CK2 Dev Diary #40: Visiting the Cartographer

[Ruwaard]

Regardless of Danube redrawings Znojmo is still (and since the Norse patch) the stupidest county in my area (Austria). I want to quit playing CK2 whenever I see that one. Or maybe I did.

In it self having 2 provinces there isn't the problem (IMHO that's a good thing), but they ought to be west-east, not north-south, to represent Oberösterreich (Upper Austria; Traungau) and Niederösterreich (Lower Austria). Then again apart from the western part of the Empire, which borders France, most of the provinces in the Empire* (like many other places) on the vanilla map are IMHO TBH not a pretty sight to look at. Though I've been saying that, (specifically about the Empire*), since the first day I saw the vanilla map (and saw the work done on France and Poland).

Anyway having that from my chest, I must say I do very much applaud the changes being made with regard to the border of Hungary and the Danuba and others places. They look magnificent.

(*= HRE; Holy Roman Empire)

 

[Dracko81]

Steam forces the patch, I think.

For those running the current release. You can run any number of versions with the beta versions on steam. Paradox usually releases the current patch closer to the release date of a new version so you can switch before hand without issue. Or switch after it is released.

 

[Unready]

I would suggest move Ingria (c_vodi) from duchy of Estonia to Novgorod, Historically Sweden conquered these lands only in EU4 period by in Middle ages this was sea and trade gates of Novgorod republic.

 

[Wagonlitz]

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

Well here's hoping that it will happen. Also do you know the reason it was made not de jure in the first place? (Pretty sure it used to be de jure years ago.)

 

[Emikke88]

Greece looks kind of strange not surrounding the Aegean Sea which was the center of Greece.

 

[Thure]

Greece looks kind of strange not surrounding the Aegean Sea which was the center of Greece.

Anatolia is part of Greece too... I personally would interpret Greece as 'Kingdom of Thesallonica' which was only on the west side of the Aegean Sea.
Anatolia is Greek too.

 

[greentunnel]

The Kingdom of Greece Adjustments are not needed

 

[Emikke88]

Not really, the Greeks didn't think of Greece as one side of the Aegean sea, Greece surrounded the Aegean Sea. So the Eastern part of what we call the Anatolian peninsula was firmly part of Greece.

 

[AstroCat]

Do you think we could have culture specific buildings like the mod, or better textures, like several other mods?

Culture cities
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=242577744

Terrain textures
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...m-borders-textures-rivers-terrain-etc.906716/

 

[Fitzjacob]

Will the changes to Greece in any way influence the Alexiad start?
Or will there still be a crusade for Greece targeting Nikaea only? How many provinces of a kingdom need to be controlled by infidels for the Pope to call a crusade?

 

[Silversweeeper]

Will the changes to Greece in any way influence the Alexiad start?
Or will there still be a crusade for Greece targeting Nikaea only? How many provinces of a kingdom need to be controlled by infidels for the Pope to call a crusade?

Unless it has been changed, 6 counties are the minimum for a crusade.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

Of all the holdings in Constantinople you named, only one (Hieron) is on the east side of the Bosphorus, and even then it's unclear whether it too belonged to Optimaton. Even if not, it would merit Constantinople having maybe a single pixel on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, but that's it, so it's not worth it all in all. The Ottomans never controlled Galata (which is not on the eastern side either) before 1453, BTW.

And comparing Constantinople to modern Jerusalem is plain silly. Jerusalem is not owned by a singular polity like Constantinople was. Chalcedon and Chrysopolis and other cities on the other side of the Bosphorus were part of the Thema Optimaton while Constantinople itself wasn't part of any theme. A better analogy would be Buda and Pest - they are a singular city now, but they certainly weren't then, not in any meaningful sense.

 

[StarSword]

Anatolia is part of Greece too... I personally would interpret Greece as 'Kingdom of Thesallonica' which was only on the west side of the Aegean Sea.
Anatolia is Greek too.

Hey, here's a crazy thought: rejigger the Grecosphere in general. Rename Greece to Thessaloniki, then make it so the Byzantine Empire is only called such when held by a feudal empire with Christian or Hellenic liege (possibly only if Imperial Administration is active); otherwise it's the Empire of Greece. That way a non-Christian invader such as the Turks get a de jure empire without having to usurp the ERE.

 

[Emikke88]

Hey, here's a crazy thought: rejigger the Grecosphere in general. Rename Greece to Thessaloniki, then make it so the Byzantine Empire is only called such when held by a feudal empire with Christian or Hellenic liege (possibly only if Imperial Administration is active); otherwise it's the Empire of Greece. That way a non-Christian invader such as the Turks get a de jure empire without having to usurp the ERE.

I think it makes more sense to have k_thessaloniki available to Catholics, rename the Byzantine Empire the Eastern Roman Empire, keep k_greece as it is. And give Anatolia the name Sultanate of Rum if it is held by a muslim Ruler.

