Tinto Maps #18 - 13th of September 2024 - Persia & Caucasus

[GenericUsername1444]

I just discovered I serendipitously happen to own "The Historical Atlas of Georgia" by David Muskhelishvili. With guidance from this landmark of a book, I propose several changes that should be made to the Caucasus region, but first, some information:

In the 1320s the Georgian king Giorgi the Brilliant (1318-1346) took advantage of the weakening of Mongol rule and reunited the Georgian kingdom. The borders of the Georgian state underwent some alteration. By 1333 Kabala/Qabalah was still within the boundaries of Georgia (Janashvili 1894: 206); but by 1339 this province, according to the Persian historian Hamdallah Qazvini (1281 - after 1339/1340), passed to Shirvan (Nuzhat: 93). In the extreme southeast the provinces of Shamkor and Gardman were lost. Qazvini describes the fortress-city of Khunani/Khanan as the extreme outpost of the country bordering Arran (Nuzhat: 94). In the 1330s northern Armenia, including Siwnik', was still within the boundaries of Georgia (Colophons: 65; HDzH XIV: 297). The cities of Kars, Ani and Erevan were regarded as Georgian cities by Armenian and Persian writers (Hamdallah Qazvini, Nuzhat: 94; HDzH XIV: 286-88; Bartold, Nadpis ': 317-18), but Valashkert, Surbmari and Kaghzevan were detached from the country and given to Greater Armenia and Aderbaijan (Azerbaijan) (see above). Prince Vakhusht'i points out that Giorgi the Brilliant "subjected ... Armenia, which paid tribute continuously, and there were no Tatars [i.e.,Mongols] remaining throughout his realm" (KC IV:259). There is no doubt that Georgia's powerful political and cultural influence extended over the North Caucasus as well. According to Qazvini, Alania was within the boundaries of Georgia (Nuzhat: 94). Another account, which dates back to 1310, notes that Georgian bishoprics existed in Dagestan and Chechnya, namely "the episcopate of Ants'ukhi ... and thechurches of the Khundz and the Nakhch" (Kekelidze 2, 1945: 314). The synodikon of St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai has preserved the name of "Okrop'iri - the catholicos of Ghundzeti [or Ghundzeli]" (Kldiashvili, Sulta mat'iane: 196v; Kekelidze2, 1945: 319). Prince Vakhusht'i proves that, "the Caucasians dwelling in the territory from Nik'opsisas far as Daruband were subjected as well; and Rani, Movak'ani, and Shirvani paid tribute" (KC IV: 259). The southwestem border was also altered. According to the narrative of Michael Panaretos (1320 - 1390), Lazike (Ch'aneti) was in Trapezuntine hands by the mid-14th century (cap. 87).

The kingdom was divided into the saeristavos. There are no references to the saeristavos in eastern Georgia in the period under consideration. Just a few of them are known from the texts. [...]. In the second half of the century, the saeristavo was transformed into a satavado, i.e. lordship. As we learn from the documentary and narrative sources, the junior branch of the Bagrat'ionis (the offspring of Giorgi the Brilliant's brother) ruled in Zemo Javakheti and parts of Kvemo Kartli (with the center in Lore) and northern Armenia. They are titled Alast'aneli, i.e. of Alast'ani after the homonymous village in Javakheti. This dynasty lasted for almost a hundred years. The last Alast'aneli died in the 1380s and some of their holdings (including Alast'ani) passed to the Church. In modem literature the Alast'anelis are referred to as provincial kings (Ninidze 1995). In the first half of the 14th century, by order of the papacy, Catholic episcopates were founded in Tbilisi (1329) and Tskhumi (1318). The latter was in service of the parish of Genoese factoriums along the Black Sea coast in Apkhazeti (Geraldi, Epist.: 121-23 ; Tamarati 1910: 440-43).

