We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Welcome everyone, today I’ll talk about the Scandinavian region. Part of it was the first maps we drew for Project Caesar back in early spring of 2020. Today we will look at all parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula (including Denmark & the Kola Peninsula). Greenland & Iceland will be looked at in a separate map talk.
Countries
Scandinavia has only five location based countries at the start of the game. Denmark, who is in a bit of a crisis at the moment and their vassal Schleswig is in the south. On the peninsula proper, we have Sweden and Norway who are in a union at the moment as they share the same King. Scania was sold off to Sweden by the Danes five years before the start of the game.
There is no need to show off a Dynasty map, as Denmark does not exactly have a ruling King at the moment, and the rest is ruled by Magnus IV of the Bjälbo Dynasty.
Locations
While Scandinavia has a lot of locations, we have to remember that this is a huge area, and together with Kola & Karelia, it is the same size as France, Spain, Portugal, Italy & Benelux together.. The size of locations are smaller in the south, particularly where the population was and still is relatively bigger.
Provinces
We have tried to follow historical traditional province borders here, but some ended up too big like Småland, Lappland or Österbotten, which were cut into pieces, and some are just too tiny to matter.
Now I wish I had time to write up a history about each province here, but I’ll just add a few fun tidbits.
Satakunta, which is the Finnish name, is named in Finnish like the old regions of Svitjod, which were divided into “hundreds”. It was also refered to Björneborgs län, named after Björneborg (Pori in Finnish), a town founded by Johan III when Ulfsby was no longer accessible from the sea. The regiment from the area was the last Swedish Army Regiment that has ever won a battle inside Sweden, and their military march is a song I think every Finnish Citizen want to play repeatedly on TV during the Olympics..
Småland, which is divided into Tiohärad and Kalmar Län here, should really be referred to as Småländerna, as there were 12 small countries there.. Compared to the 3 other much larger countries of Svealand, Östra Götaland and Västra Götaland. And now why is Östra Götaland not containing Kinda?
Topograhy
It's mostly flatland.. I went by the rule that if the peaks are less than 500 meters it's flatland, and you need to have over 1,000 meters and rather uneven to be a mountain. Norway is interesting there.. We do have a lot of impassable areas in Norway, making this one of the most fun parts to play in.
Vegetation
There are some farmlands in Denmark, Scania and in Götaland, but the rest is basically a big forest.. And up north it's even worse.
Climate
Yeah, well. There is a reason I moved to Spain..
Cultures
Most of the north east is still Sami, and the Finnish tribes have not unified into the more modern Finnish culture. We decided to call the modern Meänkieli with their more ancient name of Kven. We still have Gutnish on Gotland, but the Norwegian, Danish and Swedish cultures have been becoming more monolithic already.
Religions
The Finnish are mostly Catholic, but the Sami, Tavastian, Savonia, Bjarmian and Karelians are mostly still following their old pagan beliefs. There are still some Norse people in the forests of Dalarna and Västmanland..
Raw Materials
It is mostly lumber, fish, wild game, fur and iron. We of course have the famous copper mountain as well.
Markets
Scandinavia is divided by the rich markets of Lübeck and Riga. A strong Scandinavian country will probably want to set up their own unified market.
Population
Not many people live up in the north..
I liked nice round numbers as estimates, but the team I hired for content design are mad men, and wanted the distribution to feel more organic.. For the far north of Scandinavia we know that people were semi nomadic, and that some people lived there.. But if it was 100 there, or 250 there or 20 there it's just guesswork..
And let's end with a quote from the Greatest of Poets..
Jag vill, jag skall bli frisk, det får ej prutas,
Jag måste upp, om jag i graven låg.
Lyss, hör, ni hör kanonerna vid Jutas;
Där avgörs finska härens återtåg.
I’m not sure what you mean. Hedemarken had a population of 18 000 in 1769 which was 6% of the population of eastern norway in 1769. In euV the population of eastern norway is roughly 170 000, 6% of that is 10 057, which is how i got my suggestion for the population Hedemarken in euV. Ive only looked at the population of regions within norway relative to eachother, I think the population number for norway in euV sounds quite accurate, it should just be redistributed somewhat within Norway.
I’m not sure what you mean. Hedemarken had a population of 18 000 in 1769 which was 6% of the population of eastern norway in 1769. In euV the population of eastern norway is roughly 170 000, 6% of that is 10 057, which is how i got my suggestion for the population Hedemarken in euV. Ive only looked at the population of regions within norway relative to eachother, I think the population number for norway in euV sounds quite accurate, it should just be redistributed somewhat within Norway.
I trust your math in a vacuum, but I'm saying that you have to take the Black Death into account because if you have a pop of 170 000 in 1769, then it's not as simple as taking a percentage of that and assuming that number goes for 1337 - you would have to double it in 1337 because a few years later those 10K people are going to have half it's population killed by the plague.
Am I making sense?
I trust your math in a vacuum, but I'm saying that you have to take the Black Death into account because if you have a pop of 170 000 in 1769, then it's not as simple as taking a percentage of that and assuming that number goes for 1337 - you would have to double it in 1337 because a few years later those 10K people are going to have half it's population killed by the plague.
Am I making sense?
Im not sure I understand, why would the number need to be doubled? The percentage will still stay the same, assuming the locations in eastern norway are hit somewhat equally by the black death. I am only looking at the population of different locations relative to each other in 1769 and population of different locations relative to each other in 1337 and assuming the relation will stay somewhat the same.
Should Konghelle be a town at the start of 1337? Konghelle is mentioned by Orderic Vitalis (an English monk) as one of six important towns in Norway around 1140. The others being: Bergen, Nidaros, Hamar, Stavanger, Tønsberg. Those are the towns already in the game with the exception of Konghelle. Konghelle was previously before 1337 where some Norwegian kings resided like Sigurd Jorsalfare (The Crusader) who put his most prized possession a splinter from Jesus' cross in the town. The town also had two monasteries inside the city limits. To compare that to the other Norwegian towns, Bergen had 5 monasteries, Oslo and Nidaros had 4, Tønsberg and Konghelle had 2 and Stavanger and Hamar had one. Konghelle was in many ways a more "important" town than Hamar and Stavanger during the medieval period and it should probably be a town at the game start in 1337. It was often used as a royal meeting place between the Norwegian, Swedish and Danish monarch as it sits right at the border of all three states during the Middle Ages. For example when all three Scandinavian monarchs met there in 1101 to sue for a common peace among all the Scandinavian realms.
