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

[Nordanstierna]

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)

View attachment 1242078
"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"


View attachment 1242079
"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/

View attachment 1242088

"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

View attachment 1242084

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...)

Very good map. Northern and central Finland should be hard to traverse if not impassable. Southern Finland is where the action was historically.

 

[Kr4mpus]

Is Slesvig feedback here or in the Germany TM?

 

[Kr4mpus]

Can't say I have a source but shouldn't the Danish localization for Skånelandet be as follows:
-Malmø
-Gladsaxe
-Sølvesborg
-Bregne
-Gønge

"Snaphanerne" are turning in their graves

 

[matfer13]

I don't know if someone already brought this up in the forum but it has been a while since this tinto maps came out so is there any chance we can get the fief of Vyborg as a vassal tag of Sweden?

It existed since 1320 and in 1337 it was ruled by Peter Jonsson of house Bonde/Bååt

 

[Daniel the Finlander]

I don't know if someone already brought this up in the forum but it has been a while since this tinto maps came out so is there any chance we can get the fief of Vyborg as a vassal tag of Sweden?
View attachment 1242737
It existed since 1320 and in 1337 it was ruled by Peter Jonsson of house Bonde/Bååt

Well if they’ll really go with an Oreshek tag, then a Viborg tag would make sense too, as it was a fairly autonomous margraviate of sorts.

English source:

Fief of Viborg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Swedish article for Johan to read:

Peter Jonsson (Bååt) – Wikipedia

sv.wikipedia.org

 

[reynold21]

What happens when a location is both Arctic (-55% Population Capacity) & Mountain (-80% Population Capacity), that means it has -135% Population Capacity, it literally cannot support any population, even if was a coatal location (+25% Population Capacity), still -110% Population Capacity. There are a few examples in Scandinavia that i can see and elsewhere as well. Have circled an example here.

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

What happens when a location is both Arctic (-55% Population Capacity) & Mountain (-80% Population Capacity), that means it has -135% Population Capacity, it literally cannot support any population, even if was a coatal location (+25% Population Capacity), still -110% Population Capacity. There are a few examples in Scandinavia that i can see and elsewhere as well. Have circled an example here.

Cannot be lower than 1000.

 

[Daniel the Finlander]

Recently when Russia feedback thread was posted, I had a discussion with another forum user about the term ”Bjarmian” being used for the finnic people who possibly still existed in the Archangelsk region in the 1300s. Now this has led me to question another culture name in PC. Mainly, the Kvens.

”Kven” in modern day is used to refer to the finnic minority living in northern Norway. Historically, mostly in the viking age, it was used to refer to mythical ”Kvenland”, similar to ”Bjaramland” related to Bjarmia that I mentioned. This Kvenland has been theorized to be in Ostrobothnia, so it seems it’s been used to represent the Bothnian finns.

However, it seems mentions of Kvenland cease to appear by the 1300s, and doesn’t reappear until the 1500s. And it is never clear where exactly this place is, so there have been countless theories about it over the centuries. Whatever the case, Kven is a viking norse term, and saw only limited use.

Source is simply Wikipedia:

Kvenland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For PC, PDX has decided to make a ”Kven” culture around the Gulf of Bothnia. This is still true in the latest map from the recent World Map dev diary:

From what I can tell, this distribution and spread is roughly based on the following (also from the Wikipedia link above):

”In 1328, Tälje Charter (Tälje stadga) – the oldest known record written in Swedish – mention the Birkarls (bircharlaboa). Based on the information revealed, the Birkarls then inhabited areas, e.g., in Northern Hälsingland, which covered the western coast of the Gulf of Bothnia, and from there all the way up and around the gulf to Oulu River. Tälje Charter is a state treaty ratified between the Kvens and the Swedish crown, in which the king of Sweden guarantees the Birkarl Kvens trading and tax-collecting rights as chief enforcement officers, bailiffs (Swedish term: fogde), in the North.”

Well except there’s Kvens further south all the way to the edge of Satakunta. One problem here is of course that they were called Birkarls and not just Kvens. The other problem is that they were seemingly a small minority of officials and settlers in the north.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkarls

Note the following:
”In total, some twenty theories are estimated to exist to explain the origin and name of the birkarls.”

”The birkarls living in each area of influence were very few, totalling only about 50 men still in the early 16th century.”

So, what the heck are Kvens in PC then? Are they representing Birkarls? Are they representing finnic Bothnians? At the moment it seems like the culture is trying to do both at the same time, which seems odd.

First suggestion I’d have is to use a term that isn’t obscure and from viking mythology. Based on that conversation in the other thread, it seemed term ”Bjarmian” was not ideal, so why would ”Kven” be? Much better term would be to use ”Bothnian”. It is most fitting, recognizable and clear name for the culture. A finnish person playing PC would be confused by the term ”Kven” (I sure was) but Bothnian is loud and clear.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrobothnians

My second suggestion is to redefine the culture distribution. Rather than being a majority spread around the Bothnian coast, and even a Society of Pops of its own, Bothnians should mostly inhabit, well, Bothnia. I am unsure of how best to represent the Birkarl taxation system, but certainly not by having ”Kvens” all over the north. Maybe a small minority of Bothnians ruling over Sami tribesmen, but that would require Sweden to territorially control for example Torne Valley in 1337. Having Birkarls exist as separate ”natives” with their own SoP completely outside the Swedish control is a bizarre decision, when they existed to collect taxes from Sami in the name of the swedish King. Its also important to note that the Birkarls were a mix of settlers from finnish tribes from Savonia, Karelia and Tavastia. In fact, Ostrobothnia in general was a rather mixed region, as it was a frontier. The natives were the Sami, not the baltic finns. So in summary, I don’t have a concrete suggestion for how exactly you should change it. Up to you I suppose, as long as you do change it because the current setup is odd.

Most controversial suggestion would be to remove the culture entirely, as a Bothnian finnic identity didn’t really exist at this point. As mentioned, the finnic settlers on the Bothnian gulf were a mixture of Tavastians, Karelians and Savonians, who lived alongside native Sami. This would represent the region being under active Swedish colonization, rather than being ruled by a Society of Pops that have a shared tribal identity that didn’t actually exist back in 1337.

 

[Nis Baggesen]

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.

My local patriotism bids me to wonder why you don't have Viborg in your list of Danish medieval cities

 

[Daniel the Finlander]

Recently when Russia feedback thread was posted, I had a discussion with another forum user about the term ”Bjarmian” being used for the finnic people who possibly still existed in the Archangelsk region in the 1300s. Now this has led me to question another culture name in PC. Mainly, the Kvens.

”Kven” in modern day is used to refer to the finnic minority living in northern Norway. Historically, mostly in the viking age, it was used to refer to mythical ”Kvenland”, similar to ”Bjaramland” related to Bjarmia that I mentioned. This Kvenland has been theorized to be in Ostrobothnia, so it seems it’s been used to represent the Bothnian finns.

However, it seems mentions of Kvenland cease to appear by the 1300s, and doesn’t reappear until the 1500s. And it is never clear where exactly this place is, so there have been countless theories about it over the centuries. Whatever the case, Kven is a viking norse term, and saw only limited use.

Source is simply Wikipedia:

Kvenland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For PC, PDX has decided to make a ”Kven” culture around the Gulf of Bothnia. This is still true in the latest map from the recent World Map dev diary:

View attachment 1244211

From what I can tell, this distribution and spread is roughly based on the following (also from the Wikipedia link above):

”In 1328, Tälje Charter (Tälje stadga) – the oldest known record written in Swedish – mention the Birkarls (bircharlaboa). Based on the information revealed, the Birkarls then inhabited areas, e.g., in Northern Hälsingland, which covered the western coast of the Gulf of Bothnia, and from there all the way up and around the gulf to Oulu River. Tälje Charter is a state treaty ratified between the Kvens and the Swedish crown, in which the king of Sweden guarantees the Birkarl Kvens trading and tax-collecting rights as chief enforcement officers, bailiffs (Swedish term: fogde), in the North.”

Well except there’s Kvens further south all the way to the edge of Satakunta. One problem here is of course that they were called Birkarls and not just Kvens. The other problem is that they were seemingly a small minority of officials and settlers in the north.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkarls

Note the following:
”In total, some twenty theories are estimated to exist to explain the origin and name of the birkarls.”

”The birkarls living in each area of influence were very few, totalling only about 50 men still in the early 16th century.”

So, what the heck are Kvens in PC then? Are they representing Birkarls? Are they representing finnic Bothnians? At the moment it seems like the culture is trying to do both at the same time, which seems odd.

First suggestion I’d have is to use a term that isn’t obscure and from viking mythology. Based on that conversation in the other thread, it seemed term ”Bjarmian” was not ideal, so why would ”Kven” be? Much better term would be to use ”Bothnian”. It is most fitting, recognizable and clear name for the culture. A finnish person playing PC would be confused by the term ”Kven” (I sure was) but Bothnian is loud and clear.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrobothnians

My second suggestion is to redefine the culture distribution. Rather than being a majority spread around the Bothnian coast, and even a Society of Pops of its own, Bothnians should mostly inhabit, well, Bothnia. I am unsure of how best to represent the Birkarl taxation system, but certainly not by having ”Kvens” all over the north. Maybe a small minority of Bothnians ruling over Sami tribesmen, but that would require Sweden to territorially control for example Torne Valley in 1337. Having Birkarls exist as separate ”natives” with their own SoP completely outside the Swedish control is a bizarre decision, when they existed to collect taxes from Sami in the name of the swedish King. Its also important to note that the Birkarls were a mix of settlers from finnish tribes from Savonia, Karelia and Tavastia. In fact, Ostrobothnia in general was a rather mixed region, as it was a frontier. The natives were the Sami, not the baltic finns. So in summary, I don’t have a concrete suggestion for how exactly you should change it. Up to you I suppose, as long as you do change it because the current setup is odd.

Most controversial suggestion would be to remove the culture entirely, as a Bothnian finnic identity didn’t really exist at this point. As mentioned, the finnic settlers on the Bothnian gulf were a mixture of Tavastians, Karelians and Savonians, who lived alongside native Sami. This would represent the region being under active Swedish colonization, rather than being ruled by a Society of Pops that have a shared tribal identity that didn’t actually exist back in 1337.

I also want to mention that the parish of Kemi was first mentioned in 1329, and the dioeces of Uppsala and Åbo/Turku settled their dispute over land in Bothnia by setting their border near Tornio/Torneå around 1346. Kiviranta (now part of Tornio) was also first settled around this time. Historians generally believe Oulu/Uleåborg ended up in Novgorod’s sphere of influence after the Treaty of Nöteborg in 1323, but Sweden’s diocese of Turku/Åbo took control of the entire Bothnian coast up to the Kemi river already in 1345. The socken of Ii/Ijo was formed into a chapel as part of the parish of Pietarsaari/Pedersöre after 1340, and the chapel was first mentioned in historical records in 1374. And Pietarsaari was an independent socken from Mustasaari/Korsholm already in 1250, and was first mentioned in records in 1348.

Therefore, the Bothnians/Kvens/Finns in that area should probably not be majority pagan either, or at least the expanding reach of the Catholic church should be represented. This can also be used to argue Sweden loosely controlling this region already. Again, there was no native Finnic population that Sweden later expanded its control over. The settlement and colonization of Bothnia was supported by the Swedish crown, and the settlers came from southern areas of Finland at least partially already controlled by Sweden. In 1337, the active colonization of Bothnia should be represented in-game somehow.


Circled the mentioned locations (though Ii/Ijo isn’t there for some reason)

Sources in finnish (use google translate or smth idk):

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemin_historia

Tornion saareen rakennettiin keskiajalla massiivinen rajamerkki â nyt halutaan tietää, miksi se tehtiin poikkeuksellisen huolellisesti

Perämeren metsittyneessä saaressa piilottelee Suomen vanhin merimerkki. Sen salaisuuksia halutaan selville. Tornion saaristossa sijaitseva järkälemäinen muinaismuisto osoitti aikoinaan Turun ja Uppsalan hiippakuntien rajan.

