Moldavia as part of de jure Russia (+/- Croatia as part of de jure Carpathia)

[Hospodar]

The establishment of the Moldavian state dependent on the Hungarian Crown happened in the 1300s. Before that, the territories were either an integral part of the Principality of Halych or within the sphere of influence of the latter.

Principality of Halych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As the title suggests, Moldavia should be changed from de jure 'Carpathian' to de jure Russian. 'Carpathia' itself could be also renamed as Hungary and, if needed for balance reasons, Croatia could be split from the de jure Byzantine Empire and added to the de jure Hungarian Empire given that from the 9th century onward the Byzantine influence in the region was contested by the Carolingians (the latter being the lieges of Croatian rulers more often than the Byzantines) and that Croatia first came under Hungarian control during the game's timeframe (from 1102 onwards).

Croatia in personal union with Hungary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Skales]

What would then prevent Hungary from becoming an empire all the time? What will be the justification for why Hungary did not become an empire IRL from game mechanics stand-point?

IRl that would be due to the whole 'Empires got to be universal thing' but in-game...? I don't know...

 

[Colin]

For gameplay reasons, Croatia and Serbia really should be in Carpathia - likewise, Sicily should probably be in Italia, or the Byzantines will constantly invade and forming Italy will be almost impossible.

I disagree about renaming Carpathia to Hungary.

 

[Mackus]

It would make more sense for Moldavia to be in Khazaria than in Russia. That being said, having it remain in Carpathia would be my first choice.

 

[Hospodar]

What would then prevent Hungary from becoming an empire all the time? What will be the justification for why Hungary did not become an empire IRL from game mechanics stand-point?

IRl that would be due to the whole 'Empires got to be universal thing' but in-game...? I don't know...

The issue of Croatia was raised as a preemptive counterargument to the idea that removing Moldavia from Carpathia would make the latter too weak. The Byzantine Empire is strong enough anyhow, so one less kingdom (which historically it did not have too much sway over during CK's timeframe) won't be too much of a nerf.

I disagree about renaming Carpathia to Hungary.

Either works as far as I'm concerned.

It would make more sense for Moldavia to be in Khazaria than in Russia. That being said, having it remain in Carpathia would be my first choice.

Carpathia doesn't make sense for much of the game's timeframe (and even beyond it, given that the passing from a Hungarian march to an independent state took only a few decades, after which it became its own state subject to both Hungarian and Polish influences). As for Khazaria, I'd have to disagree given its status as a Kievan borderland for centuries:

Not that I don't acknowledge the Cumans and Pechenegs, mind you. I just don't find it as historically relevant as for it to warrant Moldavia being a de jure kingdom of Khazaria.

 

[Ruwaard]

For gameplay reasons, Croatia and Serbia really should be in Carpathia - likewise, Sicily should probably be in Italia, or the Byzantines will constantly invade and forming Italy will be almost impossible.

I disagree about renaming Carpathia to Hungary.

Maybe not Serbia, but IMHO having Croatia in Carpathia with Hungary makes more sense. I also won't object to moving Sicily to Italia, even in CK II there's a workaround to represent the conflicting spheres of influence there, so that one might be a bit more tricky. Perhaps, just a suggestion, Sicily is 'Byzantine' in 867 and 'Italian' in 1066?

 

[SoKraTes1]

As your maps suggests the Principality of Halych had its power base in southern Ukraine (Halych, Terebovl) and at its maximum extent controlled minimal parts of northern Basarabia/Moldavia, i don't think this control is relevant enough to justify its inclusion into the Russian Empire rather than Carpathia, considering The Russian Empire only managed to annex Basarabia in 1812 due to a won war with the Ottomans.

Historically Moldavia was dominated from the year 900 by different Turkic tribes Pechengs, Ouzes and Cumans, only around 1150 do the Principality of Halychs and the Kingdom of Hungary compete for the control of Moldavia, but by the 1200's the Mongol Horde came and the Principality of Halych had been conquered. Thats like 50 years of barely any control on Moldavia by the principality of Halych, as you can see on the map during its greatest extent it controlled barely the northern region of Moldavia and Basarabia and as you can see from the other maps, Pechengs and Cumans held more teritory and longer than Halych had.

