'Veaceslav' I think they meant Venceslau the Romanian form of the ultimately Czech name Wenceslaus* (well the Bohemian Patron saint).
(*= Václav)
(*= Václav)
Vlach/Romanian rulers in CK3 still suffer many of the historical inaccuracies from CK2
- Thread starter LeanLeaf
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I see, indeed Venceslau seems to be the Romanian translation for Václav. But I don't think that makes it a Romanian name in itself, I looked online and couldn't find any Romanian ruler, noble or peasant named Venceslau.
- 2
Wikipedia isn't a credible source. You'll have to find academic material. You're not going to find the correct answer by your typing it into google. Use whatever online uni library you can access and find books and papers there. Jstor is usually open to unis.Well, the information I took was from Wikipedia:
Category:Romanian nobility - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Category:Romanian noble families - Wikipedia
Category:Romanian families - Wikipedia
- 2
- 1
While I agree with you that Wikipedia isn't a credible source, I consider Wikipedia already a step up from names that are clearly not Romanian.
One doesn't need Wikipedia to know that Janos is clearly not a Romanian name.
From scholar.google.com
CEEOL - Article Detail
CEEOL - Article Detail
A Concise History of Romania
Spanning a period of 2000 years from the Roman conquest of Dacia to the present day, A Concise History of Romania traces the development of a unique nation situated on the border between East and West. In this illuminating new history, Keith Hitchins explores Romania's struggle to find its place...
books.google.ro
There's also this youtube channel that touches Romanian history:
This is the full playlist for the medieval period (plenty of rulers and noblemen, therefore their names, are mentioned):
- 4
- 2
- 1
What? It's not like all cultures in the game use endonyms. Is it a horrible insult against northern Europeans that the Swedish culture is called the exonym "Swedish" instead of the endonym "Svensk"? Or "French" vs. "Français" etc. This is such a weird issue to have.Yea, voicing that line of thinking never went well for me here...da, hai noroc! I suspect the Balkans in CK3 aren't going to get nearly as much attention. So far, the content has been overwhelmingly western-European focus. The word choice for "vlach" kinda says it all...given that you know, the actual correct endonym "valah" would be so arcane and unrecognizable
I really dislike how some nationalist players act as if their particular nation/culture/whatever is poorly represented when it really gets about as much attention as most of the map. You just know more about your particular country so you notice it more.
- 11
- 6
- 1
I think a weirder issue to have is being ok with most of the Western European cultures being appropriately represented, with the correct flavor, and most of Eastern Europe being relegated to random and almost indistinguishable tribals.
And yea, people from all over the world tend to take offense when called the wrong thing. Call a Sweede a Norwegian in earnest, ask them what the problem is, and then come back with that "I don't see ethnicity, we're all the same" mess.
The issue is Eastern Europe is routinely misrepresented, while we get 15 versions of Catholicism.
Maybe try learning about cultures other than your own, before spouting off ethnocentric crap. No Romania has no place in CK3, that's ridiculous, but then...neither does the "Empire" of Carpathia (est. 20-freaking-15.....like holy crap)....that's no less of an Austro-Hungarian ethno-nationalist fever dream than the unification of Romania happening anytime before 1860-whatever it was.
How about you learn history before you call people nationalist. OP? Maybe. Don't lump me into that Greater Romania crowd. No, we don't need a Romanian kingdom in CK3, that's what the custom designer is. Yes, proper endomyns for most of the countries would be a good thing, I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.
Last edited:
- 11
- 2
Ok, so:
Romanian -> What the Romanians called themselves.
Vlach -> What the Romanians were called by others.
Valah -> What happens is you translate "Vlach" into Romanian.
At no point were the Romanians called "Valah". They were like "oh, other people call us "Vlach" so they translated that into "Valah".
Western Europe seems to be very appropriately represented, and I don't know about Sweden but since the developers are Swedish I assume they did a very good job in correctly representing Sweden in the game. But if 2 regions are not correctly represented, I think playing "who has it worse" is just dumb.
