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

[honkajoki]

From the pic in above message, I notice two simple things. Uhtuo should probably be Uhtua. Möhkö is now spelled properly, but like mentioned previously in this thread, there's still the problem that it's a village that grew around a late 19th century iron mill, after the game time period.

 

[Ipponen]

From the pic in above message, I notice two simple things. Uhtuo should probably be Uhtua. Möhkö is now spelled properly, but like mentioned previously in this thread, there's still the problem that it's a village that grew around a late 19th century iron mill, after the game time period.

Yeah it should be Uhtua in Finnish and Tunkuo should be Tunkua, but the names seem to be correct in Karelian.

 

[Hamnstad]

Here are some alternative suggestions for Slesvig based on the old syssel and herrede (hundred) systems and and approximation of the coastline back then while trying to keep the number of provinces and localities relatively constant (I only moved 2 herreder back and forth between sysler really):

Localities:

Istedsyssel:
Flensborg: Wiz-, Husby- & Ugglæherrede
Slesvig: Ny-, Struksthorp- & Arældherrede
Husum: Syndrægøsherrede & Nørrægøsherrede (Gøsland)

Ellumsyssel:
Tønder: Tønder-, Løg-, Højer-, Kær- & Slogsherrede + Jordsand (the island)

Barvid:
Harderslev: Haderslev-, Tyrstrup- & Gramherrede

mixed:
Aabenraa: Rise-, Nybøl- & Lundtoftherrede (Ellum) & Rangstrupherrede (Barvid) + Als
Ribe: Hvidingherrede (Ellum), Frøs- & Kalvslundherrede (Barvid) + Rømø & Mandø

10 localities in total (with Sønderborg):


Sønderborg: Nybølherrede + Als (edit: Barsø is meant to be with Aabenraa, not Sønderborg)

Provinces:

Nordslesvig, Sydlesvig & Uthlande

Only 2 provinces:

Nordslesvig & Sydslesvig

Notes:
- More territory could be given to Ribe from the north (Vardesyssel)
- Putting the area around Tønder and Husum into the Uthlande is kinda feisty but both the Gøsland and the Kærherrede had frieslandic populations with their own dialects so it's not entirely meaningless and would give you a province which was likely majority Frisian.
- Ideally I would call the localities Uthlande and Fræzleth at the start of the game but alternatively Egernfjord (the city has like a billion ways to spell it) and Rungholt.
- Alternatively to Rungholt Tönning could be used.
- Husum wasn't that significant in 1337 but there's not really an other city to suggest alterivatively with those locality-borders, ideally you would have flooding events for the Uthlande which would prompt the downfall (or total vanishing) of Rungholt and the rise of Husum.
- Most of my mapping is based on this map by J.N. Schmidt and cross referenced with Kong Valdemars Jordebog, Ribe Oldemor, sources from the Bishopric of Slesvig and real world church locations. In my mind the map is reasonably accuarate, especially seen from a distance (which you will in EU5) and it also looks good:

Very excited to see where the game is going

 

[Hamnstad]

Beware, plenty of places had a cathedral, but would not reach that development level. It could well be a town, but something like population in the town and economic activity are probably better indicators for this.

In the 14th century in Denmark a cathedral is a very good indicator that you were one of the most developed places in the country. If you look at the medieval layout of Slesvig and Ribe they also had like 10 churches each or something, it's quite crazy and must coincide with considerable wealth at that time. I know less about Aarhus but I would suppose that it's not that different. Generally though on a European scale there were likely no very relevant Scandinavian cities at all in 1337. I posted these population estimates in another thread earlier. They are approximate and one can argue that the order is slightly different but the grand picture they portray is certainly true:

1300:
Lübeck: 15.000
Hamburg: 5.000
Kiel: 2.000
Slesvig: 3.000
Husum: 1.000
Flensburg: 2.000
Ribe: 2.000
Aarhus: 3.000
Randers: 2.000
Aalborg: 2.000
Odense: 3.000
Copenhagen: 3.000
Oslo: 2.000
Lund: 2.000
Stockholm: 3.000
Novgorod: 40.000
Riga: 7.000
Reval/Tallin: 2.000
Königsberg: 3.000
Danzig: 9.000
Stralsund: 12.000
Rostock: 10.000

1400:
Lübeck: 17.000
Hamburg: 8.000
Kiel: 1.000
Slesvig: 2.000
Husum: 1.000
Flensburg: 2.000
Ribe: 2.000
Aarhus: 2.000
Randers: 1.000
Aalborg: 1.000
Odense: 2.000
Copenhagen: 2.000
Oslo: 1.000
Lund: 1.000
Stockholm: 5.000
Novgorod: 30.000
Riga: 7.000
Reval/Tallin: 3.000
Königsberg: 10.000
Danzig: 20.000
Stralsund: 15.000
Rostock: 13.000

Source: Buringh 2020

And this is just around the Baltic, not even speaking about Spain or Italy.

 

[Hamnstad]

Since I know that you sometimes take feedback on these posts I thought I would mention a few things in regard to Denmark. Even if I am about to gut my home of Silkeborg in the progress.

To make my arguments I am going to use two pictures
https://jggj.dk/thesis.htm

View attachment 1165792

It shows the parish sizes in medieval Denmark. Which the thesis points out correlates (I know I know) quite neatly with population density. Not many surprises here, as it also correlates nicely when you look at a map of the soil types of Denmark.

Brought to you by: https://data.geus.dk/geusmap/?lang=...tskort_200000,jordartskort_25000,dkskaermkort or as a picture:

View attachment 1165793
The important one here is the light brown one, which represents clay-heavy soils, while the orange and pinkish ones are sandier and thus less suited for agriculture, though not necessarily impossible.

Regarding the population, I do think it is a bit on the low side, but I believe this can be chalked up to this being Denmark in the Kingless times, etc. If you’re set on the numbers, I suggest redistributing the population from areas I think are too high to those that are too low. I will only mention the localisations where I think the population needs to change and not judge every single one to determine if their population makes sense.

Using the above maps, I suggest the following changes to localities, ordered by province:

Vendsyssel-Thy:

• Thisted: Change raw material to wheat, increase population to a number that more adequately represents the population density. Change vegetation to farmland.
• Hjørring: Increase the population, but not as much as Thisted.
• Skagen: I would suggest a change to fish or even salt since Læsø is part of it.

Nørrejylland:

• Aalborg: Change vegetation to grasslands; I think livestock is fine.
• Viborg: Change raw material to wheat.
• Randers: I would do horses here, and have either salt in Kolding or Skagen. Skagen had it until the 1600's while Kolding started producing salt in 1570 and found rock salt later outside the scope of the game.

