• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tinto Maps #2 - 17th of May 2024 - Iberia

Hello everybody, and welcome to the second post of Tinto Maps! We’re really pleased about the great reception that the first one had last week, and also about the great feedback that we received. Just so you know, we have more than 70 action points from it that we will be implementing soon in the game.

Today we will be unveiling the map of Iberia in this super-secret project! So let’s start showing maps without further ado:

Countries:
Countries.jpg

The situation in 1337 shows a strong Crown of Castile under the rule of Alfonso XI, who has overcome the problems of his troublesome minority. To the east, we have the Crown of Aragon (it’s named that way, even if it currently doesn’t appear like that on the map), which is fighting for hegemony over the Mediterranean. An offspring of it is the Kingdom of Mallorca, ruled by a cadet branch of Aragon since half a century ago, that also has a couple of northern possessions centered on Perpignan and Montpellier. To the north, the Kingdom of Navarra is ruled by a French dynasty, its titular queen Jeanne, a member of the Capetian dynasty, being married to Philippe, Lord of Évreux. To the west, Portugal has a tense relationship with Castile, with a war being fought during 1336. To the south, the Nasrid dynasty holds power in Granada, backed by the Marinids of Morocco, who have a foothold in the peninsula centered around Algeciras and Ronda. And yes, Andorra is a starting country.

Locations:
Locations.jpg

Note: We are aware that there are some locations that could be added here and there, as this was one of the first maps that we created, and we weren’t completely sure about the location density we would like to have in the game. Some examples of possible locations that we’d like to add during a review would be Alicante, Tarifa, Alcobaça, Tordesillas, Monzón, or Montblanc. Also, you might notice that Zaragoza is named 'Saragossa'; this is not final, it's because we're using it as our testing location for the dynamic location naming system, as it has different names in Spanish (Zaragoza), Catalan (Saragossa), English (Saragossa), French (Saragosse), or Arabic (Saraqusṭa).

Provinces:
Provinces.jpg

Although it looks a bit like the modern provincial borders, take into account that those are based on the provincial reform of Francisco Javier de Burgos, which were also inspired by the cities/provinces that were accountable for the ‘Servicio de Millones’ during the reign of Philip II. Also, please, don't focus on the province names, the language inconsistency is because we were also using them as a testing ground.

Terrain:
Climate.jpg

Topograhpy.jpg

Vegetation.jpg

Iberia has one of the most complex terrain feature distributions in the entire world. We've also discussed this week that we're not very happy about the Vegetation distribution, which we'll be reworking, so feedback on this topic is especially very well received.

Cultures:
Cultures.jpg

Quite standard cultural distribution here, based on the different languages of Iberia (Asturleonese was still a language back in that time, although close to being opaqued by Castilian, after one century of joint ruling). The Andalusi represent not only the Muslim inhabitants of Granada and the Strait of Gibraltar but also the Mudéjar communities spread throughout much of the territory.

Religions:
Religion.jpg

The Sunni populations present here match the Andalusi pops of the previous map. Although it’s not shown in the map mode, there’s another important religious community in Iberia, the Sephardic Jews, who inhabit several cities and towns.

Raw Goods:
Raw Goods.jpg

This is also a map mode that we'll be revisiting next week, and feedback is also very welcomed. A curiosity: for the first time in a Paradox GSG, there is the Mercury resource in Almadén.

Markets:
Markets.jpg

This is the current distribution of markets, please take into account that it is based on the current gameplay status of the system and that it won’t necessarily be its final status. We tested in previous iterations having market centers in Lisbon and Burgos, but they weren’t working as we wanted; thus why we only have market centers in Sevilla and Barcelona. As the markets are dynamic, it might be possible to create new market centers, so a Portugal player might want to create a new market in Lisbon after some years (although having access to the market of Sevilla is juicy if you get enough merchant capacity on it).

Pops:
Pops.jpg


And that’s all for today! Next week we will be traveling to France! See you then!
 
