Tinto Maps #12 - 26th of July 2024 - Germany

[Palando]

So to expand on my previous suggestion to rename Fürth to Cadolzburg, I also looked into the placement of locations in the region since it felt like something was off.
Here are the locations with their actual cities drawn on top (+Cadolzburg since I suggested it):
View attachment 1168408
As you can see, the Nürnberg location doesn't actually own the city of Nürnberg. As much as I enjoy Nürnberg being part of Fürth, it's not really historically accurate.
The Erlangen location also extends far to the east of the city, while the Forchheim location, which is slightly east of Erlangen, lies mostly to the west of the Erlangen location.
I'm assuming that the Erlangen location was drawn that way because it pretty much the furthest west city of New Bohemia, but that project didn't really last that long and it became part of the Hohenzollern territory, without all this land to the east attached.

These are the Hohenzollern lands in the mid 16th century:

This was New Bohemia:

My suggestion for the locations here looks like this:
View attachment 1168413
-Rename Fürth to Cadolzburg
-Split Sulzbach off of Eschenbach, because Eschenbach has a really weird shape and Nürnberg did not extend that far to the east.

The situation for Fürth you are describing wasn't there in 1337. Bamberg was the sole owner until the Burgraves of Nürnberg received the bailiwick around 1200 which Count Konrad II returned in 1314. This later sparked a fight between Bamberg and the Burgraves about who owned that territory. Nürnberg only joined the fray later in the 15th century. Thus, the situation was clearer in 1337 than it was in later years. Besides, there is a difference between owning houses and having the worldly jurisdiction over a territory.

On the matter of redrawing the provinces, I can say that you'd change the border between Bamberg and Brandenburg-Ansbach / Bayreuth-Kulmbach which lasted until the Napoleonic era. Their Erlangen seems to be rather based on what the Hohenzollern owned and territories that were owned by the Free City of Nürnberg later on, which is necessary because those territories owned by the Hohenzollern were extremely disjoint.

I would also like to mention that Nürnberg actually is in its own province. The devs have made it clear that due to their projection there is a tilt, so you can't just base it on google maps, see here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-italy-feedback.1695538/page-15#post-29778530

1400:

1648:

 

[Palando]

Oh, I forgot about Kulmbach and the Plassenburg changing hands in 1340. Until then the Counts of Orlamünde actually owned them befor they sold to the Hohenzollern.
Thus, Kulmbach should be owned by Weimar-Orlamünde in 1337.

 

[kuroku]

All I can say to that is that I haven't seen Wetzlar mentioned in the course of my research on ironworking or iron mining in the time period. It was obviously done as it's easy to find sources on it, but it didn't appear to have been that important compared to the Siegerland which apparently has ores that are easier to mine.
I have nothing against placing iron on Wetzlar, though, as it's certainly a region that is relatively rich in iron and has good potential.

Yeah, I honestly have no clue what would be best to choose as long as it isn't wine for Wetzlar in particular.
For technically available resources, iron would make most sense. In a wider historical context, grain would be best as the town was completely irrelevant from 1400 to 1689.

 

[Mef]

The situation for Fürth you are describing wasn't there in 1337. Bamberg was the sole owner until the Burgraves of Nürnberg received the bailiwick around 1200 which Count Konrad II returned in 1314. This later sparked a fight between Bamberg and the Burgraves about who owned that territory. Nürnberg only joined the fray later in the 15th century. Thus, the situation was clearer in 1337 than it was in later years. Besides, there is a difference between owning houses and having the worldly jurisdiction over a territory.

Sure, the situation may have been clearer in 1337 than in the 15th and 16th century when citizens of Fürth refused to pay tax to Bamberg because they did not accept their jurisdiction, but that doesn't change the fact that historically, Fürth did not represent any owned territory for local sovereigns, it was just a small town that various rulers argued over.
Cadolzburg is a much better fit for this location, because it was actually the capital of a fairly contiguous area owned by the Hohenzollern.

On the matter of redrawing the provinces, I can say that you'd change the border between Bamberg and Brandenburg-Ansbach / Bayreuth-Kulmbach which lasted until the Napoleonic era. Their Erlangen seems to be rather based on what the Hohenzollern owned and territories that were owned by the Free City of Nürnberg later on, which is necessary because those territories owned by the Hohenzollern were extremely disjoint.

