Tinto Maps #3 - 24th of May 2024 - France

[RRTP00]

I mean... technically both the older and newer rulers of Burgundy were of the same dynasty, the Capetians. It's just that the original Capetian dynasty of Burgundy began in 1032, so it was only distantly related in the male line to the new Capetian(-Valois) dynasty which began its rule in Burgundy in 1363.

There wasn't even a break in the continuity of the duchy, Burgundy was not escheated to the French crown, the Valois inherited the duchy through blood, tried to integrate it and failed

 

[Thorum]

Why is Nice of Provençal culture and not Niçard, given that its dialect is strongly influenced by Western Ligurian? