungarians probably stayed on the plains and left the less sustainable mountains to the Vlachs/Romanians. Same reason Slovaks made up majority part of northern Slovakia, but their population was low

[@cosimoalbaster]

Ludi on the Campulung Moldovenesc thing, the Moldovenesc part was added during the communist era, historically the region was called "Ocolul Campulungului" and then later when the austrians took over they united a bunch of surrouding villages from that valley and turned it into the city then known as Kimpolung or Campulung in romanian. Source? I am from the region

[@LudietHistoria]

thanks for that, I didn't know actually!

[@konplayz]

Slovenia was ruled by the Austrians for like 1200 years but they weren’t all assimilated

[@alexandrub8786]

Being catholic helped there. The romanian nobility of transylvania was forved by the french (Anjou) to ronounce their faith,their rank, or(like with the Bogdan I to migrate over the mountain out of Transylvania/Maramures). The one who converted being slowly magyarised because of intermariage with new local nobility and with the rest of the kingdom. Also the estate of the romanians was disbanded (universitas valachorum) and the peasent romanian was supresed by the union of the three estates:nobles(mostly hungarians) +burghers(mostly saxons) + szekelies (they had their own priviledges and rights so thus a different estate)

[@Argacyan]

Something to also consider: there are cities in Slovenia which were founded as German cities, but even if Germans were a majority in these places the relative population declined over time towards Slovenian. While this was not always the case, it is one case example showing it's wrong to suggest minority populations always shrink.

[@FedericoApuzzo]

3:40 I think a fair solution for the Moldovan area could be starting like this and transferring the provinces to Hungary by event (and forming the Moldovan march) when the hungarian market thing reaches a certain amount of power (or what's called now) in the area

[@agostontoth8782]

Ludi, about hungarians in Transylvania. Migration? When the Habsburgs drive out the Turks, and took back the control of Transylvania, it was a war-torn country in dire need more population, just like the Alföld area, where the original hungarian population was mostly destroyed as a result of the ottoman army using the area as a higway to the Habsburgs (and of course the infight between the rather pro-ottoman and rather pro-habsburg hungarians did their part too). That is were lot of pops from the Serbians and Slovakians arrived there, to work under the old-new lords of the land. Translyvania was in a similar situation with all it wars in the prior centuries. And big-time magyarisation was a later thing, as depicted in eu5 Hungary's offician languege is latin in these times, not all of the nobles speaks hungarian well even. (Hungarian becomes official language just in 1836). Of course it's still possible what you say, but we just don't now for sure, because as you said, there was no censuses in that time. Only the papal thite lists, which can help made an assuption, but still, we dont now how many villages belonged to one parish,(definitely more then one, which a romanian researcher suggested-sadly i forgotten his name) and how many people had one village. So we will never know, and tbh it dont even matter anymore. Paradox should add a game rule, where each balkan nation could chose themselfs to be on top shape at the start of the campaing, then everyone can have their own truth :D

[@alexandrub8786]

Difference is that pannonia is a flat field meanwhile transylvania is a depresion protected by mountains and further away from the main battle. Also while there was less active magyarisation than the nationalist era, there were decrees and laws that had second order effects be magyarisation like the Turda decree of Louis de Anjou which made orthodocs like christians in a muslim caliphat and destroyed the romanian estate (universitas vlachorum) And also using the "how much did the catholics pay" document for an ethnicity of mostly non-catholics that forced the pope to create a new rite (uniates/greek catholics) is not a good source for to calculate orthodocs popularion. And addendum to the uniate in Transylvqniabit: those who converted were promised the best of both world (be orthodocs, benefit equal right with catholics) and got the worse (seen as traitor by orthodocs, did not get equal right with the catholics) and post communist period most greek catholic families just turned orthodox romanian.

[@mistjor]

LOL at the end Albanian Balkan supremacy ;D

[@kevinboros7427]

That's a great idea: just add a game rule to slightly change the cultures where it's disputed while still keeping it Ironman.

[@archiqm]

As for Transylvania, please consider the following: The Tatar invasion was a massive demographic catastrophe in the history of the Hungarian Kingdom. During the teaching of Hungarian history, it is emphasized that in the open and low-lying areas of the country, the population-which was predominantly Hungarian at the time-was completely wiped out. This also affected the Transylvanian regions, which were likewise easily accessible to the invading Tatars. After the Tatar invasion, the surviving nobles and inhabitants began bringing in guest workers native to regions beyond the mountains, and this is how Romanians from Wallachia started to infiltrate Transylvania. German settlers were also granted the right to settle by the Hungarian Kingdom, as there were simply no people left, and civilization had ceased to exist. The Germans founded Sibiu (Hermannstadt) and Brașov (Kronstadt) in southern Transylvania.

[@oleksacrowley9580]

1. Crimeans were originally descendants of Nogai tribes. 2. Odessa did not exist until late 17 century, when it was conquered by the Russians, the area was historically called Hajibey, therefore name Kotsubijiv in Ukraininan.

