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.
Not really. Oceans can have huge waves and strong storms which lakes can never have. Also, logistically speaking on a lake you are never as far away from land as on ocean. I can see coastal ships (like galleys in eu4) being able to access lakes though.
I didn’t say it was?
Tiny as in 1-3 locations in size. Which Saimaa pretty much is. The comparison to the Caspian is strange as the Caspian is not a lake, but an inland sea. The Caspain has a surface area of 371,000 km2 and average depth of 211 m compared to Saimaa’s 4,279 km2 and 17 m. It makes perfect sense to make the Caspian navigable. Can’t say the same for Lake Saimaa. Lake Ladoga, the largest lake in Europe, is a bit more reasonable, but as the devs have said no to navigable rivers, the option of linking the lake to the Gulf of Finland via the Neva is not available. Thus it too would only be about 4-6 more locations in size, and not really worth it to be navigable in my opinion. As an example of lakes that could be navigable, the Great Lakes in the Americas are probably the best example. Surface area is 244,106 km2 and average depth is 18–146 m which is pretty close to the Caspian Sea.
I’m complaining? Not really. At this point your post devolves into a weird strawman argument so I won’t bother writing anything else about this section.
To characterize a reductio ad absurdum as a strawman argument is an act of intellectual cannibalism.
If you think the Caspian Sea isn't a lake; if you'd rather play word games than engage with counterarguments; if you're going to pretend that you can't tell the difference between "these are some unfortunate and unforeseen consequences of the principle that you invoked" and "these are some things I've decided out of the blue that you believe"; and if you need to invent moral victories for yourself to bail out on conversations that aren't going your way; then I look forward to no longer reading any replies from you.
Not really. Oceans can have huge waves and strong storms which lakes can never have. Also, logistically speaking on a lake you are never as far away from land as on ocean. I can see coastal ships (like galleys in eu4) being able to access lakes though.
Some lakes can have quite large waves and storms, but Samaiaa is indeed not one of those in any reasonable sense. Lake Ladoga or the Great Lakes likely are different. So this is not a good argument. Saimaa also is not that deep in many places (as can be seen from the numerous islands), which makes navigation more difficult when using larger ships.
To characterize a reductio ad absurdum as a strawman argument is an act of intellectual cannibalism.
If you think the Caspian Sea isn't a lake; if you'd rather play word games than engage with counterarguments; if you're going to pretend that you can't tell the difference between "these are some unfortunate and unforeseen consequences of the principle that you invoked" and "these are some things I've decided out of the blue that you believe"; and if you need to invent moral victories for yourself to bail out on conversations that aren't going your way; then I look forward to no longer reading any replies from you.
The Caspian Sea isn't just named that, it is considered a sea by multiple languages / definitions. Hower, that also was the case for the Aral Sea at some point.. Yet, the size difference is extreme. Samaiaa is hardly bordering more than two land locations and quite narrow in many places.
That some lakes are navigable doesn't mean that all of them make sense to be included.
To give a rough answer to your question about where to put the border, maybe take a lake that definitely covers more than one typical sea zone and where transport by ship definitely would be better than over land. Being permanent is also helpful (not like Lake Chad).
The Great Lakes are a viable example, though in game, the Lakes Erie and Ontario potentially are of questionable use (unless Erie is connected to the larger group). In Europe, the Lakes Ladoga and Onega are similar, potentially large enough for 3-4 sea locations, but not really impactful. Lake Baikal could be navigable, but again have negligible impact. Similarly, Lake Malawi or Lake Tanganjika. The big Swedish lakes are similar to Saimaa, and mostly interesting for providing transport/control..
Would you build a navy on the smaller lakes? Any military action in the area will happen on land anyway, as the lake does not block any route. The AI will potentially consider building a useless navy there, which is something we would want to avoid.
Would you build a navy on the smaller lakes? Any military action in the area will happen on land anyway, as the lake does not block any route. The AI will potentially consider building a useless navy there, which is something we would want to avoid.
It's considered a sea as a matter of convention, because it was called one historically, because many Greco-Romans believed that it was connected to the world ocean through a northern corridor splitting Eurasia in 2.
All seas are arbitrary to at least some extent. (Why is the Azov Sea not the Azov Bay or Gulf? Why is the Bay of Bengal not the Sea of Bengal? How can the Sargasso Sea be called a sea when its boundaries are oceanic currents rather than landforms? Why does the Gulf of California suddenly turn into a sea if I decide to call it the Sea of Cortez? What even is the English Channel?) The fact that the Caspian is considered one at all is entirely the result of that tradition, not any inherent quality. The Caspian Sea is a lake, just like the Aral Sea, the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, and the Salton Sea, and just like how the Qinghai Lake is called a sea in the Chinese languages.
