Dev Diary #91 - Altering the Alps and Idealizing Italy

[Aardvark Bellay]

Can we just stop this nonsense discussion ?
(open question of course )

The argument was about the title named in the bloddy TOOLTIP window !..and not in-game.
Not in the character window or anywhere else, but the tooltip.

Sorry but that was super-ridiculous.

PS: Regarding the follow-up argument, religious authorities can't hold a kingdom title or empire in game , except for special reasons,
like the pope and that's already covered. It's "the pope".

 

[TheCreator901]

And then can in the game

Yes, but its more fun when you are the one having the bastards with your bastard daughter

 

[killerbee256]

If k_romagna is going torepresent the old Praetorian prefecture of Italy/Exarchate of Ravenna praetorian prefects/Exarchs should be in the title history. The same should be the case for K_africa. I think that last Exarch of italy, Eutychius might still be alive in 769.

 

[elvain]

If k_romagna is going torepresent the old Praetorian prefecture of Italy/Exarchate of Ravenna praetorian prefects/Exarchs should be in the title history. The same should be the case for K_africa. I think that last Exarch of italy, Eutychius might still be alive in 769.

k_Africa primarily represents the muslim entity of Ifrikiya, which, of course follows up named Africa province... but in the CK2 period this region was distinctive entity which was core of number of dynastic states like Aghlabids, Fatimids (before they moved to Egypt), Zirids or Hafsids - they all ruled approximately the same area

 

[killerbee256]

k_Africa primarily represents the muslim entity of Ifrikiya, which, of course follows up named Africa province... but in the CK2 period this region was distinctive entity which was core of number of dynastic states like Aghlabids, Fatimids (before they moved to Egypt), Zirids or Hafsids - they all ruled approximately the same area

It also contains Cyrenaica which was not part of the extarch of Africa, still if I think it's close to warrant the Byzantine/Roman Exarchs in the title history.

 

[Almaron]

It also contains Cyrenaica which was not part of the extarch of Africa, still if I think it's close to warrant the Byzantine/Roman Exarchs in the title history.

Actually, that's a good point; Cyrenaica wasn't ever part of the Province of Africa or the later region of Ifriqiya...the Romans eventually placed it in the Diocese of Egypt, and after the Muslim conquest the area was pretty much always ruled by whoever was the dominant power in Egypt. Should we shift that to Egypt?

 

[killerbee256]

Actually, that's a good point; Cyrenaica wasn't ever part of the Province of Africa or the later region of Ifriqiya...the Romans eventually placed it in the Diocese of Egypt, and after the Muslim conquest the area was pretty much always ruled by whoever was the dominant power in Egypt. Should we shift that to Egypt?

After a quick search it seems Cyrenaica was only attached to Tripolitania in the 16th century by the Ottoman Turks, so why not move it to Egypt?

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Much as that would make sense historically, making Africa weaker when it is already subject to early Catholic invasions while making Egypt stronger is not very good from a balance standpoint. Egypt is almost united in any start and is powerful in and of itself. We don't need it any stronger.

 

[elvain]

Much as that would make sense historically, making Africa weaker when it is already subject to early Catholic invasions while making Egypt stronger is not very good from a balance standpoint. Egypt is almost united in any start and is powerful in and of itself. We don't need it any stronger.

Firstly Egypt is not powerfull because of provinces attached to it, but due to vasalized (=cheap) overpowered Mamluk mercenaries.

From my attempts to nerf Egypt (as numerous as pointless, without weakening Mamluks) and several dozens of test games based in that region, I can say that Egypt attacks and conquers Cyrenaica anyways, no matter if it is de jure part of k_Africa or k_Egypt.
So moving Cyrenaica to Egypt would at least justify nerfing the mamluks a little, if necessary.

At the same time, having Cyrenaica in k_Africa doesn't really make the kingdom stronger anyway. The region often isn't ruled by kings of Tunis and Kairouan and even if it is, it's so distant and weak that its forces don't really help.
Ifrikiya really needs different type of boost. To have its power core moved from the coast to inland parts of the region and to actually have that inland part present on the map

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Firstly Egypt is not powerfull because of provinces attached to it, but due to vasalized (=cheap) overpowered Mamluk mercenaries.

From my attempts to nerf Egypt (as numerous as pointless, without weakening Mamluks) and several dozens of test games based in that region, I can say that Egypt attacks and conquers Cyrenaica anyways, no matter if it is de jure part of k_Africa or k_Egypt.
So moving Cyrenaica to Egypt would at least justify nerfing the mamluks a little, if necessary.

