CKIII Dev Diary #26 - Map Scope

[Slime99]

Ehhhhhh, while the map doesn't show the Livonians in Curonia, they weren't as big as in your map, If it was areas with Finno Ugric influence sure, but only the tip of Curonia was Finno Ugric, and apparently they might've been subjugated already but that isn't known exactly. A big problem is that both sides claim different stuff regarding Curonia. Most Latvians claim the majority of Courland was Baltic, with only the tip finno ugric, while I've seen Estonian textbooks who flat out list the Curonians as finno ugrics. Most modern historians consider them Baltic though.

I believe they should be represented at least by one county tucked on the gulf of Riga. Tukums was inhabited by the Livs of Curonia prior to the Baltic crusades. Perhaps after that they could flip to Curonian, as Livs did get pushed to the fringes by them and eventually assimilated.

 

[Slime99]

I'd draw Vanema/Livonian Curonia county like this:

 

[es333]

Ehhhhhh, while the map doesn't show the Livonians in Curonia, they weren't as big as in your map, If it was areas with Finno Ugric influence sure, but only the tip of Curonia was Finno Ugric, and apparently they might've been subjugated already but that isn't known exactly. A big problem is that both sides claim different stuff regarding Curonia. Most Latvians claim the majority of Courland was Baltic, with only the tip finno ugric, while I've seen Estonian textbooks who flat out list the Curonians as finno ugrics. Most modern historians consider them Baltic though.

There are 2 types of Curonians, one were Finnic people from Curonia the others were the Baltic tribes of Curonians, it is confusing.

Also, the time is very important. In the 867 start date, most of Curonia was definitely Finnic meanwhile in the 13th century the Finnic areas were already considerably smaller. One example for you during the Northern crusade in the 13th century, Riga was a Livonian village, like the rest of the coastline from Estonia to the west coast of Curonia.

 

[Kartuvės]

There are 2 types of Curonians, one were Finnic people from Curonia the others were the Baltic tribes of Curonians, it is confusing.

Also, the time is very important. In the 867 start date, most of Curonia was definitely Finnic meanwhile in the 13th century the Finnic areas were already considerably smaller. One example for you during the Northern crusade in the 13th century, Riga was a Livonian village, like the rest of the coastline from Estonia to the west coast of Curonia.

Yes, up north the coast is inhabited by Livonians and was done so until quite recently. But how deep the majority Finnic areas were is debated. Like I said, I've seen claims that are wack on both sides. And yeah Riga originally was Livonian. Another problem is that they can't exactly split a county for and then merge it later on.

I'd draw Vanema/Livonian Curonia county like this:
View attachment 577725

That's a good map and a good solution.

 

[es333]

Yes, up north the coast is inhabited by Livonians and was done so until quite recently. But how deep the majority Finnic areas were is debated. Like I said, I've seen claims that are wack on both sides. And yeah Riga originally was Livonian. Another problem is that they can't exactly split a county for and then merge it later on.



That's a good map and a good solution.

Your "wack" example is most likely someone talking about Finnic Curonians. Nobody thinks that the Baltic tribe of Curonians were Finnic. But as the native inhabitants of the Curonian peninsula were Finnic, then they are sometimes called Curonians, especially in relation to Oeselians and the joint viking raids.

Also, there is no reason to split Riga. The entire coastline from Sakala (SW-Estonia) to the shores of NW-Curonia were Finnic/Livonian for almost the entire Crusader Kings time frame.

 

[Mrtwos]

Your "wack" example is most likely someone talking about Finnic Curonians. Nobody thinks that the Baltic tribe of Curonians were Finnic. But as the native inhabitants of the Curonian peninsula were Finnic, then they are sometimes called Curonians, especially in relation to Oeselians and the joint viking raids.

Also, there is no reason to split Riga. The entire coastline from Sakala (SW-Estonia) to the shores of NW-Curonia were Finnic/Livonian for almost the entire Crusader Kings time frame.

What is the argument about? Ventava was conquered by the Curonians in the 11-12th century.

Ah, got it. Paradox is not aware of history in general, making such mistakes and "forgetting" about the Livonians in Courland (Considering that in ck2 there is also a province and culture)

But at least we will rejoice that for so many years they are learned at least about Vepsians. (Opened Wikipedia.)
It remains to tell them about the Karelians.

