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

[Chieron]

I see your point. One solution could be to cut the Wismar location (I suggested) in half. Call it Wismar in the north and Sternberg in the south. But I feel like the locations would be too small. Although the Ratzeburg location seems to be the same size. Maybe the southern parts of Wismar could be added to the Bützow location. That wouldn’t be historically accurate, but would crate smoother borders. If you look at the maps I provided, the south-western and the north-western parts of the principality of Mecklenburg should be connected. I feel like having it not connected (without knowing the game yet) would be a disadvantage, that’s not historically accurate.


I‘t feels necessary to me to split the region into three provinces after adding so many locations to it. I agree that the names might be a little weird, but I take (a little) weird province names over inaccurate locations. Adding the Strelitz and Neubrandenburg locations to the Uckermark province will probably lead to a lot of fighting over it (which would be historically accurate), but it stills feels wrong to call them parts of the Uckermark since both city’s and the surrounding areas are not.

Time for some ugly paint map from myself:

I stole some parts of the Schwerin location that historically were not part of the county anyway to add to Parchim and restore the connection to Wismar.
The diamonds correspond to the provinces. green is Mecklenburg, light green (Ratzeburg) Mecklenburg or Ostholstein, yellow is Werle, light blue Uckermark, pink Vorpommern. The diamonds are not in the locations of the cities.
Some TTs talk about province capitals, this is something I did not yet think about and I do not know, what effects this actually has.
Not pictured: moving the island of Wolin to Kammin location.
Some of the borders do not correspond to history, or are somewhat anachronistic, as was the case before already. That granularity is not achievable nor useful.

If a three-province split is preferable, then it could go something like this:
Mecklenburg / Obotritia:

1. Wismar
2. Grevesmühlen
3. Ratzeburg (*)
4. Schwerin
5. Hagenow
6. Grabow

Rostock (basically the Warnow valley and neighbors)

1. Rostock
2. Kröpelin
3. Ribnitz
4. Bützow
5. Güstrow

South Mecklenburg / name for some tribe from that region, like the Warnabi ?

1. Neubrandenburg
2. Strelitz
3. Waren
4. Malchin
5. Malchow (maybe name this Lübz actually, given the name clash with Malchin)
6. Parchim

Or even fourway split:

1. Obotritia: Wismar, Grevesmühlen, Ratzeburg, Kröpelin
2. Schwerin: Schwerin, Hagenow, Grabow, Parchim
3. Rostock: Rostock, Güstrow, Bützow, Ribnitz
4. Stargard: Neubrandenburg, Strelitz, Waren, Malchin

Malchow could go to either Schwerin, Rostock or Stargard based on geographic or political weights.

Edit: above map became a bit outdated after Palando's note about Werle-Goldberg.. See #1029 for some updates. Palando's map in #990 is a good starting point (except for missing the Wolgast changes)

 

[Pbhuh]

Note that Teutoburger Wald is a 17th century invention (and not widely used until the 18th), the mountain range was known as Osning before. Replacing a archaic anachronism with a futuristic one does not help.

To be fair, a 17th century name is not that bad, it at least will be used during the game period, and for more than half, much better then a gau name which hasn't been in use for 300 years. So pulling back a name maybe 200 years earlier seems like an improvement.

 

[Chieron]

I got a bit confused by the tags currently in the game. There actually should be only Werle-Güstrow and Werle-Goldberg (Parchim), because Werle-Waren was created in 1347.


I tried translating this into provinces. It would really look like HRE mess then.

The early 14th century really was a time of change in Mecklenburg, in stark contrast to the later stagnation. According to Wiki, Werle-Waren was split in 1337 though ?

 

[Chieron]

To be fair, a 17th century name is not that bad, it at least will be used during the game period, and for more than half, much better then a gau name which hasn't been in use for 300 years. So pulling back a name maybe 200 years earlier seems like an improvement.

I'd rather go with "Osning" in that case. And it is more than 300 years. In any case, the name of a province should not necessarily be based on a geographic feature. Though, I do not know, what people called the region then, if they referred to it in its entirety at all..

 

[Palando]

Time for some ugly paint map from myself:

View attachment 1171248

I stole some parts of the Schwerin location that historically were not part of the county anyway to add to Parchim and restore the connection to Wismar.
The diamonds correspond to the provinces. green is Mecklenburg, light green (Ratzeburg) Mecklenburg or Ostholstein, yellow is Werle, light blue Uckermark, pink Vorpommern. The diamonds are not in the locations of the cities.
Some TTs talk about province capitals, this is something I did not yet think about and I do not know, what effects this actually has.
Not pictured: moving the island of Wolin to Kammin location.
Some of the borders do not correspond to history, or are somewhat anachronistic, as was the case before already. That granularity is not achievable nor useful.

If a three-province split is preferable, then it could go something like this:
Mecklenburg / Obotritia:

1. Wismar
2. Grevesmühlen
3. Ratzeburg (*)
4. Schwerin
5. Hagenow
6. Grabow

Rostock (basically the Warnow valley and neighbors)

1. Rostock
2. Kröpelin
3. Ribnitz
4. Bützow
5. Güstrow

South Mecklenburg / name for some tribe from that region, like the Warnabi ?

1. Neubrandenburg
2. Strelitz
3. Waren
4. Malchin
5. Malchow (maybe name this Lübz actually, given the name clash with Malchin)
6. Parchim

Or even fourway split:

1. Obotritia: Wismar, Grevesmühlen, Ratzeburg, Kröpelin
2. Schwerin: Schwerin, Hagenow, Grabow, Parchim
3. Rostock: Rostock, Güstrow, Bützow, Ribnitz
4. Stargard: Neubrandenburg, Strelitz, Waren, Malchin

Malchow could go to either Schwerin, Rostock or Stargard based on geographic or political weights.

Parchim was owned by Werle-Goldberg(-Parchim) in 1337, so there would be no connection between the two Mecklenburger lands. Malchow, too, was owned by Werle-Goldberg-Parchim.

The early 14th century really was a time of change in Mecklenburg, in stark contrast to the later stagnation. According to Wiki, Werle-Waren was split in 1337 though ?

After the death of John II of Werle-Güstrow in August 1337, Nikolaus III of Werle-Güstrow ruled alone for two years. Afterwards, he ruled jointly with his brother Bernhard II until 1347, when the brothers split their dominion. Bernhard II of Werle-Waren was the first ruler of Waren.

 

[Spartakus]

Note that Teutoburger Wald is a 17th century invention (and not widely used until the 18th), the mountain range was known as Osning before. Replacing a archaic anachronism with a futuristic one does not help.

You learn something new every day. And I literally live within viewing distance of the Teutoburg Forest.
Changed my post accordingly.

 

[Chieron]

Parchim was owned by Werle-Goldberg(-Parchim) in 1337, so there would be no connection between the two Mecklenburger lands. Malchow, too, was owned by Werle-Goldberg-Parchim.

In that case, the justification for the Malchow location gets reduced as well. Depending on size considerations, merging it back to Parchim might be in order (I'd rather avoid adding small provinces just to allow some interior borders to be somewhat correct when those borders existed only for a few decades). If Werle-Waren does not exist, some reshuffling of territory and tags is in order. Some inconsistencies will always remain, though.
Someone should also update the wikipedia map which shows Waren separately in 1316 and omits Goldberg..

 

[Pbhuh]

I wanted to share some maps I recently found that I have seen others post snippets off, but not the entirety.
View attachment 1722686855550.jpeg

Well, I guess I really did.

View attachment 1171221
My first post should now have everything included, by the way.

If I could give some comments,
You gave the eiderstadt peninsula to Heide, similar problem to what the original map by pavia showed.
I pointed out the red triangle of how small Ritzebüttel's ownership of that area is, I can't tell who you gave it to, but I would probably not use it at least at the startdate, I've highlighted both Würsten and Hadeln's areas there. Würsten is said to still have been part of Frisia while Hadeln was possibly a vassal of Lauenburg.

Elsfleth i've highlighted which parts were at this era still part of Frisia, even for Elsfleth it's uncertain if it was already owned by Oldenburg as I've seen pages where it was said to have been acquired only in 1350.

