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

[Slime99]

I read a study of a Finnish historian where he proved with place names that the mysterious "Kvens" were actually Tavastians who moved up to the Torneå valley during the iron age because they ran out of space in Tavastia. Torneå valley had excellent lands for farming and they could get comfortable with trading.

Eventually the Tavastians got in trouble with Novgorod and Sweden, and the Kvens seem to have chosen their own ruler. Even on Wikipedia there's information about how the Kven ruler allied with a Norwegian ruler to attack the Karelians (who were with Novgorod).

Later Kvens obviously mixed with Sapmi, Swedes, Savonians, etc. and ended up under Swedish management.

Ostrobothnians (pohjalaiset) are a different subculture which probably came about when Swedes and people from Finland proper mixed in southern Ostrobothnia. This only happened after Gustav Vasa came into power and cities were founded in the Ostrobothnian coast. I think Paradox could represent them too somehow, but they shouldn't exist at the game start like Kvens.

EDIT: I think this is the study which I had read. He also tries to explain who the Bjarmians were. I recommend reading it! (For those who are not Finns, unfortunately it's written in Finnish.)

The paper indicates that the area didn't practice agriculture, so that would mean that it was only used either seasonally by Finns or Tavastians as hunting-grounds or it was inhabited by Saami people. Southern Ostrobothnia was settled by Finns at this time but Northern and Central Ostrobothnia weren't, at least by agrarian Finnic populations permanently. That is why I think Kvens should not exist at all as a discrete culture, it was more about different groups utilizing this area by foraging, hunting and fishing instead of settling it permanently.

 

[Bergenboy]

Shouldn’t Bergenhus be more prominent population wise compared to the Oslo region?
Bergen was by far the biggest and most important city in Norway in the 14th century until at least the 1820s. It also functioned as capital for Norway until 1299, a couple decades ago from the start date. According to Norwegian sources and curriculum.
Bergen was also the biggest city in the Nordics in the 17th century.

My only relevant source for my assumption that Bergenhus should have more population than the Oslo region is the population census of Norway from 1801 where we can see for the first time the diffrences in population on «fylke» or «amt» level. «Søndre Bergenhus» which is Hordaland had approximately a population of 79 000 people, while «Nordre Bergenhus had approximately 52 000 population combined giving something in the region of 131 000 people approximately. «Akershus with Christiania (Oslo)» had approximately 66 000 in 1801. Shown in game in 1337 Akershus with Oslo has something in the region of 56 000 in population.

If i am in the wrong that is fine i only want to keep this open to discussion and hoping for input as i immediately reacted to the low population in the west of Norway compared to the areas sorrounding Oslo.
Im new on the forums so i struggled to post the sources as URL links but the sources for the population census of 1801 was from SSB (Statistisk sentralbyrå) and for Bergen being the largest city in the Nordics i used Bergen commune offical site which you can read in English.
(Page 57-58 in the pdf file for the relevant sourcing material of the population census of 1801.)

 

[Boxtrot]

Nope, Ribe was a crown possession, or rather, until the Reformation, the authority was split between the crown and the church.

Ribe as well as Fanø and random bits of a few Wadden Sea islands were outside the duchies.

So with regards to Ribe, it's quite accurate.
View attachment 1165948

Ok, i spend way to long trying to read up on this. The Royal enclaves (De kongerigske Enclaver) incompased less area then that at the time, with the city of Ribe, List, and Mandø being the only once i could find to be fully Danish by 1337. I think "De gamle kongerigske Enklavers Oprindelse (1938)" by N. H. Jakosen gives a good rundown. There were other parts under the control of the Danish crown through Claus Limbek, one of the Schleswiggian nobelmen, who borderline ruled over the country at the time. (He should be in the game, possibly as an advisor, as he became a drost of Valdemar). He even owned Kalø!

Honestly, the more i think about the location, the less i know what to do with it. Ribe, by far the most important city in the area, was seperate from Schleswig, however beyond the city limits (and coast by Ribe, which was given to the city by Erik Menved), the entire location was controled by Schleswig. This is definately a larger geographical area, and might even inlude more people, as Tønder was Schleswiggian. I don't feel like digging through population estimates to figure that one out exactly. This is really one of those cases where feudalism is dumb and makes the task impossibly annoying to deal with. I will say, the borders represented in the Tinto talk does a bad job representing the borders between Schleswig and Denmark. The Kongeå river was the border. (The area around Kolding had some borderchanges around the time as well). Ribe was a small exclave of Denmark. They could make the borders like this, with the Ribe location part of Denmark.

