Hello!
It's very interesting and exciting to play as your own culture in Paradox games, to play the historical events your people went through yourself, or maybe you want to achieve what they could not, or maybe you want to take their destinity in a completly different direction altogether, whichever of these, I think all or most of you have played through with your culture at least once.
I am Romanian or Vlach as it used to be called and is called in game and sadly I had a hard time playing with my own culture in CK2, as I found major issues which to me were simply immersion breaking, I'll list some of them below.
1. Incorect representation of culture regarding culture group (Vlachs appear as South Slavic) -> This was something I've seen a lot of Romanians complain about in CK2, but nothing was made about it. And when CK3 came out, the Romanian culture was still listed as South Slavic. I have seen a fair amount of users arguing that the Romanians are listed as Slavic for gameplay reasons, to make the Bulgarians and Kievans not attack them as often, and while I can understand the reasoning behind that, I'd still think that the Vlachs/Romanians would be much better off listed as a "East Latin" group, even if it's an East Latin group that only they are part of.
2. Incorrect representation of culture spread (Vlachs have no presence around Transylvania and Northern Moldavia as they should) -> In the case of Transylvania, we don't have the numbers for 876 or 1066, but the earliest estimation we have, made by American historian Jean W. Sedlar, argues that the Vlachs comprised about 66% of Transylvania's population in 1241 on the eve of the Mongol invasion. While in 1223, a royal charter of the Kingdom of Hungary, confirms a former grant of land from Vlach to the Catholic Church. On that land, the Monastery of Carta was built, which proves that the territory had been inhabited by Romanians before the monastery was founded in 1202. Similar royal charters exist for other locations such as Bihor, Maramures or Turda. So we have an estimation from a modern historian and a primary source about the presence of Romanians in Transylvania.
We cannot know the numbers from 876 or 1066, but a 66% Vlach population in a region with 4 main ethnic groups: Vlachs, Hungarians, Germans and Szekely; is an overwhelming majority. Unless something happened that dramatically shifted the ethnic composition of Transylvania between 876 - 1223, it's safe to assume the population remained more or less the same. The Hungarians arrived in Trasylvania between 876 - 1066, but since with the Hungarians' arrival the Vlachs still made 66% of the population by 1241, its stands to common sense that their number would have been even higher before the Hungarians arrived.
In the case of northern Moldavia, I'm not aware of it ever having a Slavic majority at any point. This period of time doesn't have many records in this part of the world, but as in the case of Transylvania, if we assume that nothing happened in the time periods we have no records of, there's no reason to believe that the Slavs were the majority at anytime. The Kingdom of Dacia included the Dniester river and beyond, they were conquered by Romans and assimilated into the Empire. The Roman administration eventually left but a significant Daco-Roman population remained there. They have been occupied by numerous migratory tribes: Goths, Gepids, Huns, Slavs, Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Mongols and Magyars again. For the most part they would be left alone as long as they paid tribute to their overlords, who were mainly militaristic and had little interest in farming.
When the Magyars took Moldavia from the Mongols, they wanted to create a buffer zone between them and the Mongols to avoid further Mongols aggression, as such they used the natives to create a vassal state named Moldavia in 1346 under the rule of Dragos. Eventually, another Vlach noble who came from Maramures, Transylvania, with his people, Bogdan I, who revolted against Dragos and the Hungarians earning independence. During this time, there is no mention of any notable Slavic population living in the northern regions of Moldova, while the Vlachs have been mentioned to live in the region. It's safe to say, that if we assume nothing happened in the time periods we have no records of, northern Moldavia's population makeup between 876 - 1346 shouldn't have changed significantly. Is it a strench? yes. But it is even more of a stretch to assume north Moldavia was mostly Slavic when we have no written sources informing us of such thing. In the mainly Vlach case, we make an estimation of 876 and 1066 based on what we know in 1346. In the mainly Slavic case, it's out of nowhere.
CK2 had even more issues, some of which were fixed in CK3:
- Incorrect Romanians/Wallachian names: a count in Calaras in 867 and 1066 was called "Szilágyi", that's a Hungarian name. And he isn't even in Transylvania, he is in Wallachia in Calaras. You could easily use one of the early Vlach noble families: Farcas, Barbat, Litovoi, Seneslau, Ioan.
