CK2 Dev Diary #40: Visiting the Cartographer

[OBRkenobi]

The county of Constantinople is now only located on the western side of the Bosphorus

WHAT!?

 

[es333]

The vast majority of Uralic peoples are still alive and well to this day. It is hardly the supposed 98% extinct.

The extinct groups: Akkala Saami and Kemi Saami, Kamassians, Mator, Yurats, Southern and Western Mansi. 4/7 of these groups are subdivisions of already existing groups, as the Saami and Mansi are not extinct. The last 3 would be grouped as "Samoyed", which has been displaced in the game by the Nenets who are more distantly related to them.

For the record as well, Slavs and Balts also are objectively very similar. They were considered a continuum of each other up until the rise of the Avars in the 7th century. This is notable for being an extremely recent ethnogenesis relative to other Indo-European groups. This may be your point. Moving on:

I can certainly appreciate your comparing the difference as equivalent for Romance vs. Germanic, as it's a very apt comparison. The distance isn't like English to Sanskrit, after all (though, Finnish to Nenets would be such a situation). I have to agree that the Finns and Saami should not be necessarily grouped with the Ugrians, although I don't see too much harm in a custom empire doing so. It's like the empire of India, or the Arabian Empire (which connects similarly disparate Semitic and Berber cultures), or even Tartaria (which connects Mongols and Turks, generally agreed to be just as distinct if not more so.)

It's using modern knowledge to have fun in a medieval setting. I would simply, then, like to point out that the empire of Russia, if held by a Finno-Ugric ruler, will be given the dynastic name "Suomi". Whilst this doesn't really fit seeing as it doesn't contain the Finns at all, it demonstrates that this concept was already kinda in the game. I'd recommend anyone wanting a Finno-Ugric empire to simply stick with that.

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.

A large part of European Russia was inhabited by Finno-Ugrians before the Slavic expansion into Russia. There were hundreds if not thousands of tribes who we have never heard about, disappearing into the annals of history without even their name surviving.

If at one point, most of Northern-Europe (Scandinavia, Finland, modern-day Baltic states) and also a large part of Eastern-Europe was inhabited by Finno-Ugric people and in the modern day(and also 1000 AD CK2) there are just the Estonians, Finns and the Saami in Northern-Europe, then it is very true that over 90% of Finno-Ugrian tribes who existed, are no more. Same thing with the Celts, who used to inhabit Spain, France and Central-Europe etc. Now they're on the fringes of Europe, in Ireland and Scotland, with barely anyone speaking their language. Same thing with the Estonia and Finland. Those 2 countries are the boggiest countries in the world thus making farming and agriculture harder, that might be one of the reasons why Scandinavians now speak an Indo-European language while the Estonians and Finns have retained their language.

The main point of Estonian historians who focus more on Finno-Ugric history than I do is that Estonia got "lucky" by being conquered by Scandinavians and Germans, meaning Estonia has been a part of the Western-European world since 1227. Finno-Ugric ethnicities who fell under the Eastern world AKA Russia, disappeared (assimilated mostly), most of them without a trace. You mentioned in your post some groups who don't exist anymore, at least you know they existed, that is already a big thing. The majority are gone without anyone knowing anything about them. I hear that quite often at conferences from historians with a Ph. D who focused on that field. I'm just working on my MA and focusing on Northern-Europe.

Edit: You also said that the comparison between the Saami and Balto-Finnics (Estonians and Finns) is about the same as Balts vs Slavs who were the same ethnos 700 AD as you say.

The Saami were already living in Finland and Scandinavia 5000-6000 years ago while the Finns (or just Finnics back then) when the Proto-Balto Finnic language had arisen somewhere around modern-day Southern-Estonia and started moving into Finland a few thousand years after the Saami. The main similarities between Balto Finnic and the Saami languages come from common Germanic influence.

Even Germanic and Slavic have a smaller time frame dividing them than Saami and Balto Finnic.

 

[Elden]

I like the rivers fixes and most of the de jure changes, but the mountains now being ugly grey blobs is one of the things I've always hated about most map mods, seeing it now a part of the main game is disappointing.

 

[FakeShady]

Also, isn't it time we be able to destroy holdings now? WIth the new holy order mechanics you can imagine them shitting castles all over the place

 

[LudskyL]

Good Job ^^

I wait North Africa completed ....

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

..... but the mountains now being ugly grey blobs ....seeing it now a part of the main game is disappointing.

?
Mountains haven't changed.
The borders on mountains are unpleasing to the eye and only make limited sense (to signal impasability on political map especially as i recall),
but it has been that way for a very long time.

 

[Karlingid]

A large part of European Russia was inhabited by Finno-Ugrians before the Slavic expansion into Russia. There were hundreds if not thousands of tribes who we have never heard about, disappearing into the annals of history without even their name surviving.

The issue I take with this statement is that archaeology allows us to see those that disappeared 'without even their name'. Whilst Finnish, Sami, and Estonian are one part of the group, the other part sees a large host. The thing about the Finnic ethnicities is that they don't particularly occupy a large space without the Ugrian groups tossed in as well. We've a fairly complete reconstruction of what pre-Germanic Scandinavia and Baltic regions in general looked like, based on the archaeological record, and it's composed of the same ethnicities that live there today. The Sami roamed the peninsula, the Finns were in Finland, the Karelians skirted around, and the Estonians were more or less where they are now, if with a bit of a stretch in Latvia represented by Litgalian and Livonian languages.

Large culture groupings are not an unfamiliar concept with tribes. Based on those we still know today, those in the historical record, and what archaeology can be done, it seems that the vast majority of Finno-Ugric peoples have survived to this day, with a slim majority of those who have perished being subgroups of modern day ethnicities rather than being ethnicities by their own right. 3 of those 7 extinct groups are technically not even Finno-Ugric.

Now, there is evidence for a few more extinct groups. However, even these seem to be individual tribes or bands within a larger ethnic group:

Merya -> Debated, although they are believed to have peacefully interbred with proto-Russians. One hypothesis states they were part of the Mari, rather than their own group.
Murom -> Became tributaries of the Rus and are believed to have assimilated without much interbreeding. Possibly a group of Merya.
Meshchera -> Contemporaries relate this as being a group of Mordvins, as are many other named groups of the time.

There might've been hundreds or thousands of villages and communities lost to time. This is natural, it happens to nearly every group across history. However, these do not form their own cultures and ethnicities any more than, say, the people of Helsinki are a different type of Finnish than the people of Turku. As much as time has withered down the once-prominent status of Finno-Ugric peoples, the modern ethnicities are mostly free of any significant gaps in their borders. There's simply not that much space left empty for these missing cultures to fill, and with the habits of nomadic groups (like several prominent Ugric cultures historically) of leaving swathes of empty land, the potential for a particular abundance of lost cultures withers.

The outlier, of course, is the Hungarians, whose Magyar nomadic ancestors firstly went south, then west to Pannonia as we all know.

Spoiler

 

[es333]

The issue I take with this statement is that archaeology allows us to see those that disappeared 'without even their name'. Whilst Finnish, Sami, and Estonian are one part of the group, the other part sees a large host. The thing about the Finnic ethnicities is that they don't particularly occupy a large space without the Ugrian groups tossed in as well. We've a fairly complete reconstruction of what pre-Germanic Scandinavia and Baltic regions in general looked like, based on the archaeological record, and it's composed of the same ethnicities that live there today. The Sami roamed the peninsula, the Finns were in Finland, the Karelians skirted around, and the Estonians were more or less where they are now, if with a bit of a stretch in Latvia represented by Litgalian and Livonian languages.

I read from somewhere a few weeks ago that there are archaeological traces in North-Western from Finno-Ugric people whom nobody knows anything about.