It would do a good job is showcasing the wierd political situation in the area at the time, but the location is just too tiny. Note that this wierd situation lasted until 1864, with more and more enclaves being added. I see it as a doomed if you do, doomed if you don't, kinda situation. I honestly think that having the location being part of schleswig, with a special modifier giving about half of the benefits of the location to Denmark, would be best, but i can see argument for both sides. Also it should be cored by Denmark. On a side note. Ribe did not have much of a good time at gamestart. As the country had been sold, all of Nørrejylland had to be rebought, north to south, meaning that Ribe was rebought last. adding the black death to the mix didn't help either. Also, while Jutland was ruled by the "Jyske Lov" (Jutish law), Ribe had it's own seperate law, "Riber Ret". It was sorta a hybrid between Lübeck law and Jutish law, and was much stricter than Jutish Law.

 

[Fjellfyr]

Im new on the forums so i struggled to post the sources as URL links but the sources for the population census of 1801 was from SSB (Statisk sentralbyrå) and for Bergen being the largest city in the Nordics i used Bergen commune offical site which you can read in English.

From what I've read I think its the consensus that Bergen was the most populated city at this time, and would be for several centuries. 7000-10000 for city itself in the early 1300s, though including surrounding areas it would go up. Quick search had NRK reporting on a historical project that said 10k people in 1350.

Slik var Bergen i 1350

Nå kan vi se hvordan Bergen så ut i middelalderen.

www.nrk.no

If anything, I don't think the Bergen number here is very off, but the Oslo area instead is probably higher than it should be.

 

[Linbot#6018]

I'll admit I have a bit of trouble following the exact logic behind the provinces. Why is the Kola peninsula divided into three pieces, while White Karelia just south of it, undivided, is the same size that all three would be were they combined? Is there any particular reason why Kola should be divided in this way? None comes to my mind. The division of Lappland also feels slightly unnecessary, but to be fair that region would be very large, though of course not by coincidence it is very sparsely inhabited.

Likewise, in the post it is stated that Scania was split because it is too large, but visually it looks smaller than both Westrogothia and Tiohärad.

Generally my intuition is strongly biased against splitting or combining historically well-distinguished regions merely because they look a bit too large or small on the map, or you get game units that fail to reflect important real world regions, which feels rather irritatingly anti-immersive. Since military maneuver in this game (the most important reason for which units need to be similar-sized) is based on locations, higher order levels should be free to vary in size a bit to reflect conventional geographical units better. I think everyone understands this principle to some extent, as as far as I can see nobody seems to be peeved by how White Karelia is multiple times the size of Dalarna which is multiple times the size of the province containing Oslo.

 

[mrflagio]

lol most boring map just like scandinavians

 

[kimuyama]

Its how rugged it is, but peaks of 350 meters from 150meters a few km away is basically flatlands.

But what were trying to say is that between those points the terrain goes up and down and up and down and so on, it's not a gradual increase

 

[Engram]

Especially Uleåborg and Olofsborg feel out of place since neither fortress had been built 1337. Being built 1590 and 1475 respectively. If you really want to give Uleåborg a Swedish name I think Uleå would probably fit better, but (considering the distance to Sweden the chances of it having a Swedish majority would be less than for example Storkyro) I think Oulu would fit better at the start. On Olofsborg I didn’t find much about the time before the castle was built, so it would perhaps be easiest to name it after the water by which the castle was built. Kyrönsalmi.

While I would not mind Uleåborg being named just Uleå, I have to point out that the first castle, albeit a wooden one, was there already in the 1370s. That's well documented.

On another note. According to Tarkiainen cities like Åbo och Hanko/Hangö (Ekenäs on your map) had sizable Russian and especially German merchant populations. It’s hard to see from your map if they will be included or not.

The cities themselves had miniscule populations to begin with, so I imagine the German and Russian traders don't even register when looking at the entire location and province. Calling Åbo a city is already pushing it.

And on the topic of Hangö -- Ekenäs is definitely a better name considering the time period, but Raseborg would make even more sense, don't you think?

I’m guessing Nyland and Egentliga Finland are their own provinces since they have so much importance it would mess with late game to have them be included in Tavasteland and Satakunta respectively.

Nyland and Finland were considered their own provinces (landskap, maakunta) even during the time (1300s).

On the other hand I don’t understand the division between Inte Österbotten and Österbotten. Wouldn’t it make more sense to divide them into Österbotten and Norra Österbotten (or Österbotten and Pohjois-pohjanmaa?) somewhere around Karleby/Brahestad? It would fit better with the divisions Finland had in the late 1700s.

This one I agree with. Tinto seems to have a rule for having x locations in a province, which complicates things. I would personally extend Österbotten a little north and east, have Lapland grab a couple of the northernmost locations from Inner Österbotten, and then rename Inner Österbotten to Kajanaland. Of course, Kajanaland would not be thing until the 1500s. Hard to name places with 1337 names when they didn't exist.

I would also recommend changing the name Far Karelia to North Karelia. I know it doesn’t quite make sense, but from what I’ve been able to find it’s the more historical.