  • 281Love
  • 156Like
  • 11
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
After my initial post I've made some rearrangements after feedback and reading posts. This is a complement post

My explanations for some choices:

1, 2 - Lagos and Aljezur/Sagres. It could be just one province, or made the split in the vertical. The split meants to show the west coast of algarve. Lagos is south coast, and Sagres was a important place during this fase, and so was Lagos, so both could be in

3 - Silves was a important city during muslim rule. the Arade river was navigable until Silves, so it was a protected city from piracy and a gate from the hilly interior to the trade.

6 - Castro Marim/Alcoutim meants to represent the fortified border of Guadiana river. Guadiana was also a navigable river until Mértola and the crossings were heavily fortified.

9- Odemira borders goes further inside. The border between Alentejo and Algarve is very very hilly. Very few roads connects, poorly populated. and Odemira even today is the largest municipality of Portugal

12 - Beja was very well protected from spanish agression. Between Mértola and Monsaraz Portugal controls both sides of Guadiana river. This was only possible because of Moura, Serpa and Mértola.

16 - Évora is similar. The major crossing points were fortified. Monsaraz and Mourão were responsable for the zone

17 - Estremoz is a connection between east and west, north and south. Its trully a crossroads city. It was headquarters of the military responsable for defending the Alentejo during Portuguese independence. Many major battles took place near: Santa Vitória, Atoleiros, Montes Claros. It was a supportive fortification for Elvas, Campo Maior, Juromenha

22-23- The split in Portalegre its because there were two gateways to enter Portugal in this zone, north and south. Portalegre were more responsable for the south entry, with Alegrete castle. North passage it was Marvão and Castelo de Vide. Another fun thing is that this zone was populated in the XIII century with french people, that named some cities in reference to their homeland: Niza-Nice, Tolosa-Toulosse

24-Crato/Alter do Chão with less area, south of Tejo river, represent the agrarian land

25-26- Avis with less area. Still an important place because of Ordem de Avis Coruche to represent the fertile lands of Tejo (Lezirias do Tejo)

27-Setubal with less area.

29- Cascais/Sintra/Mafra. Very hilly terrain and farmland to feed the capital

30 - Torres Vedras blocking the acess to Lisboa

32, 33 - Abrantes was the main gate north/south of Tejo river. Tomar also a important place. Borders not ideal in my map. Probably Abrantes to connect with Castelo Branco and not Tomar

35 - Sabugal was a very important place in the defense of Beiras. Sabugal and Penamacor were the defenses north and south of Serra da Malcata

38 - Covilhã/Belmonte. I believe that early on Belmonte were more important than Covilhã. Belmonte was the birthplace of Pedro álvares Cabral. And it should be the mountain province

52-53. Montalegre was also a possible gateway from Galicia, not only Chaves. And Chaves should be bordering Bragança.

51-Mirandela was a important city in the region

54 - Bigger Vila Real so it can border north in Chaves
First of all, great job at Paradox. This is a massive amount of work and detail on the map. I am getting excited!

Thank you guys for all the suggestions as well, saved me a lot of time in the post I was starting to write :D.

I agree with almost everything in this list. One could argue that Santarém could be further split into Torres Novas (no bias here :D) as that was the control point past the hills coming from Ourém. It was a fairly relevant centre until the earthquake in 1755. Granted that Abrantes and Tomar are definitely more relevant but there was a foral granted and strategic importance.

Speaking of Ourém, this was the most obvious comment for me. Definitely not Chão de Couce. Even Pombal would make more sense at this time, in my opinion.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
By 1337, all the Iberian orders functionally worked as vassals of the Iberian rulers. The most representative case might be the Portuguese Order of Christ.
I’m not Spanish or Portuguese, and I suspect PDX Tinto has a decent amount of knowledge on Iberian history (likely far more than me), but I would have thought the Order of Christ was one of the LEAST representative here (not the MOST representative).

- the Order of Christ was a newer society, created just a couple decades before start from the remnants of the Templars. They were not really involved in the Reconquista so they never accumulated large fortified holdings
- the Knights of Alcantaria, Santiago, Montesa, and Calatrava ruled over large amounts of mostly contiguous, fortified land as part of the Reconquista. They seem to me to be on par with the French vassals in terms of autonomy, especially given their dual loyalty to the Pope. Their relationship to the Castilian/Aragonese crowns does not seem very different from the relationship between Poland and the Teutonic Order. And the knights really lost power after the fall of Granada made them unnecessary.
- the Knights of San Juan (= Saint John, = Hospitaller) owned a decent amount of contiguous land in Spain and are also an independent state ruling Rhodes

I would think the easiest way to represent them is as an on map state subject to Castile/Aragon (in the case of Saint John, something special would be needed though). Not crying foul, but curious why you guys decided these knights should not be on-map subjects? Just curious on what I am missing. Is this more related to what they turned into (military branches under the crown) than where they started?
 