Crusader Kings 3 is about alt-history, because the momeny you press "play" you end up in an alt-history scenario. So if someone wants to conquer all the carpathian regions and create the Empire of Carpathia, go for it. I think it's a great thing to have more content for the alt-history scenarios. The only thing I would prefer is that in most games (not all, but most, not set in stone to offer player variety) the game takes a roughly historical path: Iberia is slowly reconquered, the Byzantine Empire is slowly conquered, Bulgaria is slowly conquered by the Byzantines, the crusades happen, Britain gets normanized, the Vlachs get to revolt and form kingdoms of their own, the Mongols invade and devastate everyone (in CK2 the Mongols would often fail and that's kind of a bummer, because I really wanted to face the Mongols when I got a strong kingdom; it's like having that huge final boss in the 1200s). Of course, player intervention can definetly change the course of history and this things may sometimes randomly not happen, which is great, because playing a game where everything always happens the same would be boring.
Crusader Kings 3 is rarely a game where you play historical, Crusader Kings 3 is a game where you go like "what if the 4th crusade didn't actually suck?" so you try to steer history in that direction.
Romanian -> What the Romanians called themselves.
Vlach -> What the Romanians were called by others.
Valah -> What happens is you translate "Vlach" into Romanian.
At no point were the Romanians called "Valah". They were like "oh, other people call us "Vlach" so they translated that into "Valah".
Western Europe seems to be very appropriately represented, and I don't know about Sweden but since the developers are Swedish I assume they did a very good job in correctly representing Sweden in the game. But if 2 regions are not correctly represented, I think playing "who has it worse" is just dumb.
Crusader Kings 3 is about alt-history, because the momeny you press "play" you end up in an alt-history scenario. So if someone wants to conquer all the carpathian regions and create the Empire of Carpathia, go for it. I think it's a great thing to have more content for the alt-history scenarios. The only thing I would prefer is that in most games (not all, but most, not set in stone to offer player variety) the game takes a roughly historical path: Iberia is slowly reconquered, the Byzantine Empire is slowly conquered, Bulgaria is slowly conquered by the Byzantines, the crusades happen, Britain gets normanized, the Vlachs get to revolt and form kingdoms of their own, the Mongols invade and devastate everyone (in CK2 the Mongols would often fail and that's kind of a bummer, because I really wanted to face the Mongols when I got a strong kingdom; it's like having that huge final boss in the 1200s). Of course, player intervention can definetly change the course of history and this things may sometimes randomly not happen, which is great, because playing a game where everything always happens the same would be boring.
Crusader Kings 3 is rarely a game where you play historical, Crusader Kings 3 is a game where you go like "what if the 4th crusade didn't actually suck?" so you try to steer history in that direction.
- 10
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
This an interesting discussion, thank you for the exhaustive list of suggestions and for providing sources! I admit that I know little about the subject so i appologise if this is a stupid question: regardless of whether or not it makes sense for the proposed formable kingdom of Romania to be called that from a historical point of view, does it make political sense? I would imagine that the Eastern Roman Empire wouldn't be too happy about another claimant to the inheritence of Rome, and that the Kingdom of Romania would be too reliant on the ERE to want to provoke them?
I'd happy for someone with a better understanding of the subject to correct me, and I do agree that a formable nation for the culture seems aproptiate. Many of the other romance-speaking nations derived their names from the name of their local Roman province (e.g. Spain, Italy, Aquitaine), maybe that's an option?
I'd happy for someone with a better understanding of the subject to correct me, and I do agree that a formable nation for the culture seems aproptiate. Many of the other romance-speaking nations derived their names from the name of their local Roman province (e.g. Spain, Italy, Aquitaine), maybe that's an option?
Thank you!
You are probably right that the Byzantine Empire wouldn't be to happy to have another nation called itself "of Rome", but if Romanians already manage to carve a kingdom as strong as that of their own (Wallachia + Transylvania + Moldavia) I would assume they would already be strong enough to give serious trouble to the Byzantine Empire so much like Charlemagne's Empire or the Holy Roman Empire, even if they didn't like it, there's not much you can do about it.
Or, you have the alternative situation where the Byzantines would actually like it and ask the Romanians to become part of the Empire, or a vassal kingdom to the Empire, since on occassion the Byzantines refered to them as "Romans". So unlike Charlemagne or HRE they would be seen as really Roman not something that takes up the title for power and prestige.
