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

[Ispil]

You wouldn't support any other sort of debuff to represent the effective independence of such locations?

Could also throw in some low control, but honestly the effective independence is more a consequence of low control and remote terrain. They're a product of their circumstance, not a cause.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

Just for fun, here's the territorial evolution of Georgia as per @SuperLexxe's maps and my stream of information over the course of a few months:

​

I think it's quite interesting to observe how the map gets progressively filled out and becomes more detailed over time.

 

[Aramenian]

It's interesting to see how much has changed since the region was last shown.
We'll find out on Monday

The Dopyans dynasty should control all locations around Lake Sevan.

Гавар (город) — Википедия

ru.wikipedia.org

 

[GeorgeVVBush]

I know I'm a bit late on the arrival but never the less, here are my two cents on societal values of Georgia. GenericUsername1444 overall did a magnificent job at providing additional info and content sources about the country, but I slightly disagree about the take on societal values in certain points. (stated here) Again, this is just my take on the concept:
Decentralization vs Centralization: -33
I fullheartedly agree, Georgia was a decentralized state, with grand duchies already beginning to emerge in their embryonic form at the time period. Most notable example of this, of course, being Samtskhe, that would become one of the major particularity force against the crown. With that being said, I dont think that Georgia should begin with with -50 value, as the country wasn't on a decentralization downward spiral yet at this point and who knows how would the situation would develop if monarchs like Alexander II "the Great" would inherit the country in a better shape, rather than a warn torn horror show after Timurid invasions.
Traditionalist vs Innovative: 0
A rather hot take, I agree, but I do seriously think that this should be at ZERO: On the one hand, indeed the tradition played vital role in the medieval Georgian society, but with that being said, Georgia was NOT an isolationist culture and in fact actively tried to keep up to date with the developments around the world, even throughout the devastating periods of the XVI-XVIII centuries. This applied to the general population as well, as for example, even in the rather Grim descriptions of that period, such as those of Archangello Lamberti and Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, one fo the more or less consistent positive traits of the populace that are not related to wars or hospitality, are curiosity and striving towarsds education. if anything, for an a war torn society, surrounded by hostile forces, I think that society still managed to be up to date with the developments around the world.

Spiritualist vs Humanist: -75
I fullhearteldy agree that Georgia was a heavily religious kingdom and society centered decisevly around the church. With that being said, I would reduce its value to a bit lower than -90, as Georgians maintained very cordial relations with Westerners and the Catholic church, though it should also be stated that Georgians, i think, would view them as schismatic and not outright heretics, so maybe it can be -90 if 'tolerance to heretics' doesnt apply to catholics in this case.

Aristocracy vs Plutocracy: -90
Nothing to add here. Georgia was a heavily aristocratic society that despised anything related to merchants with every fiber of their being.

Serfdom vs Free Subjects: -60
I think that its a fair take. Nothing to add.

Belligerent vs Conciliatory: -20
I disagree that Georgia should be concilliatory. Remember, this is the same country whose King called a certain swell guy that had a skull tower building as a hobby an "effeminate sissy", hardly a diplomatic achievment. You would think that the collapse of an unified kingdom would make things different, but not really, you still have people like Simeon I of Kartli (basically a less vampiric Georgian version of Vlad III Tepes in regards of the Ottomans) writing to Felipe II of Spain about how they should join forces to liberate Constantinople and Jerusalem and wipe out the turks. Of course, how a desolate kingdom in a perpetual state of war planned to wage a total extermination war is anyones guess, but that's besides the point. The only justifiable factor that would support concilliatory attitude, would be the fact that Georgia was contantly active on an international arena and tried to find allies and sure, an average Georgian concentrated on politeness and hospitality even more than a Tzimisce metuselah would, but I think that for the most part (bot externally and internally) country (and polities after the collapse of the country) was more or less belligrent.

Quality vs Quantity: -70
nothing to add here

Offensive vs Defensive: +25
I dont think that Georgia should start as defensive as +80. Even after the collapse, the Georgian polities treid to expand as much as they could, with several minor khanates becomming vassals of Heraclius II og Kartli Kahketi. And it definitely shouldnt be as defensive at the start of the Game. This is the time period, where Timurid invasions didnt happen yet, the country is on path of restoring its power base after ousting the Mongols and is planning with Christian powers in engaging a Crusade.

Land vs Naval: -90
if anything, the Country should be even MORE Telurocratic. Only active attempt at building a navy was during the reign of George IV and no significant attempts were held afterwards. Black Sea didnt offer as much opportunities for large maritime interaction to been worth building a navy for.

Capital Economy vs Traditional Economy: +60
I agree with this fully

Individualism vs Communalism: -33;
Im kind of torn on this one. The history at that time period speaks anything BUT the strive towards the common good. Also, the quote that GenericUsername1444 procided (Bravery. Honour. Faith. ) is far closer to the bonuses that the individualism provides, such as bonuses towards army morale. Yes, the Georgian society valued bravery, but that's exaclty the point: It valued and revered INDIVIDUAL Bravery and Heroism, it valued people like Simon I, King Luarsab, Heraclius II, 9 brothers Kherkheulidze, 300 Aragvians, as Individual groups of Heroes and Exemplars.

Mercantilism vs Free Trade: -30
I think its a fair stand

Outward vs Inward: -20
Country should definitely be outwards. After the decline of Byzantium, Georgian statehood heavily reformatted itself to present itself as Third Rome and a major defender of Christendom, it definitely tried to project its power as much as it could both before and after the collapse of the unified kingdom, and remained constantly active on international arena.

Liberalism vs Absolutism: 20
At the start of the game, central authority of the Crown is still relatively strong and most of the dissenting nobles and magnates lost their heads (quite literally) at the diet on Mount Tsivi, so it should be inclined more towards absolutism.

P.S. I would like to add one major factor that I think should be taken into consideration:
There are essentially two Georgias in the Medieval and Early Modern History: Georgia before and after the war against the Timurids. The wars against Timur were decisive factors that essentially altered the later path of the Georgian History. And now were talking about the Period before Timur Emerged.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

Decentralization vs Centralization: -33
I fullheartedly agree, Georgia was a decentralized state, with grand duchies already beginning to emerge in their embryonic form at the time period. Most notable example of this, of course, being Samtskhe, that would become one of the major particularity force against the crown. With that being said, I dont think that Georgia should begin with with -50 value, as the country wasn't on a decentralization downward spiral yet at this point and who knows how would the situation would develop if monarchs like Alexander II "the Great" would inherit the country in a better shape, rather than a warn torn horror show after Timurid invasions.

I've changed my mind on that as well. Having read a ton more material after making that post, I also came to the conclusion that the central state government was far more powerful than it ostensibly seemed. But as @giorgi1999 has said, there really should be a mechanic for the erosion of the royal power (to simulate the collapse of the 15th century).

Traditionalist vs Innovative: 0
A rather hot take, I agree, but I do seriously think that this should be at ZERO: On the one hand, indeed the tradition played vital role in the medieval Georgian society, but with that being said, Georgia was NOT an isolationist culture and in fact actively tried to keep up to date with the developments around the world, even throughout the devastating periods of the XVI-XVIII centuries. This applied to the general population as well, as for example, even in the rather Grim descriptions of that period, such as those of Archangello Lamberti and Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, one fo the more or less consistent positive traits of the populace that are not related to wars or hospitality, are curiosity and striving towarsds education. if anything, for an a war torn society, surrounded by hostile forces, I think that society still managed to be up to date with the developments around the world.

When writing that entry, I was very ambivalent as well. Though I agree, the 0 score reflects the divided nature of the country between the lowlanders and the highlanders rather well. For western readers, the Scottish highlanders and Scots lowlanders are an analogous case. I leave it to Paradox to decide.

Belligerent vs Conciliatory: -20
I disagree that Georgia should be concilliatory. Remember, this is the same country whose King called a certain swell guy that had a skull tower building as a hobby an "effeminate sissy", hardly a diplomatic achievment. You would think that the collapse of an unified kingdom would make things different, but not really, you still have people like Simeon I of Kartli (basically a less vampiric Georgian version of Vlad III Tepes in regards of the Ottomans) writing to Felipe II of Spain about how they should join forces to liberate Constantinople and Jerusalem and wipe out the turks. Of course, how a desolate kingdom in a perpetual state of war planned to wage a total extermination war is anyones guess, but that's besides the point. The only justifiable factor that would support concilliatory attitude, would be the fact that Georgia was contantly active on an international arena and tried to find allies and sure, an average Georgian concentrated on politeness and hospitality even more than a Tzimisce metuselah would, but I think that for the most part (bot externally and internally) country (and polities after the collapse of the country) was more or less belligrent.

I chose that score, as I felt as though Georgia in this time frame and beyond never truly achieved monumental successes, but never lost tremendously either. It was always some minor gains vs minor losses, with some exceptions.

Offensive vs Defensive: +25
I dont think that Georgia should start as defensive as +80. Even after the collapse, the Georgian polities treid to expand as much as they could, with several minor khanates becomming vassals of Heraclius II og Kartli Kahketi. And it definitely shouldnt be as defensive at the start of the Game. This is the time period, where Timurid invasions didnt happen yet, the country is on path of restoring its power base after ousting the Mongols and is planning with Christian powers in engaging a Crusade.

I disagree. Most of the conflicts Georgia had to enter post-1337 (and even before that) were defensive in nature. Combined with the extremely rough terrain of the country, I think it'd only make sense to give a high defensive value to the nation.

Land vs Naval: -90
if anything, the Country should be even MORE Telurocratic. Only active attempt at building a navy was during the reign of George IV and no significant attempts were held afterwards. Black Sea didnt offer as much opportunities for large maritime interaction to been worth building a navy for.

Fair enough.

Individualism vs Communalism: -33;
Im kind of torn on this one. The history at that time period speaks anything BUT the strive towards the common good. Also, the quote that @GenericUsername1444 procided (Bravery. Honour. Faith. ) is far closer to the bonuses that the individualism provides, such as bonuses towards army morale. Yes, the Georgian society valued bravery, but that's exaclty the point: It valued and revered INDIVIDUAL Bravery and Heroism, it valued people like Simon I, King Luarsab, Heraclius II, 9 brothers Kherkheulidze, 300 Aragvians, as Individual groups of Heroes and Exemplars.

This is where personal interpretation comes into play. I can definitely see where you're coming from, but again, I think we should leave it to Paradox to decide. Neutral 3rd person and so on.

Outward vs Inward: -20
Country should definitely be outwards. After the decline of Byzantium, Georgian statehood heavily reformatted itself to present itself as Third Rome and a major defender of Christendom, it definitely tried to project its power as much as it could both before and after the collapse of the unified kingdom, and remained constantly active on international arena.

Political propaganda is one thing, but the social attitudes towards outsiders by the nobility is another. Though I agree, +80 is a bit too high for a county whose aristocracy is nearly all Persian/Parthian and Armenian.

Liberalism vs Absolutism: 20
At the start of the game, central authority of the Crown is still relatively strong and most of the dissenting nobles and magnates lost their heads (quite literally) at the diet on Mount Tsivi, so it should be inclined more towards absolutism.

Since this value comes into play later in the game, it likely won't take effect for Georgia, as it will have had collapsed by then in most games (presuming it is scripted to some extent). But if Georgia does somehow survive into the age of absolutism, then yes, I suppose it would be more absolutist than liberal.

P.S. I would like to add one major factor that I think should be taken into consideration:
There are essentially two Georgias in the Medieval and Early Modern History: Georgia before and after the war against the Timurids. The wars against Timur were decisive factors that essentially altered the later path of the Georgian History. And now were talking about the Period before Timur Emerged.

True, true.