Last edited:
  • 7
Reactions:
I’m not Spanish or Portuguese, and I suspect PDX Tinto has a decent amount of knowledge on Iberian history (likely far more than me), but I would have thought the Order of Christ was one of the LEAST representative here (not the MOST representative).

- the Order of Christ was a newer society, created just a couple decades before start from the remnants of the Templars. They were not really involved in the Reconquista so they never accumulated large fortified holdings
- the Knights of Alcantaria, Santiago, Montesa, and Calatrava ruled over large amounts of mostly contiguous, fortified land as part of the Reconquista. They seem to me to be on par with the French vassals in terms of autonomy, especially given their dual loyalty to the Pope. Their relationship to the Castilian/Aragonese crowns does not seem very different from the relationship between Poland and the Teutonic Order. And the knights really lost power after the fall of Granada made them unnecessary.
- the Knights of San Juan (= Saint John, = Hospitaller) owned a decent amount of contiguous land in Spain and are also an independent state ruling Rhodes

I would think the easiest way to represent them is as an on map state subject to Castile/Aragon (in the case of Saint John, something special would be needed though). Not crying foul, but curious why you guys decided these knights should not be on-map subjects? What am I missing? Is this more related to what they turned into (military branches under the crown) than where they started?
Portuguese here. Sorry to say this, but I desagree with your statement regarding the order of Christ. Yes, they were one of the newer orders present by the time the game starts, but they weren't created as a new order, but more like a "rebranding" of the local branch of the Templar Order. That means that every achievement done by the templars, titles and lands owned or privilieges gained were kept by the order, plus they were one of the main financiers of the portuguese exploration voyages. Plus, several important individuals that changed the portuguese age of exploration were members of the order, like Henry "The Navigator", the king Afonso V or king Manuel I. Other point that shows their importance is, no more no less, than the portuguese cross present in the ships sails, which was the cross of the order of Christ.
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
Portuguese here. Sorry to say this, but I desagree with your statement regarding the order of Christ. Yes, they were one of the newer orders present by the time the game starts, but they weren't created as a new order, but more like a "rebranding" of the local branch of the Templar Order. That means that every achievement done by the templars, titles and lands owned or privilieges gained were kept by the order, plus they were one of the main financiers of the portuguese exploration voyages. Plus, several important individuals that changed the portuguese age of exploration were members of the order, like Henry "The Navigator", the king Afonso V or king Manuel I. Other point that shows their importance is, no more no less, than the portuguese cross present in the ships sails, which was the cross of the order of Christ.
Not saying they aren’t important. I’m saying they are not a good representation of the Reconquista orders that ruled over large parts of southern Castille.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand how your comments support the argument that the other mentioned Iberian military orders should NOT be shown as subjects (I am saying they probably should be on-map subjects).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The Montesa Order was also created as a reorganization of the local branch of the Templar in Valencia AFAIK. The thing is that showing them as independent vassals would also open the can of worms that is the "federal" organization of the Crown of Aragon, and I imagine they already have (or will have) a way of representing this power-sharing agreements in the Aragonese Crown, which could be used to represent the autonomy of the Military orders, most probably as an Estates mechanic.
 
Not saying they aren’t important. I’m saying they are not a good representation of the Reconquista orders that ruled over large parts of southern Castille.

I’m sorry but I don’t understand how your comment would suggest the other mentioned Iberian military orders should not be shown as vassals?
Sorry if I went a bit harsh :I
Regarding the military orders being vassals ingame, in my opinion I don't see a problem with that, as they kinda were (at least from what I know regarding the portuguese ones, the order of christ mentioned above, but also the order of Avis and the local branch of the order of Santiago). What I also intended to say is that the lands previously owned by the Templars were transfered to the order of christ for them to administrate. Like, their main strongholds at the time of the game start were around Castro Marim and later Tomar, so yeah, they can also be technicaly landed vassals.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The Montesa Order was also created as a reorganization of the local branch of the Templar in Valencia AFAIK. The thing is that showing them as independent vassals would also open the can of worms that is the "federal" organization of the Crown of Aragon, and I imagine they already have (or will have) a way of representing this power-sharing agreements in the Aragonese Crown, which could be used to represent the autonomy of the Military orders, most probably as an Estates mechanic.
Interesting. See I read the comment differently. I took the PDX comment on Aragonese internal divisions to mean they were considering splitting the country into a PU of Aragon, Valencia, and Barcelona.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
About the Orders, they were in fact very much under the thumb of the Portuguese King(Obviously the ones in Portugal) except the Hospitallers. They had a say on electing the Grand Master, usually someone they could trust as they were an essential part of the army. With D.Joao I, master of Aviz, with the death of the grandmasters, royal family members got the leading job. With D.Joao III the orders were firmly under the royal family control by papal bull if I'm not wrong.

The Order of Christ was in fact a rebranding of the Templars by D.Dinis, and kept the same holdings and members basically. So they had quite a bit of estate in Portugal, and with Henry becoming the Grand Master of the Order the rest is history as they say.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
"Asturleonese" is a bit too technical and overinclusive, and refers to language rather than strictly culture. I'd argue shortening it to just "Leonese" makes sense within the timeframe of the game, the memory of an independent Kingdom of Léon is probably still somewhat alive.
Assuming the "Asturleonese" in Portugal stands for the Mirandese spakers, which it definitely does, then Bragança should have Leonese presence, maybe a majority, definitely a sizeable minority. Same with Alcántara and Galician presence in the Val de Xálima region. Can't provide the exact numbers unfortunately.

Also, will Sephardic be counted under "Iberian/Spanish" ("Spain" was still the prefered term for all of the Iberian Peninsula until the 19th century or so) or will there be a "Jewish/Israelite" culture group? Both would make sense, though I slightly favor the latter for mechanic reasons if nothing else.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
I have two Questions, not sure if they where answered anywhere. Do we know how big the Map is? E.g. I:R 8192x4096, Vic 3 is 8192x3616 etc.
Also curious, on what are the Locations based? Meaning their physical representation/shape? For what would i look (in real map data) if i want to dive deeper on that topic?
I asked in the last Tinto Maps thread, can’t pull it up atm but Johan answered that it is 16384x8192, which is 2x the size of the I:R map, 4x the size of the CK3 map, and 11.5-12x the size of the EU4 map
 
What's your source for the Muslim/Andalusi/Morisco population in the different territories of the Iberian peninsula?

I've personally only studied it for the Crown of Aragon. During the famous expulsions of the 17th century, 3566 Moriscos were expelled from Catalonia, 60,818 from Aragon, and 117,465 from Valencia. This is supposed to be the consequence of a historically large Morisco population in Valencia and low in Catalonia.

The best data is for the former Kingdom of Valencia, thanks to the work of Vicent Baydal or Enric Guignet who also studied the emigration of Christians to the territory after the conquest. It had roughly a 30% of Muslims, and they lived mostly in rural areas of the west, and also around Benidorm. Some people already showed you great maps about them.

Aragon had a noticeable, but smaller Sarracen population, and here's my first surprise, why are they all in the north? Wasn't Teruel the "Mudejar capital" because of its high Muslim population and influence in the 14th century?

The very high Muslim population in Catalonia is what shocked me the most. I cannot find any source showing such a large and widespread Muslim population all across the western half of Catalonia. Granted, almost all sources I find are for the 15th, 16th or even the early 17th century (Henry Lapeyre, Joan Reglà, Jordi Nadal...), but all estimates are below the 2%. According to the 1496 (a tax for households, which has been used to calculate the population), the only Muslims in Catalonia were 788 families (estimated at around 3000 people in total) who lived in a few villages around Tortosa and Lleida.

This would be an "approximate suggested correction" (yellow Catalan Catholics, Green for Sarracens). I also think the Basque presence in Jacetania was much sronger, there are several researches suggesting so (like Vicente Latiegui)
View attachment 1135443
IIRC, I think the base work we used was 'Las comunidades mudéjares de la Corona de Aragón en el siglo XV: la población', by Mª Teresa Ferrer Mallol, and from there, we used the different fiscal sources available for the Crown of Aragon (which, TBH, is great, and much, much better than the extanct data for the Crown of Castile). One that I specifically remember using was some works and sources for the Kingdom of Valencia that started from de 'Llibre del Repartiment'; initially, there were far more Muslims in L'Horta de Valencia, but there was a slow process by which they were slow 'relocated' by Christian lords and peasants that bought these very productive lands, so they had to resettle in the less productive and populated lands inside the Kingdom.
 
  • 14Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm disappointed and really hope Valencian culture is respected. Since Reconquista times Valencia has his very own culture and history clearly self declared. With posthumous authors like Joanot Martorell, referencing his literature as Valencian language, for valencian people. Year 1460. And many other great valencian figures like the Borgia's, referencing themselves as valencian, not catalans by any means.

Describing Valencia as Catalan culture is a XXI century invention, politically driven by secessionists by the way.

Also about the terrain MAP. Makes 0 sense to include Valencia coast as cold arid. 90% of valencia coastline is "marjal" lands, which go from Saguntum to Dianium. These coastal lands are extremly wet, and nowadays are exploited for rice cultivation, hence the origin of Valencian Paella. Also used vastly as great lands for citrus orchads. A fruit of tropical weather needs. Valencia is famous for its oranges and mandarines, being nowadays the world largest producer. The interior lands of valencia are composed of meditterranean forests. Makes 0 sense to put valencia with the same terrain as Madrid.
 
  • 14
  • 7
  • 3Love
  • 2Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
What about Mozarabs? As far as I remember, they were still around in this period, but I can't see them represented here.
Mozarabs (Christians in Muslim territories) technically should appear only in Granada and the benimarin beachhead, as the only areas left under muslim control. However, after Alfonso I "The Battler" campaign around Granada en 1126 several thousand mozarabs from the area came North with him. That Mozarab collaboration with the attacker made the Almoravids deport to Fez most of those who remained in the surroundings of Granada (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsión_de_los_mozárabes_en_1126), so I doubt they should be really significant by 1337. Maybe Malaga or Almería had surviving mozarabs communities, but I'd argue that Granada proper didn't.

We could do a wider interpretation and consider Mozarabs too as a minority withing the Christian kingdoms (representing southern christian population already living in some areas prior to its conquest by northern Christian polities). They actually were at first a socially distinct group, thus several towns in Aragon had both an "old" church and a "new" church. There were also literary references to "Mozararb neighboorhoods". But that was in the XII century and they seem to have been quickly assimilated (at least that seem the main thesis of the academcs writing about the XIII century demographics I have read). By 1337 I don't expect them to longer being relevant in the north.
Mozarabs are long gone as a minority, by this point. After the Almoravid and Almohad invasions, very few Christians remained in al-Andalus, and the religious division was clearly settled after the Mudéjar Rebellion of 1264. On the other side, although in some places as Toledo, the Mozarabs were a majority of the population by the team of the Christian conquest (there were separate 'fueros' for the Mozarab and Frank communities of the city during the 12th century), by 1337 there weren't religious or legal divisions anymore.
 
  • 9
  • 6Like
Reactions:
It's taken me a while but, as promised @Pavía, some feedback on the aragonese/navarrese bits of the map. First and foremost, I'm sorely missing both Borja and Monzón. Monzón, even if it wasn't officially a "city", it was relevant and the place where the "cortes" of the three kingdoms used to meet. Borja, because in the XIVth and XVth century it was one of the biggest cities in the whole kingdom. Around 1400, the biggest cities would be (ordered by population) Zaragoza, Alcañiz, Calatayud, Huesca, Daroca , Huesca, Borja, Teruel, Fraga, Ejea and Barbastro.

I know placing Borja and Tarazona in the map wouldn't be easy, as they are really close to each other, but you've done the trick in the Low Countries.

