Tinto Maps #11 - 19th of July 2024 - Scandinavia

[PelleSvanslöse]

On the Swedish pops issue:

I did some calculations.



The total population of Finland, including the provinces of Egentliga Finland, Satakunta, Österbotten, Nyland, Karelia, Tavastia, Savonia, Far Karelia, Inre Österbotten, and the Åland islands is 123,670. Of that population, 62,573 pops live in locations that are Swedish-majority and Finnish-minority. An additional 11,630 live in Finnish-majority Swedish-minority locations, as stripes on the map indicate.



Assuming that the aforementioned Swedish-majority locations are on average 67% Swedish and the Swedish-minority locations are 33% Swedish on average, and that the non-striped locations are 0% Swedish, we get a total of 45 672 Swedish pops in Finland. That is almost exactly 37.00% of the total Finnish population, or more than twice that of the 17th century peak. These are just estimation, but it gives a rough picture of what the real number likely is.



In other words, for any resemblence of historical accuracy, the number of Swedish pops shouls be less than half of what they are right now. If the 37% figure is accurate, I’d cut the number by two thirds and distribute that to the relevant local Finnic culture.

The changes I would suggest are:
Remove Swedish majority/minority entirely from Brahestad and Uleåborg (the latter having Swedish majority is bs as the city didn't even exist until centuries later)
The non-costal provinces in Österbotten should be entirely Finnish as well
Björneborg being Swedish majority is likely incorrect, as the Swedes in the cities that were not in the Swedish-speaking area were mostly upper class and as such were far from being majority. Also, the cities during this time period were very small and the surrounding Finnish-speaking countryside would dominate the ethnical landscape of the province - make into Swedish minority instead
(I would like to note that you have placed Ulfsby on the map in the completely wrong location, it actually lies within the Björneborg province)
Nystad the same as for Björneborg
Åbo is a special case as the city was very Swedish culturally and the southern half of the province is traditionally only-Swedish speaking, so Swedish majority is likely correct
The province of Salo is divided between Finnish- and Swedish-speaking areas, though the latter should be in the minority.
Ekenäs, Kyrkslätt and Helsinge are all correct, though Porvoo (which should be renamed to Borgå, the Swedish name - the place is traditionally almost entirely Swedish) should have Swedish majority.
Those are the changes I would suggest as to ethnical boundaries. As to further name changes

1. Storkyro should during this time be named Kyro
2. I have never in my life heard of this place Koppo, rename to Närpes
3. Björneborg might be renamed Ulfsby, as the former was founded in the middle ages just outside the latter to get access to the sea
4. Liljendal on the map does not actually encompass Liljendal in reality and should be renamed

I hope I'm not too late for the party, hope you see these suggestions

 

[Shu'al]

Current Project Ceasar Jämtland.

Proposed adjustments of Jämtland:

Jämtland can be devided in following geographic and cultural regions. Same number of locations as sugested by Paradox but with some adjustments.
1. Undersåker tingslag + Mörsil parish. They speak the Opplänningsmål subdialect and their geographical region is Indalsälven (river) with tributaries to the west of lake Storsjön. This is the path to Tröndelag/Trondheim.
2. Oviken tingslag + Bergs tingslag + Hackås tingslag. They form communities around the southern part of lake Storsjön. They speak sydvästjämtska/Bergsmål subdialekt. This is the path to Härjedalen.
3. Revsunds tingslag, the parishes around lake Revsundssjön. This is the path to river Ljungan and the main path to the east coast and Sweden or to Trondheim from Sweden. They speak Revsundsmål.
4. Ragunda tingslag, the parishes connected to river Indalsälven. This is the second path to the east coast and Sweden. They speak Ragundamål or east jamtlandic. Some people consider their dialekt transisional dialect to the neighbouring counties dialects.
5. Hammerdal tingslag. Along tributarie river Ammerån and river Faxälven (Ström) which goes into Ångermanland. The nothermost parish was settled both from Ström and from Lierne in Norway.
6. Frösön: All the Tingslag and parishes around Storsjön (they speak Framlänningsmål sub dialect) along with Lits tingslag (Litsmål subdialect) along tribituary Hårkan and Offerdal parish (Offerdalsmål subdialect). As far as I know no armies bothered with the northern tingslag and parishes. The battles happened in the center, east, south east, west and south. If you would control Frösön the north would follow.