It's hard to say how they would react to that if it really happened since it didn't, I guess it would depend a lot on the beliefs of Emperor the Byzantine Empire currently has at the moment.
Taking the name of the province would be a good alternative and that provice would be Dacia. The region north of the Danube used to be referred to as Dacia even long after the Dacians stopped existing.
However, there is some caveat to that. Unlike Italy or Aquitaine, a kingdom called "Dacia" did in fact exist previously, they were the ancestors of the Romanians as well just like the Romans, but the Romanians never considered themselves pure Dacians, in fact they considered themselves more Roman than Dacians. They called themselves "Romans" in their own language so that one is pretty self-evident. Which is why I have a hard time seeing how they would name their kingdom "Dacia" over "Romania" geographical concerns aside.
But in order to avoid confusion and if it comes at the risk of coming to blows with the Byzantines, I suppose "Dacia" would be more appropriate than "Romania".
Between 1310 and 1453, you had "Romania" (the Byzantine Empire) and "the Romanian land" (Wallachia / "Tara Romaneasca" ). Since the Romanians were called "Vlachs" by others but called themselves "Romans", and Wallachia was called Wallachia by others but the Romanians called her "the Romanian land".
However, it was too small and insubstantial for the Byzantines to really care and by 1310 the Byzantines had other problems so another principality calling themselves "the Romanian land" was the last of their concerns. However, I don't think this would be the case if a Kingdom of Romania would be formed with Wallachia + Transylvania + Moldavia and in an earlier period when the Byzantines were stronger.
But as I said, it's hard to predict what the Byzantines would do. Whether they would be hostile or accepting. They could be either like "these pretenders are taking up our name" or "the Romans in the north revolted and craved down a kingdom of their own, now they should become part of the proper Byzantine Empire (proper Romania) as a vassal state". But idle I don't think so.
If they would have named their kingdom "Dacia" I do think the Byzantines wouldn't be that concerned. But then again, considering that there was a previous kingdom called Dacia, the Romanians considered themselves descendents of the Dacians but also of the Romans and in fact more Roman than Dacians I have a hard time seeing how this would work out unless it was a compromise on the part of the Romanians out of avoiding war with the Byzantines if it came down to it.
Maybe that's literally what could be done about it.
You can have a decision "Form the Kingdom of Romania". And then the Byzantines have a scripted event about this with 4 options:
- Demand the Kingdom of Romania changes their name -> If they accept it would be changed in the Kingdom of Dacia, to avoid the conflict.
- Cherish that the Kingdom of Romania "of fellow Romans" became a thing and leave them alone
- Cherish that the Kingdom of Romania "of fellow Romans" became a thing and demand that they become a vassal kingdom to the Byzantine Empire since they were part of the Roman Empire and should again become part of the Roman Empire.
- Declare war outright with no chance or demanding of them changing their name.
The most likely I would argue would be 1 or 3. Having extra new land for the Byzantines would be cool, and them changing their name would lead to no loss of prestige without going to war. The option 2, leaving them alone, you have a former Roman colony that just revolted and became independent and you as a Roman are going to leave them alone? I don't think so. And option 4 is the worst of all of these, since you have a chance to convert them by diplomatic means with 3 so no war and bloodshed or make them change their name with 1 so no loss of prestige again without war.
Would be an interesting decision event.
You are probably right that the Byzantine Empire wouldn't be to happy to have another nation called itself "of Rome", but if Romanians already manage to carve a kingdom as strong as that of their own (Wallachia + Transylvania + Moldavia) I would assume they would already be strong enough to give serious trouble to the Byzantine Empire so much like Charlemagne's Empire or the Holy Roman Empire, even if they didn't like it, there's not much you can do about it.
Or, you have the alternative situation where the Byzantines would actually like it and ask the Romanians to become part of the Empire, or a vassal kingdom to the Empire, since on occassion the Byzantines refered to them as "Romans". So unlike Charlemagne or HRE they would be seen as really Roman not something that takes up the title for power and prestige.
It's hard to say how they would react to that if it really happened since it didn't, I guess it would depend a lot on the beliefs of Emperor the Byzantine Empire currently has at the moment.