[@hmmmmmmmmm7267]

Looks much more complicated than eu4 😅

[@Bullshlaha]

That's the beauty of it.

[@razortheonethelight7303]

I hope it's so complicated that you would benefit from doing multiplier as one country since there would be just that much that could be micro managed.

[@hmmmmmmmmm7267]

@@razortheonethelight7303 that would actually be cool, have multiple people co-op one nation because its just not possible

[@kuro1132]

Ludi, what exactly is your logic regarding Romanians being majority in Transylvania at this time? What "policy of assimilation" can we even speak of up until the 19th century? After the Ottomans depopulated the whole of Hungary, Hungarians migrated inwards - that is well documented.

[@ivanergovic2634]

@@kuro1132 as much as that is true, hungary was always trying to assimilate other peoples, which is also very well documanted

[@kuro1132]

@ivanergovic2634 Hungarian wasn't even an official language of Hungary until 1830, what do you mean???

[@theafinaman7260]

@@kuro1132 I learned Transylvanian history, and Hungarian was an official language since 1691 in Transylvania, so it definitely was official in Hungary too.

[@kuro1132]

@theafinaman7260 Idk about Transylvania, but definitely wasn't the case in Hungary

[@crakck34]

@theafinaman7260by this time transylvania too was undert the habsburg yoke, it had a different administration a “gubernator” but was considered part of the kingdom of hungary and had all the same laws as it. in the previous years, it was under the principality of transylvania, which was known for its religious and ethnic tolerance and had no policies of assimilation as far as i know

[@Moxie326]

16:08 I think it refers to the politically dominant language of the state, rather than the numerically dominant language.

[@Makem12]

Ludi, I want to see you do a 1 province challenge with Cudalbi. How amazing can you make your hometown? Will it stand the test of time? Would be interested in seeing that.

[@genstian]

Varna should probably be a natural harbor province.

[@georgechristman6920]

The blue parts in Greece are meant to represent the remnants of the Slavic migrations of the 7th century, which only survived on some remote mountanous areas by the Late Middle Ages.

[@greatscott7691]

1:33 They actually changed Bucuresti to București, I think the change log saying Bucharest is just an autocorrect problem.

[@CatladyAyaki]

Great thumnail! Love it!!

[@LudietHistoria]

Glad you like it!

[@Bullshlaha]

@@LudietHistoria I love it more than he does, Ludi!

[@peachprincess758]

Great video as always!

[@ZephyrDogma]

Where it is nogai actually means no gays there, easy to confuse culture in the balkans

[@diegoyqulki]

@@ZephyrDogma based 🗿

[@zenmestermarci1186]

My brother in Christ, assimilation didn't work the same way in christian lands as it did in other places It happened in 2 major ways: 1. A family sent their children to (in this case) hungarian school to learn the hungarian way of life, get to know hungarian culture and the stuff, and a few generations later they are completely hungarian. A concentrated effort no romanian peasant (or no peasants as a whole) could do 2. A romanian-hungarian couple decides to not prioritise teaching the romanian language and culture over the hungarian one. This worked after 1781, when religious freedoms were granted to everyone in the austrian realms. But before that, no priest would marry an orthodox to a catholic/any type of protestant person or vice-versa, or happened so rarely, that assimilation in this way was a statistical error. Thus the only major population change was migration. This way of thinking is proven correct (at least between romanians and hungarians) by the mere existence of the aformentioned Csángó people. They existen in Moldavian then Romanian lands since the 12-13th century. How were they not assimilated then? Keep in mind, they were a minority since they settled there. I'd like to hear (well, read really) how you'd counter this argument, especially if it's an actual argument not just "well the hungarian majority in 1337 sounds like bullsh.." Addendum: the Alanic people are the Jász, who came with the hungarians beacuse the Khazars are scary

[@alexandrub8786]

In other words, "the seeds of magyarisation were planted ling ago in the dexree of Turda by Louis I and his destruction of Universitas Vlachorum".

[@pasaniucdaniel4112]

If you suppose that Romanians just immigrated from other regions, then how come the Transylvanian Romanian culture and language has it's own quirks, and forms a continuum with the Wallachian and Moldovan cultures and isn't just the same as Wallachia/Moldova? There are words that are common in Transylvanian Romanian and Italian, or French that aren't common in Wallachian /Moldavian, one example is calling garlic "ai" in Transylvanian Romanian, just like the Roman "allium", or French "ail", or Italian "aglio", or Castilian "ajo", while in Wallachian/Moldavian it would be called "usturoi". If there were large Romanian migrations to Transylvania it doesn't make sense to abandon their own word for garlic to adopt an older Roman word later. (not trying to debunk here but provide a counterpoint)

[@turinturambar5333]

Ah nice, more provinces for ottomans to conquer

[@blasader]

I guess they won't be so OP in 1337.

[@SplendidFactor]

@@blasader It's like in Tsardoms Total War mod for Medieval 2. The Ottomans aren't OP in the 1300s, but they're OP af if you pick the Fall of Constantinople start date instead.