At the same time, having Cyrenaica in k_Africa doesn't really make the kingdom stronger anyway. The region often isn't ruled by kings of Tunis and Kairouan and even if it is, it's so distant and weak that its forces don't really help.
Ifrikiya really needs different type of boost. To have its power core moved from the coast to inland parts of the region and to actually have that inland part present on the map

No they are quite formidable in all other starts. Charlemagne they are vassals of Abbasids, and even when they break free (happens occassionally) they are quite comfortable from outside invasions.

Old Gods have an Egypt that is the same as Charlemagne, only independent to start.

1066 has Mamluks.

They are quite stable in all starts. Well at least the early three almost everyone plays.

Leaving Cyrenaica out of de jure Egypt frees the Emir to be in independence factions, instability that rarely (and I mean rarely) topples Egypt and forces it to eject its conquests in what is usually Nubia and Abbyssinia. Making it de jure only serves to make Egypt more have a more stable power base than it already has.

 

[elvain]

It also contains Cyrenaica which was not part of the extarch of Africa, still if I think it's close to warrant the Byzantine/Roman Exarchs in the title history.

yup, just for clarity, I didn't mean to opose your proposal, just point out that this kingdom makes even more sense from the perspective of muslim states in the region
It would be indeed interesting if the last exarch would be able to hold claim on k_Africa.

OTOH I can imagine this being a stuff for a mod and would be additional and not so important stuff for the devs, who, I assume, are quite busy with other stuff which might affect the gameplay little more and better

 

[Lupo Protospata]

And… For Romagna, we wanted to cut Italy into its more historical pieces, without adding a Kingdom called “the Papal States” that was only for an unplayable Theocracy. This was done for several reason: having the Pope try to seek out central Italy as he did throughout history, having the old East Roman areas be more difficult to hold onto for the Kingdom of Italy in the first bookmarks, and to lessen the massive size of the Kingdom of Italy.

Very nice, that's an awesome improvement! In fact, the Italian region of Romagna was once the most important part of the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Italian province of the Eastern Roman Empire, ruled by an imperial governor, the Exarch, and subdivided into "duchies": Pentapolis, Perugia, Rome, etc.

The Lombards called the Exarchate "Romania", which is the origin of the modern term "Romagna", used still today (the current name of the Italian region in northeastern Italy is Emilia-Romagna).

(Edit, another curiosity: the official name of the Papal province of Romagna after 1278 (when Romagna was annexed to the Papal States) was: Provincia Romandiolae, and was formed by two main subdivisions, "Exarchatus Ravennae" and the "Comitatus Brittinorii" ("county of Bertinoro".))

 

[Lupo Protospata]

Regarding Romagna instead, well, I like the gameplay implication and the A.I behaviour that will result, but it's extremly weird the name Romagna considering that only 2 of 11 provinces are in Romagna. I'd change the name in Exarchate , or "Exarchate of Ravenna" if I were you, it make more sense considering that most,if not almost all, of those provinces were part of the Exarchate(except Latium) and considering that the name Romagna, albeit indirectly, comes from the Exarchate it will be still linked. (And, naming it Exarchate, would gives a lot of sense to the inclusion of Latium for obvious reasons).

The name "Romagna" could have some sense because, as I said in my previous post, during the Lombard-Byzantine wars the Lombards called all the Byzantine possessions in Italy "Romania", and the name of the Romagna province of the Papal States after 1278 was "Provincia Romandiolae", with "Exarchatus Ravennae" being just a subdivision of that province.

But maybe the name of the possible Byzantine "despot of Romagna" (if a Byzantine doux or the Emperor succeedes in reconquering the "Romagna") could be changed into "Exarch of Ravenna/of Italy"....

 

[Lupo Protospata]

Sorry for the spam... just to clarify some historical facts about the Papal annexation of "Romagna": basically the Church literally fabricated claims for the territories of the former Exarchate, which until 1278 were under a loose control of the HRE.

In fact, in these lands there had been a hard conflict during the 12th-13th centuries, between the faction loyal to the Holy Roman Emperor (the "Ghibellines") and the faction loyal to the Pope (the "Guelphs").
This opposition often led to war between the two factions, in Italy formed mainly by "free cities", the "Comuni", with the H.R. Emperor regularly appointing an Antipope and marching in Italy with an army when the "Guelphs" openly rebelled.

But in 1273, Rudolph I of Habsburg was elected King of the Romans, after a long dynastic crisis in the HRE (after the death of the Hohenstaufen emperor Frederick II in 1250). To win the approbation of the Pope, Rudolph I renounced all imperial right in the papal territories. But pope Gregory X withheld the coronation, because he wanted the annexation of the territories of the former Exarchate.

After some years, in 1278 the new pope Nicholas III took advantage of the weakness of the Emperor, and in 1278 a concordat was concluded: the "Romandiola", the city of Bologna, and the rest of the former Exarchate were annexed to the Papal States. The pope appointed a papal nephew as "Rector of the Romandiola", and another nephew as "Papal Legate to the Romandiola".

 

[Patroclusmega]

Sorry for the spam... just to clarify some historical facts about the Papal annexation of "Romagna": basically the Church literally fabricated claims for the territories of the former Exarchate, which until 1278 were under a loose control of the HRE.

In fact, in these lands there had been a hard conflict during the 12th-13th centuries, between the faction loyal to the Holy Roman Emperor (the "Ghibellines") and the faction loyal to the Pope (the "Guelphs").
This opposition often led to war between the two factions, in Italy formed mainly by "free cities", the "Comuni", with the H.R. Emperor regularly appointing an Antipope and marching in Italy with an army when the "Guelphs" openly rebelled.

But in 1273, Rudolph I of Habsburg was elected King of the Romans, after a long dynastic crisis in the HRE (after the death of the Hohenstaufen emperor Frederick II in 1250). To win the approbation of the Pope, Rudolph I renounced all imperial right in the papal territories. But pope Gregory X withheld the coronation, because he wanted the annexation of the territories of the former Exarchate.

After some years, in 1278 the new pope Nicholas III took advantage of the weakness of the Emperor, and in 1278 a concordat was concluded: the "Romandiola", the city of Bologna, and the rest of the former Exarchate were annexed to the Papal States. The pope appointed a papal nephew as "Rector of the Romandiola", and another nephew as "Papal Legate to the Romandiola".

But those territory were in a state of complete rebellion, and between 1319 and 1349 the cities became, more or less, independent. Reconquest started only in 1353, but it was very partial and the Pope had to conclude it with a crusade against Forlì that lasted from 1355 to 1359! Head of the crusade was Louis I of Hungary that later became King of Poland. This crusade is also famous for the heroic defence of Cesena by Cia Ordelaffi(Nickname of Marzia Ordelaffi), a rare example of a woman leading an army. She lost against the papal forces, but heroically. The "crusade" ended with a victory by the Papal state, the Ordelaffi had to cede the city of Forlì to the Papal vical cardinal Albornoz(that at time, vassal under the Pope, had control of Romagna) but maintained the rule of Castrocaro and Forlimpopoli although under the authority of the papal state and with the title of "Papal vicar")

 

[Patroclusmega]

Anyway, still those Provinces Romandiole have not the same extension of the exarchate, and are the same of modern "Romagna" (which, by the way, does not exist as a single administrative region in modern Italy, but is united with Emilia in the much larger Emilia-Romagna. History of those two regions are mostly different, and Emilia in Ck2, also in the new update, is rightly under Kingdom of Italy, and I think it is appropriate since for most of its time or it was independent with hre-friendly city state or it was under direct control of the Emperor) and those amount to only 3/4 provinces of the K_Romagna(Bologna is in Emilia but for a lot of time it was under Papal control under the Provinces Romandiole, so if you count it 4, otherwise 3 . But even under Papal control, often had a separate legate. ).
For the other provinces,:
3 Perugia,Orvieto and Spoleto, were under the legation of "Perugia and Umbria", that is in Ck2 duchy of Spoleto. They divided Orvieto to not create a gap.
1 Urbino in those time was always independent, and often at war with Papal states and quite strong.
1 Ancona was under the Marca Anconitana but most of it's time it was a rich semi-independent merchant republic.
1 Orbetello had no clear subdivison, since it had a strange position since it was vassal of the Three Fountain abbay in Rome that granted it first to the Aldobrandeschi family and then, once it was absorbed by marriage to Orsini family, to the Orsini. (Although for some time it was conquered by Orvieto).
1 Roma was under direct control of the Pope.
---
Now, as you can see only 3/4 regions were under the Romandiole Provinces, but, in the Exarchate, there was:
all 4 of the Romandiole Provinces
2 Perugia and Orvieto Although not Spoleto. Orvieto was just in the border and was one of the most contexted.
1 Urbino Although this was already a very contexted city
1 Ancona and it was one of the Sea Pentapolis under the Exarchate
2 * 0,5 Orbetello and Roma were under nominal control of the byzantine empire and under the Pope, Although not strictly under the Exarchate, sometime the term was used to indicate all the byzantine territory.
---
Now, even if we do not ocnsider the last 2, we have a swooping 8/11, if we consider the last 2 as half a big 9/11, or if we still consider it an enormous 10/11. All seems to fare a lot well against a 3/11 or a 4/11.
Now, yes, Exarchate theorically is an administral subdivision and not a name of territory, but since there has been only 2 Exarchate in the entire history, and that the Ravenna one is one of the most famous, and that if I speak to an historicist, or to a history aficionado, about Exarchate he will understand that I'm talking about those territory I think that is only right, that as a more fitting compromise, we give to this title the name of Exarchate or the name of Exarchate of Ravenna instead of the ananchronistic and, quite laughable, name of Romagna.

