CK2 Dev Diary #40: Visiting the Cartographer

[Karlingid]

It's more to do with the fact that the cities on the other side of the Bosphorus were already in Nikomedeia so it didn't make sense in the same way that the County of Veglia not physically including the island it's named after (also fixed in this patch it seems) didn't make sense. I don't see what's wrong with having Constantinople only occupying the western side of the strait. Especially since when the Byzantines were reduced to Constantinople, they didn't control both sides of the strait. The east side was part of the Thema Optimaton even when they did, so that's another reason it doesn't make sense to have Constantinople on both sides of the strait.

What's wrong is that it doesn't depict how the majority of Byzantine history played with it. "When the Byzantines where reduced to Constantinople" is towards the very end of the game, better suited to Europa (where this is depicted similarly with two provinces). It is an objective statement that the city spanned the width of the strait and existed simultaneously on two continents, and the game currently models this just fine.

As it stands, the holdings in Constantinople are thus: Constantinople (castle), Constantinople (church), Blacharnae, Pempton, Hieron, Deuteron, and Galata. These represent different historical sections of the city, and a couple of them are indeed on the Asian side.

The holdings in Nikomedia: Nikomedia, Malagina, Chalcedon, and Chrysopolis. Whereas Nikomedia and Malagina are within the current territory, the others are rural villages based essentially just outside of the city walls of Constantinople. Galata was a similar situation, although it was recognized as part of the city.

Now, I'm not perhaps an expert in late medieval art, but this tells me that contemporaries saw a similar situation of the city spanning both sides until the end seeing as the artist seemed to build continuity between the two sides. Look, I'll agree that the borders aren't perfect. There's certainly some things that could be changed. However, handing over the entire side to a new province only creates more geographical errors in trying to figure out how half of Constantinople's holdings suddenly don't have a reason to exist in its province anymore. It would be just as much effort to correct Constantinople's holdings to be Europe-only as it would to give Nikomedia holdings actually within its borders.

As for the political situation, Crusader Kings 2 has never sought splitting provinces as a solution to divided territory. Just as Byzantium holds the city of Ragusa in the Serbian province of Dubrovnik, or how the Patriarch can be independent in the temple holding of Constantinople without the city as a whole defecting to him, the Ottoman occupation of the Asian side would be represented in-game as the Ottomans owning Galata and Hieron, whilst Byzantium owns the rest.

Now, as to the Thema Optimaton: this is true, there were two different themes for each side. However, this doesn't split the city any more than Jerusalem is no longer a single city, nor does it mean that the Venetian mainland is no longer Venice, or even how New York City being not confined to a single island doesn't mean it is no longer a single entity. The simple matter is that Constantinople, a singular city, touches both sides (with a much greater presence on the European side admittedly) and changes to the provincial structure not only damage the accuracy of the region's already existing holdings and potentially threaten the position of Constantinople in the game as an early metropolis, but it also could set a precedent for, in a sense, "Europa-fying" the map to lose focus on the individual holdings which are so key to the medieval atmosphere, and which do just fine on their own representing contested territory.

 

[alphamikefox]

 

[Karlingid]

View attachment 239525

Quite the enjoyable picture if I do say so myself.

Now, I'm sorry if I sound like one of those people who complains about every little addition, saying they're making the game too much like Europa. I've not believed it, even when they added shattered retreat and even when they added pacts, but this is a bit of a button of mine so to speak, one that gets pushed easily. CK2 is for us Byzantines, where Europa often shows hostility. The division of Constantinople into two different provinces simply, in my view, is not appropriate for the majority of the game's timeframe, because the game simply offers better ways to represent the split between land.

 

[Negative_Creep]

You've no idea how oft I've come across issues like petty nationalism getting in the way of these sorts of things. I agree that the Finns and Ugrians are quite different peoples, but a sense of scale is required to appreciate them, and you seem to possess that sense of scale.

I think you're talking past each other somewhat... but regardless, I'm also against the creation of the Finno-Ugric empire as suggested, for historical reasons. Not only were the Finno-Ugric peoples not nearly united enough for such a realm to have existed even as a hypothetical (justifying a de jure claim), but its insertion would cause oddities with the realms that actually did exist (or at least would in the near future). Namely, the historical Sweden after claiming Finland would find its lands split between two empires, and the Russian Empire would be missing all of Novgorod.

I'm Finnish, and have often played as such, but a de jure Finno-Ugric empire is just far too far in the realm of fantasy.

EDIT: On a sidenote, many Finns in grips of national romanticism, from the early 19th century up until WWII, dreamed of just such an empire which would unite all Finno-Ugric peoples under one realm, and supported various separatist causes within Russia toward this end. During the Continuation War, there were those who wished to take advantage of Soviet Union's weakened state and, as it was said back then, push the border all the way to the Ural Mountains. Obviously, these aspirations were wildly unrealistic, and were largely discarded after the reality of the Cold War set in.

