Tinto Maps Special Edition - 6th of January 2025 - The World

[Physius]

EU5 is looking great guys, keep up the good work!

 

[pog67676767]

Court Language Inaccuracy in the Duchy of Lithuania:

The court language in the grand duchy of Lithuania was ruthenian as lithuanian or any baltic language did not have a written form till the early 16th century, this is a widely accepted and non controvertial fact.

(I don't generally city wikipedia but you're free to check the citatioins yourself) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania

 

[_M1s]

repeating my post from tinto maps 12 since i did not get any response


Some of the culture splits in Germany seem very silly to me.
The german dialect split into high german (in southern germany) and low german (in northern germany) with the Second German Consonant Shift around the year 800. So this is fine to me.
Now the High German split into Alemannic and Bavarian should've only started to happen with the creation of the Duchy of Bavaria, as this split was fueled by Bavarias borders and with it isolation to the other High Germans to the West as mentioned in "KLEINER SPRACHATLAS VON BAYERISCH-SCHWABEN" by König & Renn (2007). The book furthermore mentions that this split happened fairly late. Now we don't have an exact date on this, I'd personally guess the earliest such strict borders that limited linguistic exchange could be implemented in the 13th century leading up to the Great Interregnum. But anyways, even if this split happened sooner, I am also fine with Bavarian being its separate culture. What I do think is extreme however, is the butchering of the Alemannic dialects into three cultures. Swabian being separate I can take. But the Alemannic split I do not understand.
A split of Alemannic into "Rhine" Alemannic and High alemannic at this point is unrealistic (besides just call it Low Alemannic). Even if you do accept the split between Rhine Alemannic and High Alemannic having already happened it's ridiculous that only the region of modern Alsace is Rhine Alemannic, while the parts in modern Germany that are also "Rhine" Alemannic (linguistically Low Alemannic) are just accounted to Swabian or High Alemannic.

If you do insist on separating Alemannic, then make the corridor where it's mixed Swabian and High Alemannic into Rhine Alemannic. But Ideally you would not make such a separation at all, it's not really accurate for it to have happened in 1337. This is further supported by Kunze's "Historischer Südwestdeutscher Sprachatlas" (1980), where he suggests the separation of Alemannic to Franconian in the north only happened around 1350, meaning deeper splits within the Alemannic linguistic region in 1337 is improbable.

 

[Fanega70]

Why is most the Eastern Mediterranean Spanish coast "Cold Arid" climate?, this is completely wrong.

Most of it is "Csa" not "Bsk". Please check out.

 

[JohnCro]

Why is most the Eastern Mediterranean Spanish coast "Cold Arid" climate?, this is completely wrong.

No, it is how it is:

See, Murcia is practically bordering on desert climate
They have decided to merge "semi arid" (steppe) and "cold arid" into one "cold arid" climate in game

Note that western coasts of landmasses tend to have mediterranean climate, not eastern parts

 

[Fanega70]

No, it is how it is:

View attachment 1242743
See
They have decided to merge "semi arid" (steppe) and "cold arid" into one "cold arid" climate in game

Note that western coasts of landmasses tend to have mediterranean climate, not eastern parts

I'm sorry, but that is simply wrong. I have studied about this, I know what I'm talking about, and definitely: Valencia Region doesn't have cold arid climate.

If you check climograms of this territory
they are the definition of Mediterranean "Csa" climate.

The maps I send are done by AEMET and IGN of Spain

 

[JohnCro]

I'm sorry, but that is simply wrong. I have studied about this, I know what I'm talking about, and definitely: Valencia Region doesn't have cold arid climate.

If you check climograms of this territory
they are the definition of Mediterranean "Csa" climate.

Perhaps they 2 maps use different threshold ?
Also I said cold semi aird, the game devs decided to just have it as arid

 

[Fanega70]

Perhaps they 2 maps use different threshold ?
Also I said cold semi aird, the game devs decided to just have it as arid

Yes, I read they were mixing them, but putting the same climate in Mongolia and in Valencia makes no sense, this is not an steppe xd

 

[otaman1]

I know the map is still a work in progress, but anyone know how many locations there are right now? Did Johan say it anywhere and I just missed it?