 

[Lupo Protospata]

(Thank you for the informative reply )
It's all a matter of different names for the same "title" I guess... "Exarchate" for the Byzantines, "Romania" (meaning "land of the Romans") for the Lombards...

In the Constitutiones Aegidianae, the first constitution of the Papal States, redacted by Cardinal Albornoz in 1357 (near the end of the victorious "Crusade against Forlì" you described in your post) the province of Romagna's official name (one of the 5 provinces of the Papal States) was Provincia Romandiolae et Exarchatus Ravennae, so by then the title "Exarchate" had changed radically his meaning.

Anyway I understand that the name "Romagna" is a bit misleading, since it just indicates the south-eastern portion of present-day Emilia-Romagna, corresponding more or less to the "Romandiola" of the Middle Ages; "Romania" could be more accurate but apparently it was used only by the Lombards.

Notice also that the historical name Romandiola means literally "small Romania", "the residual land of the Romans", namely the remaining territory around Ravenna still under Byzantine control after the Lombard expansion in Northern-Central Italy. Ravenna was the last city of the Exarchate to fall into the hands of the Lombards in 751. (So in 769 there's no holder of the title, but the last Exarch, Eutychius, could be still alive since the sources about him are silent after 751).

So, the name could be "Exarchate of Ravenna", but with different names for each culture...

 

[Karlingid]

(Thank you for the informative reply )
It's all a matter of different names for the same "title" I guess... "Exarchate" for the Byzantines, "Romania" (meaning "land of the Romans") for the Lombards...

In the Constitutiones Aegidianae, the first constitution of the Papal States, redacted by Cardinal Albornoz in 1357 (near the end of the victorious "Crusade against Forlì" you described in your post) the province of Romagna's official name (one of the 5 provinces of the Papal States) was Provincia Romandiolae et Exarchatus Ravennae, so by then the title "Exarchate" had changed radically his meaning.

Anyway I understand that the name "Romagna" is a bit misleading, since it just indicates the south-eastern portion of present-day Emilia-Romagna, corresponding more or less to the "Romandiola" of the Middle Ages; "Romania" could be more accurate but apparently it was used only by the Lombards.

Notice also that the historical name Romandiola means literally "small Romania", "the residual land of the Romans", namely the remaining territory around Ravenna still under Byzantine control after the Lombard expansion in Northern-Central Italy. Ravenna was the last city of the Exarchate to fall into the hands of the Lombards in 751. (So in 769 there's no holder of the title, but the last Exarch, Eutychius, could be still alive since the sources about him are silent after 751).

So, the name could be "Exarchate of Ravenna", but with different names for each culture...

To look at Romagna from the lens of modern Emilia-Romagna is anachronsitic. It is literally the Italian form of "Romania", and historically was applied as saying, in essence, "where the Romans are"- doubly near Rome and where the Byzantines held control (Ravenna).

 

[Dolin]

I truly hope the new kingdom of Romagna-title will make way for a more active Pope. I find him always way too passive, occasionally being the defender of a claim to some random bishopric but rarely (if ever) on the offensive, even when he has strong claims. And that while medieval popes would seek expansion whenever possible.

But to make it so, he has to have the Romagna title at start (he would never be able to create it if he had to expand first)... making him a true king and not by a titular title. Need to make sure the "The Papacy" title is locked or we'll have a pope switching his primary title to Romagna... Would make a total mess for sure.

 

[Patroclusmega]

To look at Romagna from the lens of modern Emilia-Romagna is anachronsitic. It is literally the Italian form of "Romania", and historically was applied as saying, in essence, "where the Romans are"- doubly near Rome and where the Byzantines held control (Ravenna).

Ehm, not precisely. Romagna comes from Romandiola and that comes from a distortion of Romania. It can be seen in the adjective form, that is "Romagnolo" and not "Romagno". Anyway, the only difference between Medieval Romandiola and modern day Romagna is that in the medieval one for some time, intermittently, there has been Bologna and province while in the modern one there is not. Emilia and Romagna are 2 separate region, united only administratively for the action of the dictator Carlo Farini that in 1859 was appointed by the King of Italy has temporary dictator of the newly regions annexed from the Pope. Since then they have never been parted, but still they are separate entities.