EDIT 2: On a second sidenote, it's unlike the rule of the Finns would've been an overtly benevolent one, were such an empire ever by some miracle established. The early decades of the Finnish independence had already seen us nationalising the ancestral lands of the Sami, who were in general treated as second-class citizen. This quite firmly established our "brotherly love" for the Finno-Ugric peoples as coming a distant second to our own immediate interests.

Even today, the rights of the Sami remains greatly lacking. Finland is yet to ratify the ILO agreement granting them full recognition as a native people, and it's very unlikely the lands taken from them would be returned even if we did, though this is in part because the Sami communities they belonged to have since ceased to exist in all but name, their members having integrated into the general population. Even defining who qualifies as a Sami is a thorny issue, as few of Sami ancestry speak the language or adhere to Sami customs anymore.

 

[Karlingid]

I think you're talking past each other somewhat... but regardless, I'm also against the creation of the Finno-Ugric empire as suggested, for historical reasons. Not only were the Finno-Ugric peoples not nearly united enough for such a realm to have existed even as a hypothetical (justifying a de jure claim), but its insertion would cause oddities with the realms that actually did exist (or at least would in the near future). Namely, the historical Sweden after claiming Finland would find its lands split between two empires, and the Russian Empire would be missing all of Novgorod.

I'm Finnish, and have often played as such, but a de jure Finno-Ugric empire is just far too far in the realm of fantasy.

EDIT: On a sidenote, many Finns in grips of national romanticism, from the early 19th century up until WWII, dreamed of just such an empire which would unite all Finno-Ugric peoples under one realm, and supported various separatist causes within Russia toward this end. During the Continuation War, there were those who wished to take advantage of Soviet Union's weakened state and, as it was said back then, push the border all the way to the Ural Mountains. Obviously, these aspirations were wildly unrealistic, and were largely discarded after the reality of the Cold War set in.

EDIT 2: On a second sidenote, it's unlike the rule of the Finns would've been an overtly benevolent one, were such an empire ever by some miracle established. The early decades of the Finnish independence had already seen us nationalising the ancestral lands of the Sami, who were in general treated as second-class citizen. This quite firmly established our "brotherly love" for the Finno-Ugric peoples as coming a distant second to our own immediate interests.

Even today, the rights of the Sami remains greatly lacking. Finland is yet to ratify the ILO agreement granting them full recognition as a native people, and it's very unlikely the lands taken from them would be returned even if we did, though this is in part because the Sami communities they belonged to have since ceased to exist in all but name, their members having integrated into the general population. Even defining who qualifies as a Sami is a thorny issue, as few of Sami ancestry speak the language or adhere to Sami customs anymore.

I can certainly see your points. I suppose I accept the idea, even if it is just a renamed e_russia, because it's sort of playing to what I like to do. I like to get in the minds of characters, and end up doing games like Hey, let's play as Manaw and reclaimed Lloegyr for the tribal Britons! and in doing so, I'll refuse to Feudalize just because of the romantic idea of Celtic tribes coming to dominate the lands once more. I mean, it would realistically be not too different from a plain Welsh domination, but I still find the idea amusing.

Ultimately, things like the Wendish Empire, and "Suomi" as e_russia renamed, would most certainly end poorly. People don't recognize often enough that tribes were typically led by warlords, and warlords like to destroy things. Ah, but setting these ideas for myself makes the game ever more entertaining. When Charlemagne just came out, I took Saxony and tried to reclaim Classical Germania (that is to say, Germania and the Wendish Empire together) because I put it in my mind this great defense of pre-Christian and pre-Romanized Germanic culture through the Saxons. Funny enough, the Suebi would've been a more apt choice, and I did end up forming a pagan Suebi empire in Spain.

Other times I'll do serious roleplay type stuff, but ultimately these sorts of things are much more for the player, rather than any semblance of accuracy. I don't think a de jure Finnish empire should exist, and that the dynamic name for Russia is easily enough. However, it should probably get renamed to something involving Mordvins or Ugrians, seeing as Suomi itself is beyond any territory held by the empire under regular circumstances.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

In the earliest start dates it's far more complex then that. In those time Venice was technically part of the byzantine empire but after the Lombards and franks they like Sardinia were mostly cut of from Constantinople. There were factions in the Venice government that were pro Frankish and others pro byzantine. No one really knows when became truly independent, but it was a slow gradual process.

In 769 Venice was part of the Empire. There's no ifs, ands or buts about it.

But then, the Exarchate of Ravenna and k_africa should be de jure Byzantium in 769 too.

