Romanian/Vlach civ concept (inspired by the Slavs Civ DLC topic)

This topic inspired me to make this one:

Basically, hopefully in the future will be a slavic-themed DLC with:

  • Croats
  • Serbs
  • Romanians/Vlachs/Wallachians (whatever you want to call them)
  • Slavs reworked as Ruthenians.

“But Romanians aren’t Slavic”, well, kind of.

Credit: Nebular905647

Funny how Eastern Europe is so unrepresented that there was a whole discussion about what the Romanians are. Basically: Of course, genetically everyone is pretty much a mix of anything. But culturally, the Romans & Slavs. It’s right at the beginning of Britannica “The first stage, the Romanization of the Geto-Dacians, had now been followed by the second, the assimilation of the Slavs by the Daco-Romans”. So the Dacians were romanized by the Romans, then in a 2nd wave the slavs came and the slavs were assiminated by the Daco-Romans, now you have the Romanians, a mix of Dacians, Romans and Slavs.

But we already have too many European civs! Western European.

The game is full of Western European civs, but how many Eastern European civs we have? Poles, Slavs, Bulgarians, Lithuanians, Maygars, Byzantines. 6.

Which is natural because in history Eastern Europe doesn’t get as much spotlight as Western Europe, but exactly because of this it’s dishonest to merge Western Europe & Eastern Europe into “Europe” when their cultures at the time were different and are represented by 13 civs.

For example, the Boyar, although a unique unit of the Slavs in Age of Empires 2:

A boyar or bolyar was a member of the highest rank of the feudal nobility in many Eastern European states, including Bulgaria, Kievan Rus’ (and later Russia), Moldavia and Wallachia (and later Romania), Lithuania and among Baltic Germans. Boyars were second only to the ruling princes, grand princes or tsars from the 10th to the 17th centuries.

It would be great if they would make the Boyar a Paladin replacement for Ruthenians, Lithuanians, Romanians and Bulgarians. Ruthenian unique unit could be a cossack or something else.

Eastern Europe doesn’t get as much spotlight as Western Europe, for example, most people in Western Europe only know about Dracula’s failed rebellion against the Ottomans and that’s it (and that’s only because of a Novel, if it wasn’t for the fan-fiction, nobody would know about the real thing). In Poland about the Deluge (maybe), the Winged Hussars, the Partition of Poland and that’s it. Serbia & Croatia, I wonder how many even know that Serbia had an empire at one point.

What about Basarab & Bogdan’s succesful rebellion against the Hungarians that led to the creation of Wallachia & Moldavia as independent sates? Or Mircea the Elder’s defeat of the Ottomans at Rovine that kept Wallachia independent until after his death. Or Stephen the Great who fought (not at the same time) against the: Polish, Hungarian, Wallachians, Ottomans, Tattars and won 46 out of 48 battles in his lifetime. Or Michael the Brave who shortly united Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia for 3 months before being assassinated, thus serving as an inspiration for Romanian nationalism in the 19th century that eventually led to the actual long-lasting unification of Wallachia, Translyvania and Moldavia into Romania.

Western Europe has so much ore spotlight than Eastern Europe to the point where Robin Hood is more popular than Hajduks. Even though Robin Hood was fictional but the Hajduks were real.

There is even potential for a co-op campaign with different civs there: Serbian Hajduks led by Baba Novac helped Romanian Prince Michael the Brave unite the 3 principalities.

As a teenager, Baba Novac was taken captive by the Ottomans, who beat him so badly he lost all his teeths. Hence the name “baba” or “old”. After this, Baba Novac formed his own Hajduks force of about 2.000 people and joined Michael the Brave. They joined together in Banat and Baba Novac was made a captain of Michael the Brave’s forces. They fought together at: Tagoviste, Bucharest, Giurgiu, Sibiu and lands in southern Banat. Unfortunately, he was double-crossed by a former “ally” and was given to the Hungarians in Cluj who boiled him alive. Michael the Brave only found out later, gave him a proper burial and raised a flag at the site of his death. Michael the Brave himself was later betrayed by the same man and assassinated. You could make a campaign out of this.

Anyway, the Romanian civ.

This isn’t as much about the civ design (there’s plenty of Romanian civ designs out there) but the cultural & gameplay aspects behind it. Think of this topic as a source of inspiration rather than outright telling what to do.

