CK2 Dev Diary #67: Revisiting the Middle East

[liredarion]

Because the HRE works perfectly. The HRE wasn't decentralised during the largest part of the game. It was more centralised tan France during this era.

That's partly wrong . France was a highly decentralized feudal state only at the end of the Carolingian empire and until the accession of Philip Augustus. Then the laws of Louis IX (Saint Louis) and of the iron King (Philip IV) so shattered the feudal aristocracy that, at the beginning of the hundred year war, only princes of blood (related to the royal family) were in possessions of principalities that were able of making their voices heard. The holy roman empire was constantly struggling with its Italian possessions, which finally broke down, and the emperors had to negotiate with the German princes (the battle of bovines which precipitated the fall of Otto IV from a simple defeat is rather revealing of this). By comparison the royal power of the house of France was much more centralized: the vassals has to pay tribute to Paris, and the royal ministries held the prerogative of money and the right to appoint the feudal bailiffs, the right to designate the free cities, etc. ..

 

[TheDungen]

That's partly wrong . France was a highly decentralized feudal state only at the end of the Carolingian empire and until the accession of Philip Augustus. Then the laws of Louis IX (Saint Louis) and of the iron King (Philip IV) so shattered the feudal aristocracy that, at the beginning of the one hundred year war, only princes of blood (related to the royal family) were in possessions of principalities that were able of making their voices heard. The holy roman empire was constantly struggling with its Italian possessions, which finally broke down, and the emperors had to negotiate with the German princes (the battle of bovines which precipitated the fall of Otto IV from a simple defeat is rather revealing of this). By comparison the royal power of the house of France was much more centralized: the vassals has to pay tribute to Paris, and the royal ministries held the prerogative of money and the right to appoint the feudal bailiffs, the right to designate the free cities, etc. ..

If France was so centralized then how come the supporters of the rightful king, under the Salian law, lost the war?

 

[liredarion]

If France was so centralized then how come the supporters of the rightful king, under the Salian law, lost the war?

The Salic law has nothing to do with the state of centralization of the kingdom of France in 1337. It is an internal conflict in the Capetian house that makes the Valois spread the daughter of their cousin (jeanne de navarre (also named Jeanne de France To distinguish her from her grandmother ) , daughter of Philip V called Philippe le long ) with the support of the princes of the blood. It is therefore only a struggle of influence within the royal family. The hundred years war was won by France, since England lost all its continental possessions. The debacle of the first part of the war is due to the survival of a chivalrous warrior model in the french strategy, not to the decentralization of the state. The feudal wars and banning of coinage for feudal princes are punished by death since the Iron King, more than 50 years ago at that time . And I didn't say that France was highly centralized at that time, only that it was much more centralized than the empire and that the image of a kingdom ravaged by the feudal wars is false or only applicable to the last Carolingians and to Capetians until Philip Augustus

 

[Aurelio123]

The mechanics of the crusades have not been changed (and for sure, it would need an overhaul), but I have the vague souvenir (a few patches ago) of the weights being changed to greatly reduce the occurrence of the much anticipated and cheered crusade for India.
But basically, Europe is not just the crusades and a lot of things have been done for Europe in the last patches.

You sure? They still get trashed by pagans and muslims

 

[TheDungen]

The Salic law has nothing to do with the state of centralization of the kingdom of France in 1337. It is an internal conflict in the Capetian house that makes the Valois spread the daughter of their cousin with the support of the princes of the blood. It is therefore only a struggle of influence within the royal family. The hundred years war was won by France, since England lost all its continental possessions. The debacle of the first part of the war is due to the survival of a chivalrous warrior model in the french strategy, not to the decentralization of the state. The feudal wars and banning of coinage for feudal princes are punished by death since the Iron King, more than 50 years ago at that time . And I didn't say that France was highly centralized at that time, only that it was much more centralized than the empire and that the image of a kingdom ravaged by the feudal wars is false or only applicable to the last Carolingians and to Capetians until Philip Augustus

Then hundred years war wasnät a war between two countries, the hundred years war was a civil war where one of the contenders happened to be the king of england too. And the fact that the nobles had the power to rise up and resist a king of france who was king of england too very much show that their power was no where near broken.
In fact the fact that the kings of France managed to implement Salic law at all is pretty much the only thing supporting your theory.

 

[liredarion]

Then hundred years war wasnät a war between two countries, the hundred years war was a civil war where one of the contenders happened to be the king of england too. And the fact that the nobles had the power to rise up and resist a king of france who was king of england too very much show that their power was no where near broken.
In fact the fact that the kings of France managed to implement Salic law at all is pretty much the only thing supporting your theory.

