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

[Mef]

One suggestion regarding provinces:

Kempenland needs a pretty major rework.
Either the provinces need to be reshuffled, or the province Kempenland needs to be renamed. I'd reccomend renaming it personally. But if you want a Campines it is possible.

It's not in Germany, so this should probably be posted in the Low Countries thread.

View attachment 1171594

Any map that groups Franconian with Dutch just looks so weird. I wonder if these things changed over the last few hundred years, but nowadays Franconian is 100% in the same group as other Southern German dialects.

 

[Palando]

I'm going to second this, since the map doesn't seem to reflect the 1337 situation correctly in the Liechtenstein/Vorarlberg region, and with a bit of adjustment could make it possible for players to play a proto-Liechtenstein. Firstly, it doesn't seem that the Counts of Bregenz, Feldkirch, and Werdenberg are depicted of being from the same dynasty (they are different colors on the dynasty map), when they were all from the same Monfort dynasty. Also, the County of Feldkirch was very tiny, only controling like the top 1/4 of the location on the map. The County of Werdenberg (which is the state for Bludenz location) actually ruled the whole southern swathe of the Feldkirch location, from which the County of Vaduz would be split off of near the game's start.

View attachment 1168433

(This map, although dated for the 14th/15th century, has to be around the game start, as Vaduz isn't split from Werdenberg and Feldkirch isn't part of Austria)

The green and gold are Werdenberg, purple are the core Monfort lands of Bregenz and Feldkirch. While Feldkirch is indeed a bit bigger than Vaduz, given that the later is the core from which the current nation of Liechtenstein later formed from, it's far more historically important, especially as Feldkirch ceased to be its own state in 1375.

Honestly, I'd say have Bregenz location expand a bit into the northern part of the current Feldkirch location and Bludenz location expand a bit westward into Feldkirch location as well. Rename the remainder Vaduz (you could probably make it larger than the current nation of Liechtenstein for clarity purposes, I doubt anyone would mind) and either make it part of Werdenberg, or make it its own county in a personal union with Werdenberg (which the Wikipedia article on the County of Werdenberg implies by having it show up in 1322; the rulers chart in that article shows the first independent Count of Vaduz as starting his rule in 1453, while the Wikipedia article on the County of Vaduz states the county was formed in 1342, so the whole situation is unclear and making it a personal union might be best).

Splitting Feldkirch into two locations to make a new Vaduz location could work as well. But the point is, the possibility of playing a proto-Liechtenstein as the County of Vaduz will draw far more many players to this area of the map than a having just a lot of other comparable, but lesser-known, tiny states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Vaduz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Werdenberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counts_of_Montfort_(Swabia)

Sorry for the late reply, but I just got around Vorarlberg and was surprised that Bludenz isn't in its own province. The whole situation of how the Habsburgs acquired Vorarlberg was a very complicated process as the following map from the Austrian historical atlas shows:

So my interpretation of the situation would look like this:

1. Bregenz would also have Lingenau and Tannberg (am Lech) in 1337.
2. Feldkirch would also have Hinterer-Bregenzerwald and Dornbirn.
3. Werdenberg would be represented by two provinces (but it could also be split into its different lines). The first one is Bludenz = Montafon and the second one is Nüziders (Sonnenberg).
4. Popular demand wants to see Vaduz, too, but it is rather small, so maybe it could get the western part of Nüziders with the Ill as border (the downside is that it won't look like the current Liechtenstein).

I would also like to mention that Sonthofen which is currently owned by the Bishopric of Augsburg could get split, so that Immenstadt could be added and owned by Bregenz.

 

[Palando]

There is something strange that I have noticed about Austria and it's borders with Passau.
View attachment 1169180
View attachment 1169201
Why does Passau control the Rohrbach location and not Austria? I don't think Passau controled much outside Passau itself (If it actually did control it I would really like to see the source as I have never seen this location not controled by the duchy of Austria from it's inception).