Coat of Arms:

I see 4 viable options here:

  1. House Draculesti (Vlad the Impaler’s noble house):

  2. Wallachia’s Coat of Arms

    Later used:

  3. Moldavia’s Coat of Arms

  4. House Patrascu (Michael the Brave’s noble house, he’s significant because he is the first to unite: Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia so could be a representation for all 3 as an umbrella) :

My favourite is the 2nd coat of arms of Wallachia’s because of the blue color with the black eagle, and the black eagle with the day and the night has a really nice symbolism.

AI rulers:

  • Stephen III the Great (1435 - 1504) - Prince of Moldavia that won renown in Europe for his long resistance to the Ottoman Turks.
  • Michael II the Brave (1558 - 1601) - Prince of Wallachia, he achieved the first union of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia (the three principalities largely inhabited by Vlachs).
  • Vlad III the Impaler (1431 - 1476) - Prince of Wallachia, that the campaign Dracula is about.
  • Constantin Brancoveanu (1654 – 1714) - Prince of Wallachia.
  • Basarab I the Founder (Before 1310 - 1352) - Founder of Wallachia.
  • Bogdan I the Founder (Before 1307 - 1367) - Founder of Moldavia.
  • Mircea the Elder (1355 - 1418) - Prince of Wallachia.
  • Dimitrie Cantemir (1673 – 1723) - Prince of Moldavia.
  • Vlad II the Dragon (Before 1395 - 1447) - Prince of Wallachia, father of Vlad the Impaler and son of Mircea the Elder.
  • Radu the Fair (1437 - 1475) - Prince of Wallachia, younger brother of Vlad the Impaler.
  • Matei Basarab (1588 - 1654) - Prince of Wallachia.
  • Alexandru Lapusneanu (1499 - 1568) - Prince of Moldavia.

Architecture - Considering that Romania is Eastern European like the Magyars and Slavs most buildings and units will look the same.

Speciality - Decent tech tree, not many (if at all) economic bonuses, but military bonuses.

  1. Wallachia & Moldavia weren’t an economic powerhouse, they weren’t rich by any standard, thus the economic downside.
  2. But they had a versatille army with all kinds of troops of both West & East inpiration, thus the decently open tech tree.
  3. Romanians were used to being outnumbered in most of their battles and usually used hit & run and encirclement tactics. In Moldavia, every peasant was military trained. The hit & run tactics included shooting arrows and attacking weaker parts of the enemy army, only to retreat, then you do it again until you weaken or confuse them enough to fight an open battle. Due to inferior numbers, they were forced to have quality over quanity & trained peasants. (knights for example had their armor ordered from Venice). So low numbers, trained peasants, highly trained elites with good equipment, versatille army, hit & run tactics, thus the military bonuses.
    I think Romanians should get a bonus on Paladin/Boyar and Halberdier based on their fighting style.

Language - You can use modern Romanian, unlike English that changed so much that Old English is a completly different language, Old Romanian and Modern Romanian are mutually intelligible.

History (for the history page) - The origins of the Romanians are a mystery, the majority of contemporary scholars such as Kekaumenos, John Kinnamos, Simon of Kéza, Poggio Bracciolini, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Nicolaus Olahus wrote that the Romanians’ ancestors had been Roman colonists settled in Dacia by Trajan as they speak a latin-based language, their name “Vlachs” comes from the old Germanic “stranger” which was used to describe the Romans and in their tongue they still call themselves “Romani” meaning “citizens of the Roman Empire”.

The first independent Romanian state appeared in 1330 when Basarab I of Wallachia revolted against the Kingdom of Hungary and defeated the Hungarian armies at the Battle of Posada. After two decades, Bogdan I of Moldavia would also lead a succesful revolt against the Kingdom of Hungary leading to the creation of Moldavia as an independent state. For most of their history, the Wallachians & Moldavians were sandwiched between the much stronger Hungarians, the Polish and the Ottomans and would often side with one or another to preserve their independence.

It is in this context that Vlad the Impaler appeared, who has a campaign in the game. The Wallachians were known of using hit and run tactics to harass and drain the armies of their much stronger opponents, until they had a chance at face to face combat, using the enviroment in their advantage, especially the swamps that could easily be used to lock an army into place and encircle it, taking advantage of their knowledge of the local area, and scorched land tactics, where the Wallachians would burn the fields and poison the water in front of all invading armies, in a further attempt to drain their resources and manpower.

