• 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.

CK2 Dev Diary #67: Revisiting the Middle East

Greetings everyone!

I’m Emil “Servancour” Tisander. Most of you might remember me from the update I did to Hungary and the Danube with the release of 2.7. This time however, I wanted to do something of a larger scope, and with the expansion focusing on the eastern part of the map, what better time to revisit the Middle East and bring it a much needed overhaul?

Those of you who watch the streams might already have seen most of what I’ll show you here but I’ll start by explaining what I’ve done and why.

I had a few goals in mind when I started working on the update. First and foremost I wanted to improve the overall geography and move counties to where they are supposed to be. Some having been placed much too far from their actual location (I’m looking at you Damascus). Secondly, there are plenty of titles in the region that are inappropriately named for the time period, so I wanted to go through what makes sense and what doesn’t to improve the historical accuracy as much as possible. Another thing I wanted to do was to split up the kingdom of Persia somewhat. Persia in CK2 has always been a very large kingdom. Splitting it up into several kingdoms will allow for a more dynamic experience.

Empires remain very much the same, though both the Persian Empire and the Arabian Empire have been increased somewhat in size, due to the addition of new counties. Kingdoms however, have been changed quite significantly. The following kingdoms have been added or renamed accordingly:
Added the kingdoms of Daylam, Khorasan, Iraq and Yemen.
Renamed Mesopotamia to Al-Jazira, Afghanistan to Kabulistan, Baluchistan to Sistan, Khiva to Transoxiana.

01_kingdoms.png


The county layout is also something that you will notice has changed dramatically. Gone are all the weirdly shaped counties, that would either look like a square or be stretched into all manner of shapes. Every single county in the region has been moved and/or reshaped. The single most noticeable addition will be the Syrian desert. Which, in my opinion, is needed to make sure that the surrounding counties can be placed and shaped properly.

02_syrian_desert.png


As much as I would like to, I won’t go into detail for all changes I’ve done to the counties. But I’ll highlight some of the more major ones.

Both Fergana and Khuttal are now full-fledged duchies, with three and four counties, respectively.

03_fergana_khuttal.png


Several new counties have been added to Yemen, which consists of the duchies Sanaa, Taizz and Hadramut.

04_yemen.png


The duchy of Medina is renamed to Hijaz and got three new coastal counties added, making the duchy consist of six counties in total.

05_hijaz.png


We’ve also decided to increase the number of counties in the Tarim Basin, in order to make the area more fun and interesting to play in. It has about twice the number of counties compared to the old setup.

06_tarim_basin.png

07_tarim_basin.png


That’s some of the biggest changes that you’ll see on the map which is, as always for map updates, a part of the free 2.8 patch. Bear in mind that it’s still a bit of a work in progress. Some counties are likely to get another set of name changes and other tweaks.

Finally, I would like to give a shout out to @elvain, who helped me with a lot of research. Making this update possible to do to such an extent.

Don’t forget to tune into the Medieval Monday streams 16:00-18:00 (CEST)! During which you can poke me if you want to see a specific region or have any other questions.
 
Why can't you add Issyk-Kul lake? It is one of the biggest mountain lakes in Central Asia.
It definitely should be on map.

Never knew about this lake, but after reading about it thanks to you, and finding its rich history, I'm very surprised it's not in the game. It definitely should be.
 
Do people not simply rename stuff to whatever they consider the 'proper' names?

And given that you're looking at the middle-east would it be possible to rework the 'Form Israel' decision so that it holds all the lands in k_jerusalem dejure. Its pretty annoying tbh considering that dejure means by law/right and you'd think that atleast the jews would consider those lands rightfully theirs. Or do something like the West-Francia -> France change and allow jews to to hold k_jerusalem.

Israel not being able to contain Israel always struck me as odd. Renaming Jerusalem (and changing the CoA), alternatively instantly copying/repacing the title and any claims if it is help by a Jewish/non-Jewish character seems like a good idea.
 