And this map showing the extent of the Cuman Khanate before the Mongol Invasions. No need to discuss the mongol invasions as Halych couldn't possibly hold Moldavia during that period for obivious reasons.
In my opinion you can name any Turkic tribe that controlled Moldavia who had more of an influence than Halych, but putting Moldavia into the Khazarian empire will be wierd so i suggest leaving it into Carpathia.
It also makes sense from a gameplay point of view as i believe Wallachia and Moldavia should be in the same empire (would be wierd if separated), otherwise playing as the kingdom of Moldavia would encourage you to rather create the Russian Empire instead of conquering Wallachia and Hungary, countries with whitch it had much more interaction throughout the period.
Renaming Carpathia to Hungary makes no sense, there are not only Hungarians in that region, imagine Pechenegs, Vlach, Slovien, Avars, Bulgarians forming the Hungarian Empire.
What could be done to reduce the agressivness of the Byzantine Blob, maybe put Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia into their own empire Ilirya (insert another more proper name here) and make it so that it can only be formed if the ruler also controls k_epirus (similar to how Italia in CK2 can only be formed if you control k_sicily), that way it will prevent the AI from easily forming it since it will have to go to war against the Byzantine Empire and win.

 

[Hospodar]

Historically Moldavia was dominated from the year 900 by different Turkic tribes Pechengs, Ouzes and Cumans, only around 1150 do the Principality of Halychs and the Kingdom of Hungary compete for the control of Moldavia, but by the 1200's the Mongol Horde came and the Principality of Halych had been conquered. Thats like 50 years of barely any control on Moldavia by the principality of Halych, as you can see on the map during its greatest extent it controlled barely the northern region of Moldavia and Basarabia and as you can see from the other maps, Pechengs and Cumans held more teritory and longer than Halych had.

And this map showing the extent of the Cuman Khanate before the Mongol Invasions. No need to discuss the mongol invasions as Halych couldn't possibly hold Moldavia during that period for obivious reasons.

Domination of a land inhabited by East Slavs which was contested by Kievan Rus'.
867 (CK3's earlier start date)-940: "The Uliches or Ugliches (Russian: У́личи or Угличи, Ukrainian: Уличі or Угличі) were a tribe of Early East Slavs who, between the eighth and the tenth centuries, inhabited (along with the Tivertsi) Bessarabia, and the territories along the Lower Dnieper, Bug River and the Black Sea littoral. [...] The Uliches long struggled against the Kievan princes Oleg, Igor and Sviatoslav Igorevich for their independence, until a Kievan commander Sveneld captured their capital, Peresechen (near Orhei, in present-day Moldova), around 940."

Ulichs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And then we have the period from the 9th to the early 11th century:
"In the 9th century the Pechenegs began a period of wars against Kievan Rus'. For more than two centuries they had launched raids into the lands of Rus', which sometimes escalated into full-scale wars [...] The fortunes of the Rus'-Pecheneg confrontation swung during the reign of Vladimir I of Kiev (990–995), who founded the town of Pereyaslav upon the site of his victory over the Pechenegs,[39] followed by the defeat of the Pechenegs during the reign of Yaroslav I the Wise in 1036. Shortly thereafter, other nomadic peoples replaced the weakened Pechenegs in the Pontic steppe: the Cumans and the Torks. According to Mykhailo Hrushevsky (History of Ukraine-Ruthenia), after its defeat near Kiev the Pecheneg Horde moved towards the Danube, crossed the river, and disappeared out of the Pontic steppes."

Pechenegs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Followed by the aforementioned Principality of Halych expanding either directly or through soft power in Northern Moldavia during the 12th century, while in the south:

Cumans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Cumans initially managed to defeat the Great Prince Vladimir Monomakh of Kievan Rus' in 1093 at the Battle of the Stugna River, but they were defeated later by the combined forces of Rus principalities led by Monomakh and were forced out of the Rus' borders to the Caucasus. In these battles some Pecheneg and Oghuz groups were liberated from the Cumans and incorporated into the Rus' border-guard system."

And in the 13th century:

Roman the Great - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Roman turned his attention to the Cumans, who were threatening Byzantine interests in the Balkan Peninsula, and agreed to come to the assistance of Emperor Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) and a severe blow was administered to the nomads. [...] The relation with Byzantium helped to stabilize Galicia's relations with the Russian population of the Lower Dniester and the Lower Danube."