In short, the Wallachians’ war strategy were rarely about charging your opponent heads on, as most of often than not, they would stand no chance, and more about picking your battles and using the land to your advantage. Vlad the Impaler’s famous night attack, when he charged into the Ottoman camps at midnight with his whole army, almost killing the sultan, was merely another piece of a long Wallachian tradition of fighting this way. Mircea the Elder previously defeated Sultan ####### # ## the battle of Rovine with 12.000 troops against 40.000 with similar tactics. And before that, Basarab I the Founder earned Wallachia’s independence through an ambush at the Carpathian passes with 10.000 troops made out mostly of conscripted peasants against the Hungarian 30.000 troops army made out mostly of professional mercenaries.

Possible Unique Unit:

As I said previously, the Wallachian army was versatile and the peasants were trained. In fact, in Moldavia, the peasants were forced by law to go and train once a year and always carry a weapon with them or else they would be put to death (basically, it was medieval America, jk). Thus there are plenty of options:

Viteji (melee & range heavy cav) → Literally “Brave Men”. Viteji form a versatile corps of cavalry in the armies of the Romanian principalities. Their name means “brave ones” and they form part of a social strata that has gained lands and property through bravery in warfare. The viteji are therefore, as expected, among the most resolute and brave warriors a ruler could ask for. Like many elements of Romanian cavalry, the Viteji show influences both from the East and West, and their style of warfare imitates that of Cuman or Tatar armored horse archers, or that of Ottoman spahis. By their nature they are very versatile cavalry. In battle, the voievod would use these troops to counter the enemy’s cavalry flanks, either by engaging light cavalry in melee or harassing and exhausting heavy cavalry in range, then providing the decisive charge into the enemy’s flanks.

Calarasi (melee & range light cav) → Literally “riders”. Călăraşi form a part of the “oastea cea mica” (small host) and are part of the “slujitorii” (servants of the lord). Their name implies they fight on horseback. These soldiers were given land in exchange for military service, and retained their land so long as they remained as a readily-available force for the voievod, and exclusively in the service of the voievod. They are lightly armored, comparable to their curteni, and wield a composite bow. They were a very successful military instrument, remaining a significant part of the Wallachian army up until 1600, and form a potent counter to other horse archers.

Curteni (lance & shield light cav) → Literally “men of the court”, these are the retainers of the boieri, whom he takes into battle on horseback. Historically, they acted as a small mounted detachment under the direct command of a boier. They are not as competent as the viteji, nor as fast as the calarasi, but given the tradition of light cavalry in Wallachian armies, they are form a versatile screen for the calarasi. Their armor is very light, though this aids in their speed. They wield a spear or a lance in battle, omitting the benefit of a ranged weapon in favor of a large shield. They can perform devastating charges repeatedly due to their light equipment, but should not be expected to hold off a well-armed opponent.

Nemesi (lance & shield heavy cav) → The equivalent of the Wallachian Viteji but armed with spears instead of swords. This will be the strongest cavalry unit before the Boyars and the Princely Bodyguard.

Princely Bodyguard (heavy cavalry) → The Voievod of Wallachia keeps at his side a bodyguard of warriors paid from his own coffers, either consisting of native troops or mercenaries. Only the most loyal boiers, often those serving on the princely court, were entrusted with protecting the voievod. These men are equipped with the finest arms and armor money can buy, often with platemail bought from Venice or other Italian cities. It was even said in a chronicle that the Wallachian voievod Vlaicu bought 10,000 suits of Venetian plate armor in anticipation of warfare against the Hungarians. These form the elite of Wallachian heavy cavalry.

Wallachian Boyars → The boieri form the elite of Wallachian society and Wallachia’s heavy cavalry. They are the Wallachian nobles, who own vast swathes of land and rule over dependent peasants. Dressed in heavy armor, atop powerful mounts, and fighting in a style reminiscent of Western knights, they are a powerful force on the battlefield. The boieri however, are very accustomed to the game of political intrigue, and it is a telling fact that most of the Wallachian princes died of Wallachian swords and assassination than of old age, or on the field of battle. It is more telling that 20 princes were quickly cycled onto the Wallachian throne from 1418 to 1456, averaging to short and ineffective two-year reigns. The state of chaos caused by the boieri during this time was so great that when Vlad III the Impaler came to power he immediately had many of then killed (some of whom had actually assassinated his father and his older brother Mircea), deposed others from the princely council (replacing them with obscure or foreign nobles) and tried to promote the land-owning Mosneni as a counter-weight against them. Even so, the Boiars would rebound after Vlad III’s death, becoming a powerful force. If a voievod can keep them satisfied and loyal, the boieri will form a decisive force on the battlefield and a much-needed unit of heavy, melee-based cavalry.

Portar (armored pikemen) → Literally “gatekeeper”, the Portars are heavily armored pikemen. The Romanian principalities relied mainly on hit and run tactics with light cavalry and archer units so the Portar were a valueable defensive unit.

In my opinion: Wallachia could have a unique upgrade to the Halberdier as Portar, (the Boyar instead of Paladin for Ruthenians, Lithuanians, Romanians and Bulgarians) and Castle UU Viteji. Viteji could be weaker than a knight in Castle Age & weaker than a Cavalier in Imperial Age (yet stronger than Light Cavalry) but instead they could be ranged. So your would use them as melee vs weaker than them units or range vs stronger than them units.

Some Youtube videos:


No no and no. I repeated this in numerous topics. It must be Rus and Ukraine. I do not want to once again repeat the long lectures that I have already written, so I will say briefly - these nations were connected and dominated each other at different periods of time, and yet they retained their complete uniqueness for 1000 years. Many people think that Ukraine appeared 30 or 100 years ago - this is not true. And even Kievan Rus, to which many refer, was only a temporary and not even the original state, it was a temporary formation that came and went.
Rus’ and Ukraine FULLY deserve to be realized separately.

I also ask you to indicate in the post that the picture is mine. I didn’t download it, I created it using AI and Photoshop specifically for that thread where you took it. I spent about 2 hours on it.


Also I’ll leave it here:

It was my BRIEF concept and I was heavily attacked for it because it’s brief lol. I don’t believe in heavy fan concepts with calculating percentages, drawing art, etc., because in the end they will never be accepted anyway. I don’t do empty work. So I just showed the direction. Regarding the Romanians specifically, I simply named 3 possible bonuses and 1 unique building - crypt.

I mainly spoke about Rus’ and Ukraine. Everything connected with horsemen needs to be changed there, because these peoples never had knights. They need to be renamed “Ratnik” (means smth like “man from warriorhood”) and the skin changed. The boyar should be renamed as Vityaz (boyars did not go into battle at all, they were businessmen and managers).
In Rus’ before Peter I (i.e. Just during the time period of AoE 2) there was a bad fleet of small ships, so most of the ship types need to be removed from port, but somehow make sure that the unique small Russian ship Ladya (version of drakkar) is more or less competitive.
Both races must have cannoneers.

1 Like

Yet another copy paste topic by the same person.spamming the same topic every month is not going to get much traction to getting them added.


This is one of those who personally attacked me for nothing. ^
He keeps stalking.


No datas of units nor any bonuses mentioned?

1 Like

Nah, I leave that to the experts, I just wanted to provide the culture and history and let them. I did mention units, a few possible UU, but not bonuses.


@Nebular905647 What do you mean by stalking? Also I read your post there was no personal attacks.


@Player870583437 Why do you say you got the idea from slavs thread? You already have many copies of Romanian Thread with same description. You seem to post every 2 months.


That seems fine to me…

A little late for AoE2…the Hajduk appear in AoE 3…could be a historical battle there.


@MatM1996 Hajduks became most popular in the 16th-19th centuries, but they existed as early as 1400s. Baba Novac & Michael the Brave’s battles took place between 1593 - 1601 which stretches AoE2’s timeline but not by much, Kyoto takes place in 1582 and Noryang Point in 1598.

I suppose the Battle of Calugareni could be added as a historical battle

15,000 Wallachians & c. 5,000 mercenaries vs. 85,000-100,000 though only about 35-40,000 Ottoman soldiers participated in the battle according to most sources including a log written by Michael the Brave himself.
Casualties and losses: 1.000 for Wallachians, 10.000-15.000 for the Ottomans.
Result: Wallachian victory.