Fully agreed. Since Karelia takes up the entire isthmus, using Kexholm for the province doesn't make sense. Far Karelia doesn't make sense either, because Far Karelia refers to the region between lake Onega and the Northern Dvina rivers. North Karelia would be a suitable alternative here.

I also have some thoughts about the cultures. Now, I don’t have any references for this, but I’m pretty sure the Sámi people had a presence more south than Enare and Nunnanen. Also, I think Åland might have been basically Swedish since the viking age.

Correct on both points.

Sámi would hunt and gather as far south as the northern shores of Saimaa around this time. Population numbers and estimates are nonexistent tho, so I can't blame Tinto for being cautious here. Historically speaking, whatever populations did not migrate north when the Finnish tribes pushed into their lands were assimilated. Idk if that's easy or hard for the game to emulate.

Åland never had a Finnish population. Archaelogical findings point to exclusively Germanic/Nordic settlement since the 800s(?) iirc.

As a last point, the population around places like Suomussalmi, Paltamo and Sotkamo have never been very high. Now I’m not an expert on exact historical populations throughout history, but I would be surprised if those areas had populations comparable to Valkeasaari and especially higher than Mikkeli. If I’m not mistaken this was one of the last places in Europe for agriculture to become widely adopted.

This is a valid concern. Basically impossible to get it right tho.

 

[FinnishKhan]

Will finnish cultures finally get their own dynasty names instead of using Swedish ones?

Also, why is Savolax named that even when not controlled by sweden instead of Savo or Savonia? Far Karelia (Kauko-Karjala) is more associated with White Karelia, the area labeled Far Karelia here is North Karelia.

 

[Engram]

Yeah, I'm quite torn on Kven culture as well, I thought it's maybe representing Finnic peoples that lived around Torneå Valley? But I agree with you that maybe Kven is not the best option to represent the people living in Ostrobothnia region and as such Tinto team should perhaps opt for something else.

Kvens, or kainulaiset in Finnish, refers to the people living in the lowlands (kainumaa, i.e., around the Bay of Bothnia). Viking sagas referred to them as "kvens" whereas Savonians and Karelians would call the people "kainulaiset".

You could make an argument for using "bothnian" instead, but that "kven" is more epic.

 

[Engram]

The paper indicates that the area didn't practice agriculture, so that would mean that it was only used either seasonally by Finns or Tavastians as hunting-grounds or it was inhabited by Saami people. Southern Ostrobothnia was settled by Finns at this time but Northern and Central Ostrobothnia weren't, at least by agrarian Finnic populations permanently. That is why I think Kvens should not exist at all as a discrete culture, it was more about different groups utilizing this area by foraging, hunting and fishing instead of settling it permanently.

Permanent settlement and efficiently practiced field crop agriculture didn't take hold until later, but that does not mean that there weren't people, and neither does is it mean that there wasn't agriculture at all. There is evidence of alrigulcure dating way back.

A lack of permanent settlement in a location does not mean a lack of permanent population in an area. By that metric Savonians wouldn't "exist" either, becuase much of Savonian livelihood was tied to slash-and-burn agriculture and changing location constantly.

 

[Koopatin]

i would bet the answer is "we will talk about it in a later dev diary" but i have to ask


how do dominions work? is it more PU or more vassal? (thinking with eu4 brain), if i had to take a bet i would guess it is like a PU, doing its own stuff but the "main" country extracts taxes, manpower and trade from it.

 

[BurnBird]

Older is better

But then there's no consistency. There's 600 year old names mixed with modern names and everything in between. Not to mention there were next to no spelling standards back then, meaning they're all arbitrary and you need to pick one. Unless there's a mechanic for provinces changing names based on the date, I think it wiser to stick to modern spelling conventions.

 

[Johan]

EDIT: I think this is the study which I had read. He also tries to explain who the Bjarmians were. I recommend reading it! (For those who are not Finns, unfortunately it's written in Finnish.)

Sadly we have nobody at the Tinto Office who speaks or can even read Finnish.. One more thing to blame the vile traitor Cronstedt for.

 

[Bastiram]

Should there be a clay producing location?

Arguably very possible, the thing is I only know the more modern areas where it was produced such as Aalborg and Silkeborg, and not medieval times. to be honest I kind of defaulted to agricultural / fishing raw materials in my suggestions, simply because that is kind of what Denmark produced the most of, there are very few other raw materials no stones, little iron (if this had been a more iron age/ Viking Age, one could make some arguments for bog iron production, but I do believe at this point its moot, especially later on I the game and of course no copper. Lumber, Clay, and Sand(unsure what that represent/are used for) are things that existed in Denmark and were and are locally sourced/produced to this day. As such I understand why there is a desire for game purpose and variety to add these to certain provinces.