There is also the Schaunberg county and it's lack of existanse. Schaunberg didn't become part of Austria just yet, as it was incorporated into her at the end of the 14th century.
View attachment 1169188
View attachment 1169191

The locations for the county of Schaunberg should be Vocklabruck, Grieskirchen and Wels.
View attachment 1169204

I agree that Schaunberg should be an Austrian vassal, as there were tries by emperors from other dynasties to free them from the Austrian grasp.

So about Rohrbach, here's an article that writes that the situation was complicated and only resolved by Maria Theresia.

Rohrbach in Oberösterreich – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

There's also this extensive source:

https://www.ooegeschichte.at/media/heimatforscher/dokumente/monografien/MIR_Rohrbach-Berg-Unsere-Heimat-im-Muehlviertel_2023.pdf

 

[frdrcse]

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.

I revised my original post to include the fact of the first division of Werle in 1316. I‘m interested in your feedback.

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.

I‘m interested in your feedback on my post too (page 36). I decided to go in a similar direction with the „Werle situation“ but tried to make up locations that don’t seem so bordergory…

 

[Palando]

I revised my original post to include the fact of the first division of Werle in 1316. I‘m interested in your feedback.


I‘m interested in your feedback on my post too (page 36). I decided to go in a similar direction with the „Werle situation“ but tried to make up locations that don’t seem so bordergory…

I see that you tried squeezing in Goldberg. Some provinces then become as small as Ratzeburg and I don't know if it's what they are aiming for.
The priority for me would be to add Bützow and the Bishopric of Schwerin, because I think that a new tag is more important than a new province for an existing tag.

Then our Güstrow and Malchow provinces are different, because you went for nicer borders there, while I took the messy borders rather literal.

But we both agree in the main points, so it's more or less about preference and what the devs will then go with.

 

[ibvfteh]

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.

View attachment 1171594

Fully agree with you. It is also the map, which one of a few who show Angrian. Unfortunately many sources disagree that this distinction existed. I have pointed it also in my post

About the culture map mode
I think it is based on more modern cultural distinctions. I disagree on creating Angrian and splitting Markish and Brandenburgish cultures
View attachment 1169785
I found this map as the only place where they are depicted

But there are also a lot of more modern research showing there are no such distinctions at all
View attachment 1169786View attachment 1169787


A great book I found about the Middle Low German at that time is Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik by Lasch (1914).

He divided the Middle Low German language (during the Hanseatic period) into groups:

Westphalian
North Low Saxon (With subgroups of East Frisian, Nordalbingian from river Weser to Holstein, East Elbian from Lübeck to Pomerania. Later two are highly connected)
Eastphalian
Brandenburgish

I think there is no need to subdivide North Low Saxon so much, and it will be an interesting gameplay feature if there is one big North Low Saxon on the beaches of HRE

I would also add that there is the case for a united Low Saxon culture (Low Saxson, Holsatian, Western Pommeranian) as this distinction became more apparent in modern times: "While the Eastern dialects are today clearly distinguished from the West by their uniform present plural verb ending in -en (against Western uniform -(e)t), in MLG *Middle Low German* times, both endings competed against each other in West and East."

 

[Chieron]

I revised my original post to include the fact of the first division of Werle in 1316. I‘m interested in your feedback.


I‘m interested in your feedback on my post too (page 36). I decided to go in a similar direction with the „Werle situation“ but tried to make up locations that don’t seem so bordergory…

TBH: I'm not really a fan of squeezing in Goldberg, also now Werle-Goldberg has 4 connected locations, some of which would be barely populated.
The location Parchim would also consist of towns controlled by all 4 powers in reality, with Werle-Goldberg actually only controlling Parchim itself (Lübz was Mecklenburgian, Neustadt-Glewe was Schwerin, the east belonged to Güstrow)
You gave the real Sternberg and some of Bützow to the Goldberg location, where in reality it belonged to Mecklenburg. I'd rather cannibalize Malchow again. (Giving some of Sternberg to Bützow was to make that location viable in size, as it has a justification in actually being a country)

Renaming Hagenow to Boizenburg or Boitzenburg is fine.

The province name of the southern province is difficult (e.g. Werle is originally centered in the Güstrow location). And "Mecklenburger Parkland" for the northern one is something I only know as a touristic term that would be anachronistic anyway (in 1337 this is swampy woodlands).

I do prefer @Palando's solution in post #990, though I'd probably rename Malchow to Teterow to avoid the naming confusion with Malchin and check, if we can simplify some borders (Malchow/Teterow is quite an ugly lump, regardless of historicity). Going to sketch something later. Scratch that, Gimp is annoying right now and the differences are minor:

1. Sever the connection betwenn Schwerin and Bützow locations, connecting Wismar to Parchim/Goldberg instead. (Give NE Schwerin to Parchim, return some of Sternberg to Wismar, give some W Parchim to Schwerin (Neustadt-Glewe)
2. Rename Malchow to Teterow, move location settlement, make the northern border a bit clearer (Güstrow borders Ribnitz, Teterow does not border Rostock (too many connections for Teterow otherwise) - might even connection Güstrow to Neukalen (basically move Laage to Werle-Güstrow)
3. smoothen out the Ribnitz-Neukalen border a bit
4. Move the southern tip of Teterow as far north as feasible (make the connection Plau-Waren clear, without moving the town of Malchow to either)
5. Move Wolin island to Kammin location
6. Move some of Greifswald to Wolgast location (the actual town is on the mainland)
7. Move the western border of Wismar slightly further west (no connectivity change)

 

[Novakovsky]

So I want to round up my suggestions with Pomerania and Mecklenburg:
View attachment 1171218
As mentioned earlier, I would rename Saatzig to Stargard (and redraw the provinces there). Köslin could be split to also include the important town of Kolberg. I also would like to split Neustettin and Stolp because they are so big. Schmolsin as a coastal territory could be added for Stolp and Bärwalde as another important settlement for Neustettin.

I really like and your changes in Eastern Pomerania. And since you are putting together a whole new map of Germany, I would like to add some feedback about the border between the duchies of Stettin and Wolgast on the Ina River.


The border between the duchies of Stettin and Wolgast on the river Ina

In 1295 the Duchy of Pomerania was divided by the rivers Peene and Ina between the Duchies of Pomerania-Stettin and Pomerania-Wolgast.

As you see the Ina river goes through the Nauagard province. To show this border I suggest adding the lcoation "Damm" (Dąbie, Dam, Damme) which got got Magdeburg rights in 1260, changed to Lübeck rights in 1293, and would be the main settelent in that location. The border from north and east is the Ina river from west Oder river and Dabie (Damm) Lake and from south the Buchheide (Puszcza Bukowa).

This was my suggestion, although the location is a tiny bit too big and Im not too happy with the layout of the locations of Stettin and Greifenhagen (it would be nice to have a possible border on the Oder river).


The County of Naugard

The county of Naugard which should own the redrawn Naugard location was ruled by the Eberstein family from XIII to XVII century. You can also see it in the two maps below. (Grafschaft Naugard). Gustav Kratz: Die Städte der Provinz Pommern 263-298.

(thank you frdrcse for posting this georgus map)

I wish you a pleasant day

 

[Palando]

I really like and your changes in Eastern Pomerania. And since you are putting together a whole new map of Germany, I would like to add some feedback about the border between the duchies of Stettin and Wolgast on the Ina River.


The border between the duchies of Stettin and Wolgast on the river Ina

In 1295 the Duchy of Pomerania was divided by the rivers Peene and Ina between the Duchies of Pomerania-Stettin and Pomerania-Wolgast.
View attachment 1171980

As you see the Ina river goes through the Nauagard province. To show this border I suggest adding the lcoation "Damm" (Dąbie, Dam, Damme) which got got Magdeburg rights in 1260, changed to Lübeck rights in 1293, and would be the main settelent in that location. The border from north and east is the Ina river from west Oder river and Dabie (Damm) Lake and from south the Buchheide (Puszcza Bukowa).

View attachment 1171981

This was my suggestion, although the location is a tiny bit too big and Im not too happy with the layout of the locations of Stettin and Greifenhagen (it would be nice to have a possible border on the Oder river).


The County of Naugard

The county of Naugard which should own the redrawn Naugard location was ruled by the Eberstein family from XIII to XVII century. You can also see it in the two maps below. (Grafschaft Naugard). Gustav Kratz: Die Städte der Provinz Pommern 263-298.
View attachment 1171982

View attachment 1171983


(thank you frdrcse for posting this georgus map)

I wish you a pleasant day

I would probably go more with something like this and include Gollnow which was a residence.

The reason is that I'd rather not have provinces on both sides of the river Oder.

 

[Morguil]

Wonderful tinto talk as usual.

But I have a little bit to suggest about the Alsace Area.

First, for the provinces. Upper Alsace is on the south and lower Alsace is in the South. You follow the Rhein, who is flowing from north to south.

And just for one of the location, Benfeld. I think it should be Selestat. It is and it was a bigger city. A fortifide Town. Perfected even by Vauban. A high place of cultur for the humanisme, with a renown library. And it was a free city member of the Decapole, an alliance of free city from Alsace.
Source for Selestat :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sélestat
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Décapole
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Library_of_Sélestat

And thanks for your wonderful work

 

[matfer13]

Can you guys change some tag colors that create confusion? Like the Bavarias are both a variation of blue they could use a totally different color(since that is the colour of the proper tag of Bavaria), the same could be done for some "reddish" tags in northern Germany like Hamburg or Dithmarchen which could pass for vassals of Denmark like Slesvig.

 

[Ahzek06]

In addition to the great suggestions by Teekesslchen I would have a few more suggestions regarding Austria:

• The Gmunden location contains the salt mines of Hallstatt, some of the longest used and famous salt mines in the entire alps. Mining was going on from the bronze age to the Victorian Era. Together with its long use and huge importance due to the archaelogical digs there, I think it would be best to switch Gmunden to the salt trading good.
• Fruit seems to be a quite strange choice for the Schärding location, as the location was to my knowledge never known for fruit production nor does it have any mentionable fruit production in the modern day. Instead I could find references to wool and hemp production in the area. The location also contains 3 granite quarries, however I was not able to dig up, when they were first utilized. In short I think the fruit raw material may warrant review and potential replacement with wool or stone.
• The location Rottenham contains the Erzberg, one of the largest iron ore deposits in the world, which has been mined since at least the 11th century and was one of the main drivers of the early Austrian iron and steel manufacturing. As such I would heavily suggest changing the raw material in the location to iron and maybe renaming it to "Eisenwurzen", a name by which the general area was also known due to said heavy iron industries.
• Tulln is located in the Marchfeld, one of the most best agricultural lands in Central Europe and well known production of vegetables. I would suggest considering changing the raw material to legumes.

For some reason the forum does not let me link my sources. If anyone wants to see them let me know and I will send them over.

 

[Lavilledieu]

Is there a possibility to switch the county of Horne with the Imperial Abbey of Thorn? Although a little smaller, it would be cool to have an imperial abbey of nuns on the map. There will be few, if any, tags in Europe that will be lead solely by females. Aside from that, it would be a cool alternative to yet another traditional HRE state. I'll post the same question in lowlands thread.

 

[HumbleWarrior]

Maybe you already have a list of rulers of every nation, but as there were a few blanks in the dynastic map I tried to make a comprehensive list of rulers of the Imperial Prelates, as they often had (minor) nobles as their ruler.


Erwin Gatz. Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches 1198 bis 1448. Ein biographisches Lexikon.
In general this book should help a lot, sadly I could not find it in my university library, so I had to resort to digging through open-source databases.

From deutsche-biographie, a database of biographical dictionaries

• Utrecht: Jan III van Diest: a Brabantian noble of the van Diest family.
• Brema: a commoner by the name of Burchard Grelle.
• Mainz: Heinrich III von Virneburg, a noble of the Virneburg family.
• Strassbourg: Berthold von Buchegg, a noble of the Buchegg family.
• Salzburg: Friedrich III. Of the von Leibnitz ministerialis family (ministerialis were ennobled peasants, who by this time period sit firmly in the ranks of the lower nobility)
• Feldkirch: Ulrich II, part of the Monforts of Feldkirchen, formed an alliance with Austria in 1337. (Search for the counts of Montfort, instead of Ulrich II)
• Brixen: Matthäus an der Gassen, part of a ministerialis family
• Lübeck: Heinrich Bochholt, from a family that immigrated from the Bochholt region, no mention is made of a noble status

From personendatenbank.germania-sacra, a series of digitalized research focused on german religion

• Havelberg: presumably a commoner by the name of Dietrich Kothe.
• Naumberg: Withego I von Ostrau, a nobleman of the von Ostrau family
• Wurzburg: Otto II von Wolfskeel, from a ministerialis family
• Bamberg: Leopold II von Egloffstein, from the noble Egloffstein family
• Eichstätt: Heinrich Schenk von Reicheneck. With that name, you just know he was a noble. In practical terms, he was part of a minor branch of the Schenken von Limpurg.

From hls-dhs-dss, the online version of the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland

• Chur: Ulrich Ribi, also know as von Lenzburg. No mention of noble descent.
• Basel: Johann II Senn von Münsingen, another obvious noble. His father was a knight, his mother from the Buchegg family. The aforementioned Berthold von Buchegg, bishop of Strassbourg was his mothers brother.

Other sources

• Trent: Interregnum
• Aquileia: Bertrand de Saint-Geniès, part of a lineage of “milites”, so maybe a noble? dizionariobiograficodeifriulani
• Verden: commoner by the name of Johann Hake. Karl Bosl. 8000 Persönlichkeiten aus 15 Jahrhunderten
• Berchtesgaden: Wikipedia states Heinrich IV. No mention was made of a noble lineage. I could not find primary/secondary sources accessible to me
• Hersfeld: Ludwig II von Mansbach. Wikipedia claims he was of de noble von Mansbach/Manssbach family, I have not been able to verify this.
• Ratzeburg: Volrad von dem Dorne. 'He descended from the chivalrous Holsteinian von dem Dorne family'. Gottlieb Matthias Carl Masch. Geschichte des Bistums Ratzeburg. Page 247
• Speyer: Gerhard von Erenberg. Noble of the von Erenberg family
• Cambrai: Guillaume d'Auxonne. MH Frisquet, in La France Pontificale, is very certain he was not a nobleman, though other claim he was the son of Jean, count of Avesnes. However, Het Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek van Vlaanderen states he was born 'Gauillaume ... with as true name Baudet(or Baudot), descendant of a noble and leading family of the city of Auxonne'.
• Glarus: Abbess Agnes von Brandis. No mention is made of noble heritage, though she could be part of the swiss von Brandis or tyrolean von Brandis. I am not sure about any of these three interpretations. Clemens Schaubinger, Geschichte des Stiftes Säckingen und seines Begründers, des heiligen Fridolin.

• Freising: Konrad von Klingenberg, no noble descent is mentioned, so it is safe to say he was a commoner. Most likely died in 1337, though a document from 1340 attests his presence. Given that his successor was Johann Hake, bishop of Verden, (Yes, the one mentioned above) I would advise keeping Konrad as ruler for this start date. Meichelbeck, Carl Meichelbeck's Geschichte der Stadt Freising und ihrer Bischöfe

• Augsburg: Ulrich II von Schönegg was probably a commoner. If you want to be absolutely sure F. Zoepfl’s Das Bistum Augsburg Und Seine Bischofe Im Reformationsjahrhundert might have an answer, but I could not get a copy. Karl Bosl. 8000 Persönlichkeiten aus 15 Jahrhunderten

• Waldsassen: Johannes IV Grübel, commoner. Sources differ on his date of death, but do place it somewhere in 1337-1339. As such, it seems reasonable to choose him, and not his successor. Brenner, Johann Baptist: Geschichte des Klosters und Stiftes Waldsassen. Binhack, Franz: Die Äbte des Cisterzienser-Stiftes Waldsassen von 1133 bis 1506. The(slightly) more recent Waldsassen – Kloster und Stadt by Rudolf Langhammer might offer more insight, but I could not find an open-source or university-access version.

Some of the French speaking territories. Sadly my French was not up to the task of finding and interpreting proper primary/secondary sources

• Lausanne: Jean de Rossillon, part of an ‘old and noble family of the pays de Gex’. P Martin Schmitt Mémoires Historiques sur le Diocèse de Lausanne.
• Saint-Clause: Jean de Roussillon, maybe the same person? MP d’Albigny. Revue Historique, Archéologique, Littéraire et Pittoresque du Vivarais Illustrée. From page 538
• Metz: Adhémar de Monteil: noble family
• Stavelot-malmedy: Winrich de Pomerio: probably commoner
• Prüm: Heinrich von Schönecken: probably noble
• Mouzon: not entirely sure which polity this represents, so no suggested ruler

Finally, I could not find information about the Abbey of Zeven, Regensburg, Canavese or Volterra
Also, wasn't Verdun a prince-bishopric during this time?

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

I’ll start with my suggestions for vegetation, since raw materials (I’m covering all of modern Germany) will take a while to post!

Here’s the map:
View attachment 1169157
I’ve colored in the vegetation types based on this vegetation map I made:
View attachment 1169159
Sources I used to make the map and comments:
Landscape Map from the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
This map is useful because it has descriptions (and names) for all the different landscapes/regions in Germany. While this obviously depicts the current state, I’d argue that land use in general did not change that much in Germany between 1337 and today, aside from the effects of industrialization and urbanization. That is to say that the regions that are suitable for agriculture today, were also used for agriculture during the time period.
I individually researched the history of many different regions on the map, specifically the important agricultural regions and forests.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Soil Suitability for farming, low inputs, rain-fed. I imported the data to use with the game’s projection and applied color to the scale which results in this map:

View attachment 1168123
Combining historical importance of agriculture and soil suitability for farming results in the farmlands on the map.

For forests, I did individual research, as mentioned. Most of the forests that people would categorize as forest in in-game terms today actually only became that way in the 20th century. Before that, most woodland in Germany was under heavy use and some of today’s thick forests like the Black Forest were only 10% forested at times (the most extreme example might be the Teutoburg Forest which wasn't a forest at all). While the absolute minimum was probably somewhere around the 18th century (it depends on the region), we actually start the game at the end of a period of massive deforestation, caused by significant population growth and expansion of agricultural area to feed that population. Many of the new settlements founded in this period were abandoned after the Black Death (we’re talking about tens of thousands of villages in total) and forest cover increased for a while, but this changed again when proto-Industrial growth in early modern Germany led to increased fuel demand. Laws regarding use of forests and forestry were ubiquitous, of course, and during the entire course of the game, there was basically no forest in Germany that could be compared to the great ancient forests in other parts of the world - it was almost entirely woodlands that were in use economically.

Some comments on aspects of vegetation that are quite wrong in the posted map:
-In general there is too much woods/forest and not enough farmland, in my opinion. We’re talking about a highly developed region at the start of the game already, some areas had dense populations that supplied many settlers who moved to the East.
-Switzerland’s fertile region is misrepresented. Rather than extending along the Swiss Plateau, there are farmlands locations in the Jura Mountains, while locations with concentrated agriculture like Zurich don’t have farmlands vegetation
-The fertile stretch of land along the Rhine from the Palatinate to Wiesbaden is missing (other than the random farmlands on Mainz), this is part of the Upper Rhine Plain extending from Alsace. The part around Freiburg is impossible to represent with the way these locations are drawn, because they include both the Black Forest and the fertile farmland along the Rhine. See this map for a visualization of the whole plain. If locations are added or borders are adjusted, the geography here should probably be taken into account.
-The Middle Rhine Basin south-west of Koblenz with its fertile soil and microclimate - basically the Mayen location - is not farmlands and while I’m sure many others will point this out or have already done so, this location should probably be named Coblenz instead. There is another small location with super fertile farmland, the Nördlinger Ries (an impact crater) in the Donauwörth location which isn't represented.
-The plains along the Lower Rhine and the Ruhr (Kölner Bucht, Jülicher Börde, Soester Börde) are not farmland for some reason. All of this was intensively farmed and the soil in this region is generally very fertile. It’s also a population center.
-The stretch of fertile farmland around the Harz (part of the large Central European Loess Zone stretching from Belgium to Ukraine), including the Calenberger Börde, Magdeburger Börde, Leipziger Bucht and Thüringer Becken, isn’t represented at all, other than one farmlands on Hannover. While this region’s modern importance is much lower than during the game's timespan due to it mostly having been part of communist East Germany, it has historically had the highest population density in Germany and is geologically quite blessed, having very fertile farmland surrounded by resource rich mountains.
-Some of the most famous and fertile farming regions in Germany, the Wetterau north of Frankfurt, the Kraichgau north of Stuttgart, the Dungau in eastern Bavaria and Mainfranken around Würzburg are not represented as farmlands at all.
-For some reason Bohemia & Moravia have no farmland? As pointed out in the OP, it was an important region with a high population, and it certainly had some developed and fertile farmland!