@Nebular905647 As far as I know, the Rus weren’t the Russians, the Rus as in the Kievan Rus were all the East Slavs, also known as the Ruthenians, it was only much later after the Mongol left that the Muscovites took the name “Russians” to get legitimacy in conquering and governing all other East Slavs. I know that Ukraine didn’t suddenly spawn into existance in 1917, or even 1600s, that’s Putin’s propaganda.

Romanians / Vlachs
• Bonus to collecting resources from wood and gold.
• Good protection of buildings and walls.
• Bonus to attack and defense on hills.
• More expensive cavalry and catapult units.
• No access to some types of units.
• Units will be more vulnerable to archer attacks.
Unique building: * The crypt could improve the effectiveness of religious units, provide bonuses to unit healing.

What is the historical reasoning for the Romanians’ bonuses? Not that I disagree, the Romanians were mostly farmers as far as I know (and very fond of scorched earth tactics, we don’t have what to #### ### neither do you now), there were many forests in Wallachia and Moldavia so I kind of get the wood bonus but why the gold bonus? I think gold would be very good don’t get me wrong, but they weren’t rich and weren’t famous for trade either.

The Romanians weren’t great architects not great siegers. And they most often used swamps & rivers than hills as well as chokepoints.

The cavalry was the bread&butter of the Wallachian & Moldavian armies. You cannot use hit & run tactics without the cavalry. They had so much cavalry with both East & West inspiration that out of the 7 UU I suggested, 6 were cavalry.

The church didn’t really do much in Romania. In Russia, the church had a big influence, in the Catholic states the church was as powerful as the king. In Wallachia & Moldavia, not so much. The church was more like the justice branch of governments, if people in a village had a disagreement they would actually got to the church and the priest would be the judge, and of course the church had a lot of land, but that’s about it. Although I like the concept of a unique building and completely forgot it is an option.

The strategies used by Wallachia, as in Moldavia, were mostly defensive in nature. In order to disrupt an enemy’s advance in the country, the population was often required to retreat to the wooded or mountainous regions, while the army engaged in hit-and-run tactics and avoided direct confrontations. This was done to delay the advance of an army and to try and lure the enemy into more defensible places like marshes, wooded areas, or mountain passes.[2]

The equipment and weapons of the Wallachian soldiers during the Middle Ages were Western-like with melee weapons like lances, swords, and maces. Later, with the influence of the Ottoman Empire, eastern style sabers were adopted. Ranged weapons used were bows and crossbows. The bows were made of hazel, hornbeam, ash or elm wood and their string was made of flax, hemp, or bowels. According to historian Radu Rosetti, the Wallachian archers could shoot about 10-12 arrows per minute, up to a distance of 220 m (720 ft). Guns in Wallachia were first mentioned in the mid-15th century, Vlad Dracul used two bombards during the siege of Giurgiu in 1445 as part of the Burgundian crusade led by Walerand de Wavrin.[2] The use of wagon forts by Wallachia was first noted during the battle of Râmnicu Sărat in 1473, when Radu the Handsome used one against the army of Stephen the Great of Moldavia. After the battle, the Moldavians captured this fort.[48]

Like Moldavia, Wallachia predominantly used light cavalry, therefore they were lightly equipped with their defensive equipment mainly consisting of a shield of different shapes (round, triangular, or winged).[3] Gambesons and mail armor were also used.[49] The viteji and the boyars, could be equipped with heavier equipment including plate armor. For example, according to the Italian chronicle “Cronaca Carrarese”, Radu I of Wallachia acquired a number of 10,000 suits of armor from the Republic of Venice around the year 1377.[14][16] In a document issued by John Zápolya to the Saxons of Brașov regarding a ban imposed by the King on the arms trade with Wallachia in 1522, it is detailed that the Saxons were bringing many weapons and armor to Transylvania from Hungary, and then selling them to Wallachia.[50]

Yes, but still, it is very much at the limit of the timeline… Bayinnaung, in my opinion, is already a very late campaign for what AoE 2 is… I consider that after 1492 (discovery of America and Italian Wars), it is already the period of AoE 3, although AoE 2 reaches up to 1600 since The Conquerors, it is no longer the Middle Ages per se… the same thing happens to me with Alaric and Attila, which occur before 476…

1 Like

Where are the cov bonuses. Is it so hard to just list bonuses with roundabout numbers


Many people think this way: in the beginning there was Kievan Rus, and then it slowly divided into Russia and Ukraine, and this division happened only recently. Putin’s propaganda argues that Ukraine should belong to him, that this is simply a rebellion in his vassal lands.