With this information in mind, here are my proposed changes to the map:

(From west to east because it's more natural)

• Some North Caucasian polities and SoPs should be under nominal Georgian suzeranity. Tsakhur, however, should be a vassal;
• The Patriarchate of Georgia should have influence over the aforementioned North Caucasian territory;
• Highland Kartvelian people should be represented as a SoP within Georgia;
• Georgia should control the Abkhazian coastline up to Nicopsis;
• The Genoese/"Latins" should have a trade agreement with Georgia;
• The Mingrelian culture should be majority in Abkhazia up to the location of Bedia or Sukhumi, with Abkhazians in the majority beyond that point. This is a very complex subject and I am more than open to discussion;
• Lazeti/Chaneti should be controlled by Samtskhe (until Trebizond perhaps gets it back through an event or mission);
• Trebizond, if possible, should be a historical friend of Georgia;
• The Duchy of Tao/Panaskerti should be a vassal under Georgia;
• Samtskhe should control Kars and Speri (İspir); Ani can perhaps remain as a vassal of Georgia;
• The locations referred to as "Kasriskari", "Jariekhi", and "Shatili" should be directly, though loosely, controlled by Georgia;
• The Province modeled in-game as "Tashir" and some territories near it should be controlled by a junior branch of the ruling Bagrationi dynasty (and function like the appanages of France);
• Eastern Armenian principalities should be under Georgian suzeranity;
• The land in and around the province of Shaki should be directly controlled by the crown, and be culturally mixed and religiously Orthodox.

There's definitely more to be said here, but for the sake of brevity, these are the main propositions.

Furthermore, I fully concur with the suggestions made by @giorgi1999 and @Georgian Noble with regards to the changes to the amount of locations, changes to the localisations of the names, and so on. I suggest the developers read their posts for some clear guidence. You can find their suggestions here, here, here, here and here respectively.

The (updated) map provided to us by @SuperLexxe is generally spot-on, and I think with some minor tweaking with regards to the borders between the subjects, among other things, it could reflect the situation of the Caucasus of 1337 rather well:

On the subject of, well, subjects, I think the decision to make the Armenian provinces directly owned by the crown or have them stay as vassals is completely arbitrary.

I, for one, think that the various Armenian polities to the south of Georgia should be represented in Project Caesar as vassal states of the Georgian crown, purely for gameplay reasons. Let me explain my reasoning.
If we were to completely abide by historicity, then all provinces and locations, save for the capital of Tbilisi and its immediate surroundings, would have to be represented as vassals, but as that would hurt the gameplay loop and would open a huge can of worms on a global scale, it would be advisable to avoid such an interpretation of history for the game, as the definition of "control" is very subjective and varies from region to region.
There is also the question of just how integrated the vassals would've been. In the case of Ciscausasia, the answer is quite clear - royal power was very difficult to enforce on a semi-tribal society, and therefore, an International Organisation would better represent the complex relationship between the two sides of the mountain range.
Armenia's relationship with Georgia, however, is a little harder to explain, but I generally stick with my view as explained above with regards to their vassalage. By 1337, Armenia (specifically eastern Armenia) has been under Georgian political control for more than 200 years. With the loosening of the Mongol yoke from the south, these polities naturally would've turned to their traditional overlord in the name of safety and legitimacy. Again, the choice is arbitrary, but I think vassalage over an IO represents this situation the best.

Well, that's all folks! There go 2 hours of my l'll never get back.

I am very much open to differing opinions, and let's hope the developers consider the proposals the community have made for this region.
Speaking of, I don't know which developers to tag, so let's just hope this reaches them through word of mouth.



There's also this map which I wanted to post:

I think this could be useful for modeling the in-game terrain for the region.


... and this map, which may be slightly anachronistic, but it's the best thing we have:

And finally, this map, which will definitely be useful for the Imperator: Rome style system of roads which PC will have:

 

[Ispil]

Don't mind me, just gonna bookmark that post and download the relevant diocese map...

 

[GenericUsername1444]

Don't mind me, just gonna bookmark that post and download the relevant diocese map...

I should also post the legend for all these maps...