yle.fi

Kiviranta (Tornio) – Wikipedia

fi.wikipedia.org

Oulun historia – Wikipedia

fi.wikipedia.org

Ii – Wikipedia

fi.wikipedia.org

Pietarsaaren historia - Pietarsaari

Pietarsaaren historia Ajanlaskumme alussa, oli koko nykyisen Pietarsaaren alue veden peittämä. Vasta toisen vuosituhannen alussa alkaa osia tästä alueesta pistää esiin merenpinnan alta. Korkeimmat kohdat Pietarsaaren alueella, siis myös ne ensimmäiset, jotka kohoavat merenpinnan yläpuolelle...

pietarsaari.fi

 

[Daniel the Finlander]

Going back to the topic of Sweden’s border in Finland in 1337, I think one solution would be to use colonial charters to represent frontier areas under active colonization. More densely populated and ”controlled” areas can be under direct swedish control.

Colonial charter provinces:

Instead of having a Kven/Bothnian SoP, they would be finnic settlers from the south, representing the reach and colonization of Sweden and the Catholic Church, with the natives being Sami.

If this is at 1337, then it’s already a thing which is cool. However, I would change what locations are under Swedish ownership.

My suggestion for border is here:

Sweden's border in Finland
Sweden's border isn't exactly accurate on the map. However, there's a historiographical problem too: most of the border defined by the treaty of Nöteborg between Sweden and Novgorod in 1323 is nebulous and vague as much of it passes over uninhabited wilderness. It has the same problem as many "borders" in colonial America in the game’s time period, it was just a line that didn't really impact physical reality in any way. So defining Sweden's border in-game can be a little tricky.

Of course, you've also got the actual concrete and historically proven border slightly wrong too.

View attachment 1166174

Marked in red is the part of the border clearly outlined in the (copies of the) historical treaty document and supported by physical border markers found in the area. The grey and dashed lines are just guesswork by later historians.

The treaty explicitly mentions Novgorod ceding the following territories to Sweden: Savolax (Savilahti), Jäskis (Jääski) and Agräpää (Äyräpää). Slight problem with your map: these places either aren't mentioned, or they're in the wrong place.

View attachment 1166179

This is where the border between Sweden and Novgorod (Oreshek aka Nöteborg) should go. Note that it kinda goes through Olofsborg, but that's where the border starts getting murky/unclear anyways, so it's not really a problem. Can keep that location uncolonized, but Savilahti should be owned by Sweden.

Speaking of murky and unclear, what about the rest of the border? How much land did Sweden actually exert control over, and where did the wilderness begin? That is a lot trickier question.

I went through location by location, checking whatever easily available online sources to make a rough border. The problem here is that a lot of location names are inaccurate, having names of settlements that only really became relevant until later, even some that only became relevant beyond the game's timespan. But this post isn't about name suggestions, other posts focus on those. So I checked histories of local settlements to see where the border could go. For example, Joroinen wasn't founded until 1631, was known for its smiths in 1550s, was separated from Juva that was founded in 1442. Juva was confirmed to be settled and roughly within Sweden's sphere of influence in 1323. So, I would potentially put Joroinen within Sweden's control. The problem comes that some areas were still "wilderness" despite being nominally under Sweden's control, making it hard to say if Sweden should "own" the area. For example, the Rautalampi water route was said to be "along the Nöteborg border" but this area was wilderness and the claims mostly concerned hunting rights, so should Sweden actually own it? Another problem is big empty areas between centers of local government. Biggest headache for me was the gap between Hollola (On your map, Lahti, anachronistic name) and Savolax/Savilahti. From what I can tell, it wasn't really settled until late 1300s earliest, but leaving this big gap uncolonized would look weird.

I've marked these unclear borders with dashed lines to leave it up to you to decide the definition of country ownership. Solid line marks not only permanent settlement, but mentions in official documents/Swedish colonization/foundation of a pitäjä (parish) before 1337. Dashed line is wilderness, often with no permanent settlements, but still seen as "owned" land, as division of erämää-alue (wilderness areas) was important for hunting rights.

View attachment 1166229

Sources: Wikipedia, various municipal websites, https://katternodigital.fi/fi/article/nain-pohjanmaa-asutettiin, https://savonhistoria.fi (highly recommend this last one). Yeah not academic sources, but they should suffice.

