What about the Romanians?

[Alexandru H.]

Yes, I know the strategy of my Magyar friends.... and while I can't always agree with Romanian points of view, I do think that the problem wasn't successfully resolved...

I do know the 1.0 situation and it seemed quite appropriate...too bad "the decision was made and is final"

Repeat: If "the romanians" aren't in Transylvania in 1419, then where are they and why wasn't the culture of that mistery province they inhibited in 1419 changed into romanian?

 

[unmerged(5394)]

I know I'm going to be sorry, but...

Szordin's idea about Transylvania was quite good (romanian culture, magyar and possibly german state culture, orthodox religion, catholic state religion). There is something about which the developers did not think: if we accept the current situation (magyar culture), we don't have vlachs in Transylvania. Fine, but where are they? In Macedonia? Then give romanian culture to Macedonia ... Right now, Transylvania looks exactly like the default magyar province (which was not the case)

Retreating as well

PS.

They should have...They were moved from place to place by every neighbour, including magyars, serbs and bulgarians...

Somehow I knew this was going to be yet another thread we have seen over and over again about how Romanians inhabited the earth but than those evil "neighbours of theirs made them move from place to place" . Oh boy. o

Seriously, whether You guys like it or not, the fact remains that Transylvania WAS predominantly populated by Hungarians (including the Székelys) in the Middle Ages, and it was Catholic, thus yes it was exactly the kind of "default magyar province" as it is rightly portrayed in EU II. (It is beyond my comprehension why some of You totally neglect the evidence and simply miss out on hard facts such as: all the town centers are dominated by CATHOLIC and protestant churches there when (according to Your understanding) it was always overwhelmingly Romanian, thus orthodox, and how on earth did 1,5 million Hungarians (and this is the "official" Romanian census ) still manage to survive there up until today, although they were just a small fraction of the population throughout the centuries, who only managed to survive and keep the upper hand because they controlled both the politics and economy of Transylvania??? Well I got news for You, they don't "controll it" for almost a century now, and still manage to prosper there, kind of strange ain't it?)

There is however one thing that Paradox mixed up unfortunately, and that is that Transylvania was an integral part of Hungary, thus it should not have been independent to begin with in 1419. Transylvania became more or less independent well after the Ottomans occupied 1/3 of the Kingdom of Hungary, and that was around 1570s, and one more thing: Transylvania was indeed the legitimate successor of the Kingdom of Hungary in many respect (culture, arts, political ambitions, etc.), with the single most important objective (pursued by all the Princes and its political elite) to reunite the country.

Having said all that, I think this "discussion" should not belong here, I urge for reason, move it to the EEP or the History Forum, where I will gladly share my views on several things.

 

[unmerged(25822)]

About dobruca

hello to the forum!

Dobruca is just another case of province that it can not be simulated in the game .Thats becouse of its mixed population , romanians,slavs and gagauzi (sp) turks live there and maby "other" nations since it was a place wich steppes inviders used as a base to attack and refugees used to hide. Arguing about nations and areas is very balkanian and i love it.

 

[unmerged(18712)]

Greetings!

As for a Hungarian (oh yes, another pesky Hungarian who wants Magyar culture to Transylvania, you could say), I read many pages about Transylvania and what about what we learned in school too?
It says in the 15th century the Romanians were only 2% of Transylvania ,but becouse of the reoccupations of the Austrians and the Turks in the 17th century this rate was 60%(!). So Transylvania should have Magyar culture at all in 1419, 'couse Romanians were only a minority at that time.

 

[unmerged(6905)]

Greetings!

As for a Hungarian (oh yes, another pesky Hungarian who wants Magyar culture to Transylvania, you could say), I read many pages about Transylvania and what about what we learned in school too?
It says in the 15th century the Romanians were only 2% of Transylvania ,but becouse of the reoccupations of the Austrians and the Turks in the 17th century this rate was 60%(!). So Transylvania should have Magyar culture at all in 1419, 'couse Romanians were only a minority at that time.

My point of view is the same...

