HIP/SWMH: Suggestions for Southeast Europe (circa 867)

[Farcheal]

As a long-time player of HIP, I've always taken to doing small personal sub-mods in different areas where I wanted to fill in something not yet fleshed out by the team. I decided I would present some of my suggestions for the region of Southeast Europe, to see if the SWMH team would like to use them as a basis for their own work. If asked, I can provide the evidence for why I've came to each of these conclusions (for a given suggestion).

I will clarify with each suggestion whether there is a given 'proof'/ evidence behind the claim, but I will also make some suggestions based on 'reasonable guesses' in areas where historians have provided some information but nothing concrete. Most likely will colour/format the text differently.

I've implemented pretty much everything I will be posting about in this thread already in a personal sub-mod, and I'd love to share that with the SWMH team, if they'd have it. I will provide screenshots from this mod as a visual aid, alongside some diagrams I've made separately to help. I love seeing screenshots of work done by the HIP team, so here's a teaser!



I was spurred to start with this research by the desire to better represent the Carpathian basin historically than what is presented by vanilla CK2. My research snowballed from there to the surrounding regions. I'm going to post my suggestions grouped in individual posts based on the general medieval state they belong to (be it Byzantine, Bulgarian, or Croatian).

Topics to explore:

Byzantium
Adding/Fleshing out connections of the Amorian dynasty with the existing Byzantine Nobility (much bigger topic than you'd realise!)

Bulgaria
Adding/Fleshing out the poorly represented Bulgarian nobility (South of the Danube). Current setup is ported from vanilla, and very historically inaccurate.

Carpathian Basin
Reworking Pannonian Croatia and the Balaton Principality
Complete revamp of 'Avar' culture, to reflect the thought that it much like the Bulgars to the south, it had taken on a much more South-Slavic character.
Complete overhaul of the existing states/rulers in the region.

Croatia
Adding/Fleshing out the Croatian nobility. Current setup is ported from vanilla, but leaves much to be desired gameplay wise.

Dalmatia
Minor suggestions to Dynasty list to help flesh things out more

Serbia
Minor suggestions to help fix Bosnia

 

[theKing1988]

I will be happy to (look over/pay attention to) the contents of your submod. ATM, both of us SWMH devs have enough to do with taking care of RL, so we're moving very slowly atm. But it's easily possible for me to tag 867 changes onto my to-do list, when i start modding more actively again.

I've already tribalized Pannonia for 867, so no more out of place Feudals on the plains. It would be good to get more improved. As you rightly point out. The 867 Balkans are almost entirely a Vanilla port. Except for the areas directly under ERE control, that i changed way back in 2015.

 

[Farcheal]

There are many characters and dynasties which can be added onto the current setup, without sacrificing anything. My basic assertition in this topic is how to better flesh out the remains of the Amorian Dynasty and those connected with it who survived Basil's murder of the Caesar Bardas.

Here's a 'handy' diagram to help show the relationships much better than I could spend paragraphs explaining:
(I have this hosted on Draw.io, and will probably be updating it)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13lmP66EV1i95EhsPEmxHfY7a1zMt7iiR/view?usp=sharing


In the existing setup, only a couple of these characters exist, and there's no links between them. Many of these characters are still alive, and some could perhaps pose a threat to Basil's reign! Admittedly, I have dropped a couple of people here and there who seem to have no historical significance (too old to have children in 867 and not mentioned)

This post is a rough draft which I will fix in a couple hours, as I want to go get my dinner.

Context for each of the dynasties:

Amorian or 'Phrygian' Dynasty:
Background:
Took the throne quite brutally from Leo V 'the Armenian', they were proponents of, but eventually ended the Second Iconoclastic controversy.

Added:

• The historical 'Thekla' the wife of Michael II
• A sister who I have dubbed 'Helena' and is said to have married into the Martiniakoi
• 'Thekla' the daughter of Theophilos who is said to have been the mistress of Basil the Macedonian.

The Dynasty of the Caesar Bardas, who I've dubbed the 'Niketiates':
Background:
This family of is said to be descended from Armenians who fled to Byzantium after the fall of the Mamikonian family (and are possibly linked paternally). We know they settled in the region of Paphlagonia.

First generation:

• Of the first generation, Manuel 'the Armenian' was a hugely important court official/ general and Marinos was a minor tourmarch.
• It is said that Sergios Niketiates was a relative of the Empress Theodora (exactly how isn't specified) and was sainted for bringing back Icon-worship. He is named after the Paphlagonia village he came from, and given his age I've suggested him to be listed as a brother of the former two. This is both convenient and allows the dynasty to use his cool name, and it's very likely he was a relation regardless.

Second generation (took care of Michael II's regency):
Info on each of these family members is available from a wide range of sources, so I don't feel the need to drill down into it here (I can if requested)

Third generation (These pop up after Basil's takeover):

• Antigonos was the minor son of Bardas who had been Domestic of the Schools. There's no mention of Antigonos being murdered by Basil, so I've made him a Monk and held in house arrest by Basil, but with a Strong Claim on Byzantium (his father was Caesar after all).
• Irene was married to Smbat (Symbatios), an Armenian who had betrayed Bardas and later rose against Basil. Was mutilated, but freed from captivity and allowed to return to his property. Had been Strategos of the Thracesians. Smbat is given a claim on Byzantium.
  
• Marinos later appears as a Praetorian Prefect of Constantinople under Basil (possibly Leo VI)

Martiniakoi Dynasty:
Background:
Originally appear in the record as the the family which a sister (Maria) of the Emperor Heraclius married into. Heraclius went on to marry his niece, Martina. It's said that the niblings of Martina went on as a family, and show up again with Eudokia, who was the mistress of Michael 'The Drunkard' and wife of Basil I. Eudokia is also said to have Varangian ancestry, but how exactly seems disputed (thus the presence of 'Inger').

Added:
Various family members in the line down to 867.

Morocharzanios Dynasty
Background:
Family of the Patriarch John 'the Grammarian'. Also married into the family of the Patriarch Photios, and the family of the Caesar Bardas. Also of Armenian descent.

Added:

• Various links between family members/ new characters.
  
• Stephanos, who is a very important figure in his old age in the court of Leo and then Constantine.

'Sergidis' Dynasty OR 'Kritidis'
Background:
Family of the Patriarch Photios 'the Great' & Patriarch Tarasios. Also married into the family of the Patriarch John, and the family of the Caesar Bardas. Said to be descended from Greeks from Constantinople, but Photios was slandered as 'Khazar faced'. I have suggested 'Kritidis', as it's said that an ancestor of that family was a judge, and that seems nicer to me.

Added:

• Various links between family members/ new characters.
  
• Bardas 'Kontomytes', who married the daughter of Constantine who was Strategos of Sicily, and took his name.

 

[DorlasAnther]

I would also like to add one thing that I noticed about the region: Succession in Great Moravia. Basically, it should be Gavelkind.
Now for an explanation: In history of Great Moravia, we have only one case where its ruler died peacefully and succession was allowed to go undisturbed by Franks and that is after death of Svätopluk/Svatopluk. Both in case of Mojmír I. and Rastislav/Rostislav, there were all kinds of shenanigans present. When Svätopluk died, his realm was inherited by his two sons, Mojmír and Svätopluk. Mojmír became ruler of Moravia (western and more developed part of Great Moravia´s core) and Great Moravia itself (another thing: Great Moravia was called simply Moravia back in the day) while Svätopluk became ruler of its eastern part (name actually unknown, but since the area was ruled from town Nitra and duchy/principality (not sure about English term) of the same name was later created as part of Hungary and ruled from Nitra, it is generally accepted that name of this duchy/principality was also Nitra). Svätopluk was for a time vassal of his brother, but later rebelled and had to flee to East Francia (or Bavaria, not sure right now). This pretty much sounds like Gavelkind.

Tl, DR: Make Moravia Gavelkind again.

 

[Farcheal]

I would intend to dive deeper into those regions whenever I make the posts on them, that image was just a teaser, and admittedly it's not 100% done. With my following retorts, I could be wrong on any. As I'm on mobile atm, I'm going off memory.

The Provinces of rama and vrhbosna were not under serbian controll. The Hip bosnia region is already very accurate and displays the medieval serbian part of modern bosnia to the neretva river. The serbian state did never controll any teritory west of the neretva river while the dynasties of domagojevic and trpimirovic ruled over bosnia.

Earliest source I could find referencing an actual ruler of Bosnia was a 'Tišemir', most likely a Serb nobleman who was defeated by Prince Petar, and his domains annexed. Many of the maps I saw of the region also limit Croat control to roughly where I've marked. Honestly, part of my my motivation there is to introduce variety into the region, rather than to have a Croatia/Bosnia ruled only by the family of Domagoj. Besides that, it means the Croats won't form the Kingdom of Bosnia which they are prone to do (erroneously imo)

Also why should white croatia be a tributary state of greater moravia? this does not make any sense because its even more likely that the white croatians were allied with the rus states.

'White Croatia'? It's sort of just a place-holder for me at present. That state was probably placed there to fill empty space by the Paradox devs, as there's basically no historical consensus about where it was, or when it survived until. I was reading some material which implied Moravian influence over the area, so I thought it would be good to model that as a tributary relationship.

Also slavonia was never under the carolingians neither was the duchy of pannonia. Braslav the ruler of slavonia was also the ruler of pannonia idk why there is a fantasy ruler in vanilla ruling over balaton region.
So idk wtf u doing with these stupid suggestions.

Pannonia was certainly under Carolingian suzerainty, as was Slavonia. I suggest you google it. Kocel, son of Pribina was very real. Braslav eventually succeeded to Pannonia (iirc), but he wouldn't have held it in 867.

EDIT: i just noticed that you gave the county of soli to bulgaria. what the actual fck? croatians defeated bugarians at the drina river. so they never crossed it. you truly hate croatia right?

Historical sources on the area controlled by the early Croat duchy are very light. They pretty much only talk about Dalmatia. I believe I'd seen some maps pushing Bulgarian boundaries that far, and to encourage them to re-assert their historic claims to the former Avar territory now under the Carolingians, I've landed a ruler with claims on that territory (made him a son of the infamous 'Ratimir') and made him vassal to the Bulgars. I will admit that this suggestion is more 'out there', but it's my attempt to make for a more interesting game.

I don't hate Croatia. I think it's a pretty interesting place actually. I've yet to even get to the stuff I want to discuss on it!

 

[TheDovahkiin97]

I found your "source" of "Tišemir" its an wikipedia article called "Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina". He is mentioned but there is absolutely no source available. But its still possible because the people of the mentioned "valley of bosnia" were very bad organized and there might have been a "nobleman" ruling over a little place in eastern bosnia (marked region).

my picture shows you the (red marked) region of eastern bosnia (maybe "valley of bosnia") which was under serbian control. The additional green region is what the serbian state most likely looked like, but it would be stupid to give them the entire province of vrhbosna.
As you can see the picture even shows the "serbian republic" inside modern bosnia filled with serbs. It just fits perfectly with the game.