Taking the name of the province would be a good alternative and that provice would be Dacia. The region north of the Danube used to be referred to as Dacia even long after the Dacians stopped existing.
However, there is some caveat to that. Unlike Italy or Aquitaine, a kingdom called "Dacia" did in fact exist previously, they were the ancestors of the Romanians as well just like the Romans, but the Romanians never considered themselves pure Dacians, in fact they considered themselves more Roman than Dacians. They called themselves "Romans" in their own language so that one is pretty self-evident. Which is why I have a hard time seeing how they would name their kingdom "Dacia" over "Romania" geographical concerns aside.
But in order to avoid confusion and if it comes at the risk of coming to blows with the Byzantines, I suppose "Dacia" would be more appropriate than "Romania".
Between 1310 and 1453, you had "Romania" (the Byzantine Empire) and "the Romanian land" (Wallachia / "Tara Romaneasca" ). Since the Romanians were called "Vlachs" by others but called themselves "Romans", and Wallachia was called Wallachia by others but the Romanians called her "the Romanian land".
However, it was too small and insubstantial for the Byzantines to really care and by 1310 the Byzantines had other problems so another principality calling themselves "the Romanian land" was the last of their concerns. However, I don't think this would be the case if a Kingdom of Romania would be formed with Wallachia + Transylvania + Moldavia and in an earlier period when the Byzantines were stronger.
But as I said, it's hard to predict what the Byzantines would do. Whether they would be hostile or accepting. They could be either like "these pretenders are taking up our name" or "the Romans in the north revolted and craved down a kingdom of their own, now they should become part of the proper Byzantine Empire (proper Romania) as a vassal state". But idle I don't think so.
If they would have named their kingdom "Dacia" I do think the Byzantines wouldn't be that concerned. But then again, considering that there was a previous kingdom called Dacia, the Romanians considered themselves descendents of the Dacians but also of the Romans and in fact more Roman than Dacians I have a hard time seeing how this would work out unless it was a compromise on the part of the Romanians out of avoiding war with the Byzantines if it came down to it.
Maybe that's literally what could be done about it.
You can have a decision "Form the Kingdom of Romania". And then the Byzantines have a scripted event about this with 4 options:
- Demand the Kingdom of Romania changes their name -> If they accept it would be changed in the Kingdom of Dacia, to avoid the conflict.
- Cherish that the Kingdom of Romania "of fellow Romans" became a thing and leave them alone
- Cherish that the Kingdom of Romania "of fellow Romans" became a thing and demand that they become a vassal kingdom to the Byzantine Empire since they were part of the Roman Empire and should again become part of the Roman Empire.
- Declare war outright with no chance or demanding of them changing their name.
The most likely I would argue would be 1 or 3. Having extra new land for the Byzantines would be cool, and them changing their name would lead to no loss of prestige without going to war. The option 2, leaving them alone, you have a former Roman colony that just revolted and became independent and you as a Roman are going to leave them alone? I don't think so. And option 4 is the worst of all of these, since you have a chance to convert them by diplomatic means with 3 so no war and bloodshed or make them change their name with 1 so no loss of prestige again without war.
Would be an interesting decision event.
- 4
- 1
"Swedish" and "French" are not exonyms as the term is generally understood. Both of those names have clear etymological relation to the respective peoples' endonyms in the same way that "anglais", "engels", "englisch", "inglés", etc. are all clearly related to "English".
Exonyms would be things like Welsh, Greek, Albanian, Georgian, etc, where the name bears no relationship to the people's own word for themselves or their country in their native language.
Some exonyms are perfectly acceptable (sometimes even supplanting any prior endonym in native-language usage); some others are very much not.
- 4
Speaking about Balkan Vlachs:
Well, most Byzantine sources(which are few to begin with on Vlachs specifically or actually correctly talking about them and not Albanians/Bulgarians) aren’t so kind to Vlachs, some are down right down savage towards them and saw them as inferior people (looking at you Kekaumenos).
Untrustworthy being a recurring trait applied to them by Byzantine writers.
That said almost all Byzantine authors were Xenophobic to Non Romans, just not equally and how much depending on who was writing.
They were never recognized or Considered fellow Romans by the Government( unlike the early Dalmatians or Melkites).