However Konghelle did experience a gradual decline during and after Haakon Magnusson reign from 1299-1319. In 1308 Haakon started the construction of Båhus fortress a couple of miles away from Konghelle. Båhus fortress was strategically better located than the old fortress Ragnhildsholmen which lay next to Konghelle. Ranghildsholmen was quickly abandoned after Båhus was founded and Båhus importance affected Konghelle. Marstrand a minor town just to the west of Konghelle also experienced growth in this period which negatively affected Konghelle. Konghelle never reached its previous heights after the union with Sweden and later Denmark, before It eventually got burned down by the Swedes in 1612. I would argue that Konghelle is still a town in 1337, but its importance is slowly dwindling due to the factors that I have mentioned above, and I hope it will be represented as a town from game start.
With the most up to date knowledge from the German map feedback, we see that the Danish/German culture divide is set between Aabenraa and Flensburg. In other words at the modern border. This is of course wrong, as nowhere close to that degree of germanification had taken place yet. But how far along was it in 1337?
eastern coast:
Flensburg: A Danish version of its town charter was written in ~1300 (original from 1284 being in latin). A german version was only made in 1431. The presence of the Knudsgilde, a Danish guild, is also an indication of its Danishness. Nothing to indicate it had a significant German population.
In my opinion, it should be almost entirely Danish, except maybe a few merchants (burghers) and some imported Holsteinian elites (nobles and clergy).
Slesvig: It's town charter (from before 1241) is written in Latin but uses Danish words for legal concepts: arnægyald, erfkiøp, laghkøp. Also the Knudsgilde was present here. The Holsteinian counts in power brought along German elites, who would also begin to "infiltrate" the top ranks of the clergy. In 1270 most/all members of cathedral chapter in Slesvig had Danish names. In 1310-1325 it was a fairly even mixture. Between 1325-1350 the majority of the names were German. From 1308 onwards, there would also only be German bishops (with 1 exception). In 1402, we have the first example of non-latin writing, in the form of Low German. However, this isn't evidence that the population had become German at this point either, because
i) German was a commonly used language of writing, Danish was not. Even in Ribe, the first non-latin writings were in German. It was simply used because it was more comprehensible than Latin, and more familiar than written Danish.
ii) The elite and clergy (who were the ones writing) being culturally German, doesn't mean the general population of the town or the hinterland for that matter was.
Slesvig location also consists of Schwansen peninsula which complicates things a bit. German settlement in the area began in 1260, when the Holstenian counts gained control of it as part of the pledged territory. German language is believed to have become a majority during the 1400s and pushed the Danish majority to south side of the Schlei (the inlet at Slesvig). Caspar Danckwerth wrote in 1652 that the people there spoke "saxon" and danish, so Danes were still around even at that point. So an educated guess would be that perhaps 25% of the population of Schwansen would be German in 1337.
So for the total Slesvig location:
I'd say for lower class pops (peasants, laborers, soliders) perhaps ~80-90% should be Danish. Keep in mind, that the townspeople of Slesvig and its hinterlands north of the Schlei would be overwhelmingly Danish, with perhaps a few Frisians and Germans. For burghers (merchants), clergy and nobility, the proportion of Germans should be significantly higher.
Eckernförde: The town of Eckernförde itself was likely a German town from the beginning of its recorded history (1197) as the -förde part originates from a low german root of the word ford referring to its location across from the Danish castle Egernborg. By Egernborg was a village called Borreby which name is of Danish origin, indicating at least Danes in the vicinity. The area southwest of Eckernförde (Fræzlæt) was described in 1231 to be using German units of measurement, so I see no reason to suspect they weren't German and still weren't in 1337.
I'd suggest this location should be majority German, probably by a lot, as there doesn't seem to have been many signs of Danes nearby besides Borreby and Egernborg. Should maybe be 85-95% German.
western coast
Husum: W.r.t. the western coast, the source also mentions that the area between Vidå (modern border Ribe/Husum) and the Eider (southern border of Husum), was inhabited by a mix of Danes and Frisians. In general he describes that the spread of Low German in the Middle Ages was halted at the Schlei-Slesvig-Husum line. Below this line there was a genuine German majority relatively unaffected by Danish, while above this area the populations were relatively unaffected by German influence. Point being that there shouldn't be any noticeable German minority in the Husum location, but instead a Danish/Frisian mix.
Source:
Gregersen, H. (1974). Plattysk i Sønderjylland : En undersøgelse af fortyskningens historie indtil 1600-årene
And i find it strange if this is to show natural harbor's. All Norways coast is perfect for Harbors. While innland travel was mostly for winter with sledge, were building summer roads was coastly and litle productive. Natural harbors and sea travel was how people lived.
Examples of maritime Norway from small to big:
Port of Narvik:
The port of Narvik (Above) is ice-free and well protected from the weather as most Norwegian fjords.
The port consists of three waterfront sections: LKAB bulk port, central port area with piers and deep-water harbor at Fagernes with intermodal facilities. Approximately 16,000,000 tonnes (16,000,000 long tons; 18,000,000 short tons) of cargo are annually shipped from the ports of Narvik. By 2015, the port had handled 1.1 billion tonnes of ore. Most of this iron ore.
Port authorities have initiated an expansion of the container area of approximately 45,000 square metres (11 acres), which is more than twice what Norway's largest terminal in Oslo today handles. In 2005, the port of Narvik got status as Motorways of the Sea in the EU-system.
But even if possible to dock heavy ships, we don`t need ports in the game for modern bulk and tankers.
Coastline cruise route from Bergen and north that has a long history:
Modern Larger ports:
Well. Norway is perfect natural ports, the whole coastline is full of examples. If Stockholm is a perfect natural harbor as shown. Then all Norway is the same.
And considering how difficult it is to build roads in Norway i don`t think it would break the game to give Norway some reality here. Others countries have advantages with roads, farming, population etc. So if this is because of some balance issue, i don`t see it.
Historically the seas was the highway that peoples lived from and on in Norway. From villages to towns it was built around a place that had natural harbor.
And i find it strange if this is to show natural harbor's. All Norways coast is perfect for Harbors. While innland travel was mostly for winter with sledge, were building summer roads was coastly and litle productive. Natural harbors and sea travel was how people lived.
Completely agree on this point, fjords are very good sheltered natural harbours, and in very many places the coastline is also protected by strings of islands (ytre skjærgård), offering good sheltered ports. There is a reason norway developed along the coast and has the shape it has today, I hope this will be depicted ingame. Having most of the norwegian coast be «no natural ports» is veeeery wrong, especially if we compare to whats been considered natural ports in other tinto maps
Looking at this port map, is it reasonable that Gothenburg is lower harbour level in harbor than other provinces in Scandinavia? I guess the one in southern Bohuslän might represent Marstrand? Otherwise I'm not aware that towns like Stenungsund or Uddevalla has been important ports, but correct me if I'm wrong. I guess the geography is good for harbors too.