Variety is not meant to flip fckin history so i dont get your point.

In older HIP verisions the croatians always formed the kingdom of bosnia (which was stupid) but in my last like 20 games they established nearly always the kingdom of croatia and offered slavonia to become a vassal.

The probelm with white croatia is that those people were everywhere in this region (czech republic, northern carparthia, galicia). But they didnt establish a "state" of croatian majority like sorbs or other slavs did. Its hard to display carpathia before the inavsion of the hungarians because its citizens were heavily mixed (slovaks, croatians, romanians, turkish people). I like to compare it with the steppe region because it was like 'No Man's Land'.
https://www.slavorum.org/the-white-croats-and-kievan-rus/
http://thecroatsearlykievanrus.blogspot.de/
according to this hip is actually pretty accurate.

Some facts about slovaks: 1. they used the croatian glagoltic script 2. they are in the center of the white croatian "territory" 3. The most used surname in modern slovakia is Horvath while the most used surname in croatia is Horvat (second in slovenia and hungary).
Source: Wikipedia "List of most common surnames in Europe" (cant post the link lol)
also look up the name Tóth and Tothorszag region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tóth
Meaning = Horvat -> Croat
Make up your own conclusion.

I just looked kocel up and i have to apologize but pannonia is mentioned to be a tributary state not a vassal. And its questionable what this meant back then. Making them tributary in ck2 is a heavy impact on the balancing of this region.

Im telling you again that soli was never under bulgarian controll there is much evidence that the bulgars and croatians agreed to set the border on the drina river.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian–Bulgarian_wars

my suggestion on this region is to delete the bosnian culture because there was no such thing like there was no slavonian culture. its bullshit. Ottomas shaped croatians into a C. maybe you could make the provinces of soli and vrhbosna serbian but this is a hard topic. also the neretljani pagans should be croatians and not serbs. i mean how is the island of korcula displayed croatian but the island of hvar and the county of omis serbian? this looks dumb. The problem with this is that those people had no ethnicity. they were pagan slavs inhabiting this region but i think making at least the island of hvar croatian would be more accurate.

Today the people on hvar still talk chakavian which is like the oldest croatian dialect also used in every medieval croatian script.
Gussars (Neretljani Pirates) spoke croatian. Stop the serbification.

After installing HIP i always change the croatian "heavy infantry" to gussars (in this case horseman) used by every other south slavic peoples (even albanians lol). medieval croatians were horseman, you can see the demonstration every year on the "sinjska alka" event of sinj.

Today gussar means pirate. But back then it was also used for horseman by south slavs and later the polish people took the concept and called themselves hussars.

 

[Farcheal]

I found your "source" of "Tišemir" its an wikipedia article called "Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina". He is mentioned but there is absolutely no source available. But its still possible because the people of the mentined "valley of bosnia" were very good organized and there might have been a "nobleman" ruling over a little place in eastern bosnia.

I intended to deal with this in a post on these topics at large, but you're forcing my hand slightly.

I'm referencing 'The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century' here in the next two quotes. This is one of the sources I have been using.

Page 148:
"[Petar] had been expanding his state to the west, defeating Tisemir of Bosnia, annexing the valley of the River Bosna"

my picture shows you the (red marked) region of eastern bosnia (maybe "valley of bosnia") which was under serbian control. The additional green region is what the serbian state most likely looked like, but it would be stupid to give them the entire province of vrhbosna.
As you can see the picture even shows the "serbian republic" inside modern bosnia filled with serbs. It just fits perfectly with the game.

Page 53:
"The Croats were settled in Croatia, Dalmatia and western Bosnia. The rest of Bosnia seems to have been a territory between Serb and Croatian rule. In time, though, Bosnia came to form a unit under a ruler calling himself Bosnian."



There's a map for instance which contradicts your assertion. Honestly, maps representing this time period are quite inconsistent, so we can't rely on them alone.

Variety is not meant to flip fckin history so i dont get your point. In older HIP verisions the croatians always formed the kingdom of bosnia (which was stupid) but in my last like 20 games they established nearly always the kingdom of croatia and offered slavonia to become a vassal.

You're providing your opinion as a historical fact. Forming Croatia over Bosnia is highly preferable though, I'm just trying to make that more likely. I think the criteria to form Bosnia aside from the usual shtick only requires you to hold the County of 'Rama'. Aside from that, inserting another ruler into the sea of states consisting of a single dynasty is quite a good idea gameplay wise imo, given there's some evidence that such a ruler existed.

The probelm with white croatia is that those people were everywhere in this region (czech republic, northern carparthia, galicia). But they didnt establish a "state" of croatian majority like sorbs or other slavs did. Its hard to display carpathia before the inavsion of the hungarians because its citizens were heavily mixed (slovaks, croatians, romanians, turkish people). I like to compare it with the steppe region because it was like 'No Man's Land'.
https://www.slavorum.org/the-white-croats-and-kievan-rus/
http://thecroatsearlykievanrus.blogspot.de/
according to this hip is actually pretty accurate.

Some facts about slovaks: 1. they used the croatian glagoltic script 2. they are in the center of the white croatian "territory" 3. The most used surname in modern slovakia is Horvath while the most used surname in croatia is Horvat (second in slovenia).
Meaning = Horvat -> Croat
Make up your own conclusion.

I don't understand the point you're trying to get across here, but I'd much rather you leave discussion of this type of stuff until I post the specific topic (i.e. Carpathian Basin), as to keep things tidy.

I just looked kocel up and i have to apologize but pannonia is mentioned to be a tributary state not a vassal. And its questionable what this meant back then. Making them tributary in ck2 is a heavy impact on the balancing of this region.

Kocel and Braslav were direct vassals of the Franks, there's no question there. I'm not going to argue this with you, but will provide my sources when I make the relevant post.

Im telling you again that soli was never under bulgarian controll there is much evidence that the bulgars and croatians agreed to set the border on the drina river.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian–Bulgarian_wars

Hm, upon researching this a bit further, it seems you have may have a point here. I will take note of this for my suggestions, but like I've mentioned many times before, I've not put that forward yet. The screenshot was just a teaser.

my suggestion on this region is to delete the bosnian culture because there was no such thing like there was no slavonian culture. its bullshit. Ottomas shaped croatians into a C. maybe you could make the provinces of soli and vrhbosna serbian but this is a hard topic. also the neretljani pagans should be croatians and not serbs. i mean how is the island of korcula displayed croatian but the island of hvar and the county of omis serbian? this looks dumb. The problem with this is that those people had no ethnicity. they were pagan slavs inhabiting this region but i think making at least the island of hvar croatian would be more accurate.

Today the people on hvar still talk chakavian which is like the oldest croatian dialect also used in every medieval croatian script.
Gussars (Neretljani Pirates) spoke croatian. Stop the serbification.

After installing HIP i always change the croatian "heavy infantry" to gussars (in this case horseman) used by every other south slavic peoples (even albanians lol). medieval croatians were horseman, you can see the demonstration every year on the "sinjska alka" event of sinj.

Today gussar means pirate. But back then it was also used for horseman by south slavs and later the polish people took the concept and called themselves hussars.

I'm not here to argue about Croatian/Bosnia/Serb/Whatever retroactive nationalism. I don't care about changing that cultural setup. That's not my business here.

 

[TheDovahkiin97]

There's a map for instance which contradicts your assertion

this is the first map i have ever seen showing a bosnian state in this period of time. its unlikely to me because its mentioned everywhere that croatia and bulgaria shared borders.

I'd much rather you leave discussion of this type of stuff until I post the specific topic (i.e. Carpathian Basin)

well you made white croatia tributary

I don't care about changing that cultural setup. That's not my business here.

well i thought you are trying to make this region more accurate and i think the cultural map is as important as the political or religious map. its sad that you immediately brand my suggestion as "retroactive nationalism" making it sound fascist.

'The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century'

i am for sure not going to read this book

only requires you to hold the County of 'Rama'

just tried this and youre right but giving rama to serbia is nonsense. also it would make serbians form the kingdom of bosnia which makes even less sense.

 

[Farcheal]

this is the first map i have ever seen showing a bosnian state in this period of time. its unlikely to me because its mentioned everywhere that croatia and bulgaria shared borders.

I figure it was best to split Bosnia between the two states, which is what I did. I think I gave Soli to Bulgaria because I was influenced by a few maps I'd seen, but in retrospect, a border at the Drina seems sensible to me at the moment.

Here's an interesting map that I had been looking at and was going to post later with my Croatia stuff. This is from wikipedia page of the 'Counties of Croatia': Approximate positions of the first counties of 10th century Croatia,

well you made white croatia tributary

It was just a teaser image for a setup that's not finished.

well i thought you are trying to make this region more accurate and i think the cultural map is as important as the political map. its sad that you immediately brand my suggestion as "retroactive nationalism" making it sound fascist.

It's fair to do that, but you need the historical sources. I think it's more important to get sources changing the cultural setup of that area than suggesting some rulers where none are in place. Sadly, discussing culture/ethnicity in the Balkans is a flame-war waiting to happen.

i am for sure not going to read this book

Why not?

just tried this and youre right but giving rama to serbia is nonsense. also it would make serbians form the kingdom of bosnia which makes even less sense.

‍‍I was going to mention in my post that I think the creation requirements for Bosnia should be changed.

 

[TheDovahkiin97]

It's fair to do that, but you need the historical sources.

well there are none as there are no sources for the vanialla setup so i guess locals have a better understanding of this than devs do.

Sadly, discussing culture/ethnicity in the Balkans is a flame-war waiting to happen.

We like this :'D at least i try to use somewhat logic arguments.

Why not?

bcs there is a fckton of books about this topic and everyone is wirting their own bullshit.

I think the creation requirements for Bosnia should be changed.

so why should you give rama to serbia?

 

[Ispil]

It is worth noting here that Bosnia in the 867 start was made from de jure to titular by the virtue that gavelkind succession would result in its formation. The AI, currently, never forms titular kingdoms when it has an alternative de jure kingdom that it can form. The Serbs, holding enough territory in the de jure Kingdom of Serbia, will form that title and never the kingdom of Bosnia. The only time you will ever see a Kingdom of Bosnia is if there exists a duke who holds Rama, has 2 duchies to their name, and can form no other de jure kingdom in that area.

In the instance that the AI does form that title, and later acquires land in such a way that it then can form a de jure title such as Croatia or Serbia, the titular title is eventually destroyed through mechanics implemented by EMF. Your worries about either side forming Bosnia are unnecessary- neither state will ever do so unless in circumstances where that's the only kingdom they can form, and they still hold enough territory that they can actually form a kingdom at all. In other words, the only time you will see a kingdom of Bosnia is if a state in that region is, effectively, rendered to only hold territory in Bosnia.

 

[Hongkie1697]

Bosnians (not Bosniaks), Croats, Serbs, as well call them today, they were all essentially the same (and to some extent still are), the given names they used were very much the same; of course South Slavs of different regions (excluding Karantanians) had different liturgical practices (Latin and Greek, later Catholicism, Orthodox and Bosnian Church), but as far as I know their identity, tribal allegiance, then later their allegiance to kingdoms, be it Kingdom of Bosnia, or Kingdom of Croatia, or Kingdom of Serbia, were probably not decided by their creed, but by their tongue (one of the dialects of the South-Slavic dialectal continuum) and hence the regions (as it decides where they tongue lie on the continuum) they inhabit - Dalmatia, Duklja, Slavonia, Travunija, Zachlumia, Zeta, etc.

 

[TheDovahkiin97]

Bosnians (not Bosniaks), Croats, Serbs, as well call them today, they were all essentially the same (and to some extent still are), the given names they used were very much the same; course South Slavs of different regions (excluding Karantanians) had different liturgical practices (Latin and Greek, later Catholicism, Orthodox and Bosnian Church), but as far as I know their identity, tribal allegiance, then later their allegiance to kingdoms, be it Kingdom of Bosnia, or Kingdom of Croatia, or Kingdom of Serbia, were probably not decided by their creed, but by their tongue (one of the dialects of the South-Slavic dialectal continuum) and hence the regions (as it decides where they tongue lie on the continuum) they inhabit - Dalmatia, Duklja, Slavonia, Travunija, Zachlumia, Zeta, etc.

Croats, Serbs and even Bosniaks still are completely the same. The only difference is the script, religion and Bosniaks were pretty much influenced by Turks.
Its the same language we can understand each other without any problems. So what makes a croat croatian, a bosniak bosnian and a serb serbian? Script and religion. You will have a really hard time finding a orthodox croat or a catholic serb. Medieval kingdoms were formed because of this. Bosnia just became the border between catholicism and orthodoxy forming two different ethnicitys (croats and serbs). Thats why i dont understand the Bosnian culture in HIP, because the language back then was even closer as it is today. Have you ever seen a language forming its territory inzo a big C (talking about croatia)? No its supposed to be a blop (until ottomans). There is even no single bosnian ingame ruler until the kingdom of bosnia.

 

[Ispil]

It's a bit more complicated than that. Disregarding any arguments about where they stand present-day, since they're all now doing this weird, re-diversification of their language to try and be more "different" from each other, we can take a look back to what we do have regarding contemporary Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian cultures. More importantly, we need to look at how they ended up where they are. Prior to the appearance of an independent Croatian or Serbian state, the region was under direct control of the Avar Khanate. We do know that the appearance of a Croatian culture in the region is through the migration of the White Croats from their previous areas north and around the Carpathian Basin to modern-day Croatia due to being forced out of the Avar Khanate. They appealed to the Byzantines for support, and the Byzantines let them into the empire, where they recovered the lands of Croatia from the Avars. We do know, therefore, that the Croatians do have a specific cultural origin. The origin of the Serbs is a bit... muddier. We do know that they, too, migrated to the region with the backing of the Byzantines due to Byzantine historiography (the same that records the details of the origins of the Croats), but there's not nearly as much of a grasp as to where. At least referring to contemporary historiographies, the realms were always referred to in separate, and always distinctly. You can find several references to the "duca Croatorum" or "regnum Croatorum" in documents originating either in or related to Croatia. Additionally, the De Administrando Imperio refers to their origins separately- while both Slavic, originating from different tribes. Additionally, the title of ban, when found in contemporary sources, is used exclusively in reference to Croatia; no Serbian ruler is ever referred to as a ban. In the Serbian state, the ruler is only referred to as veliki župan, knez, or arhont (though arhont is generally used in Byzantine historiography, as archon). It seems quite clear to me that they originated from two different Slavic tribal entities, and considered two distinct entities. You could argue religious differences made them distinct, but it seems clear to me that they were distinct well before religion came into play.

Now that just leaves Bosnia. To my knowledge, there was no distinct cultural Slavic tribe that migrated to the Bosnian region. The region was divided between the Croats and Serbs at the time, with exact delineation rather obscure. However, it is know that the first stint that Bosnia had as its own political entity was under a Serbian ruler. The second stint was under a Slavonian one, under the name of the Banate of Bosnia (for which I assume Hungarians, in creating that entity, mirrored it off of their recently-acquired Banate of Croatia and retained the title of Ban for its administrator). From there, it returns to the Byzantines, who place an individual in control whose culture is rather hard to discern- they intermarried with the Serbians, but I am not sure if they themselves were Serbian. We do have some documentation, however: this charter happens to be written in both Latin and the local language. Specifically, it is written in a form of Cyrillic without influence from Church Slavonic. To what degree we consider this "Bosnian Cyrillic" a language in itself, a variation on Croatian, or a variation on Serbian seems to be a rather rigorous nationalist debate. It does seem clear, though, that there probably was not a distinct culture in Bosnia circa 867 that was different from both its Croatian and Serbian neighbors. The problem, however, is figuring out how to split the culture up. Making it all Croatian, or making it all Serbian seem to be mistakes, but finding exactly how to divide it is a serious issue. Given that it's not even clear what parts of the region were held by Serbia or Croatia (referring to their political entities at the time), and to what extent that actually reflects where those tribes had settled, any decision here will have to be a compromise. Additionally, we will need some sort of way for a distinct Bosnian culture to appear, if it's even regarded as a culture that we wish to appear. Keep in mind, culture is more than just linguistics- there are other considerations beyond language, such as practices and gameplay. I would say that having Bosnian as a distinct culture does make sense beyond that of an ecclesiastical distinction (as well as keeping Serbian and Croatian distinct), because it means that holding the territory would be additionally difficult for a ruler of either culture to hold onto the territory, which would be lost if it were broken up between the two. You are right in that it makes little sense that Croatian culture would spread to form a weird "C" thing, which is why I think that the culture developed later as a matter of geographical isolation. Making an event for that cultural distinction to pop up is straightforward.

I think the key here is that by splitting the region between Serbian and Croatian culturally in 867, you get the territorial contention that happened historically. By having that isolated bit of land eventually form its own culture, you get the independent polity that popped up later that managed to exist distinct from both.


And as one last note, my grandmother is a Croatian Orthodox.


EDIT: Regarding the argument concerning names, I just did a quick check: not even 4 of the pre-Hungarian rulers of Croatia shared a name with any ruler of Serbia. The argument that they all "shared the same names" seems flat-out wrong. Hell, they even transliterated various Christian names differently- "Stjepan" versus "Stefan", "Mihajlo" versus "Mihailo", etc.

 

[Hongkie1697]

And as one last note, my grandmother is a Croatian Orthodox.


EDIT: Regarding the argument concerning names, I just did a quick check: not even 4 of the pre-Hungarian rulers of Croatia shared a name with any ruler of Serbia. The argument that they all "shared the same names" seems flat-out wrong. Hell, they even transliterated various Christian names differently- "Stjepan" versus "Stefan", "Mihajlo" versus "Mihailo", etc.

The point is that they had been even more similar than they are now, moreover the region someone's from regardless of religion was more important, thus an orthodox native Chakavian speaker in the Kingdom of Croatia would've been considered Croat, as opposed to the more contemporary religious based identification wherewith he may be called a Serb.

Yes I missed some of the names only used by either Catholics or Orthodox, or only by kings of either kingdoms, but overall methinks they still had a relatively high similarity compared to other countries' regional cultures (Northern Italy's Gallo-Italic and Central to Southern Italy's Italo-Dalamatian; Oil languages and Occitan languages), as a result I think they should be able to rule over each other's lands with less or no penalty.

 

[Ispil]

The point is that they had been even more similar than they are now, moreover the region someone's from regardless of religion was more important, thus an orthodox native Chakavian speaker in the Kingdom of Croatia would've been considered Croat, as opposed to the more contemporary religious based identification wherewith he may be called a Serb.

Yes I missed some of the names only used by either Catholics or Orthodox, or only by kings of either kingdoms, but overall methinks they still had a relatively high similarity compared to other countries' regional cultures (Northern Italy's Gallo-Italic and Central to Southern Italy's Italo-Dalamatian; Oil languages and Occitan languages), as a result I think they should be able to rule over each other's lands with less or no penalty.

And you're basing this off of... what, exactly? Besides extrapolating from the modern day?

It's worth noting, because this is confused a lot, but language does not equal culture.

 

[TheDovahkiin97]

im sry for the late reply i was very busy.

they're all now doing this weird, re-diversification of their language

yes

the region was under direct control of the Avar Khanate

not rlly they for example never controlled the area south of the dinaric alps. Many slavs called themselves avars to get higher positions in their society. avars were not that many same as huns. They just integrated many locals.

being forced out of the Avar Khanate

source pls

while both Slavic, originating from different tribes

yes but i believe that those tribes were very close to each other.

Additionally, the title of ban

"but history recalls that the first known Croatian ban is Pribina in the 10th century (in 949 and in 969)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_of_Croatia

veliki župan, knez

those are also croatian words. Zupanije is even used today for counties https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatske_županije
serbs refer to them as "okruzi" which means the same and every croat understands

two different Slavic tribal entities, and considered two distinct entities

No. All slavs spoke the same language even after the migration period for a long time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic
Most likely Croats and Serbs were even neigbouring societys deciding together to migrate to the balkans. (Some serbs decided to go west and ended up in sorbia)

but it seems clear to me that they were distinct well before religion came into play.

very unlikely

it is know that the first stint that Bosnia had as its own political entity was under a Serbian ruler

i dont know that pls enlighten me

The second stint was under a Slavonian one, under the name of the Banate of Bosnia

the banate ov bosnia appeared first in 1154. can you pls give me some sources?

who place an individual in control whose culture is rather hard to discern- they intermarried with the Serbians, but I am not sure if they themselves were Serbian

they obviously didnt choose a local rather a true orthodox serb. i want to know what the locals called themselves.

however: this charter happens to be written in both Latin and the local language

there is absolutely no evidence that the locals spoke this dialect. (its still the same shit)

that was different from both its Croatian and Serbian neighbors

unlikely that locals developed a different culture. or are you trying to form a dialect into a new culture?

Making it all Croatian, or making it all Serbian seem to be mistakes

No. The question is what cultures were the counties of usora, soli and vrhbosna. Most likely soli was serbian while the other two were heavily mixed especially vrhbosna. Id still make at least usora croatian because of catholic distribution and beeing ruled by croats. i could live with soli and vrhbosna (maybe usora) beeing serbian.

Given that it's not even clear what parts of the region were held by Serbia or Croatia

the Hip version seems very accurate to me taking the neretva river as a border in the south, the bosnian mountains in central bosnia and the drina river in the north.

we will need some sort of way for a distinct Bosnian culture to appear

i dont think so it seems unnecessary to me. you can just make croats and serbs of this region bogomilists later. At the moment there is not a single serbian province bogomilist but two croatian ones and almost all bosnian.

because it means that holding the territory would be additionally difficult for a ruler of either culture to hold onto the territory, which would be lost if it were broken up between the two.

to me this sound like a very bad excuse. You could easier split up all french dialects like in Eu4 making them less powerfull. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langues_d'oïl
I dont get the point though.

the culture developed later as a matter of geographical isolation

yes because of ottoman turkification of serbs and croats in bosnia. not a single year earlier.

Making an event for that cultural distinction to pop up is straightforward

im fine with that if hip stretches the timeline up to ottoman occupation also causing serb refugees to move west https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migrations_of_the_Serbs (the true reason why there are serbs west of eastern "republika srpska" inside bosnia. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republika_Srpska
i believe its eastern borders are very representative of the medieval serbian distribution in bosnia.
this picture for example shows that there were almost no croats in eastern bosnia 1991 https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatas_de_Bosnia-Herzegovina#/media/File:BiH_-_UH_N_1991.gif
croats of bosnia were divided by muslims and serbian refugees. and ofc because also croats migrated westwards because of ottomans making the region much less inhabited.

And as one last note, my grandmother is a Croatian Orthodox.

where is she from? which town? Most likely a decendant of refugees. id like to have a talk with her :'D

but overall methinks they still had a relatively high similarity compared to other countries' regional cultures

Very good conclusion i agree 100%

I have a question i want to be answered so badly.
Who came up with the idea to make the "nertljani people" serbian? why? this seems so ridiculously wrong to me and i want someone to explain how this idea came up.
Im not quiet sure but in very early HIP versions this region was croatian (neretljani people were not integrated yet).

thx Ispil and Hongkie1697 for this very nice dicussion. maybe it leads to something worth striving for.


EDIT: i would also like to see a way to make west east an south slavs closer to each other causingh less penalities. like a culture group over culture group. only maybe arabs and berbers could use the same system. there is no other culture group this close to another.

EDIT2: I also dont understand why belgrade and syrmia are bulgarian just because they were occupied by bulgarians. even branicevo might have been serbian..

EDIT3: i even suggest to make the duchy of syrmia dejure croatia in early game. croatia many times controlled entire syrmia and nearly always vukova.

 

[Farcheal]

The vanilla setup for Bulgaria is quite lacklustre. It basically consists of various 'Balgarsko' family members (many fictional, some not) controlling the entire state. Unfortunately, sources for this period in Bulgarian history are light, so I'll post here what I've found, and how I'd suggest using this information.

I've changed my mind on how to handle implementation of this topic a lot, and am at this point just putting out what I have to see what others think. Feel free to criticise.

1) Background:

For context, here's a few titles which are important and will be repeated. Here's an example of where I got this sort of info (not the only place):
http://archive.worldhistoria.com/government-and-power-in-the-first-bulgarian-empire_topic15870.html

• Kavkhan - Head official of Bulgar state, 2nd in command. Apparently most Kavkhans came from a single family.
  
• Boil/Boila/Boylar - Bulgar noble, usually a minor governor
• Ichirgu-boil - 3rd in command of state. Head of garrison at capital. In charge of internal administration of state.
• Tarkan - Term for ruler of border region
• Bagatur - Military commander
• Sampsis - Diplomat & advisor to ruler. Courtiers.
• Komita - Borrowed from Byzantium, term of governor

I'll start with Historical characters which can be used.

Pre-867:
Ratimir ('Slavic Prince of the Drava', ruled 829-838)
Slav installed in Pannonia by Omurtag and then deposed by Radbod.

Tsok (Ichirgu-boil?)
Bulgar noble who was either Ichirgu-boil or had temporarily usurped the position of 'Khan'. Harshly persecuted Christians, doesn't seem to have survived long. Mentioned (although with particular prominence) alongside a few other usurper types.

Isbul (Kavkhan)
Extremely influential Kavkhan who first appears under Krum and remains a looming force in politics into the reign of Presian (roughly 4 decades). Acts as regent twice. Leads many campaigns into Byzantine Macedonia.


Circa 867: (All part of delegations of Peter)
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/25Bulgars/SRuncimanFirstBulgarianEmpireBook2En.htm

Peter (Kavkhan)
Mentioned repeatedly as a relative of Boris I, I've seen it stated they were cousins. Very important diplomat during this period, playing a large part in negotiating Bulgaria's christianisation with Papal and Byzantine agents. We can assume he had become christian by his given name, and I'm prone to believe the name 'Tserbula' is a rendering of his 'Bulgar' name.

Stazis (Ichirgu-boil)
Appears to have a Bulgar name

Sundika (Bagatur)
Also appears to have a Bulgar name

Persiyan (Sampsis)
Also appears to have a Bulgar name

Alexius Hunol (Sampsis)
Seems to have a Greek/Slav derived name, which is odd, given the above!

Iliya (Tarkan)
Seems to have an Slavic rendition of a Christian name, similar to Peter.

John/Ivan and Martin (?)
Diplomats mentioned alongside Peter.

Doks (Monk)
Brother of Boris I. Presented in vanilla as the ruler of Transylvania. In-fact he was a Monk.


Post 867 (Mentioned during reigns of Simeon and early in Peter's):
https://archive.org/stream/TheEarlyMedievalBalkans/The Early Medieval Balkans_djvu.txt

George/Georg 'Sursuvul' (Kavkhan)
Important figure under Simeon and Peter. Sister marries Simeon.

Simeon (Tarkan)
Mentioned as marrying Boris I's daughter Anna. Given Anna would not be born until a few years after 867, it's likely Simeon himself would be significantly younger than the 867 figures. Mentioned attending a delegation to Byzantium in the reign of Peter, headed by Georg. Also a slavic rendition of a christian name.

Theodore/Teodor 'Sigritsa' (Bagatur, perhaps Kavkhan?)
Invades Serbia alongside Marmais

Marmais (Bagatur, Komita)
Komita of Makedonia. Sent to invade Serbia with Theodore. Said to be descended from 'ancient Bulgar family'.

Mostich (Ichirgu-boil)
Mentioned as an elderly man who was a figure under Simeon and Peter. Originally had thought he was likely outside our time-frame, but now I'd suggest adding him as a son to Stazis.

2) Possible 867 Dynasties:

I have decided to try combine a few of these characters together into dynasties with the information we have. For instance, here's a diagram I made attempting to link Krum's Dynasty with those who may have married into it.



Kavhan Dynasty
It's mentioned that the people who held this title were from essentially all from the same family. I've tried to connect them together and with the other characters in a way that makes sense to me. Peter is mentioned as a cousin of Boris, yet if we suppose this is a 'first cousin' and his daughter marries Boris' son Simeon (if his son is indeed George Sursuvul), they would be likely to consanguineous. I've suggested that perhaps Peter may be the descendent of Malamir in the female line.

Chargobilya Dynasty
Essentially just Stazis, but any linked with this position could be featured including Mostich.

Makedonska Dynasty
Already in-game with Marmais, but considering his unusual (possibly Bulgar name), I've chosen to link him with the General Sundika. Considering both are involved in military affairs, and seem to be Bulgars, I don't think this is crazy.

Hunol Dynasty
Consists of the mentioned Alexius. Possible father of Simeon mentioned post 867.

Sigritsa Dynasty
Could be argued Theodore should be part of the Kavhan family, but I've chosen to link him with Ilya the mentioned border regional governor. Both have Slavic renditions of Christian names too. Suggest linking to Kavhans through a marriage to a fictional daughter of Isbul.

Ivanov & Martinov Dynasties
Can be used for additional land-owners if needed, as we know these character existed as diplomats.

3) Possible 867 Land distribution

The land distribution of vanilla as I'm mentioned is quite non-sensical to me. I will display it alongside my suggestions:



To explain with more context, I have added another image with some borders with a legend I will explain below:



Green / Western Thrace - Peter the Kavhan. Isbul (likely his father) is mentioned as having lead armies regularly into Byzantine territory, and conquered Plovdiv. Seems reasonable to assign this territory to this family for that reason.

Blue / Eastern Thrace - Stazis the Ichirgu-boil. Would have led the garrison of the capital (perhaps should get a barony there), but as an important noble, seems likely he'd have land close.

Red / Makedonia - Sundika the Bagatur. Mentioned as a general, seems likely he'd be on a frontier. Possible son Marmais is mentioned as ruling in the West of Bulgaria, likely in Makedonia.

Turquoise / Drac - Alexius Hunol. Admittedly flimsy rational. Ruler needed here, and it seemed more reasonable to associate a possible Greek/Christian character with the region.

Orange / Vidin - Ilya the Tarkan. Ruled a border region. Mentioned as invading Serbia, which is close.

Yellow / Skopje - Vladimir son of Boris I. Mentioned as part of the invasion to Serbia, and likely had came to age by this point. Seems reasonable he could have land, and Skopje was a good province to cede.

Light Purple / Nis - Ivan the diplomat. VERY flimsy reasoning. I needed to fill the gap left via vanilla, and it seemed weird to give to anyone really.

Dark Orange / Macva - Unsure of giving this to a exiled brother of Mutimir of Serbia or the diplomat Martin.

Dark Purple / Sirmium - Ratimir or a son. Possible remnants of the Timok region slavs who had been conquered by the Bulgars under Omurtag.

Even in writing this post, I've questioned my thinking for some of this, so please discuss!

 

[hackera88]

"Balgarsko" should be renamed, there is no official name of the dynasty, but historians call it Krum dynasty(the first ruler). Titles like Kavkhan, Komita would work really good with the 867 start, but it wont be historical for the later start dates. There are name of few bulgar dynasties from the First Bulgarian Empire, like Dulo, Vokil, Emri, Ugain. You can put some of the mentioned people in some of these clans. A noble with the name Onegavon from the clan Kubiar is mentioned in the first half of the 9th century, with title Tarkan. Also Okoris from the clan Charakar, during the same period, both of them are mentioned to have drowned in a river. There is a bit more info in the bulgarian wiki but not that much
https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Прабългарски_родове

Also put a noble with the same name for the star wars fans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organa

 

[theKing1988]

I don't remember if i did a minor update of the Bulgarian Noble titles for the last version or the upcoming version. But i have relied more on later titles, because they seemed more consistently used in the Bulgarian Hierarchy.

Anyway, this is what it looks like atm

count_bulgarian;Bolyar;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
duke_bulgarian;Voevoda;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
king_bulgarian;Tsar;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
king_female_bulgarian;Tsaritsa;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
emperor_bulgarian;Tsar;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
emperor_female_bulgarian;Tsaritsa;;;;;;;;;;;;;x

Any suggestions to expand it is of course most welcome

And Balgarsko has seemed off to me too. So when i look into Bulgaria again, we'll see if we can find a proper rendition of "Krum" into a dynasty name. As you seem to be a Bulgarian hackera, you are more than welcome to offer a suggestion for what that could be.