I wouldn’t really change this (though I would be very hesitant to include the locations within the dotted borders, except for Joroinen, due to lack of information about their settlement in 1337).

However, I’m going to say something very, very controversial now: Finnish SoPs might not need to exist at all.

By this point of time, Tavastians, Savonians and to a lesser extent even Karelians (in the west) were under the swedish crown. Whatever autonomy they had can practically be represented by the control mechanic. As Sweden expanded its reach, it did so by having finnic farmers settle in the wilderness that had a sparse population of Sami hunter-gatherers. Over the past half a year or so, I’ve found little evidence of settled agriculture in 1337 outside of areas of Sweden’s control (see the two first maps in the beginning of the post). My suggested borders include those areas within Sweden.

Combined with my other controversial suggestion of removing the Sami SoP due to their lack hierarchical organization, this would mean no SoPs in Finland, which would indeed be a shame. But to me, historical accuracy, or at least a historical representation of what the world was roughly like in 1337, is more important than gameplay gimmicks. Feel free to disagree…

Sorry for the bout of posting. This was all inspired by the Bjarmia debate I recently had, and I felt like I had to get the Kven issue out of my chest.

 

[Trepanator]

I know this is super late, but why isn't Hjälmaren on the map?

 

[Inzano]

 

[Capitano Diego Alatriste]

Going back to the topic of Sweden’s border in Finland in 1337, I think one solution would be to use colonial charters to represent frontier areas under active colonization. More densely populated and ”controlled” areas can be under direct swedish control.
View attachment 1244308
View attachment 1244309

Colonial charter provinces:
View attachment 1244310
Instead of having a Kven/Bothnian SoP, they would be finnic settlers from the south, representing the reach and colonization of Sweden and the Catholic Church, with the natives being Sami.

View attachment 1244311

If this is at 1337, then it’s already a thing which is cool. However, I would change what locations are under Swedish ownership.

My suggestion for border is here:


View attachment 1244314
I wouldn’t really change this (though I would be very hesitant to include the locations within the dotted borders, except for Joroinen, due to lack of information about their settlement in 1337).

However, I’m going to say something very, very controversial now: Finnish SoPs might not need to exist at all.

By this point of time, Tavastians, Savonians and to a lesser extent even Karelians (in the west) were under the swedish crown. Whatever autonomy they had can practically be represented by the control mechanic. As Sweden expanded its reach, it did so by having finnic farmers settle in the wilderness that had a sparse population of Sami hunter-gatherers. Over the past half a year or so, I’ve found little evidence of settled agriculture in 1337 outside of areas of Sweden’s control (see the two first maps in the beginning of the post). My suggested borders include those areas within Sweden.

Combined with my other controversial suggestion of removing the Sami SoP due to their lack hierarchical organization, this would mean no SoPs in Finland, which would indeed be a shame. But to me, historical accuracy, or at least a historical representation of what the world was roughly like in 1337, is more important than gameplay gimmicks. Feel free to disagree…

Sorry for the bout of posting. This was all inspired by the Bjarmia debate I recently had, and I felt like I had to get the Kven issue out of my chest.

No SoPs for Finland is actually totally OK for me. I want to play as finns, but it probably would be best if there is releasable tags for Finland, and maybe also for Karelia and Saami. Then we could release them for control gain in the area or to play as them (or both). And if we could get the Fief of Viborg as starting vassal for the swedes that could also be cool, especially if they could get option to form Finland if they somehow acquire areas of Uusimaa and Egentliga Finland.

 

[Ipponen]

I don't know if someone already brought this up in the forum but it has been a while since this tinto maps came out so is there any chance we can get the fief of Vyborg as a vassal tag of Sweden?
View attachment 1242737
It existed since 1320 and in 1337 it was ruled by Peter Jonsson of house Bonde/Bååt

Would definitely love to see this, though I want to point out that before the 16th century the Viborg Slottslän also encompassed eastern Nyland, which would later become the Borgå Län, and Savonia. So something like this in 1337:

 

[Daniel the Finlander]

Couple Sami related details:

Sami should not use Finnic language. Their language is very distinct from the baltic finnic languages despite being closely related. Sami languages are considered their own branch of Uralic languages.