Western Jutland:(I think I saw a comment where you guys already picked up on that naming mistake )

• Ringkøbing: I think fish is fine; amber could be considered.
• Holstebro: Change to livestock or wool.
• Bølling: Unsure about salt, but I don’t know much about the area; could consider livestock and wool, or less likely, amber.
• Varde: Change raw material to something other than wheat; my suggestion is livestock or wool, but amber and fish would not be questioned too much.(Denmark should never have more than one amber province, but one west coast province would not be too illogical. However, I lean more towards fish and livestock.)

Østjylland:(I think I saw a comment where you guys already picked up on that naming mistake )

• Silkeborg: The population needs to go down, not to the levels of Grindsted, but in my mind, it needs to be at least halved. Change vegetation to woods or flatlands. Raw material could be lumber or wheat, as it is about 50% wooded areas with sandy soils, and 50% decent agricultural producing land but not the best. It is not known for livestock.
• Grindsted: To my knowledge, livestock was more a western Jutland thing; could change it to sand. A bit at a loss, as the area is kind of a nowhere area but not quite western Jutland. Change vegetation to flatlands.
• Aarhus: Fine but population should be way more than Silkeborg, and not equal.
• Kolding: potentially change to salt.
• Kalø: Fine.

Sønderjylland: I generally think these are fine.

Funen:

• Assens: Argument for farmland vegetation, but grassland is fine. I don’t know about any salt production in the area; would suggest changing to wheat.
• Odense: I would change vegetation to farmland, raw material to legumes (for variety’s sake) or wheat. Argument for some of Assens' population to be moved to Odense, as it also contains islands with high population density and is the larger of the two Funen provinces.
• Nakskov: Change vegetation to farmland, change raw material to legumes (if it represents a higher value good than wheat) or wheat. This is historically the land best suited for non-modern agriculture. Historically, it was owned for quite some time by royal bastard lines, who grew wealthy from their land on this island.

Zealand:

• Kalundborg: Argument for farmland over grassland. I do think the population could be increased a bit. I think it produces medicaments? If that is an agricultural-type good, I think it is fine.
• Ringsted: Fine.
• Roskilde: Fine.
• Helsingør: I would move some of the population elsewhere, change vegetation to woods or grassland. Wheat is fine, but fish would also work. Historically, it’s known for being the king's hunting grounds, so the woods there were preserved, but they’re not exactly extensive.

Malmöhus (if the area is Danish culture, why does it have Swedish spelling?)

• Generally, I think they’re fine. I think the population might be low, but I don’t know where to find it. Why is Malmö spelled in a Swedish way when it's Danish culture?
• Argument for Lund to be wheat/legumes/medicaments.

Göing

• I don’t know much about the area; it looks fine.

Halland:

• Looks decent.
• Varberg: I think I would change from sand to wheat.

Blekinge:

• Sölvesborg (why Swedish spelling when Danish culture?) should have an increased population, not much, but to be above its neighbors.
• Rønneby: I would change vegetation to woods; it’s very rocky there. Wheat is fine though.
• Brekne: Change vegetation to woods; see Rønneby reason.

Very interesting study. I think it points out the prime issues itself. The study concludes a mismatch between fertile land and parish density which I think points towards an error in the study. The medieval parishes are difficult to reconstruct and especially with Slesvigs history of becomming a part of Prussia, sources and documentation tend to be worse. I worked on a map myself which was influenced by high medieval church locations and parishes and it's very not straight forward. The jump from 1662 to unspecified high medieval times also makes me dubious, especially regarding which parishes were used. You have situations where parishes vanished over time and also situations were new ones appeared. My hunch is that the study following unequal development patterns across Denmarks, represents newer smaller parishes and fails to represent vanished parishes which will impact the results which seem dubious. Furthermore I would like to point out that during my own unfinished look into this the area that such a spatial analysis pointed especially strongly towards was the Uthlande where the map is demonstrably wrong because this isn't even how the area looked in high medieval times. Note ofc that there are a lot of asteriscs here because our records are patchy, a lot of it no longer exists, churches were flooded and rebuilt and a sizeable number of them were chapels but even if I made a substantial deduction it comes out with a rather insane parish density. it would actually be consistent with the very high taxes in King Valdemars Jordebog which led the publisher of the version I've been reading (O. Nielsen) to comment that this can not be true and must be understood differently.

I definitely don't think the map is entirely off but it's odd that it contradicts other sources of relative prosperity in the south and the way it choses to sample data is difficult and even when done with the most rigour possible will likely have blindspots from things we have no account off. For example to get the most accurate representation you have to map the churches marked "desolata" as well in the records even if you have no idea where they are.

Edit: to expand on what I mean on page 16 here there is a comparable map from an archeologist: http://jggj.dk/Kattegat.pdf

I have a relatively good dataset of medieval churches in Slesvig (built pre 1362) and mapped it onto that. Here I think I can clearly exemplify one error which is along the lines of what I described above even with just a Slesvig dataset:

This is the area south-west of Aabenraa. Enlev is as far as I know entirely gone so any placement will not be very precise but it looks like me and the map maker guessed more or less the same and it should be in that general area. All of the other churches still exist and are mapped at excact location except Årup which has however been found long ago (so location is also precise) but which was a chapel so I could understand the data not mapping it but then if you look at Genner it was also a chapel and it got mapped (there is a neo-romanesque church there today but it's from 1935). And then the elephant in the room is the spot in the middle where I haven't mapped a church because Hjordkjær is from the mid 16th century however I heavily suspect it was included in the other dataset. It is generally understood though that at that point the middle ages had passed since 100 years or more.

What I'm really pointing towards here is that it's very hard to do this flawlessly and if you have a disportionate development of churches vanishing in one area and new ones appearing in another, the sum of your mistakes will skew the data in the same direction. Another glaring issue is that no year is stated, it just says medieval times. It is however still probably one of the best ways of analyzing medieval settlement patterns that we have as churches have been quite persisent.

Here is a heatmap of my dataset so far. The Uthlande has to be revised a bit but this general trend is backed up by records and archeologists are finding the sunken settlements, they found what is likel the church of Rungholt just last year. You can generally even at this state already see the sparse middle area tendensy reinforced which will likely become even more prevalent when you go further north where Jutland gets wider. So what you say about Silkeborg is at this rate entirely plausible and I ofc don't want to contradict that at all.

 

[Chieron]

In the 14th century in Denmark a cathedral is a very good indicator that you were one of the most developed places in the country. If you look at the medieval layout of Slesvig and Ribe they also had like 10 churches each or something, it's quite crazy and must coincide with considerable wealth at that time. I know less about Aarhus but I would suppose that it's not that different. Generally though on a European scale there were likely no very relevant Scandinavian cities at all in 1337. I posted these population estimates in another thread earlier. They are approximate and one can argue that the order is slightly different but the grand picture they portray is certainly true:

I'd very much doubt the 10 churches claim for Ribe or Schleswig. The old towns of both have 20 or fewer blocks and show no indication of additional churchyards. Ribe has the cathedral and a monastery, Schleswig just has the cathedral. And looking at other towns you listed, this is not surprising. Rostock with more than 3 times the population of both combined had four major churches (where the largest should count as a cathedral, even without a bishop) and three monasteries. Stralsund and Lübeck are similar.
Anyway, Århus may very well be a town, but having a cathedral cannot be the only indicator. Otherwise, there will be town-level locations everywhere, even though some cathedrals were located in very rural locations.
Århus seems to be the economic center for nothern Jutland, so it being considered a town is okay.