 

[Alexandre]

Seriously, whether You guys like it or not, the fact remains that Transylvania WAS predominantly populated by Hungarians (including the Székelys) in the Middle Ages, and it was Catholic,

Not according to the Catholic church officials who regularly sent Rome misives asking for money to convert the Orthodox majority throughout the period in question.

Of course, ethnicity played very differently in the Middle Ages so we aren't told what the ethnic, as opposed to religious, composition of the peasantry was. But, I do think that it's safe to assume that the vast majority of the Orthodox population was ethnically Romanian.

all the town centers are dominated by CATHOLIC and protestant churches there when (according to Your understanding) it was always overwhelmingly Romanian

Well, of course. Romanians weren't allowed to spend the night in the towns -- same situation that the Welsh found themselves vis a vis the English in Wales. Also, let's remember that there were very large, very powerful, Magyar and Saxon minorities that also need to be reflected in designing Transylvania in EU -- hence my preference for a Catholic Romanian province -- with the Catholicism representing the Hungarian nobles and Saxon merchants, and the Romanian culture representing the Romanian peasantry.

Do you have a better way of reflecting Transylvania's mixed population and march status? If you do, then I'm more than happy to hear it and discuss it.

how on earth did 1,5 million Hungarians (and this is the "official" Romanian census ) still manage to survive there up until today, although they were just a small fraction of the population throughout the centuries

Not a small fraction (we've all recognized that Transylvania should *not* be just another Romanian-populated province), but far from the plurality, let alone the majority. If the existance of a large Hungarian minority population after less than a century of Romanian rule is inexplicable, then how do *you* explain the existance of a Romanian *majority* after a millenium of Hungarian rule?

Transylvania was an integral part of Hungary, thus it should not have been independent to begin with in 1419

Not quite. It was a march, and jealously guarded it's autonomy throughout it's history. Of course, you are right that Paradox made a mistake in creating an independent Transylvania in 1419. After all, the English march of Wales is integrated into England. On the other hand, the situation with the French minors is even worse . . .

Transylvania was indeed the legitimate successor of the Kingdom of Hungary in many respect (culture, arts, political ambitions, etc.), with the single most important objective (pursued by all the Princes and its political elite) to reunite the country.

I don't think that has anything to do with creating a Transylvanian province that mirrors the fact that it was ethnically very complex, not monocromatic Magyar (or monocromatic Romanian.)

Alexandre

 

[Alexandre]

Greetings!

As for a Hungarian (oh yes, another pesky Hungarian who wants Magyar culture to Transylvania, you could say), I read many pages about Transylvania and what about what we learned in school too?

With all respect, I stongly urge you to read beyond the propogranda that you were taught at school. The books that you've read are distinctively at odds with everything that you could find in neutral Western scholarship. It just takes a little critical thinking to realize that the propoganda really doesn't make sense intellectually. For example:

It says in the 15th century the Romanians were only 2% of Transylvania ,but becouse of the reoccupations of the Austrians and the Turks in the 17th century this rate was 60%(!). So Transylvania should have Magyar culture at all in 1419, 'couse Romanians were only a minority at that time.

How could "only 2%" of the Transylvanian population provided enough population to colonize Moldavia and Wallachia? Why did the other 98% of the Transylvanian population rigorously refused to move into the rich plains of the latter two principalities? How could Moldavia and Wallachia throw off their vassalage to Hungary shortly after their foundation, given that they'd have started with such tiny populations (after all, they're drawing from a mere 2% of the population of one of Hungary's provinces)?

Then, read a bit about Wales as the English systematically tried to assimilate it into their state. There are a lot of analogies to Hungarian attempts to assimilate Transylvania into the Hungarian state, helping explain most of the rather silly arguments put forward to "prove" that Romanians weren't a significant percentage of Transylvania's population. (E.g., Attila's claim that the lack of Orthodox churches in cities is evidence, though, to be fair, I think that Attila was also taught a sanitized version of history that you were and honestly didn't know that Romanians were prohibited to spend the night within Transylvania's cities and towns.)