Currect map by Paradox has the following inaccurancies:
1. Does not follow actual communication paths. The main path to Selånger was through Revsund.
2. Frösön has a direct connection to Ångermanland. It is super odd to be able to reach the center of Jämtland without any buffer region. And also historically inaccurate. Hammerdal (today Strömsund municipality) and Ragunda has always shared boarder.
3. Western Jämtland not represented. After all Baltzar Bäck burned down whole Undersåker tingslag as they, along with Härjedalen, were the most loyal to Norway. (see Baltzarfejden).
4. Southern Jämtland represented twice (Oviken and Berg). Would be more fair to have Revsund (south east) represented instead of Oviken.
5. Unpassible mountains between Lierne and Frostviken even though the western part of the parish was settled by people from Lierne. It should have an opening in the corner.
6. Offerdal represended even though it is the most isolated parish in Jämtland. Allthough a parish with many villages, it is a bit of a dead end. No communication paths goes further to the north west.
7. Having Offerdal as location goes against the policy of naming locations after towns or villages if possible (see quote below). The church village of Offerdal is Ede. There is no village "Offerdal". The parish is named after a river valley.

We consistently try to name locations after town or villages if possible.

Possible suggestion regarding natural resources:
Huså in Undersåker tingslag was the biggest village in Jämtland in late 18th centure due to the copper production there. I don't know if that is worthy of a copper resource node compared to other copper mines in the world (it was for sure overshadowed by Falun) but it did employ 500 people at its peak. Huså was in consideration of becoming the first city in Jämtland but the king decided on Östersund (east of Frösön) in the center of Jämtland.

 

[Shu'al]

Hogdal was settled after the counties was formed. Thus it intersects Medelpad and Hälsingland. Haverö and Hogdal share culture and dialect with eachother more than with their respective neighbours in the east.
Thus Haverö should be removed. Hogdal should go from north to south and not include Ljusdal territory. Torp should be added for the area that has Medelpadian culture or extend Selånger to the west.

These are the parishes that speak Hogdalsmål:
Haverö, Överhogdal, Ängersjö, Älvros and Ytterhogdal.

Yellow in this map:

Source: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrländska_mål#/media/Fil:Norrlandsmal.png

 

[Shu'al]

Why is Skåne divided into two counties and why is half of it called Göinge when Göinge is a smaller area than depicted?

Actual Göringe:

 

[marcus917]

This is a map i made a ck3 version of Voltaire's nightmare, witch is sadly dead now but it might be of some use.
If any of you want a name list of the banonies counties and duchies id be happy to post them.

 

[Circular]

This is a map i made a ck3 version of Voltaire's nightmare, witch is sadly dead now but it might be of some use.
If any of you want a name list of the banonies counties and duchies id be happy to post them.
View attachment 1170644

Please post them

 

[Poh]

Just another example of how regions in jutland are normally divided. here using southern jutland for the danish part of slesvig and southern slesvig for the german part although technically both are the same geographically area "southern jutland" or "slesvig"

Something which is rather hard to see on the map is if the Limgjord is open toward the north sea. From what i can see this is the case on the maps but it shouldnt be. Obviously it wouldnt make much of a difference as its not a seazone, but more a question of map look and one can probably argue about the closure width vs a pixel on the map.
If anyone in the team can read danish i suggest reading the following which is probably the latest and most accurate estimates

Article

Let me sum up the conclusions:

A storm between the night of the 3rd and 4th feb 1825 opened the Limfjord at the village Agger on the west coast. It was an area where the land was only 100m in width the water broke through and now ships could sail. however already 35 years later in 1860 it was getting harder again, then in 1862 a new storm broke a hole another place etc. today 110.000 cubic meters of sand is removed every year to keep the canal open.

So scientists have wondered when the limfjord has been opened previously and have done sediment analysis and the best estimates now is the following.
- from around 1300 BC to 700 BC
- from around 600 AD to 1000 AD
- from 1825 till today

this matches with what historical evidence we have that Vikings used the Limfjord to muster and sail west, aka they could access the north sea directly from the Limfjord.
and it also matches the accounts from the middle ages that this wasnt possible.

In conclusion: in the timeframe of the game there is no naval access from the north sea into the Limfjord. the only access is from Kattegat.

 

[marcus917]

Please post them

For some reason i can't get text and pictures to work

 

[Polesie Admiral]

how you'll repressent the kingless era in Denmark?

 

[honkajoki]

For some reason i can't get text and pictures to work

Forum spamfilter blocks new users, solution is to spam.