[@Dekken88]

AFAIK the hungarian theory on how they became a minority in Transylvania: 1. immigration and settlement of romanians 2. Massive population loss during the ottoman wars, especially the 15 years war and the crimean tartar raid ín 1658. These supposedly hit the hungarian population in the valleys most and much less the romanians who lived in the more remote areas 3. Difference of religion is a massive barrier to assimilation. Assimilation was also not a pursued policy before nationalism. And for a lot of the period the ruler was Austria, not Hungary.

[@catalinmarius3985]

1. There are no documents of such immigration, it is only theoretical. From 1750 when we have many written records the Austrians expressed concern that a lot of Transylvanians are leaving for Wallachia and Moldavia rather than the other way around. 2. Wouldn't this also hit the Romanian population? 3. The Hungarians went far and wide to try to assimilate Romanians, even by medieval standards. After 1366 Romanians lost their status as an Estate (Universitas Valachorum) and were excluded from Transylvania's assemblies. From 1438 onwards the political system was based on the Unio Trium Nationum and the society was led by these three privileged nations (Estates): the nobility (mostly Magyars), the Szeklers and the Saxon burghers. Eastern Orthodox Romanians were not allowed to build up local self-government (like the Szekelys, Saxons in Transylvania, Cumans and Iazyges in Hungary. The only possibility to remain or access nobility was for them through conversion to Roman Catholicism. In order to conserve their positions some Romanian families converted to Catholicism, being subsequently magyarized (i.e. the Hunyadi/Corvinus, Bedőházi, Bilkei, Ilosvai, Drágffy, Dánfi, Rékási, Dobozi, Mutnoki, Dési, Majláth, etc. families). Some of them even reached the highest ranks of the society (Nicolaus Olahus became Archishop of Esztergom, while half Romanian regent John Hunyadi's son - Mathias Corvinus - became king of Hungary). In short for point 3, Hungary worked with Romanians a lot like the Abbasid Caliphate with Christians. Sure you can live here, but you won't have certain rights, the only way to have those rights is to convert to Catholicism and be magyarized. For the medieval age this is wild.

[@Dekken88]

@@catalinmarius3985 1. Actually there are a lot of surviving documents about hungarian nobles inviting vlach settlers tó their estates in the 13-14th century. 2. The theory is that usually romanians lived in the more remote areas (As a consequence of later settlement - see point 1) - meaning mountainous and forested regions. A raiding force is much more likely to take the easier and richer pickings - the hungarian villages ín the valleys.

[@najak4773]

good points on both sides but where are the sources...

[@Meghules]

@@catalinmarius3985 It's not that wild, it was common in another feudal states. It was common to have no proper "rights" as someone from another religion. There were wilder things in the medieval times.

[@MattFerr100]

I'm kinda surprised how low developed Eastern Moldavia and Dobruja are since the Genoese had some trading posts along the lowed Danube amd the Dnister river, Cetatea Alba was directly owned by them(known as Maurocastro) but for some reason they didn't put it in, I hope they read my feedback

[@eujinvittoria1078]

@LudietHistoria I remember in my studies of Central Europe that Hungary suffered a massive depopulation following Turkish invasion and it played a massive role in the reshuffling of demographics in Vojvodina. Perhaps it was the same in Transylvania ? I’m not sure

[@Atromboniste]

Common language is the language of the primary culture of a country, not necesarily of their largest population group. The reason rhodes speakes french has to be that the knights have been made to have french as their primary culture.

[@fairextl]

Wouldn't you say the court language, especially in Wallachia, was Middle Bulgarian rather than Romanian? Lots of decrees written in Bulgarian from the Vlach rulers up till the 16th century and no evidence of any Romanian ones, as far as I'm aware.

[@alexandrub8786]

In that case shouldn't the language should be old church slavonic? Like latin in poland and hungary.

[@fairextl]

@@alexandrub8786 Well Church Slavonic differs largely from Middle Bulgarian, and while it was used in churchly matters, all the documents we have from the period relating to courtly matters appear to be in a variation of Middle Bulgarian, or in a sense, a Vlacho-Moldavian dialect of it.

[@Dan_Gyros]

as much as I consider myself a history buff, I never realized how complex and rich Balkan culture is/was

[@lockretvids]

13:35 The answer is a lot of migration. And I mean A LOT. There was always steady migration to Transylvania since the Mongol invasion of Hungary in 1241-1242, to the point where around 1/3 of the population was Romanian by the end of the 15th century. By the mid-17th century, the around half of Transylvania was Romanian, and by the end of the 18th, it was around 60-65%.

[@terminator2083]

Romanians today are twice as numerous as Hungarians today, and the largest nation by far in the Balkans (more than all the Yugoslavs combined). We didn’t just appear out of thin air…. Massive migrations from Moldavia and Wallachia would have been well documented and no such records exist. Rather contrarily, Moldavia was founded by a Romanian from northern Transylvania, something which is well documented that no one disputes. So if there was a migration, it was from Transylvania across the Carpathians in search of equal rights (the Vlachs were second class citizens in the kingdom of Hungary ever since their rights were abolished in the 1300s).