- Incorect representation of religion (Vlachs appear Slavic Pagan).
- Too few provinces/ counties to make the zone interesting to play.
I'm happy that some improvements were made. But ultimately, the Romanians/Vlachs are still listed as "South Slavic" rather than something like "East Latin". The Romanians had Slavic influences, but nobody spoke of the Romanians as Slavs:
- Nicolaus Olahus wrote in his work Hungaria that "by tradition the Romanians are Roman colonists".
- Poggio Bracciolini, an Italian scholar was the first to write (around 1450) that the Romanians' ancestors had been Roman colonists settled in Dacia Traiana.
- In 1458, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini stated in his work De Europa (1458) that the Vlachs were a genus Italicum ("an Italian race") and were named after one Pomponius Flaccus, a commander sent against the Dacians. Piccolomini's version of the Vlachs' origin from Roman settlers in Dacia Traiana was repeated by many scholars—including the Italian Flavio Biondo and Pietro Ranzano, the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius and the Hungarian István Szántó — in the subsequent century.
- The late 13th-century Hungarian chronicler Simon of Kéza states that the Vlachs (Blackis) were shepherds and husbandmen who remained in Pannonia when the Hungarians arrived.
- The Hungarian humanist Szamoskozy wrote about the autochtonous origin of the Romanians: "the Roman colonists which inhabited the region, living through various wars and tribulations and dispersed by fate, they became the Romanian people."
- Nicolaus Olahus observed that: "The sermons of all the Romanians are from the Romans, as they are Roman colonists: by our work, of great effort, we see their language is mutually-intellgeble with Latin… According to the tradition, Romanians are colonists of the Romans. This is proved by the fact that they have much in common with the Romans’ language, people whose coins are abundant in these places; undoubtedly, these are significant testimonies of the oldness and Roman rule here."
As you can see, the Romanians were not regarded by others as "South Slavs" nor did they regard themselves as "South Slavs":
- Historiograph Johann Lebel attests in 1542 that "Common Romanians call themselves "Romuini"
- The Polish Humanist Stanislaus Orichovius notes as late as 1554 that "these left behind Dacians in their own language are called Romini, after the Romans, and Walachi in Polish, after the Italians"
- Another humanist, who took up residence in Transylvania, the Dalmatian Antonius Verantio, who later would become cardinal and viceroy of Habsburg Hungary, also states in 1570 that "the Wallachians call themselves Romans" and provides an example: "When they ask somebody whether they can speak Wallachian, they say: do you speak Roman? and [when they ask] whether one is Wallachian they say: are you Roman?"
- Jesuit Theology professor Martinus Szent-Ivany cites in 1699 Romanian expressions: "Sie noi sentem Rumeni" (modern standard Romanian "Și noi suntem români") and "Noi sentem di sange Rumena" (in modern standard Romanian "Noi suntem de sânge român"
- The geographer Anton Friedrich Busching writes in 1754 that "the Wallachians, who are remnant and progeny of the old Roman colonies thus call themselves Romanians, which means Romans".
- The Hungarian writer Andras Dugonics in 1801 states: "But those Romans who remained in Dacia mixed their Roman language with the language of the Sarmatians [of the Slavs] and that of the Dacians. Thus a special language was formed, the Wallachian language (oláh nyelv), which is nothing else but a mixture of the Latin language with the Slavic and Dacian language (dákus), and they themselves are today called the Romans (rómaiak), ie rumun".
- The English author John Paget, in 1839, in his book, "Hungary and Transylvania" writes: "the Wallack of the present day calls himself "Rumunyi" and retains a traditional pride of ancestry, in spite of his present degradation."
At no point the Romanians were considered "South Slavs", like they are labeled in the game. Not even by the slavs.
Of course, one of the most common arguments when this was mentioned in CK2 was: wouldn't Vlach people have more in common with their Slavic neighbors than Italians, French, Normans and other members of the Latin culture group?
In terms of language? No. Vlach language would be more similar to Italians, French, Normans. In terms of traditions? it's a mixed bag. The Romanians took some traditions from the Slavs, but at the same time had other traditions like Martisor (from the Romans) that the Slavs never had. Also, the Vlachs were known as mostly shepherds who would pay tribute to whoever was ruling them in exchange for being left alone. The 11th-century Persian writer, Gardizi, described them as "more numerous than the Hungarians, but weaker".