I do not understand what you mean. The King of England was the vassal of the King of France for the territories of Guyenne. But Edward III refused to pay homage to Philip VI of Valois because he himself had the title of king. On the contentious guyenne is added the civil war of Brittany where the two houses rivals for the duchy (an independant state at that time ) are supported by France and England. Edward III initiated the war with the support of nobles from Aquitaine (his own vassals since he was the lord "lige" (i don't know the tsanlation in english of this word) right before the King of France), claiming the rights inherited from his mother Isabelle de France, (inheritance that has been invalidated at the same time as that of Jeanne de Navarre by the Salic law). But the fact that the nobility of France support the Valois and was related to the same family is an historical fact, in the same way as the royal ordinances on the prohibition of feudal war and the centralization of the ministeries by Philip IV. This still has nothing to do with the state of centralization of the Capetian kingdom in 1337. And talking about a civil war for the hundred-year war is a bit excessive. It is a war pretexting a feudal contentious but it is a war that sees the confirmation of the national feelings French and English wich were existing since Philip Augustus.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

You sure? They still get trashed by pagans and muslims

you talk about the crusades right? As I said in the message, I think the weights have been tweaked (for prioritizing the potential targets)... only the weights... this does not change the mechanics and thus, the strength of the crusade. Just that far away and inaccessible realms for europeans (such as India) are not targeted as often as they were before.

 

[Caracterisation]

Africa and Finland would be great ^^

 

[Orlunu]

Ehhhhhn. Farshwardgar is pretty obscure and seems to be less well-attested than Hyrcania. In fact that name was well-known enough from antiquity that the Caspian Sea was known to the Greeks and the Persians as the Hyrcanian Ocean. Certainly most medieval geographers outside the region would know the region as Hyrcania.

[...]

My personal preference would be for it to be called Hyrcania as sort of a generic name, culturally modified to Gurgan for monarchs of the Persian culture group or Tabaristan if the top liege is in the Arabic or Altaic culture group. For comparison, Ireland, which becomes Eire only if an Irish ruler holds it, but the actual title is k_ireland. Same thing here.

I do admit that the way you people, who appatently know some Iranian history, voice up against Daylam concerns me.
To be honest, I never considered it an ideal name, but frankly, none of the names suggested I have ever found more sufficent.
Frankly, Farshwardgar looks like a rather good name. The problem is anachronism. It ceased to exist in 7th century, which is 4 centuries before CK2 propper game start (we should keep in mind that considering the base game without DLCs starts in 1066 and the map should reflect primarily this date rather than those brought by DLCs).
Hyrcania is similar case. It is also somehow anachronistic and furthemore it sounds like that... Have you noticed the remarks about Transoxiana being inapropriate? Hyrcania is even more, because Transoxiana at least was used by Europeans to refer about that region until Central Asia prevailed (and even some academics still prefer Transoxiana by now! - to refer to this region before its Turkization).
So basicaly what is left is Gurgan and Tabaristan, which both have similar problem like Daylam, though, I admit, are little larger and more important, and perhaps also better known than Daylam. Yet, Daylam still wins in my opinion due to Daylamites being used by contemporary sources as a generic name for northerners, or at least was - in the sources I have at my disposal - by far the most frequent term used. I do admit that in this issue Daylam leads only by a small margin over Tabaristan, but it still wins.
Gurgan - frankly, it is part of the kingdom for the same reasons like Azerbaijan - it has to be part of some kingdom, but none of them makes more sense than "kingdom of the Caspian lands".

[...]

And as noted above. The naming should not be taken too seriously. We can always try to find the best name, but there are some limits. The map will never be 100% accurate to perfectly reflect the reality and gameplay and game mechanics will always stand above accuracy. Therefore we need to have a "Caspian" kingdom stretching from Azerbaijan to Gurgan instead of layout in which this would a region only with duchy level titles being directly under the empire of Persia. That would have been ideal solution IMHO, because it would be much closer to reality, but there has to be a kingdom. So please keep in mind that this artificial kingdom will have artificial and not 100% sytisfying name. As stated above, any name for such artificial kingdom would trigger protests.

Mmmh, the big decider for me is that, in terms of anachronism, is that the last Padishkhwargarshah, at least by the reckoning of his own people, was Shirwin (Sharwin? Can't remember how it's spelled in game) Bavandid, son of the Sorkhab Bavandid of the Charlemagne start, the title having lasted about 50 years into the game's time frame (so, 9th century). It also makes sense enough to have Azerbaijan included in what basically translates as "the northern mountains kingdom".

Hyrcania would make sense for a western-held localisation, though, as the term was used at the time, it just wasn't used by anyone anywhere near the area.

Either way, I don't see it being seen as a priority matter, especially since we have things in game like k_Scotland de jure owning the intervallum in the Charlemagne start, but I've previously suggested implementing Padishkhwargar as at least a formable title to help the Bavandids out, so I'd already staked out my ground on what I thought the name should be.