It's a dead title for most of the CK2 timeframe, well before the de jure formation of France proper. Duchy of the Franks =/= Duchy of France in any case. ;)

You can replace it with Duchy of England, Duchy of India, Duchy of Cumania, whatever - the point is, "Duchy of Arabia" makes very little sense.

Dux Franciae translates into 'DUchy of Francia/France'. That's the reason why I linked to THIS part of the article.

The duchy of Arabia is based in this:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Petraea
 
IMHO I think people should chill about Duchy/Kingdom/Empire titles. They'll never be a name that makes everyone happy. In many cases, the names are bound to be anachronistic or inaccurate but CK2 has to settle for one in the end.

Fun fact: the Arabs have no single name for "Arabia," it's simply called 'The Peninsula' or 'The Peninsula of the Arabs.' For the purposes of this game the former is rather too vague and the latter would be kind of hard to fit on the map.

Also can we please have the choice to colour in wastelands if surrounded by one country like in EU4?

:)
EVEN NOW people can't agree on names of things. Don't you dare call it the "Persian Gulf" in an Arab country.
 
Case in point, the Falklands vs. Las Malvinas. Although we did win the last war, so I'd say the former trumps the latter.

The English Channel is another example that comes to mind.
 
Antiocheia-on-the-Orodes was a Seleucid city, named after Antiochus (the second Seleucid king). Antioch was founded as a Hellenistic city, and it later became the capital (moved from Seluceia-on-the-Tigris) of the Seleucid Empire. By the time of the Roman conquest, it was probably the third most populated city in the Mediterranean (though that's debatable -- Mesopotamian Seleuceia still had a massive population well into the Parthian era, until its depopulation).

Anyway, the Armenian king Tigranes did conquer the Syrian heartlands of the Seleucid Empire (he was the one who Lucullus and Tigranes were fighting), but Armenian culture sphere? No -- though the neighboring kingdoms of Commagene was very much Armenian. Samosata, the capital of Commagene, used to be known as Antiocheia, and I wonder if that's where some of the confusion lies.

In any event, the Roman province of Syria was the key eastern province and stayed that way thru to the Arab conquests. Antiocheia was its capital except for brief periods where, usually to punish Antiocheia for its loyalties in civil wars, Damascus was occasionally made the capital.

Edessa was a much smaller and less important city, though it exercised religious importance and obviously grew in stature during the Severan period due to Julia Domna and her family.

I can't speak to TE Lawrence nor the state of play during the early 20th century, although I note that Antioch had LONG since declined by then while Damascus continued to be an important city. But as for cultural identity, Syria was an administrative unit -- a Roman province. That is where the name for the region came from, but it does not have anything to do with the Assyrian heartlands except for the etymological root of the name. There was no "Syrian culture" -- there was the Syriac language, which was much spread much broader than the Roman province of Syria and had to do with an Aramaic language that had spread through the region during the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Syriac speakers once extended throughout the Middle East, from the Assyrian heartlands to the entire Levant, including the area covered by the Syrian province (and the modern country of Syria).

Today, Syriac speakers only really live in the Assyrian heartlands but they used to be spread much further. The distinction is captured broadly in the Syriac Church (representing the western Aramaic Syriac speakers) and the Assyrian Church (representing the descendants of the Assyrian populations of Assur and Adiabene, etc.). The name of the Syrian province comes from them and their language, via the Romans and Greeks. So we have the Syrian Roman province also being the capital of a strongly Hellenistic culture, with a name derived from a much older Akkadian civilization. The whole area was very very culturally diverse, with newer Roman and Hellenistic influences next to very ancient Aramaic and Akkadian cultures.

That's very enlightening. I can however correct you on one account Antioch had not "delined" by the 20th century. The city was sacked by one of the Mongol successor kingdoms. Utterly destroyed and never rebuilt. In the ck2 era.
 