[@itsukoishikawa]

I love the historical context you give as you go through the post, Ludi, it is very informative and interesting 💞you taught me many new things

[@Sorcy-q3e]

13:26 lets put all bias aside, many sources say that during the ottoman control of wallachia and moldova, many romanians were seeking refuge in the (by then) more stable habsburg controlled transylvania, which was also very attractive for many romanians because hungarian leadership drastically declined during the habsburg rule. This migration also ultimately completed the Habsburg goal to weaken the hungarian authority in this region. Also many historians argue that by that time, hungarians were more urbanized and had a much lower birth rates than the more rural romanians. So no romanians didn't just "spawn" there, it's historically a bunch of reasons why romanians became the majority in transylvania by the 18th century.

[@gergopalinkas3076]

bro ate and left no crumbs with this review (y)

[@Itisstillok]

A bunch of people are having a fierce debate about the Balkans, while the decision will still be made by people from another region - this is something new!

[@hashkangaroo]

Glad to see our favorite Roma EU4 player finally comment on this, this is going to very entertaining.

[@ad_astra468]

*Romanian

[@Medvelelet]

Same thing

[@leaveme3559]

@@ad_astra468 what's the difference?

[@ad_astra468]

@@leaveme3559 Roma is Italy’s capital city. Romanian is a nationality.

[@LudietHistoria]

I always find it funny how people call us romanians roma as a mean of 'secretly' and 'cleverly' insulting. No insult taken though, as there's nothing wrong with being of ANY ethnic background. If you did a quick google search you realize it's first off called rroma, with 2 'r's and they're an indian people that migrated into europe a while back, not related to romanians by language or culture. Their name is rroma because of them originally migrating to the territories of the byzantine empire and becoming citizens eventually by serving the byzantines. The word for citizen was similar to rroma, or at least in their language that's how they interpreted it, and why they call themselves that today, although not all of them do so, as there are multiple tribes of different origins. Wtv the case, love you all!

[@Anton-hc4vv]

Very interesting video 👍👍

[@Andrei_Cojocariu]

For Walachia and Moldova, I would choose slavonic as the court language, given the fact that tomb stones of rulers and chancelary documents are written in this language.

[@TheDacy1]

Hey Ludi, just a quick note on Transylvania: I’ve noticed you often express dissatisfaction with the territorial borders of Transylvania. What we call Transylvania today essentially consists of all the territory that the Romanians were able to seize from the Kingdom of Hungary after World War I. This can be misleading because, during the peace talks, the Romanians tried to convince the Entente forces to give them everything on their side of the River Tisza (or Theiss, as some might call it-I'm Hungarian, so I’m not sure how others refer to it), so based on that logic we could call everything on the eastern side of that river Transylvania. However, before World War I, both culturally and geographically, Transylvania was much smaller. When the Hungarians conquered the Carpathian Basin in 895, they were primarily searching for good pastures for their horses. They were not consered with hills and mountains. To protect the hilly, mountainous regions-vulnerable to invasions from groups like the Pechenegs, because it was the entry point for later invaders-they created a march-like title for Transylvania called the Gyula. The Gyula’s primary role was to defend the region and ensure it wasn’t easily penetrated. If you refer to the Gesta Hungarorum from the 12th century, you’ll find a clear description that marks Transylvania’s western borders along the hills. Which makes perfect sense. Why would someone living in grasslands share indentity with hilldwellers? Later, when the Turks subjugated eastern parts of Hungary, they treated Transylvania and "Partium" (a name that directly translates to "the divide/partition/separator") as 1 tributary region. This arrangement allowed for a more organic cultural flow, which might explain the increased Romanian population in those areas. By the 18th century, after the Habsburgs reconquered parts of the Hungarian Kingdom, they reestablished administrative boundaries, and also created zones under direct military controll. The Transylvanian boundaries followed the earlier cultural and geographic divisions established by Hungarian rulers in the 10th-11th centuries. During the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, the "12 Demands" called for the reunification of Hungary with Transylvania. At that time, pamphlets often depicted "small Transylvania" rather than the larger region we now refer to as Transylvania, since Partium-the more agriculturally advanced, western territories-was already under direct Hungarian control and no longer governed by Transylvania’s leadership. I can’t comment much on the Balkans since my knowledge there is limited, but I wanted to point out that what we now see as Transylvania might seem logical because of the cultural dominance of Romanians and both Hunngarians and Romanians don't understand the differnt nature of Partium and Transylvania- However, from a historical perspective-before nationalism became significant and people were less concerned with language or ethnicity-landlords managed the economy, and cities worked together to improve living standards. Thus, politically, economically, and geographically, it wouldn’t make sense to treat Transylvania and Partium as a single region. I’m guessing you want to do a playthrough as Wallachia and conquer what we call Transylvania today. However, in a historically accurate game, you’d need to declare war for two separate regions: Transylvania and Partium. So, it might take you two wars to accomplish that. Good luck, though!