Compare the Mecklenburgian situation: Wismar and Rostock are undoubtedly towns. But the locations that hold actual cathedrals are not considered towns by Paradox (Schwerin, Güstrow and Ratzeburg). The first two could probably also be towns (larger than the Danish examples you gave), but that would turn an otherwise quite rural area into a comparably urbanized region despite being colonized only around 120 years previously.

 

[Hamnstad]

I'd very much doubt the 10 churches claim for Ribe or Schleswig. The old towns of both have 20 or fewer blocks and show no indication of additional churchyards. Ribe has the cathedral and a monastery, Schleswig just has the cathedral. And looking at other towns you listed, this is not surprising. Rostock with more than 3 times the population of both combined had four major churches (where the largest should count as a cathedral, even without a bishop) and three monasteries. Stralsund and Lübeck are similar.
Anyway, Århus may very well be a town, but having a cathedral cannot be the only indicator. Otherwise, there will be town-level locations everywhere, even though some cathedrals were located in very rural locations.
Århus seems to be the economic center for nothern Jutland, so it being considered a town is okay.

Compare the Mecklenburgian situation: Wismar and Rostock are undoubtedly towns. But the locations that hold actual cathedrals are not considered towns by Paradox (Schwerin, Güstrow and Ratzeburg). The first two could probably also be towns (larger than the Danish examples you gave), but that would turn an otherwise quite rural area into a comparably urbanized region despite being colonized only around 120 years previously.

The bishop seats are the places we have the very best records on. If we know anything about that time well, it's that. As far as I remember most of them have also been found. I mapped this at one point. I don't have all the sources on hand but they can be found without too much effort.

This is just a screenshot from a dataset (of churches/chapels/monasteries built before the Grote Manedrenke in 1362), Danish and German names are all over the place but I think you get the point. The big with the dot are churches, the smaller ones chapels and rings with the cross monasteries. As far as I remember St. Gertrud position is guessed but we know that it existed and that it was a poor church. St. Michaelis was torn down in 1870, read more here. St. Jürgen was I believe also a poor chapel (generally St. Jürgen signified church run places that were leper colonies but did often also have church functions). St. Lorenz we have a reasonably good account of the position but I don't know that much more, Olaf we probably know the least about. If you want to doubt one it's that. St. Clemens still exists today but is the town hall. St. Trinitatis was dug up some time in the last century. St. Clemens and St. Maria (spelled Mariæ here) we have archeologic evidence, St. Paul is the town hall today, the one just called Schleswig is the cathedral. St. Hans still exists. St. Nicolai and Augustinerkloster we are also sure and I forgot about Maria Magdalenen. And the Busdorf church is the still intact romanesque church at the old Heiðabýr settlement. One source can be found here but you can find others. I haven't noted them all down.

This is Ribe, I will spare you the rundown, documentation for this should be even better. I believe danmarkskirker had a great rundown of it all but the site is currently not up it seems:

For reference here are Flensburg (St. Gertrud position is estimated but should be acurate within max a 200m radius, probably less):

And Haderslev:

Schwerin is likely in the same ballpark of the examples I gave, Ratzeburg and Güstrow not really. If you ever were in Ratzeburg and in Slesvig you would see how even just geographically it's very dubious. Ratzeburg is a tiny island on a lake. It has very stringent limits to growth and trade access is also kinda meh from there, Slesvig on the other hand has a quite expansive medieval town. But even then Ratzeburg was important. The population data I posted above is also not law but it's very rough estimates. As far as I believe it's based at least partially on area calculations based on city extends (which is generally a useful principle) but for instance it woldn't reflect higher denisties in more built up church towns where people live closely together very well. The point of the dataset was rather to show that generally speaking Scandinavian cities at that point were very small compared to their southern neighbours and even some other baltic cities. I do however think that for instance Slesvig and Ribe are significantly undersampled even though both already had signs of a downward trajectory (especially Ribe). I think you can possibly also say the same about the other bishop seats (though I am hesistand on the one on Vensdsyssel-Thy) and Flensburg. I forgot to post the Roskilde estimate also which was kinda silly because it's 7.000 in 1300 which fits better with the 20 church estimate for Roskilde and which at least in that dataset should tie it with Bergen (which I also forgot to mention as I focussed on the baltic area) as the largest Scandinavian cities at the start dates.

As for comparison to Rostock. Rostock was not a bishop seat. You would expect fewer churches naturally and Rostock probably also has vanished churches. They even btw. have a GDR one (once with one of the highest church spires in the world but the spire collapsed at some point) that they reworked into appartments but it also kinda operates as a church again, very strange story. Of course that one is still easily identifiable.

Genereally to me a bishop seat with sufficient development around it points to me towards a centralization of power and a reasonably high tax base around it to sustain it. I think in the north of Denmark, Viborg and the Vendsyssel-Thy cathedral I'm not sure how rich they were but even say Slesvig, Ribe and Roskilde should still be put into perspective of for instance Lübeck or Stralsund. I mean just look at their medieval town hall/town square and you know they were for real. Still there could be an argument to bump bishop seats a little bit, it might even be an interesting facet to a locality in its own right which could chain into events, missions or other things.

 

[Chieron]

The bishop seats are the places we have the very best records on. If we know anything about that time well, it's that. As far as I remember most of them have also been found. I mapped this at one point. I don't have all the sources on hand but they can be found without too much effort.

This is just a screenshot from a dataset (of churches/chapels/monasteries built before the Grote Manedrenke in 1362), Danish and German names are all over the place but I think you get the point. The big with the dot are churches, the smaller ones chapels and rings with the cross monasteries. As far as I remember St. Gertrud position is guessed but we know that it existed and that it was a poor church. St. Michaelis was torn down in 1870, read more here. St. Jürgen was I believe also a poor chapel (generally St. Jürgen signified church run places that were leper colonies but did often also have church functions). St. Lorenz we have a reasonably good account of the position but I don't know that much more, Olaf we probably know the least about. If you want to doubt one it's that. St. Clemens still exists today but is the town hall. St. Trinitatis was dug up some time in the last century. St. Clemens and St. Maria (spelled Mariæ here) we have archeologic evidence, St. Paul is the town hall today, the one just called Schleswig is the cathedral. St. Hans still exists. St. Nicolai and Augustinerkloster we are also sure and I forgot about Maria Magdalenen. And the Busdorf church is the still intact romanesque church at the old Heiðabýr settlement. One source can be found here but you can find others. I haven't noted them all down.

View attachment 1239915

I see four relevant churches in Schleswig, the rest is outside the old town (which likely did not even extend to the visible city wall area in 1337). Plus two monasteries. Busdorg is not relevant here.

This is Ribe, I will spare you the rundown, documentation for this should be even better. I believe danmarkskirker had a great rundown of it all but the site is currently not up it seems:

View attachment 1239922

Eight churches in the old town, but four of them are in monasteries or just minor chapels.

For reference here are Flensburg (St. Gertrud position is estimated but should be acurate within max a 200m radius, probably less):

View attachment 1239923

Three churches in the old town. Large town center, though.

And Haderslev:

View attachment 1239924

One church, one monastery. Quite a small old town area.

Schwerin is likely in the same ballpark of the examples I gave, Ratzeburg and Güstrow not really.

Güstrow appears to have been larger than Schwerin for a while, until the duke moved his residence to the latter. For the record: two major churches (one is the cathedral), two minor ones, + important market for the interior.
Ratzeburg is small, yet was the seat of a bishop. It's basically just the cathedral.

If you ever were in Ratzeburg and in Slesvig you would see how even just geographically it's very dubious. Ratzeburg is a tiny island on a lake. It has very stringent limits to growth and trade access is also kinda meh from there, Slesvig on the other hand has a quite expansive medieval town. But even then Ratzeburg was important. The population data I posted above is also not law but it's very rough estimates. As far as I believe it's based at least partially on area calculations based on city walls (which is generally a useful principle) but for instance it woldn't reflect higher denisties in more built up church towns where people live closely together very well. The point of the dataset was rather to show that generally speaking Scandinavian cities at that point were very small compared to their southern neighbours and even some other baltic cities. I do however think that for instance Slesvig and Ribe are significantly undersampled even though both already had signs of a downward trajectory (especially Ribe). I forgot to post the Roskilde estimate also which was kinda silly because it's 7.000 in 1300 which fits better with the 20 church estimate for Roskilde. I also think that you could possibly argue the same about other bishoprics and about Flensburg (the population likely being a bit higher) but not to the point where it wouldn't be way below the Hansa cities mentioned.

As for comparison to Rostock. Rostock was not a bishop seat. You would expect fewer churches naturally and Rostock probably also has vanished churches. They even btw. have a GDR one (once with one of the highest church spires in the world but the spire collapsed at some point) that they reworked into appartments but it also kinda operates as a church again, very strange story. Of course that one is still easily identifiable.

There were quite a few especially large churches in Rostock's old town. When you walk through it, you would not expect many more. Btw, St. Nikolai is no longer a church, it is now a concert hall (still counts for 1337). Judging from old plans / depictions, there are not many "vanished" churches. Basically just St. Jacobi which was destroyed by the GDR.
From the density, Rostock is no different than Wismar, Stralsund or Greifswald (which has cathedral).

Genereally to me a bishop seat with sufficient development around it points to me towards a centralization of power and a reasonably high tax base around it to sustain it. I think in the north of Denmark, Viborg and the Vendsyssel-Thy cathedral I'm not sure how rich they were but even say Slesvig, Ribe and Roskilde should still be put into perspective of for instance Lübeck or Stralsund. I mean just look at their medieval town hall/town square and you know they were for real.

Viborg does indeed have a relatively large center, but is otherwise in a rural area. Probably similar claim to town status as Århus.

Again, I do not want to denounce your claim that Århus should be a town. But a cathedral is not proof in itself. It (together with additional churches) is a good indicator, what to consider, however. Different settlement structures between countries can also disturb such criteria - one large church vs. many small ones.
A town should be a center of trade of a certain minimum size, after all.

Weirdly, wikipedia claims that the cathedral much of the town burned down in 1330, though nothing is quoted in the timeline.

 

[Hamnstad]

I see four relevant churches in Schleswig, the rest is outside the old town (which likely did not even extend to the visible city wall area in 1337). Plus two monasteries. Busdorg is not relevant here.


Eight churches in the old town, but four of them are in monasteries or just minor chapels.


Three churches in the old town. Large town center, though.


One church, one monastery. Quite a small old town area.


Güstrow appears to have been larger than Schwerin for a while, until the duke moved his residence to the latter. For the record: two major churches (one is the cathedral), two minor ones, + important market for the interior.
Ratzeburg is small, yet was the seat of a bishop. It's basically just the cathedral.

There were quite a few especially large churches in Rostock's old town. When you walk through it, you would not expect many more. Btw, St. Nikolai is no longer a church, it is now a concert hall (still counts for 1337). Judging from old plans / depictions, there are not many "vanished" churches. Basically just St. Jacobi which was destroyed by the GDR.
From the density, Rostock is no different than Wismar, Stralsund or Greifswald (which has cathedral).


Viborg does indeed have a relatively large center, but is otherwise in a rural area. Probably similar claim to town status as Århus.

Again, I do not want to denounce your claim that Århus should be a town. But a cathedral is not proof in itself. It (together with additional churches) is a good indicator, what to consider, however. Different settlement structures between countries can also disturb such criteria - one large church vs. many small ones.
A town should be a center of trade of a certain minimum size, after all.

Weirdly, wikipedia claims that the cathedral much of the town burned down in 1330, though nothing is quoted in the timeline.

I don't want to make this endlessly long to not derail the thread but how do you just determine what is and what isn't an old town? Of course it can be deducted with reasonable certainty from archiological evidence and so on but mapping material from before the 16th/17th century in northern Europe is extremely scarse, especially at that level of detail. I can speak somewhat confidently about some of these cities but certainly not all.

I believe the oldest contemporary maps of towns in that area you will generally find of towns in that area are from the mid 17th century from Meyer. This is the 1649 map for Slesvig and as you can see it's a rather unusual city which spans way, way past the city walls which might be a reason the data I cited underestimated it, when a lot of historical documents point towards a regionally outstanding performance.

My entire argument here hinges on (and is in some way an extension of what Bastiram noted, that churches can be a good indicator of development but it also comes with a number of caveats. As for Slesvig as far as I'm aware we have a good understanding that the churches I highlighted were more or less all built before the mid 14th century (before the plague), it is reasonable to assume that the distribution of the the churches gives you a good undertanding of the actual layout of the settlement which must have had a non-negligible size even then and which I actually assume looked similar to the 1649 Meyer map in 1337. On these grounds I would generally argue to boost the population in this area somewhat.

For Flensburg I actually made two small mistakes. First i placed St. Marien slightly wrong (doesn't change much, should be a bit north-east) and I also forgot the St. Jürgen leper colony which was similar to the one in Slesvig (it lied where the modern church of St. Jürgen stands today). You can take a look this map from 1779 which splits the entire land of the city into the 4 parishes (Ramsharde is St. Gertrud and St. Gertrud is also marked on the map). St. Getrud was within the city walls, by like 50-100m compared to where the old northern gate was but it was inside and is generally noted in Flensburg's history as one of the 4 church parishes that constituted the city. The St. Johannis btw is the oldest and is the point from which the city emerged. The Adelby church is even older and technically St. Johannis was an off-spring of that settlement which then in time overtook Adelby and grew into Flensburg with the other parishes that emerged. I'm not really sure if you discounted St. Johannis or St. Gertrud but both were consituent parts of the city really and rathe vital for how it was administrated.