But come on - Gothenburg! It's the largest port in all the Nordics (even greater than Stockholm or Copenhagen), a natural harbor at the outlet of the regions longest river. The Swedes just wouldn't stop trying to get it going even after the Danes burnt it down several times.
To be honest, i don't think there is much reason other than trying to make a natural harbor spread out in selected key locations choosen by the developers.
But its an old map. And hopefully much will change.
Completely agree on this point, fjords are very good sheltered natural harbours, and in very many places the coastline is also protected by strings of islands (ytre skjærgård), offering good sheltered ports. There is a reason norway developed along the coast and has the shape it has today, I hope this will be depicted ingame. Having most of the norwegian coast be «no natural ports» is veeeery wrong, especially if we compare to whats been considered natural ports in other tinto maps
Yes they have a hard time explaining this one
Am a Navigator myself. Mostly worked Norwegian, Dutch and Scottish sector.
Among the wierd things, is that they made holland filled with natural harbours. The coast is filled with sunked land. Constant dredging operation ( remove shifting sand)to sail modern ships there. We sailed out of Netherlands to work around a offshore windpark some times. Day sail out at sea. But still only 25m deep.
Some times ships even hit sand around the english channel on low tide. Sand areas are always changing.
As some people just commented critique about some locations not being good natural harbours in the game although they were in real life, I want to add Turku.
Although Turku was the capital of Swedish Finland from the 13th century to 1809, and has a high maritime tradition, it's marked as a BLACK location. This is pretty outrageous in my opinion, as I live in Turku and know it's history and good position for maritime use.
Here's some interesting facts about Turku's maritime history, but in any case, it would have been weird if Turku became the most relevant city and port in medieval and early modern era Finland, if it didn't at all have a good natural harbour. It wouldn't have grown a huge shipbuilding and trading tradition if it was geographically trash.
Turku should ATLEAST be a dark green shade of natural harbour.
As some people just commented critique about some locations not being good natural harbours in the game although they were in real life, I want to add Turku.
Although Turku was the capital of Swedish Finland from the 13th century to 1809, and has a high maritime tradition, it's marked as a BLACK location. This is pretty outrageous in my opinion, as I live in Turku and know it's history and good position for maritime use.
Here's some interesting facts about Turku's maritime history, but in any case, it would have been weird if Turku became the most relevant city and port in medieval and early modern era Finland, if it didn't at all have a good natural harbour. It wouldn't have grown a huge shipbuilding and trading tradition if it was geographically trash.
Turku should ATLEAST be a dark green shade of natural harbour.
Just because a location had a port IRL, does that necessarily mean that it has a "natural" harbor? Natural harbors are to indicate that the geography is especially suited to make a port, and thus makes it cheaper. Like deep and protected waters. Maybe Turku has that I don't know, but just because it was a relevant port, I don't think should automatically mean that it should get a bonus.
Like for example hypothetically, a town like Turku could have had a large port due to it being a population center, which could have formed for other reasons, than a suitable harbour, like good resources.
Just because a location had a port IRL, does that necessarily mean that it has a "natural" harbor? Natural harbors are to indicate that the geography is especially suited to make a port, and thus makes it cheaper. Like deep and protected waters. Maybe Turku has that I don't know, but just because it was a relevant port, I don't think should automatically mean that it should get a bonus.
Like for example hypothetically, a town like Turku could have had a large port due to it being a population center, which could have formed for other reasons, than a suitable harbour, like good resources.
I don't know about depth in 1337, and I believe the port of Turku is not the easiest one to navigate to, but hidden deep behind the archipelago it's about as protected as they get.
Just because a location had a port IRL, does that necessarily mean that it has a "natural" harbor? Natural harbors are to indicate that the geography is especially suited to make a port, and thus makes it cheaper. Like deep and protected waters. Maybe Turku has that I don't know, but just because it was a relevant port, I don't think should automatically mean that it should get a bonus.
Like for example hypothetically, a town like Turku could have had a large port due to it being a population center, which could have formed for other reasons, than a suitable harbour, like good resources.
From googling a little:
"The prerequisites for the natural port in Turku date back at least 65 million years when large fractures appeared in the ancient Finnish bedrock. At sea the fractures resulted in deep yet sheltered fairways between islands, such as Airisto off Turku. The rising of the crust formed the channel of the River Aura, and settlement began to appear by the river. Settlement attracted traders to the banks of the River Aura which were known as a lively trading post as early as the Iron Age."
The Baltic also have low tide differences. That is always good for harbors.
knowing sailors who have operated both in the Irish sea and in Canada. 12-20m tide difference can be a hell in port adjusting mooring lines constantly etc.
When it comes to the Baltic i am more concerned with winter ice. As it has much fresh water, calm currents and cold eastern wind. Would isolate harbors in winter.
Also probably why Swedish ore from Kiruna is sent over the mountains to Narvik in Northern Norway rather than using Swedish ports. Due to the warm Atlantic gulf currents and higher salt.
Sea ice in Europe( Pink):
Sea ice in the Baltic:
In medieval/pre modern times without ice breakers, ships would have a hard time operating the baltic in Winter.
Edit: Some old maps it is even shown how people crossed the ice:
Eckernförde: The town of Eckernförde itself was likely a German town from the beginning of its recorded history (1197) as the -förde part originates from a low german root of the word ford referring to its location across from the Danish castle Egernborg. By Egernborg was a village called Borreby which name is of Danish origin, indicating at least Danes in the vicinity. The area southwest of Eckernförde (Fræzlæt) was described in 1231 to be using German units of measurement, so I see no reason to suspect they weren't German and still weren't in 1337.
I'd suggest this location should be majority German, probably by a lot, as there doesn't seem to have been many signs of Danes nearby besides Borreby and Egernborg. Should maybe be 85-95% German.
You can not derive this simply from the modern name. First of all these are all just theories and we have no precise knowledge of the origin of the name which also neglects that the Danish and Low German dialects spoken in the area likely had more significant proximity than the standard variants. There are villages with etymologically danish names south of Eckernförde like Windeby (Vindeby), Osterby (Østerby) and Haby. Furthermore the Jernved peninsula (which is called Dänischer Wohld in German) refers itself to old nordic myth which is written down in Ældre Edda. It is likely that the Fræzlæt was a sparsely populated border area characterized by thick, impassable forrests and swamplands. With the clearance of the forests the danish king and later holsteinian nobles brought German peasants to settle here but before that it is anyones guess with most pointing towards a danish majority, however a majority in a very sparsely populated area. Some settlements in this area also have slavic origin.