[@joshuamoye5299]

Got to say Ludie If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't have been able to get into these paradox games. I have been converted over from the total war franchise. I was looking for something more in-depth and historically accurate And I really want to create a mega campaign so I've been learning everything from ck3 to Stellaris. I've used a lot of your videos for reference. You're probably the best paradox KZbinr out there. So thanks for what you do.

[@alexandrub8786]

Personally i am a syncrethic. I combine those 2 pantheons.

[@joshuamoye5299]

@alexandrub8786 I do the same but Ludie is the only YTer that is relevant enough to remember the name.

[@Nassamest]

13:40 because of the constant romanian immigration to Transylvania. Also Hungary before the age of nationalism never tried to magyarize any of it's territory

[@marcl.1346]

These are my fav vids ngl

[@MiyukiSone31]

fr

[@ibraimeren2369]

most tatars from romania right now are a mix of nogai and crimean. Nogai in particular have been known as having a great warrior spirit and also were very migratory, which might explain why there are some in bessarabia. when the nogai horde fell to the russians most of them fled to the crimean khanate, and when that subsequently was annexed by the russians the first of the tatars to move out again were the nogai whilst many crimeans decided to stay. my father for example is half crimean half nogai. tatar history in general is a little muddy in general and we cant be for sure, especially with people that tend to move around as much as we did

[@MasterCriminal0]

I’m not sure what they teach in Romania, but the historical reality is different: Hungarians were the majority in the region until the Hungarian Kingdom was divided into three parts following the Ottoman conquest. These divisions included areas controlled by the Ottomans, the Habsburgs, and the Principality of Transylvania (*Erdélyi Fejedelemség*). It was during the period of the Principality of Transylvania that the Hungarian population began to decline significantly (except székely).

[@kubabrzyk2428]

Majority in Transylwania was polish

[@kevinboros7427]

Why would the Hungarian population decline, but the Romanian population grow incredibly after the occupation? Also, I find it funny how biased people are, and some of them don't even notice. Unfortunately, we are all biased to some extent. -> Ludi, as a Romanian, said that the "historical reality" is what he studied, probably plenty of Romanian sources. -> You say that the "historical reality" is what you studied (and if you are Hungarian, then it's incredibly funny because you'd be making the exact same logical error => confirmation bias).

[@MasterCriminal0]

@@kevinboros7427 It’s not "confirmation bias" to rely on primary historical sources and demographic data rather than narratives shaped by nationalist agendas. The decline in the Hungarian population and the increase in the Romanian population in Transylvania after the division of the Hungarian Kingdom is a well-documented historical phenomenon. This shift was largely influenced by Ottoman policies, migrations, and the socio-political structure of the Erdélyi Fejedelemség. Ottoman rule destabilized the region, leading to mass migrations, including Hungarian nobility and settlers fleeing to Habsburg-controlled territories. Meanwhile, the Romanians-mostly serfs-were incentivized to populate the sparsely inhabited regions due to their agrarian lifestyle and less resistance to Ottoman demands. This population dynamic is not a “bias” but an observable pattern supported by census data and historical records. Instead of accusing others of bias, it would be more productive to examine the sources critically and consider the broader historical context. If Boros wants to base his arguments on Romanian schoolbooks rather than engaging with actual historical data, that says more about his bias than anyone else’s.

[@terminator2083]

“I’m not sure what they teach in Romania but the historical reality is different”: *proceeds to give the most biased Hungarian recounting of history*. You guys are so indoctrinated it’s so funny. Greetings from Transylvania btw

[@QwertyQwerty-m3j]

I'm not expert in Transylvania, but there were some other areas like Burgenland (Austria) that didn't have croats, but were settled by them after Ottoman conquest of their previous lands. Maybe Ottomans pillaged Walachia and Moldova a little bit and then they came to Transylvania? Also, I'm sure that local authorities (duchy of transylvania) were not happy to local Hungarians catholics (authorities were protestant officially at least) that could be loyal to Habsburgs so these Hungarians migrated to other places instead of living in Transylvania. You can also add that Transylvanian Romanians would feel a lot better if something like that happened PS I'm not saying that there couldn't be Romanian majority, but it could be very fragile, maybe even 50% or something like that

[@Nickster292]

My dad who'se 75 had a doctor treat him called Nogai, maybe more migrated from Nogai to Basarabia than other areas? I wouldn't be surprised.

[@felixdargent942]

I should add as a fellow Romanian that also the areas in the south like Bârlad or Baia were important trading centers (Bârlad/Bacău having in that time an important catholic cuman population)

[@leaveme3559]

I have often heard that hungarian population in Transylvania declined during ottoman occupation and that had it not happened the place would still be hun majorityy idk how true that is

[@terminator2083]

Except Transylvania was never occupied by the Ottomans nor was it ever invaded by an Ottoman army….. I encourage you to go fact check that for yourself.