If Perm and Mari have their own languages, then the Sami should too.

Second detail:

This map is from the Tinto Maps special edition of the World Map, so i don’t know how work-in-progress this is. But still, I want to note that roughly the area north of the red line should also be Sami majority, albeit very sparsely populated (less than 100 pops per location maximum, ideally much less). See the maps in my previous posts for details, and also note what I mentioned about Birkarls and the Bothnian coast (small number of Birkarl settlers collecting taxes from Sami).

 

[Bastiram]

So, I was sitting and gathering some data for Denmark when I came across an excellent resource on Trap.lex.dk: a compilation of De Danske Landbrug (1928), based on Christian V's Matrikel (1688), overlaid on modern-day municipality borders.


This data shows villages of varying sizes as well as individual farms. However, it does not take into consideration crofter's houses or workmen’s houses, which were houses with some land but not enough to be classified as a farm (less than one tønde of land, equivalent to 0.55 hectares). A large farm is described as having over 10 tønder of land, while small estates are similarly classified. Some estates reached into the hundreds of tønder, though a large estate seems to average between 60-70 tønder.

Market towns and cities are also excluded from this dataset.


I started compiling the data to determine the minimum number of farms in a given area in 1688 and to analyze local resources. For this, I used Trap.lex.dk, Danmarkshistorien.dk, Denmark 1513-1660: The Rise and Decline of a Renaissance Monarchy by Poul Douglas Lockhart, and Geologisk Tidskrift 1998, hæfte 1 as supplementary sources.

One immediate realization was that Skåne is not included in this dataset. However, Lockhart provides some interesting anecdotes:

• 5,000 peasant households in Skåne were confiscated during the Reformation—1/3 of all land in the area previously owned by the church.
• Skåne supposedly had two to four times as many churches as Sjælland. But the exact quote is eluding me.

Additionally, Slesvig is also missing, as it was a duchy at the time. This means the data only covers roughly half of Denmark’s game-time territory.

Since these gaps make the data incomplete, I have decided to put this project on the backburner for now. However, I wanted to share what I have so far:

Localisation	Area	Minimum amount of Farms	Estates	Markettowns/cities	Rec. Raw Good	Other Raw goods in the area	Notable manufactory
Randers	Nørrejylland	1157*	24	Randers & Hobro	Horses	Honey, Stout Grains, Fish & Wheat
Aalborg	Nørrejylland	1729*	38	Aalborg & Nibe	Fish or Livestock	Honey & Lumber
Viborg	Nørrejylland	1698*	39	Viborg & Skive	Wheat	Stout Grains, Fish, Clay & Wool
Kalø	Østjylland	1373	30	Grenå & Ebeltoft	Clay & Stout Grains	Fish, Lumber & Livestock
Aarhus	Østjylland	2295	39	Aarhus, Horsens, Skanderborg & Gammel Ry	Wheat	Stout Grains, Livestock, clay, Iron, Fish	Several areas produced Saltpetre
Silkeborg	Østjylland	501**	7		Iron***	Clay, Lumber, Stout Grains, Wool	Notable manufacturing of Glass, for example, 26.000 drinking glasses for the coronation of Christian IV.
Grindsted	Østjylland	483	9		Wool or Livestock	Stout Grain
Kolding	Østjylland	1673	29	Vejle, Kolding & Fredericia	Salt or Wheat	Stout Grain & Livestock

It should be noted that the farms are the minimum number, the categories are big village +20 farms, medium village 11-20 farms, small village 3-8 farms, the largest village is stumbled upon in my research (can't remember the area) was 39 farms, the number compiled has used 20, 11 and 3 farms as the number.