To give a rough answer to your question about where to put the border, maybe take a lake that definitely covers more than one typical sea zone and where transport by ship definitely would be better than over land.
And by the way, naval transportation was often better than land transportation before the coming of the railroad. When the Romans controlled all the shores of the Mediterranean, and you could safely travel by land from any coastal town to another on the world's best road system, did they close all the ports?
I'm not arguing about whatever "the smaller ones" are meant to be, since by your criteria this isn't one of them. And for what it's worth, I said at the very beginning that the Russians and the Swedes had ships on this lake while it formed part of their border. I think what the relevant actors did do trumps what either of us would do.
The Öresund does connect two seas and has meaningful sea traffic trough it. Islands are treated differently from lakes, and so straits work differently that rivers.
Okay, it does touch more than two, but most of them are adjacent to each other, so the coast does not really matter in this game.
It might be harder to siege a fortress on the lake, though, which is something that would also apply on rivers.
You mean the gulfs of Bothnia and Finland? What about them? When I wrote that the lake is narrow, I did not refer to narrows in the naval sense, just that it is more like a interconnection of flooded valleys with narrow channels on the one hand and a wider part with many islands (neither of which are pictured). Most points are quite close to the coasts.
Nah. It is at most one sea zone, it is hardly bigger then the land locations around it. Transportwise, it might matter somewhat, though the Finnish lakes probably could just be an intricate river system instead.
And by the way, naval transportation was often better than land transportation before the coming of the railroad. When the Romans controlled all the shores of the Mediterranean, and you could safely travel by land from any coastal town to another on the world's best road system, did they close all the ports?
Yes, naval transportation generally was and is the best option for mid-ranges and goods. But naval transport needs additional loading/unloading steps, which make it much less competitive on short ranges, if there is a land option. Why would you load stuff on a boat for a stretch of 20 km, if there is a land route?
And for what it's worth, I said at the very beginning that the Russians and the Swedes had ships on this lake while it formed part of their border. I think what the relevant actors did do trumps what either of us would do.
IRL, there also were riverine fleets and the real world is not separated in locations of that size. In game terms, a fleet on these lakes is rather pointless and not worth the effort. Fleets and armies do not interact that much, either.
All the locations that Gibraltar borders are adjacent to each other. And in this case, it's actually just 2 of them, or 3 if you count the sea location. Therefore, Gibraltar needs to be scrapped as a location. Anything that borders Gibraltar can be reached from anywhere else that borders it, so it does not really matter in this game. Right?
Like with narrowness, this is a meaningless criterion. It's like you're trying to come up with attributes for the lake and then arbitrarily drawing a red line around that attribute.
And again you've got it wrong, because the game map has got it wrong, by "filling in" the narrower parts of Lake Saimaa and making it look like it's a collection of unconnected, smaller lakes rather than the immense but irregularly shaped body of water that it actually is. It should be separating Riistina from Jäskis, for one thing. (Doesn't block anything, right?)
You mean the gulfs of Bothnia and Finland? What about them? When I wrote that the lake is narrow, I did not refer to narrows in the naval sense, just that it is more like a interconnection of flooded valleys with narrow channels on the one hand and a wider part with many islands (neither of which are pictured). Most points are quite close to the coasts.
What about them? Narrowness is irrelevant. That's what about them. Narrowness is not a gameplay impediment, it is a card-carrying gameplay element.
Either you're trolling me or your thinking on this is so narrow-minded (heh!) that you can't rationally discuss the topic. I will henceforth proceed as if you have conceded the point.
Thank you for conceding the point. That is a surprisingly rare thing for people to do when they're wrong. Let's move on.
Then the AI is stupid. An AI stupid enough to build ships in a lake where it doesn't need them is stupid enough to build ships in other places it doesn't need them. And possibly forts. And potentially armies. There is no aspect of the game, not a single one, that would not present a stupid AI with an opportunity to do a stupid thing. Either ask the devs to scrap the game or assume that, if the stuff you want won't confuse the AI, then the stuff I want won't confuse it either.
Did you seriously think I'm evading a gotcha question? Did you think asking me whether I would do the thing I argue players should be allowed to do hit me in such a vulnerable spot that, by pointing out it's something that was historically done and the question is moot, I was actually sidestepping the sharp point of Occam's bodkin?
Or are you just hoping I wouldn't notice how we went from "flotilla" to "navy" to "armada?"
Fine, I'll play along.
Would I do this moronic thing that is a malevolent mischaracterization of my original position? No, I would not build the world's busiest drydock at Joensuu so that I could fill Lake Saimaa with a million billion trillion quadrillion cotillion silmarillion aircraft carriers.
