Dunno about the Aromanians, but there are many Indigenous Nations/Peoples in the Americas who are living in spite of genocide. Certainly not a “dying ethnicity” (or ethnicities, I should say)
- 1
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.
Hi all! I am a Russian from Moscow and I am very interested in the history of Moldavia and Wallachia, from the Bronze Age to the present day. I like Moldova, because historically and culturally it is very similar to my homeland - Muscovy, it is such a gloomy, militant Orthodox principality, which was surrounded by infidels and successfully rebuffed them (#1, #2, yes, they kicked Mehmed II's ass). I even see Moldavia as South Muscovy, or Muscovy as Northern Moldavia, whichever you prefer. The same Stefan the Great is equal to Ivan III, and Vlad Tepes is equal to Ivan IV.
After reading the post, I was very surprised that, in the head of the author of the topic there is an idea of Romanians as 100% Romans. This, of course, is not the case and causes only a smile, since the colonization of Dacia took less than two centuries and was interrupted by a full-scale evacuation by order of the emperor Aurelian due to the approaching German hordes. It is highly doubtful that the Roman component of the Moldavians and Vlachs is more than 20%
Based on historical sources and logical conclusions, I believe that the Vlachs and Moldavians are mixed Slavic-Thracians (60/40%). Very interesting and cool combination. The Slavs of antiquity and the Middle Ages are an extremely warlike and skillful super-ethnos that drove the Germans to the Rhine River and easily defeated the legions of the Romans (Byzantium), when the Germans were already considered an easy target for them. The Thracians are remarkable in that they are the oldest superethnos from the Bronze Age, they wrote poems before the Italics settled in Italy. I will even say more - it is likely that the Slavs originated from the northern Thracians, the Getae, since the first Slavs appear in the region of their residence! Also Spartacus was a Thracian.
In the subject of the post, I’ll say that the developers are really unfair to two peoples - Moldovans and Vlachs. In most games they are made Romanians, although this artificial people appears only by the will of the prince of the united Moldavia and Wallachia in the 1860s, Alexandru Ioan Cuza. It's as if there were no Swedish, Danish and Norwegian culture, and everyone would be Scandinavians. Romanians from the start of the game can only exist in Hearts of Iron 4, and before that they should be separate original southern Slavs - Vlachs and Moldavians. You can also make Transylvanians, but I'm not sure, because I haven't studied them in detail yet. The appearance of the Romanians can be made by Decision in Victoria 3 if you have united Wallachia and Moldavia into one power. This will be historically accurate, since there were no Romanians before the initiative of Alexander Cuza. They appeared by force, by the decision of government officials and a fundamental change in the language.
After reading the post, I was very surprised that, in the head of the author of the topic there is an idea of Romanians as 100% Romans. This, of course, is not the case and causes only a smile, since the colonization of Dacia took less than two centuries and was interrupted by a full-scale evacuation by order of the emperor Aurelian due to the approaching German hordes. It is highly doubtful that the Roman component of the Moldavians and Vlachs is more than 20%
Based on historical sources and logical conclusions, I believe that the Vlachs and Moldavians are mixed Slavic-Thracians (60/40%). Very interesting and cool combination. The Slavs of antiquity and the Middle Ages are an extremely warlike and skillful super-ethnos that drove the Germans to the Rhine River and easily defeated the legions of the Romans (Byzantium), when the Germans were already considered an easy target for them. The Thracians are remarkable in that they are the oldest superethnos from the Bronze Age, they wrote poems before the Italics settled in Italy. I will even say more - it is likely that the Slavs originated from the northern Thracians, the Getae, since the first Slavs appear in the region of their residence! Also Spartacus was a Thracian.
In the subject of the post, I’ll say that the developers are really unfair to two peoples - Moldovans and Vlachs. In most games they are made Romanians, although this artificial people appears only by the will of the prince of the united Moldavia and Wallachia in the 1860s, Alexandru Ioan Cuza. It's as if there were no Swedish, Danish and Norwegian culture, and everyone would be Scandinavians. Romanians from the start of the game can only exist in Hearts of Iron 4, and before that they should be separate original southern Slavs - Vlachs and Moldavians. You can also make Transylvanians, but I'm not sure, because I haven't studied them in detail yet. The appearance of the Romanians can be made by Decision in Victoria 3 if you have united Wallachia and Moldavia into one power. This will be historically accurate, since there were no Romanians before the initiative of Alexander Cuza. They appeared by force, by the decision of government officials and a fundamental change in the language.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
- 1
What's funny, Romania and Moldova are not Balkan powers. There is no name for this region, so I prefer the name from Victoria 3 - Danubia
The list of names and dynasties is really bad, full of non-Romanian names (Franjo) or very new ones (20th century). They dynasties are 80% Hungarian names. Of the ones that are actually Romanian most are from the 19th century. It was even worse in CK2, it annoyed me so much that I was actually motivated enough to create a personal mod with updated names. I remember I spent 2 weeks searching for information. I have the files saved on another computer but I can share them if somebody is interested. I did not bother to create a mod for CK3.
After doing that I actually spent even more time creating Dalmatian, Sardinian and Friulan cultures. In the end CK2 added Sardinian and Dalmation a couple for weeks after I made my one list. It was pretty hard to find information about them, I had to register to some specialized history journals. I still get notifications now when some papers about niche topics are published (like "Marriage in Venetian Crete in 15th century").