 

[Jostarus]

The Ruins of Palmyra in the Syrian desert (static object) would be cool. In memoriam of the destruction of this ancient city!

 

[Mr.Fauncy]

Monks and Mystics. Seriously.

Also odd reason? In this era those regions are arguably more important to world history than some backwater area like medieval Europe. No, there's nothing surprising about focusing on more important historical areas in this time period.

To preface this, this isn't a personal attack on you. Genuinely just trying to debate.

What's with this weird anti-Eurocentrism/Sinoworshiping-revisionism that is rampant on the Paradox Forums? World history is European history, because every event in Europe was seminal in the development of the world. It's not discrediting the history of other peoples to acknowledge reality and say that Europe, in the course of history was far more important than areas like India, Tibet, and Central Asia. You can justly argue that Chinese history was just as, if not more important than European history up until the 16th century, but that's it, only until the 16th century. Even then it's extremely hard to quantify how " important " China was because they had relatively little seminal impacts on the world outside of China. China and East Asia might has well have existed on a different planet until the 18th century. Disregarding this point, how is a thinly populated area with only a few hundred thousand inhabitants that has had no effect on the outside world with the exception of being conquered by China comparable to any European state/region?

And to ask another question that continues on this point, how does Tibet justify 40 - 50 provinces in game when France ( Aquitaine, France, & Brittany ) only has 61 provinces. The HRE which is all of Central Europe, Northern Italy, and eats into France proper is only 100 - 110. Anatolia, the heartland of the Eastern Roman Empire is 29 - 35 ( depending on how you count ) provinces. These areas, especially France which was a demographic behemoth in the medieval world, were not only far more important in the course of history, but housed significantly larger populations.

 

[elvain]

To preface this, this isn't a personal attack on you. Genuinely just trying to debate.

What's with this weird anti-Eurocentrism/Sinoworshiping-revisionism that is rampant on the Paradox Forums? World history is European history, because every event in Europe was seminal in the development of the world. It's not discrediting the history of other peoples to acknowledge reality and say that Europe, in the course of history was far more important than areas like India, Tibet, and Central Asia. You can justly argue that Chinese history was just as, if not more important than European history up until the 16th century, but that's it, only until the 16th century. Even then it's extremely hard to quantify how " important " China was because they had relatively little seminal impacts on the world outside of China. China and East Asia might has well have existed on a different planet until the 18th century. Disregarding this point, how is a thinly populated area with only a few hundred thousand inhabitants that has had no effect on the outside world with the exception of being conquered by China comparable to any European state/region?

And to ask another question that continues on this point, how does Tibet justify 40 - 50 provinces in game when France ( Aquitaine, France, & Brittany ) only has 61 provinces. The HRE which is all of Central Europe, Northern Italy, and eats into France proper is only 100 - 110. Anatolia, the heartland of the Eastern Roman Empire is 29 - 35 ( depending on how you count ) provinces. These areas, especially France which was a demographic behemoth in the medieval world, were not only far more important in the course of history, but housed significantly larger populations.

Tell me you are joking, pretty please!

Honestly, if you really think there is some kind of Anti-Europeanness behind PDX motives or even some kind of Anti-European conspiracy which goes beyond Paradox, please read This thread. It is entirely dedicated to this illusion. It (the thread) has actually evolved from this thread when few other people suffering from this illusion complained. I think, if you feel the need to keep pushing the illusion, you can read the whole thread (please, read the whole thread) and while you'll be reading it, I'll do my best to give you your answer and explain you (there, not here), how terribly wrong you are. Okay?

Just please, don't fill this DD thread with this kind of rubbish.

 

[Enriador]

Isn't Transjordan (i.e. Oultrejordain) already used for a duchy in k_jerusalem?

Indeed, but that duchy is modelled on the crusader Lordship of the Oultrejordain, which was a patch of fiefs that didn't include the entire area known as Transjordan.

So we have two options to keep the duchy alive here. We either 1) rename it to Jawf like elvain suggested, or 2) or name it Transjordan and rename Oultrejordain to something else.

You know what? I guess that such an irrelevant area should either disappear or be engulfed by the sands of the great Syrian desert. It's not so worth the effort, given how depopulated the area was.

 

[Mr.Fauncy]

Tell me you are joking, pretty please!

Honestly, if you really think there is some kind of Anti-Europeanness behind PDX motives or even some kind of Anti-European conspiracy which goes beyond Paradox, please read This thread. It is entirely dedicated to this illusion. It (the thread) has actually evolved from this thread when few other people suffering from this illusion complained. I think, if you feel the need to keep pushing the illusion, you can read the whole thread (please, read the whole thread) and while you'll be reading it, I'll do my best to give you your answer and explain you (there, not here), how terribly wrong you are. Okay?

