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

[Mef]

Why would you put most of Bavaria in the "very low" category? I can understand it for the Bavarian forest which is even to this day sparsely populated, but e.g. Munich was one of the bigger cities (~10k) in the 14th century. The location density in Appian's maps of Bavaria is also extremely high for the areas outside of the Bavarian forest.

The same also applies to the eastern part of Swabia with Augsburg (also 10k in around 1400) and its many free cities.

Then you have put Saxony on "high" when many of its cities were founded througout this time frame. Meißen used to be sparsely populated during the reign of the Hohenstaufen and it was a gradual process to increase it.

Well, first of all, I don't think there should be any massive differences in population density at this time period, as it's before extensive urbanization and with relatively low infrastructure and agricultural efficiency, people just couldn't concentrate in certain areas as much as later yet. There weren't really any regions in Germany that were depopulated, so maybe the very low category wasn't necessary.

But for the same reasons, cities can't really tell a lot about population density. Even just 20% of the population living in cities would have made a region fairly urbanized in 1337, so city sizes would only tell us about a small percentage of the population. Lüneburg, for example, was among the bigger German cities in 1300 with ~8000 people, but I think we can all agree that the larger region around Lüneburg was and still isn't densely populated at all.

I drew the categories mostly based on 19th century density and fertility of the various regions , as there really isn't any comprehensive data available for the time period.

 

[Failtier]

Well, first of all, I don't think there should be any massive differences in population density at this time period, as it's before extensive urbanization and with relatively low infrastructure and agricultural efficiency, people just couldn't concentrate in certain areas as much as later yet. There weren't really any regions in Germany that were depopulated, so maybe the very low category wasn't necessary.

But for the same reasons, cities can't really tell a lot about population density. Even just 20% of the population living in cities would have made a region fairly urbanized in 1337, so city sizes would only tell us about a small percentage of the population. Lüneburg, for example, was among the bigger German cities in 1300 with ~8000 people, but I think we can all agree that the larger region around Lüneburg was and still isn't densely populated at all.

Rather a general remark here: The start date of 1337 is a big challenge, as the sources (primary and secondary) are very thin compared to later times when the governance and counting of things became the reasoning of the state. For this reason, the population can only be extrapolated, e.g., from houses (or "Hufen") and the estimated size of households that were typical (unless there are more specific accounts on that).

Again I can only speak of my limited research on Brandenburg, but there were different settlement types: the German-style settlements that had fields big enough to allow crop rotation, and the Slavic ones (later called Kietze) that were depending on very limited agriculture or fishing. The soil in this region was partly pretty poor. Resources were not that plenty that it would be more than subsistence economy. There were vast marshes (Havelland, Rhinluch) typical for northern Germany, Poland and the Baltics. Only when the Peuplisierung was taking place, around the 17th and 18th century, the population in Brandenburg significantly increased due to the draining of marshes, attracting pops from abroad, etc.

Compare that to the soils along the Danube River which are relatively rich in nutrition. My guess is that farming hasn't been abandoned there due to poor soil quality. And this is important because agriculture has been the basis to sustain a larger population.

That is, in my opinion it is justified to assume that the regions east of the Elbe River were less densely populated due to various factors (soil quality, institution of crop rotation, geographical setting, population numbers from [secondary] sources).

 

[Mef]

Out of curiosity I took all cities in modern Germany's borders that had a population of 3000 or more in 1300, assigned them regions and added up the populations, this is the result:

103	Rhineland
59	Eastphalia (between Hannover, Kassel and Harz)
42	Swabia
39	Westphalia
38	Mecklenburg
37	Bavaria, Upper Palatinate
35	Main (Mainz to Wetzlar)
34	Franconia
33	Neckar
32	Palatinate
31	Thuringia
28	Anhalt
27	Lower Saxony
25	Brandenburg
22	Ruhr
20	Holstein
18	Saxony
13	Upper Rhine
8	Lusatia
3	Altmark
3	Schleswig

This can't be a measure of population density, only of urbanization. It's interesting that Saxony wasn't urbanized yet at that point, but became one of the more urbanized regions by the 16th century.
Also very noticeable how northern Germany had populated coastal cities (Bremen, Lübeck, Stralsund, Rostock, Greifswald, Wismar), but the hinterland with its bad soil was likely not very populated.
Not surprising to see the Rhineland in 1st, since Cologne alone has 44000 of those 103000 people.
Mining probably is a big factor that helped concentrate population in Harz cities, similar to what happens to Saxony in the 15th century.

 

[Pavía]

As Mef mentioned, Ratsher doesn't really discern the ruler of a Free Imperial City from the many other Ratsherren there were. Bürgermeister in its various spellings was already in use for the head of state of a Free Imperial City since the Middle Ages. Alternatively, the Latin name which was also in use could be chosen, i.e. the head of state would be called Magister Civium.

Just changed it, after double-checking with our German content designers.

 

[Palando]

Well, first of all, I don't think there should be any massive differences in population density at this time period, as it's before extensive urbanization and with relatively low infrastructure and agricultural efficiency, people just couldn't concentrate in certain areas as much as later yet. There weren't really any regions in Germany that were depopulated, so maybe the very low category wasn't necessary.

But for the same reasons, cities can't really tell a lot about population density. Even just 20% of the population living in cities would have made a region fairly urbanized in 1337, so city sizes would only tell us about a small percentage of the population. Lüneburg, for example, was among the bigger German cities in 1300 with ~8000 people, but I think we can all agree that the larger region around Lüneburg was and still isn't densely populated at all.

I drew the categories mostly based on 19th century density and fertility of the various regions , as there really isn't any comprehensive data available for the time period.

Out of curiosity I took all cities in modern Germany's borders that had a population of 3000 or more in 1300, assigned them regions and added them up, this is the result:

103	Rhineland
59	Eastphalia (between Hannover, Kassel and Harz)
47	Swabia
39	Westphalia
38	Mecklenburg
37	Bavaria, Upper Palatinate
35	Main (Mainz to Wetzlar)
34	Franconia
32	Palatinate
31	Thuringia
28	Anhalt
28	Neckar
27	Lower Saxony
25	Brandenburg
22	Ruhr
20	Holstein
18	Saxony
13	Upper Rhine
8	Lusatia
3	Altmark
3	Schleswig

This can't be a measure of population density, only of urbanization. It's interesting that Saxony wasn't urbanized yet at that point, but became one of the more urbanized regions by the 16th century.
Also very noticeable how northern Germany had populated coastal cities (Bremen, Lübeck, Stralsund, Rostock, Greifswald, Wismar), but the hinterland with its bad soil was likely not very populated.
Not surprising to see the Rhineland in 1st, since Cologne alone has 44000 of those 103000 people.
Mining probably is a big factor that helped concentrate population in Harz cities, similar to what happens to Saxony in the 15th century.

Well, I contested your categories ranging from "very low" to "high", as it made it appear like the population density needs to be e.g. 2x that of Bavaria or similar. You obviously didn't give any such numbers, but categorising regions like this gives the impression that there were bigger differences than there actuall were. I only brought up Munich or Augsburg because they would've been in your "very low" area. Cottbus and Meißen which are located in your "high" category were smaller cities than those. Thus, categorising the land like that would maybe mean that there are no major settlements in Bavaria or Upper Swabia while they are somehow concentrated in Saxony or Lusatia.

The population densities should be roughly the same, although there obviously was and still is uninhabitable land and there was land sparsely populated because of the fertility of the soil of that region or its forestation. So e.g. Imst had much less habitable area in its province (the population was concentrated in the valleys and not the mountains), whereas the province of Cologne has / had more habitable area. This concept is actually called holding capacity of the land (if you can't grow crops because of forests or mountains, not that many people will be able to sustain themselves in such an area).

I would maybe also advise to add up the populations of those cities because in this scheme three cities with a population of 3,000 are weighted much more than one city with 10,000 population. It's also not surprising to see so many cities e.g. in Swabia or Franconia when they were extremely fragmented. Each map of the HRE shows a rather huge concentration of Imperial Free Cities in those areas, while e.g. Austria or Bohemia had none (except for maybe Eger).

 

[Mef]

I would maybe also advise to add up the populations of those cities because in this scheme three cities with a population of 3,000 are weighted much more than one city with 10,000 population. It's also not surprising to see so many cities e.g. in Swabia or Franconia when they were extremely fragmented. Each map of the HRE shows a rather huge concentration of Imperial Free Cities in those areas, while e.g. Austria or Bohemia had none (except for maybe Eger).

I did add up the cities. So for example Swabia is Augsburg 19 + Ulm 7 + Nördlingen 6 + Reutlingen 5 + Kempten 4 + Lauingen 3 + Memmingen 3 = 47k
I just realized I should have added Reutlingen to Neckar, so I'm gonna fix those numbers.

 

[Palando]

I did add up the cities. So for example Swabia is Augsburg 19 + Ulm 7 + Nördlingen 6 + Reutlingen 5 + Kempten 4 + Lauingen 3 + Memmingen 3 = 47k
I just realized I should have added Reutlingen to Neckar, so I'm gonna fix those numbers.

Ah well, you wrote that you counted them which meant for me just the amount of cities with populations above 3k. It wasn't at least clear for me.

Btw, I would be interested in a map that shows all those cities.

 

[Znikii]

Each map of the HRE shows a rather huge concentration of Imperial Free Cities in those areas, while e.g. Austria or Bohemia had none (except for maybe Eger).

There is a question of when a city gain the title of Free Imperial City. And secodnly Austrian and Bohemians usually hold direct control over citities in or near their domains, probably due to their relatively much greater strangth relative to a singe city, while smaller principalites didnt had this power disperity between with their local cities. There should also be considered examples like Trieste, which had the title of FIC, but lost all the privliges, regardless it kept tje title, probably for prestigious reasons....

 

[Failtier]

Well, I contested your categories ranging from "very low" to "high", as it made it appear like the population density needs to be e.g. 2x that of Bavaria or similar. You obviously didn't give any such numbers, but categorising regions like this gives the impression that there were bigger differences than there actuall were. I only brought up Munich or Augsburg because they would've been in your "very low" area. Cottbus and Meißen which are located in your "high" category were smaller cities than those. Thus, categorising the land like that would maybe mean that there are no major settlements in Bavaria or Upper Swabia while they are somehow concentrated in Saxony or Lusatia.

The population densities should be roughly the same, although there obviously was and still is uninhabitable land and there was land sparsely populated because of the fertility of the soil of that region or its forestation. So e.g. Imst had much less habitable area in its province (the population was concentrated in the valleys and not the mountains), whereas the province of Cologne has / had more habitable area. This concept is actually called holding capacity of the land (if you can't grow crops because of forests or mountains, not that many people will be able to sustain themselves in such an area).

I would maybe also advise to add up the populations of those cities because in this scheme three cities with a population of 3,000 are weighted much more than one city with 10,000 population. It's also not surprising to see so many cities e.g. in Swabia or Franconia when they were extremely fragmented. Each map of the HRE shows a rather huge concentration of Imperial Free Cities in those areas, while e.g. Austria or Bohemia had none (except for maybe Eger).

That's a very tough question whether it largely remained the same or not. At least Michel Hubert (1998, p. 85) writes that since the Middle Ages, there has been a contrast in pop density between West and East, with the West having a higher density, whereas in central Germany, pop density varied depending on the elevation. This would therefore be similar to the current situation.

Reference
Hubert, M. (1998). Deutschland im Wandel: Geschichte der deutschen Bevölkerung seit 1815. Steiner.

 

[Palando]

There is a question of when a city gain the title of Free Imperial City. And secodnly Austrian and Bohemians usually hold direct control over citities in or near their domains, probably due to their relatively much greater strangth relative to a singe city, while smaller principalites didnt had this power disperity between with their local cities. There should also be considered examples like Trieste, which had the title of FIC, but lost all the privliges, regardless it kept tje title, probably for prestigious reasons....

Well, the Bavarian Circle also didn't have many Imperial Free Cities, actually only Regensburg which was also in a subservient state to Bavaria. Swabia e.g. got into this situation because of the Interregnum and the vacancy in the Duchy of Swabia after the death of the last Hohenstaufen. So yes, it has to do with how well those old duchies transitioned (Bohemia was also a duchy that joined the HRE as a whole).

On a similar matter, I'd also like to reiterate on making the Imperial City of Eger a vassal of the Bohemian crown. For this purpose I want to cite from this source (https://www.egerlaender.de/userfile...eschichte/Verpfändung des Egerlandes 1322.pdf ):

King John (of Bohemia) now legally took possession of the pledge. The people of Eger paid him the customary homage. On 23 October 1322 in Prague, John granted them a constitutional charter in seven articles. The people of Eger were probably satisfied with this constitutional charter. Not only that John had granted them all their earlier privileges, including that of Emperor Rudolf of Habsburg on the 7th of June 1279, the right of Eger as an imperial city, the freedom from customs granted by King Albrecht on the 7th of March 1305 against Nuremberg, the freedom from any court granted by the same ruler on the 25th of June and many other important rights. He made a special promise to them to maintain the Egerland in its present state and to make them completely independent of his supreme officials in Bohemia. Only with him or his representative, the captain, whom he wanted to nominate, should they henceforth have to deal with.
This also established the position of the Egerland as a separate territory, completely independent of Bohemia under constitutional law. From another important document it can be concluded that the people of Cheb were also asked for their opinion and that they were given a kind of legal deposit of the pledge.
From then on, this document formed the basis for the constitutional position of the Egerland against Bohemia. All of John's successors in Bohemia and the respective German emperors up to and including Emperor Charles IV confirmed this "Polladium".
Repeated attempts to include the Egerland in the Bohemian Diet resolutions remained unsuccessful and for centuries the rulers negotiated with the citizens of Eger in all matters concerning the land of Bohemia through imperial commissioners specially dispatched to Eger. Article 1 of the Osnabrück Treaty of 24 October 1648 expressly declares the Egerland "as not belonging to the Kingdom of Bohemia".

(I put it into a translator for your convenience)

 

[Palando]

That's a very tough question whether it largely remained the same or not. At least Michel Hubert (1998, p. 85) writes that since the Middle Ages, there has been a contrast in pop density between West and East, with the West having a higher density, whereas in central Germany, pop density varied depending on the elevation. This would therefore be similar to the current situation.

Reference
Hubert, M. (1998). Deutschland im Wandel: Geschichte der deutschen Bevölkerung seit 1815. Steiner.

The East had a lower holding capacity because of more mountainous territory or a higher amount of forests.

Just an example:

City A in Saxony, 60% of the province are covered by forests
City B in the Rhineland, 20% of the province are covered by forests

Let's assume that the provinces have the same size (in km²), then B would have a higher population than A (could be something about 2x). However, the population density of A in those 40% that are not covered by forests could be about the same as the population density of B in those 80% not covered.

 

[Mef]

Btw, I would be interested in a map that shows all those cities.

Here, all cities with 3k 2k or more population in 1300. The bigger the dot the bigger the city. I used my vegetation map as base, since I had it and it's the same projection as the game.

Edit: Added all cities with 2000 population as smaller dots.

 

[Palando]

View attachment 1170473
Here, all cities with 3k or more population in 1300. The bigger the dot the bigger the city. I used my vegetation map as base, since I had it and it's the same projection as the game.

What I take from this is that the Rhine (and its major tributaries) was the most urbanised followed by the Magdeburg Börde and the Danube (and its major tributaries).

Northern Germany basically only had port cities, though the Weser (and its major tributaries) also had a good degree of urbanisation.

(Note: this is obviously nowhere near to Italian urbanisation)

This is in general consistent with the fact that rivers were the most important for transportation.

 

[Romulus et Augustus]

Bro the number of cultures exist in HRE is kinda OVERMUCH and unnecessary………

 

[DaJay42]

Since it's the first of August, here's a work-in-progress map for my suggestions for the locations in Switzerland:
(North and central Switzerland mostly done, south-west/east tbd)

• Dark Blue: Lake
• Red: edited province border
• Yellow: edited location border
• Magenta dot: Location capital

 

[Iarn]

Danube Bavarian culture is called central Bavarian culture

Both Kufstein and Kitzbühel have been Upper Bavarian in 1337 (check Wikipedia or visist the tour at Kufstein castle, which is highly recommended btw).

 

[Linbot#6018]

We would have to make 10 independent tags instead. That has its downside, as then the Frisian would be way more vulnerable to foreign threads than as a unified tag. In any case, just to point, we will analyze the feedback in a few weeks, and decide what to do with it.

Why can't international organisations overlap?

 

[Ispil]

Why can't international organisations overlap?

They can. Where did you get in that that they can't? How else would the Catholic IO coexist with the HRE IO, then?

 

[Linbot#6018]

They can. Where did you get in that that they can't? How else would the Catholic IO coexist with the HRE IO, then?

I suppose I am confused by the meaning of Pavía's response, then.

 

[Ispil]

I suppose I am confused by the meaning of Pavía's response, then.

The issue is that if it were an IO of 10 tags, that fundamentally it would be easier to conquer than just one single unified tag.