[@spasik_m]

Good job! But are Moldovans, Transylvanians, and Wallahians that different from Italian sub-cultures or some Ancient Greeks ones? Or did Romanian nationalism merge those together much later?

[@ПетрВрангель-т8п]

Romanians, when they learn that such a state as well as the artificial construct of ‘romanians’ did not even exist until the middle of the 19th century, that their language consisted mainly of Slavic words written in the Cyrillic alphabet, that in fact they are two different (albeit related) peoples of valakhs and moldavians, and that they have nothing to do with both the romans and the dacians: 😮 And thats kids, is how you start a war =)

[@Xerxesian]

Not gonna lie, you had me in the first half...

[@Vlain-hc5sb]

@@ПетрВрангель-т8п Romania should have the old dacian tribes borders ✊🏾✊🏾✊🏾✊🏾

[@peterruskov]

True, but they have some in common with the people known as Dacians. As all people in the Balkans they are descendents from one of the two major groups classified today as Theacians and Illirians, who themselves have common roots as autochthonous population mixed after the northern migration on the Balkans in the early Bronze age. Still Romanians teaching the fairy tales that "we were Romans and sheet" and stayed in the mountains for 1500 years is funny.

[@Renatoioi]

Honestly, take a look into Bosnian, Serbian and croatian history. Very interesting since there was always new influences in history

[@fmknowledgechannel6458]

Can you redo the russia campaign

[@LudietHistoria]

yes sir

[@Makem12]

Another war started by the Balkans? Ludi, this is the least surprising thing you've told us all year.

[@doomdrake123]

As bulgarian my only problem is they did not extend the Balkans range further east.

[@danielsilbermann]

@@doomdrake123 in which context?

[@doomdrake123]

@@danielsilbermann what context my man? I want the mountain range to be extended further east.

[@brm5844]

It's like they're ignoring Bulgaria on purpose. None of the problems that everybody mentioned have been fixed. I hope at least when they make a Balkan DLC they do something about it but I can already tell someone (probably me) is gonna have to make a mod before that

[@exdeeexdee]

I noticed that too. No idea why they're behaving this way, so many elementary mistakes which they just refuse to fix.

[@alexandruianu8432]

They're also using the wrong Unicode characters for ș/ț. They're using s-cedilla and t-cedilla, not the correct s-comma below and t-comma below. They probably took text written on an ancient Windows XP system. This will break searching for names with any modern keyboard layout.

[@dieselface1]

14:58 The more greyish-blue hash looks like Maniots, a Greek subculture in the Mani peninsula. I've got to say, it's a really bizarre choice for them to add Maniots, who aren't that different from other Peloponnesian Greeks, but not Tsakonians, the remnants of Doric Greek speakers who were probably the majority in some of the locations of the southeast Peloponnese in 1337, and who are way more different from other Greeks than the Maniots. The other blue color is probably the various slavic tribes that lived in the medieval Peloponnese.

[@dr_gamerhind]

EU5 brandenburg when?

[@Bullshlaha]

Bringenbrung

[@davidbalogun7569]

The 2nd language map was the dominant language of the whole country while the first was the dominant language of each province. That explains part of greece having italian in the 2nd map. The majority of venic speak italian. You can also notice this in the difference between the two maps in Ionia, the 1st map shows greek the second shows turkish

[@tarikccix1954]

As a Bosnian i'm devestated I missed out on arguing with random Serbs and Croats over who hates who more

[@Aboleo80]

And fighting over if Bosnians are Serbs or Croats. How much they hate us you would think neither side would want to claim us...

[@milosdjokic3162]

@@Aboleo80 how could you be Croats when they are also Serbs? 😂But that's less important, what we need is a huge ass wall like in Attack on Titan to separate the 3 groups

[@Aboleo80]

@@milosdjokic3162 Touché! 😅

[@MattFerr100]

14:55 one of them is Sclavenians

[@BreadyBoi.]

On the topic of transylvanians, could it be possible that the hashes just represent a technical minority? (e.g. Hungarians just have a higher ratio than transylvanians but the % values are extremely close)

[@LudietHistoria]

it could be yeah, we just don't know until we see ingame I guess

[@user-Erimej]

Last I checked, there's no such thing as "Halychians". It lacks ANY historical links outside of the namesake city itself (Halych) I don't get why They change it especially since the Rusyns is a way better term to describe the people

[@LudietHistoria]

i think they wanted to split in various regions more than anything

[@mitteleuropa8485]

@@user-Erimej They exist. Until now in Ukraine these people can be called Galicians and Volynians, even if they are Ukrainians and this is not reflected in the name of these regions. It is also known that Galicians have the funniest accent.😁

[@user-Erimej]

@@mitteleuropa8485 My biggest problem is that it replaces Rusyns - a distinct, very underrated ethnic group with four different dialects (if I recall correctly). Replacing Rusyns for a much larger, artificial construction culture is a downright INSULT, especially in stark contrast to how the Cumans & Aromanians (for example) are treated! It sets off a extremely bad precedent when it comes to historical representation of minority cultures like the Rusyns

[@mitteleuropa8485]

Fact. Perhaps because the small people of Rusyns was consonant with the large concept of Ruthenia? I don't know why Rusyns were replaced by Galicians, in theory it would be possible to have two peoples.​@@user-Erimej

[@user-Erimej]

@@mitteleuropa8485 My issue is that it's very inconsistent. And this inconsistency would become a problem in the future

[@WillFleurant]

I love the obstinance on this, it's so niche and hilarious.