Byzantine Authors likewise felt no camaraderie or connection to them.
I couldn’t find any Byzantine sources that said the Vlachs called themselves Roman.
However a few writers do have thoughts about their origins:
• Kekaumenos (Strategikon of Kekaumenos), an aristocrat in the 11th century is the first Byzantine source on medieval Vlachs and other than the standard talking about their semi nomadic and pastoralist ways, says they’re Dacians who migrated to Greece, but puts their homeland in the Western Balkans.
• John Kinnamos, historian and secretary to Manuel Komnenos, writes in 1167 about Vlachs in a Byzantine army going to that were recruited from the southern banks of the Danube in Bulgaria. He notes their Latin based language and Speculates these Vlachs originated from Italy.
•John Apokaukos, Bishop of Naupaktos, writing in 1221, mentions a man named Avirolines(Aurelian) Constantinos that he calls a colonist of the Romans, who were now called Vlachs in his age.(debated wether this was a true Vlach or Dalmatian)
The Byzantines never had a consensus on where the Vlach people came from. The use of the term Vlach and variants of it were universal outside classical terms like Dacians or Mysians. None of them were applied exclusively to the Vlach people though, tribes of Albanians and Aromanians were especially confused later on.
All Aromanians/Romanians/Megleno-Romanians etc were Vlachs but not all Vlachs were “East Latins” as Op calls it.
Given all that, I don’t think the Byzantines(Romania) would allow a state that called itself Romania on its borders unless said state recognized the Suzerainty of the Emperor of the Romans and then had the culture to back it up. In no world would the Byzantines try to conquer them though.
I also however don’t think a Romanian state would be diplomatically suicidal enough to call itself Romania internationally unless it planned on conquering Byzantium and contesting the HRE.
Also reminder that while other states claimed to be The Roman Empire, none of them claimed to be the land of the Romans or ethically identified as Romans. Both Bulgaria and Serbia only added Romans to the list of people they ruled.
The Latin Emperors precisely and shrewdly got away with their title uncontested by the HRE cause they primarily labeled themselves as Emperors of Romania, a spot reserved for the ERE.
Well, most Byzantine sources(which are few to begin with on Vlachs specifically or actually correctly talking about them and not Albanians/Bulgarians) aren’t so kind to Vlachs, some are down right down savage towards them and saw them as inferior people (looking at you Kekaumenos).
Untrustworthy being a recurring trait applied to them by Byzantine writers.
That said almost all Byzantine authors were Xenophobic to Non Romans, just not equally and how much depending on who was writing.
They were never recognized or Considered fellow Romans by the Government( unlike the early Dalmatians or Melkites).
Byzantine Authors likewise felt no camaraderie or connection to them.
I couldn’t find any Byzantine sources that said the Vlachs called themselves Roman.
However a few writers do have thoughts about their origins:
• Kekaumenos (Strategikon of Kekaumenos), an aristocrat in the 11th century is the first Byzantine source on medieval Vlachs and other than the standard talking about their semi nomadic and pastoralist ways, says they’re Dacians who migrated to Greece, but puts their homeland in the Western Balkans.
• John Kinnamos, historian and secretary to Manuel Komnenos, writes in 1167 about Vlachs in a Byzantine army going to that were recruited from the southern banks of the Danube in Bulgaria. He notes their Latin based language and Speculates these Vlachs originated from Italy.
•John Apokaukos, Bishop of Naupaktos, writing in 1221, mentions a man named Avirolines(Aurelian) Constantinos that he calls a colonist of the Romans, who were now called Vlachs in his age.(debated wether this was a true Vlach or Dalmatian)
The Byzantines never had a consensus on where the Vlach people came from. The use of the term Vlach and variants of it were universal outside classical terms like Dacians or Mysians. None of them were applied exclusively to the Vlach people though, tribes of Albanians and Aromanians were especially confused later on.
All Aromanians/Romanians/Megleno-Romanians etc were Vlachs but not all Vlachs were “East Latins” as Op calls it.
Given all that, I don’t think the Byzantines(Romania) would allow a state that called itself Romania on its borders unless said state recognized the Suzerainty of the Emperor of the Romans and then had the culture to back it up. In no world would the Byzantines try to conquer them though.