Alexandre

 

[unmerged(4848)]

Not according to the Catholic church officials who regularly sent Rome misives asking for money to convert the Orthodox majority throughout the period in question.

Of course, ethnicity played very differently in the Middle Ages so we aren't told what the ethnic, as opposed to religious, composition of the peasantry was. But, I do think that it's safe to assume that the vast majority of the Orthodox population was ethnically Romanian.

Do you have a better way of reflecting Transylvania's mixed population and march status? If you do, then I'm more than happy to hear it and discuss it.

I don't think that has anything to do with creating a Transylvanian province that mirrors the fact that it was ethnically very complex, not monocromatic Magyar (or monocromatic Romanian.)
Alexandre

To be honest I am very disappointed that after a long time the "culture in Transsylvania issue" has been raised again on the Forum. So far there has been a broad consensus among all important parties concerned inculding Paradox (of course a quite decisive factor ), the EEP and AGC fora that Transylvania is given Magyar culture.

Those who have read some of mos posts may know that I only use facts and historical source as a base for discussion, so no surprise that you won’t find comments, explanations etc at the end of this post.

Why the province of Transsylvania must have Hungarian culture. At the moment I have had only little time to present you more facts but some issues very closely related to culture are listed below. These facts are grouped into 3 categories:
- census
- printing press
- religion

Census

The Vatican census of 1505 estimated the total population of the Kingdom of Hungary to be about 4 million souls, of which 77% were Hungarians, and the rest Germans, Croatians, Slovaks, Serbians and Vlachs.

The 1658 Census taken by the Jesuit Fathers showed the total population of Transylvania as 860,000 souls, of which about 240,000 were Vlachs.
(to the attention of Alexandre! )

Printing press

The first book in the Hungarian language was printed in Transylvanian by a Hungarian printer in 1471.

In 1598 there were 44 printing establishments working in Transylvania, producing up to this date 380 books, of which 18 were in German, 6 in Latin, 4 in Vlach, and the rest in the Hungarian language.


Religion

In 1545 Gaspar Heltai published the complete Hungarian translation of the Bible in the city of Kolozsvár, which not only served as the Hungarian capital but also as the new cultural center. A few years later Tinodi Lantos Sebestyen published his famous "Chronicles in Verses."
(just to be absolutely correct: The four Gospels of the New Testament were translated into the Vlach language in 1561, and published at the expense of the Hungarian landowner Miklós Forró of Brassó, thereby marking the birth of the Vlach / Rumanian literature. Later, in 1582 the Hungarian nobleman Ferenc Geszthy financed the translation and publication of the OId Testament in the Vlach (Rumanian) language.)

The first Protestant (Calvinist) congregation was established in Nagyenyed. (in Rumanian: Aiud.) From here on Protestantism spread rapidly throughout Transylvania.

Just after the Diet of Torda declared the freedom of religion in 1561, the Hungarian reverend Ferenc Dávid established the Unitarian Church in Transylvania. (Even today, though the Unitarian religion is widely spread all over the world, the center of the Church is still in Transylvania, where the Unitarian Bishop resides as the successor of the founder of the church).

 

[unmerged(24862)]

do you have any idea where the capitals of the Bulgarian Khanate and Kingdoms were? would you let your capital's nearby region be dominated by a foreign tribe? HUH

According to Machiavelli it´s actually a very good idea, and the turks did it with great success.

 

[unmerged(5394)]

Not according to the Catholic church officials who regularly sent Rome misives asking for money to convert the Orthodox majority throughout the period in question.

Alexandre, please read Zsolo's previous post as far as the "majority" issue is concerned. I think the references he has indicated give a more or less good idea about the size and the proportion of the respective populations back than.

Of course, ethnicity played very differently in the Middle Ages so we aren't told what the ethnic, as opposed to religious, composition of the peasantry was. But, I do think that it's safe to assume that the vast majority of the Orthodox population was ethnically Romanian.

I very much agree with You on this, ethnicity didn't play a major role during the middle ages, whether one spoke Hungarian, Slovak or Romanian (although back than they were referred to as Vlachs) did not really matter as they all were subjects of the Hungarian King(dom).