Just please, don't fill this DD thread with this kind of rubbish. Thank you

You seem to have misunderstood what I said, please try to comprehend what is written before you make a condescending and emotionally charged response, with implied accusations of bigotry. I didn't say or insinuate that there was any anti-european behind Paradox motives, nor do I think that Paradox as a company has any. Can you read the comment I replied to and then reread the first sentence of my comment?

Edit: Grammar + changed a sentence

 

[elvain]

You seem to have misunderstood what I said, please try to comprehend what is written before you respond to it and my accusations of bigotry. I didn't say or insinuate that there was any anti-european behind Paradox motives, nor do I think that Paradox as a company has any. Can you read the comment I replied to and then reread the first sentence of my comment?

Yup, sorry. You didn't mean Paradox, you meant the Paradox community forum. That changes a lot. I apologize. Anyway, the answer still applies.

The thread does indeed give you answers to your questions... and a precise one is currently being written.

EDIT:
PS: While the answer is written in a way which most probably will give you some emotions, you can rest assured that except big curiousity if you can be serious, I really felt no emotions when writing it

 

[Mr.Fauncy]

Yup, sorry. You didn't mean Paradox, you mean the Paradox community forum. That changes a lot. I apologize. Anyway, the answer still applies.

The thread does indeed give you answers to your questions... and a precise one is currently being written.

EDIT:
PS: While the answer is written in a way to give you some emotions, you can rest assured that except big curiousity if you can be serious, I really felt no emotions when writing it

I respect you for apologizing, thank you. But I don't see how " the answer still applies ", the comment I responded to garnered the response I gave. I didn't put forward an unfounded and fallacious point, I obviously can't provide statistical proof, but from my anecdotal experience there definitely is an element on these forums that are anti-europeancentric revisionists not to be confused with anti-european revisionists.

And my point about Tibet getting 40 - 50 provinces is just objectively true. I'm not arguing about it from a moral or ethical stand point, I'm stating the numbers don't make any sense.

Also, is English your first language? Because from the comment you deleted earlier you showed that you failed to understand my original comment in any way shape or form. It makes me feel like responding or trying to debate is just totally pointless

Edit: spelling mistake

 

[DC123456789]

I respect you for apologizing, thank you. But I don't see how the answer still applies, the comment I responded to garnered the response I gave. I didn't put forward an unfounded and fallacious point, I obviously can't provide statistical proof, but from my anecdotal experience there definitely is an element on these forums that are anti-europeancentric revisionists not to be confused with anti-european revisionists.

And my point about Tibet getting 40 - 50 provinces is just objectively true. I'm not arguing about it from a moral or ethical stand point, I'm stating the numbers don't make any sense.

Also, is English your first language? Because from the comment you deleted earlier you showed that you failed to understand my original comment in any way shape or form. It makes me feel like responding or trying to debate is just totally pointless

Edit: spelling mistake

I'm not sure you're aware of just how large Tibet is? It's a quarter of the size of Europe. Surely it merits some 40-50 provinces?

 

[elvain]

I respect you for apologizing, thank you. But I don't see how " the answer still applies ", the comment I responded to garnered the response I gave. I didn't put forward an unfounded and fallacious point, I obviously can't provide statistical proof, but from my anecdotal experience there definitely is an element on these forums that are anti-europeancentric revisionists not to be confused with anti-european revisionists.

And my point about Tibet getting 40 - 50 provinces is just objectively true. I'm not arguing about it from a moral or ethical stand point, I'm stating the numbers don't make any sense.

Also, is English your first language? Because from the comment you deleted earlier you showed that you failed to understand my original comment in any way shape or form. It makes me feel like responding or trying to debate is just totally pointless

Edit: spelling mistake

No, I believe it is obvious that English is not my first language. It actually isn't even my second, but rather my third language. Sorry for not mastering it perfectly.
I was actually not refering to your point about Tibet (that part obviously does make some good points, which will be explained at its place), but that part above it.

 

[Mr.Fauncy]

I'm not sure you're aware of just how large Tibet is? It's a quarter of the size of Europe. Surely it merits some 40-50 provinces?

Yes, and Australia is 3/4 the size of Europe but has only 3% of its population. Tibet is an archipelago but instead of an ocean dividing the tiny islands of livable land, it is inhospitable, inarable mountains and desert. Even in today's world accounting for the large amounts of Han Chinese migrants their population is only 3 million.

 

[Mr.Fauncy]

No, I believe it is obvious that English is not my first language. It actually isn't even my second, but rather my third language. Sorry for not mastering it perfectly.
I was actually not refering to your point about Tibet (that part obviously does make some good points, which will be explained at its place), but that part above it.

Congrats on your English, what's your first language? And just to be clear I wasn't trying to insult you. My original comment used a few confusing words, funky syntax, and a few implications that a non-native might not pick up on, don't feel bad about not understanding it on your first run through.