Pre-Germanic Scandinavia and the Baltic region didn't definitely look "vaguely" what it is today. The Germanics arose in modern-day Denmark after the Indo-Europeans spread there. Before that it was just the Saami (or just Finno-Ugrics as the Saami weren't an ethnicity yet) and before 500 AD (Great People's migration), most of modern-day Latvia was Finnic (Livonian and other Finnic people). After the Balts pushed northwards, the ethnic border stabilzied around the Väina/Daugava river area, with the sea coasts being Finnic.

Large culture groupings are not an unfamiliar concept with tribes. Based on those we still know today, those in the historical record, and what archaeology can be done, it seems that the vast majority of Finno-Ugric peoples have survived to this day, with a slim majority of those who have perished being subgroups of modern day ethnicities rather than being ethnicities by their own right. 3 of those 7 extinct groups are technically not even Finno-Ugric.

Now, there is evidence for a few more extinct groups. However, even these seem to be individual tribes or bands within a larger ethnic group:

Merya -> Debated, although they are believed to have peacefully interbred with proto-Russians. One hypothesis states they were part of the Mari, rather than their own group.
Murom -> Became tributaries of the Rus and are believed to have assimilated without much interbreeding. Possibly a group of Merya.
Meshchera -> Contemporaries relate this as being a group of Mordvins, as are many other named groups of the time.

There might've been hundreds or thousands of villages and communities lost to time. This is natural, it happens to nearly every group across history. However, these do not form their own cultures and ethnicities any more than, say, the people of Helsinki are a different type of Finnish than the people of Turku. As much as time has withered down the once-prominent status of Finno-Ugric peoples, the modern ethnicities are mostly free of any significant gaps in their borders. There's simply not that much space left empty for these missing cultures to fill, and with the habits of nomadic groups (like several prominent Ugric cultures historically) of leaving swathes of empty land, the potential for a particular abundance of lost cultures withers.

Who lived in Western-Russia before the Slavic tribes moved there? Were it not the Finno-Ugric people? Or are you just saying that Merya and other Finno-Ugric people we know about, just extended 1000km westwards and there weren't any other Finno-Ugric ethnicities/tribes west of them?

Map from 900AD:

Spoiler

The outlier, of course, is the Hungarians, whose Magyar nomadic ancestors firstly went south, then west to Pannonia as we all know.

Spoiler

Hungarians are the odd in the bunch, moving into Central Europe in the 9th century, while the other Finno-Ugrians are the oldest settled people in Northern- and Eastern-Europe. But yeah, Ugrics to a group in the opposite part of the language tree (Balto-Finnic languages) is like Hindi to English.

 

[NewbieOne]

What's the logic behind the de iure changes, though? Perhaps there is something, but I can't see it. To be honest, I'd like to see some guiding rationale there, preferably more history- rather (in which case researched/fact-based rather than intuitive) than more balancing-related. And consistency/status quo if there is no clear benefit to be had in a contemplated change, let alone if the result might well be worse than the current state of things.

Re: Venic, for 769 and 867 it only makes sense to keep it in de iure Byzzie Empire. Its practical independence aside, it was in some loose but recognized title a Byzantine possession.

As for Cybirrhaeot & Samos, I can't say I'm a fan of that change either. In the case of the continental coast of Asia Minor arguments could probably be made both ways, though so far it made perfect sense to keep it under k_Greece in line with political affiliations resulting from Greek Colonization in the antiquity. But pushing k_Anatolia into the Aegean sea is taking it quite far. Why fix something that isn't broken? Especially if chances are the result after the change may be worse? I'd rather the game remained constant if there was no clear benefit to a particular change.

Next, Trebisond as its own de iure kingdom doesn't look good to me. Perhaps less unwieldy and more practical than a titular title, and perhaps we should also look at the Pontic Kingdom and not just the 1204 empire remnant/despotate, but still not entirely convinced.

Not sure what was wrong with k_Taurica, either. It makes perfect sense for that place to be under e_Byzzieland, because of its historical status as a Greek and later Roman colony/province and retained control.