Well, of course. Romanians weren't allowed to spend the night in the towns -- same situation that the Welsh found themselves vis a vis the English in Wales. Also, let's remember that there were very large, very powerful, Magyar and Saxon minorities that also need to be reflected in designing Transylvania in EU -- hence my preference for a Catholic Romanian province -- with the Catholicism representing the Hungarian nobles and Saxon merchants, and the Romanian culture representing the Romanian peasantry. Do you have a better way of reflecting Transylvania's mixed population and march status? If you do, then I'm more than happy to hear it and discuss it.

As far as I see it, the way Transylvania looks at current in EU II is already reflecting the historicly correct situation, thus it doesn't need to be changed at all. As Zsolo and I have indicated, written records (and there are plenty of them) are evidence enough to proove that Hungarians made up the bulk of the population until the XVIIIth century.

As far as I see it, the whole dynamic of the various ethnicities in that Region and especially that in the Balkans was a direct consequence of the Ottoman advancemet that began when they first crossed the Bosporus in the XIVth century. The advancing Ottomans pushed a huge proportion of the various ethnic groups northwards, thus Bulgarians, Serbs etc. started to migrate north completely changing the previous ethnic characteristics of the Balkans and also that of Central Europe. The south-eastern part of the Hungarian Kingdom for example (what is today Voivodina in Serbia and Banat in Romania) once a densly populated area (dominantly Magyar until the late XVIth century) was virtually left deserted by the end of the XVIIth century as a result of the constant warfare conducted by the Ottomans, Habsburgs and the Princes of Transylvania against each other. The region was along the border (a sort of a no man's land You could say) between the OE, Transylvania and the remainder of the Hungarian Kingdom for more than 150 years. When the Ottomans were finally repulsed in the late XVIIth century new ethnicities started to migrate in, thereby completely changing the previous ethnic characteristics. The influx of settlers (mainly Serbs, Germans but also Romanians and Slovaks) was greatly encouraged by the Habsburgs.

The situation was very similar in Transylvania in that the major influx of Romanians didn't start until the XVth century, with the advancement of the Ottomans reaching Wallachia and later the southern parts of Moldavia as well. Having said that, one also has to take into account (and I am not trying to deny it at all) that Romanians already started to migrate northwards into Transylvania beginning from the XIIIth century. There are quiet a few written records about Hungarian landlords/nobles inviting Romanian serfs/peasents to settle down in their domains to cultivate their lands, paying taxes, etc. This phenomen is explained by the simple fact that originally all Hungarians living in Transylvania were free subjects (not having to pay taxes), whose only duty was to guard the south-eastern borders of the Hungarian Kingdom (hence the name székely or seklers in English meaning settlers or guards in Hungarian). However, due to the decline of the central power during the XII-XIIIth century, the landlords/nobles suceeded to gain more and more land and controll over the region forcing free subjects into serfdom and parallely to this attracting foreigners with whom they did not have to bother constantly about previously enjoyed privilages and rights. This is how the Romanians first started to move into Transylvania in the XIIIth century, that is when the first written records of Romanians in Transylvania start to apear at all, although there have been quiet a few written documents between the X-XIIIth centuries as well. These records were written by Hungarians, thus it wouldn't seem logical that they deliberately forgot to mention them in the previous century. And let's not forget that nationalism as such didn't exist back then, thus there was little to no reason not to mention Romanians when the records mention Saxons, Italians, Arabs and Jews as well.

Anyway, this is my understanding of the situation, let the flames come.

Not a small fraction (we've all recognized that Transylvania should *not* be just another Romanian-populated province), but far from the plurality, let alone the majority. If the existance of a large Hungarian minority population after less than a century of Romanian rule is inexplicable, then how do *you* explain the existance of a Romanian *majority* after a millenium of Hungarian rule?

I sort of tried to give You the argument in my previous comment. Obviously one should not forget that there was a huge migration into Transylvania after the first and in particular the second world war. One should just compare the census taken in those periods and it will become pretty evident that it wasn't due to the impressively high birth rates why cities such a Cluj (Kolozsvár), Oradea (Nagyvárad) trippled their population, turning their population from dominantly Hungarian into Romanian in just a few decades.