Very please to see though that you went for Benabarre and not Graus, which only became more important in the XIXth century... but I'd consider naming that location as "Ribagorza". And potentially the same with Aínsa, making it "Sobrarbe". I think it was @Zaragoza that gave some really good feedback on the trade goods and shape of all those provinces, I fully agree with him.

About the cultures map: a majority of basques in Southern Navarra? The language there was actually navarro-aragonese! I'd say that at least Tudela and Olite should be a majority of... that: navarro-aragonese, if you're going with the name of languages for the different cultures.

But now, my main thing here:

View attachment 1135790

This is so wrong in so many ways. I was trying to find here at home a book I'm pretty sure my mother still owns about late medieval Aragón to help with the figures (counted by fireplaces, as it was the norm back then), and I'll keep looking, but for now: Zaragoza should be at least four times bigger than Calatayud and Alcañiz, and double the size of Tudela. And I don't mean increasing the population of Zaragoza (maybe just a little bit, but not really much): the rest of locations should have way LESS population.

The only source I've found online mentions 1495, which I know, very different, but Zaragoza had nearly 4,000 fireplaces while Calatayud barely had 1,000 and Alcañiz around 750. I know you need to take into account not just the main locations but other relevant places not shown in the map... but the difference was staggering. The population in Aragon has always been concentrated around Zaragoza and the map does not reflect that.
Hi Tommassi! So:

1. About the locations, Monzón will most likely be added, while Borja might be a bit more difficult, we'll see. About Ribagorza and Sobrarbe, you're right that it's the name of the 'shire', but we went for names of specific places when possible for location; therefore, why we used Benabarre and Aínsa instead.
2. Yes, we might tweak the pops of La Ribera, it's something that I noticed when preparing the DD, and that we're aware of.
3. about the pop numbers, we've used a mix of density plus some additions to calculate it, but it's true that Zaragoza could be adjusted to be a bit more outstanding compared to the other Aragonese locations.

Thanks for the feedback. ;)
 
  • 12Like
  • 3
Reactions:
1. About the locations, Monzón will most likely be added, while Borja might be a bit more difficult, we'll see. About Ribagorza and Sobrarbe, you're right that it's the name of the 'shire', but we went for names of specific places when possible for location; therefore, why we used Benabarre and Aínsa instead.

In that case, I suggest replacing Baztan with Elizondo. Or Bera de Bidasoa (even if it's not technically part of Baztan, it is in the territory covered by that location).
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Marruecos never held that land. It was el sultanato Benimerin. Please correct it
what we call almohades , almoravides , Marinids , saadis , alawites those all are dynasties of a same entity that its name in arabic never changed. Morocco's exonymes can change from Fes to marrakesh to mauretania to moorish kingdom to morocco but local names in arabic always stayed same.
and anyways the spanish especially always used the term morocco to name these dynasties and to prove it more to you you can just listen to Reconquista songs or read your own medieval texts and you will easing clearly find the word Marocco or Marruecos being used to refer to any of the dynasties i mentioned above.

here 1 single example read the lyrics carefully .


and here you can see the name of morocco under an almohade flag .
1716222894822.png



i know there is a movement from 2 nations that surround morocco that claim that morocco have no history and that the dynasties were not moroccan or that morocco is a french creation made in 1956 (ironically under a king who is 5th of his name) ignoring all historical facts and common sense but history prove your weak attempts wrong and the various paradox devs have enough data to prove you also wrong and they already did.

btw this is the first name of first 4 dynasties and how they can be translated .

dawlat al adarissa fil Maghrib al Aqssa = Idrissid state in morocco
Khilafat al Morabitin fil Maghrib al Aqssa = Caliphate of almoravids in morocco
Khilafat al mowahidin fil Maghrib al Aqssa = caliphate of almohades in morocco
salatane banu Marin fil Maghrib al Aqssa = Sultanate of marinids in morocco

"Maghrib al Aqssa" is the real name of morocco and it was being used always.
the rest follow the same pattern with Al aqssa being removed to fit with the moroccan dialect who shorten long names and words often.
so even if some nations didnt start calling morocco this way until recently that doesnt mean the nation is new in anyway only the exonyme is to those countries.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions: