Slavonic Gods

[DanubianCossak]

I actually do not want to comment too much about map since I already had a discussion on this forum the other day that almost made me leave this site forever. So I do not want to go too deep into it, other than repeat what I said than. All this "white" area on 814 map. are mostly different Serbian tribes. Also situation changed from then to 867 significantly. I think Serbia should consist of Rashka, Hum (Hlm, Helm), Ragussa, Belgrade, Rama, Usora and Zachumlie but I was withdraw from that disscusion accused of flaming new civil "yugoslavian" war

My sources are mostly from Jiricek, Nestor chronicles, Pop Duklian chronicles and History of Serbs by Vladimir Corovic (who again pick up lot from Jiricek and therefore Konstantin Porphirogenit /spel?/). There is also many other smaller documents that I read. However I am not historian. And it is said there that serbs occupied in VIII and IX century the whole Dalmatia. But today’s Dalmatia is not what they refer about. If you can find the map from roman times you can see there that Dalmatia of that time was basically the whole present Bosnian republic, western Serbian republic in present and part of adriatic coast in present Croatian republic. Also it is known that they inhabit area of today north Greece as it was mentioned often that the population around Thessalonica was predominantly serbian. However as it was noted earlier on this thread that they move from place tp place around searching for "better life" mixing with other domestic and migrant population as well as among the different tribes among serbian corpus, being sucked by others like Bulgarians and in some cases Croatian tribes.

Zahumlje (is much better represented on this pick above than on the map of CK2 itself, since that was the area around the river Neretva (Za-Hum-lye -> Behinde the Hills) and not further. Further west was simply Croatia (and all those baronies and cites on the map like Duvno and Livno were not part of Zahumlie but Croatia to the west). They were part of Serbian "confederation" until one of there’s leader switch alliance to Croatian. For Pagania it's not sure if they were Serbian or Croatian tribe (or neither) but since they often fought Croatian some automatically assume they were Serbian tribe, which of course might not be the truth.

Porphirogenit also mentioning 4 biggest Serbian cities (what kind of cites were they, nobody knows, and also 3 of 4 have until today unknown location, although for two it does look like that they were around present day Uzice city in western Serbia >Drežnik< and one in Present Day Montenegro. The third unown named >Dervenik< still noone have a clue, some mentioned present day city of Derventa in North Bosnia, only because of name similarity some thinks it was located somewhere in Metohia or North Albania as of today. The Only city tht has confirmed location was >Soli< present day Tuzla and in CK2 map represented in province of Usora.) There is so many other details and I have not time or desire to write about them since this is not history class but just an video game, and that’s all.


Funny how often I get this. It should be just "Brate" no K anywhere thats bulgarian. And if you can pronnunce T very Hard and very long E at the end than you would speak in heavy sleng of Belgrade suburb of Zemun (earlier city by itself) often connected with modern mafia






It is more or less correct, Nemanjic are of course from much, much later era (as a rulers). And they are (there family) originaly from Zahumlye.

I would say also that "dioclea" and Travunia were always eastern church and never western unless you count the population of the cities on the coast, that were all catholic or heavily influenced by west church (on a way to become if they were not) by customs and way of life.

I was under the impression that both Diocleia (of which most cities were coastal? from Kotor to Skadar-ish) and Travunia/Zahumlje fell into Catholic church after the Christianity split, so most people who were born just "Christian" were suddenly either Catholic or Orthodox.

From what i remember basically same thing happened twice to both Nemanjic and Vlastimirovic. The father (both times first guy in dynasty) who was born on the Catholic (so was Catholic by default) side of the division would have a son that was to be Orthodox simply because both sons happened to be born in region (upper Zeta IIRC) where the only priests available were Orthodox, and in those days the thing to do was to have child baptized as soon as possible for fear of sudden child death (basically if the kid dies before baptism, it goes to hell or purgatory for eternity or something like that).

 

[unmerged(606777)]

Watcha think?

 

[DanubianCossak]

That does look about right i believe, although note that this Bulgaria is basically a blob at its peek that later fell apart, it does not show all of their core lands by any mean (they conquered lots and lots of stuff).

 

[Hibernian]

Not bad at all :thumbsup:

I see you lump together Obodrites and Veletians (Lutichi) as "Polabian". While this is not impossible or fundamentally wrong, this misses the interesting opportunity to show their deadly centuries long rivalry, which ultimately lead to the destruction of both. When Obotrites were wacking Saxons, Veleti striked them in back, when Obodrites were in alliance with Charlemagne, the Velets united with Danes fought the Obodrites pretty hard. In fact all Polabian external struggle was nothing compared to their internals non-stop warring. Uniting them together just doesn't show that. Also, Sorbs (and other Lusatians) do count as Polabians too.

Also "Sorb" was only one tribe of the Lusatian confederation (with Gavolians, Stodorians and many others), it's more correct to name them Lusatians (Luzhichane)

The name Kashubians isn't in the contemporary chronicles, those are mainly called "Pomoriane", as you have noted.

Ok, I think I should have made it more clear what my map was representing. I wasn't trying to show the actual Tribal realms (the independent states), that map was simply meant to show which provinces the different ethnicities were living in. It doesn't show what kingdoms or duchies they're in. So the Obodrites and Veletians would still be two separate realms (duchies perhaps?), but they would have the same culture. I did that because they spoke the same language, even if they were divided into different tribes.

So if you go by the linguistics, like it shows in this article: West Slavic languages, you can see that they are classified into three branches, the "Czech-Slovak languages", the "Lechitic languages" and the "Sorbian languages", with the different tribes speaking some variants of these. That's why I would separate the Polabians from the Sorbians, because the Polabians are closer to the Poles, but Sorbs are a different branch (and apparently somehow related to the Serbs as other people have already mentioned).

In terms of Lusatian vs. Sorbian, well I'm not sure. Did the people actually call themselves Lusatians or was that just the area where they lived? Their language is known today as Sorbian.

As for the Pomeranians vs. Kashubians, well from what I can find the Kashubians were almost all of the Pomeranians and the other Pomeranian groups were very small tribes, living in very small areas. So I would think that "Pomeranian" is almost synonymous with "Kashubian", but it makes no difference either way really.

Also, why no love for Plauen and Mishno (Meissen), those are undeniably Slavic during that era, a part of Lusatians.

Ah yes, you are right about that, I'll add that in.

The rest is fine. Though I'd also add the tribe of Kuyavians with Kujawy and Sieradz.

Who are the Kuyavians though? I can't find any information on them, other then the name of a Polish voivodship.

Slovakia stronk! They must be a part of Great Moravia, perhaps as vassals with their own lord.

Yes, as I said this is not meant to represent independent tribes, just cultures on the map. I believe by 867 most of Slovakia was part of Great Moravia. Like I say, the Slovak culture could probably be merged with the Moravian one, but I don't know much about Slovak history to say for sure.

Speaking of Slovakia, does anyone know what the situation was south of Slovakia, in Hungary? There's an article on Wikipedia about the Principality of Lower Pannonia, which seems to have be a Slavic state on the territory of modern-day Hungary (the Western half of the country, West of the Danube river). But it doesn't tell us much about the ethnicity of the area. The first ruler of that state seems to have been from Slovakia, but I don't know if the population of the area was actually Slavic, since apparently the Avars were still the living there (even though their Khanate had been destroyed by this stage). So it may be partly Slavic, but most of the provinces still Avar and the ruling class Slavic (though the population density was probably very low since it was an area of near-constant war). At least that's my guess form limited knowledge of the subject.

Here's a bigger map showing all the Slavic areas and the possible distribution of all the tribal cultures:


(Link to full sized image)

There's a lot of question marks there of course, since there's a lot of areas I'm not sure about (like Hungary). The three southern cultures are obviously just Croatian, Serbian and Bulgarian and the yellow coloured one in Slovenia and Austria is the Slovenians (or the Carantanians if you want to call them that at that time period). I know they were still living in Steiermark (Styria), but I'm not sure about Osterriech (the area around Vienna), that may have already been Germanized by then, not sure.

I'm also not sure about the borders of the three southern cultures, where does Croat end and Serb begin, etc? I'll leave that for someone else to argue over.

Also the province of Bereg, which I believe represents Zakarpattia Oblast, should there not be some (East) Slavic tribe living there? It was part of Carpathian Ruthenia after all (though I don't know the dates on that).

 

[WanderingKnight]

Watcha think?

It's better. Again two things:It is clear that serbs inhabitat and rulled the land that has northern border at the Sava River by Porphirigenit. Which is not shown here. And I do not think that in 867 Bulgarians already coquered area around Belgrade and Raska but they would that soon.

 

[WanderingKnight]

Ok, I think I should have made it more clear what my map was representing. I wasn't trying to show the actual Tribal realms (the independent states), that map was simply meant to show which provinces the different ethnicities were living in. It doesn't show what kingdoms or duchies they're in. So the Obodrites and Veletians would still be two separate realms (duchies perhaps?), but they would have the same culture. I did that because they spoke the same language, even if they were divided into different tribes.

So if you go by the linguistics, like it shows in this article: West Slavic languages, you can see that they are classified into three branches, the "Czech-Slovak languages", the "Lechitic languages" and the "Sorbian languages", with the different tribes speaking some variants of these. That's why I would separate the Polabians from the Sorbians, because the Polabians are closer to the Poles, but Sorbs are a different branch (and apparently somehow related to the Serbs as other people have already mentioned).

In terms of Lusatian vs. Sorbian, well I'm not sure. Did the people actually call themselves Lusatians or was that just the area where they lived? Their language is known today as Sorbian.

As for the Pomeranians vs. Kashubians, well from what I can find the Kashubians were almost all of the Pomeranians and the other Pomeranian groups were very small tribes, living in very small areas. So I would think that "Pomeranian" is almost synonymous with "Kashubian", but it makes no difference either way really.



Ah yes, you are right about that, I'll add that in.



Who are the Kuyavians though? I can't find any information on them, other then the name of a Polish voivodship.



Yes, as I said this is not meant to represent independent tribes, just cultures on the map. I believe by 867 most of Slovakia was part of Great Moravia. Like I say, the Slovak culture could probably be merged with the Moravian one, but I don't know much about Slovak history to say for sure.

Speaking of Slovakia, does anyone know what the situation was south of Slovakia, in Hungary? There's an article on Wikipedia about the Principality of Lower Pannonia, which seems to have be a Slavic state on the territory of modern-day Hungary (the Western half of the country, West of the Danube river). But it doesn't tell us much about the ethnicity of the area. The first ruler of that state seems to have been from Slovakia, but I don't know if the population of the area was actually Slavic, since apparently the Avars were still the living there (even though their Khanate had been destroyed by this stage). So it may be partly Slavic, but most of the provinces still Avar and the ruling class Slavic (though the population density was probably very low since it was an area of near-constant war). At least that's my guess form limited knowledge of the subject.

Here's a bigger map showing all the Slavic areas and the possible distribution of all the tribal cultures:


(Link to full sized image)

There's a lot of question marks there of course, since there's a lot of areas I'm not sure about (like Hungary). The three southern cultures are obviously just Croatian, Serbian and Bulgarian and the yellow coloured one in Slovenia and Austria is the Slovenians (or the Carantanians if you want to call them that at that time period). I know they were still living in Steiermark (Styria), but I'm not sure about Osterriech (the area around Vienna), that may have already been Germanized by then, not sure.

I'm also not sure about the borders of the three southern cultures, where does Croat end and Serb begin, etc? I'll leave that for someone else to argue over.

Also the province of Bereg, which I believe represents Zakarpattia Oblast, should there not be some (East) Slavic tribe living there? It was part of Carpathian Ruthenia after all (though I don't know the dates on that).

If I may. The map is fair enough, not perfect. The reason is not of what you suggest but the map itself made by developer. I will just joke, guys, don't get me serious, but look like you were drinking too much beer at the time when disscussing this part of the map. And of course it might be just for gameplay purpose, so nevermind.

1. Zachumlye on CK map is not Real Zachumlye Teritory from history, not by shape, not by location not by baronies that they connsist off. Tomislavgrad (Duvno) and Livno were not part of Zahumlye but Croatia to the west. Instead some cities (baronies) that show up in ragussa (Dubrovnik) province like Narona were part of Real Zachumlye. Other significante cities/towers of Zachumlye were Blagai, Nebojsa, Pocitelj, Nekranj, Drijeva, Stolac, Brstanik, Luke.
2. Ragussa or Dubrovnik should be called rather Travunia by my opinion since that is a land behinde the city of Dubrovnik having Travunje (Trebinje) as a seat (Barony).
3.Zeta - Correct
4.Rama - I do not know what they where thinking with this one. Having Usice (I suspect Uzice)and Samobor as some of the cities wich can not be (+ shown as catholic and croatian in 1066 that is just wrong). Uzice is part of Hum (acctualy for long period capital place of Hum) it was always like that. Rama was more to the west and should have baronies like: Bobovac,Visoki, Olovo, Prozor etc.
5.Hum-another funny one. I even see it in newest version when occupied by Byzantine that change the name to Arsa. Arsa = Rashka! So I see Arsa and Rascia under Byzantine. It's like I see double (and I did not have too many beers than). Cities inside are redicilous. Novi Pazar?? C'mon This is turkish word and the name is from time when this area was occupied by Turks not even in the time frame of the game. It should be Ras, or (Staro) Trgoviste and it is on the river Raska that whole area got name. Why is than in Hum? Hum is more West with cities, baronies: Uzice,Praca, Dobrun, Visegrad,Prijepolje, Breznica,Hoca, Soko, Brskovo.
6. Belgrade - correct (the only thing it is too big area maybe and might be split in two Macva (or Srem) and Sumadia. Allthough it's OK as it is.

And this are all the things for later period, current start of game and after. Since as I wrote only 4 cities were known for period of this upcoming DLC (with only one Soli (tuzla) known for location).

So there lies the problem, what is what, realy. If Zachumlye is realy Zachumlye (historicly) with position that are on upper maps and cities that are those I wrote it should be populated with Serbian population and vassal to serbian ruller. But if the cities inside are Duvno and Livno than it should be part of Croatia and populated by Croatian population (but renamed into something else, I think). Something Simular to Rama, too. While Usora and Belgrade are not connected and they should be, specialy if Tuzla (Soli) is part of that province, like it is, I think.

So how to fix that mess, I do not know, and that is part of the problem with CK map in the area.

And if I take all above your map is not that bad at all (but not perfect).

For question mark in the south by my opinion.: Vidin and Nish can be both Serbian and Bulgarian since it was occupied by both population the way how it is represented on CK map, so either would be correct. Ohrid might be Serbian too in a way to represent that Serbs who lived around Tesalonica, but again Bulgarian would not be wrong either. Zeta was definetly predominantly serbian populated. I already commented on Rama.

And just three more comments: Province north-west from Istra should be Slavic populated since it is well known that slavic people lived all the way to Veneto. Wendic Karantinians would be OK there. And for "hungarian" empty part I think strech of "upper" Croatian more to the south and Moravians should occupied the most. Also Slavic tribes lived on both side of the Danube too, so at least Severin should be with Bulgarian population..

 

[WanderingKnight]

I was under the impression that both Diocleia (of which most cities were coastal? from Kotor to Skadar-ish) and Travunia/Zahumlje fell into Catholic church after the Christianity split, so most people who were born just "Christian" were suddenly either Catholic or Orthodox.

From what i remember basically same thing happened twice to both Nemanjic and Vlastimirovic. The father (both times first guy in dynasty) who was born on the Catholic (so was Catholic by default) side of the division would have a son that was to be Orthodox simply because both sons happened to be born in region (upper Zeta IIRC) where the only priests available were Orthodox, and in those days the thing to do was to have child baptized as soon as possible for fear of sudden child death (basically if the kid dies before baptism, it goes to hell or purgatory for eternity or something like that).

You are right about Nemanjic family. Nemanja was baptize by catholics (in Ribnica, by the way, barony/city that was not even represented in Zeta), but the fact that he change to the east church is due most of his people in Zeta and Rashka were Orthodox. There were other reasons too, but you can not rule the people if you are of different religion then them, efficiently. And yes you are right most coastal cities, they were Catholics, but rural area even coastal were not, same for upper Zeta (Moraca monastery just north from Ribnica was always ortodox monastery f.e.) When Vojislav (father of Mihailo) raised against Romans earlier he did not have any support from population from the cities and roman chronicles says that he and his serbs where fighting and abusing other, loyal Serbs inhabitants of the cities. Different way of lifes would not be the only reason but difference in religion too, I would say.

For Vlastimir (who apparently died 850ad) I think it was too early for separation on Catholics and orthodox, although differences existed and some kind of border where one start and end existed, mostly how I understood, as of what episcope was in charge for the place where your church was and what kind of language the church used (latin or greek). But I really do not know much about that part and Vlastimir himself.