The Romanians did not have a warrior culture like the Magyars and Slavs had at that point. Were known mostly as Farmers and Shepherds.
I'm not angry, I'm not mad at anyone, I'm just sad and dissapointed because I had hopes that in CK3 I could finally enjoy playing my culture but many of the Vlach issues in CK2 remain unnadressed in CK3. The only thing that changed for the better is the province/counties (well done Devs, really well done on that part).
Some of you may ask why I don't make a suggestion post and provide arguments and make an actual case instead of ranting here but so many other Romanians have done and gave arguments so much better than me that I doubt me putting the effort to gather the sources needed will make a difference, so instead my question to you guys is another:
Do you enjoy playing as the Vlachs in CK3?
Do you find Vlachs interesting in game or would you rather play other zones, or even choose other cultures next to them like Hungarian, Bulgarian, Ruthenian due to more variety/immersion/uniqueness/more interesting scenarios? And the last question, do you think Vlachs are where they should be at the moment regarding the issues I mentioned or they need adressing?
A lot of culture have unique events and decisions. I made a suggestion for an alt-history event where you can form the Kingdom of Romania (since that's what they called themselves, were called Vlachs by others) if you manage to own Kingdom of Wallachia, Kingdom of Moldavia and Duchy of Transylvania, but I don't know if it will gain some traction:
forum.paradoxplaza.com
The area of Eastern Europe and especially the Balkans does tend to get a bit less attention than Western Europe does, which of course exacerbates the first issue, that Eastern Europe kind of got the shaft. I get the feeling they plan to improve it after release, but that's kind of a cold comfort, since CK2 was released in 2012 and from 2012 to 2023 they only partially fixed some of the issues about the Vlachs. I didn't check, but I think the French were correctly represented from 2012 or at least any major historical inaccuracy fixed by 2015.
About the gameplay aspect of not revolting against Slavic rulers I would actualy love them to revolt and appear on the map at least once, in my many games they never ever spawned and formed independent states as they did in real life, instead they get asimilated by Bulgarian or Pecheneg depending on the start date. Maybe having increased chance of revolt will result in them beign on the map (maybe, being part of an "East Latin" rather than "South Slavic" culture group will make them more likely to revolt against the Bulgarians). Also Ithink it will be healthy for the gameplay having more variety to chose from in the East, having the option to play the single latin culture surrounded by slavs, greeks, magyars will make for interesting scenarios, that is...if others players think the same hence why I asked.
Sorry for the wall of text, thanks for reading till the end those of you who did, have a great day all!
What I am asking for more historical accuracy is simply:
- Make the Vlach culture an "East Latin" culture group. (will be historically accurate and also make them more likely to revolt as they did historically)
- Make all of north Moldavia have Vlach culture (Duchy of Bukovina & Duchy of Moldavia).
- Make some part of Transylvania have Vlach culture (I see that CK3 already has a file for Transylvanian culture; Magyar and Vlach heritage; so either: Make Duchy of Transylvania and surrounding counties Transylvanian culture like EU4, or do something with the Vlach culture, Magyar culture and Saxon culture similar to this: https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/753516/1634586519271.png; With Saxons in the south after they are invited, Hungarians in Szekelyland, and Romanians in the Western parts of Transylvania + Banat)
This was Transylvania in the 1910 census: https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/thumbnail/public/753514/1634586312325.png
And this was Hungary in the 1784 statistics: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1cb57d7950539e4dbfe17dca2ac88285-pjlq
We cannot fully know how the population was looking in 867 and 1066, but based on what we know so far, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that anything changed)
- Having something like this formable even if alt-history would be cool and give you something to do as the Vlachs, since they didn't get independence until 1330 and 1346, while the closest thing to a map like that happened in 1600: https://preview.redd.it/etvblfa83nn...ed&s=5e6404c39fe0a2b77c53fe16f9433b7743cfb8a5
I wish I'd be able to do something like this without mods or a superhuman effort. Since I have slavic revolts in areas that historically were populated by Romanians.
It's very interesting and exciting to play as your own culture in Paradox games, to play the historical events your people went through yourself, or maybe you want to achieve what they could not, or maybe you want to take their destinity in a completly different direction altogether, whichever of these, I think all or most of you have played through with your culture at least once.