I would also not double up all the locations in the North of Emsland and Oldenburgerland. It's a somewhat unpopulated area with swamps, marshes and woodlands, which lead to many of the conflicts at the time, with Settlers from the Netherlands and Frisia being invited to cultivate these lands. It's not the highest priority to have locations like Friesoythe or Papenburg. I do agree though that Wildeshausen and one of the Bruchhausen locations should be included, though not sure I would do both.

 

[Spartakus]

I'd rather go with "Osning" in that case. And it is more than 300 years. In any case, the name of a province should not necessarily be based on a geographic feature. Though, I do not know, what people called the region then, if they referred to it in its entirety at all..

Agreed. But if you don't use a geographic feature you'll pretty much have to name it after a dominant city. Which is exactly what happened in history (Münsterland, Oldenburger Land, etc.). But often enough the city only became that influential well after 1337. So I tried to use geographical terms where possible.

In some cases, the name for entire regions depended on dynastic circumstances that probably play out very different in game. Case in point: Saxony

 

[TefarkHD]

I noticed that there are some mistakes made in the maps
1. Baden should be part of the province of Ufgau
2. Heilbronn should be part of the province of Kraichgau
3. The province that is called Strohgäu should be called diferently because this province dose not contain the areas of the Strohgäu region
(the Strohgäu is the area north of Stuttgart and south of the location of Heilbronn)
4. I think it would be more acurat if Vaihingen would be in the same province as Stuttgart
(I'm from this area of germany and I also locked up some maps and my 3. point I'm 99,9999999% sure that I'm right about that (I once lived In the Strogäu))

 

[aki-chan desu]

Next try on Württemberg and surroundings.

Blue: Border between East Franconia and Swabia
Red: Württemberg
1: Stuttgart, 2: Grüningen, 3: Urach
Yellow: Ecclesiastical
1: Maulbronn, 2: Ellwangen
Green: Free Cities
1: Rothenburg, 2: Hall, 3: Heilbronn, 4: Esslingen, 5: Gmünd, 6: Ulm
Magenta: other counts and dukes, in brackets the owner, if not the same as location name
1: Hohenlohe, 2: Crailsheim (Hohenlohe), 3: Löwenstein, 4: Limpurg, 5: Oettingen, 6: Heidenheim (Helfenstein), 7: Teck, 8: Tübingen, 9: Calw

 

[Palando]

In that case, the justification for the Malchow location gets reduced as well. Depending on size considerations, merging it back to Parchim might be in order (I'd rather avoid adding small provinces just to allow some interior borders to be somewhat correct when those borders existed only for a few decades). If Werle-Waren does not exist, some reshuffling of territory and tags is in order. Some inconsistencies will always remain, though.
Someone should also update the wikipedia map which shows Waren separately in 1316 and omits Goldberg..

That might be true in your proposal, but Malchow could be needed if the split between the branches of Werle is to be represented, though Plau could be taken from Güstrow and added to Parchim.

I wanted to share some maps I recently found that I have seen others post snippets off, but not the entirety.
View attachment 1171300View attachment 1171306



View attachment 1171291

If I could give some comments,
You gave the eiderstadt peninsula to Heide, similar problem to what the original map by pavia showed.
I pointed out the red triangle of how small Ritzebüttel's ownership of that area is, I can't tell who you gave it to, but I would probably not use it at least at the startdate, I've highlighted both Würsten and Hadeln's areas there. Würsten is said to still have been part of Frisia while Hadeln was possibly a vassal of Lauenburg.

Elsfleth i've highlighted which parts were at this era still part of Frisia, even for Elsfleth it's uncertain if it was already owned by Oldenburg as I've seen pages where it was said to have been acquired only in 1350.

I would also not double up all the locations in the North of Emsland and Oldenburgerland. It's a somewhat unpopulated area with swamps, marshes and woodlands, which lead to many of the conflicts at the time, with Settlers from the Netherlands and Frisia being invited to cultivate these lands. It's not the highest priority to have locations like Friesoythe or Papenburg. I do agree though that Wildeshausen and one of the Bruchhausen locations should be included, though not sure I would do both.

