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

[Clyde Wallach]

Why can not be Carniola its own area, when Slazburg, which is smaller, can be?

Carniola is already a province. Carinthia alone only has 2 provinces, so that's 3 provinces between them. These cannot be organized as 2 areas.

 

[Inzano]

Carniola is already a province. Carinthia alone only has 2 provinces, so that's 3 provinces between them. These cannot be organized as 2 areas.

The density of Carniola locations must increase even more, compare Carinthia with Carniola and it is a bit strange that Carinthia has so many more locations. In addition, Carinthia also has only two provinces and is its own area.
I hope that the density will at least come close to the proposal made by Palando and myself.

 

[Clyde Wallach]

The density of Carniola locations must increase even more, compare Carinthia with Carniola and it is a bit strange that Carinthia has so many more locations. In addition, Carinthia also has only two provinces and is its own area.
I hope that the density will at least come close to the proposal made by Palando and myself.

I truly appreciate the work that the 2 of you have done, and I too would prefer it if there wasn't such a visible drop in location density once one crosses the present-day Austro-Slovenian border. But even with more locations, I'd prefer Carniola as a province, or at the most 2. As an area it would just be too small. Salzburg area also being small isn't really a counterargument to me, because I think Salzburg should be either enlarged at the expense of Upper Bavaria or removed from the map.

 

[Chieron]

The Duchy of Schleswig was in 1337 still known by its original name of Sønderjylland ("South Jutland").

It appears that the names were used interchangably, but later the name Schleswig won out. Going with a name that is historical and will completely take over 50 years later for hundred of years feels preferable to me.

The House of Griffin only started using that name in the 15th century, taking it from their coat of arms. The Gryf dynasty should be called von Pommern instead.

Eh, I'd prefer the special name rather than a main title-derived one. Though, I'm not sure, if they simply took their coat of arms from Pomerania..

Sylt should be a location. Sylt was actually a peninsula until 1362, when a catastrophic storm tide (the Great Drowning of Men or 2nd St. Marcellus Flood) turned it into an island. In the Map talk I proposed that natural disasters should be a feature of the game, with weather events taking place at random. Storm tides around the North Sea would fall under this category, and there should be a high probability (though not a certainty) that one of them cuts off Sylt from Jutland by the end date.

Sylt is too small (and extremely narrow) to be a separate location. And would it be of any use for the game? Was it independent historically?

Tábor was established in 1420 by a group of Hussites that became known as the Taborites. The location needs to be renamed after some other major settlement, though I can't think of any. Since the Hussite religion is mentioned elsewhere, I assume there's some sort of event chain leading to it, so renaming that location to Tábor should be something that will happen (or might not happen) later in the game.

Apparently, the previous major settlement in that area was destroyed 70 years prior. Makes the naming awkward.

Bienne should be Biel.

Maybe, was it German speaking then?

Freiburg should be Freiburg im Breisgau. Fribourg should be Freiburg im Üechtland.

No, really no. Keep the names short, if possible. The qualifiers are anachronistic as well.

Kärnten, Steiermark and Slovenia should be reorganized into Carinthia & Carniola in the west and Styria in the east.

Really depends on how areas are used in the game. The areas a in the HRE currently are quite awful/anachronistic and tiny. The entirety of Austria could be one area in other regions (or two, with Austria proper+Salzburg being separated). Though, if the current basic setup stays, then it should probably be altered to be period-accurate as you suggest.

The German name of Bavaria at this point would be Baiern, not Bayern. The latter form was officially adopted in 1825 due to the philhellenism of the king (who apparently thought the letter y made it look more Greek), and took some time to catch on. But then, why call the countries Upper and Lower Bavaria, but the areas Oberbayern and Niederbayern? I strongly urge that the German area names be changed to English-language equivalents whenever those exist. We don't call Bohemia Čechy, or Sicily Sicilia, or Croatia Hrvatska, or Lesser Poland Małopolska, or Finland Suomi, or Bengal Bôṅgo, do we?

Again, awful HRE areas and area names. Why follow the modern government districts at all? The areas here really feel like placeholders, starting from a modern distribution as a base.

 

[Clyde Wallach]

Sylt is too small (and extremely narrow) to be a separate location.

It's 99 square km, larger than San Marino, which people keep calling for. And it was a lot larger before 1362.

And would it be of any use for the game? Was it independent historically?

Most locations on the map were not "independent historically," including most major cities, and I don't know what being of use is even supposed to mean.

I proposed Sylt as a location because I'd like to see some representation of the Frisian Islands as playable locations but most of them would be too small. Outside the Low Countries, I believe Sylt to be the largest of the archipelago. It would also be a showcase for natural disasters having the capability of transforming the map, which is something I hope to see in the game.

Maybe, was it German speaking then?

The earliest census to ask about language only took place in 1880. French-speakers were at 19% and rising over the following decades, though never reaching a majority.

https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/fr/articles/000222/2018-01-23/

The Protestant reformer with a German name Thomas Wyttenbach came from there. And there are several parts of that source which strongly indicate that the city was linguistically German long before 1880:

Le secrétaire, généralement notaire de profession, devait être bilingue à cause des relations avec l'Erguël francophone.

En 1625, le Conseil approuva pour la première fois le plan d'études de cette école latine, où enseigna entre 1621 et 1651 le mathématicien Jakob Rosius. L'école allemande ouvrit au XVIe s., celle des filles en 1621. Au XVIIIe s., on distinguait pour les garçons les écoles élémentaire, réale inférieure et réale supérieure; cette dernière remplaçait l'école latine et dispensait depuis 1747 un enseignement diversifié de caractère gymnasial, où le français, seconde langue des classes supérieures, tenait une bonne place.

Dans les années 1840, le nombre des immigrants (beaucoup d'horlogers francophones, bien que la ville fût germanophone) s'accrut fortement,

De 1844 à 1859, plus de 1700 ouvriers répondirent à l'appel, la plupart de langue maternelle française: telle est l'origine du bilinguisme de la ville.

My assumption, unless someone can argue to the contrary, is that it was a German-speaking city. The countryside to the northeast was French-speaking, but I'm not sure if it's within the Biel location.

No, really no. Keep the names short, if possible.

Without the qualifiers there would be 2 locations called Freiburg.

Again, awful HRE areas and area names. Why follow the modern government districts at all?

Here we agree fully.

(Edited to remove repetition.)

 

[Chieron]

It's 99 square km, larger than San Marino, which people keep calling for. And it was a lot larger before 1362.

The problem is the size on the map, not its actual size. It could not be interacted with very well. Compare Fehmarn, which would also be too small (though nearly twice as big as Sylt), and that one has a better shape.

Most locations on the map were not "independent historically," including most major cities, and I don't know what being of use is even supposed to mean.

If there is no tag associated with a small location and its specialties could also be handled by a neigboring one, why add it? As for "gameplay use": will the addition of Sylt change anything meaningfully in the area? Especially, if it is a peninsula, it will just be a poor location on the fringes, producing fish or sand and destined to be even poorer 20 years later. If Sylt is so small and unpopulated and dependent on the mainland that it usually was administered from there, it should be considered part of the mainland.

I proposed Sylt as a location because I'd like to see some representation of the Frisian Islands as playable locations but most of them would be too small. Outside the Low Countries, I believe Sylt to be the largest of the archipelago. It would also be a showcase for natural disasters having the capability of transforming the map, which is something I hope to see in the game.

But the same effect could be applied to Husum as a location. The Mandrenke can and did devastate that location just as well. If there is no tag, then there is not much playability either, and that playability would be limited in any case, given the low population and bad soil of these islands.

The earliest census to ask about language only took place in 1880. French-speakers were at 19% and rising over the following decades, though never reaching a majority.

https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/fr/articles/000222/2018-01-23/

The Protestant reformer with a German name Thomas Wyttenbach came from there. And there are several parts of that source which strongly indicate indicate that the city was linguistically German long before 1880:

My assumption, unless someone can argue to the contrary, is that it was a German-speaking city. The countryside to the northeast was French-speaking, but I'm not sure if it's within the Biel location.

Then they should name it Biel. I was just curious, because it seems to be in French-speaking Switzerland today.

Without the qualifiers there would be 2 locations called Freiburg.

The Swiss one could be called Friburg or Freyburg (plenty of alternative spellings during history). The qualifiers would mean that the names are not visible on the map at all, which is a reason I'd really like to avoid them whenever possible.

 

[Clyde Wallach]

The Swiss one could be called Friburg or Freyburg (plenty of alternative spellings during history). The qualifiers would mean that the names are not visible on the map at all, which is a reason I'd really like to avoid them whenever possible.

I'm fine with it as long as it's one of the historically attested German names and not the French one. Avoiding qualifiers was also my approach to the 2 Reggio's in Italy.

As for Sylt, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Clyde Wallach]

The problem is the size on the map, not its actual size. It could not be interacted with very well. Compare Fehmarn, which would also be too small (though nearly twice as big as Sylt), and that one has a better shape.


If there is no tag associated with a small location and its specialties could also be handled by a neigboring one, why add it? As for "gameplay use": will the addition of Sylt change anything meaningfully in the area? Especially, if it is a peninsula, it will just be a poor location on the fringes, producing fish or sand and destined to be even poorer 20 years later. If Sylt is so small and unpopulated and dependent on the mainland that it usually was administered from there, it should be considered part of the mainland.


But the same effect could be applied to Husum as a location. The Mandrenke can and did devastate that location just as well. If there is no tag, then there is not much playability either, and that playability would be limited in any case, given the low population and bad soil of these islands.

I know I just said we should agree to disagree, but I've reconsidered and decided to withdraw my Sylt proposal. Partly because, looking at side by side maps of the effects of the 2nd St. Marcellus Flood, I'm no longer sure it actually was a peninsula prior to 1362. And partly because it's still just too damn small after the flood, though not before.

That said, I'd like to post those maps here to illustrate just how much land was lost to the North Sea in that section of Jutland alone. I had meant to post them during our conversation but forgot.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

hello this is the german and czech portion of the rural, town and city mapmode putting here for suggestions

 

[Inzano]

And now the whole German Tinto talk area of urbanization mapmode

hello this is the german and czech portion of the rural, town and city mapmode putting here for suggestions

 

[Mef]

Kind of hard to provide any suggestions without knowing the criteria used for determining what should be a city.
The most populated cities in (the borders of modern) Germany in 1300 were:

Cologne	44k
Augsburg	19k
Aachen	18k
Worms	17k
Erfurt	16k
Münster	16k
Lübeck	15k
Magdeburg	15k
Nürnberg	14k
Bremen	13k
Frankfurt	13k
Mainz	13k

Out of those, Aachen, Worms, Münster, Magdeburg, Nürnberg, Bremen and Frankfurt aren't cities on the map, but the other 4 + Speyer (9k) are.
It's strange that Frankfurt and Nürnberg aren't cities, considering their importance as trade centers...

 

[Inzano]

Kind of hard to provide any suggestions without knowing the criteria used for determining what should be a city.
The most populated cities in (the borders of modern) Germany in 1300 were:

Cologne	44k
Augsburg	19k
Aachen	18k
Worms	17k
Erfurt	16k
Münster	16k
Lübeck	15k
Magdeburg	15k
Nürnberg	14k
Bremen	13k
Frankfurt	13k
Mainz	13k

Out of those, Aachen, Worms, Münster, Magdeburg, Nürnberg, Bremen and Frankfurt aren't cities on the map, but the other 4 + Speyer (9k) are.
It's strange that Frankfurt and Nürnberg aren't cities, considering their importance as trade centers...

Trieste had somthing like 5k population. Fiume it is even questionable how much it had in 1300, if in 1857 it had only 18.5k inhabitants.

 

[Chieron]

Nothing in Bohemia and Moravia except Prague? That looks odd.

Trieste had somthing like 5k population. Fiume it is even questionable how much it had in 1300, if in 1857 it had only 18.5k inhabitants.

5k population inside the main city is probably more than what one would expect for a town at this age. I suspect that the importance as a harbor also plays a role. Fiume(Rijeka) looks important in the 14th century to me. The small (though not tiny) size in 1857 doesn't mean much, stagnation and decline are quite common for cities given change in trade patterns and industry. A pre-industrial town with 20k inhabitants in 1850 is still pretty urbanized.
Fiume(Veneto, location Udine) not so much.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

Please cut Eisenach location into it and Gotha, both should also be part of Thuringia landgraviate

 

[ArVass]

I would say Brno, Olomouc, and Kutná Hora would maybe deserve town status

 

[Daverix]

On the coat of arms of Bregenz, Feldkirch and Werdenberg:
At the start date, all three counties are ruled by branches of the noble family "Montfort", itself a branch of the swabian family "Tübingen", and their coat of arms descends from the counts palatine of Tübingen, showing a red gonfanon on gold:
View attachment 1185838
The first coat of arms of the counts of montfort just changed the shield from gold to silver:
View attachment 1185839
However soon the family would split into several branches, and each would adopt a slightly different variation.
Luckily for us, there is a depiction of the various coat of arms exactly from this period (ca. 1335-1345) out of the Zürich Armorial:
View attachment 1185840
Showing from left to right: Bregenz, Werdenberg, Feldkirch, Tettnang, Asperg, Heiligenberg;
Unfortunately for us, we can't take these at face value, and have to add historical context.
Bregenz
View attachment 1185841View attachment 1185842
To the left the arms from the Zürich Armorial, to the right the modern arms of the city of Bregenz. It is unkown where it originates, in the 16th century it was claimed to be the arms of the Uldarichinger (which ruled Bregenz before the Montforts took over), but they likely never had their own coat of arms. The design was probably invented in the 14th century to claim legitimacy from the long extinct Uldarichinger, and over the centuries came to be associated with the city of Bregenz. It's unkown whether the Montforts of Bregenz used it instead of, or alongside their own arms, or it was simply mistakenly attributed to them.
After the branch Montfort-Bregenz died out in 1338, the following line of Montfort-Tettnang-Bregenz would use a red Montfort gonfanon on a silver shield:View attachment 1185843

Feldkirch
The Feldkirch branch was until it's extinction in 1375 the senior branch, ruling over the "Stammburg" near Götzis and the rich city of Feldkirch. The Armorial shows it using the original arms from TübingenView attachment 1185855. The city of Feldkirch was awarded the coat of arms with a Montfort gonfanon in black on a silver shieldView attachment 1185846 in the 16th century by the Habsburgs. That black on silver banner is sometimes called the "peace-banner", with the red on silver supposedly being the Montfort war-banner, but that is likely an urban legend.

Werdenberg
First this branch used a black gonfanon on silverView attachment 1185846, but by 1337 the branch had further split into Werdenberg-Heiligenberg and Werdenberg-Sargans.
Ingame shown is probably the line Werdenberg-Sargans, which used a silver gonfanon on a red shieldView attachment 1185849, while Werdenberg-Heiligenberg continued using the original armsView attachment 1185846, so the Armorial likely mixed those two up (or mixed Heiligenberg up with Herrenberg, the rulers of which used a gold gonfanon on red).

So based on this discussion, I'd choose the coat of arms as follows:
Montfort-Bregenz:......................Montfort-Feldkirch:....................Werdenberg-Sargans*:
View attachment 1185853View attachment 1185856View attachment 1185854
*since the black gonfanon on silver is still strongly associated with the counts of Werdenberg, perhaps View attachment 1186149 is more fitting to represent Werdenberg over the centuries, with the issue it's also quite strongly associated with the city of Feldkirch - at the end of the day the colour combination was quite variable historically, picking one over another to represent these counties will always be a little arbitrary.

Edit: as there has been some demand for a playable "Lichtenstein", in 1342 there was another split in the Werdenberg line, creating the line "Werdenberg-Vaduz" and the first independant County of Vaduz, which would pass in 1613 to the Counts of Hohenems, which in turn would sell Vaduz in 1712 to the Prince of Lichtenstein.
Though anachronistic for 1337, a line Werdenberg-Vaduz might be fun for roleplay. They used a silver gonfanon on a black shield.
View attachment 1188465

That is a very detailed posting. :O
You put a lot of effort in that, respect.
Kum mol z Bludaz ins Köö den spendier i dir a Bier.
Hosch dir bei dem Ufwand verdiant.
lg.

 

[Lord_Telchar]

That is a very detailed posting. :O
You put a lot of effort in that, respect.
Kum mol z Bludaz ins Köö den spendier i dir a Bier.
Hosch dir bei dem Ufwand verdiant.
lg.

Thanks! I merely turned some research I made for personal enjoyment into something that's (more or less) useful . (And I'm mildly annoyed about the otherwise excellent mod "Ordo Heraldica Regum et Ducum" mistakenly using the modern coat of arms of Bregenz instead of the historical one, which the base game gets more right)

Zu na Bier säg i nia na, nur as treuer Oberländer trink i wedr Mohra noch Fohra, nur sgoldige Frastnr! Leider in Züri nur importiert erhältlich, dia Schwizr künnan ka Bier braua.
Liabe Grüaß ins schöne Bludaz us da Schwiez!

 

[Ramburakx]

I would like to remind that "Posázavsko" should be referred to as "Posázaví," as the term "Posázavsko" does not exist. Additionally, "Hradišťsko" could perhaps be changed to "Hradiště" or "Uherské Hradiště." As a native speaker, I find these alternatives easier to read and pronounce. While it's not necessarily incorrect, using "Hradišťsko" feels somewhat odd in Czech, though I can't quite pinpoint why. Thank you for your hard work! The game showcased in the dev diaries looks awesome.

 

[Palando]

I would like to remind that "Posázavsko" should be referred to as "Posázaví," as the term "Posázavsko" does not exist. Additionally, "Hradišťsko" could perhaps be changed to "Hradiště" or "Uherské Hradiště." As a native speaker, I find these alternatives easier to read and pronounce. While it's not necessarily incorrect, using "Hradišťsko" feels somewhat odd in Czech, though I can't quite pinpoint why. Thank you for your hard work! The game showcased in the dev diaries looks awesome.


View attachment 1198036

I have seen it spelt Hradišťsko but also Hradištsko. Wiki only knows the version with ť https://cs.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hradišťsko

The one without is easier to pronounce, though.

 

[Inzano]

I have seen it spelt Hradišťsko but also Hradištsko. Wiki only knows the version with ť https://cs.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hradišťsko

The one without is easier to pronounce, though.

View attachment 1198305

It is interesting that Czechs use -sko and -cko for provinces. In Slovenian, we use the suffixes -ska, -ška and rarely -je.