For Haderslev it's also odd to say that the original Haderslesv church (the first one) and St. Getrud should not be part of it but to get back to the point I think you can glean development tendencies from this. Having more than one church already meant that it was more than some small village and having a dozen or so points towards a rather powerful city and it also points to a sufficiently large tax base on the farms around the city to support something like this. You should however distinguish by type of town. As I said a bishopric would be expected to have extra many churches.

To refer this to other cities, this link says Rostock had 7 which I will simply chose to believe because it's right in the ballpark of what I would expect and generally fits well with the perspective that Rostock was a larger city than any of the Scandinavian ones. It roughly doubles Flensburg and I'm not sure you can find a non-bishopric trade city in Denmark with more churches than Flensburg at that time (not that I have checked them all).

Here is a comparison for the danish bishop seats minus Roskilde and Lund (all are same scale):

What I would generally conclude is that Vendsyssel-Thy was relatively poor and sparsely populated and thus there was practically no development around the cathedrals. This alligns well with everything else we'se seen. Then I would further conclude that Odense was reasonably developed but not very. Aarhus does surprisingly bad in this comparison. 2 churches is strangely low for a bishop seat though Aarhus also probably has the best harbour of all of these so trade could have been a higher priority yet it seems dubious the city was all that big in 1337. Slesvig, Ribe and Viborg here would come out on top besides ofc Roskilde. It is also worth noting that there are comonalities here between many bishop seats. While Slesvig, Aarhus and Odense develop relatively well long term (even though they likely stagnate for much of the game in reality), Roskilde, Viborg and Ribe all do very poorly compared to where they were at that point, likely because the entire economic paradigm shifts. Also black death is going to hurt them exceptionally much.

 

[Chieron]

I don't want to make this endlessly long to not derail the thread but how do you just determine what is and what isn't an old town? Of course it can be deducted with reasonable certainty from archiological evidence and so on but mapping material from before the 16th/17th century in northern Europe is extremely scarse, especially at that level of detail. I can speak somewhat confidently about some of these cities but certainly not all.

The old town is the area inside the city walls. For most cities you can see this quite well in the road layout or their names. Outside of the fortified area, there usually were at most monasteries (with their own walls) or small chapels. This is a bit difficult to determine for Århus, but rather obvious for the other cities.
One can also roughly estimate the town population from the size of the walled area. If no wall is apparent or it is too small, the town was small during the middle ages.

2 churches is strangely low for a bishop seat though Aarhus also probably has the best harbour of all of these so trade could have been a higher priority yet it seems dubious the city was all that big in 1337.

If Århus burned down in 1330, many smaller churches might've been lost. Also, with the huge cathedral, there might not have been much need for smaller ones. That's what I meant by referring to settlement structures. Sometimes, there will be many smaller churches and chapels, and sometimes only a few large ones. Look at Dutch cities - mostly one or two huge churches, even though the towns were quite large.
Generally, if a town has only one smaller church, it will be rural in nature, more of a marketplace for the local villages than an actual trade center.

 

[Hamnstad]

The old town is the area inside the city walls. For most cities you can see this quite well in the road layout or their names.

No, you can not because we are speaking about 1337 specifically, not just the preindustrial era in general. The way you look at it is more reflective of how they will have looked around the 17th or 18th century. While some cities were quite stagnant between 1337 and 1800, this is definitely not true for all of them. Furthermore the wall should not be seen as the defining end of the settlement. The percentage of how much of a settlement was walled differs. Of course more wall would generally indicate more wealth and population but the walls were built and rebuilt at one specific time, while population development was dynamic. Your assumption is particularly problematic because 1337 predates many city walls.

If Århus burned down in 1330, many smaller churches might've been lost. Also, with the huge cathedral, there might not have been much need for smaller ones.

If Aarhus did indeed burn down around 1300 you would definitely not excpect it to be a major town in 1337. I actually just found a snippet on wiki where it said the town and cathedral burnt down in 1330 and was not properly rebuilt for 100 years. So that's in line with my conclusions above and I would argue Aarhus should be the least developed of the non Vendsyssel bishop seats because the game starts directly after it burnt down. You can also not make an argument about the size because the church as you see it today is ofc not identical to the church in 1337. Around 1337 most if not all of the cathedrals will still have been romanesque.

 

[Chieron]

No, you can not because we are speaking about 1337 specifically, not just the preindustrial era in general. The way you look at it is more reflective of how they will have looked around the 17th or 18th century. While some cities were quite stagnant between 1337 and 1800, this is definitely not true for all of them. Furthermore the wall should not be seen as the defining end of the settlement. The percentage of how much of a settlement was walled differs. Of course more wall would generally indicate more wealth and population but the walls were built and rebuilt at one specific time, while population development was dynamic.

The mediaeval part of the city was generally not larger than the walled area. Areas outside the walls were generally tiny. Check out historical depictions of these cities, only a handful of houses would be outside. And most walls' form factor are from the middle ages, even if later bastions had been added.
Sure, inside the walls the density fluctuates with some areas unbuild even, but it gives some upper limit. The sizes of surviving structures is also an indicator. Again, historical depictions give a good idea about what to expect.
In Flensburg, it is visible, that there had been mediaeval expansions as well. But the basic structure is visible.
Expansions outside the walls or after 1500 usually follow a different type of grid (and can usually still be seen in the road layout and some building styles).

In any case, for the examples you gave, the largest extend is definitely determinable even without searching for specific sources.

Note that walls can only be useful as indicators in areas that actually were fortified significantly. Some areas like England never built walls to the degree seen in e.g. central Europe.

If Aarhus did indeed burn down around 1300 you would definitely not excpect it to be a major town in 1337. I actually just found a snippet on wiki where it said the town and cathedral burnt down in 1330 and was not properly rebuilt for 100 years. So that's in line with my conclusions above and I would argue Aarhus should be the least developed of the non Vendsyssel bishop seats. You can also not make an argument about the size because the church as you see it today is ofc not identical to the church in 1337. Around 1337 most if not all of the cathedrals will still have been romanesque.

1337 was already well into the gothic phase even in the Baltic area, though many of the larger churches were still under construction. The destruction (if it actually happened, that part of the wiki article is not cited!) maybe puts it on the limits of town status. Either is probably justifiable.