 

[CreativityTheEmotion]

I know the map is still a work in progress, but anyone know how many locations there are right now? Did Johan say it anywhere and I just missed it?

From Tinto Talks #3:

Of course now that we talked about how detailed our map is with currently 27,518 unique locations on the map, and with many of them having pops, you may get worried.

Obviously this is from before Tinto Maps, let alone the feedback, but this should still be a good ballpark figure.

 

[Farfour]

No, it is how it is:

View attachment 1242743
See, Murcia is practically bordering on desert climate
They have decided to merge "semi arid" (steppe) and "cold arid" into one "cold arid" climate in game

Note that western coasts of landmasses tend to have mediterranean climate, not eastern parts

Semiarid is also savannah. Including it would be a way of denying a migration boost to desert.

 

[25318:SpikySpike2005]

Yes, since Russiam, Belarusian, Ukrainian scientists all consider the XIV century as the starting point of this separation and the beginning of the Old Russian, Old Belarusian/Old Ukrainian periods of of the respective languages.
There are dozens of books and sources on this in the respective TM threads.

Anyone who actually speaks any of the east slavic languages can immediately tell you upon reading these sources that they are still incredibly similar languages with dialectal differences. This is coming from a russo-ukrainian. The split occurs later due to polish polonisation and catholisation of the rus.

 

[Dan29067]

Anyone who actually speaks any of the east slavic languages can immediately tell you upon reading these sources that they are still incredibly similar languages with dialectal differences. This is coming from a russo-ukrainian. The split occurs later due to polish polonisation and catholisation of the rus.

I suggest you to read some academic literature and sources on this topic. The use of arguments like these is more akin to XIX century nationalistic argumentation than to actual science.

 

[25318:SpikySpike2005]

I suggest you to read some academic literature and sources on this topic. The use of arguments like these is more akin to XIX century nationalistic argumentation than to actual science.

Can you please link me to the sources you are using. From the sources i have read, they point to the divergence beginning in the 13th to 14th century, but the distinction as completely separate languages (the loss of 90-100% mutual intelligibility) in the late 17th century. Which is nowhere near the beginning of the start date in project caesar. Someone in the thread suggested giving lithuania or poland the ability to fracture the rus languages into belarusian, ukrainian and russian; which i find to be the best outcome here. As it is both historic and adds to gameplay and content.

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Can you please link me to the sources you are using. From the sources i have read, they point to the divergence beginning in the 13th to 14th century, but the distinction as completely separate languages (the loss of 90-100% mutual intelligibility) in the late 17th century. Which is nowhere near the beginning of the start date in project caesar. Someone in the thread suggested giving lithuania or poland the ability to fracture the rus languages into belarusian, ukrainian and russian; which i find to be the best outcome here. As it is both historic and adds to gameplay and content.

Mutual intelligibility is not a necessary parameter. Ukrainian and Belarusian are now absolutely mutually intelligible. As well as Czech/Slovak, Swedish/Danish afaik etc. That does not mean these are not languages.

In the late 17-th century they became modern languages, and 14-17 centuries is a period of 'Old' Russian/Belarusian/Ukrainian.

E.g. Lexicology of the Old Russian language (Sudakov, 1983) and the reasons why the XIV century is considered a borderline between the Old East Slavic and Old Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian, and no, it was not about 'polonisation':

 

[25318:SpikySpike2005]

In the late 17-th century they became modern languages, and 14-17 centuries is a period of 'Old' Russian/Belarusian/Ukrainian.
E.g. Lexicology of the Old Russian language (Sudakov, 1983) and the reasons why the XIV century is considered a borderline between the Old East Slavic and Old Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian, and no, it was not about 'polonisation':
View attachment 1243093

And mutual intelligibility is not a necessary parameter. Ukrainian and Belarusian are absolutely mutually intelligible. A well as Czech/Slovak, Swedish/Danish etc. That does not mean these are not languages.

Thank you for the argument and lack ad hominems unlike the previous person. However could you link me the whole source so i can read all of it? Aswell as their primary sources and the authors themselves. I am aware of mutual intelligibility not being the mark of a language however not being a linguist i do not know how to get the point across, i am just a speaker of these languages. My point was that in a conversation someone from moskva and someone from kyiv in the 14th century would have encountered close to 0 issues communicating on any topics, the only gripe theyd have with each other is Pronunciation. Therefore the distinction of two seperate languages being one of 0 gameplay relevance. It is like separating american english from british english.

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Thank you for the argument and lack ad hominems unlike the previous person. However could you link me the whole source so i can read all of it? Aswell as their primary sources and the authors themselves. I am aware of mutual intelligibility not being the mark of a language however not being a linguist i do not know how to get the point across, i am just a speaker of these languages. My point was that in a conversation someone from moskva and someone from kyiv in the 14th century would have encountered close to 0 issues communicating on any topics, the only gripe theyd have with each other is Pronunciation. Therefore the distinction of two seperate languages being one of 0 gameplay relevance. It is like separating american english from british english.

Sorry, but these discussions has been repeated numerous times in last months in multiple threads with different sources, maps, books.
The devs have made their research too and made the division based on what most scientists say on the topic.
Noone argues that some kind of dialect continuum existed, but for a historic XIV – XIX centuries gameplay this division is absolutely OK.

 

[Dan29067]

Can you please link me to the sources you are using. From the sources i have read, they point to the divergence beginning in the 13th to 14th century, but the distinction as completely separate languages (the loss of 90-100% mutual intelligibility) in the late 17th century.

Please, may I ask where you got this periodization from? In the late 17th century, the Ruthenian language was already in decline in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the language of administration changed from Ruthenian to Polish in 1696. (The situation was different in the Cossack Hetmanate, but Ruthenian there would also begin to decline at the beginning of the next century and would be more influenced by Russian than before.) However, according to your argument, it had only just lost 'full mutual intelligibility' with Russian at this time? Regarding the language barrier between the two sides in the 17th century (there were far fewer contacts between them before), here is a quote from Timothy Snyder on the topic: (Snyder, Timothy D. (2003). The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999, p.116).

Someone in the thread suggested giving lithuania or poland the ability to fracture the rus languages into belarusian, ukrainian and russian; which i find to be the best outcome here. As it is both historic and adds to gameplay and content.

According to my knowledge, Lithuania only adopted a language that already existed there as the language of their chancery, and (as the post higher on this page also argues) this probably already happened before the start date (although we cannot be absolutely sure in this case). The languages grew distant from each other by the 14th century on their own and were not 'fractured' by Lithuania or Poland. There is a good book written by George Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language, which discusses the evolution of the Ukrainian language (including during this time period).

 

[JohnCro]

Yes, I read they were mixing them, but putting the same climate in Mongolia and in Valencia makes no sense, this is not an steppe xd

I see what you mean, perhaps the biome map makes it confusing, as Spain has mediterranean biome even in those semi arid regions koppen climate shows as.

 

[25318:SpikySpike2005]

Please, may I ask where you got this periodization from? In the late 17th century, the Ruthenian language was already in decline in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the language of administration changed from Ruthenian to Polish in 1696. (The situation was different in the Cossack Hetmanate, but Ruthenian there would also begin to decline at the beginning of the next century and would be more influenced by Russian than before.) However, according to your argument, it had only just lost 'full mutual intelligibility' with Russian at this time? Regarding the language barrier between the two sides in the 17th century (there were far fewer contacts between them before), here is a quote from Timothy Snyder on the topic: (Snyder, Timothy D. (2003). The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999, p.116).
View attachment 1243110

According to my knowledge, Lithuania only adopted a language that already existed there as the language of their chancery, and (as the post higher on this page also argues) this probably already happened before the start date (although we cannot be absolutely sure in this case). The languages grew distant from each other by the 14th century on their own and were not 'fractured' by Lithuania or Poland. There is a good book written by George Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language, which discusses the evolution of the Ukrainian language (including during this time period).

Sorry, but these discussions has been repeated numerous times in last months in multiple threads with different sources, maps, books.
The devs have made their research too and made the division based on what most scientists say on the topic.
Noone argues that some kind of dialect continuum existed, but for a historic XIV – XIX centuries gameplay this division is absolutely OK.

But why not add an extra mechanic of flavour? I feel like cultural and linguistic evolution and fragmentation is exactly something that could work very well in a europa universalis game. (If you could link the source you used previously i would very much appreciate it))