In terms of fixing the de iure makeup of Italy, I would first of all fix Istria/Friuli being in de iure k_Bavaria and e_Germania, which mostly reflects a short-lived stated of things in between 867 and 1066, so it's not fit for either date, but especially 769 out of all things. At that point it's only ever been Lombard (even as per province culture and ruler history files), and the Germans have absolutely no business pushing de iure claims there (and thinking they legitimately have to pound on Lombardy for that as a matter of AI Honor, which is extremely bothesome, as opposed to simply manufacturing the claims sooner or later as a matter of the expansionism of greedy, ambitious provincial German dukes and counts as I believe should be the case).

 

[Karlingid]

I read from somewhere a few weeks ago that there are archaeological traces in North-Western from Finno-Ugric people whom nobody knows anything about.

Pre-Germanic Scandinavia and the Baltic region didn't definitely look "vaguely" what it is today. The Germanics arose in modern-day Denmark after the Indo-Europeans spread there. Before that it was just the Saami (or just Finno-Ugrics as the Saami weren't an ethnicity yet) and before 500 AD (Great People's migration), most of modern-day Latvia was Finnic (Livonian and other Finnic people). After the Balts pushed northwards, the ethnic border stabilzied around the Väina/Daugava river area, with the sea coasts being Finnic.



Who lived in Western-Russia before the Slavic tribes moved there? Were it not the Finno-Ugric people? Or are you just saying that Merya and other Finno-Ugric people we know about, just extended 1000km westwards and there weren't any other Finno-Ugric ethnicities/tribes west of them?

Map from 900AD:

Spoiler

Hungarians are the odd in the bunch, moving into Central Europe in the 9th century, while the other Finno-Ugrians are the oldest settled people in Northern- and Eastern-Europe. But yeah, Ugrics to a group in the opposite part of the language tree (Balto-Finnic languages) is like Hindi to English.

I had hoped my definition of "vaguely similar" was taken in the context of proto-cultures in their respective regions, stating for instance that the ancestral Sami would inhabit Scandinavia rather than, say, the Ugrians. As for the southerly regions of the area, it was actually always an Indo-European base:

Spoiler

The Yamna culture, considered by scholarly consensus to be the identity of the Proto-Indo-European pastoral nomads, and whose ancestors can be reliably traced to the Lithic era. A very early division, a mass tribal migration, was the Corded Ware Culture seen here:

Spoiler

Which covers land of some of the earliest decisively Indo-European peoples of the European branch, and which would later evolve into proto-Germanic and proto-Balto-Slavic peoples. Celts and Italic peoples, under Tyrsenic influence, would also spurt out from this general area, but they're not as relevant to the point being made. The point I'm trying to establish is that, to the Neolithic, we can trace Indo-European existence to the immediate south of Uralic peoples, and the area has a fairly continual habitation. The Finno-Ugric region is uncertain, as cultures at recent as 2000 BCE have been identified as a potential origin. Uralic genetics proves difficult due to a seemingly large amount of conquering or assimilating nearby groups. If they are traced to the Pit Comb culture, however, then the native lands of ancestral Uralic peoples aren't too far off from what their range is now, if you connect the gaps between modern ethnic groups.

Also, the difference between Finnish and Hungarian would be akin to that between Persian and Hindi, at least on a matter of taxonomy. The difference between Hindi and English would equate more to the difference between Finnish and any given Samoyedic language, like for instance one of the Nenets.

 

[Talvos]

Lake Baikal, old and new:

Did you just smooth the heightmap around the lake? Would it be possible/how hard would it be to get the EU4 map feature of drawing water at custom heights?