Not quite. It was a march, and jealously guarded it's autonomy throughout it's history. Of course, you are right that Paradox made a mistake in creating an independent Transylvania in 1419. After all, the English march of Wales is integrated into England. On the other hand, the situation with the French minors is even worse . . .

Although I more or less agree with this, I want to point to the fact that autonomy and being an independent state (not even vassall) are 2 very different things.

Let the flames come (goes hiding behind a wall :rofl: )

 

[unmerged(20844)]

According to Machiavelli it´s actually a very good idea, and the turks did it with great success.

I very much doubt the Bulgarian Tsars knew about Machiavelli. and the turks succeeded because of a very wide range of reasons. it's incomparable

 

[unmerged(2356)]

Seriously, whether You guys like it or not, the fact remains that Transylvania WAS predominantly populated by Hungarians (including the Székelys) in the Middle Ages, and it was Catholic, thus yes it was exactly the kind of "default magyar province" as it is rightly portrayed in EU II. (It is beyond my comprehension why some of You totally neglect the evidence and simply miss out on hard facts such as: all the town centers are dominated by CATHOLIC and protestant churches there when (according to Your understanding) it was always overwhelmingly Romanian, thus orthodox, and how on earth did 1,5 million Hungarians (and this is the "official" Romanian census ) still manage to survive there up until today, although they were just a small fraction of the population throughout the centuries, who only managed to survive and keep the upper hand because they controlled both the politics and economy of Transylvania??? Well I got news for You, they don't "controll it" for almost a century now, and still manage to prosper there, kind of strange ain't it?)

First of all, Atilla, son of Asian tribes - could you please stop taking the master to servant tone on each one of your replies? Doing this does not automatically give any validity to your arguments. Neither does calling for a move to the OT forum right after you've made your all important point.

Second - we do acknowledge that the Romanian majority was predominantly rural. Although both the Saxon and Magyar populations were predominantly rural as well, they still had a greater proportion of urban dwellers. Hence the details about the architecture of our beautiful cities in Transylvania.

Third - your argument that the existence of 1.5 Million Hungarians proves a majority 500 years ago does not stand the test of logic. As with the Romanian population, the Hungarians of Transylvania increased the numbers until the middle 1900s, despite some emigration to the New World in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Knowing that the negative population growth of the Hungarian population is a recent phenomenon, I fail to see how a population of 1.5 Million in 2002 points to a larger one 500 years ago. There were certainly 2 Million in 1950, but that was the peak. I can dig up my old Hungarian books that give census from 1600s, 1700s, and so on for every last village in Szekelyfold and the other regions.

 

[Alexandru H.]

For the people that don't understand this issue very well...this is a normal evolution of a problem that has no real meaning today, but was truly significant in the XIXth century: who was first in Transylvania? Romanians or Magyars? Who deserves to rule it? All the nationalist historians from both sides started to find proofs in the favour of his own truth. The problem is that both parties brought some valid arguments, which makes truth a very shaky bussiness in the zone....

The political conflicts kind of died in the last years, yet the historical struggle continues...for how long, who knows?

Just one question: what are the historical sources that depict the romanian emergence from the hills and plains of Moldavia and Wallachia to Transylvania? And please, not "10 people" exodus notes, I'm talking about lots of people.

PS. Btw, the fact that we say that Magyars formed the urban population in Transylvania shouldn't lead us off too much. The greatest city in Transylvania of the period was Brasov with about 2,000 persons. So, no more than 50,000 people lived in cities at that time.

 

[Dark Knight]

When? Where? Last i've looked they were still catholic, unfortunately (in the game)!

Well, at least the province was Orthodox (to represent a Romanian majority) and Magyar (since a cultural penalty for Hungarian ownership wouldn't make sense) in some patch or other (unless I'm confusing it with being Catholic and Romanian ).