I also however don’t think a Romanian state would be diplomatically suicidal enough to call itself Romania internationally unless it planned on conquering Byzantium and contesting the HRE.
Also reminder that while other states claimed to be The Roman Empire, none of them claimed to be the land of the Romans or ethically identified as Romans. Both Bulgaria and Serbia only added Romans to the list of people they ruled.
The Latin Emperors precisely and shrewdly got away with their title uncontested by the HRE cause they primarily labeled themselves as Emperors of Romania, a spot reserved for the ERE.
- 5
- 2
- 1
I wonder if Constantine VII has anything to say related to this topic in De Administrando Imperio. It's on my to-buy list so I haven't read it, but I know that he discusses neighboring nations and their histories. The Eastern Roman Empire was quite reduced in his time, so I personally doubt it.
I have it, he speaks about all the Slavic Tribes and states around and in the empire up to Great Moravia, The Magyars, the Rus, Pechenegs , Lombards, Armenians, Frankish Kingdom of Italy and some brief histories like the Rise of Islam and previous campaigns.
He also speaks about the Latin Dalmatians who he says call themselves Romani, settled there from Rome itself by Diocletian. Then goes through the history of the province of Dalmatia, saying the Romani use to inhabit the entire region and how they fled to the coast after the Slavic-Avar invasion and Razing of Salona, now only primarily inhabiting 8 major coastal Cities of his day that he lists off, all owing loyalty to the Emperor.
Notably missing from this book is any mention of Albanians or Vlachs.
Bulgaria is only mentioned in passing in chapters on other peoples and never focused on, only describing its borders in relation to other states and how Pechenegs can be used against it etc.
All the Muslim states are never focused on either and again only mentioned in passing.
What does that tell us? I think it’s clear Constantine only covered areas of peoples that were under or allied/could be allied to the Empire. Thus Bulgaria and the Muslim states have no chapters on them as the Romans will never ally with them.
This lack of covering of Bulgaria Explains imo why the Vlachs and Albanians are not mentioned at all: Bulgaria controlled all the territory they inhabited.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
Thank you for the splendid and intelligible write-up, I (and hopefully others) greatly appreciate it and am even more eager to purchase the book now.
If I may, I don't know a lot about Vlachs and all, but this, I know a bit as it was my topic in university. Romania doesn't have anything to do with Romania (country) or a ploy to trick the HRE, it is just the way to talk to about the byzantine empire (and the region) in most latin documents even before 1204, and the terms appears right away (Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae in 1204) not to please or displease the HRE.
Also, in English Romania is really confusing, but in French we use two different words to distinguish Romania the country (Roumanie) and Romania "the Byzantine" (Romanie). This term (Romanie) is used in all publications by French Byzantologues or Eastern Mediterranean historians, and when I worked on (Venetian colonies) Coron and Modon, my bible was Thiriet's Book "La Romanie vénitienne" from the 50s.
- 1
I think you might be confused. I didn’t Say Romania was created by the Latin Empire, I’m saying the fact that the Latin Empire was the Empire of Romania.
The Use of Romania itself indisputably goes all the way back to the mid 4th century at the latest , used by Greek and Latin Roman authors to refer to the lands and borders of the Roman Empire.
And yeah Romania isn’t used in English to refer to the Byzantine Empire outside more modern, Kaldellis influenced books, hence no need for 2 terms and the confusion.
@Meka66 Apologies for bothering you again, you said you are the guy in charge of the Balkans (good luck with that!) and the Vlachs could use some improvements. @Byzantium2000 came with a suggestion in another topic about another East Latin group - the Aromanians.
The short version is:
- Making the province of Thessaliotis and Metzovo Aromanian in 1066.
- Add Aromanian Beriboos, as the count of Thessaliotis in 1066.
- Make Greek Delphinas count of Thessaly in 1066.
forum.paradoxplaza.com
The Aromanians are already in the game as a Vlach-Byzantine hybrid (accurate) but don't start with any regions or rulers of their own.