* Some farms in Aalborg may need to be allocated to Randers and Viborg, as this data follows modern municipality borders.
** Silkeborg is noted for having many houses in it villages (not enough land to be classified as farms), unlike Grindsted. However, Grindsted may have had a similar development, though it is harder to determine due to being stitched together by multiple municipalities.
*** Iron? Yes! Denmark produced iron—bog iron, to be specific—in several locations across Jutland, Sjælland, and southern Halland (though it's uncertain if Halland’s production was bog iron). While Sjælland’s iron production disappeared in the Middle Ages, Frederik II (16th century) restarted iron production in southwestern Jutland (Varde localization), though it did not last long. In Silkeborg, iron production lasted longer, continuing between 1300-1600, and in 1599, iron or smiths from this area were supplying naval facilities in Copenhagen.



Figures 6 and 7 show the evidence of bog iron in Denmark:

• Figure 6: Locations where bog iron (myremalm) was found.
• Figure 7: Churches constructed with stone containing bog iron.

It is noted that southern Halland was the largest producer of bog iron. However, by the 17th century, Denmark’s iron production was insufficient to meet demand. This led Christian IV to invest in Norwegian mining operations, which became Denmark’s primary supplier. Around the same time, the Kongsberg silver mine was also established.

Since raw goods appear to be a zero-sum game (i.e., a localization produces one raw good), I think it’s important to show that Denmark had access to resources beyond agriculture—such as clay, iron, salt and lumber—rather than defaulting to the standard "Wheat, Stout Grain, and Livestock" package.

On another note, wheat was not commonly grown in Scandinavia during this time. Technically, every wheat province should be producing Stout grains instead. However, since wheat appears in Norway, Seden, and Estonia, I believe it serves as a way to represent more fertile regions—those that produce slightly more than others. For this reason, I have kept wheat as a suggested good as you see in Aarhus and Viborg.


I don't know how useful it is, but I found it interesting, probably gonna wait til we get the revised Scandinavia map, to finish work on raw good production, which is a bit easier than the farms

 

[Toorstain2]

I made a map improvement mock-up for South Norway. Specifically making the mountain parts more interesting:

I have added more mountain crossings, and filled in Telemark and some mountain valleys. The white bits are mountain passes. I don't know if that will be a thing in Project Ceasar, but they exist in Imperator Rome it looks like they have made something similar for deserts. I imagine these crossings will be blocked during winter and have a low supply limit, severely limiting the movement of big armies, especially in wintertime. Like in real life, the Lillehammer-Otta-Lesja-Rauma crossing is the only east-west crossing not going over a mountain pass.

I have also connected and tweaked some more territory borders. For example, Meråker has been connected to the Jamtland territories.

I would argue that this would make Norway much more interesting, not just as a playable country, but adding new crossings and valleys make it a more interesting strategic battlefield for Sweden, England, Denmark, the Hansa etc. Now this is just a mock-up. I imagine I could make the same map with fewer new territories, If keeping the territory count low is a goal. I have not tought very hard about which provinces the new territories should belong to.

 

[Hamnstad]

My local patriotism bids me to wonder why you don't have Viborg in your list of Danish medieval cities

It's not in that dataset. I'm not sure how the dataset choses which cities to include but I think it looks at their relevance in more modern times as criteria for inclusion and Viborg was a town that like no other in Denmark went downhill after the reformation. As you might have seen in my other posts, I think it's fair to assume that it's one of Denmark-Schleswig-Holsteins most important cities at game start. I think Roskilde, Slesvig, Flensborg and Ribe are bigger and more significant and I do not have a good picture of Lund (though it might be comparable to Viborg) but otherwise I don't think any other cities eclipse it. My assumption is that at 1337 it is ahead (if marginally) of Haderslev and Havn (as Copenhagen was called back then), though the general trajectory ticks in favour of the trade focussed cities and against the church focussed cities - and the reformation is likely a major blow.

 

[Hamnstad]

View attachment 1244800

Has to be noted that there are multiple errors with the hundreds in the top map. Like it includes hundreds from the 18th century like Munkbrarup herrede. In general the area that I know a bit better (the Slesvig duchy) is a complete mess in terms of hundreds on that map and I assume it generally uses much later hundred divisions than 1513. Crucially the border between Slesvig and Holsten is also wrong. The actual border goes between Levenså and old Ejder. Jernved is part of Slesvig. Heck, the northern part of what is Kiel today is part of Slesvig. It's very nicely designed but unfortunately I think there's a lot of errors.