I think the error Paradox is more prone to making here would be to overestimate the population in this area by a lot - as all sources indicate waste swathes of the area to be barely populated. It's a bit hard to piece together because the area is just on the edge of the map but the way I understand it they gave The Eckernförde locality more pops than Schleswig (which was still one of the most significant cities in the baltic area even if its signifciance was dwindling), around 70 % of Flensburg and way more than the Uthlande. It's a bit hard to see it excactly but that doesn't make any sense. Even though by 1331 the German colonisation and forrest clearance would have begun, it is unlikely to have caught up with settlements that were populated for generations, furthermore Eckernförde was likley just a couple of decades before the start date just an insignificant fishing village which was now growing into a town, whereas towns like Slesvig, Rungholt, Flensburg, Tønder or Ribe had been important trading and church hubs for generations. I don't even think Eckernförde had fortifications originally, it was just a settlements by the castle.
Last year, I shared some work I had done on the number of farms in different parts of Denmark, based on Christian V’s land register from 1688. I stopped after covering half of Jutland because the register excludes both Slesvig (as it was a duchy) and Skåne (which had been lost to Sweden). I felt it wasn’t representative without those regions, essentially half the country was missing. Well I've finished that work and thought I would share it, I do fear it is a long read.
So, what is Christian V’s land register?
On the surface, it’s the first complete cadastre in Danish history, covering 58,000 farms and around 500,000 fields across the country. Or as it was described:
“Effektiv, retfærdig, og hård beskatning af jorden”
“Effective, fair, and strict taxation of land.”
We do have Valdemar II’s census book from the 13th century, but that one is incomplete, in the sense that it was only of royal property and not all property (AFAIK).
This land register was actually inspired by the Swedish land registry in the former Danish territories (Skåne, Halland, and Blekinge). Several people involved in that Swedish work were employed in Denmark as well, for example, Knud Thott, a Scanian nobleman who defected to Denmark, and the Swedish surveyor J.F. von Dylow.
Why is this relevant for EU V?
While 1688 isn’t right in the middle of the game’s timeline, it’s close. And more importantly, this system remained in use until 1844 — meaning it covered almost 200 years of in-game time. Furtheremore we have population data for the market towns from 1672, which somewhat fills out the hole as towns(købstæder) are not included in the Landregistry
Additionally, Denmark’s population in the 17th century was probably quite similar to what it had been at the start of the game in the 14th century. That makes this a valuable historical source for where to distribute population within the Danish locations, giving a more authentic feel (imo) to the game map. I do believe my findings may surprise some of you.
How did the land register work?
The land registry doesn’t just count land , it categorizes it. Fields were assessed and classified based on their productivity, which I plan to use when determining vegetation types for Danish provinces in-game.
Now, I can almost hear you asking, a page into this, “But what does the data actually look like?” Great question!
The data is organized by parish, but for my purposes, I’ve chosen to work with the herred (an old Danish administrative division dating back to the Viking Age, where each herred was expected to supply 100 armed men and ships).
For each herred, we get:
Number of farms
Total Tønder Hartkorn
Wait — what is a Tønde Hartkorn?
Wonderful question!
Tønder Hartkorn (abbreviated T. hk.) translates to “barrels of hard grain”, and was a unit measuring how productive a piece of land was — not its size. More fertile land was taxed more heavily. For example:
The very best farmland, classified as “good soil”, would be taxed at 1 T. hk. per 2 tønder land.
Tønder land (Tl.), a measure of area literally meaning “barrel of land,” is approximately 1.51 hectares. (Nope, not confusing at all!)
A field classified as “ond jord”, literally “evil soil,” but better understood as “poor soil” — would be taxed at 1 T. hk. per 8 tønder land.
Fields were also taxed based on their crop rotation system:
A two-field system (1/2 cultivated yearly) received a 50% tax reduction
A three-field system (2/3 cultivated yearly) received a 33% reduction
A four-field system (3/4 cultivated yearly) got a 25% reduction
In short: you weren’t taxed for land lying fallow
This system, as you can imagine, never caused any problems whatsoever where these systems were not used (looking at you Jutland) What was the value of a T. hk.?
Another great question!
A T. hk. represented 1 barrel of rye (or another grain). It could also be paid in livestock or produce, such as:
6 lambs
12 geese
24 chickens (technically 48, but do we really want to go down the rabit hole of the Danish way of counting?... yea I thought not, the French got nothing on us)
Butter, and other goods such as some farms paying in iron ore.
The key idea: farms were taxed based on how much they could produce, and farmers decided how to pay. How I processed the data
Alongside farms and their T. hk., the data includes homesteads and their own T. hk.
A farm is defined as being able to produce 1 hartkorn, anything less than that and its classified as a homestead with land.
To convert homesteads with land into “farm equivalents,” I:
Calculated the average T. hk. per farm in each herred
Divided homestead T. hk. by that value
This gave me a rough equivalent of how many farms the homesteads represented, again, calculated herred by herred and I simply just added this together with the farms in aptly named “total farms” column it added about a thousand farms to the 58.000.
There are also homesteads without land (e.g., fishing villages), but I couldn’t find a good way to convert those into farm equivalents. I considered a weighted approach but ultimately skipped it.
Other Data Columns
The dataset also includes:
Combined T. hk. Values
Cultivated area. Which is in hectares, which is not at all confusing considering this is before the metric system (it was converted in the digitisation, is my assumption)
There are a few more columns but these are the important ones I have used.
Now what?
With this data in hand, the next challenge is applying it to EU V’s locations. Because the data is based on herreder, and EU V uses different location borders, but simply put, these are not a perfect match and such this work is not 100 % accurate, nonetheless I do hope Paradox will find it useful. A few places I have gone in at a parish level to get better borders, chiefly around Holstebro/Ringkøbing/Bølling and Grindsted/Kolding
I took an old population density map of Denmark based upon the herreder and repurposed into a location map:
Do note I tried to add the Locations we saw in previews. And try to ignore the big black dots that are supposed to be cities.
It’s not perfect, but I think it gives a fairly good idea of the area.
The first thing I want to show, and probably the one I’m most proud of, is the average taxation rate/soil classification, which I calculated by converting the cultivated areas from hectares to Tl. I then used that number and divided it by T. hk.
It sounds simple, and it is, but it took some time to figure out whether it was actually possible. From “De Danske Landbebyggelser I 1680’erne” by Peder Dam we have this:
It's the taxation rate for the given soil classification. It had to be revised when they started working on the Jutland part, due to how poor the soil was in some places compared to the islands.
A few of the classifications would translate roughly as:
Very best sort: 0.5
Good sort: 0.25
The Very worst sort (extra)": 0.05
This indirectly shows us the quality of the soil, as taxation is based on it.
In the southeast, we see that Nakskov has the best soil, with a rate of 0.27, while Grindsted has the worst at 0.11, followed closely by Løgstør at 0.12.
There are certainly some surprises on the map. Eastern Jutland simply doesn’t stand out in the way I expected. And Bølling seems surprisingly good, right? Well, to put it mildly, while there is some decent farmland there, there simply aren’t many farms. In fact, on that map, it's the only location with fewer than 1,000 farms, though Grindsted has only about 50 more.
As we delve further into the data, unfortunately, this will be Bølling’s last shining moment.
The next map shows the calculated total number of farms for each location:
Here, eastern Jutland starts to stand out compared to most of Jutland, unlike on the previous map, just as I expected. Thisted, with its 3,453 farms, is the location with the most farms overall, followed by Kalundborg, Nakskov, and Svendborg. All three of these are located on the isles and each has over 3,000 farms.
Bølling, as mentioned, only has 991 farms, while Grindsted and Silkeborg, both located in the middle of the peninsula, have 1,023 and 1,173 farms respectively.
The next map I made shows the expected Hartkorn (T. htk.) that each location is supposed to provide in tax to the Danish state:
We find Kalundborg in Sjælland at the top, with an expected 2,266.16 Hartkorn, or in other words, 21,266.16 barrels of rye, or just over one million chickens if paid in poultry instead. It’s followed by Nakskov, Ringsted, and Svendborg, generally all locations on the islands.
Thisted, it seems, has decent soil and a large number of farms, but they’re not the most productive.
To give a bit more context, the next map shows the cultivated area, in thousands of hectares.
We generally see here that locations with a high Hartkorn value also have a large amount of cultivated area. Nakskov, despite its high Hartkorn output, is actually surprisingly low in cultivated area compared to, for example, Kalundborg. This is probably another indication of the high productivity of Nakskov’s soil.
Meanwhile, Kalø has a lot of hectares under cultivation but a less impressive output, which suggests that it is probably decently populated and that less agreeable soils are also being used.
It is actually possible to calculate the percentage of land under cultivation, and I have done so as well:
The problem with this measure, in particular, is that it doesn’t take into account the types of systems in use. Which does play a huge part into how productive they are.
Hopefully, this is readable, but in case it’s not:
Top left shows the two-field system and its variation—essentially, about 50% of the fields are used for grain, while the other 50% are left fallow.
To its right is the three-field system, where two fields are used for crops and one is left fallow, meaning about 66% crop use.
The top right shows the four- and five-field systems, which represent the most intensive forms of agriculture. Though not necessarily 75 to 80 % for grains, but also legumes etc.
On the bottom left, we have the Jutlandic systems, which are very varied and kinda pointless to explain in minute details:
The first is the “nordjyske dyrkningssystemer” or North Jutlandic cultivation systems. The black dots refer to “The Limfjords System,” which is especially known for intensive cultivation suited to rich clay soils.
The last one is harder to describe and partly explains why the landregister work struggled in Jutland compared to the islands. It’s much more fluid than the field systems because fields in this area are less clearly defined. Generally speaking, the red dots represent land that’s about twice “as good” as the blue dots, with just under 30% cultivation. So, for every cultivated field, two would be fallow or used for something other than grain.
Okay, let’s start talking about my suggestions. I’m going to begin with vegetation because I think that needs some work.
This is a map, from one of the youtube videos that came out with the new locations, I got this from @uzo70 , it has A LOT of problems in my opinion.
Paradox’s vegetation using another map I’ve cooked up since I started on this.
Notice that I have taken Slesvig into this map aswell.
As shown the current version has 14 farmland locations, 20 grassland and one woods location.
I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong with the islands, but I do believe that Jutland with Half of the 14 farmland locations is depicted wrong.
What I suggest is scaling down the farmland in Jutland, mainly concentrate it on the eastern part of the peninsular with Thisted in the North-west being the only farmland in Jutland not on the east coast, add Sparse vegetation to showcase the hearth areas and change around the farmland in Sjælland:
Without addressing Skåne, which I won’t do here, I believe this is the ideal setup for Paradox’s current map. (I will suggest two additional locations at the end of this.) The breakdown is as follows: 12 farmland, 17 grassland, 4 sparse, and 2 woods vegetation.
Unlike Uzo, I do not a third woods location (and my second is in Slesvig and not Denmark), as the areas he suggested (Helsingør and Svendborg) are, in my view, “too valuable” to be classified as woods. There is an argument to be made that Silkeborg should be classified as sparse rather than woods, but I don’t think that distinction matters too much.
The purpose of my rearrangement is to create incentives that reflect the historical development of the region. The islands will remain the core of the kingdom, with certain locations along the east coast of Jutland also being suitable for development. The sparse territories are intended to be the last areas developed—mirroring historical reality, as much of this development occurred in the 1800s after the loss of Slesvig-Holstein.
As for raw materials, I’ve gone through many iterations of how I would structure the map, and the following reflects the result of that process:
You’ll likely notice many similarities to Uzo’s map, as we had a lot of internal debates between the two of us. I’m not going to include sources in my argument as he did, simply because we shared them, and repeating the same sources from his post seems redundant. Just know that the vegetation suggestions are based on Christian V’s Land Register data (except for Slesvig), while raw materials are informed by a combination of sources, such as traps.lex.dk and the Land Register data.
Furthermore, I want to highlight a difference in philosophy between Uzo and me. While Uzo generally required a source to justify placing wheat in a location, I view wheat as an expression of the land’s productivity. As such, I’ve been more liberal with assigning wheat, because at the end of the day, if I were optimizing purely for food output or value, I could just place livestock in nearly every location.
I also want to share my perspective on natural resources, specifically lumber and iron. Originally, I had an iron location at Silkeborg with sources to support it. However, I reconsidered, as giving Denmark an effectively endless supply of iron felt inaccurate, even if it could be justified historically and fixed by changing the good in the 17th century, when Norwegian mines became Denmark’s main source of iron. That said, I want to emphasize that until the 17th century, Denmark, together with Skåne, was capable of supplying its own iron.
Similarly, I am against adding a lumber location. While Denmark never entirely ran out of trees for construction, lumber scarcity did become a factor, particularly in shipbuilding. Denmark also never became a significant exporter of lumber. For these reasons, I believe the base production sufficiently represents Denmark's situation.
Clay, on the other hand, was produced in relatively large quantities across the countries and exported to markets. Thus, I consider the base production insufficient and have added two clay-producing locations. You could certainly add more, possibly even make an argument for stone, as Denmark is rich in limestone, which was used for construction before being largely replaced by clay bricks.
Salt doesn’t need much explanation. There was both underground salt excavation (generally starting after the game’s time period) and salt production from saline groundwater. However, this often faced challenges due to limited lumber supplies. A case in point is the island of Læsø, which was completely deforested and subsequently saw salt extraction outlawed in the 17th century.
The next few spoilers contain information about my suggested vegetation and goods, along with data I have gathered and compiled to provide an overview of the various locations.
The Farms column includes the estimated number of farms (farms plus homesteads with land, converted to farm equivalents), the estimated number of estates (sourced from traps.lex.dk), and the number of homesteads/houses outside the market towns without land, these often represent fishing villages with very little arable land, or other rural industries.
It also includes the population in the market towns (købstæder) and the number of market towns in a given location (shown in parentheses). This data is from 1672 and aligns well with the farming-related data.
It should also be noted that Christian V’s Land Register does not include information about market towns. This can give a misleading picture of certain locations if the towns are not taken into account. This is especially relevant for København, which experienced significant growth between game start and the 1670s. It is specifically noted to have "razed" villages to expand the city and to build various palaces.
Since market towns had their own fields and agricultural production, excluding them from consideration would result in an inaccurate depiction of land use.
The last two columns show the expected HTK (tax base) and the amount of cultivated land in hectares. Both figures are presented in thousands.
Location
Vegetation
Good
Farms
Estimated Estates
Homesteads w/o land
Market Towns
Htk
Cultivated Area(HA)
Helsingør
Grassland
Medicaments
1.792
3
673
5.504(3)
13.1
31.6
Kalundborg
Farmland
Wheat
3.242
12
669
1.058(2)
21.3
55.6
København
Farmland
Fish
1.371
10
786
41.500(1)
13.1
32.9
Ringsted
Farmland
Horses
2.732
34
16
1.062(2)
19.6
46.6
Roskilde
Grassland
Sturdy Grain
2.018
33
336
3.075(2)
15.2
39.9
Sorø
Farmland
Wheat
2.484
21
382
5.656(5)
18.7
44
Vordingborg
Grassland
Livestock
2.593
30
261
1.827(3)
14.2
35
Helsingør
Originally, I wanted to suggest woods and clay here. However, the data indicates this location was actually more valuable than I expected, so I’ve designated it as grassland. In addition to Uzo’s suggestions, I believe this is a good candidate for medicaments due to the large number of abbeys and monasteries historically present in the area, at least until Protestantism became the dominant religion in Denmark, the presence of such wealthy monasteries / abbeys also explains the lack of estates.
Esrum Abbey, which began as Benedictine and later became Cistercian, was especially significant. It was the mother house to several other monasteries in Denmark, most notably the one in Sorø, which had close ties to early medieval Danish royalty (it served as a royal burial site before Roskilde). At its height, Esrum Abbey owned over 350 farms across Zealand and Skåne.
I’d like to note that I think this religious presence could be reflected with a church-related building from the start, as these institutions have existed there since at least the 1100s.
Kalundborg
According to the data, this is the most productive location in Denmark. Wheat, and farmland, it’s an easy choice.
København
Not much to say here beyond the fact that the numbers are heavily skewed by the city’s growth over time. It's very productive farmland. The fish resource represents the rich Øresund fisheries, though this should eventually be replaced with wheat when the herring trade declines.
Ringsted
Another highly productive area, so it’s designated as farmland. My research also notes that the manors and farms here were particularly known for livestock, especially oxen and horses. Also the regional center due to being the site of the thing of Sjælland
Livestock exports were a major source of the king's income, alongside the herring trade in the Limfjord and the Øresund. With the later addition of the Sound Toll, this made the Danish king, at times, filthy rich and not dependent on the nobility.
Roskilde
I think Roskilde suffers slightly from being smaller than other locations , not because the land is worse, but simply due to limitations in map balance. I can’t make all of Sjælland farmland. Roskilde has more land under cultivation than Vordingborg and Helsingør, which are my other grassland locations. Roskilde has a high number of estates, second only to Ringsted on the island. I considered assigning it livestock, but it wasn’t particularly known for livestock production. (Livestock exports were typically tied to noble estates.) Furthermore it should NOT be the capital of Denmark.
I did think about adding Wheat, but since two neighbouring locations already had it (and Copenhagen should get it at a later time) I went with Sturdy Grain.
Sorø
With five market towns, though none of particularly impressive size, Sorø is certainly a developed location. In addition, it has a decent spread of everything. Sorø Monastery is well known for its ties to the early medieval kings. Margrethe I was actually buried there until her body was stolen and reinterred in Roskilde (as the first royal to be buried there, followed by all others after her). In many ways, Sorø Monastery at the start of the game period serves the role that Roskilde does in modern times.
Vordingborg
Vordingborg is also heavily tied to royalty. If you want a capital location on Sjælland, it should be Vordingborg. Roskilde has never been the capital of Denmark, in the medieval age, it was the ecclesiastical power base, while Vordingborg often served as the seat of medieval kings such as Valdemar I, II, and IV (the latter being the one who ended the interregnum that Denmark starts in in EUV). As for goods, one can make an argument for Livestock, wheat, Stout grains, fish etc. I went for Livestock due to references of the many horses supplied to royal castles and the mention of extensive milk production, in addition to being relatively wooded so many farmers would also have pigs. (pigs in medieval Denmark are often tied to woody areas)
Location
Vegetation
Good
Farms
Estimated Estates
Homesteads w/o land
Market Towns
Htk.
Cultivated Area(HA)
Assens
Grassland
Livestock
2.601
31
617
2.278(3)
17.2
51.4
Falster
Grassland
Legumes
1.566
4
319
1.372(2)
9
20.8
Nakskov
Farmland
Wheat
3.224
37
873
2.636(3)
20
40.7
Odense
Farmland
Wheat
2.370
39
378
5.610(3)
18.4
44.9
Svendborg
Farmland
Wheat
3.147
54
758
3.078(4)
19.5
53.3
Assens
Assens is heavily farmed, but like Roskilde and Vordingborg, I don’t want to turn the entirety of Funen (Fyn) into farmland, even though the numbers supports it. Assens itself serves as an entrepôt for livestock from the surrounding islands, transported to Jutland and then down the oxen roads, hence the designation of livestock goods.
Falster
Falster is a solid agricultural island, but due to its size, it's best represented as grasslands with legumes, as legumes were historically a notable and important part of the region’s agricultural system. Unlike anywhere else in Denmark
Nakskov
If any location in Denmark deserves to be marked as farmland, it’s Nakskov. It has the best overall soil, a high expected taxation rate, and a significant amount of land not yet under the plow, alongside a high population noted in many farms, many homesteads and 3 market towns, though lot large ones.
Odense(Nyborg)
I think one could argue this should actually be renamed to Nyborg. It doesn’t have as many farms as Assens or Svendborg, but it has a high expected taxation rate over a smaller area, hence, farmland. It also hosts a notable købstad (a market town) in Odense, large by Danish standards.