 

[prinscky]

The total absence of Mongolian culture and population at the year 1337 is a bit too far I think. For the Mongols have been ruling the nation for 80 years and when they came they formed a large number of army around 200,000 people, half of them was Mongols, not to mention the later reinforcement they received from the Mongol proper. And unlike the Golden horde and Chagatai ulus, the Ilkhani Mongols faced much less pressure of localization, largely due to the multi-culture and multi-religion nature of this land. At least places around the capital Tabriz and Azerbaijan and Shirvan area should have significant Mongol population, as this was their political center and the Mongols used the Mughan plain as their winter pasture (the surrounding highlands and mountains as summer pasture).
The Mongols of Azerbaijan area was largely destroyed by later event, the most crucial one was the invasion of Golden Horde in 1357 that completely ravaged the land and the second was Timur invasion, the Mongols of the area was dispersed afterwards and the remnants was absorbed by the later arrived Turkmen tribes, but that was later history around year 1400s not the year 1337.

 

[Ispil]

---

View attachment 1197738

---

Looking into it, Kharan shouldn't be a state. That footnote has to do with the fact that Kalat would be in what was then the Princely State of Kharan, as a part of British India.

Give that territory to the Mihrabanids. Makes more sense that way.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

I sort of expected more resonance from my gigantic post

 

[Georgian Noble]

I just discovered I serendipitously happen to own "The Historical Atlas of Georgia" by David Muskhelishvili. With guidance from this landmark of a book, I propose several changes that should be made to the Caucasus region, but first, some information:

View attachment 1198893​

With this information in mind, here are my proposed changes to the map:

(From west to east because it's more natural)

• Some North Caucasian polities and SoPs should be under nominal Georgian suzeranity;
• The Patriarchate of Georgia should have influence over the aforementioned North Caucasian territory;
• Georgia should control the Abkhazian coastline up to Nicopsis;
• The Genoese/"Latins" should have a trade agreement with Georgia;
• The Mingrelian culture should be majority in Abkhazia up to the location of Bedia or Sukhumi, with Abkhazians in the majority beyond that point. This is a very complex subject and I am more than open to discussion;
• Lazeti/Chaneti should be under direct crown control (until Trebizond perhaps gets it back through an event or mission);
• Trebizond, if possible, should be a historical friend of Georgia;
• The Duchy of Tao should be a vassal under Georgia;
• Samtskhe should control Kars, Ani, and Speri (İspir);
• The locations referred to as "Kasriskari", "Jariekhi", and "Shatili" should be directly, though loosely, controlled by Georgia;
• The Province modeled in-game as "Tashir" should be controlled by a junior branch of the ruling Bagrationi dynasty (and function like the appanages of France)
• Eastern Armenian principalities should be under Georgian suzeranity;
• The land in and around Shaki should be directly controlled by the crown, and be culturally Georgian and religiously Orthodox.

There's definitely more to be said here, but for the sake of brevity, these are the main propositions.

Furthermore, I fully concur with the suggestions made by @giorgi1999 and @Georgian Noble with regards to the changes to the amount of locations, changes to the localisations of the names, and so on. I suggest the developers read their posts for some clear guidence. You can find their suggestions here and here, here, and here, respectively.

The map provided to us by @SuperLexxe is generally spot-on, and I think with some minor tweaking with regards to the borders between the subjects, it could reflect the situation of the Caucasus of 1337 rather well:

View attachment 1198894​

On the subject of, well, subjects, I think the decision to make the Armenian provinces directly owned by the crown or have them stay as vassals is completely arbitrary.
I, for one, think that the various Armenian polities to the south of Georgia should be represented in Project Caesar as vassal states of the Georgian crown, purely for gameplay reasons. Let me explain my reasoning.
If we were to completely abide by historicity, then all provinces and locations, save for the capital of Tbilisi and its immediate surroundings, would have to be represented as vassals, but as that would hurt the gameplay loop and would open a huge can of worms on a global scale, it would be advisable to avoid such an interpretation of history for the game, as the definition of "control" is very subjective and varies from region to region.
There is also the question of just how integrated the vassals would've been. In the case of Ciscausasia, the answer is quite clear - royal power was very difficult to enforce on a semi-tribal society, and therefore, an International Organisation would better represent the complex relationship between the two sides of the mountain range.
Armenia's relationship with Georgia, however, is a little harder to explain, but I generally stick with my view as explained above with regards to their vassalage. By 1337, Armenia (specifically eastern Armenia) has been under Georgian political control for more than 200 years. With the loosening of the Mongol yoke from the south, these polities naturally would've turned to their traditional overlord in the name of safety and legitimacy. Again, the choice is arbitrary, but I think vassalage over an IO represents this situation the best.