In fact, everything was different. The Rus are a NORTHERN people, they appeared near the Baltic Sea and lakes Ilmen and Ladoga. The gene pool of the Russians was influenced by the Vikings, Finns and Karelians. And Ukrainians are a relatively southern people, they appeared near the Black Sea. Between them there was a huge empty space (where Moscow and all of central Russia is now), in their gene pool there are Poles, Jews and possibly other southern peoples. A couple of centuries passed before these 2 peoples met. They were not yet full-fledged states, but they already had their own principalities. In the 9th century, the Novgorod prince Oleg the Prophet captured Kyiv and created Kievan Rus (i.e. it was not the original form, but an occupation). After 300 years, it collapsed again - due to the invasion of the Mongols, but in fact, at that time it was already in a state of crisis. The principalities of the period of feudal fragmentation reappeared. So you see? This was not some sacred proto-form, it was just a temporary state.
And only then, throughout its history, Ukraine continued to exist in a state of occupation by various countries: the Tatars, the Galician-Volyn principality, the Poles, and the Russian Empire. But she WAS.
Georgia and Armenia also existed almost throughout history under the occupation of Islamic regimes and the Ottoman Empire, but at the same time they still retained their originality. It’s the same with Ukraine.

The only problem is the names. For a long time, both Rus’ and Ukraine did not have specific names and were called differently. Basically, self-identification took place by cities, for example they were saying: “I am from glorious city Torzhok" or “I am son of lands of princes” or “I am good christian”.
Word Ukraine did exist already but wasn’t the only one for this land. It meant smth like “Corner / Borderland”.

Amazing, I couldn’t write name of city
The Ch-word!
The forum bans it as a bad word.

I think I can see why…

It’s the three letters between “Cher” and “ov”. The forum auto censor doesn’t like that particular combo of letters.


This is ridiculous. This way you can ban half the words in the language.

1 Like

Makes sense. But weren’t the Ukrainians more influenced by the Vikings? Given that the Kievan Rus’ capital was Kyiv? I would expect more vikings living in that region than in Moscow.

I’ve seen time and time again the argument that just because a people never / rarely / only once in a while had an independent state, they didn’t exist. Putin is nothing new. It’s like “Ukraine was created in 1917 by Lenin”, and how come they speak a different langauge and have a different culture? Where did the Ukrainian people come from? did they fall down from the sky?

Look, you really need to open the world map. Vikings are Scandinavians. Baltic Sea. Ukraine is on Black Sea. The most Vikings there were actually the ruling dynasty of Rus’ (this is a fact, in the beginning Rus was ruled by the Viking dynasty, they were called Varangians, and their clan was called Rurikovich). In general, the Varangian population was present in both countries, but they were very few.

This question always comes down to how deep we want to dig for the answer. Because we can come to the conclusion that we all came from Africa and arose 2 million years ago.
Therefore, I see the question about the origin of peoples as follows: “Have this people lived long enough in an original culture, does it consider itself a separate people, does it show its viability as a separate nation and can it defend it?” So, I’m Russian, but I’m against Putin, he tortured not only Ukraine but also ourselves. I fully recognize Ukraine and sympathize it. Yes, there are Slavs here and there, but we are DIFFERENT Slavs. Yes, Ukraine existed for most of its history under the occupation of various countries, but Wallachia was also under occupation of Ottomans, China - under the Mongolian one, Korea - under the Japanese. And yet these peoples exist, they survived, they preserved their culture. And this must be taken into account. This is why I believe that Ukraine fully deserves a separate civ in the game.

Look, you really need to open a history book. You know the Kievan Rus was founded by Vikings, right? Yes, they lived in Scandinavia, but you know what? They can travel! Not only that, they travelled a lot, in fact.


In general, the Varangian population was present in both countries, but they were very few.

Then why did you say this:

The gene pool of the Russians was influenced by the Vikings, Finns and Karelians. And Ukrainians are a relatively southern people, they appeared near the Black Sea.

So both had very few, but the Russians were influenced by the Vikings. But the Ukrainians weren’t. Like WTF.

At what time in history do you consider a separate Ukrainian identity emerged from the broader East Slavic identity?