Lastly, I believe this is the correct choice for Denmark’s capital (until an event likely moves it to Copenhagen, assuming Skåne is Danish). As the meeting place of the Danehof, it holds historical importance, even though the Danehof is weakening and will be replaced by the Rigsrådet in about a century. Copenhagen is still far from being the capital, and while Roskilde is the ecclesiastical heart of Denmark at the game’s start, it was never close to being the political capital.
Thus, I suggest either:
Odense(Nyborg), the political heart of Denmark, where nobility and royalty met.
Vordingborg, the royalist strongpoint of Denmark during earlier periods and for Valdemar IV, who historically became king after the interregnum.
Svendborg
This area has a large number of estates and is somewhat known for pigs (as is typical for somewhat wooded areas). However, I chose wheat due to the sheer number of farms, the large amount of cultivated land, and the high tax rate,which together also justify the farmland designation.
Location
Vegetation
Good
Farms
Estimated Estates
Homesteads w/o land
Market Towns
Htk.
Cultivated Area(HA)
Aarhus
Farmland
Wheat
2.956
41
92
4.990(2)
17.2
60.8
Grindsted
Sparse
Wool
1.023
9
10
0
4.2
22.4
Kalø
Grassland
Sturdy Grain
2.201
30
423
1.270(2)
14.3
59.5
Kolding
Farmland
Legumes
2.371
29
53
3.397(3)
14.4
51.5
Silkeborg
Woods
Clay
1.173
7
36
0
5.4
22.7
Aarhus
Aarhus has the largest amount of cultivated land, a moderately high taxation rate, many farms, and a large number of estates, in addition to the significant købstad of Aarhus itself. Hence the designation of Farmland and wheat. Like the islands, you find 3-field systems in use here, and the area resembles the isles in many ways.
While there are arguments against labeling it as Farmland, if you want to reflect the historical pattern of “building up Denmark,” it’s important to distinguish the eastern part of Jutland from the western, central, and northern regions. Additionally, this area, along with Kolding, shares more in common with the island farming systems than the rest of Jutland.
Grindsted
Grindsted is giving me so many headaches, nonetheless, here it is. I suggest Sparse, as it lies predominantly in the interior of Jutland and on the western side of the maximum extent of the Weichselian glaciation, which is essentially the defining terrain feature in northern Jutland. It is Wool because this location serves as the representation of inland heath, where sheep were predominant compared to other livestock in the rest of the country.
Kalø
While there are large areas under cultivation, the taxation rate is middling, and there is no particularly impressive number of farms or urban centers.
Thus, grassland is more appropriate than farmland. The associated good could be lumber, livestock, fish, clay, or several others, but I went with sturdy grain as a general-purpose resource.
Kolding
Kolding has a similar taxation rate to Kalø, but is more urbanized and has less cultivated area, indicating higher productivity.
However, the presence of a island farm system justifies its classification as Farmland (IMO), especially when combined with the same arguments made for Aarhus.
I selected legumes here to avoid duplicating Kalø’s sturdy grain, even though there’s no direct evidence that legumes were particularly important during the game’s period. Instead one could choose sturdy grain or livestock.
Silkeborg
Silkeborg is designated as a wooded location, though one could argue for sparse, since the area is deforested during the game period.
Still, I prefer keeping it as woods, due to the associated infrastructure cost malus (if I remember correctly), reflecting its historic difficulty in terms of development and cost of “going west”.
While there’s an argument for iron here, I’ve already explained why I chose not to include it. The area did export a lot of tile later on, which justifies clay as the good.
More broadly, it supported various rural industries, such as the production of 26,000 pieces of Waldglas (forest glass) for Christian IV’s coronation.
Like Grindsted, there is no urban development and very few estates
Location
Vegetation
Good
Farms
Estimated Estates
Homesteads w/o land
Market Towns
Htk.
Cultivated Area(HA)
Bølling
Sparse
Livestock
991
16
0
626(1)
5.1
13.9
Holstebro
Sparse
Horses
1.353
17
27
500(1)
6.8
26.7
Ringkøbing
Grassland
Fish
1.305
18
66
450(1)
6.4
21,7
Varde
Grassland
Livestock
1.820
21
32
569(1)
8.5
30.8
Bølling
Let’s preface this by noting that it should probably be renamed Ringkøbing.
This area has the fewest farms overall, though there is some (albeit minimal) urban development, and more estates than in Grindsted or Silkeborg.
Therefore, Sparse fits best.
Livestock is appropriate, as the area, like most of western Jutland, was historically known for oxen exports.
You could make an argument for Grassland, given the cultivated area, but I think Sparse makes more sense based on its overall development.
Holstebro
Sparse again. I actually expected this region to perform better, but it turned out to be unimpressive across the board, nothing stands out, I think this can be blamed upon the large parts of inland heath it has.
The area is historically known for horses and livestock (especially oxen), so I chose horses as the primary good to represent the Jutish horse production.
Ringkøbing (Should be Lemvig)
This entry should be renamed to Lemvig, as Ringkøbing lies further to the south.
This is the smallest of the West Jutland locations, and the vast majority of the population lives along the Limfjord coast.
Taxation rates and farm numbers are unimpressive, but I still designated it Grassland to differentiate it from other nearby provinces, and if you look at the cultivation map(as flawed as it is) this Location does stand out compared to its neighbors.
I chose fish as the good, because herring spawned in the Limfjord, which, at times, was as important as the herring trade in the Øresund.
Varde
Grassland is appropriate here, due in part to this region having the largest number of farms among the West Jutland locations, though that is partly due to the size of it. It also has the highest number of estates and the best taxation rate in the province (though these figures are still modest—the small island of Falster was more valuable overall).
Still, it's important to remember that livestock was historically not valued as highly as grains in Christian V’s Landregister.
Livestock is a natural choice here, as the area was known for it.
Location
Vegetation
Good
Farms
Estimated Estates
Homesteads w/o land
Market Towns
Htk.
Cultivated Area(HA)
Aalborg
Grassland
Fish
1.702
29
415
4.181(1)
9.5
33.4
Løgstør
Sparse
Livestock
1.584
20
369
0
7.2
33.3
Randers
Grassland
Beeswax
2.102
17
396
2.749(3)
14.5
46
Viborg
Grassland
Livestock
1.824
34
321
3.232(2)
9.1
35.9
Aalborg
An important urban center with a decent number of farms and estates.
While it's a valuable location, it doesn't quite have the taxation rate I expected, hence the choice of Grassland rather than Farmland.
Fish is the associated good due to the herring trade in the Limfjord.
Løgstør
A decent number of farms and estates, but the taxation rates are unimpressive, comparable to those of West Jutland or the heathlands of East Jutlandand , and the soil classification is the second worst overall. Therefore, I’ve classified it as Sparse.
The area is historically known for livestock, which is reflected in the chosen good.