If Erlangen is supposed to be based on Hohenzollern territory (which I agree with), then it should look the way I drew it, rather than be based on the New Bohemia borders.
Exactly like Erlangen in the second image here:

1400:
View attachment 1168477

1648:
View attachment 1168476

I would also like to mention that Nürnberg actually is in its own province. The devs have made it clear that due to their projection there is a tilt, so you can't just base it on google maps, see here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-italy-feedback.1695538/page-15#post-29778530

I don't know why you would think I'm using Google Earth or Google Maps. I'm using the same projection that the game uses in gis to make my maps. The positions for cities that I drew are accurate. Nürnberg is not in the Nürnberg location.

 

[TheDungen]

What about Swamp Saxony and Second Saxony? That way everyone's equally unhappy!

Don't know how things back then but these day I feel sand dune saxony is more appropiate than swamp saxony.

 

[aki-chan desu]

I tried my best but I'm not an artist and trying to figure out where in-game borders are in relation to the real world hurts my brain.
White: Main, Blue: Tauber, Green: Kocher, Magenta: Neckar

1: Tauberbischofsheim, way too long but no idea how to divide it
2: Mergentheim, probably too small but that's reality
3: possible addition of Neckarsulm so Mergentheim isn't all alone
4: all of Hohenlohe, could be divided in two or even three (Öhringen, Künzelsau, Weikersheim)

The shrinking of Schwäbisch Hall opens up more space in the south, maybe I'll work on that area too but need to research first. Also the rest of Franconia obviously needs alot of work, but my head hurts so I'll stop for now.

 

[ArcticKnight]

I was wondering, perhaps adding Trieste to Gorizia/Goriško province would kinda make sense, perhaps swap it with the location that is cut off and make that one part of Istria?

 

[Palando]

Sure, the situation may have been clearer in 1337 than in the 15th and 16th century when citizens of Fürth refused to pay tax to Bamberg because they did not accept their jurisdiction, but that doesn't change the fact that historically, Fürth did not represent any owned territory for local sovereigns, it was just a small town that various rulers argued over.
Cadolzburg is a much better fit for this location, because it was actually the capital of a fairly contiguous area owned by the Hohenzollern.

If Erlangen is supposed to be based on Hohenzollern territory (which I agree with), then it should look the way I drew it, rather than be based on the New Bohemia borders.
Exactly like Erlangen in the second image here:


I don't know why you would think I'm using Google Earth or Google Maps. I'm using the same projection that the game uses in gis to make my maps. The positions for cities that I drew are accurate. Nürnberg is not in the Nürnberg location.

Cadolzburg was basically only the castle with a couple of villagers around it. Granted it was an administrative centre for the Hohenzollern but so were many castles throughout the Middle Ages, but Fürth was actually an administrative centre of Bamberg (Dompropsteiamt Fürth), too. So from a population point of view Fürth was bigger than Cadolzburg.

I also don't understand your aversion to include this conflict between all three into the game. Let Nürnberg, Bamberg and the Burgraves fight for it. It makes for far more interesting history.

I coloured your map because I have no intention to argue about obvious shapes:

How does this

remotely look like this

Or this

I'm rather sure they included Baiersdorf, Eschenau, Thuisbrunn, Plech and many more in their Erlangen province to connect it to the Pegnitz province.

The surrounding area of Nürnberg would also look like two circles around each other which is not pleasing to look at.

 

[Fzfghfzg]

Sorry, that's on me. In the first Tinto map talk I asked for consistency in the naming of locations. Using either modern names or old names. Coblenz Vs. Koblenz, Kleve vs. Cleve. At that point I also suggested Monichgladbach which I took from Mönchengladbach's webpage.

Oh, I tought that´s either a wierd spelling error or what Mönchengladbach is called in english.
I only pointed it out, because I found it wierd that "Cologne" has the german spelling of "Köln" while Mönchengladbach didn´t.
It didn´t come to my mind that it could have been an historic name.

 

[Mef]

Cadolzburg was basically only the castle with a couple of villagers around it. Granted it was an administrative centre for the Hohenzollern but so were many castles throughout the Middle Ages, but Fürth was actually an administrative centre of Bamberg (Dompropsteiamt Fürth), too. So from a population point of view Fürth was bigger than Cadolzburg.

There is a difference between having a representative of the bishopric in the city, and actually projecting influence over a significant amount of land. Fürth didn't, Cadolzburg did. Cadolzburg can represent the area controlled by the Hohenzollern, Fürth can't represent anything, because it was never more just a town that was influenced by the rulers around it.
It makes no sense to draw a large Fürth location, when you can just have the Cadolzburg location instead which actually works historically.
Also, Fürth only had ~1000 inhabitants at the start of the game (it didn't reach 10k until ca. 1800), so population isn't really an argument.

I also don't understand your aversion to include this conflict between all three into the game. Let Nürnberg, Bamberg and the Burgraves fight for it. It makes for far more interesting history.

You can't include a million single cities in the game. Fürth was just that, a tiny city with no importance.

I coloured your map because I have no intention to argue about obvious shapes:

How does this
View attachment 1168491

remotely look like this

View attachment 1168488

Or this
View attachment 1168493

I don't know why you're asking, because to me it looks similar enough. Obviously the borders here weren't really contiguous and changed over time, so you can't draw them exactly like they're drawn on detailed maps of specific time periods.

I'm rather sure they included Baiersdorf, Eschenau, Thuisbrunn, Plech and many more in their Erlangen province to connect it to the Pegnitz province.

That connection isn't remotely there in either of the maps you posted and this area was mostly controlled by Bamberg, while Erlangen was not.

 

[Palando]

There is a difference between having a representative of the bishopric in the city, and actually projecting influence over a significant amount of land. Fürth didn't, Cadolzburg did. Cadolzburg can represent the area controlled by the Hohenzollern, Fürth can't represent anything, because it was never more just a town that was influenced by the rulers around it.
It makes no sense to draw a large Fürth location, when you can just have the Cadolzburg location instead which actually works historically.
Also, Fürth only had ~1000 inhabitants at the start of the game (it didn't reach 10k until ca. 1800), so population isn't really an argument.

You can't include a million single cities in the game. Fürth was just that, a tiny city with no importance.

I don't know why you're asking, because to me it looks similar enough. Obviously the borders here weren't really contiguous and changed over time, so you can't draw them exactly like they're drawn on detailed maps of specific time periods.

That connection isn't remotely there in either of the maps you posted and this area was mostly controlled by Bamberg, while Erlangen was not.

Sorry to spoil that for you but Bamberg owned also territory around Fürth and not just the city itself

Their current Erlangen province includes territories owned by Nürnberg, too. I also see there no similarity to the Bohemian territory, maybe if you cut the province into two halves you might get something similar. But that would be absurdly small, and is not what they did there.

And maybe you will realise when you look at above map that it's not possible to even remotely represent 'the area controlled by the Hohenzollern with Cadolzburg'. Literally every settlement was owned by another overlord. Your statement that Fürth can't represent anything is just wrong.
Fürth represents the Bamberger territory, whereas Cadolzburg the Hohenzollern territory, simple as that.

 

[ibvfteh]

They already have the Partition Succession...

Will partitioned nations have a cb on each other to unite back the realm?

 

[AHMapNerd]

I would call the Location of Schlanders in Tirol either Vinschgau as thats the name of the Valley or Glurns. Glurns while having fewer inhabitants was a city in the middle ages and still is, while Schlanders is bigger but never was a city. Also maybe make Meran bigger and Bozen smaller because back then Meran was actually quite an important city, at one point being the Capital of Tirol.

 

[Mef]

Their current Erlangen province includes territories owned by Nürnberg, too. I also see there no similarity to the Bohemian territory, maybe if you cut the province into two halves you might get something similar. But that would be absurdly small, and is not what they did there.

Erlangen was the westernmost city in New Bohemia, and the Erlangen location currently on the map is basically the western part of New Bohemia.
One could argue that Erlangen should not be the name of a location either, because the actual influence it had both as part of New Bohemia and the Hohenzollern territory was relatively small. But I think it makes sense to have Erlangen as the Hohenzollern parts north of Nürnberg-Fürth, while Forchheim can represent the Bamberg parts.

Fürth represents the Bamberger territory, whereas Cadolzburg the Hohenzollern territory, simple as that.

And look at how much blue there is around Cadolzburg, compared to how much pink there is around Fürth. Fürth did not project any significant power or have any importance. Cadolzburg was literally its "country's" capital at the start of the game and can represent way more territory than Fürth can.

I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. You post maps that literally just prove my point and then condescendingly argue the opposite. Anyone looking at these maps can see that Fürth can't represent any sizeable territory. It should not be in the game and I say that as someone who lives there!

 

[Rudolf Nechvile II]

I have some feedback on Upper Austria and a bit on Lower Austria too.

Why is Mühlviadl written in dialect (?) and not it's standard spelling of Mühlviertel? Is this just an older spelling before it standardised?

Also, if you're including Mühlviertel, why not include the other three Viertel (quarters)? Although Innviertel would only be added later in the games timeframe, Upper Austria is already divided into four provinces in the game, so I'd personally like to see the four quarters being used as divisons.

The current placement of Linz is also just off. In my opinion it should not be bordering Bohemia and should definitely not be in Mühlviertel. It even looks like it's north of the Danube, when only Urfahr (annexed into Linz in 1919) is north of the Danube.

My proposal would be to remove the location of Lambach entirely (Lambach is Southwest of Wels anyway), and put the location of Linz there. The border of Wels can be shifted slightly south as well, and the border of Grieskirchen could shift east. The current location of Linz could then be renamed to either Urfahr or Bad Leonfelden.

Although it's the modern district divisions of Upper Austria, I think this map is a good example of what I'm thinking:

The locations of the game already correspond almost perfectly to the modern districts. The only difference would be that in the game I would merge Eferding into Grieskirchen, if it is too small to include.
It also means that if you divide it into the four historic quarters, it would follow their borders correctly.


Lower Austria could also be better divided into its four quarters:

Unter der Wienerwald should be renamed to Ober der Wienerwald and Amstetten should definitely be merged into (it only has two locations in it anyway).

Gänserndorf should move from Vienna into Unter der Manhartsberg. Vienna province should also in my opinion be renamed into Unter der Wienerwald and Pitten should be merged into it.

 

[Focus my son]

Love the inclusion of horses as a resource in the Assen location. Of course this is because of my birth village Zuidlaren (and earlier Laren) that has held a horsemarket for over 800 years.

 

[Wenceslaus II.]

Vizovice should be replaced with Vsetín, as Vsetín was more important, having a keep, which was later converted into a chateuax, and it became an administrative center in the region later in the game's period.

 

[Palando]

Erlangen was the westernmost city in New Bohemia, and the Erlangen location currently on the map is basically the western part of New Bohemia.
One could argue that Erlangen should not be the name of a location either, because the actual influence it had both as part of New Bohemia and the Hohenzollern territory was relatively small. But I think it makes sense to have Erlangen as the Hohenzollern parts north of Nürnberg-Fürth, while Forchheim can represent the Bamberg parts.

That's only the case when you assume that your projection is the correct one and even then the shape does not add up. I doubt the responsible content designer took the New Bohemia as base. It's more likely that the base was one of the maps showing the Hohenzollern and Bamberger posessions in the area.

And look at how much blue there is around Cadolzburg, compared to how much pink there is around Fürth. Fürth did not project any significant power or have any importance. Cadolzburg was literally its "country's" capital at the start of the game and can represent way more territory than Fürth can.

I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. You post maps that literally just prove my point and then condescendingly argue the opposite. Anyone looking at these maps can see that Fürth can't represent any sizeable territory. It should not be in the game and I say that as someone who lives there!

I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. You condescendingly argue that only Ansbach has the right to be represented and that no one else even has the remotest claim to it. Your argument about territorial extent would lead to the removal of most Free City's all over the HRE, as they mostly only 'projected', how you call it, power over a minuscle area. So will you also argue to remove Ulm, Donauwörth, Weißenburg, Kaufbeuren, Memmingen, Augsburg, Ravensburg and so many more because they didn't fill up the map?

I find it fascinating that you really want to remove Fürth when there are two possibilities and the devs decided on including it. I don't think they need to change anything here and should rather focus on other places. At least now everyone can fight for Fürth and get claims on it to sour the relations in that area like it historically did.

 

[Telarias]

Hi, I have a small suggestion for Pommern area: please move the location of Wolgast from Zirzipanen province to Stettin province.

While the city of Wolgast makes sense in Zirzipanen, it lies at the very west edge of the Wolgast location. The islands of Usedom and Wollin, which make up 90% map area of this location have been historically closely connected with Stettin and its neighbourhood. In order to get from Stettin to the Baltic Sea, you have to pass through their straits/rivers/canals. As a bonus, the province shapes are going to be much nicer, with Zirzipanen losing its weird appendix.

 

[Pyoro]

View attachment 1168484

I tried my best but I'm not an artist and trying to figure out where in-game borders are in relation to the real world hurts my brain.
White: Main, Blue: Tauber, Green: Kocher, Magenta: Neckar

Thinking about rivers - Stuttgart to Aalen is the Rems river valley. Wouldn't Gmünd be a more suitable city ahead of Welzheim? It's a nice geographic line from Stuttgart to Gmünd to Aalen anyway (and also a north-south route between Schwäbisch Hall and Göppingen basically through Gmünd).

I'm sure there's reasons Welzheim was picked and I'm obv no historian; so what do I know. But I thought Gmünd was larger, richer, politically generally more independent and as far as that area goes it seems to cover the east-west trajectory better.