 

[Hamnstad]

Here is a depiction of Slesvig from Brauns and Hogenbergs Civitates Orbis Terrarum which indicates along with everything else I've cited that the urban extend of the settlement was considerably larger than the walled area, it extends so far that Braun has to merge it with the horizon line the main city gate (højeport/Hohes Tor) is the thing that is relatively central on the drawing and we can assume that Slesvig in 1588 was smaller than in 1337:

This one is likewise from Braun & Hogenberg for (Helsingør and) Ribe but from a very odd angle (note that M is St. Peder which is north of Ribe Å and which this drawing portrays as entirely within the urban area, what you see in the front is actually Hjortvad Å):

Braun also mapped some other Danish cities like Flensborg, Odense and Copenhagen but he didn't really go north of the konge å which may indicate that even in 1588 there wasn't much to map there. And has to be noted that these drawings are 250 years after 1337, so you have to keep in mind that cities developed differently since then, mainly the church centres didn't do well in that period. Btw don't get too hung up on the scale. You have to go by the landmarks to properly geolocate this.

Here are some area approximations based on the extends we see in Brauns and Hogenbergs atlas and church placements as measured in a GIS program (for Aarhus, Roskilde and Viborg there are no drawings, so only churches and later maps are used to approximate). I added Lübeck as a baseline though keep in mind it probably had a higher density than the other cities:

Lübeck Altstadtinsel: ∼130 ha
Kiel: ∼20 ha
Egjernfjord: ∼30 ha
Slesvig: ∼50-70 ha
Flensborg: ∼60-80 ha
Tønder: ∼20-30 ha
Ribe: ∼60-70 ha
Haderslev: ∼45-55 ha
Aarhus: ∼20-40ha
Viborg: ∼35-60 ha
Odense: ∼30 ha
Roskilde: ∼70-110 ha (the upper estimate is very optimistic, more likely around 85 ha)
Copenhagen: ∼40-60 ha

Consequently here are rounded population estimates based on the 7000 figure for Roskilde which is also in the ballpark of what you will find in Danish researchers specific assumptions (5000-10000):

Kiel: ∼1600
Egernfjord: ∼2500 (note: seems kinda high, I probably overestimate the size a bit)
Slesvig: ∼4900
Flensborg: ∼5800
Tønder: ∼2100
Ribe: ∼5400
Haderslev: ∼4100
Aarhus: ∼2500
Viborg: ∼3900
Odense: ∼2500
Roskilde: ∼7000
Copenhagen: ∼4100

This is just a mathematical breakdown, upper and lower estimates are averaged. If you want to further tinker with it I would assume the numbers of the trade cities would tend a bit higher and that of the church cities a bit lower. Generally the densities might have varied significantly leading to different numbers but I think this overall ballpark makes sense. Also Viborg is hard to estimate. I could see it be higher based on the number of churches. My lower estimate was trying to be very safe.

I also figured out that I missed St. Oluf in Aarhus which doesn't exist anymore but the foundation is well preserved also possibly a 2nd Vor Frue but this strikes me as a bit strange. It also never got precisely located and might be the same as the Vor Frue that exists. I have been the most charitable to Aarhus (besides Roskilde) in these estimates with 40 ha as an absolute upper estimate. If you add the fire on top (which even though you can not find a link on wiki is likely in church records) the city seems to have been quite down and out in 1337. This all still excludes Lund ofc. Lund will be harder for me to find good records on because it's all in Swedish archives.

This is a lot more specific than the numbers I posted earlier (which is a broad dataset for all of Europe) and generally indicates that Slesvig, Flensburg and Ribe are severely underestimated in that dataset.

As you can see you can not just wing this on fix assumptions. You will likely almost always be able to glean a broad idea but for instance what you assumed about Haderslev is quite off.

 

[Bastiram]

Very interesting study. I think it points out the prime issues itself. The study concludes a mismatch between fertile land and parish density which I think points towards an error in the study. The medieval parishes are difficult to reconstruct and especially with Slesvigs history of becomming a part of Prussia, sources and documentation tend to be worse.

Yeah, I don't think it can be taken at 100 % face value. Still, from my knowledge of Denmark, the size of the local parishes correlated very well with where I know there was a higher population density (islands, eastern Jutland, etc.) one of the areas that took me by surprise was Slesvig which I think as you point out in some of your other posts should have a more developed urban base than other areas of Denmark.

I see you guys are talking about Århus, which is always gonna be relevant but I do not believe at this time it is the premier city of northern Jutland, a more likely guess is Aalborg, which for a long time was the second city of Denmark after the loss of Skåne and Malmø.

I am also not surprised with your numbers for Copenhagen, at this time it is not the capital (Denmark did not have a capital at this time) though it will always be relevant just because it has a good harbor on a busy trading lane.

Though I have no numbers, I feel more confident with my Silkeborg statement (that it should have a lower population) than the Aarhus area. It is a fact that the soil Is less ideal in the area, though not at all bad north of the lakes. But even then we have continued evidence of royal control and settlements in and around modern-day Silkeborg.

I am considering taking another look at provinces' production now that we have the Tinto Talk about goods, as I see some of the valuable agricultural areas have substandard agricultural goods compared to neighboring areas. But I don't know how interesting it is.

 

[Caroli Macaroni]

Hello world! Here is some feedback regarding natural harbours in Sweden and Finland from your local swede. In summary, the mentioned locations should have some status of natural harbours as their natural geography is well suited for developing harbours, but it would also be historical accurate as there either has been or still is important harbours within the mentioned locations today. The following locations should have natural harbours:

(1) Brekne (Karlskrona):

Today Karlskrona is mostly famous for being the largest military harbour in Sweden. It is the Swedish navy’s home base and has been since the 1600s. It was decided to relocate the Swedish naval home base to Karlskrona from mainly three perspectives. 1) The navy would be closer to the continent, which would decrease the time for the navy to act in case of hostile states (*cough* Denmark *cough*). 2) The location is (mostly) ice-free during the winter months. 3) The location of the harbour is surrounded by natural defence by the Karlskrona archipelago.

Thereby, from mainly geographical aspects, the location of Brekne should have some status of natural harbour. Just look at satellite maps of Karlskrona municipality and one can easily see that it’s a perfect location for a harbour.

(It would also be cool if one plays as Sweden and directly controls Brekne (or all of Blekinge/Skåneland) could get or trigger an event that allows one to easier build a large harbour in the location).

Sources:
Fortifikationsverket: https://www.fortifikationsverket.se/tillvaxt-i-forsvaret/byggprojekt/karlskrona

Karlskronas historia: https://www.karlskrona.com/information/karlskronas-historia

(2) Kalmar:

Kalmar was one of the most important and richest harbour towns in Sweden during the Middle Ages and all the way until today (though it is not as important or dominant today as it was historically). The city is perfectly located within the Kalmar Straits where Öland naturally shields the city from the Baltics wrath and waves. The Hanseatic league had very large influence over the city historically. It is also the epicentre for the formation of the Kalmar union. So from a historic and natural geographic perspective Kalmar should have some status as a natural harbour.