 

[unmerged(20077)]

The thing that baffles me is the nation that owns Transylvania has the German name "Siebenbürgen" which refers to the seven "Saxon" towns in the region, and yet it has Magyar state culture...
The last time this debate came up, I proposed that what should happen is that Hungary, Austria, Wallachia and Moldavia should all have an extra event in their event files so that if they conquer Transylvania it automatically gets their state culture. An alternative would be to create a culture "Mixed" for Transylvania and other similar regions - a culture nobody would get as their state culture, to represent the fact that no matter which group you favour, the others will resent it.

 

[Alexandre]

As far as I see it, the way Transylvania looks at current in EU II is already reflecting the historicly correct situation, thus it doesn't need to be changed at all. As Zsolo and I have indicated, written records (and there are plenty of them) are evidence enough to proove that Hungarians made up the bulk of the population until the XVIIIth century.

That isn't the view among historians outside of Hungary. Given the hot button aspect of this issue, in both Hungary and Romania, I strongly feel that looking at neutral sources rather than emotionally involved ones, is very important to get a real understanding of what happened. I'd also suggest looking at the history of Wales. There are more surviving documents, and it allows you to look at the whole subject without being blinded by deep-seated emotions.

The situation was very similar in Transylvania in that the major influx of Romanians didn't start until the XVth century,

There is one very major problem with this theory: Romanians from Transylvania had already left to found the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. How did they do that if they were a tiny percentage of the population? Where were these Romanians hidden over the centuries between the fall of the Roman Empire (and shouldn't that province's ethnicity be changed to Romanian?) Why didn't the Magyars and Saxons follow the Romanian pioneers into Moldavia and Wallachia and overwhelm them by sheer numbers if Romanians only constituted a few percent of Transylvania's total population?

with the advancement of the Ottomans reaching Wallachia and later the southern parts of Moldavia as well.

Of course, Moldavia, Wallachia, and Transylvania weren't transformed into Ottoman provinces, unlike the Hungarian plain. If Romanian populations fleeing the Ottoman "advancement" into Wallachia and Moldavia changed Transylvania's ethnic composition, then why wasn't there a comensurate magyar migration given that Hungary suffered total annexation, not mere vasslage? Where are the historical records supporting an ethnicity-changing kind of migration into Transylvania? Where is the archaeological evidence of a replacement of Transylvania's pre-migration culture with a new post-migration one? Where is the documentary or archaeological evidence of massive depopulation of Moldavia and Wallachia? Why were Romania's banned from spending the night in Transylvania's towns and cities centuries before this purported migration?

This is how the Romanians first started to move into Transylvania in the XIIIth century, that is when the first written records of Romanians in Transylvania start to apear at all, although there have been quiet a few written documents between the X-XIIIth centuries as well. These records were written by Hungarians, thus it wouldn't seem logical that they deliberately forgot to mention them in the previous century. And let's not forget that nationalism as such didn't exist back then, thus there was little to no reason not to mention Romanians when the records mention Saxons, Italians, Arabs and Jews as well.

What about the chronicle that Anonnymus wrote for King Bella? It's the oldest surviving Hungarian document about the conquest of Transylvania and quite openly refers to an indigenous Latinate population?

Anyway, this is my understanding of the situation, let the flames come.

Even if you'd flamed me (and you didn't) there'd still be no need for flames.

I sort of tried to give You the argument in my previous comment. Obviously one should not forget that there was a huge migration into Transylvania after the first and in particular the second world war.

Some, I'll grant you. There was also some Hungarian migration out of Transylvania and into Wallachia.

One should just compare the census taken in those periods and it will become pretty evident that it wasn't due to the impressively high birth rates why cities such a Cluj (Kolozsvár), Oradea (Nagyvárad) trippled their population, turning their population from dominantly Hungarian into Romanian in just a few decades.

A lot of that had to do with urbanization of what was still an overwhelmingly agrarian society. You'd be on stronger ground if you'd point to the territory right on the current Romanian-Hungarian border where there was a deliberate policy of settling ethnic Romanians to solidify Romania's hold on her frontiers.

Although I more or less agree with this, I want to point to the fact that autonomy and being an independent state (not even vassall) are 2 very different things.

Mostly, I hate the current vasslage system. It represents three very different relationships: real vassalage (Moldavia to Poland), tributory states (Wallachia to the Ottomans) and autonomous march (Transylvania to Hungary). I'd really like to see it divided into those three (or at least the former two) relationships (I can live with autonomous marches being made part of the dominant country, perhaps with a slight tweak towards decentralization if the dominant country has lots of them, like France).

Alexandre

 

[Alexandre]

Well, at least the province was Orthodox (to represent a Romanian majority) and Magyar (since a cultural penalty for Hungarian ownership wouldn't make sense) in some patch or other (unless I'm confusing it with being Catholic and Romanian ).

I think that you're confused. It was Catholic and Romanian in the earlier versions (and in all of my games ). I still think that is the best solution since it reflects the mixed population, and keeps it from being "just another province" to Hungary, Wallachia or Moldavia, something that it most emphatically wasn't, whether for the centuries that it asserted it's rights against the Hungarian crown, or the year when Prince Michael the Brave ruled it, but made sure to acknoweldge and confirm the rights of the Hungarina nobility and the Saxon towns.

Alexandre

 

[Alexandre]

To be honest I am very disappointed that after a long time the "culture in Transsylvania issue" has been raised again on the Forum. So far there has been a broad consensus among all important parties concerned inculding Paradox (of course a quite decisive factor ), the EEP and AGC fora that Transylvania is given Magyar culture.

Perhaps because of a deliberate policy to close any thread that dared question that decision? Those of us who *did not* concent to that policy were deliberately gagged in a most undemocratic way. I could accept that the moderators would close down threads that turned into flamefests, but was deeply offended when my perfectly civilized ones were closed as well because some of the less democratic members of the Hungarian clan would not accept debate on this subject, and one of the moderators actually heeded their complaints instead of telling them to grow up and accept the legitimacy of differences of opinion. :wacko: Truth be told, I'm still deeply offended.

If we can actually address the issue this time there is a possibility that we can actually reach an agreement that everyone can accept (if not love) rather than merely impose one side's ultrantionalist version of history on the other side with no reference to what the historical concensus outside of Romania and Hungary has reached.

As far as I see the outstanding issues:

1) Which country should Transylvania be part of (independent, Hungarian vassal, Hungarian province) -- I'd vote for Hungarian province.
2) Who should have CB shields on Transylvania? I'd vote for Hungary, Moldavia and Wallachia because I think that they should have a claim to the province without lossing stability.
3) What culture should it have? I'd vote for Romanian to reflect the majority population.
4) What religion should it have? I'd vote for Catholic, to reflect the Hungarian nobility and the Saxon merchants.

Let me point out that my votes on points 1, 3 and 4 have added in game validation since that's the way that Wales relationship with England has been configured.

How would you weigh the competing factions and interests? If you don't want the same treatment of Transylvania as Wales, please explain why those analogous situations should be treated differently.

Alexandre

 

[unmerged(25822)]

If you think transylvania is messed up with its mixed population try to think about sivas where no ethnicity got more than 30% of the population, or thessaloniki (macedonia) after 1700 where the 40% of the ppl was sefaradic jews,not to speak about lugansk

A nice solution about northern balkans would be budist ( to reflect that they just "sit there" and wait for salvation like buda) dravidians (to reflect the hindoeuropean origin )

 

[Alexandru H.]

Salvation from what? God above? Or some merciful foreign power (as it unfortunately happened in real life...)...

Alexandre's proposal makes sense. I would rather see a Magyar Transylvania with Romanian culture rather than an independent one with Magyar culture. Now, I do think this is a nice compromise and while we wouldn't have an independent Transylvania, we would have a somehow ideal cultural build-up.

Just one problem: why give anyone shields on Transylvania? I don't think that Moldavia and Wallachia deserves them and, for game concerns, Hungary shouldn't have them either. Transylvania must be unique in the zone. Also, the revolter Transylvania should have, as state culture, german besides magyar culture.