Would I want the option of deploying one or more vessels to a body of water that I and a potential opponent both control coastal locations near, so that in case of war I can use them to land troops, bombard enemy locations, resupply fortresses and troops that cannot be resupplied by land, and prevent my enemy from doing the same things? Woah, that's a tough one. I mean, how much more time do I need to waste arguing against the people arguing against it before I earn the right to declaARE YOU SERIOUS?
(Edit: Interesting how you disagreed with my reply when it had only been up for one minute. You must be a fast reader.)
Narrow waterways matter in the presentation. One could argue that narrow straits should be blockadable from land, but you are not talking about a strait, but a lake.
All the locations that Gibraltar borders are adjacent to each other. And in this case, it's actually just 2 of them, or 3 if you count the sea location. Therefore, Gibraltar needs to be scrapped as a location. Anything that borders Gibraltar can be reached from anywhere else that borders it, so it does not really matter in this game. Right?
Come on, you are not that dense. Gibraltar is important for the strait it looks over, which connects two major bodies of water / separates two major landmasses. Samaiaa does nothing of that magnitude.
Like with narrowness, this is a meaningless criterion. It's like you're trying to come up with attributes for the lake and then arbitrarily drawing a red line around that attribute.
The game is based on locations like tiles on a game board. Connectivity is extremely important. Without different land locations to border it, the lake does not really matter.
And again you've got it wrong, because the game map has got it wrong, by "filling in" the narrower parts of Lake Saimaa and making it look like it's a collection of unconnected, smaller lakes rather than the immense but irregularly shaped body of water that it actually is. It should be separating Riistina from Jäskis, for one thing. (Doesn't block anything, right?)
What about them? Narrowness is irrelevant. That's what about them. Narrowness is not a gameplay impediment, it is a card-carrying gameplay element.
Either you're trolling me or your thinking on this is so narrow-minded (heh!) that you can't rationally discuss the topic. I will henceforth proceed as if you have conceded the point.
Thank you for conceding the point. That is a surprisingly rare thing for people to do when they're wrong. Let's move on.
I conceded nothing. You suddenly brought up "narrows in the topography map", which only appears as a terrain type. Completely irrelevant for the lake discussion.
Going back, you suggested narrows/straits in your own first post, but talked about the topography map for some reason, leading to confusion.
Narrowness is relevant, when it gets so extreme. We are at river levels here.
Typical seazones are much larger than that, on the order of land provinces. The Oslofjord is explicitly separated from the open sea as a location. This likely has gameplay reasons for things like blockades.
Talking about general water transport. The lake is larger than that, but most parts are just a few km wide. I do not dispute that the lake would facilitate trade along its entire length, like it were a river.
It means that IRL, we do not run into the limits of this simulation. E.g. if there were river fleets, the lake fleets would not be stuck in a backwater, but could move to other backwaters. Building these fleets is pointless in the context of the game, regardless, how sensible they were IRL.
Disingenious. Warships have their place, but the smaller and narrower the bodies of water are, the more you would want them to interact with land armies, e.g. by being shot from fortifications and cannons, rather than disjointly sitting next to the enemy army.
I'm working with the part the map includes, the rest is so filigree that it would be hard to display properly. Draw the coastline/locations you'd suggest to have something else to talk about.
Then the AI is stupid. An AI stupid enough to build ships in a lake where it doesn't need them is stupid enough to build ships in other places it doesn't need them. And possibly forts. And potentially armies. There is no aspect of the game, not a single one, that would not present a stupid AI with an opportunity to do a stupid thing. Either ask the devs to scrap the game or assume that, if the stuff you want won't confuse the AI, then the stuff I want won't confuse it either.
No need to give it too many opportunities to shoot itself in the foot. The AI would likely not really disband the fleet when it no longer needed (e.g. when no other power is bordering the lake), or fail to notice that its naval power cannot be used to project power anywhere. The Caspian Sea will likely lead to enough issues with this already.
Did you seriously think I'm evading a gotcha question? Did you think asking me whether I would do the thing I argue players should be allowed to do hit me in such a vulnerable spot that, by pointing out it's something that was historically done and the question is moot, I was actually sidestepping the sharp point of Occam's bodkin?
Or are you just hoping I wouldn't notice how we went from "flotilla" to "navy" to "armada?"
Would I want the option of deploying one or more vessels to a body of water that I and a potential opponent both control coastal locations near, so that in case of war I can use them to land troops, bombard enemy locations, resupply fortresses and troops that cannot be resupplied by land, and prevent my enemy from doing the same things? Woah, that's a tough one. I mean, how much more time do I need to waste arguing against the people arguing against it before I earn the right to declaARE YOU SERIOUS?