It is true that for political reason they (serbian rulers)did turn occasionally to Pope in Rome (the last who did was Tsar Dusan) but they HAD to return to what most of there people worshiped.

 

[Hazzy]

Ok, I think I should have made it more clear what my map was representing. I wasn't trying to show the actual Tribal realms (the independent states), that map was simply meant to show which provinces the different ethnicities were living in.

Fair enough, although:

Who are the Kuyavians though? I can't find any information on them, other then the name of a Polish voivodship.

Name Kujawy is believed to come from kui, kuiati meaning strong wind. So Kujawy really means 'Windy place' not 'Place of Kuyavians.'

But then again you put in Masovians whos existence is also rather disputable. Name Masovia may come from maz as in mazać - to get dirty, so would just mean 'Muddy place'.
I see how you would like to make creating kingdom of Poland for Polans rather a challenge and give some independent duchies on their way to invade and vassalize, but I can not tell what tribes were dwelling in Kujavia and Masovia at the time, beyond that they were Lechitic (like Polans), so that is the same culture as in Greater Poland.

Yes, as I said this is not meant to represent independent tribes, just cultures on the map. I believe by 867 most of Slovakia was part of Great Moravia. Like I say, the Slovak culture could probably be merged with the Moravian one, but I don't know much about Slovak history to say for sure.

Speaking of Slovakia, does anyone know what the situation was south of Slovakia, in Hungary? There's an article on Wikipedia about the Principality of Lower Pannonia, which seems to have be a Slavic state on the territory of modern-day Hungary (the Western half of the country, West of the Danube river). But it doesn't tell us much about the ethnicity of the area.
There's a lot of question marks there of course, since there's a lot of areas I'm not sure about (like Hungary).

Lower Panonnia ruled by Pribina in capital Blatengrad. It was pretty much controlled by Great Moravia, and should be as its part in game, maybe vassalized.
The name of culture you are looking for instead of Slovak is definitely Moravian. Moravians and Czechs ruled by Premislids are quite distinctive people and it is a reason for Slovaks to exist as independent nation today.

Those blank places are blank in pretty much every map of that time period I have seen. It is virtually empty space left by Avars and before the Magyars came. Which is an interesting issue to be tackled by Paradox and directly connects to 'The Hungarian question' that the dev was talking about in the interview. The way I see it those lands could be 'No character' in 867 bookmark, and if Magyar doomstack would stand on a county for long enough it could get a random Magyar rulers, and doomstack would shrink a bit to represent people settling.
That's one way to handle it and I don't know if that would be any balanced or fun to play for both player playing Hungarians or nearby states.

 

[onodera]

Here's a bigger map showing all the Slavic areas and the possible distribution of all the tribal cultures:


(Link to full sized image)

I think the eastern provinces of the Kingdom of Rus (where Vsevolod in 1066 starts) should be less Slavicized in 867. The colonization of these lands basically mirrored Ostsiedlung of the Western Slavs. Varangian and later Slavic settlers would build a grad near the local camp of Finnic people or Balts and trade with them. So you can easily make Moskva, Yaroslavl, PZ and even Mozhaysk non-Slavic.

 

[Stoycho]

That does look about right i believe, although note that this Bulgaria is basically a blob at its peek that later fell apart, it does not show all of their core lands by any mean (they conquered lots and lots of stuff).

Boris I 852–889
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Bulgaria_under_rule_of_Boris_I.png

Simeon I 893-927
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Bulgaria_Simeon_I_(893-927).svg

 

[unmerged(606777)]

Here's my two kopecks:

West Slavonic culture tribes:
Obodrichi
Veleti
Lusatians
Czechs
Moravians
Pomorians
Polans
Silesians
Kuyavians
Mazovians
Vistulians
Slovaks


South Slavonic culture tribes:
Horutans
Croats
Serbs
Bulgarians
*Valachians under Bulgarian rule (non-Slavic (Latin or Dacian or Thracian, depends on who you listen to ), but had to be depicted because of the Bulgarians)
Serbs under Bulgarian rule
Blatnograd Principality, should be either part of Great Moravia or Frank Empire as a vassal with their own ruler.
White Croatia, should be a part of Great Moravia

East Slavonic:
Slovene
Krivichians
Radimichians
Viatichians
Polianians
Drevlianians
Dregovichians
Severians
Volynians
Ulichians
Tiverians