 

[Widowmaker94]

So the Kingdom of Greece is now smaller while Italy is still the same size?

I'm eyeballing it... but Italy looks like it has more than Greece.

Also, Greece not having both sides of the Aegean just looks wrong. Greece borders look oogly now.

We always recommend that you finish off any old save before applying the new patch.

Steam forces the patch, I think.

 

[Karlingid]

In 769 Venice was part of the Empire. There's no ifs, ands or buts about it.

But then, the Exarchate of Ravenna and k_africa should be de jure Byzantium in 769 too.

Ravenna stopped being a thing ~20 years before the start date, and I believe Africa had not been reconquered since the rise of Islam.

I can see de jure, I guess, but uh...the 769 Venice thing is, I believe, a de-facto argument, not a de-jure.

 

[Widowmaker94]

- The county of Constantinople is now only located on the western side of the Bosphorus, merging the eastern side into the county of Nikaea, connected with a strait

Nope. Nope. NOPE.

I'm sorry, but... no.

That's just dumb. Can't wait for map mods to fix what the devs have decided to break.

 

[DC123456789]

Ravenna stopped being a thing ~20 years before the start date, and I believe Africa had not been reconquered since the rise of Islam.

I can see de jure, I guess, but uh...the 769 Venice thing is, I believe, a de-facto argument, not a de-jure.

Carthage fell to the Arabs for the final time in 698, so according to game rules Africa should still be de jure Byzantine (of course, this would be absurd ingame).

 

[Negative_Creep]

I can certainly see your points. I suppose I accept the idea, even if it is just a renamed e_russia, because it's sort of playing to what I like to do. I like to get in the minds of characters, and end up doing games like Hey, let's play as Manaw and reclaimed Lloegyr for the tribal Britons! and in doing so, I'll refuse to Feudalize just because of the romantic idea of Celtic tribes coming to dominate the lands once more. I mean, it would realistically be not too different from a plain Welsh domination, but I still find the idea amusing.

Ultimately, things like the Wendish Empire, and "Suomi" as e_russia renamed, would most certainly end poorly. People don't recognize often enough that tribes were typically led by warlords, and warlords like to destroy things. Ah, but setting these ideas for myself makes the game ever more entertaining. When Charlemagne just came out, I took Saxony and tried to reclaim Classical Germania (that is to say, Germania and the Wendish Empire together) because I put it in my mind this great defense of pre-Christian and pre-Romanized Germanic culture through the Saxons. Funny enough, the Suebi would've been a more apt choice, and I did end up forming a pagan Suebi empire in Spain.

Other times I'll do serious roleplay type stuff, but ultimately these sorts of things are much more for the player, rather than any semblance of accuracy. I don't think a de jure Finnish empire should exist, and that the dynamic name for Russia is easily enough. However, it should probably get renamed to something involving Mordvins or Ugrians, seeing as Suomi itself is beyond any territory held by the empire under regular circumstances.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I definitely like to roleplay myself, and the game invariably careers into alternative history regardless of what the player does, anyhow, thanks to so many things being up to RNG. I do like the gameworld to retain some trace of historical accuracy, though, and the de jure borders are one aspect that guide the AI toward this. In particular, the thought of being able to form the Russian Empire without the annexation of Novgorod unnerves me, as that northern reach is at least in my mind core Russian territory. Likewise, Sweden's inclination to claim Finland, or even Lappland, would likely be diminished if those lands fell under a different de jure empire.

Meanwhile, the Finns and their cousins like the Mordvins quite likely were largely unaware of each other's very existence, so I think the Finno-Ugric empire as a default would cater much too strongly to a very specific what-if scenario at the cost of more historically salient ones. The de jure drift should be enough to satisfy the needs of anyone hankering for Uralia, since they can still form the Russian empire, and then allow the kingdoms of Finland and Sápmi to be integrated into it over time -- or just create a brand-new custom empire encompassing the proper realm, if they don't want to have to conquer the Slavic/Russian kingdoms.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Now, I'm not perhaps an expert in late medieval art, but this tells me that contemporaries saw a similar situation of the city spanning both sides until the end seeing as the artist seemed to build continuity between the two sides.

Are you sure that straight on the left is the Bosphorus? It looks like the Golden Horn to me.

 

[Karlingid]

Are you sure that straight on the left is the Bosphorus? It looks like the Golden Horn to me.

'Twould make sense. That's not the only one I've got, and others are more explicit in showing the connection to Asia, but I'd rather not flood a large number of links and pictures at the moment.

 

[FakeShady]

So... turn 1 of Byzantine start, Duke of Trebizond can create the Kingdom of Trebizond right away? WTF?

 

[DC123456789]

He'll need to acquire a second duchy first, like for all kingdom titles. Assuming no other creation requirements.