[@rpadrospc3456]

The reason why in greece they speak occitan (catalan) is because it was the language of the aragonese crown, probably immigration or commerciants got there idk

[@mehmetsaitarslan115]

17:00 this so damn right, unfortunatly we learn also in Turkish history, we just coverted Islam, just like that, but in reality, in middle asia converted some of influencal people and they mix with old Turkish religion, to make people muslim, untill Ottomans did battle against the Safevids, most of the people believe something between Islam and Tengri,

[@joshuafrimpong244]

Albania is orthodox, Roman Catholic, and sunni muslim

[@t.n.4779]

@@joshuafrimpong244 they are Serbian Orthodox

[@joshuafrimpong244]

@t.n.4779 where does it mention that?

[@Bullshlaha]

Orthocuslim

[@t.n.4779]

@@joshuafrimpong244 in my head

[@QwertyQwerty-m3j]

I'm not expert in Transylvania, but there were some other areas like Burgenland (Austria) that didn't have croats, but were settled by them after Ottoman conquest of their previous lands. Maybe Ottomans pillaged Walachia and Moldova a little bit and then they came to Transylvania? Also, I'm sure that local authorities (duchy of transylvania) were not happy to local Hungarians catholics (authorities were protestant officially at least) that could be loyal to Habsburgs so these Hungarians migrated to other places instead of living in Transylvania. You can also add that Transylvanian Romanians would feel a lot better if something like that happened PS I'm not saying that there couldn't be Romanian majority, but it could be very fragile, maybe even 50% or something like that

[@magistarmilitumperillyrieu8293]

Thank you for transforming a nation that was created in the 20th century into a dominant nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If it weren't for this game, I would certainly still think that I am a Serb-Croat. Thank you for turning my ancestors into Bosnians.🤣😂

[@bulbainquisition9590]

I wonder how much culture population population plays into balance. Maybe Hungary needed a buff?

[@eligoldman9200]

Depending how much cultural uniformity affects the nations and balances they may have to make it less historical to balance out the game.

[@elmojo9591]

The fact that people are mad about this really tells you alot about the people from these places

[@smalchev]

In the 14th century, the court language of Wallachia (Țara Românească) was predominantly Old Church Slavonic. It was used as the official language of administration, religion, and legal documents due to the influence of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the surrounding Slavic states, particularly Bulgaria and Serbia. Although Old Church Slavonic was the formal written and liturgical language, the local population and rulers spoke Old Romanian, a Romance language derived from Latin. The use of Old Romanian became more prominent in later centuries, particularly from the 16th century onward, as the region moved toward asserting its linguistic identity.

[@chronnyc]

About your comment on Translyvania and the number of Romanians, I wonder if the Hungarians are a similar situation like you suggested with the Aromanians, taking up a lot of land because of the lack of population there. Just a thought.

[@alexandrub8786]

You mean the parts that later got overwhelmed by the bavier populated areas of greece and becomed more greek? By that standard by 1800 Transilvania should have been 95% hungarian or something

[@Renatoioi]

there was a notice, that I have to stay civilized when commenting...so I'll just say that Croatian Supremacy will rule once more

[@benedekkrausl7906]

The turkish and tatar millitary campaigns of the 16th and 17th century wiped out the local population of the the low-lying and riverlands part of transylvania. The remaining population that was left alive was romanian, because they were living in the montainous, highland part of transylvania, to where the raids never reached up, threfore they became the ones who were there and who could repopulate the newly became sparsely populated areas. As of the matter of assimilation, nationalism is a modern ideology and it was invented through the age of enlightment. In the mid 14th century the people of the time didnt even had the terminology to distinguish between ethnicities, not to speak of having county-wide assimilation policies, especially targeting romanians. The only thing that mattered was religion, threfore the only process the local non-catholic population went was turning them into catholicism or greek orthodoxy. Also the ruling class of the time was always in need of working hands, so they would never do any actions to erase the local romanians of the time, rather did they inviting them from across the carpathian mountains to do agrarian work.

[@creed2552]

Good to see the Balkans still continue their tradition of starting wars😅

[@julianivanov3058]

No natural harbours on the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast? Really? C'mon, Paradox, I expect better from you!

[@SebiSuper9mil]

Ah yes. Good old Balkan based forum wars

[@godon8857]

13:00 since we defended europe from the mongols and the ottomans and our poeple died in the revolutions against the austrians and romanians werent so friendly as you think, for me it is pretty obvious. We learn that in hungary in the history lesson, that after the ottomans were kicked our of central hungary, it was mostly empty and great farmlands, so the hungarians moved to the centre of the country, while other people moved into the places that were left empty by the hungarians at the borders. And there are plenty of other reasons I wont say, so I stay as objective as you were.

[@Griffithfolkestone]

I'm interested would migrations be included, because my people (sakha ) had the third phase of migrations to the north in 14th century

[@Josepmc84]

The House of Aragó was long extinct in 1337. In Athens and Neopatria should rule the House of Barcelona, likewise in Sicily and the crown of Aragon

[@Koridor777]

With all due respect Bulgarian isn't a separate language. It's also a South Slavic language...

[@alexandrub8786]

Bulgarian is a dialect but they did not get to serbian, croatian, etc dialects so it shows the language family as far as i understand.

[@Koridor777]

@alexandrub8786 ok if that is the case then its ok 😄

[@christos3280]

Shouldnt south italy also have greek pops? I mean the traditional Greek settlers in italy are literally still at 50.000 right now

[@alb.channel]

Arberesh and Grikos are immigrants fleeing from Ottomans, so they would arrive later, and still wouldn't be that numerous, at most 5-10% of the population of a small area.

[@christos3280]

@@alb.channel No thats way later. In the byzantine period alone, many greeks settled in southern italy again, thats why the southern province is called basilicata. And yes true, even more came after. But before there already have been thousands. In Ck3 sicily has majority greek areas, and ck3 start date is 867

[@alb.channel]

@@christos3280 I mean the 50.000 you mentioned about now are grand majority late medieval immigrants

[@christos3280]

@alb.channel possibly

[@cryspy_cruscer5824]

Albania not getting a natural harbour is craysi

[@CvmGrenade]

i think the transylvanian border is accurate, as the partium was only "united" with transylvania after the ottomans established them as a subject.

[@alexmisy9506]

respect , the Roman Empire are in the Balkans are extremely important

[@theogov688]

Will there be any mission trees for nations in eu5? Cause it will be hell of a cow to implement for all this nations.

[@Utmostman]

Paradox revealing their true Habsburg/austro hungarian colours 🤨🟨◼️

[@Sertiger1986]

2:12 why? What rusyn culture have done to politics :(

[@lincolnlog5977]

People just hate because it sounds like “Russian” and are ignorant😢

[@soul8938]

Yes very interesting to see the two people bosniaks and albanians which were constantly threatened and attacked as heathens by their "christian" neighbors choosing the third option 😉

[@skeptravel]

Dude, never mind the sources, I noted the document written in 1337 (the year is mentioned in the footnote) where Amenian monk in Crimea literally writes he comes from Yerevan, Georgia. 1337 is a start date, but they still said, you know what, Armenia would not be part of Georgia. Just accept the flaws and wait for mods that will fix them.

[@maxpont8989]

Armenia didn't exist as an independent state at the time, while Georgia most certainly did and had vassalised many neighboring principalties as the Ilkhanate started crumbling in the 1320s and 1330s. It doesn't mean that these principalties were an integral part of the kingdom. By that logic Trebizond would also be part of Georgia, since its emperors were literally installed by the Georgian kings

[@skeptravel]

@@maxpont8989 No, Trabizond was a different case. Trabizond had, at least nominally, an emperor. While Georgia directly controlled what is now modern Armenia as long as having vassals is a direct control in feudal world. Rulers of Armenian territories didn't have any higher status than any other large feudals (Dukes of Odishi for example). My point is, if someone from Yerevan at that time says he is from Georgia then I guess we should say Georgia directly owned Armenia. Trapezuntine monk/person would never say they were from Georgia, nor someone, let's say from Shirvan. I mean, it's literally written document from 1337. Ethnic Armenian, in Armenian for outer world says he is from Georgia. What else would you call direct control? Indeed Georgia vassalized surrounding territories but in case of Armenia Georgian kings had legitimacy to claim those lands based on their family claims. Bagrationis and Bagratunis were branches of same dynasty and when Georgians reconquered those areas from Seljuks they just incorporated land directly under Georgian control because Bagratunis ruled over them but of course gave duchies to different people like they did in case of other major areas. Moreover, in 1337 George V was the king of Georgia, last great king who got the nickname "brilliant" because he briefly somewhat restored Georgian power after the Mongol disaster.

[@danqwerty1180]

only 3 wine locations in moldova hmm

[@alexandrub8786]

The other clearly got destroyed by the khan when he converted

[@HunterGalvius]

“Sir, a second war has hit the Balkans”

[@Bullshlaha]

It was the Serbs for sure!

[@danciortea2278]

As a Romanian i agree with dividing the Romanian culture into 3.

[@mistymoonshine897]

Romania is a rightful Hungarian clay.

[@fragdoch-nicht1290]

In EUIV they took the historically german/prussian states and gave them polish default names. Brother EW. Like polish people had any justification of being there or history relating them to the land they stole less than 80 years ago.