 

[honkajoki]

Not sure how the maps scale to each other, but it seems possible that Tunis may have more lake area than Finland. Need facepalm emojis.

 

[BluePwnsU]

As someone living in Western Norway I would give just some minor suggestions. First the area named Voss does include parts of modern Voss, but itd likely more accurately be named Kvam. Though Voss is likely a bit more of a well known name, and has more historical significance. Aurland also doesnt quite match up where it is in real life, much like Voss, the eastern most part of the provinces on your map does include them though, but what id suggest for Aurland would be to give them the southern side of the fjord of Sogndal to make it more accurate, and then perhaps split Aurland into 2? Maybe move Voss a bit more north west, taking some of the wasteland and some of Eidfjord.

More importantly though climate and terrain. I think for both the Sognefjord and the Hardangerfjord keeping them mountains is the most accurate, however perhaps some sort of province modifier could be added to make it clear that people are not actually inhabiting the mountains, but rather the valleys, hills and grasslands between the mountains and by the sea?


As for climate making inner Sogn and inner Hardanger artic is not accurate at all, as both of these places are some of the best farmlands for fruit production, likewise that should likely be a big part of the resources there, along with fish, wool and livestock, and perhaps some other resources found in mountains. The climate both in the fjords and along the coast is surprisingly temperate if you are just looking at a map. I'd actually stretch the sort of coastal climate all the way up to and perhaps including Lofoten, making the areas of Finnmark and the sort Artic instead.

This is not a critique but rather a big wish to see the areas I'm from accurately represented!

 

[Erbeilas]

Hi.
I feel the 500m limit on flatland is to high. I find it hard to agree that all of the south of Sweden is flatlands like Danmark, or the Netherlands. As a map enjoyer like you guys here i linked a topografy map of the area that shows the hills and valleysWith all the locations its should be possible to put in moredetail.
I cant wait to play the game and I love the talksView attachment 1169469

SulfurAeon is once again vindicated in his suggestion for a rolling/rugged hills distinction...

 

[Stormy seas]

I believe Halden should be a coastal Location as it is in real life and it should also expand a bit south

 

[Tantara]

...

As for climate making inner Sogn and inner Hardanger artic is not accurate at all, as both of these places are some of the best farmlands for fruit production, likewise that should likely be a big part of the resources there, along with fish, wool and livestock, and perhaps some other resources found in mountains. The climate both in the fjords and along the coast is surprisingly temperate if you are just looking at a map. I'd actually stretch the sort of coastal climate all the way up to and perhaps including Lofoten, making the areas of Finnmark and the sort Artic instead.

North Norwegian here. Strongly agree.
While technically classified as Arctic, the "Arctic" label likely lumps Lofoten/Trondenes in with areas that are far harsher than really justified.
You can feel a real, tangible difference between Hinnøya and further north in Troms. The Trondenes area feels much more lush and supports sedentary agriculture, while Senja and north feel much more Arctic in nature. It's much more akin to Iceland (Koppen subpolar oceanic) than Kola. Everything in Northern Norway that touches the coast should probably be labeled as woods, too. Just look at a satellite image to see that a huge part of the region is mountain birch and pine--not "sparse."

I think part of this has to do with the resolution of climate maps.

1. Low Resolution Koppen maps 't aggregate data in such a way that it can conflate inhabited coastal areas with nearby mountains, making those areas appear much colder than they actually are.
2. Higher resolution maps can more clearly differentiate inhabited areas vs. uninhabitable areas, demonstrating that the habitable areas are much more temperate.

Low Resolution Koppen Map:

Higher Resolution Map:

 

[vilkeri99]

It's kind of a bummer that the Sámi groupings have such bland names. The tribes in Finland and the Baltics have proper names like Tavastian, Karelian, Estonian, Latgalian, Samogitian and Aukstaitian, while the Sámi languages and language groups are just [Geographical description] Sámi apart from the Skolts. Skolt is such a cool name and I wish the other Sámi groups similar interesting names.

Sami language names could be used, such as Davvisápmelaččat for northern sami, nuorttâsämiliih (in inari sami) or nuõrtisäʹmmla (in skolt sami) for the eastern sami so on, but that is not without it's problems as well. Most accurate cultural map would have each siida have their own culture, but that's probably not gonna happen. Perhaps one culture per one lappmarck? Or a division into fell/mountain sami, sea sami, forest sami? Having one monolithic sami culture is not a great solution, thaty's for damn sure. _sigge_'s suggestions are very good as well.