I'd also like to add my voice to those suggesting that Cherson should become part of Trebizond.

 

[Thure]

I highly want a source that Constantinople included the eastern side of the Bosporus too.
I also work on maps and I never did see this for this time period. The eastern half was allways seperated from the western side administratively.
Constantinople/Istanbul spanning two continents is a modern phenomenon not a medieval one. The Theme was allways split on the Bospurus. And even the Church administration was split on the Bospurus.
Constantinople during the middle ages was only the western side of the Bospurus. And the 'large River' on all this paintings isn't the Bospurus. It's the Golden Horn mostly. Completelly different thing! Constantinople was on both sides of the Golden Horn. NOT on both sides of the Bosporus.

On the other side of the Bospurus was Chalcedon and Chrysopolis. And they were not part of Constantinople
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Üsküdar#Chrysopolis

 

[FakeShady]

- The county of Constantinople is now only located on the western side of the Bosphorus, merging the eastern side into the county of Nikaea, connected with a strait

This seems like a typo, you mean county of Nikomedia, or d_Nikaea, right? Cos if i take you literally this means byebye c_nikomedia

 

[Jorlem]

Quite the enjoyable picture if I do say so myself.

Now, I'm sorry if I sound like one of those people who complains about every little addition, saying they're making the game too much like Europa. I've not believed it, even when they added shattered retreat and even when they added pacts, but this is a bit of a button of mine so to speak, one that gets pushed easily. CK2 is for us Byzantines, where Europa often shows hostility. The division of Constantinople into two different provinces simply, in my view, is not appropriate for the majority of the game's timeframe, because the game simply offers better ways to represent the split between land.

Look at it from a gameplay perspective. Splitting it like that makes Constantinople far more defensible, as anyone attacking from the east would have a strait crossing penalty. Unless the siege mechanics are overhauled, the unique Theodosian Walls building just slows sieges down, so the end result of this makes it far less likely the city will actually fall to invaders (by preventing them from starting the siege.)

 

[TheDungen]

I would assume Khazaria would not survive very well as tribal when compared to nomads. However, what they could do would have some cities, etc. in their provinces to show some of their permanent settlements but I am not entirely sure how well these operate under nomad mechanics.

IN a way they would survive better since their culture would not vanish into thin air the moment they are conquered. But yeah you may be right nomads with tribal settlements in many provinces may make more sense.

It's weird that Byzantium ever had a de jure claim on Venice. They traded a lot, but Byzantium never conquered them. In fact - especially later on - they were very much dependent on the Italian republics for ships because their own navy was usually in a bad state. Some emperors made an effort to rebuild it but it never lasted beyond several successions. So they just resorted to hiring ships abroad.

Eh Venice was part of the byzantine empire, and also it was always usually much more focused in that direction than it was towards italy.

So the Kingdom of Greece is now smaller while Italy is still the same size?

I'm eyeballing it... but Italy looks like it has more than Greece.

Also, Greece not having both sides of the Aegean just looks wrong. Greece borders look oogly now.


Steam forces the patch, I think.

It's kind of hard to come up with a breakdown of italy. I guess you could break them up in lombardia and ravenna. But that's would look quite odd. Also being a big kingdom keeps it from forming. While greece as a gameplay thing is already under one ruler.

Carthage fell to the Arabs for the final time in 698, so according to game rules Africa should still be de jure Byzantine (of course, this would be absurd ingame).

Why? If you do the no dejure claims from empire tier titles I suggested earlier than africa could easily be part of ERE especially if everything west of it goes to a dirrent empire title, perhaps mehgreb and anadlusia could be under an Andalusian empire or something (caliphate of cordoba?).

Are you sure that straight on the left is the Bosphorus? It looks like the Golden Horn to me.

Yeah I would say it is.

So... turn 1 of Byzantine start, Duke of Trebizond can create the Kingdom of Trebizond right away? WTF?

duchies of Trebizond and Armeniacon de jure to the kingdom of Trebizond.

Not unless he controls both those duchies.

 

[Servancour]

Any word on whether you might make d_amalfi a de jure part of k_sicily again so that your viceroys don't annihilate it ASAP with de jure wars. Because that's really annoying and you can't really do anything to stop it most of the time. And the times where you can demand white piece it often costs you a favour. And if you don't notice the war before it's over it's done, since you can't remake Amalfi. It really shouldn't be that hard to keep the Amalfi republic alive as your vassal.

I wouldn't be opposed to such a change, but it's not something I've been thinking about.

This seems like a typo, you mean county of Nikomedia, or d_Nikaea, right? Cos if i take you literally this means byebye c_nikomedia

That would indeed be a typo. The county of Nikomedia is the is one next to Constantinople, which would be the one I was referring to.