 

[es333]

I had hoped my definition of "vaguely similar" was taken in the context of proto-cultures in their respective regions, stating for instance that the ancestral Sami would inhabit Scandinavia rather than, say, the Ugrians. As for the southerly regions of the area, it was actually always an Indo-European base:

Spoiler

The Yamna culture, considered by scholarly consensus to be the identity of the Proto-Indo-European pastoral nomads, and whose ancestors can be reliably traced to the Lithic era. A very early division, a mass tribal migration, was the Corded Ware Culture seen here:

Spoiler

Which covers land of some of the earliest decisively Indo-European peoples of the European branch, and which would later evolve into proto-Germanic and proto-Balto-Slavic peoples. Celts and Italic peoples, under Tyrsenic influence, would also spurt out from this general area, but they're not as relevant to the point being made. The point I'm trying to establish is that, to the Neolithic, we can trace Indo-European existence to the immediate south of Uralic peoples, and the area has a fairly continual habitation. The Finno-Ugric region is uncertain, as cultures at recent as 2000 BCE have been identified as a potential origin. Uralic genetics proves difficult due to a seemingly large amount of conquering or assimilating nearby groups. If they are traced to the Pit Comb culture, however, then the native lands of ancestral Uralic peoples aren't too far off from what their range is now, if you connect the gaps between modern ethnic groups.

Finno-Ugrians living in Northern- and Eastern-Europe predate the Yamna and Corded Ware cultures. Yes, the Corded Ware expansion spread the Indo-European languages and they made it to Estonia and Finland also. But as Estonia and Finland are the boggiest countries in the world + it is colder than Southern-Scandinavia, then that might be the reason why the people still speak a Finno-Ugric language, while the Scandinavian abandoned it and took up a Germanic one.

If the Finno-Ugroc proto homeland is around the Volga river area, then how can you say that it is "continuous IE territory". Think about before the Yamna time, when Indo-Europeans were still in Central-Asia.

Also, the difference between Finnish and Hungarian would be akin to that between Persian and Hindi, at least on a matter of taxonomy. The difference between Hindi and English would equate more to the difference between Finnish and any given Samoyedic language, like for instance one of the Nenets.

"We do not know when the Palaeosiberian people, the ancestors of the Samoyeds, moved to northeastern Europe and there gave up their Palaeosiberian tongue in favour of some Finno-Ugric language(s). It has been thought possible that this did not happen until after 2000 BC."

The Samoyeds are not Finno-Ugric and the Uralic language group exists solely because of their language group, to fit it together with the Finno-Ugric language family. Samoyedic languages started as a creole language.

Hungarian to Estonian/Finnish is like English to Hindi while Hindi and English are even more similar to each other at the same time. 2 opposite branches of the language family. While the Finno-Ugric languages diverged thousands of years earlier than the Indo-European ones.

TL: DR: A "Uralic" empire in CK 2 is a dumb idea as Finno-Ugrians are a diverse group (that used to be a lot bigger) like the Indo-Europeans, they're not all the same ethnicity.

A "Uralic" empire would make sense if CK 2 creates a game about the Mesolithic period in Europe (let's say 4000BC), not 1000AD. The person who suggested it is just a few thousand years off with the date.

 

[Emikke88]

What's the logic behind the de iure changes, though? Perhaps there is something, but I can't see it. To be honest, I'd like to see some guiding rationale there, preferably more history- rather (in which case researched/fact-based rather than intuitive) than more balancing-related. And consistency/status quo if there is no clear benefit to be had in a contemplated change, let alone if the result might well be worse than the current state of things.

Re: Venic, for 769 and 867 it only makes sense to keep it in de iure Byzzie Empire. Its practical independence aside, it was in some loose but recognized title a Byzantine possession.

As for Cybirrhaeot & Samos, I can't say I'm a fan of that change either. In the case of the continental coast of Asia Minor arguments could probably be made both ways, though so far it made perfect sense to keep it under k_Greece in line with political affiliations resulting from Greek Colonization in the antiquity. But pushing k_Anatolia into the Aegean sea is taking it quite far. Why fix something that isn't broken? Especially if chances are the result after the change may be worse? I'd rather the game remained constant if there was no clear benefit to a particular change.

Next, Trebisond as its own de iure kingdom doesn't look good to me. Perhaps less unwieldy and more practical than a titular title, and perhaps we should also look at the Pontic Kingdom and not just the 1204 empire remnant/despotate, but still not entirely convinced.

Not sure what was wrong with k_Taurica, either. It makes perfect sense for that place to be under e_Byzzieland, because of its historical status as a Greek and later Roman colony/province and retained control.