 

[Aethilias]

Hello!

I wish I had been quicker to post this, but I have been working on producing estimates for the distribution of the Norwegian population for this time period and I think the game could gain in historicity from some adjustment. The numbers presented tell a story of a Eastern Norway (Østlandet) that is already as demographically dominant as it shall come to be in the latter half of the 1700s representing 45% of the population. Meanwhile Agder and Northern Norway (Hålogaland) are presented as very sparsely populated with Agder having a share of the population it did not fall to before the 1900s and Hålogaland a share of the population that it likely exceeded as early as the 500s.

In fact the region had already made an impact on parts of Norwegian history and came to foster Håkon Grjotjarlsson Ladejarl who was an important ally of Harald Fairhair and came to conquer Trøndelag from the North and establish the fairly famous dynasty being the Earls of Lade in the late 800s. In the 1000s it also raised a great part of the army that defeated Olav Haraldsson at Stiklestad and was the home of his bitter rival Tore Hund. Volundkvadet from the 700s is from the region, as is Hålegjatal from the 900s. Ottar from Hålogaland featured in King Alfred's edition of Orosius was also from the region. In the 900s it as already populated enough for significant migration to take place from it to Iceland. I think the population of the region may well have been even higher than I will suggest, but the 1.8% figure of Tinto Maps is at the very least ridiculous. I have discussed this with some historians and they seem to share the sentiment.

Note that I have excluded the territories part of Norway at game start that eventually will be lost to Sweden, Denmark, and Scotland as they would make us compare apples to oranges when comparing with historical figures.

Picture 1: Historical development of the share of the population between the different regions of Norway taking the distribution in Tinto Maps as starting point


Adjusting the Population Distribution of Norway

Image 2: Development of population distribution modeled by me; I simply keep the same share of population between the regions as they had in 1665; a time when Norway's population was considered to have mostly recovered from the Black Death and the earliest reliable measurements of the population of each region

I have opted for a method where I do the following with few exceptions:

1. Keep the overall population as given in Tinto Maps
2. Give the regions their relative share of the population as suggested by Norsk Historisk Leksikon for 1665
3. Give the districts of each region a share of this population corresponding to the relative share of their region's population in the first detailed census of 1769
4. Give each location roughly or exactly corresponding to parts of the districts of 1769 a share of the population of said district corresponding to what it was already given in Tinto Maps

The exceptions are:

• To represent that the Northwards settling of the furthermost parts of Northern Norway has not happened yet I have adjusted Nordland's share of the population of this region to be higher
• I have adjusted Troms (Tromsø) to have a higher share of the population of its province
• Edit: Adjusted Lofoten and Langenes (Vesterålen) to have a more even distribution of population (Not seen in screenshot)

The result is this:
Suggested Population 1337

Image 3: Screenshot from my spreadsheet covering one region at a time with colours from darkest to lightest going: region-province-district-location. The cells containing percentages that are coloured fiferently are the percentages used in the estimate. Left to right these go: inserted by me-as presented in Tinto Maps-percentage in 1769-percentage in 1665

I will happily redo this if some provinces are to be split; I would like for this to be presented as accurately as possible.

It is probably also apt to mention that while the share of the population contained by each region likely was different in 1337 compared to 1665 it is impossible to know this with great accuracy and if guesses are to be made then something in the other direction, presenting a more decentralised Norway that has tended towards centralisation in especially Eastern Norway, but also to some degree the West, is probably as good of a guess as what was presented in Tinto Maps. This would present a trend going in the same direction from 1337 to today with Østlandet growing in relative significance while Trøndelag and especially Agder fade rather than Østlandet being the natural centre of mass with a weird exception in 1665 before a regression to the norm as currently presented. I have made a sheet called "Also possible" involving some more guesswork that aims to guess on the other side of 1665, mostly to illustrate we cannot really know, and yet how different this guess looks just making different assumptions about the past:

Image 3: Alternate interpretation of Norway's demographic trends over time

Having discussed it a bit in the thread I made it might be that this is the better model.

Alternate Population 1337

Now you might be a bit surprised that I have presented Northern Norway as more than a desolate glacial wasteland (and noticed I have a column for suggesting climate) and this brings me to the next section:


Adjusting Norway's Climate

Most parts of the world as far north as even most of Norway and especially its northern parts well and truly are actual frozen hellscapes. However to the surprise of many the Gulf Stream warms the costal areas of the country to such an extent that its coastal areas as far north as Tromsø just barely make it into the Arctic/Boreal (Dfc) climate classification. In fact the coastal parts of the region teeters on the very edge between Oceanic and Boreal climate; mostly hinging on a 3 degree difference between two possible definitions as to how they should be classified. The difference in climate as you go further East is staggering and very drastic.