 

[Lysistrata]

I think it makes more sense to have k_thessaloniki available to Catholics, rename the Byzantine Empire the Eastern Roman Empire, keep k_greece as it is. And give Anatolia the name Sultanate of Rum if it is held by a muslim Ruler.

Why the East Roman Empire? The Byzantine Empire wasn't the East Roman Empire. It was originally, until Odoacer invaded Italy in 476 and ceded the title of West Roman Emperor to Emperor Zenon, thereby reuniting the two. The Byzantine Empire was just the Roman Empire - Basileia (ton) Rhomaion.

 

[Emikke88]

Because Byzantine is just a name given to the Eastern Roman Empire after it was annexed by the Ottoman Empire. They called themselves the Roman Empire. But it wouldn't quite be accurate to call it the Roman Empire either.

 

[EU3NOOB]

Because Byzantine is just a name given to the Eastern Roman Empire after it was annexed by the Ottoman Empire. They called themselves the Roman Empire. But it wouldn't quite be accurate to call it the Roman Empire either.

That's not the full story.

After the death of Julius Nepos, the last Western Emperor, the title Emperor of the West defaulted to Constantinople. However, in the 8th century the Bishop of Rome got too big for his britches and decided to crown some dirty barbarian Emperor of the West.

 

[Emikke88]

That's not the full story.

After the death of Julius Nepos, the last Western Emperor, the title Emperor of the West defaulted to Constantinople. However, in the 8th century the Bishop of Rome got too big for his britches and decided to crown some dirty barbarian Emperor of the West.

From what i know Odoacer had the crown of the Western Empire sent to Constantinople. He was instructed to give the title to Nepos and to allow him to rule. So the Eastern Empire rejected his offer to allow him and his realm to be accepted into the Empire. Later Justinian tried to restore the Roman Empire. Then that stuff with the Bishop of Rome, it just 100% correct.

 

[FakeShady]

I don't care which side of the Bosphorus its on, as long as you don't make Constantinople even harder to select with my mouse.

 

[Karlingid]

Of all the holdings in Constantinople you named, only one (Hieron) is on the east side of the Bosphorus, and even then it's unclear whether it too belonged to Optimaton. Even if not, it would merit Constantinople having maybe a single pixel on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, but that's it, so it's not worth it all in all. The Ottomans never controlled Galata (which is not on the eastern side either) before 1453, BTW.

And comparing Constantinople to modern Jerusalem is plain silly. Jerusalem is not owned by a singular polity like Constantinople was. Chalcedon and Chrysopolis and other cities on the other side of the Bosphorus were part of the Thema Optimaton while Constantinople itself wasn't part of any theme. A better analogy would be Buda and Pest - they are a singular city now, but they certainly weren't then, not in any meaningful sense.

I was also writing that well past midnight and am evidently not fluent enough in Turkish to recognize the distinction between Karakoy and Kadikoy after a long day.

Stating "It's not on the eastern side either" implies a previous mention of something not being on the eastern side, and it's blatantly obvious the point I was attempting to get across. Picking at that, of all things, is not the appropriate way to undertake the argument. A simple side-mention would've sufficed.

Stating that it warrants a single pixel and that it's "not worth it at all" as a point of attack against my argument ignores my comment that the borders are not perfect as they are. I'm hardly suggesting that Constantinople just gobble up more land, and I've stated that I'm not content with the current border.

Comparing Constantinople, now, to Jerusalem is far from silly. Modern Jerusalem is a city split between east and west, with a barrier blocking out the two sides, and with the bulk of the city clustered into one side. I dare not sidetrack too much here, but the defeat of the Jerusalem argument does not defeat the other arguments I have made, nor does it invalidate the other couple of examples that I gave.

Furthermore, I don't care. It's my opinion. I think Constantinople should have presence on both sides because it makes the province feel special from the standpoint of the map, and it acts beautifully as a capital for the Byzantines by connecting the two continents they lay their claim to. Furthermore, holdings like Chalcedon should, in my opinion, be considered closer to Constantinople than Nikomedia. For example, the site was used by the Persians as a siege camp in 616 for a convenient base from which to siege the very-nearby Constantinople. The Arabs later did much of the same. The Byzantines used it as a quarry to build monuments in Constantinople. Chrysopolis has a fairly similar history regarding being mostly a station for doing things to Constantinople.

Last but not least, how about we consider for a moment that this is a province and not a city. The city of Rome takes up only a very small amount of land within its corresponding county, the medieval city of Paris is almost certainly not as big as its county, I doubt tribal Anhalt was as big as the county would say, or that Mecca and Baghdad are truly the size of Crimea. Even if the city itself is only nominally on the other side of the Bosporus for this era, the surrounding villages and communes were most certainly associated with Constantinople. They fed it, they guarded it, they fought it, and they eventually conquered it.

I can appreciate that the current holdings in Constantinople relate to sections of the city, but redundancy can be done away with in favor of associating villages and communities with their relevant and immediate neighboring city, whose urban glory they were constantly working to feed directly.