Randers
The strongest rural location in Nørrejylland.
Urban development is decent, though not as strong as Viborg or Aalborg. I considered classifying it as Farmland, but ultimately went with Grassland.
As for the good, many options would fit here, but I chose Beeswax to break up the heavy concentration of food-related goods across the Danish locations.
Viborg
Like Holstebro and Ringkøbing (Lemvig), this region is split between more fertile land along the Limfjord coast (especially on the Salling peninsula) and inland heath areas.
As the regional capital and seat of the Jutlandic Thing, Viborg is an important political location.
However, its "stats", in terms of farming, taxation, exept estates, are not particularly impressive.
While one could argue for Sparse, I chose Grassland instead, due to its significantly larger urban areas compared to those in West Jutland and the amount of estates. This is also another area known for livestock.
Location
Vegetation
Good
Farms
Estimated Estates
Homesteads w/o land
Market Towns
Htk.
Cultivated Area(HA)
Hjørring
Grassland
Livestock
1.769
36
257
782(1)
8.5
27.4
Skagen
Grassland
Salt
2.078
25
269
1.674(1)
9.8
31.1
Thisted
Farmland
Wheat
3.453
44
334
1000(1)
16.4
51.7
Hjørring
One could argue for sparse vegetation, but I think grassland fits, due to the decent number of farms and a very respectable number of estates and overall a different system of farming than west jutland where the majority of sparse terrain is placed. Yet again, this is a location more known for livestock than for grain.
Skagen
Actually has a decent number of farms, and Skagen itself, in the late 1600s, is a thriving market town (though it will soon suffer from sand creep). Despite this, it uses the same field system as western and inland Jutland, the one generally considered the worst. Still, it has a decent taxation rate, and I would choose other locations to make sparse before this one.
It is salt because of two areas within it being producers of salt.
Hou, though I am unsure of what kind of salt production, and the island of Læsø, which had it outlawed due to lack of lumber in the later period of the game.
Thisted
The biggest surprise for me in all of this is Thisted. It has the second-highest expected taxation rate of all of Jutland and the highest number of farms of any Danish location, while also having a large number of estates. These combined make it Farmland and Wheat for me.
Location
Vegetation
Good
Aabenraa
Farmland
Wheat
Egernførde
Woods
Livestock
Haderslev
Grassland
Fibercrop
Husum
Grassland
Salt
Flensborg
Farmland
Clay
Ribe
Grassland
Sturdy Grains
Slesvig
Grassland
Sturdy Grains
Tønder
Grassland
Horses
I do not have the same data for Slesvig as I do for the rest of Denmark, so this is based less on data and more on general knowledge of the area. The important point to stress is that the east–west divide in soil quality seen further north is not nearly as prominent in Slesvig. Nonetheless, the eastern part is generally “better,” and that’s what I’ve tried to reflect here:
Aabenraa: Marked as farmland due to the inclusion of the island of Als, which is also the reason for the presence of wheat. This area is historically part of the “south Danish island belt of wheat.”
Egernførde: This was the medieval borderland between Danes and Germans. The peninsula south of the fjord was known as the Dänischer Wohld (Jernved) and, during the medieval period, was covered by swamps and forests. By 1662, the peninsula was only 50% covered due to German settlement, and in modern times it's down to 6%. I chose livestock to represent the oxen trade from Slesvig and of course woods for the history. This area is unlikely to have a large population.
Haderslev: This is mostly based on Uzo’s argument for fiber crops. I agree with him that since there’s evidence for it, it makes for an interesting addition to the Danish locations, which are otherwise mostly food-related.
Husum: Part of the Wadden Sea area or the North Frisian Islands. Extensive land reclamation has made this area quite different from the more windswept coast further north, though it is still prone to flooding. I chose salt to represent the region's historical salt extraction from the North Sea.
Flensborg: Farmland to reflect the slightly better land quality in the east—though it’s a toss-up between Flensborg and Slesvig, to be honest. I chose clay as well, since the area was one of the most prominent tile exporters in all of Denmark.
Ribe: Also part of the Wadden Sea area. I chose Sturdy Grain to represent the different agriculture in this part of the country compared to the livestock-dominated north. While some areas are very productive, others are more like the rest of Slesvig. I don’t think it deserves a farmland designation, but it’s worth noting that Ribe is quite developed, it’s the oldest and one of the largest market towns in Denmark.
Slesvig: I considered making this farmland instead of Flensborg. In medieval times it was the more important of the two, though in modern times less so. It could really go either way.
Tønder: Another Wadden Sea location. Not much to say, except that it could be represented by many things. I chose horses.
Tranekær
The first proposed location involves removing Langeland from Svendborg. While this makes Svendborg less impressive, in terms of farming and overall productivity, the new location would in many ways resemble Falster.
Langeland has about 1.100 farms, and Ærø has approximately 500. There are two market towns, though neither is of particular note. I would change the Good in Svendborg to Sturdy Grains, and assign the new island location either Legumes or Fish.
Ærø, in the later period of the game, was noted as the second most densely populated island in all of Europe—only surpassed by Malta (though considerably smaller). Its two market towns grew wealthy through shipping, and in Danish terms quite large. in my previous maps I've added it to Svendborg, but its data (as it was a part of Slesvig is not included in it)
This change also helps represent Denmark as more than just Jutland, the two large islands, and Skåne.
I’ve named the new province Tranekær, after Tranekær Slot, which Valdemar IV conquered in 1358. He made it the seat of Tranekær Len, the administrative division of Langeland until 1672, when it was reorganized as the County of Langeland, still centered on Tranekær.
Sønderborg
From Aabenraa, I propose removing the island of Als (densely populated, productive, and wealthy), along with the Sundeved peninsula. This new location would receive Farmland vegetation, while Aabenraa would be downgraded to Grassland.
The new province would also get the Wheat good—though there’s a strong argument for Fruits, as that was a notable export in the 17th century. Meanwhile, Horses would be moved from Tønder to Aabenraa, and Beeswax would become the new good for Tønder.
I’ve named this new location Sønderborg (South Castle) which appears to be the principal castle on the island (unlike Nordborg (North Castle) or Augustenborg).
Valdemar IV was married there in 1340.
While I am not going to go into too much detail I also believe the natural habours needs to be reworked:
Tier 1 (I think all these should have natural habours, in no particular order)
Essentially there is an abundance of natural habours in Denmark on the east coast of jutland and the islands., and right now it is quite heavily skewed towards Sjælland. I understand that you cannot show all the natural habours, but the vast majority of Danish market towns were build at natural habours.
Well that got a lot longer than I expected.. if you read it all thanks
Forgot to mention here are the data I used:
Unfortunately I cannot add the PowerBI file where I connected it all, and with the total farm calculations etc.