I am Romanian or Vlach as it used to be called and is called in game and sadly I had a hard time playing with my own culture in CK2, as I found major issues which to me were simply immersion breaking, I'll list some of them below.
1. Incorect representation of culture regarding culture group (Vlachs appear as South Slavic) -> This was something I've seen a lot of Romanians complain about in CK2, but nothing was made about it. And when CK3 came out, the Romanian culture was still listed as South Slavic. I have seen a fair amount of users arguing that the Romanians are listed as Slavic for gameplay reasons, to make the Bulgarians and Kievans not attack them as often, and while I can understand the reasoning behind that, I'd still think that the Vlachs/Romanians would be much better off listed as a "East Latin" group, even if it's an East Latin group that only they are part of.
2. Incorrect representation of culture spread (Vlachs have no presence around Transylvania and Northern Moldavia as they should) -> In the case of Transylvania, we don't have the numbers for 876 or 1066, but the earliest estimation we have, made by American historian Jean W. Sedlar, argues that the Vlachs comprised about 66% of Transylvania's population in 1241 on the eve of the Mongol invasion. While in 1223, a royal charter of the Kingdom of Hungary, confirms a former grant of land from Vlach to the Catholic Church. On that land, the Monastery of Carta was built, which proves that the territory had been inhabited by Romanians before the monastery was founded in 1202. Similar royal charters exist for other locations such as Bihor, Maramures or Turda. So we have an estimation from a modern historian and a primary source about the presence of Romanians in Transylvania.
We cannot know the numbers from 876 or 1066, but a 66% Vlach population in a region with 4 main ethnic groups: Vlachs, Hungarians, Germans and Szekely; is an overwhelming majority. Unless something happened that dramatically shifted the ethnic composition of Transylvania between 876 - 1223, it's safe to assume the population remained more or less the same. The Hungarians arrived in Trasylvania between 876 - 1066, but since with the Hungarians' arrival the Vlachs still made 66% of the population by 1241, its stands to common sense that their number would have been even higher before the Hungarians arrived.
In the case of northern Moldavia, I'm not aware of it ever having a Slavic majority at any point. This period of time doesn't have many records in this part of the world, but as in the case of Transylvania, if we assume that nothing happened in the time periods we have no records of, there's no reason to believe that the Slavs were the majority at anytime. The Kingdom of Dacia included the Dniester river and beyond, they were conquered by Romans and assimilated into the Empire. The Roman administration eventually left but a significant Daco-Roman population remained there. They have been occupied by numerous migratory tribes: Goths, Gepids, Huns, Slavs, Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Mongols and Magyars again. For the most part they would be left alone as long as they paid tribute to their overlords, who were mainly militaristic and had little interest in farming.
When the Magyars took Moldavia from the Mongols, they wanted to create a buffer zone between them and the Mongols to avoid further Mongols aggression, as such they used the natives to create a vassal state named Moldavia in 1346 under the rule of Dragos. Eventually, another Vlach noble who came from Maramures, Transylvania, with his people, Bogdan I, who revolted against Dragos and the Hungarians earning independence. During this time, there is no mention of any notable Slavic population living in the northern regions of Moldova, while the Vlachs have been mentioned to live in the region. It's safe to say, that if we assume nothing happened in the time periods we have no records of, northern Moldavia's population makeup between 876 - 1346 shouldn't have changed significantly. Is it a strench? yes. But it is even more of a stretch to assume north Moldavia was mostly Slavic when we have no written sources informing us of such thing. In the mainly Vlach case, we make an estimation of 876 and 1066 based on what we know in 1346. In the mainly Slavic case, it's out of nowhere.
CK2 had even more issues, some of which were fixed in CK3:
- Incorrect Romanians/Wallachian names: a count in Calaras in 867 and 1066 was called "Szilágyi", that's a Hungarian name. And he isn't even in Transylvania, he is in Wallachia in Calaras. You could easily use one of the early Vlach noble families: Farcas, Barbat, Litovoi, Seneslau, Ioan.
- Incorect representation of religion (Vlachs appear Slavic Pagan).
- Too few provinces/ counties to make the zone interesting to play.