Sources:

History of Kalmar: https://www.andebark.se/2021/07/23/det-medeltida-kalmar/

Kalmar harbour wiki: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_hamn

(3) Söderköping:

Söderköping which no longer has a large or important harbour due to land rise, was a very important trading hub and harbour during the Middle Ages. Located at the end of Slätbaken (Söderköpings bay) makes the city geographically protected from the rough seas of the Baltic. It is understandable if Söderköping is not included or upgraded to a natural harbour since the city has been and still is affected by land rise. But from a geographic and historical perspective it should be a trading hub with a good natural harbour.

Sources:

Den medeltida staden under staden (from Söderköping municipality): https://www.soderkoping.se/globalassets/documents/05-kultur-o-fritid/06-soderkopings-historia/

(4) Norrtälje (+Grisslehamn):

Norrtälje have been a centre of trade for a very long time. Local historians have pinpointed that a harbour and a trading hub have existed in Norrtälje since the Viking age. But the game location of Norrtälje is larger than only the modern city, it also includes the area where the harbour town of Grisslehamn is located. Since the 1600s Grisslehamn (or more accurate, old Grisslehamn) became a very important postal harbour within the Kingdom of Sweden. It was the main postal harbour and way of communication between Stockholm and the eastern parts of the Kingdom (especially for Åland, Åbo/Turku and all the way to Viborg/Viipuri). This is today remembered locally via the event of “Postrodden” where local sailors row and sail from Grisslehamn to Åland once a year.

The Norrtälje location should have some status of natural harbour, which both is historically accurate as mentioned above, but also geographically accurate. Just look at a geography map of Norrtälje municipality’s coastline and you see that there are plenty of good natural spots to build a harbour with deepwater access. Today the municipality alone has three international harbours: Kapellskär, Grisslehamn and Hallstavik as well as a bonus of Norrtälje City’s harbour (no longer in use). This should be reflected in the game, both from a historic and a natural geographic perspective, by giving the Norrtälje location some form of natural harbour status.

Sources:

Trade hub since the Viking age - Allt om Norrtälje (Local newspaper): https://alltomnorrtalje.se/norrtaljes-forsta-hamn/

Stockholms hamnar – Norrtälje: https://www.stockholmshamnar.se/historia/platser/norrtalje/

Stockholms hamnar – Grisslehamn: https://www.stockholmshamnar.se/historia/platser/grisslehamn/

Postrodden: https://sjofartsmuseet.se/Postrodden/Postroddens-historia.html

Postrodden wiki: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postrodden

(5) Kastelholm (Åland):

Åland's numerous bays provides excellent shelter for ships. The archipelago consists of several thousand islands and the geography offers a variety of natural harbours and anchorages. This should be reflected in the game by giving the location of Kastelholm (Åland) status of having a natural harbour of some sorts. As mentioned above with Norrtälje/Grisslehamn, Åland was also part of the very important postal service between Stockholm and the eastern parts of the Swedish Kingdom.

Sources:

Geography of Åland wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Åland

(6) Åbo (Turku):

Åbo (Turku) is located at the mouth of the Aura River on the southwestern coast of Finland, making it a prime location for natural harbours. The region’s jagged coastline, complemented by numerous nearby islands and sheltered bays, creates ideal conditions for anchorage and maritime activities. Historically, this geography has supported Åbo’s role as a significant port and trade hub in Finland. It was known far and wide during the Middle Ages even appearing in 1153 on an Arabic world map as a place for trading! Åbo was also heavily influenced by the Hanseatic league.

Additionally, its natural features have facilitated navigation and protection for vessels. It is still one of Finlands largest harbours and just next door in Naantali (Nådendal) is another large harbour (in game it would be the same location). Both are well protected from the storms of the Baltic Sea by a large archipelago. As mentioned earlier, Åbo was one of the main important postal hubs in Finland/Österland when it was part of the Swedish kingdom, completing the Norrtälje/Grisslehamn – Åland – Åbo postal network, which allowed important communication between Stockholm and the eastern parts of the kingdom. From both geographical and historical citations, the Åbo location should definitely have status as a natural harbour.

Sources:

History of Åbo/Turku harbour (in English): https://www.portofturku.fi/en/port-as-company/history/

(7) Korsholm (Vaasa):

The city of Vaasa (in the same place as Korsholm) was founded in 1606 by the Swedish King Charles IX and chartered in 1611. Its coastal location offers favourable conditions for seafaring, leading to the establishment of port facilities to support trade and maritime activities in the 1600s. Gamla Vasa (old Vasa) was also a centre of trade in the region from the 1300s. The natural geography is also perfect for the location of a natural harbour, which also is a reason why Vaasa today also has a large harbour. The Korsholm location should therefore have some sort of natural harbour status.

Sources:

Vasa hamns historia: https://highcoastkvarken.org/

Gamla Vasa wiki: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamla_Vasa

This is mostly an overview over these seven mentioned places and from my perspective, some of the most important locations (in the Baltic) that currently does not have a natural harbour but should be designated with a level of natural harbour. Can go into even more detail if somebody wants


(Due to popular demand, this is a repost from Tinto Maps Special Edition - 6th of January 2025 - The World)

 

[Hamnstad]

Yeah, I don't think it can be taken at 100 % face value. Still, from my knowledge of Denmark, the size of the local parishes correlated very well with where I know there was a higher population density (islands, eastern Jutland, etc.) one of the areas that took me by surprise was Slesvig which I think as you point out in some of your other posts should have a more developed urban base than other areas of Denmark.

I see you guys are talking about Århus, which is always gonna be relevant but I do not believe at this time it is the premier city of northern Jutland, a more likely guess is Aalborg, which for a long time was the second city of Denmark after the loss of Skåne and Malmø.

I am also not surprised with your numbers for Copenhagen, at this time it is not the capital (Denmark did not have a capital at this time) though it will always be relevant just because it has a good harbor on a busy trading lane.

Though I have no numbers, I feel more confident with my Silkeborg statement (that it should have a lower population) than the Aarhus area. It is a fact that the soil Is less ideal in the area, though not at all bad north of the lakes. But even then we have continued evidence of royal control and settlements in and around modern-day Silkeborg.

I am considering taking another look at provinces' production now that we have the Tinto Talk about goods, as I see some of the valuable agricultural areas have substandard agricultural goods compared to neighboring areas. But I don't know how interesting it is.

I also pressume it correlates relatively well with population density.

I think the duchy of Slesvig stands out in terms of having relatively developed towns particularly but this doesn't have to translate 1:1 to rural population. We know that the Fræslæt and Ny herrede was relatively sparsely populated crownland. For much of the other areas however it does seem like churches may have been lost. Generally in most of these reconstruction attempts the Uthlande is also dealed with in a manner so wrong and ahistorical that it is strange that it was not just greyed out on these maps.