Regarding the naming of the heritage & culture (this is my suggestion, not Byzantium2000's):
I previously suggested making Vlachs of East Latin heritage and Vlach culture. Which would be more descriptive than the "Vlach" heritage "Vlach" culture. While the mentions that Vlachs are a hybrid of "Hybrid Roman/unknown slavic in 600" and call their language "Dacian Vulgar" points out to their heritage (no pun intended) as a mix between the Romans, Dacians and Slavs. Or what became of the colonists from the Roman Empire after 106 AD.
With the Aromanians also added, this could go 2 ways:
Heritage: East Latin ; Culture: Romanian & Aromanian
The moment "Aromanians" are introduced, we can no longer use Vlach for Romanians as the Aromanians were also called Vlachs. They were and are a separate culture from Romanians and having Vlachs & Aromanians in the game is like having Chinese & Hui cultures. The Hui are also Chinese, but they are not Han Chinese. So there's a bit of inconsistency in the classification.
Heritage: Vlach ; Culture: Romanian & Aromanian
This one has pros and cons. The pros are that both Romanians & Aromanians were called Vlachs, so it makes sense within that context. The cons are that Vlach is not as descriptive as East Latin and that "Vlach" wasn't their heritage but their exonym. The Vlachs weren't the cultural ancestors/heritage of the Romanians/Aromanians, they were the Vlachs. It's not their origin but what they are currently called by other people.
The origin section for Aromanian could be: Hybrid Romanian/Greek in 800.
"It is not known exactly when the Vlachs who were the ancestors of present-day Aromanians broke off from the general body of Vlach people; historians point to a period between the 5th and 9th centuries."
Given that the Romanians are listed in the game as Hybrid Roman/unknown in 600, I believe the year 800 is a conservative estimate for the Aromanians, but feel free to use whatever you see fit as I don't think there's a consensus.
More about the Aromanians (they actually had a kingdom before the Romanians):
en.wikipedia.org
Great Wallachia - Made by Aromanians.
Wallachia - Made by Romanians.
Moldavia - Made by Romanians.
It's like that meme with Wallachia being Daniel and Great Wallachia being the cooler Daniel.
The short version is:
- Making the province of Thessaliotis and Metzovo Aromanian in 1066.
- Add Aromanian Beriboos, as the count of Thessaliotis in 1066.
- Make Greek Delphinas count of Thessaly in 1066.
Completely New Cultures wishlist?
What are some cultures you guys on the forum would like to see that ARE NOT missing from CK2 and thus new to CK? Little rule to keep the topic fresh and more interesting. Personally given my own zone of knowledge, I would like to see ● West...
The Aromanians are already in the game as a Vlach-Byzantine hybrid (accurate) but don't start with any regions or rulers of their own.
Regarding the naming of the heritage & culture (this is my suggestion, not Byzantium2000's):
I previously suggested making Vlachs of East Latin heritage and Vlach culture. Which would be more descriptive than the "Vlach" heritage "Vlach" culture. While the mentions that Vlachs are a hybrid of "Hybrid Roman/unknown slavic in 600" and call their language "Dacian Vulgar" points out to their heritage (no pun intended) as a mix between the Romans, Dacians and Slavs. Or what became of the colonists from the Roman Empire after 106 AD.
With the Aromanians also added, this could go 2 ways:
Heritage: East Latin ; Culture: Romanian & Aromanian
The moment "Aromanians" are introduced, we can no longer use Vlach for Romanians as the Aromanians were also called Vlachs. They were and are a separate culture from Romanians and having Vlachs & Aromanians in the game is like having Chinese & Hui cultures. The Hui are also Chinese, but they are not Han Chinese. So there's a bit of inconsistency in the classification.
Heritage: Vlach ; Culture: Romanian & Aromanian
This one has pros and cons. The pros are that both Romanians & Aromanians were called Vlachs, so it makes sense within that context. The cons are that Vlach is not as descriptive as East Latin and that "Vlach" wasn't their heritage but their exonym. The Vlachs weren't the cultural ancestors/heritage of the Romanians/Aromanians, they were the Vlachs. It's not their origin but what they are currently called by other people.
The origin section for Aromanian could be: Hybrid Romanian/Greek in 800.
"It is not known exactly when the Vlachs who were the ancestors of present-day Aromanians broke off from the general body of Vlach people; historians point to a period between the 5th and 9th centuries."