The more I read about it, the closest thing we get to a salt-producing localization in Denmark during this period (which imported the vast majority of its salt need from Lüneburg, Spain, and Portugal is Skagen, which has the island of Læsø as part of it. That only ever produced 36 tons of salt each year at its highest, and it was outlawed In the 1600s due to no more lumber on the island.
Another salt place could be Kolding, which established a production of salt from a saltwater source in the 1570's later the area was the first place to find rock salt in underground, but now we talking 1920's. and 1930's. So I am unsure of salt production in Randers now. I do believe, considering it was an area tied to the monarchy, actually did have farms that produced horses for the army.

 

[Johan]

i would bet the answer is "we will talk about it in a later dev diary" but i have to ask


how do dominions work? is it more PU or more vassal? (thinking with eu4 brain), if i had to take a bet i would guess it is like a PU, doing its own stuff but the "main" country extracts taxes, manpower and trade from it.

Its a vassal but the ruler is the same as the overlord.

 

[Bastiram]

Salt is certainly not a bad pick for a good for Randers, but it was most famous for its horse market.

I concur I think Randers should produce horses, and you could have salt in either Skagen or Kolding.

The point is I think there's a decent case for increasing the total amount of locations in Denmark, i.e. Norway and Sweden are filled with locations, that have 100-1000 pops, while Denmark has like 12 locations with a higher pop count than Stockholm, which is why I think it's reasonable to swap the two inland ones, for ones positioned on the coast, while still adding more locations on Fyn, Sjælland and Southern Jutland. Especially because barely anybody lived in the Central part of Jutland before the 1750-1900 period.

I see people have talked about cutting the central jutland localisations, for other places. I kinda like them, since it adds to the map that there are areas with less population (Though Silkeborg with 42.000 is a bit egregious, even though the northern part of the localization is most certainly not empty during this period).

Obviously, I think Denmark could do with a few more, but I would not cut the central provinces.

 

[Krey_Lollipop]

Actually, I found that name in a few old maps.

I expected something along those lines, though I haven't been able to find it myself. It certainly does check out as something in use between the earlier finnish/saami names and the modern swedish Gällivare. But the G very much makes it a swedish spelling in my eyes, so I don't know how well it'd vibe with potential alt-history content.

Then there's the whole question of whether Gällivare even deserves to be a location. Supposedly Schefferus mentions it (iirc it was Övre Norrlands Historia volume 3 which made that claim), but I couldn't personally find anything pre 1700 so that clearly puts us at the tail end of the game. I can't say there are any good alternatives as far as towns go though, I found a map on Riksarkivet (Charta öfwer Wästerbottns Höfdingedöme och dertil hörande Lappmarker) that marks Ullatti as bigger in the early 1700s, but in terms of significance I don't reckon it beats Gällivare by much. Otherwise Schefferus does cover the administrative divisions of swedish Lappland in the late 1600s, but without a map I struggle to say which fits the area best.

And while I was at it with research, I gave the map a second glance and noticed a few other locations near Gällivare with caveats and/or alternatives:

Korpilombolo IRL is south of Pajala. Alternatively, Junosuando is mentioned as an ore vein by Schefferus, and Masugnsbyn also sits in that general area. Naming a location after a building not built yet feels super wrong though.

Pajala is fine, but historically there's much more buzz surrounding Kengis.

Porjus as a settlement I don't see any mention of prior to the construction of the hydroelectric dam, so it's basically the same story for me as Gällivare. Just not a lot of towns to go by in that area, but you've got Muddus in that general area so I guess there's that? Otherwise Harsprånget gets mentioned as a regional landmark quite far back.

Hietaniemi had a historical church which sadly burned down last year, but otherwise Övertorneå is what I would recognize that area as.

Sorry for not giving sources to any of this, most of it is just prior knowledge. Also, to be clear, all of these are the modern names as they'd appear on maps today.

 

[Killerrabbit]

I did some map work on the south of Norway to make it more interesting. The names are quite old, but the language should still be norse in 1337. It's easy to choose a more modern naming convention if desired. I'm probably not gonna finish this entirely so I'm posting it since it covers most impassable areas that would make gameplay more interesting.

 

[Slime99]

Permanent settlement and efficiently practiced field crop agriculture didn't take hold until later, but that does not mean that there weren't people, and neither does is it mean that there wasn't agriculture at all. There is evidence of alrigulcure dating way back.

A lack of permanent settlement in a location does not mean a lack of permanent population in an area. By that metric Savonians wouldn't "exist" either, becuase much of Savonian livelihood was tied to slash-and-burn agriculture and changing location constantly.

View attachment 1166077View attachment 1166080

Rather there seems to be a lack of a permanent sedentary agrarian population, either using slash-and-burn or the more permanent Western styles of farming. The people who lived there were then likely seasonal hunters and traders from the south and Saami people.