View attachment 1171308View attachment 1171307

Ritzebüttel would just be the settlement's name, but it would be Hadeln as vassal of Saxe-Lauenburg.

Wel, the things you get when you believe PDX would get Scandinavian borders right . Elsfleth should just go to Friesland, and when I think about it, then Jever and Wittmund should be split, so that the later Lordship of Jever is also represented.

 

[Pbhuh]

That might be true in your proposal, but Malchow could be needed if the split between the branches of Werle is to be represented, though Plau could be taken from Güstrow and added to Parchim.
View attachment 1171318

Ritzebüttel would just be the settlement's name, but it would be Hadeln as vassal of Saxe-Lauenburg.

Wel, the things you get when you believe PDX would get Scandinavian borders right . Elsfleth should just go to Friesland, and when I think about it, then Jever and Wittmund should be split, so that the later Lordship of Jever is also represented.

Consider Otterndorf as well, which was the capital of hadeln and already attested at the time.

Another location I would swap is Bersenbrück in Osnabrück. Quackenbrück or Fürstenau seem better, imho.

Also do you have much information on Gummersbach in Mark? Seems to me it was of relative unimportance. Maybe Ludenscheid would be better, although its very close to Altena.

I do wonder why you didnt include Mörs or Geldern in the map as they are part of the modern german borders.

 

[Palando]

Consider Otterndorf as well, which was the capital of hadeln and already attested at the time.

At that time Ritzebüttel still belonged to Hadeln.

Another location I would swap is Bersenbrück in Osnabrück. Quackenbrück or Fürstenau seem better, imho.

PDX chose Bersenbrück. Fürstenau as amt might be better suited.

Also do you have much information on Gummersbach in Mark? Seems to me it was of relative unimportance. Maybe Ludenscheid would be better, although its very close to Altena.

Lüdenscheid is too close to Altena, so it's not possible to include it. The alternative to Gummersbach would be Bergneustadt, as Gimborn itself was an extremely minor castle.

I do wonder why you didnt include Mörs or Geldern in the map as they are part of the modern german borders.

There was simply no need for them, as they were already discussed in the Netherlands DD.

I would also not double up all the locations in the North of Emsland and Oldenburgerland. It's a somewhat unpopulated area with swamps, marshes and woodlands, which lead to many of the conflicts at the time, with Settlers from the Netherlands and Frisia being invited to cultivate these lands. It's not the highest priority to have locations like Friesoythe or Papenburg. I do agree though that Wildeshausen and one of the Bruchhausen locations should be included, though not sure I would do both.

Well, those provinces are comparatively bigger than the surrounding provinces. It's just odd to have such huge chunks right next to fine and small provinces.

Bruchhausen was divided between two, one half was owned by Tecklenburgin 1337 and another by the old Bruchhausen dynasty.

 

[Palando]

I also wanted to revise the border between Bavaria and Swabia again.

Currently, the borders looked a bit too modern and did not really fit the HRE completly. I would redraw Kempten to border Kaufbeuren, as the abbey owned this territory. Mindelheim could be added and would be owned by the Lords of von Hochschlitz (they acquired it in 1337 and sold it to the Duchy of Teck in 1369).

I was also not satisfied with the borders of the Burgau, so I took some land away from the Free City of Augsburg which did not own it anyway. This would allow for the inclusion of Burgau (along Günzburg). I also redrew the borders of Gundelfingen, Oettingen and Dillingen.

I also added the County of Kirchberg and the County of Waldburg by taking away land from Lindau, Ravensburg, Biberach and Riedlingen. Btw, Altdorf (now: Weingarten) was the administrative capital of the Habsburg territory in this region. Both Waldburg and Kirchberg contain territories by other entities, too, the former Habsburg's Gerazhausen and the latter from some minor abbeys.

The provinces look a bit less "modern" and more messy like your typical HRE borders, while also allowing for some later borders.

 

[ShinsukeNakamura]

I would like to add a few more comments to my post on the Sorbian language. The first will be Sorbian names, used in both Lower Sorbian and Upper Sorbian. A large part of the names is used today (although where I could, I used archaic variants). At the same time, it is clear that many names are Sorbian equivalents of German names - this is another proof of the deep German influences that left their mark on Lusatia.
Male names:
Alojs Andrij Arnošt Awgust Bartiš Bjarnat Błažij Boguměr Bohuměr Česćiměr Chrystof Fryco Hadam Hajndrich Handroš Jan Jaroměr Jurij Korla Křesćan Lukaš Maćij Matuš Měrćin Měrosław Mikławš Mječisław Pawoł Pěc Petr Radoměr Sćěpan Stanislaw Tomaš Wjacław Wjeleměr

Female names:
Agnisa Anemarija Bjedruška Borbora Dobysława Elžbjeta Hana Hańža Horteja Jagata Katyrna Katyržinka Marhata Měrosława Mječisława Rodźisława Wuršula

The culture map is fairly accurate, but I have a few minor comments. I would add the Lusatian culture in the province of Żagań (I marked the city itself with a yellow dot on the Polish-Lusatian border) in a small percentage (10-15%) to reflect the Eastern Lusatian population, who spoke the Eastern Lusatian language (extinct in the 18th century), a transitional language between Polish and other Lusatian languages. Below I am inserting map of the West Slavic language groups.

I would also consider the Silesian German (or Saxon) minority to be about 10% of the population in the Lusatian majority. These areas (in game Niederlausitz and Oberlausitz) were less populated in the late Middle Ages - apart from a few cities dominated by Germans, the rest of the ihabitable space was occupied by Lusatians.

I have marked on the map the area where Sorbian dialects were the majority in the first half of the 14th century and I am inserting a map of the areas that Sorbs have inhabited over the centuries. The area of occurrence more or less coincides, but I have assumed that in two hundred years the western borderlands of the 14th century had managed to undergo Germanization.

 

[Chieron]

That might be true in your proposal, but Malchow could be needed if the split between the branches of Werle is to be represented, though Plau could be taken from Güstrow and added to Parchim.
View attachment 1171318

Goodness, that is an exceedingly ugly split of a relatively small area, surrounded by further bordergore. Literally every other town belongs to another country. This feels silly to even try to represent faithfully in the game, given that the area of the bishopric of Schwerin (Bützow) is about the limit of the resolution, and the lack of connectivity is horrible. Both are split, and both are nearly split three ways!

Maybe have the area from Parchim to Röbel as Werle-Parchim / Werle-Goldberg (2 locations) and the rest (Güstrow, Malchin, Waren) as Werle-Güstrow ?
Or Parchim+Malchin as Werle-Goldberg (2 locations, split) and Güstrow+Malchow+Waren as Werle-Güstrow ?
Or the current locations Parchim+Malchin as Werle-Goldberg and connected Güstrow+Waren as Werle-Güstrow, skipping the location creation. Maybe carve out Lübz (Lübz, Marnitz, Neustadt and Plau in the above map) to be added to Mecklenburg to represent the southern part that is not Grabow. Though, even that area appears to have been part of the county of Schwerin (except Lübz) in the early 14th century. All this is such a messy bordergore, as if the rest of the HRE wasn't bad enough. It really is a weird time in Mecklenburgian history, as if taking a snapshot from a civil war.

 

[Palando]

I disagree on the Koblenz location. Even on the map you attach to the post it is seen that it didn't possess so much territory on the other side of the river.

View attachment 1169094
Koblenz city territory should be added to location called Mayen, where the other side can be named for example Eherenbreitstein. It was the biggest city on that river side.
View attachment 1169095


Edit: Also I am a great supporter of the Rhine river borders. And Katzenelnbogen bothers me. It is sad that it is a historic border of the county. But I wish we all can close our eyes for that one...

Well, maybe this is better?

I also took the chance to include the Rhinecounty and the Lothringian part of Saarbrücken.

 

[LuckyXD]

Well, maybe this is better?
View attachment 1171482

I also took the chance to include the Rhinecounty and the Lothringian part of Saarbrücken.

Altough the Lotharingians had parts in western Saarland, these parts were quite small and splittered, so i am not sure if they would suit as a location that well. Also they were pretty much static throughout history. Therefore i would suggest adding the counties of Blieskastel and Homburg instead. Of course, the inclusion of all three would be best, but i think there isn't enough space to add them all.

I would refer to my post earlier, so that I don't have to write it here again ^^

Saarregion Feedback
I would like to add my 2 cents to theSaarland region in southwestern germany. For the sake of clearity i will structure it in several parts:

Locations:
The Location setup is really good for the western and southern part of the region, but could be adjusted on the northern and eastern side.
View attachment 1168309
- I would expand the reach of the Location "St.Wendel" to the west (dark blue color) to include the area of "Wadern" as it would be too small to be its own province.
Context:
The Wadern Area is home of the "Dagstuhl" a import castle who was build to guard one of the big inland routes between Trier and St.Wendel. The Castle was founded in 1290 from Knight Boemund von Saarbrücken and was ruled semi independant. With the decline of the ancestors of Boemund, the "von Dagstuhls", the ownership of the area went to 4 familys who where loyal to "Kuno II. von Falkenstein,archbishop of St.Wendel". Since then the area remained under the control of St.Wendel for most of the covered time period (up until the 30 years war where it became a dejure of the counts of Saarbrücken. More about the castle: http://www.burgdagstuhl.de/burgzeittafel

- Also the addition of the Location "Bliesgau" (light blue) with the city of "Blieskastel" as its capitel would be a welcomed addition. The Bliesgau after which you named the area, is actually much smaller (1) (2), but very important for the history of the region. It was very fertile farmlands and was the small breadbasket which secured its wealth through export of food to the surrounding Locations (mainly Saarbrücken, St.Wendel and Zweibrücken). The oceanic climate fits for the province. Its Topographic would be flatlands and its vegetation farmlands. Its Raw material wheat. The Bliesgau County had many knights as subjects which resluts in it oddly shape to best represent the holdings. So are the "von Kerpen" in Illingen its northwestern border, the "von Kirkel" in Kirkel its northern border to name two examples. Population of the county is rather difficult but around 35.000 seems realistic for the start date.
Context:
The county was established as a "Gau" (Blisgowe) in the Frankish Kingdom. After its decline, its counts refered to themselves as "von Blieskastel", which also seems to be the name of the county. After the death of the last count of the "von Blieskastel", Heinrich von Blieskastel in the year 1273, his daughter Elizabeth prevailed over her mother and sisters, resulting in inheritance disputes. After the inner-family dispute and the death of those involved without a clear succession, the earldom was sold by Henry of Salem, Elizabeth's husband, to the Bishop of Metz. He in turn pledged it to the Lotharingian “von Fistingen” in 1326. Through the von Fistingen family, Blieskastel came into the hands of the Kurtier in 1337 (fitting for the start date) with the help of the Archbishop of Trier, who administered the county. When Archbishop Jakob ran into financial difficulties in 1440, he pledged half of the rights to the knight Friedrich von Lewenstein. The latter used this power to take over the position of count in a kind of revolt. It is not clear whether there was any fighting, but Friedrich was able to assert himself and from then on was Count of Blieskastel under the archbishop of the Kurtrier. The von Lewensteins ruled the county until it was once again pledged to the rulers of Nassau-Saarbrücken by the Electorate of Trier in 1533.

References:
https://www.blieskastel.de/stadt/unsere-stadt/geschichte
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliesgau
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blieskastel

Size of the Bliesgau:
View attachment 1168326View attachment 1168405

- The last big change I would suggest is to add the location “Homburg” (the blue in the middle of the first picture). The county of Homburg is represented by name from the 12th century, at the same time as the Hohenburg castle on the Homberg, on which the town was also built. Which makes the name of the location and the town “Homburg” fitting. The county was of great geostrategic importance until the end of the Thirty Years' War and was fought over accordingly. The continental climate would suit the location. For its topographic would either hills or marsh fit, as the former suits the overall area, while the latter was the dominted feature in the valleys between, where most action was centered on, because the hills are still today quite difficult to move through. The marshes only disappeared almost completely as a result of industrialization and are now being renaturalized. Its vegetation corresponds to Forest. For its raw material, lumber would be the realistic choice, but turf extraction was also present in the region as early as the Middle Ages. Population wise, given the region in the 14th century, around 12 to 14k population seems realistic.

The county was created by Count Dietrich von Hüneburg (ca. 1106 - before 1159), son of Count Gottfried I von Blieskastel (ca. 1087-1128) in the course of the division of the county of Blieskastel between his sons. Under the rule of the counts, Homburg developed into a town and the castle grew considerably around half the hilltop. In 1330, the town was granted its town charter by Emperor Ludwig. Since the county of Blieskastel was no longer ruled by the “von Blieskastel”, the von Homburgs laid claim to the county, but in vain. However, when Blieskastel passed to Trier in 1336, the von Homburgs rebelled. The connection from Blieskastel to St. Wendel and Wadern was blocked. The disputes were resolved with the death of Konrad von Homburg (either in 1339 or 1343), in the course of which the von Homburgs' claim to Blieskastel was also relinquished. Whether the death was due to a feud or natural causes is not known to me. His son Frederick the 4th of Homburg then sought more conciliatory tones. After the death of John of Homburg in 1499 without a male successor, the earldom passed into the possession of Count John III of Nassau-Saarbrücken.

References:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homburg
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgruine_Hohenburg_(Homburg)
https://www.homburg.de/

Provinces:
For the provinces i would suggest renaming the province "Bliesgau" to "Saar" or as an alternativ "Saargau", as the Saar was and is a far more important river in that kind of scaling. The Locations of Zweibrücken and Kaiserslautern kinda fit into it but maybe i would add them to Nahegau, which in return i would rename to "Palatinate Plains" (In general all the -Gau Endings don't fit all too well)

Religion:
It's difficult to see through the yellow but i would like to add that there was a rather big jew community in the Saar Region. It's estimated that between 1320 and 1380 around 3500 jews lived in the region (in Locations terms, split between the Locations Saarbrücken, Merzig, St.Wendel, and if you add them, Blieskastel and Homburg)

Lastly i really want to thank the tinto team for your amazing work. The granulity of germany espacially is just insane!

 

[Kaufmannskönig]

I think a misinterpretation of the Markish/Brandenburgish culture has occurred.

The two dialects are defined in the following way:

In Darstellungen zur sprachlichen Entwicklung des Brandenburger Raumes werden sowohl die Bezeichnungen „Brandenburgisch“ als auch „Märkisch“ verwendet, die jedoch beide nicht identisch sind. Während sich „Brandenburgisch“ regional auf die durch das Niederdeutsche geprägte Sprachsituation im Land Brandenburg (mit Ausnahme des ursprünglich sorbisch geprägten Gebietes der Lausitz) bezieht, ist „Märkisch“ eine Sammelbezeichnung für eine Gruppe ostniederdeutscher Dialekte, zu denen außer den gegenwärtig noch in einigen Brandenburger Regionen gesprochenen niederdeutschen Dialekten (s.u.) auch das Altmärkische in Sachsen-Anhalt (sowie das heute nicht mehr existierende Neumärkische östlich der Oder) gehören.

In discussions about the linguistic development of the Brandenburg region, both the terms "Brandenburgisch" and "Märkisch" are used, although they are not identical. While "Brandenburgisch" refers regionally to the language situation in the state of Brandenburg influenced by Low German (excluding the originally Sorbian-influenced area of Lusatia), "Märkisch" is a collective term for a group of East Low German dialects. These include not only the Low German dialects still spoken in some regions of Brandenburg (see below), but also the Altmark dialect in Saxony-Anhalt (as well as the now extinct Neumark dialect east of the Oder).

Arbeitskreis brandenburgische Landesgeschichte (Brandenburgikon)

It seems like you have used the map "Karte der deutschen Mundarten." Brockhaus Konversationslexikon, Leipzig 1894. ("Map of the German Dialects." Brockhaus (German encyclopedia), Leipzig, 1894) as a foundation for the German cultures. The map uses Brandenburgish as a synonym for Markish. Somehow, a misinterpretation happened here, which led to the dialects of Uckermärkisch, Barnimisch, and Ostprignitzisch being marked as Markish, while the other dialects of Markish are labeled as Brandenburgish.

I suggest unifying these cultures under Markish.