Of course this raises the questions, if this are so bad for a culture I know, then how accurate they are for more obscure cultures, like Beja?
After doing that I actually spent even more time creating Dalmatian, Sardinian and Friulan cultures. In the end CK2 added Sardinian and Dalmation a couple for weeks after I made my one list. It was pretty hard to find information about them, I had to register to some specialized history journals. I still get notifications now when some papers about niche topics are published (like "Marriage in Venetian Crete in 15th century").
Of course this raises the questions, if this are so bad for a culture I know, then how accurate they are for more obscure cultures, like Beja?
- 1
Absolutely agree. This is why I made a list of Vlach names:
Middle Ages Romanian Random Male Given Names:
Middle Ages Romanian Random Female Given Names:
Middle Ages Romanian Random Dynasty Names:
The same Middle Ages Romanian Random Dynasty Names list, but sorted in alphabetical order:
Middle Ages Romanian Random Cadet Branches Names:
The same Middle Ages Romanian Random Cadet Branches Names list, but sorted in alphabetical order:
In the Middle Ages / Early Modern Period they used the word "Dacia" to refer to Wallachia + Transylvania + Moldavia. Although "Dacia" was a geographical term in this case, it did not mean the Kingdom of Dacia that didn't exist since 106 AD.
Hello, yes, I can see the similarity.
No, I think that the Romanians were overwhelmingly considered Romans & overwhelmingly considered themselves Romans. Today's "Romanian" is merely "Roman" in a modified langauge. "Romanian" is still supposed to mean "Roman".
Actually, the Romans had a special interest in this region due to gold in the Carpathians. Gold was very important for the economy, so Dacia was very important to the Romans. There were so many immigrants in Dacia that at some point it reached a population of 500.000 people (a huge number for that time) 70% of which had a latin-based name (implying being Romans).
The Daco-Roman mix with Slavs is unquestionable. But the extent you are suggesting is highly exaggerated. The Romanian language is (I'm not going to look for the exact numbers saying this from memory) 60-70% Latin and 15-20% Slavic, it is very clear that the Daco-Romans had a very good relation with the Slavs as opposed to the other migratory tribes: Gepids, Avars, Huns, Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, etc. And they lived together and inter-breed.
This is a big discrepancy in my opinion. The Slavs of antiquity and the Middle Ages are an extremely warlike and skillful super-ethnos. The Daco-Romans were not warriors. They were rarely described, but when they were described, they were described as "shepherds and farmers" not "warriors". In fact, they were described as "more numerous than the Hungarians but weaker". So the Vlachs, at least before 1300s, were described as anything but a warrior nation.
It is an interesting POV but I don't think the slavs are the Dacians/Thracians since the Dacians/Thracians were not that numerous, they were just Romania + Bulgaria, while the Germans were so many. I have a hard time seeing how the Thracians conquered by the Romans and Dacians also later conquered by the Romans would become the cultural ancestors of all slavic people. Their cultures doesn't seem to match either.
Quite the opposite. There was no "Moldavian" identity until 1940s. Wallachians + Transylvanians + Moldavians were all "Romanians". All of them called themselves "Romanians" since the first time they were recorded (see the OP for more of this). The idea of Moldavians different from Vlachs & Romanians is merely a Stalinist propaganda from the 1940s to divide the conquered Bessarabia from the rest of Romania.
Alexander Ioan Cuza didn't invent the name "Romanian" in 1860s, they already called themselves "Romanians" but were called "Vlachs" by other people. Much like the Iranians always called themselves Iranians but were called Persians by other people. Or Germans - Alemani, take your pick.
[inappropriate comments moderated out]
Last edited by a moderator:
- 3
- 2
Moldova has existed at least since the time of Stephen the Great, I just didn’t dig deeper, for example, the seal of Stephen the Great mentioning him as the Lord of Moldavia. So Stalin has nothing to do with it.
My Moldavian friend suggests that the name of the Romanians among the Vlachs comes from the Turkish name for this region "Rum".
Harsh rural conditions associated either with mountains or with large deserts, steppes or plains are the best source for the most warlike peoples. The Arabs came out of the desert. The Macedonians descended from the foothill pastures. The Turks invaded from the steppes of Turkmenistan. The Mongols emerged from the steppes of Mongolia.
P.S. Studying the history of the rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia, I came across the fact that Moscow Prince Ivan III knew the history of Vlad the Impaler and Stephen the Great through his assistant, who wrote a whole book about them. So it is possible that Muscovy really consciously adopted a lot from Moldova and Wallachia
Last edited:
- 2
Can I ask what is the source of the names? I'm looking primarly at the first names lists and they are still not very historically accurate. They are at least fully Romanian names but a lot are very recent names. Names like Claudiu, Emil, Laurentiu (there was a Lawrence of Transylvania in the 13th century but he was Hungarian), Sergiu, Valentin, Victor, Adelina, Alina, Clara, Emilia, Felicia, Monica, Tereza are clearly modern names in Romanian, late 19th or 20th Century. For example Tereza became a name outside of Spain only after Saint Tereza of Avila (16th century).
It is very difficult to find a lot dynasty names for the period, so I know a lot are more modern ones, but for example Hasdeu could be removed as you already have Hâjdău, which is teh original.