Of course I'm serious. A specialized navy on this lake really feels like a waste and beyond the level of detail of the map. Multiple mechanics of the game (as I understand them) do not support this too well to do it justice, even if the prospect might sound interesting in an RTS.
Arguing that it happened historically is not enough, if the basic building blocks of the game do not fit.
Anyway, this discussion has run its course for me.
Øyestad: Iron mining and working has a long history in southern Norway and this should be represented. I suggest changing the raw materials in Øyestad to iron to represent this.
Just providing source for this:
Arendalsfeltet which is the name for the ironrich area around Arendal (Øyestad-location), provided about 2/3 of all the iron produced in the Danish-Norwegian Kingdom. Beside the mines at Kongsberg and Røros its the most profitable mines in Norway during the era of the game.
Iron should defintely be the resource for the location.
Arendalsfeltet, geologisk provins mellom Fevik og Tvedestrandsfjorden, som særlig er kjennetegnet ved mange forekomster av kalksilikat-bergarter og jernmalm. Kalksilikat-bergartene antas å ha blitt til ved regionalmetamorfose av urene kalksteiner eller de kan være dannet som skarn på grensen...
I did some research on the cultures and have a few comments about them.
Sámi Pops in Norway
There should be some Sámi on the western side of the Scandes in Troms, Nordland and maybe a little in the northern parts of Nord-Trøndelag. According to Wikipedia:
How far south the Sámi extended in the past has been debated among historians and archeologists for many years. The Norwegian historian Yngvar Nielsen, commissioned by the Norwegian government in 1889 to determine this question in order to settle contemporary questions of Sámi land rights, concluded that the Sámi had lived no farther south than Lierne Municipality in Trøndelag county until around 1500, when they started moving south, reaching the area around Lake Femund in the 18th century.[39] This hypothesis is still accepted among many historians, but has been the subject of scholarly debate in the 21st century. In recent years, several archaeological finds indicate a Sámi presence in southern Norway in the Middle Ages, and in southern Sweden,[40] including finds in Lesja Municipality, in Vang Municipality, in Valdres and in Hol Municipality and Ål Municipality in Hallingdal.[41] Proponents of the Sámi interpretations of these finds assume a mixed population of Norse and Sámi people in the mountainous areas of southern Norway in the Middle Ages.[42]
Unfortunately I don't know where to find more detailed information. Maps of historical siidas also show Sámi settlement reaching down to Trøndelag.
Karelians in Ostrobothnia
There should be some Karelian settlement on the northern parts of the Ostrobothnian coast. Before Sweden expanded beyond the Treaty of Nöteborg border into Ostrobothnia and Kajanaland, the Karelians used these areas for hunting, fishing and foraging, and some had naturally settled on the coast. In the 13th and 14th centuries the Novgorodians referred to the Karelian settlement on the Bothnian coast as Semidesatskaja Korela (Finnish: Seitsemän kymmenen Karjala, roughly in English: Karelia of the Seven Tens) and collected tax from the local Karelians. The Swedes treated the Karelians as a separate group, an example of which is a 1365 letter by Albert of Mecklenburg, where he condemned Karelian traders from Ostrobothnia for travelling further south than they were allowed and trading with Tallinn and other cities. This was described in the letter as "a great detriment to the Swedish realm", showcasing how Karelian interests conflicted with Swedish ones due to their alignment with Novgorod. This, however, didn't mean that the relations between the local Finns/Kvens and Karelians were necessarily hostile. They lived in the same areas after all.
Over time Swedish control of the area strengthened, and in the 1370s the last area under Karelian/Novgorodian supervision was the mouth of the Ule river. A castle was even built there, but the sources I've seen seem to contradict about whether the castle was built by Sweden or Novgorod. Regardless, the Karelians tried to keep firm control of their hunting grounds inland, and it was only after the Karelians and Novgorodians lost control of the Ule river that the Finnish peasants of Ostrobothnia would get access to the inner wilderness in Kajanaland.
Coastal Karelian pops could create some interesting friction when colonizing Ostrobothnia, and would give Novgorod some foothold in the area like they historically had. Perhaps there could also be some Karelians in Kajanaland, representing the travelers and hunters who exploited the area and sometimes even temporarily lived there in small hunter cabins. The pops should be very small, smaller than the Sámi pops in the locations, as there was no permanent farming settlement in the area at the time. It could also be better to not have Karelians in Kajanaland, as again they didn't actually live there.
Map of the Karelian living area with elements from different times. The white circles without numbers show Karelian areas of settlement and exploitation in the 13th and 14th centuries. Relevant here are the rivers in Ostrobothnia. From Karjalan kansan historia (Heikki Kirkinen, 1995).
I wonder if there should be some (Southwest) Finnish pops outside Finland Proper because of the modern transition dialects between the Southwest Finnish and Tavastian dialects. I'm not sure if the transition existed in 1337.
Religion Blending?
It's perhaps a bit odd how stark the line between Catholic and Suomenusko areas are. Maybe it would be more appropriate to have some yet to be fully converted pagan pops among Christian ones, so that we don't need to force the fully pagan areas to be bigger than they historically were in order to have much paganism at all. Savonia for example, which on the current map is fully pagan, should have some Orthodox pops which are being converted into Catholicism, as when the area was owned by Novgorod they converted the local population to Orthodoxy (Also the southernmost locations of Savonia should be Swedish). If the remote areas had a combination of paganism and Christianity, we wouldn't have to make Savonia fully pagan.
The Finnic Language and Finnish Dialects
Regarding the new language and dialect system, I want to quote a post by @margustoo:
View attachment 1212659
Picture above shows how Finno-Samic languages of Finno-Ugric language family should be divided. Definetly there should not be 1 massive Finnic language. Instead it should be divided at least into 3: Sami, Northern Finnic and Southern Finnic. All 3 are significantly different from each other, they are also all more than 1000 years old branches and have had more time to differentiate from eachother than West Slavic and East Slavic. Especially different are Sami languages. I have no clue why Sami languages got put together with Finnish and Estonian. That decision doesn't make any sense what so ever and shows carelessness. While Southern and Northern Finnic differentiate from eachother less than Sami does from them, they are still different enough that they should be separate languages. Most differences between Southern and Northern Finnic are older than Northern Crusades (1200) and because of that those differences predate the game start.
Note that "dialects" in the picture are often more like languages or even language families. But for the gameplay purposes and because of historical reasons, there should be at least the dialects shown on the picture (except maybe Ludic). For example Estonian and Southern Estonian divide is as old (often thought to be even older) than the divide between Estonian and Finnish. Southern Estonian languages (Võro, Seto, Mulgi and Tarto) use their own version of Latin alphabet because of sounds that don't excist in Estonian. But because they aren't spoken on big enough territory, they should not be separate languages or even a language but just a dialect in a broader Southern Finnic language.
I plan to make a map of those 3 languages and dialects of those languages later..
Sámi and Southern Finnic should definitely be separate languages from Finnish/Northern Finnic, but I want focus on the dialect setup for Northern Finnic. His idea of having Western Finnish, Savonian and Karelian be separate dialects aligned well with my thoughts, and I think this setup would be perfect for the cosmetic flavor the dialect system was created for.
Historically, the Finns had two different surname traditions, western, predominantly used by the speakers of western dialects (Southwest Finns, Tavastians and Kvens) and eastern, mostly predominantly used by speakers of eastern dialects (Savonians and Karelians). In the western tradition, people didn't have proper family names. Instead, they were often referred to, in addition to their first name of course, by the name of their farm or homestead or by a patronym, similar to Swedes. On the other hand, in the eastern tradition, surnames were hereditary family names like everywhere in Finland today. This English Wikipedia page has a more detailed explanation of the two traditions.
Unfortunately separating the western and eastern surnames from each other is quite a problem if you're not a Finn.. A good rule of thumb is that surnames ending in -la or -lä are western style farm names and ones ending in -nen are eastern style family names. But of course not all of them follow that pattern.. To help a bit I decided to add a list of first names and surnames and the end of this post which I have compiled earlier.
Now for why Savonian and Karelian should be separate instead of being part of a common Eastern Finnish dialect. Simply put the (Eastern) Karelians have a lot of Russian and Orthodox based first names which wouldn't make sense for Karelians. Similarly Karelian language location names can be quite different from Finnish ones, while Savonians should just use the same location names as the rest of the Finns.
Some Finnish and Karelian names
A few things to note:
"Finnish" here includes not only the western Finns (Finns, Tavastians and Kvens) but also Savonians, while "Karelian" is separate. Surnames specific to just western Finns are specified as "Western Finnish".
Each first name has its genitive form written after it, which should be used in patronyms. Someone's son would be [Name in genetive]poika. For example Mikko son of Pekka would be "Mikko Pekanpoika". Daughters would be [Name in genetive]tytär. For example Anna daughter of Juha would be "Anna Juhantytär".
The lists here lack any names which fell out of favor during the timeframe of the game, mainly ancient pagan names.
EDIT: I edited the tables to be a little clearer. Names that are variants of each other are now listed in the same cell, but only the first one should be used as the translation of the equivalent English/Swedish names. For example kings named "John" or "Johan" are almost always translated as "Juhana" in Finnish and not "Juhani" or "Juho". So in-code the Finnish translation of name_johnshould be "Juhana" and not any of the other variants. Names that are in parentheses should only be used as translations, and should not appear as names of Finnish peasants.
Name
Genetive Form
Equivalent Names
Aabraham, Aapo
Aabrahamin, Aapon
Abraham
Aatami
Aatamin
Adam
Akseli
Akselin
Axel
Antti, Antero
Antin, Anteron
Andreas
Arvi
Arvin
Arvid
Eerik, Eerikki, Erkki
Eerikin, Eerikin, Erkin
Eric, Erik
Ernesti
Ernestin
Ernest, Ernst
Esko
Eskon
Eskil
(Filip), Vilppu
(Filipin), Vilpun
Philip
(Gabriel), Kaapo
(Gabrielin), Kaapon
Gabriel
Hannu
Hannun
Hans
(Henrik), Henrikki, Heikki
(Henrikin), Henrikin, Heikin
Henrik, Henry, Heinrich
Iisakki
Iisakin
Isaac
Iivari
Iivarin
Ivar
Jaakko
Jaakon
James, Jacob
Jahvetti
Jahvetin
Jafet
Jeppe
Jepen
Joosef, Jooseppi, Juuso
Joosefin, Joosepin, Juuson
Joseph
Juhana, Juhani, Juho, Jussi, Johannes
Juhanan, Juhanin, Juhon, Jussin, Johanneksen
John, Johan, Johannes
Kaarle, Kaarlo, Kalle
Kaarlen, Kaarlon, Kallen
Charles, Karl
(Knuut), Knuutti, Nuutti
(Knuutin), Knuutin, Nuutin
Knut
Kustaa, Kustavi
Kustaan, Kustavin
Gustaf
Lauri, Lasse, Lassi
Laurin, Lassen, Lassin
Laurentinus, Lars
Markus, Markku
Markuksen, Markun
Mark, Marcus
(Matias), Matti
(Matiaksen), Matin
Matt, Matthew, Mats, Matthias
Martti
Martin
Martin, Martinus
Maunu, Mauno
Maunun, Maunon
Magnus
(Mikael), Mikki, Mikko
(Mikaelin), Mikin, Mikon
Michael
Mooses
Mooseksen
Moses
Niilo, Niiles
Niilon, Niileksen
Nicholas, Nils
Olavi, Olli
Olavin, Ollin
Olaf, Olav
Paavali, Pauli, Paavo
Paavalin, Paulin, Paavon
Paul
Pentti
Pentin
Bengt
Pertti
Pertin
Perttu, Pärttyli
Pertun, Pärttylin
Bartholomew
Pietari, Pekka, Petteri
Pietarin, Pekan, Petterin
Peter
Reko
Rekon
Greg, Gregorius
(Kristofer), Risto
(Kristoferin), Riston
Christopher, Chris
Samuli, Sami, Samu
Samulin, Samin, Samun
Sam, Samuel
Severi
Severin
Severus
Simo
Simon
Simon
Sipi, Sippo
Sipin, Sipon
Sigfrid
Taavi, Taavetti
Taavin, Taavetin
David
Taneli
Tanelin
Daniel
Tapani, Tahvo
Tapanin, Tahvon
Stephan
Timo
Timon
Timothy
Tuomas, Tuomo
Tuomaan, Tuomon
Thomas
Tuure
Tuuren
Tyr
Tyni
Tynin
Tony, Anthony
Vilhelmi, Vilho
Vilhelmin, Vilhon
Vilhelm, William
Västi
Västin
Yrjö, Jyrki, Yrjänä
Yrjön, Jyrkin, Yrjänän
George, Georgios
Name
Genitive Form
Equivalent Names
Anna, Anni
Annan, Annin
Hannah
Aune
Aunen
Agnes
Eeva
Eevan
Eve, Eva
Helena, Elina, Leena
Helenan, Elinan, Leenan
Helen, Helena
Heta
Hetan
Hedwig
Inkeri
Inkerin
Ingrid, Inger
Kaarina
Kaarinan
Karin
Karoliina
Karoliinan
Caroline, Carola
Katariina, Katriina, Kaisa, Kirsti
Katariinan, Katriinan, Kaisan, Kirstin
Cathrine
Kerttu
Kertun
Gertrud
(Margareetta), Kreeta, Marketta, Riitta, Reetta
(Margareetan), Kreetan, Marketan, Riitan, Reetan
Margareth, Greta
Kristiina
Kristiinan
Christina
Lastikka
Lastikan
Scholastica
Liisa
Liisan
Lisa
Maria, Marjaana
Marian, Marjaanan
Mary, Maria
(Birgitta), Pirkko
(Birgitan), Pirkon
Bridget
Riitta, Priita
Riitan, Priitan
Rita, Brita
Saara
Saaran
Sarah
Valpuri, Vappu
Valpurin, Vapun
Valburg
Venla
Venlan
Vendela, Wendla
Name
Genitive Form
Equivalent Names
Juntti
Juntin
Juhana, John, Johan, Johannes
Kauppi
Kaupin
Jaakko, James, Jacob
Reittu, Reijo
Reitun, Reijon
Reko, Greg, Gregory
Name
Genitive Form
Equivalent Names
Arhippa
Arhipan
Arhippos
Elessei
Eleissin
?
Hilippa
Hilipan
Philip
Iivana
Iivanan
Ivan
Miihkali
Miihkalin
Michael
Ontrei
Ontrein
Andrej, Andrew
Simana
Simanan
?
Sisso
Sisson
?
Stepan, Teppana
Stepanin?, Teppanan
Stephan, Stephen
Lentu
Lentun (or Lennun?)
?
Name
Genitive Form
Equivalent Names
Iro
Iron
Irina, Eirine
Marina
Marinan
Marina
Matjoi
Matjoin
?
Maura
Mauran
?
Western Finnish surnames may occasionally also have various prefixes before them, chiefly "Iso-", "Vähä-", "Ylä-", "Yli-", "Ala-", "Ali-" and "Keski-". Other ones include "Rinta-", "Etu-", "Taka-", "Suur-". "Uusi-", "Vanha-", "Latva-", "Luoma-", "Mäki-", "Joki-", "Korpi-", "Koski-", "Kuja-", "Kylä-", "Metsä-", "Oja-", "Pelto-", "Ranta-" and "Raja-". (The hyphen should be included in surnames like these, e.g. Vähä-Heikkilä and not Vähäheikkilä)
Now that the can of worms that is languages and dialects has been opened, I think it would be worthwile to discuss Finnic languages.
At the moment there seems to be a single "Finnic" language that encompasses almost the entirety of Northern Scandinavia, Finland, Karelia and Estonia. I find this to be quite a broad catch-all term that doesn't necessarily portray the historical reality accurately...
By the 1300s, Finnic peoples had already been settled in the Northeastern Baltic region for well over a millenium, meaning that languages and local dialects have had plenty of time to form and diverge from one another. By this time also different cultural influences from the west (Scandinavia), east (Russia) and south (Germany) could perhaps start to be seen.
Here is also a tree chart that conveniently shows the rough timeframe when Uralic (and thus Finnic) languages started to diverge from one another:
What I would propose is that Finnic would atleast be split into Finnic and Sami. I don't know whether further splitting of Finnish, Karelian and Estonian would be realistic by this point, so they could perhaps be grouped under one language, though I would be interested to hear if someone has their own proposal.
Here is a *very* rough sketch I made of the language split between Finnic and Sami and the different Finnic dialects (if not languages):
(Bear in mind that this is supposed to show general outline of different regions and their dialects, so the "borders" are not necessarily very accurate.)
Now that the can of worms that is languages and dialects has been opened, I think it would be worthwile to discuss Finnic languages.
At the moment there seems to be a single "Finnic" language that encompasses almost the entirety of Northern Scandinavia, Finland, Karelia and Estonia. I find this to be quite a broad catch-all term that doesn't necessarily portray the historical reality accurately... View attachment 1215761
By the 1300s, Finnic peoples had already been settled in the Northeastern Baltic region for well over a millenium, meaning that languages and local dialects have had plenty of time to form and diverge from one another. By this time also different cultural influences from the west (Scandinavia), east (Russia) and south (Germany) could perhaps start to be seen.
Here is also a tree chart that conveniently shows the rough timeframe when Uralic (and thus Finnic) languages started to diverge from one another:View attachment 1215774 (YBP = "years before present")
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_languages (Yes I know, it's Wikipedia...)
What I would propose is that Finnic would atleast be split into Finnic and Sami. I don't know whether further splitting of Finnish, Karelian and Estonian would be realistic by this point, so they could perhaps be grouped under one language, though I would be interested to hear if someone has their own proposal.
Here is a *very* rough sketch I made of the language split between Finnic and Sami and the different Finnic dialects (if not languages):View attachment 1215788
(Bear in mind that this is supposed to show general outline of different regions and their dialects, so the "borders" are not necessarily very accurate.)
I don't think Finnish, Tavastian and Kven need to be seperate dialects. The purpose of the dialect system is to allow for different character and location names, and there's really not any meaningful differences regarding them between the dialects. The Southern Finnic languages should probably also be their own language, though Estonian was of course more similar to Finnish back in 1337 than it is today. Otherwise this looks good.
I don't think Finnish, Tavastian and Kven need to be seperate dialects. The purpose of the dialect system is to allow for different character and location names, and there's really not any meaningful differences regarding them between the dialects.
I suppose you're right. Of course if Tinto team are willing to put in the effort, this wouldn't be such a big change to make, even if it didn't matter gameplay wise, but I won't lose my sleep either way.
The Southern Finnic languages should probably also be their own language, though Estonian was of course more similar to Finnish back in 1337 than it is today. Otherwise this looks good.
Yeah, I was kind of torn on Estonian, as I don't really know how many similarities between the languages there still were 700 years ago. I suppose Karelian should be classified as a dialect in any case, as it is quite similar even today. The main point was anyways that at least Sami should be split off from Finnic, as it was probably already its own language by the game's timeframe...
I want to correct a small suggestion I made as a part of my original feedback post, which looks to have been implemented some time ago. I originally suggested making Kotka (which now seems to be named Kymi) part of Viborgs Län instead of Nyland due to be in line with historical county borders. Later I noticed that in earlier times, before 1634 when the slottslän system was abandoned, Viborg didn't actually have the location. Instead its western border was at the same place as the border against Russia after the Treaty of Åbo in 1743, at the Kymi river. Because AI would probably be more likely to take the entire province in a peace deal, it might actually be better to give Kotka/Kymi back to Nyland so it's more likely to form historical borders. It would also make sense for the country border to be drawn there because it follows a river. This would also help slightly with the Scandinavian provinces having too many locations.
Also the province should probably be called Viborgs Län and not Vyborgs Län according to the Swedish way of writing the name.
Couple additions to the equivalent names:
Elessei - Yelisey/Elisei (Rus.)
Simana - Semyon (Rus.), Simon (Eng.)
Maura - Mavra (Rus.)
Lentu -> Another version of this name can also be 'Melenti'
Also could add 'Huotari' to Savonian and Karelian exclusive surnames. Quite a prominent name in Eastern Finnish border regions that actually has its origins in Greek Theodoros!
I can add some older Tornedalian/Kven names to the contributions of @Ipponen and @Jarzki
Some surnames of notably older families:
Surname
Genitive
Misc.
Kyrö
Kyrön
Kylli
Kyllin
Ruomi
Ruomen
Tulkki
Tulkin
"Interpreter"
Äimä
Äimän
Rökäs
Röjän*
Huru
Hurun
First names:
Name
Genitive
Gender and equivalence
Pohja
Pohjan
M
Ilona
Ilonan
F, possibly Helen
Autto
Auton
M
Jatuni
Jatunin
M, jǫtunn
Pissi
Pissin
M, Birger
Ulu
Ulun
M, Olof
Kauko (Kaukon)/Kaukomieli (Kaukomielen) should also be mentioned. It is however only reconstructed based on the name of King "Faravid".
Edit: also idk how old the practice is but here in Meänmaa we traditionally call people ex. Kyllin Ulu instead of Ulu Kylli, which is why I've written genitives for the surnames aswell.
As someone who has grown up and lives in Idre, I argue that Idre should NOT be part of Dalarna. Idre was during the entire time frame of Project Cesar far more connected with Härjedalen and Röros, in all aspects like culture, language, trade and families. Even in the beginning of the 20th century, people living in Idre had their family connections in Norway and/or in Härjedalen or further north. No one had family connections with the rest of Dalarna, for obvious reasons.
It would make most sense to include Idre in Hedmark, but it could also be included in Jämtland or even better in Härjedalen if you split Jämtland.
One tiny nitpick about the eastern border of Finland, which was redrawn in the Russia feedback post: This tiny triangular territory should be part of Finland. This territory is known as the Jäniskoski-Niskakoski territory, which was only given to Russia after the Continuation War in 1947. Can we make PC the first ever Paradox game without this anachronism?
Similarly this area is too modern, and it should be modeled after the pre Winter War border, like me and some others have already suggested. This probably wasn't addressed yet because the devs obviously wouldn't have read Scandinavia feedback for the Russia rework.
I was just looking through Tinto Maps #8 feedback post and noticed the changes made to the Karelia region. While I really like the addition of the new locations, I don’t understand the insistence on having the wastelands between Finland and Karelia.
The location of Kuhmo, known as 'Kuhmoniemi' during the period, served as a link or window of sorts between east and west due to its position at the confluence/junction of waterways, one leading east all the way to the White Sea and the other flowing west through Kajaani to Oulu, reaching the Baltic Sea. Even if we ignore the waterways, it was still frequently crossed by Karelian merchants who were trecking by foot westwards to sell their wares. As it stands now, there is still an artificial barrier that shouldn’t be there...