I'm happy that some improvements were made. But ultimately, the Romanians/Vlachs are still listed as "South Slavic" rather than something like "East Latin". The Romanians had Slavic influences, but nobody spoke of the Romanians as Slavs:
- Nicolaus Olahus wrote in his work Hungaria that "by tradition the Romanians are Roman colonists".
- Poggio Bracciolini, an Italian scholar was the first to write (around 1450) that the Romanians' ancestors had been Roman colonists settled in Dacia Traiana.
- In 1458, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini stated in his work De Europa (1458) that the Vlachs were a genus Italicum ("an Italian race") and were named after one Pomponius Flaccus, a commander sent against the Dacians. Piccolomini's version of the Vlachs' origin from Roman settlers in Dacia Traiana was repeated by many scholars—including the Italian Flavio Biondo and Pietro Ranzano, the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius and the Hungarian István Szántó — in the subsequent century.
- The late 13th-century Hungarian chronicler Simon of Kéza states that the Vlachs (Blackis) were shepherds and husbandmen who remained in Pannonia when the Hungarians arrived.
- The Hungarian humanist Szamoskozy wrote about the autochtonous origin of the Romanians: "the Roman colonists which inhabited the region, living through various wars and tribulations and dispersed by fate, they became the Romanian people."
- Nicolaus Olahus observed that: "The sermons of all the Romanians are from the Romans, as they are Roman colonists: by our work, of great effort, we see their language is mutually-intellgeble with Latin… According to the tradition, Romanians are colonists of the Romans. This is proved by the fact that they have much in common with the Romans’ language, people whose coins are abundant in these places; undoubtedly, these are significant testimonies of the oldness and Roman rule here."
As you can see, the Romanians were not regarded by others as "South Slavs" nor did they regard themselves as "South Slavs":
- Historiograph Johann Lebel attests in 1542 that "Common Romanians call themselves "Romuini"
- The Polish Humanist Stanislaus Orichovius notes as late as 1554 that "these left behind Dacians in their own language are called Romini, after the Romans, and Walachi in Polish, after the Italians"
- Another humanist, who took up residence in Transylvania, the Dalmatian Antonius Verantio, who later would become cardinal and viceroy of Habsburg Hungary, also states in 1570 that "the Wallachians call themselves Romans" and provides an example: "When they ask somebody whether they can speak Wallachian, they say: do you speak Roman? and [when they ask] whether one is Wallachian they say: are you Roman?"
- Jesuit Theology professor Martinus Szent-Ivany cites in 1699 Romanian expressions: "Sie noi sentem Rumeni" (modern standard Romanian "Și noi suntem români") and "Noi sentem di sange Rumena" (in modern standard Romanian "Noi suntem de sânge român"
- The geographer Anton Friedrich Busching writes in 1754 that "the Wallachians, who are remnant and progeny of the old Roman colonies thus call themselves Romanians, which means Romans".
- The Hungarian writer Andras Dugonics in 1801 states: "But those Romans who remained in Dacia mixed their Roman language with the language of the Sarmatians [of the Slavs] and that of the Dacians. Thus a special language was formed, the Wallachian language (oláh nyelv), which is nothing else but a mixture of the Latin language with the Slavic and Dacian language (dákus), and they themselves are today called the Romans (rómaiak), ie rumun".
- The English author John Paget, in 1839, in his book, "Hungary and Transylvania" writes: "the Wallack of the present day calls himself "Rumunyi" and retains a traditional pride of ancestry, in spite of his present degradation."
At no point the Romanians were considered "South Slavs", like they are labeled in the game. Not even by the slavs.
Of course, one of the most common arguments when this was mentioned in CK2 was: wouldn't Vlach people have more in common with their Slavic neighbors than Italians, French, Normans and other members of the Latin culture group?
In terms of language? No. Vlach language would be more similar to Italians, French, Normans. In terms of traditions? it's a mixed bag. The Romanians took some traditions from the Slavs, but at the same time had other traditions like Martisor (from the Romans) that the Slavs never had. Also, the Vlachs were known as mostly shepherds who would pay tribute to whoever was ruling them in exchange for being left alone. The 11th-century Persian writer, Gardizi, described them as "more numerous than the Hungarians, but weaker".