Image 4: Topographic map with the Gulf Stream illustrating both to what extent it hits the Norwegian coast and how mountainous Norway really is - the latter part is important

Currently the very mild climate of Northern Norway for its latitude and the huge difference between its coastal and inland areas are not represented at all in EU5 and I believe they should be. Now before I argue any further I would like to add some illustrations of Norway's climate classifications:

Image 5: Mean annual temperature in Norway - notice the drastic shift as you move inlands and how far north the red areas stretch

Image 6: Climate Classification of Norway from Store Norske Leksikon; again notice how far north you find temperate climate zones. In the text commenting on this it mentioned the temperate areas have expanded in the South, but note this: not in the North and this is for good reason...

Now you will probably see these maps and think that in the end a fair bit of Northern Norway is still classified as blue so maybe the Tinto representation as fully Arctic is fair enough. However look at the topography seen in my image featuring the Gulf Stream: the region is incredibly mountainous and this means that what youa are actually seeing on this map is simply the temperature measured on a mountain fairly quickly as you leave the coast. The actual settlements are to be found in coastal areas in lower terrain and many of them are just classified as Oceanic/Temperate without any caveats; the rest almost all hinge on the very edge of definitions and are a lot milder climatically than the classification of the entire region as "Arctic" would suggest. Representing the region as both Arctic and Mountain/Hill in its entirety is essentially punishing it twice for being mountainous.

The compromise I suggest is first of all making all areas that undoubtably have a Oceanic climate, such as Lofoten, Vesterålen, and coastal Helgeland to Oceanic. For the rest my suggestion is having some of it be Oceanic and some be Arctic, preferably choosing Oceanic at historical population centres, to represent how the region teeters on the very edge between two climate zones.

My suggestions are to be found in the same spreadsheet. In the column "New Climate" I have classified the locations or their most important settlement as Oceanic or Arctic without any questions, and Oceanic/Arctic or Arctic/Oceanic for regions where a slight shift in definition decides its classification. Then to the right of this column I have another column called "S" which is a suggestion for a compromise that keeps some of the locations on this very edge of climate zones Arctic, but also turns some of them Oceanic to represent how relatively mild the region is.

I have made some similar adjustments in Trøndelag.

Suggested Climate

Other Adjustments

Hamarøy and Steigen should have a sufficient Sami population for this to be seen in lines on the culture map. These locations feature Tysfjord which still has a very significant Sami population today. The Sami population in Troms and especially Finnmark should probably be slightly higher too.

I also have some suggestions for name changes for locations:
Location Names

Finally I would like to see Tønsberg and Skien turned into three locations so Tønsberg (Tunsberg), Larvik (Laurvig), and Skien (Bamble) so that all were fairly important historical settlements can all be represented simultaneously.

 

[Aethilias]

Another thing I really hope to see represented in some way is Bergen's trade monopoly. The cod trade from Northern Norway to Lübeck went through Bergen and Bergen fought hard to prevent them from sailing further than that as well as to keep their trade monopoly over Northern Norway (retained until 1789). Maybe there should be a Burgher privilege that Norway/Denmark-Norway has that limits or removes the possibility of upgrading settlements in Northern Norway and lowers its prosperity growth, but raises the cap on burghers in Bergen as well as the city's prosperity growth as well as the happiness of burghers as an estate

 

[Aethilias]

Hello!

I wish I had been quicker to post this, but I have been working on producing estimates for the distribution of the Norwegian population for this time period and I think the game could gain in historicity from some adjustment. The numbers presented tell a story of a Eastern Norway (Østlandet) that is already as demographically dominant as it shall come to be in the latter half of the 1700s representing 45% of the population. Meanwhile Agder and Northern Norway (Hålogaland) are presented as very sparsely populated with Agder having a share of the population it did not fall to before the 1900s and Hålogaland a share of the population that it likely exceeded as early as the 500s.

Making two more sheets where I add Karasjok and Kautokeino to Finnmark even though they don't start within Norway's territory in game:

1665-Based Suggestion with this Adaptation

Alternate Suggestion with this Adaptation

 

[EvsseH]

Åmål was only an insignificant parish

varför måste vi bo i fucking jävla kuk Åmål