In terms of fixing the de iure makeup of Italy, I would first of all fix Istria/Friuli being in de iure k_Bavaria and e_Germania, which mostly reflects a short-lived stated of things in between 867 and 1066, so it's not fit for either date, but especially 769 out of all things. At that point it's only ever been Lombard (even as per province culture and ruler history files), and the Germans have absolutely no business pushing de iure claims there (and thinking they legitimately have to pound on Lombardy for that as a matter of AI Honor, which is extremely bothesome, as opposed to simply manufacturing the claims sooner or later as a matter of the expansionism of greedy, ambitious provincial German dukes and counts as I believe should be the case).

I agree completely, it's like the decisions are made to balance the game. In that case make it available for multi-player, but don't put it in the main game. I really dislike gamey decisions like that, just to make the game more fair in multi-player.

It seems like they are using a current map, and little historical basis for changing Greece and Venice.

Edit: Changed the phrasing and clarified the second paragraph.

 

[alfian]

This is it.. what paradox supposed to do LNG LNG time ago.. rework the provinces!

Will you also rework the provinces of Caucasus region, for example: Azerbaijan province, Albania province (Arran), and Oromieh province.

1. In Azerbaijan has holding Urmiah and Takht-e Suleiman, In Oromieh has holding Takht-e Soleyman.
2. In Albania has holding Chukkur Kabala, in Azerbaijan has holding Kapalak.

Which mean it makes no sense

I believe Albania should be rework, replace with Kakheti and put Albania between one of those.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

This is it.. what paradox supposed to do LNG LNG time ago.. rework the provinces!

Will you also rework the provinces of Caucasus region, for example: Azerbaijan province, Albania province (Arran), and Oromieh province.

1. In Azerbaijan has holding Urmiah and Takht-e Suleiman, In Oromieh has holding Takht-e Soleyman.
2. In Albania has holding Chukkur Kabala, in Azerbaijan has holding Kapalak.

Which mean it makes no sense

I believe Albania should be rework, replace with Kakheti and put Albania between one of those.

Also, de jure Georgia should not stretch all the way to the Caspian Sea.

 

[theKing1988]

Also, de jure Georgia should not stretch all the way to the Caspian Sea.

Nope, it most definetely should not. The area is really missing an extra Kingdom title. Preferably the extra Kingdom title could be tied to the Shirvanshahs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirvanshah

 

[Karlingid]

Finno-Ugrians living in Northern- and Eastern-Europe predate the Yamna and Corded Ware cultures. Yes, the Corded Ware expansion spread the Indo-European languages and they made it to Estonia and Finland also. But as Estonia and Finland are the boggiest countries in the world + it is colder than Southern-Scandinavia, then that might be the reason why the people still speak a Finno-Ugric language, while the Scandinavian abandoned it and took up a Germanic one.

If the Finno-Ugroc proto homeland is around the Volga river area, then how can you say that it is "continuous IE territory". Think about before the Yamna time, when Indo-Europeans were still in Central-Asia.



"We do not know when the Palaeosiberian people, the ancestors of the Samoyeds, moved to northeastern Europe and there gave up their Palaeosiberian tongue in favour of some Finno-Ugric language(s). It has been thought possible that this did not happen until after 2000 BC."

The Samoyeds are not Finno-Ugric and the Uralic language group exists solely because of their language group, to fit it together with the Finno-Ugric language family. Samoyedic languages started as a creole language.

Hungarian to Estonian/Finnish is like English to Hindi while Hindi and English are even more similar to each other at the same time. 2 opposite branches of the language family. While the Finno-Ugric languages diverged thousands of years earlier than the Indo-European ones.

TL: DR: A "Uralic" empire in CK 2 is a dumb idea as Finno-Ugrians are a diverse group (that used to be a lot bigger) like the Indo-Europeans, they're not all the same ethnicity.