Well, that's all folks! There go 2 hours of my l'll never get back.

I am very much open to differing opinions, and let's hope the developers consider the proposals the community have made for this region.
Speaking of, I don't know which developers to tag, so let's just hope this reaches them through word of mouth.


There's also this map which I wanted to post:

View attachment 1198895

I think this could be useful for modeling the in-game terrain for the region.


... and this map, which may be slightly anachronistic, but it's the best thing we have:

View attachment 1198896

And finally, this map, which will definitely be useful for the Imperator: Rome style system of roads which PC will have:


View attachment 1198897

what an amazing analysis man! I didn't know if those maps existed in English language too haha, I own the book in Georgian myself.

 

[Ispil]

I sort of expected more resonance from my gigantic post

I mean, I am totally stealing several of those maps. One for the dioceses so I can represent all those eparchies, one for the duchy map so that I can have my "administrative division" mod idea actually represent those duchies as hereditary administrative divisions.

I just don't have all that much to add beyond that.

 

[Georgian Noble]

I just discovered I serendipitously happen to own "The Historical Atlas of Georgia" by David Muskhelishvili. With guidance from this landmark of a book, I propose several changes that should be made to the Caucasus region, but first, some information:

View attachment 1198893​

With this information in mind, here are my proposed changes to the map:

(From west to east because it's more natural)

• Some North Caucasian polities and SoPs should be under nominal Georgian suzeranity;
• The Patriarchate of Georgia should have influence over the aforementioned North Caucasian territory;
• Georgia should control the Abkhazian coastline up to Nicopsis;
• The Genoese/"Latins" should have a trade agreement with Georgia;
• The Mingrelian culture should be majority in Abkhazia up to the location of Bedia or Sukhumi, with Abkhazians in the majority beyond that point. This is a very complex subject and I am more than open to discussion;
• Lazeti/Chaneti should be under direct crown control (until Trebizond perhaps gets it back through an event or mission);
• Trebizond, if possible, should be a historical friend of Georgia;
• The Duchy of Tao should be a vassal under Georgia;
• Samtskhe should control Kars, Ani, and Speri (İspir);
• The locations referred to as "Kasriskari", "Jariekhi", and "Shatili" should be directly, though loosely, controlled by Georgia;
• The Province modeled in-game as "Tashir" should be controlled by a junior branch of the ruling Bagrationi dynasty (and function like the appanages of France)
• Eastern Armenian principalities should be under Georgian suzeranity;
• The land in and around Shaki should be directly controlled by the crown, and be culturally Georgian and religiously Orthodox.

There's definitely more to be said here, but for the sake of brevity, these are the main propositions.

Furthermore, I fully concur with the suggestions made by @giorgi1999 and @Georgian Noble with regards to the changes to the amount of locations, changes to the localisations of the names, and so on. I suggest the developers read their posts for some clear guidence. You can find their suggestions here and here, here, and here, respectively.

The map provided to us by @SuperLexxe is generally spot-on, and I think with some minor tweaking with regards to the borders between the subjects, it could reflect the situation of the Caucasus of 1337 rather well:

View attachment 1198894​

On the subject of, well, subjects, I think the decision to make the Armenian provinces directly owned by the crown or have them stay as vassals is completely arbitrary.
I, for one, think that the various Armenian polities to the south of Georgia should be represented in Project Caesar as vassal states of the Georgian crown, purely for gameplay reasons. Let me explain my reasoning.
If we were to completely abide by historicity, then all provinces and locations, save for the capital of Tbilisi and its immediate surroundings, would have to be represented as vassals, but as that would hurt the gameplay loop and would open a huge can of worms on a global scale, it would be advisable to avoid such an interpretation of history for the game, as the definition of "control" is very subjective and varies from region to region.
There is also the question of just how integrated the vassals would've been. In the case of Ciscausasia, the answer is quite clear - royal power was very difficult to enforce on a semi-tribal society, and therefore, an International Organisation would better represent the complex relationship between the two sides of the mountain range.
Armenia's relationship with Georgia, however, is a little harder to explain, but I generally stick with my view as explained above with regards to their vassalage. By 1337, Armenia (specifically eastern Armenia) has been under Georgian political control for more than 200 years. With the loosening of the Mongol yoke from the south, these polities naturally would've turned to their traditional overlord in the name of safety and legitimacy. Again, the choice is arbitrary, but I think vassalage over an IO represents this situation the best.

Well, that's all folks! There go 2 hours of my l'll never get back.

I am very much open to differing opinions, and let's hope the developers consider the proposals the community have made for this region.
Speaking of, I don't know which developers to tag, so let's just hope this reaches them through word of mouth.


There's also this map which I wanted to post:

View attachment 1198895

I think this could be useful for modeling the in-game terrain for the region.


... and this map, which may be slightly anachronistic, but it's the best thing we have:

View attachment 1198896

And finally, this map, which will definitely be useful for the Imperator: Rome style system of roads which PC will have:


View attachment 1198897

I don't agree with you about Shaki though, imo, Udis were majority there at the time.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

I mean, I am totally stealing several of those maps. One for the dioceses so I can represent all those eparchies, one for the duchy map so that I can have my "administrative division" mod idea actually represent those duchies as hereditary administrative divisions.

I just don't have all that much to add beyond that.

I mean, if you want any more maps you can just ask (shrug)

I don't agree with you about Shaki though, imo, Udis were majority there at the time.

I don't think so. By this point, western Shirvan/Hereti has been under the Georgian control for a good 300+ years. Not much would've been left of their Albanian roots.

 

[Ispil]

I mean, if you want any more maps you can just ask (shrug)

Honestly I don't think I need all that many more, at least for Georgia/Armenia. I have appropriate administrative divisions, and I have dioceses. That's all I really needed.

Now if only I could get those sorts of dioceses maps for other parts of the Orthodox world...

 

[GenericUsername1444]

Honestly I don't think I need all that many more, at least for Georgia/Armenia. I have appropriate administrative divisions, and I have dioceses. That's all I really needed.

Now if only I could get those sorts of maps for other parts of the Orthodox world...

I can tell you from experience that this book is a godsend. Finding a book like this in English in eastern Europe is nigh impossible - it's just that Georgia orientates itself so much towards the west that it makes stuff like this possible. I really doubt there's an equivalent of this book in Moldova or Bulgaria...

 

[giorgi1999]

I can tell you from experience that this book is a godsend. Finding a book like this in English in eastern Europe is nigh impossible - it's just that Georgia orientates itself so much towards the west that it makes stuff like this possible. I really doubt there's an equivalent of this book in Moldova or Bulgaria...

tbh, I always take maps like these with a hefty pinch of salt.

Many of the well known maps that we take as fact in Georgia, often aren't really based in reality, or cherrypick sources.

 

[giorgi1999]

I mean, if you want any more maps you can just ask (shrug)

I don't think so. By this point, western Shirvan/Hereti has been under the Georgian control for a good 300+ years. Not much would've been left of their Albanian roots.

I mean hereti yeah, but the areas in shirvan proper, not so much no.

But idk.
Personally I wouldn't put anything more than a minority georgian pop in shaki.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

tbh, I always take maps like these with a hefty pinch of salt.

Many of the well known maps that we take as fact in Georgia, often aren't really based in reality, or cherrypick sources.

I don't know man, these maps were made by the most respectable and educated academicians of the country. This is as good as it gets.

I mean hereti yeah, but the areas in shirvan proper, not so much no.

But idk.
Personally I wouldn't put anything more than a minority georgian pop in shaki.

I remember reading that David IV specifically annexed the western parts of Shirvan directly precisely due to them still being Christians. Perhaps a mixed population with a Christian majority in the province could be our compromise?

Edit: do you have any other complaints to my propositions? Like I said, I'm open to discussion.

 

[giorgi1999]

I don't know man, these maps were made by the most respectable and educated academicians of the country. This is as good as it gets.

I remember reading that David IV specifically annexed the western parts of Shirvan directly precisely due to them still being Christians. Perhaps a mixed population with a Christian majority in the province could be our compromise?

Edit: do you have any other complaints to my propositions? Like I said, I'm open to discussion.

Many of the reputable academics often sell their opinions as fact.
But that's a long story.
These maps might actually be great.
Just don't think we should take them at face value without doing some sort of peer review.


Not much tbh, I just kinda think that we're going a bit too deep on this.
As the historian I asked a few questions to, to write my first post, said: it's just a game

 

[GenericUsername1444]

Just don't think we should take them at face value without doing some sort of peer review.

I completely agree. Have we found any conflicting evidence between our suggestions?

As the historian I asked a few questions to, to write my first post, said: it's just a game

Fair enough. I just think it'd be nice if this country were to get a fair depiction in a GSG for once.

 

[MCanaltin]

Instead of 'Azeri,' terms like 'Ajam-Turkic,' 'Ajam Turki,' 'Torki,' or 'Ajam Turkish' could be considered, as they may offer a more fitting alternative. Likewise, Anatolian Turkish could be referred to as 'Rum Turkish.' Although these two languages eventually diverged completely, their relationship—along with the societies that spoke them—remained highly dynamic until the 16th century. Even by the 17th century, as noted in Evliya Çelebi's work, Azerbaijani Turkish (referred to as 'türkī' or 'ḳızılbaşī') served as the lingua franca in eastern Anatolia, Iraq, and the southern Caucasus. If there are any inaccuracies or gaps in this approach, I would appreciate your insights.

 

[giorgi1999]

I completely agree. Have we found any conflicting evidence between our suggestions?

Fair enough. I just think it'd be nice if this country were to get a fair depiction in a GSG for once.

Went and double checked a few things on a very surface level and yeah these maps are most probably more on the legit side, at least with what info we got.

Also I went over you suggestions and have a few things to say:

• Some North Caucasian polities and SoPs should be under nominal Georgian suzeranity;

I think the suzerainty was quite nominal. Not sure it needs to be implemented, not even sure how exactly.
Do we have any documents describing some sort of formal agreements? If not it just seems like they would be in Georgia's sphere of influence, so to say, and that's it.

• The Patriarchate of Georgia should have influence over the aforementioned North Caucasian territory;

Specifically in the north-eastern areas, but not central-north or north-west.
The church of Alania was another player in that area. Then again, at this point it would already be weakened.
But I don't think that resulted in an increase of influence for the Georgian church either.

• Georgia should control the Abkhazian coastline up to Nicopsis;

This seems debatable. If this change results in Georgia having high control over the location, with the game's mechanics, then I'd say no.

• The Mingrelian culture should be majority in Abkhazia up to the location of Bedia or Sukhumi, with Abkhazians in the majority beyond that point. This is a very complex subject and I am more than open to discussion;

Already said my piece on this. Good that you also realize the complexity of this topic.

• Lazeti/Chaneti should be under direct crown control (until Trebizond perhaps gets it back through an event or mission);

This is just to sate my curiosity, but do you know how Georgia ended up exerting direct control over that area, and when?

• Trebizond, if possible, should be a historical friend of Georgia;

I know that there was a foreign policy shift in Trebizond, from Georgia towards Byzantium.
After which the close relations dissipated between the two states.
But I don't remember when this happened exactly.

• Samtskhe should control Kars, Ani, and Speri (İspir);

This seems to be a contentious topic, because of the contradictive claims of the various sources.

• Eastern Armenian principalities should be under Georgian suzeranity;

This is also kinda similar.
From how I see it, these areas had a history of basically direct Georgian rule, but after the mongols, this influence ended up becoming almost more of a de jure thing.
And whenever Georgia regained strength, these smaller Christian states would naturally realign themselves towards it.
So more of a touch and go, informal relationship, than anything concrete.
I don't think the game's systems allows us to illustrate that properly.
And I don't think asking the devs to create an unique IO, just for Georgia is fair.

• The land in and around Shaki should be directly controlled by the crown, and be culturally Georgian and religiously Orthodox.

Already wrote about this before.
But yeah, maybe adding Shaki to Georgia, might be correct, but not making it majority Georgian culture.



And finally I got one thing to say about this map:

It might be underestimating the sizes of some types of vegetation zones.
Like the swamps in the western Georgian lowlands, also used to cover areas in the Bedia location.
I think they still do partially.
Some of the swamps were drained during the soviet times.

Issue is I'm not sure if the creators of this map also did research on this matter and found out what the vegetation was like back then and that what they show here, was indeed the case.

There were definitely changes in climate over the centuries, that could have affected the vegetation.
And the human factor should also be considered.
We know that some areas got depopulated because of one reason or another and those areas often were taken over by nature, fast.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

Do we have any documents describing some sort of formal agreements?

I mean, it can be argued that Alania should be a SoP in 1337, so I really doubt there were any bilateral treaties or agreements between the two. I think your critique has merit, though. Most of the Georgian control over the North Caucasus is rooted in tradition and really decentralised overlordship. All we know is that Giorgi V expelled the Alans from Georgia proper and made them pay tribute.

Specifically in the north-eastern areas, but not central-north or north-west.
The church of Alania was another player in that area.

The conversion of the Northern Caucasians occured over a long period of time with the combined efforts of the Constantinopolitan and Georgian Patriarch. If I recall correctly, the church hierarchy of the middle ages stipulated the subordinance of all North Caucasian bishops to Mstkheta.

This seems debatable. If this change results in Georgia having high control over the location, with the game's mechanics, then I'd say no.

In PC there's a control equilibrium. This means that the province will naturally have less control even if it's directly integrated within the polity. In light of this, I don't think the depiction of the coast up to Nikopsia as Georgian clay would be problematic.

This is just to sate my curiosity, but do you know how Georgia ended up exerting direct control over that area, and when?

You know how David Narin attacked Trebizond and seized most of the Kartvelian bits of the region? The same occured in the 14th century only with Samtskhe doing the invading. We can conjecture that the peaceful return of the land back to Trebizond could've only occured had the land been under royal control.

I know that there was a foreign policy shift in Trebizond, from Georgia towards Byzantium.
After which the close relations dissipated between the two states.
But I don't remember when this happened exactly.

To be honest, I only wrote that suggestion because in EU4, Georgia and Trebizond start as historical friends and I think some continuity between 1337 and 1444 would be nice.

This seems to be a contentious topic, because of the contradictive claims of the various sources.
From how I see it, these areas had a history of basically direct Georgian rule, but after the mongols, this influence ended up becoming almost more of a de jure thing.
And whenever Georgia regained strength, these smaller Christian states would naturally realign themselves towards it.
So more of a touch and go, informal relationship, than anything concrete.
I don't think the game's systems allows us to illustrate that properly.
And I don't think asking the devs to create an unique IO, just for Georgia is fair.

Who would you have own these locations?
The consolidation of the realm, which occured under George V, means that the locations are under de facto Georgian control anyway. This level of unity in the South Caucasus wouldn't ever be achieved ever again (by an autochthonous state, anyway).
And about the IO - it's not a big deal at all. From what we've seen, basically all regions have one.

But yeah, maybe adding Shaki to Georgia, might be correct, but not making it majority Georgian culture.

The way I see it, religion and ethnicity are so inextricably tied in this region, that the Udis of Albania would've been largely assimilated by the church by 1337. The ones practicing the Armenian rites became Armenians. The ones that adopted Islam became Persianate and subsequently Azeri.
Though who am I to say, I'm not an ethnologue. Everything written in this thread is conjecture anyway.

It might be underestimating the sizes of some types of vegetation zones.
Like the swamps in the western Georgian lowlands, also used to cover areas in the Bedia location.
I think they still do partially.
Some of the swamps were drained during the soviet times.

Issue is I'm not sure if the creators of this map also did research on this matter and found out what the vegetation was like back then and that what they show here, was indeed the case.

There were definitely changes in climate over the centuries, that could have affected the vegetation.
And the human factor should also be considered.
We know that some areas got depopulated because of one reason or another and those areas often were taken over by nature, fast.

I can't at all speak for this map. I just found it in the "miscellaneous maps" part of the book and just posted it because it looked interesting.