 

[unmerged(619282)]

Here's my two kopecks:

West Slavic culture tribes:
Obodrichi []
Veleti []
Lusatians
Czechs
Moravians
Pomorians
Polans
Silesians
Kuyavians
Mazovians
Vistulians
Slovaks


South Slavic culture tribes:

Horutans
Croats
Serbs
Bulgarians
Valachians under Bulgarian rule
Serbs under Bulgarian rule
Blatnograd Principality, should be either part of Great Moravia or Frank Empire as a vassal with their own ruler.
White Croatia, should be a part of Great Moravia

vlachs are not of slavic culture...but of latin one

 

[unmerged(606777)]

Dude, relax, we all know they are not Slavic, it's just for the time frame, that they are under Bulgarian rule. Okay, I can make a special remark in the description, and you, please delete that post from "Suggestion to devs" thread, we don't discuss things there.

edit: thanks

 

[unmerged(619282)]

Dude, relax, we all know they are not Slavic, it's just for the time frame, that they are under Bulgarian rule. Okay, I can make a special remark in the description, and you, please delete that post from "Suggestion to devs" thread, we don't discuss things there.

done mate.And please specify that vlacs are latin,even if under slavic rule at that time.If nothern Italy was under German rule,it doesn t mean the population was german also !

 

[DanubianCossak]

Vidin should be Bulgarian, afaik Serbs never held it, Nish on the other hand should be Serbian, although Bulgarians did hold it (for quite some time, the also held large parts of Serbia in general) they never were majority population there (or lived there at all). Nish/Naissus province is basically split in half by Nishava river, Bulgarians only ever lived in the southern half of it (although populations mixed during Ottoman times to the mid of the province).

 

[DanubianCossak]

Boris I 852–889
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Bulgaria_under_rule_of_Boris_I.png

Simeon I 893-927
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Bulgaria_Simeon_I_(893-927).svg

Whats the point youre trying to make? Half of that land was simply snatched from Byzantines and was lost to them again soon after. Not to mention that Bulgarians never settled in pretty much anything west of Nish to Sirmium. Like i said it was a blob born out of pure conquest that eventually fell apart.

 

[unmerged(606777)]

@Hibernian

Great, thanks for your interest!

That's why I would separate the Polabians from the Sorbians, because the Polabians are closer to the Poles, but Sorbs are a different branch (and apparently somehow related to the Serbs as other people have already mentioned).

Polabians is just a name, meaning "dwellers of the Laba (Elbe)". In that sense Obodrites, Veletians, Lusatians and Czechs are all Polabian, but that's a modern geographic classification. Contemporary sources doesn't use this name, they list specific tribes.

In terms of Lusatian vs. Sorbian, well I'm not sure. Did the people actually call themselves Lusatians or was that just the area where they lived? Their language is known today as Sorbian.

They did call themselves Lusatian Serbs (Luzicke Srbi), "Sorbs" is a German ethnonym. Just like Bohemians didn't call themselves that, but Germans did.

Who are the Kuyavians though? I can't find any information on them, other then the name of a Polish voivodship.

Apparently there's no English wiki entry for Kujawians, for some strange reason http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kujawiacy

Also the province of Bereg, which I believe represents Zakarpattia Oblast, should there not be some (East) Slavic tribe living there? It was part of Carpathian Ruthenia after all (though I don't know the dates on that).

Well, the whole Pannonia and Dacia is a big ? in those times. I think we must represent White Croatia somehow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Croatia.

 

[unmerged(606777)]

Vidin should be Bulgarian, afaik Serbs never held it, Nish on the other hand should be Serbian, although Bulgarians did hold it (for quite some time, the also held large parts of Serbia in general) they never were majority population there (or lived there at all). Nish/Naissus province is basically split in half by Nishava river, Bulgarians only ever lived in the southern half of it (although populations mixed during Ottoman times to the mid of the province).

Okay, will fix dat.

 

[unmerged(606777)]

Here's my two kopecks:

To be entirely fair, Luneburg and Aquilea should be Slavic too

 

[unmerged(619282)]

To be entirely fair, Luneburg and Aquilea should be Slavic too

much better map,and a note,Dobruja(dobrogea) and Karvuna,should be greek or vlach.There was never a bulgarian majority there,altough some bulgarian ultranationalists say there were.Anyway good job