Pretty cool! I hope Austria will get some map love, it direly needs it: the "Österreich" province still has that same inaccurate shape from EU1, and the Steiermark/Tyrol/Innsbruck/Krain provinces aren't better, either.

All of central europe can use a map overhaul. Also fixing some duchies inside the HRE.
 
It would seem I missremembered which city was it then that Babylon was built on top of?
Or was it that Baghdad was built on another city built on uruk? I do remember there having been two previous cities a the rough location where Baghdad was built.

Neither Uruk nor Ur are located beneath modern sites. Fairly sure Babylon was built on virgin soil aswell.
 
That's very enlightening. I can however correct you on one account Antioch had not "delined" by the 20th century. The city was sacked by one of the Mongol successor kingdoms. Utterly destroyed and never rebuilt. In the ck2 era.
If you're referring to the siege of Antioch of 1268, this is the other way around. The Mamluks sieged the city (vassal of the Armenians, themselves allied or vassalized to the Mongols) and sacked it. But I guess the result is exactly the same for the city so your point still stands ;)
 
Neither Uruk nor Ur are located beneath modern sites. Fairly sure Babylon was built on virgin soil aswell.
I'll have to find that article at some point I guess.

If you're referring to the siege of Antioch of 1268, this is the other way around. The Mamluks sieged the city (vassal of the Armenians, themselves allied or vassalized to the Mongols) and sacked it. But I guess the result is exactly the same for the city so your point still stands ;)
If that's the battle after which Antioch was permanently destroyed then I guess that is it. I mostly looked it up for a complaint that there's an Antioch in eu4 when the city is long gone at that point.
 
yup! hence my third and last sentence ^^
This was just a "don't blame the Mongols for all the razing parties in the world" kind of post. (they don't even have the monopoly for the grazing parties).

(well, there probably were settlements in this region years after the siege, but the city never recovered)
 
Empires remain very much the same, though both the Persian Empire and the Arabian Empire have been increased somewhat in size, due to the addition of new counties. Kingdoms however, have been changed quite significantly. The following kingdoms have been added or renamed accordingly:
Added the kingdoms of Daylam, Khorasan, Iraq and Yemen.
Renamed Mesopotamia to Al-Jazira, Afghanistan to Kabulistan, Baluchistan to Sistan, Khiva to Transoxiana.

Daylam seems weird as a kingdom, especially since it isn't even a ducal capital. Padishkhwargar (Persian) / Farshwardgar (Arabic) was a kingdom-rank title in pretty much that exact place (sans Dihistan) and was actually used within the timeline (Bavandids should probably start with a claim on it).

Has Konjikala been given to Merv?

Anywho, looks like really nice stuff in general, should be awesome.
 
That's very enlightening. I can however correct you on one account Antioch had not "delined" by the 20th century. The city was sacked by one of the Mongol successor kingdoms. Utterly destroyed and never rebuilt. In the ck2 era.

Yep, that's what I meant by long since declined. But point taken that "declined" is something of an understatement. Destroyed and abandoned, then.
 
All of central europe can use a map overhaul. Also fixing some duchies inside the HRE.

Hungary looks pretty good now already, with the latest changes to it. But for the other parts of Central Europe, yes, that's true.
 
Daylam seems weird as a kingdom, especially since it isn't even a ducal capital. Padishkhwargar (Persian) / Farshwardgar (Arabic) was a kingdom-rank title in pretty much that exact place (sans Dihistan) and was actually used within the timeline (Bavandids should probably start with a claim on it).

Has Konjikala been given to Merv?

Anywho, looks like really nice stuff in general, should be awesome.

I agree about Daylam, maybe if it was made a much smaller kingdom like Brittany and then the rest of the duchies given to other kingdoms. Though your suggestion for Padishkhwargar is good now that I read up on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padishkhwargar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabaristan

Oh and Deus Vult.