I really hope this is incorporated into the game. The vegetation map in the OP is better suited to Late Antiquity than the Middle Ages, much less the Early Modern period. Germany underwent deforestation in this period but not that much, and even if this was accurate to 1337 (which it isn’t) it would be horribly off for the latter half of the game.

 

[Chieron]

I really hope this is incorporated into the game. The vegetation map in the OP is better suited to Late Antiquity than the Middle Ages, much less the Early Modern period. Germany underwent deforestation in this period but not that much, and even if this was accurate to 1337 (which it isn’t) it would be horribly off for the latter half of the game.

Technically, the deforestation in Central Europe was at maximum just before the black death. Nearly all somewhat arable land was needed to feed the population. So, it would be most off the mark in 1337 (and closest to truth in like 1400). But yeah, it is quite a bit more forested than one would expect, especially considering some of the better farmland.
There also is not enough swamps / marshes, either. Many nothern moors were not drained until the 18th century and here are displayed as flatland grassland, as if they were dry meadows.

 

[Mef]

Technically, the deforestation in Central Europe was at maximum just before the black death. Nearly all somewhat arable land was needed to feed the population.

As far as I know, the maximum is usually attributed to the 18th or even early 19th century, at least in Germany. It was the period between the population losses of the Thirty Years War and the adoption of coke as fuel in a lot of industries.
It's very hard to tell, however, as we don't have exact numbers, and the time just before the Black Death was definitely special in terms of deforestation and expansion of farmland. What makes it stand out is the fact that we have so many remnants of abandoned settlements from that time, which shows just how much expansion happened that didn't last past the 14th century.

 

[Znikii]

My suggestion for south east HRE. I came up with it as a compromise between reviewing Tinto Maps, community suggestions and various historic data.

	AREA:	PROVINCE:	#	TERRITORY:		OWNER:	vassal of:	RGO:
AREA:	CARNIOLA
		Krain	1kra	Ljubljana	Laibach	Habsburg		Stone
		(blue)	2kra	Kranj	Krainburg	Habsburg		Iron
			3kra	Novo Mesto		von Pettau	Salzburg	Livestock
			4kra	Bled		Brixen		Iron
			5kra	Postojna		Habsburg		Wool
			6kra	Kočevje		Ortenburg		Wood
		Gorz	1gor	Gorizia		von Gorz		Clay
		(yellow)	2gor	Tolmin		von Gorz		Mercury
			3gor	Trieste		Free Imperial City		Salt
		(Lower) Stiria	1sti	Marburg	Maribor	Habsburg		Wine
		(green)	3sti	Ptuj	Pettau	von Pettau	Salzburg	Wine
			2sti	Celje	Cilli	von Cilli		Stone
			4sti	Windishgratz	Sloven Gradec	von Cilli		Lead
	DALMATIA
		Istria	1ist	Capodistria	Koper	Venice		Salt
		(purple)	2ist	Rovigno	Rovinj	Venice		Lumber
			3ist	Pula		Venice		Wine
			4ist	Pazin		von Gorz		Olive
			5ist	Buzet		von Gorz		Fruit

 

[Iarn]

Well, I guess I really did.

View attachment 1172306
My first post should now have everything included, by the way.

Please listen to this brilliant post

 

[Splorghley]

I am very pleased Moravia and Moravian culture is accurately included in the game. Great job, team!