Given that the Romanians are listed in the game as Hybrid Roman/unknown in 600, I believe the year 800 is a conservative estimate for the Aromanians, but feel free to use whatever you see fit as I don't think there's a consensus.
More about the Aromanians (they actually had a kingdom before the Romanians):
History of the Aromanians - Wikipedia
Great Wallachia - Made by Aromanians.
Wallachia - Made by Romanians.
Moldavia - Made by Romanians.
It's like that meme with Wallachia being Daniel and Great Wallachia being the cooler Daniel.
- 2
- 1
Why do I want to start playing as Beriboos in 1066 and become the Byzantine Emperor?
Sounds like the Romanians remained being Romanians but the Aromanians died out. Wikipedia says there's only 250,000 Aromanians left today. It seems the Aromanians were more significant at that time, nowdays they are a shadow of their former selves. Would love to play a scenario where that doesn't happen and they become an even stronger force in the Balkans. The football player Gheorghe Hagi is apparently Aromanian, but he lives in Romania.
This has the potential of a cool achievement "Better than Romania".
Starting out as an Aromanian count, become the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire.
This has double-meaning, because it's better than the Romanians aka "brothers north of danube" and the Byzantine Empire aka "Empire of Romania".
Sounds like the Romanians remained being Romanians but the Aromanians died out. Wikipedia says there's only 250,000 Aromanians left today. It seems the Aromanians were more significant at that time, nowdays they are a shadow of their former selves. Would love to play a scenario where that doesn't happen and they become an even stronger force in the Balkans. The football player Gheorghe Hagi is apparently Aromanian, but he lives in Romania.
This has the potential of a cool achievement "Better than Romania".
Starting out as an Aromanian count, become the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire.
This has double-meaning, because it's better than the Romanians aka "brothers north of danube" and the Byzantine Empire aka "Empire of Romania".
- 1
- 1
- 1
I would never claim to be the guy in charge of the Balkans, that sounds terrifying.
- 13
- 2
- 1
I think this map is the best from that other topic:
Shows the Vlachs all over modern Romania, as well as inside Bessarabia. Splinter groups east of Dniester and in Moravia. As well as the southern split between Romanians and Aromanians.
I think only Romanians and Aromanians should be added, the Istro-Romanians and Megleno-Romanians, while interesting different east latin cultures, are way too small in numbers. Today they have a small population, I know the Aromanians used to be far more numerous before being integrated by the Greeks and Turks, but at least I don't think the Istro-Romanians were ever that many.
I was looking online for more information on Aromanians and I can't help but feel sad for them:
farsharotu.org
farsharotu.org
www.scribd.com
3 out of 4 books written about them seem to be about the Aromanians being a "dying ethnicity" as the central point. It's sad. It reminds me about the natives in America.
I love the realisation that author made when he discovered his ancentry "My ancestors were Vlachs, but they were not Romanians".
Shows the Vlachs all over modern Romania, as well as inside Bessarabia. Splinter groups east of Dniester and in Moravia. As well as the southern split between Romanians and Aromanians.
I think only Romanians and Aromanians should be added, the Istro-Romanians and Megleno-Romanians, while interesting different east latin cultures, are way too small in numbers. Today they have a small population, I know the Aromanians used to be far more numerous before being integrated by the Greeks and Turks, but at least I don't think the Istro-Romanians were ever that many.
I was looking online for more information on Aromanians and I can't help but feel sad for them:
The Vanishing Aromanian - Aromanian Cultural Society Farsharotu
by Eugene Matzota Aromanians, A-Romanians, Romanians? This is a book that may be written unwittingly from a Romanian point of view, because the author was born in Romania. On the other hand, the author is coming from a family with 800 years of Aromanian history.
farsharotu.org
Born to Assimilate - Aromanian Cultural Society Farsharotu
by Nicholas Balamaci A collection of the author's articles, essays, academic writings, and editorials about the Vlachs over more than 25 years. The price listed is for a softcover edition. A searchable PDF version of the book can be found below, and can be downloaded here »
farsharotu.org
Aromanian Vlachs - The Vanishing Tribes | PDF
Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site.
I love the realisation that author made when he discovered his ancentry "My ancestors were Vlachs, but they were not Romanians".