A "Uralic" empire would make sense if CK 2 creates a game about the Mesolithic period in Europe (let's say 4000BC), not 1000AD. The person who suggested it is just a few thousand years off with the date.

Indo-Europeans were never a Central Asian culture. Pastoralism is a much more widespread way of life than simply the Altaic cultural grouping and their region. Proto-Indo-Europeans, the Yamna culture, originated from 3 regional cultures which all also inhabited the same rough region: Dneiper-Don (modern Poland-Ukraine area), Sredny Stog (modern Eastern Ukraine area and all along the Dneiper), and the Khvalynsk culture (earlier Samara) along the southern Volga. The region near the Uralic mountains, to the north, is hypothesized as the potential homeland of Uralic peoples, although muddled genetics make it hard to pin down.

Furthermore, yes, the Samoyedic peoples are largely a mix between Paleosiberians and Uralic peoples, but a Uralic progenitor is obviously required to have birthed the non-Finno-Ugric chunk of the language family, as regular correspondences can be found. By nature, most creole languages tend to remain creole languages, whereas the Samoyedic languages clearly had a Uralic population base before any interbreeding could've occurred. Now, the Samoyedics are possibly made divergent by borrowings initially, but this doesn't constitute a creole warranting separation from the idea of a Uralic family.

Also, the Uralic languages did not likely diverge "thousands of years earlier" than Indo-European ones. The average hypothesis for PIE is that it was spoken around 3500 BCE, with potential divergence beginning centuries earlier, and no later than 1900 BCE when we have the first solid evidence of an entirely distinct Anatolian branch of the family. Proto-Uralic was estimated to have been spoken some time between 7000 BCE and 2000 BCE, with an average at 4500 BCE. The Finno-Ugric languages, in contrast to the Samoyedic languages, also hold a very significant amount of Proto-Indo-European loanwords, clearly presenting the long coexistence between the two proto-groups.

 

[Karlingid]

I agree completely, it's like the decisions are made to balance the game. In that case make it available for multi-player, but don't put it in the main game. I really dislike gamey decisions like that, just to make the game more fair in multi-player.

It seems like they are using a current map, and little historical basis for changing Greece and Venice.

Edit: Changed the phrasing and clarified the second paragraph.

Let's not forget that Anatolia used to match roughly with the Sultanate of Rum. Apart from classical connotations, I'd assumed that was the practical purpose of its borders.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

Nope, it most definetely should not. The area is really missing an extra Kingdom title. Preferably the extra Kingdom title could be tied to the Shirvanshahs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirvanshah

If well executed, this could be a nice idea. I would just be content with splitting and moving the duchy of Derbent, as I do in my (not updated yet) mod.

 

[es333]

Indo-Europeans were never a Central Asian culture. Pastoralism is a much more widespread way of life than simply the Altaic cultural grouping and their region. Proto-Indo-Europeans, the Yamna culture, originated from 3 regional cultures which all also inhabited the same rough region: Dneiper-Don (modern Poland-Ukraine area), Sredny Stog (modern Eastern Ukraine area and all along the Dneiper), and the Khvalynsk culture (earlier Samara) along the southern Volga. The region near the Uralic mountains, to the north, is hypothesized as the potential homeland of Uralic peoples, although muddled genetics make it hard to pin down.

Furthermore, yes, the Samoyedic peoples are largely a mix between Paleosiberians and Uralic peoples, but a Uralic progenitor is obviously required to have birthed the non-Finno-Ugric chunk of the language family, as regular correspondences can be found. By nature, most creole languages tend to remain creole languages, whereas the Samoyedic languages clearly had a Uralic population base before any interbreeding could've occurred. Now, the Samoyedics are possibly made divergent by borrowings initially, but this doesn't constitute a creole warranting separation from the idea of a Uralic family.