As for the Mongol invasion, the aforementioned Roman's son:

Daniel of Galicia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Yet Daniel's successes and his failed defense of Kiev attracted the further attention of the Mongols. In 1246, he was summoned to the capital of the Golden Horde at Sarai on the Volga River and was forced to accept Mongol overlordship. [...] By his death in 1264, Daniel had reconstructed and expanded the territories held by his father, held off the expansionist threats of Poland and Hungary, minimized Mongol influence on Western Ukraine"

It also makes sense from a gameplay point of view as i believe Wallachia and Moldavia should be in the same empire (would be wierd if separated), otherwise playing as the kingdom of Moldavia would encourage you to rather create the Russian Empire instead of conquering Wallachia and Hungary, countries with whitch it had much more interaction throughout the period.

Only in the late game's timeframe when the historical Moldavia was formed. But otherwise, the CK3 startdates will incentivize preexisting Kings and (future) Emperors to conquer the lands of de jure Moldavia and form it, so it's not a matter of where the AI would expand as King of Moldavia, but rather who will expand into de jure Moldavia - Kazharia, Russia or Carpathia.

Renaming Carpathia to Hungary makes no sense, there are not only Hungarians in that region, imagine Pechenegs, Vlach, Slovien, Avars, Bulgarians forming the Hungarian Empire.

Agreed, though it should ultimately be defined culturally as is the case with the Britannia Empire (i.e. Empire of Carpathia being called Empire of Hungary when held by a character of Hungarian culture).

 

[Hospodar]

Some more maps:

 

[fr-rein]

I would point out that indeed the North Moldavia (Suceava, Hotin, Soroca) was the "main", heartland Moldavia at that time and because of it Moldavia was closely tied to the Halych-Volhyn and later other bordering north neighbours - Poland and Hungary.

The mountains were a major reason why Romanian territory was quite fragmented. It also protected the "upper" parts of the land from being raised by Hordes, which is also why all lower Romania and Budjak were depopulated around time, save for Moncastro.

But would I put it in dejure Russian Empire?

After some thoughts - I would. Main reason is purely geographic as it is what it caused Moldavia to be separate from rest of Romania in the first place.

It has nothing to do with Russian Empire of later time nor with modern Moldavia. But a homage to the Moldavian and Rus' connection should be paid in my opinion.

 

[sreckom92]

Dalmatia should definitely be part of de-iure Byzantine Empire. Rest of Croatia...it may as well go to Carpathia. But we can't split a kingdom like this in two de-iure empires.
However, I'd argue that some parts of Dalmatia should belong to either Bosnia or Serbia.

 

[Hospodar]

It has nothing to do with Russian Empire of later time nor with modern Moldavia. But a homage to the Moldavian and Rus' connection should be paid in my opinion.

Pretty much. And the Ruthenian heritage (historical, cultural and ethnic) of medieval Moldavia was acknowledged all the way to the 17th century in the Moldavian (pseudo)historical account of the country's founding.

From an addition by a certain Simeon Dascălul to the the 17th century Moldavian chronicler Grigore Ureche's "Letopisețul Țării Moldovei" (eng. Chronicle of the Moldavian land, ukr. Літопису землі Молдовської):

"Introduction to the Moldavian chronicle in which is said that the country is made of two languages, Rumanians and Russians [a.i. Ruthenians], fact which is known that even today the country is half of Russians and half of Rumanians. [...]

It is written in the Moldavian chronicle, in the introduction, that it is said that given that those hunters had killed that auroch, coming back, seeing rich lands, [they] went through the valleys in one direction and stumbled upon the place where now is the market of Suceava. [...] In that same place they had found a bee hive and an old man, which took care of it, of Russian origin were he and his name was Etsko. And given that the hunters asked him, who he is and from which country, he said that he is Russian from the Polish country. Thus they had also asked him for the place, which place it is and to which master does it answer to? Etsko spoke: it is a barren place and without master, that beasts and birds reign and which goes downwards, until the Danube, and up until the Dniester, that it borders the Polish country, and is a very good place for food. The hunters understanding this word, they hurried to Maramaros, that they brought their people towards this part and others they have called, that they settled under the mountain and spread in Moldova downwards. And Yatsko the beekeeper, given that he understood of the settling of the people from Maramaros, immediately he went too in the Polish country, that he carried many Russians and settled them on Suceava's water upwards and on Sereth from Botoșani. And thus by diligence the Rumanians widened downwards and the Russians upwards."

Original:

Spoiler

Predoslovie a létopisețului moldovenescu ce într-însa spune că este făcută țara den doao limbi, de rumâni și de ruși, de care lucru să cunoaște că și păn' astăzi este țara giumătate de ruși și giumătate de rumâni

[...]

Scrie la létopisețul cel moldovenescu, la predoslovie, de zice că deaca au ucis acei vânători acel buor, întorcându-se înapoi, văzând locuri desfătate, au luat pre câmpi într-o parte și au nemerit la locul unde acum târgul Sucévei. [...] Acolea pre acelaș loc au găsit o priseacă cu stupi și un moșneag bătrân, de prisăcăriia stupii, de seminție au fost rus și l-au chiemat Ețco. Pre carele deaca l-au intrebat vânătorii, ce omu-i și den ce țară este, el au spus că este rus den Țara Leșască. Așijderea și pentru loc l-au intrebat, ce loc este acesta și de ce stăpân ascultă ? Ețco au zis: este un loc pustiiu și fără stăpân, de-l domnescu fierile și pasările și să tinde locul în gios, păn' în Dunăre, iar în sus păn' în Nistru, de să hotăraște cu Țara Leșască, și este loc foarte bun de hrană. Înțelegând vânătorii acest cuvânt, au sârguit la Maramorăș, de ș-au tras oamenii săi într-această parte și pre alții au îndemnat, de au descălecat întăi supt munte și s-au lățit pre Moldova în gios. Iar Iațco prisecariul, deaca au înțeles de descălecarea maramorășénilor, îndată s-au dus și el în Țara Leșască, de au dus ruși mulți și i-au descălecat pre apa Sucévei în sus și pre Sirétiu despre Botoșiani. Și așa de sârgu s-au lățit rumănii în gios și rușii în sus.

Source: https://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Leto...rnicul_din_létopisețul_cel_latinescu_izvodită

 

[Skales]

The issue of Croatia was raised as a preemptive counterargument to the idea that removing Moldavia from Carpathia would make the latter too weak. The Byzantine Empire is strong enough anyhow, so one less kingdom (which historically it did not have too much sway over during CK's timeframe) won't be too much of a nerf.


Either works as far as I'm concerned.


Carpathia doesn't make sense for much of the game's timeframe (and even beyond it, given that the passing from a Hungarian march to an independent state took only a few decades, after which it became its own state subject to both Hungarian and Polish influences). As for Khazaria, I'd have to disagree given its status as a Kievan borderland for centuries:




Not that I don't acknowledge the Cumans and Pechenegs, mind you. I just don't find it as historically relevant as for it to warrant Moldavia being a de jure kingdom of Khazaria.

Ugh... I am so sorry, but how does that in any way react to the question posed by me? Not only it does not answer it, it does not even seem to be reacting to it at all?

 

[pengoyo]

Renaming Carpathia to Hungary makes no sense, there are not only Hungarians in that region, imagine Pechenegs, Vlach, Slovien, Avars, Bulgarians forming the Hungarian Empire.

While I have no problems with Carpathia as a name for the empire, I'll point out that Hungary as a name for the empire could make sense as the name Hungary is derived from the Huns and so any medieval realm that formed an empire in that region, regardless of ethnicity, probably would be referred to as Hungary (which is what happened with the Magyars who formed a kingdom in that region and are now in many languages referred to as Hungarian).

 

[Byzantium2000]

Maybe not Serbia, but IMHO having Croatia in Carpathia with Hungary makes more sense. I also won't object to moving Sicily to Italia, even in CK II there's a workaround to represent the conflicting spheres of influence there, so that one might be a bit more tricky. Perhaps, just a suggestion, Sicily is 'Byzantine' in 867 and 'Italian' in 1066?

You have my condolences since Paradox added Venice back to Dejure Byzantium(which to be fair is historically correct but very potentially dangerous for Venice)

Also in 1066 the Byzantine Norman War should very much still be going on and the Byyzies hadn’t been evicted yet with the Byzantines Briefly retaking most of Apulia under Michael Maurex in 1067 so not being Dejure Byzantine 1066 but in 867 wouldn’t really be right.

Personally I think Carpathia should get Croatia.

 

[Samitte]

While I have no problems with Carpathia as a name for the empire, I'll point out that Hungary as a name for the empire could make sense as the name Hungary is derived from the Huns and so any medieval realm that formed an empire in that region, regardless of ethnicity, probably would be referred to as Hungary (which is what happened with the Magyars who formed a kingdom in that region and are now in many languages referred to as Hungarian).

While there is debate on whether the exonym Hungarian comes from Hun or not (Hunni/Ounnoi vs Ungri/Ungroi), as a name it would not make sense to name your empire after what are essentially villains in regional memory. Instead, it would be much more logical to either go for Carpathia or Pannonia, the latter having an important bit of Roman prestige hanging off it. Which so many peoples were a sucker for, heck, even today people love linking themselves to Rome.

Though personally I'd prefer removal of ahistorical empires altogether in favour of player created ones if they get powerful enough.

 

[Hospodar]

Ugh... I am so sorry, but how does that in any way react to the question posed by me? Not only it does not answer it, it does not even seem to be reacting to it at all?

Oh, my bad. Must've misread your post.

Even if it'll be easier for the AI to form Carpathia if Moldavia gets removed from its de jure territory, I don't really have an issue with it. Natural borders, particularly those delimited by mountains (as is the case with the Carpathians), have geostrategic value and are easier to defend from both sides. So while Hungarians did create Moldavia as a march (which was meant to act as a buffer zone against nomad incursions), most likely it would've either seceded (as was the case historically) or been conquered sooner or later.

I think that the iconic Hungarian border across the Carpathians is both more aesthetically pleasing and historically plausible than having the Hungarian AI blobbing into Moldavia and keeping that territory long term. I'm guessing CK3 won't have any mechanics that could simulate the real world implausibility of defending such a territory which lies beyond a well defined natural border, so Hungary would be able to retain it in most games once it has established a foothold over the Carpathians.

Anyhow, as far as Hungary becoming an Empire is concerned, I don't really have any issues with it. Though I share @Samitte's view on the subject of ahistorical empires, Hungary plus another de jure kingdom (e.g. Wallachia or Croatia if added to de jure Carpathia) would be strong enough to rival a de jure Empire such as Italia, so I don't see any issue with it being labeled as such if this feature is maintained. At the end of the day, no Catholic Empires should exist alongside the HRE anyway since in CK's timeframe being a Catholic Empire implies being acknowledged by the Papacy as the heir to the Roman Empire.

 

[Skales]

Oh, my bad. Must've misread your post.

Even if it'll be easier for the AI to form Carpathia if Moldavia gets removed from its de jure territory, I don't really have an issue with it. Natural borders, particularly those delimited by mountains (as is the case with the Carpathians), have geostrategic value and are easier to defend from both sides. So while Hungarians did create Moldavia as a march (which was meant to act as a buffer zone against nomad incursions), most likely it would've either seceded (as was the case historically) or been conquered sooner or later.

I think that the iconic Hungarian border across the Carpathians is both more aesthetically pleasing and historically plausible than having the Hungarian AI blobbing into Moldavia and keeping that territory long term. I'm guessing CK3 won't have any mechanics that could simulate the real world implausibility of defending such a territory which lies beyond a well defined natural border, so Hungary would be able to retain it in most games once it has established a foothold over the Carpathians.

Anyhow, as far as Hungary becoming an Empire is concerned, I don't really have any issues with it. Though I share @Samitte's view on the subject of ahistorical empires, Hungary plus another de jure kingdom (e.g. Wallachia or Croatia if added to de jure Carpathia) would be strong enough to rival a de jure Empire such as Italia, so I don't see any issue with it being labeled as such if this feature is maintained. At the end of the day, no Catholic Empires should exist alongside the HRE anyway since in CK's timeframe being a Catholic Empire implies being acknowledged by the Papacy as the heir to the Roman Empire.

The issue here specifically is not just that it would be easier for Hungary to form a de-jure empire. The issue is that historically they did own all the land required, this would, for example, cause massive headaches with later start dates...

 

[Hospodar]

The issue here specifically is not just that it would be easier for Hungary to form a de-jure empire. The issue is that historically they did own all the land required, this would, for example, cause massive headaches with later start dates...

Fair enough.

 

[ArVass]

Although the Kingdom of Hungary and other titles under the Hungarian crown indeed resembled that of an Empire at the very end of CK's timeframe, there is no point in renaming Carpathia to Hungary in either start dates. Maybe a Hungarian "empire" could exist as a titular title, but I believe there is no need for it.
As for Moldavia, it could be part of either, but generally I would put it into Carpathia for balance reasons, plus because it would be best in the same empire as Wallachia.