To quote Ulrich Müller from a paper on church archeolog in Slesvig town (professor of archeology in Kiel):

Im Gegensatz zur historischen Forschung (Auge/Hillebrand 2013. Ahlers 2012) und im Vergleich zu Niedersachsen oder Nordrhein-Westfalen, aber auch Dänemark, ist der Stand der archäologischen wie bauhistorischen Untersuchungen sakraler Bauten und Einrichtungen im ländlichen und städtischen Raum Schleswig-Holsteins als eher gering zu betrachten (Holz 1992. Jonkanski u. a. 2000. Mehlhorn 2007. Al- brecht 2013)

So quick translation, the archeological research on medieval sacral buildings in Schleswig-Holstein is less expansive than in neighbouring regions. In Denmark particularly it is an extremely well studied field. This can lead to disparencies in large data-analysis. Some of the danish studies appear like they are comprehensive but they do not account for the data that they are using.

I would like to cite Jes Wienberg actually who funnily is from Silkeborg but is professor for archeology in Lund. This is a map of ødekirker (abandonded churches) before 1550:

Taken from here: https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/5389722/1776391.pdf

As you can see the west-coast of Slesvig-Holstein (the Uthlande) is not really taken account and is basically represented like it is today without any of the pressumably around 60 lost churches (more on that later) but it's still on the map which is strange. It does however show a decline in churches which happened in eastern Jutland and Skåne around the 14th century, likely as a sign of misdevelopment and epidemics. So the number of parishes was probably large compared to the population base. Otherwise they wouldn't have closed disproportionately many of them down. You can also see that the nomansland starts to the east of Silkeborg. This should still be accounted for in the localities that cover these areas though which seem to have been only sparesely populated. My impression is also that the areas around present day universities are better archeologically and histographically researched. On top of this comes the issue of this area covering 3 present day countries and research sometimes not getting adequately across borders. Wienberg here as a Dane at Lund university probably has a good overview of research in Denmark and Sweden but it doesn't seem like he consulted much German research.

Here is a reconstruction of the western coast by Dirk Meier, who is also a researcher in archeology at Kiel university:

Taken from: https://www.kuestenarchaeologie.de/forschung/nordfriesland.html

There may also be an element of culture war over this in older research. Older Danish texts have a tendency to speak very derogratively of Johannes Meier and of course especially his 1240 map is to be taken with a big grain of salt but a lot of modern research has also proven parts of his mapping to be surprisingly precise. Rungholt was found almost excactly where he mapped it and his map is from 300 years after it vanished.

In the Knytlinga-saga there is a very high church number given for Slesvig stift (350) which has been massively discredited. The number is likely exaggerated but should prompt a rethinking in how good the state of research is in this area.

 

[Hamnstad]

I see you guys are talking about Århus, which is always gonna be relevant but I do not believe at this time it is the premier city of northern Jutland, a more likely guess is Aalborg, which for a long time was the second city of Denmark after the loss of Skåne and Malmø.

I forgot to answer this. I don't think that makes sense. Here is a map of Aalborg around 1530. The rampants (red lines) were constructed around 1320 and later upragded to city walls. The walled area is only 11 ha and thus smaller than any city I mentioned. I think the best bet for largest city in northern Jutland is Viborg.

 

[Daniel the Finlander]

Hello, I've found some maps on the interwebs that could be useful for setting up the population of finnish locations (not sure if they've been posted before, don't remember seeing them here at least)

"History of grain farming in Finland"
"Black = Over 3500 years ago"
"Dark brown = 3500-3000 years ago"
"Orange = Over 3000-2000 years ago"
"Dark beige = Over 2000-1000 years ago"
"Beige= Less than 1000 years ago"
"White = no information"
"Time estimations are carbon dating years"

"Finland's stable settlement in years 1150 and 1550"
"(Not counting Sami inhabited areas)"
"Blue: Inhabited area circa year 1550"
"Brown: inhabited area circa year 1150"

source: https://tuomjari.wordpress.com/2015/06/08/keskiajan-hamalaiset-ja-uusi-lantinen-maailma/

"Start date of farming"
"Pollen analysis sampling points placed on the map and the median of estimates for start date of farming based on them. From the map can be seen that eastern and nothern Finland still have areas where pollen sampling analysis has not been done or the time estimates did not fulfill the designed criteria. " (this was a bitch to translate into english lol)

Source: http://www.sarks.fi/masf/masf_10/MASF10_19_Lahtinen_Oinonen.pdf

Kartta: Pähkinäsaaren rauhan rajan kulku ja kiinteän, peltoviljelyyn perustuvan asutuksen alue keskiajalla (punaisella). Piirtänyt Matti Leiviskä
"Map: Border of the peace treaty of Nöteborg and the area of stable, farming-based settlement in the middle ages (in red)."

Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=739024201568140&id=100063817007373&set=a.274110798059485
(Yes it's facebook but it's the page of a published author and historian so it's a decent enough source...)

 

[Hosumaija]

I'll add some stuff on the Kvens, and this nice map of Norrbotten.

Agrarhistorisk landskapsanalys över Norrbottens län, Höglin, 1998. (p. 13)

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1234554/FULLTEXT01.pdf

While it the above source is nearing thirty years old now it still holds up in the broad strokes and the short parts about pre-16th century stuff is worth the quick read.

It should though be noted of course that the Kven populations did not rely to the same extent on agriculture as other parts of Finland did, and continued like so much further along in history; meaning that Kven people would probably historically have been present even beyond like the red area on the above map. This is something discussed to an extent in the work of Sannings- och försoningskommissionen för tornedalingar, kväner och lantalaiset though I'll see if I remember to dig up some more stuff on it. Admittedöy it is debated how much or little various Kven populations to different degrees sustained themselves on agriculture, reindeer herding and hunting and gathering throughout history so keeping Kven populations largely limited to just the more certain areas (where agriculture was practiced) wouldn't be wholly unreasonable, especially considering that the habitation of other areas would've been more seasonal probably, but either way worth to consider.


Lars Elenius has also written quite a bit on Kvens and 'Kvenland' both from historical perspectives and their positions in the culture and politics of today. Definitely worth reading at least some of his more historically oriented work.
The dissolution of ancient Kvenland and the transformation of the Kvens as an ethnic group of people. On changing ethnic categorizations in communicative and collective memories (2019), touches a bit on the extent and manner of life of Kven populations - among other things as the title indicates. Worth a read, though his acceptance of Bureaus' Pirkkala-hypothesis is doubtful, Bergman & Edlund's 2016 paper on the Birkarls is a much better source in that regard and doubtlessly worth a read aswell.

Dunno if it'd be appropriate but if you ask me the Birkarls might fit as a building-based country? Being an organised merchant group in the area, they would probably be rather interesting to play, though the lack of settled countries might be problematic? Idk just an idea. And again I defer you to Bergman and Edlund's 2016 paper on the Birkarls for further information on how they worked.

 

[Nordanstierna]

I really think northern scandinavia should have more impassable terrain. Even today it's mostly a vast wasteland where you can't move armies. Would make wars more interesting.