 

[es333]

What is the argument about? Ventava was conquered by the Curonians in the 11-12th century.
View attachment 577825
Ah, got it. Paradox is not aware of history in general, making such mistakes and "forgetting" about the Livonians in Courland (Considering that in ck2 there is also a province and culture)
View attachment 577829
But at least we will rejoice that for so many years they are learned at least about Vepsians. (Opened Wikipedia.)
It remains to tell them about the Karelians.

The problem is that in CK 2 there are "Livoninas" in Curonia. Yes, they're under "Estonian" but the same logic applies to Finland.

The Baltic Curonians conquered the western part of Curonia in the 12th century but the start dates of 769, 867, 936, 1066 etc. In those start dates,The absolute majority of the Curonianpeninsula is Livonian/Finnic or whatever you want to call it, the main point is that CK 3 map about Latvia is very wrong.

 

[Reguire]

View attachment 576520View attachment 576521



View attachment 576526

So am I correct to assume there is going to be a different flavor text once I conquer Constantinople as a Muslim? And probably conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque? If not it would be a real bummer.

 

[Kartuvės]

Your "wack" example is most likely someone talking about Finnic Curonians. Nobody thinks that the Baltic tribe of Curonians were Finnic. But as the native inhabitants of the Curonian peninsula were Finnic, then they are sometimes called Curonians, especially in relation to Oeselians and the joint viking raids.

Also, there is no reason to split Riga. The entire coastline from Sakala (SW-Estonia) to the shores of NW-Curonia were Finnic/Livonian for almost the entire Crusader Kings time frame.

I'm not saying split Riga, nor I am saying that the northern coastline wasn't Finnic. Like I said, the Russian map is actually quite good for the region.

 

[Slime99]

But at least we will rejoice that for so many years they are learned at least about Vepsians. (Opened Wikipedia.)
It remains to tell them about the Karelians.

I don't think Karelian should be a culture of their own. They lived and interacted frequently with the Tavastians, Kvens and Finns, and were living almost entirely in the old Karelian region of Finland (Käkisalmi/Priozersk was Korela and their capital). The modern East Karelians are the end result of admixture from the Veps and Saami, influence from the Russians and Orthodox faith. The western branch of Karelians that fell under Sweden instead of Novgorod were still Karelians the same way their eastern kinsmen were at the time. There hadn't been the polarization to western Finnish and eastern Karelian yet. It's like splitting off Pontic Greek from the rest of the Greeks before Turks had taken away most of Anatolia, there were certainly differences but they weren't as drastic, and more on a gradient.

 

[Not Plato]

A lot of people seem upset about how Africa was expanded but East Asia wasn’t added. On the other hand, I hope they never add East Asia. China is just so damn big that adding it as a regular nation would either result in it being super overpowered, or completely and permanently falling apart just a few dozen years after the start of the game.

 

[starkwolf]

A lot of people seem upset about how Africa was expanded but East Asia wasn’t added. On the other hand, I hope they never add East Asia. China is just so damn big that adding it as a regular nation would either result in it being super overpowered, or completely and permanently falling apart just a few dozen years after the start of the game.

Ideally we should have something historical: alternating between the two at different point during gameplay: overwhelming their neighbors at some points only to face intense hardship after and break apart.

 

[cybrxkhan]

A lot of people seem upset about how Africa was expanded but East Asia wasn’t added. On the other hand, I hope they never add East Asia. China is just so damn big that adding it as a regular nation would either result in it being super overpowered, or completely and permanently falling apart just a few dozen years after the start of the game.

There's a pretty good thread right now with lots of great discussion on how China would be implemented, but I think it only reinforces the difficulty and challenge of portraying China, and to a lesser extent Sinicized states like Korea and Vietnam, with the limitations of Crusader Kings. A major point of that thread - and something I do not see enough discussion on whenever China is brought up, though partly because it's not something a lot of people in the pop history world know much about in regards to China, Korea, Vietnam, etc. - is how to portray the scholar-gentry class of imperial China, because you cannot have an accurate portrayal of imperial China, especially in the Crusader Kings period and onwards, without them (you can get away with it in the earlier periods, but even then it would be weird), because the complex apparatus of urbanized, bureaucratic Chinese government did not operate at all like the military aristocracies that dominate most of the states of the Crusader Kings world.

 

[ray243]

There's a pretty good thread right now with lots of great discussion on how China would be implemented, but I think it only reinforces the difficulty and challenge of portraying China, and to a lesser extent Sinicized states like Korea and Vietnam, with the limitations of Crusader Kings. A major point of that thread - and something I do not see enough discussion on whenever China is brought up, though partly because it's not something a lot of people in the pop history world know much about in regards to China, Korea, Vietnam, etc. - is how to portray the scholar-gentry class of imperial China, because you cannot have an accurate portrayal of imperial China, especially in the Crusader Kings period and onwards, without them (you can get away with it in the earlier periods, but even then it would be weird), because the complex apparatus of urbanized, bureaucratic Chinese government did not operate at all like the military aristocracies that dominate most of the states of the Crusader Kings world.

Solving China will help to solve The Byzantines and for states in the Islamic world. The Byzantine themes is far more miltiarised than your typical Chinese province, but the idea of an administrative staff made up of non-feudal nobility is something that CK3 needs to deal with even if they do not add China.

A decent and well-portrayed China will mean you can have a well-portrayed Byzantine Empire.

 

[neutrondecay]

Ideally we should have something historical: alternating between the two at different point during gameplay: overwhelming their neighbors at some points only to face intense hardship after and break apart.

The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.

nd

 

[TheMainB]

IMHO, if they are going to allow transversing of the coast between Europe and West Africa, it should be tied to having the highest level of naval tech.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

why why would you do that?!?!!?

EDIT please make this an option or reconsider this. I get that it didn't really happen, and I appreciate you guys wanting accuracy. But this was half the point of wanting that shore for some of us.

I don't mind the fact that the west african coast isn't navigable but in reality there was actually an established sea route since 500bc by Hanno the navigator..

 

[viola]

I don't mind the fact that the west african coast isn't navigable but in reality there was actually an established sea route since 500bc by Hanno the navigator..

It was pointed out by someone that when Hanno did his expedition the climate in Africa was very different, the Sahara apparently was still closer to a Savannah rather than a desert and it was feasible to slowly navigate close to the coast while replenishing one's supplies with local food and water, once the climate became more arid this wasn't possible anymore however.

 

[Serenity84]

A decent and well-portrayed China will mean you can have a well-portrayed Byzantine Empire.

More like the other way around

 

[Mrtwos]

I don't think Karelian should be a culture of their own. They lived and interacted frequently with the Tavastians, Kvens and Finns, and were living almost entirely in the old Karelian region of Finland (Käkisalmi/Priozersk was Korela and their capital). The modern East Karelians are the end result of admixture from the Veps and Saami, influence from the Russians and Orthodox faith. The western branch of Karelians that fell under Sweden instead of Novgorod were still Karelians the same way their eastern kinsmen were at the time. There hadn't been the polarization to western Finnish and eastern Karelian yet. It's like splitting off Pontic Greek from the rest of the Greeks before Turks had taken away most of Anatolia, there were certainly differences but they weren't as drastic, and more on a gradient.

This is a Finnish, Karelophobic position, denying the very existence of a separate culture. Let me guess, you are Finn.
Karelians began to form in the Iron Age and continued into the Middle Ages.
Proto-Karelian language spoken in the coast of Lake Ladoga in the Iron Age.
By the end of the 7th century, clearly defined tribal dialectical areas—Finns, Tavastians, Karelians(Korela), Northern Estonians, Southern Estonians, and Western Estonians including the islanders—had emerged, the population of each having formed its own understanding of identity.

Karelians(Korela) did not form in one century, but were known and clearly distinguished with 7th century.
In the VI century, the Karelians migrated to the Karelian Isthmus, where the Sami lived, assimilating them, and then in the IX century they were joined by more numerous immigrants from the southern coast of Ladoga - Vepsians.

Karelians were first mentioned in Scandinavian sagas (Egil's Saga) in the IX century.

Development by the Karelians of the land of the north along waterways. Fur trade with the Sami. From the 11th to the 16th century.

Merchants came along the river Vuoksi, which then could go from Finnish
the gulf from the city of Vyborg to Lake Ladoga near the modern city of Priozersk and lake. Suvanto (Sukhodolsky). At that time, Vuoksi was significantly more modern. Then due the gradual rise of land, Vuoksi shallow. Surviving documents say that the shipping traffic along Vuoksi from Vyborg to Priozersk carried out until the 15th century.

Archaeological finds of the VI-VIII centuries. concentrated along the banks of the river. Vuoksi and say that fur traders built small trading factories for barter trade with the local population. These people knew iron production and were well armed. Their armaments and jewelry are similar to West Finnish and Estonian objects of the same period.

In the IX century. the situation is changing. Big Wave Comes to Northern Ladoga settlers. Resettlement takes place along the Ladoga-Onega isthmus from the southeastern shores of Ladoga. It was a Finnish tribe akin to ancient Vepsians. Settlers found nomadic Sami in Ladoga and on the Karelian Isthmus fur traders' settlements. Mingling with them, they gave rise to a nationality - the Karelians.

Spoiler: Bibliography

*Pirjo Uino. Ancient Karelia. Archaeological studies. Helsinki. 1997
*Aleksandr Saksa. Rautakautinen Karjala. Joensuun yliopiston. 1998
*Julku Kyösti. Oulujoki karjalaisten kaukoliikenteen väylänä keskiajalla. Oulu. 1967.
*С.И. Кочкуркина, Древняя Корела, Ленинград, Наука, 1982. 5. Х. Киркинен, П. Невалайнен, Х. Сихво. История карельского народа. Петрозаводск, 1998.
*С.И. Кочкуркина, А. М. Спиридонов, Т. Н. Джаксон. Письменные известия о карелах (X-XVI в). Петрозаводск, 1996.
*Г. А. Исаченко. Вуоксинская эпопея. «Вуокса» Приозерский краеведческий альманах. С.-Петербург. 2001.

If it were my will, I would add Kvens. Once biarmians(Bjarmians) added, what are they worse?
According to the logic of the paradox, since Bjarmians were rob in the saga, they deserved a culture. And since the Karelians were more significant (trade and confrontation with the Swedes) and differed with the Finns, then no.(I omit the story, as you may have noticed, the paradox does not bother her)

 

[Slime99]

By the end of the 7th century, clearly defined tribal dialectical areas—Finns, Tavastians, Karelians(Korela), Northern Estonians, Southern Estonians, and Western Estonians including the islanders—had emerged, the population of each having formed its own understanding of identity.

You could extend this reasoning to the Swedish (geatish, gutnish, swedish), Latgalian (latgalian, selonian, samogitian, curonian) and Lithuanian (auksatian, samogitian). The Finns and Tavastians would be split up as well, and perhaps Udmurt, Zyriane and Permian, and Moksha and Erzya. I believe those decisions shouldn't be made, since those groups were more so tribes, already represented by the abstracted polities.

If it were my will, I would add Kvens. Once biarmians(Bjarmians) added, what are they worse?

Kvens were not homogeneous, they were Karelians, Tavastians, Satakuntans and other groups. It's not even certain there was such thing as a Kven at the time, it was tied to geography and lifestyle. This also begs the question, which culture would Kvens be, if Karelian was it's own culture from Vyborg to Aunus? Or the people in Savo, which saw settlement from Tavastia and Karelia.
Another thing I would add is that the modern Karelian culture and language has had more time to drift away from Finnish and western Karelian culture. They started settling the coast of Viena during the 14th century, at which point the Karelians got split between Novgorod and Sweden in 1323. Admittedly the western Karelians did get further "westernization" from Sweden and Savonian settlers, but the eastern Karelians absorbed many Saami and Veps people as well. It is not entirely truthful to say that the divergence between modern eastern Karelians and Finns is as big as between ancient Tavastians and ancient Karelians. During the middle ages they were a different group from the Tavastians though, and fought many times according to Russian records, but also were in close contact and shared cultural proximity and heritage.

edit:
In conclusion, the Karelian ethnogenesis hadn't fully taken place before late game, nor have the reasons of it occurred yet. It's reasonable to have them as a separate culture from the Finns in EU4. The Karelian culture could perhaps be a late game melting pot, as long as they are under the influence of an Orthodox realm, or otherwise are separated from the Finns.