Also, the Uralic languages did not likely diverge "thousands of years earlier" than Indo-European ones. The average hypothesis for PIE is that it was spoken around 3500 BCE, with potential divergence beginning centuries earlier, and no later than 1900 BCE when we have the first solid evidence of an entirely distinct Anatolian branch of the family. Proto-Uralic was estimated to have been spoken some time between 7000 BCE and 2000 BCE, with an average at 4500 BCE. The Finno-Ugric languages, in contrast to the Samoyedic languages, also hold a very significant amount of Proto-Indo-European loanwords, clearly presenting the long coexistence between the two proto-groups.

Okay.

My point is that a "Uralic empire" doesn't fit the CK 2 timeline of 1000 AD. An Uralic empire would be something that would fit 4000BC. Also, Finno-Ugrians or even Uralics aren't a single similar group, but one of the largest language families in the world by geographical extension and and also different languages. so they aren't a single ethnicity that could all fit in a single empire. 1000 years ago, they didn't all live in the Arctic, as the Slavs had not pushed that far north yet, most of them lived in a temperate climate and so on.

If in 1000AD an Estonian or a Finn would see a Samoyed, they'd think "wtf is that and does he want to eat me?" While some people talk about the people being identical, having the same lifestyles and overall being identical, that is the opposite of reality.


http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/viewFile/4182/4018
"A key factor regarding the issue of Uralic and Finno-Permian languages, is that it is quite often the case, that present geographic range of language families does not coincide with their original or past range. It is highly misleading to approach present or recent geographic ranges as something static, since geographic ranges of language families are highly dynamic. A good example of this is the well-known case of the Celtic languages. It is common knowledge today, that the original core geographic range of the Celtic languages approximately covered the area of the La Tené and Hallstatt cultures, an area that roughly coincides with the present German states of Bavaria, Hessen, Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Pfalz, and the French regions of Alsace, Lorraine, and Burgundy, as well as parts of Austria. At the same time, present Celtic-speaking areas are located along the western coast of Ireland, along the western coast of Scotland, northern and western parts of Wales, and western Bretagne. What makes the situation bizarre is that not an inch of today‘s Celticspeaking areas coincides with the original Celtic core area, and no native Celtic language is spoken any longer there. At the same time, those geographical areas where Celtic languages are still spoken, lie outside the original core area, and are the remnants of remote peripheral outposts of Celtic expansion in the Iron Age. Therefore, if unaware this fact, in order to identify the origins of the Celts, one would collect genetic samples from the present Celticspeaking areas, ignoring the original core area, the results could easily be misleading. The case is somewhat similar regarding the Finno-Permic language-group. Today Finno-Ugric languages are mainly associated by arctic and subarctic climates, with taiga and tundra regions, that were often characterized by hunting, gathering and semi-nomad reindeer husbandry up until the modern age. The case however was much different as recently, as a millennium ago. For centuries, the northwards advance of the Slavic-speaking population was steady in the region, slowly but steadily assimilating Finno-Permian speaking groups. This means, that the further we look back into history, the further south we find the Slavo-Finnic language boundary. About 1000-1300 years ago, the area of the present day Central Federal District of Russia was mainly inhabited by Finno-Permian groups, such as the Merya, the Muroma, and the Meshcher.342 This region lies southwards of the subarctic taiga region, and regarding climate, it can be defined more as continental than subarctic, mixed forest and not taiga,343 while its culture dating back at least to the bronze age is characterized more by some kind of farming agriculture, than by hunting or reindeer husbandry. Therefore, we are talking about a region with a population density much higher than that of the taiga and tundra regions further north. Besides the extinct Merya, Muroma and Meshcher, surviving remnants of the original Finno-Permian languages of this region are the Mordvin and Mari languages."

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf
"For a more general understanding of Uralic, we may, however, also take a look at its position in a global context. There are between 6,000 and 7,000 languages spoken today, and they represent between 400 and 500 separate genetic lineages, or language families. Uralic, with some 30–40 separate languages, is slightly larger than an averagesized family. Judged by the number of speakers it is a relatively small entity, but in view of its territorial extension it is, in fact, one of the larger families in the world. Both the wide territorial extension of the Uralic languages and the small volume of the Uralic comparative corpus suggest that it is an ‘old’ family, that is, that it was formed a long time ago."