The Romanians did not have a warrior culture like the Magyars and Slavs had at that point. Were known mostly as Farmers and Shepherds.
I'm not angry, I'm not mad at anyone, I'm just sad and dissapointed because I had hopes that in CK3 I could finally enjoy playing my culture but many of the Vlach issues in CK2 remain unnadressed in CK3. The only thing that changed for the better is the province/counties (well done Devs, really well done on that part).
Some of you may ask why I don't make a suggestion post and provide arguments and make an actual case instead of ranting here but so many other Romanians have done and gave arguments so much better than me that I doubt me putting the effort to gather the sources needed will make a difference, so instead my question to you guys is another:
Do you enjoy playing as the Vlachs in CK3?
Do you find Vlachs interesting in game or would you rather play other zones, or even choose other cultures next to them like Hungarian, Bulgarian, Ruthenian due to more variety/immersion/uniqueness/more interesting scenarios? And the last question, do you think Vlachs are where they should be at the moment regarding the issues I mentioned or they need adressing?
A lot of culture have unique events and decisions. I made a suggestion for an alt-history event where you can form the Kingdom of Romania (since that's what they called themselves, were called Vlachs by others) if you manage to own Kingdom of Wallachia, Kingdom of Moldavia and Duchy of Transylvania, but I don't know if it will gain some traction:
Is there a decision to form Romania in CK3 like in EU4 ?
I heard there are some culture-specific decisions in game. I played as a "Vlach" ruler but at no point saw any decision to form Romania. And yes I know that forming Romania in CK3 is alt-history but so is forming Romania in EU4 alt-history...
The area of Eastern Europe and especially the Balkans does tend to get a bit less attention than Western Europe does, which of course exacerbates the first issue, that Eastern Europe kind of got the shaft. I get the feeling they plan to improve it after release, but that's kind of a cold comfort, since CK2 was released in 2012 and from 2012 to 2023 they only partially fixed some of the issues about the Vlachs. I didn't check, but I think the French were correctly represented from 2012 or at least any major historical inaccuracy fixed by 2015.
About the gameplay aspect of not revolting against Slavic rulers I would actualy love them to revolt and appear on the map at least once, in my many games they never ever spawned and formed independent states as they did in real life, instead they get asimilated by Bulgarian or Pecheneg depending on the start date. Maybe having increased chance of revolt will result in them beign on the map (maybe, being part of an "East Latin" rather than "South Slavic" culture group will make them more likely to revolt against the Bulgarians). Also Ithink it will be healthy for the gameplay having more variety to chose from in the East, having the option to play the single latin culture surrounded by slavs, greeks, magyars will make for interesting scenarios, that is...if others players think the same hence why I asked.
Sorry for the wall of text, thanks for reading till the end those of you who did, have a great day all!
What I am asking for more historical accuracy is simply:
- Make the Vlach culture an "East Latin" culture group. (will be historically accurate and also make them more likely to revolt as they did historically)
- Make all of north Moldavia have Vlach culture (Duchy of Bukovina & Duchy of Moldavia).
- Make some part of Transylvania have Vlach culture (I see that CK3 already has a file for Transylvanian culture; Magyar and Vlach heritage; so either: Make Duchy of Transylvania and surrounding counties Transylvanian culture like EU4, or do something with the Vlach culture, Magyar culture and Saxon culture similar to this: https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/753516/1634586519271.png; With Saxons in the south after they are invited, Hungarians in Szekelyland, and Romanians in the Western parts of Transylvania + Banat)
This was Transylvania in the 1910 census: https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/thumbnail/public/753514/1634586312325.png
And this was Hungary in the 1784 statistics: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1cb57d7950539e4dbfe17dca2ac88285-pjlq
We cannot fully know how the population was looking in 867 and 1066, but based on what we know so far, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that anything changed)
- Having something like this formable even if alt-history would be cool and give you something to do as the Vlachs, since they didn't get independence until 1330 and 1346, while the closest thing to a map like that happened in 1600: https://preview.redd.it/etvblfa83nn...ed&s=5e6404c39fe0a2b77c53fe16f9433b7743cfb8a5
I wish I'd be able to do something like this without mods or a superhuman effort. Since I have slavic revolts in areas that historically were populated by Romanians.
Last edited:
- 16
- 7
- 5
- 2
- 2
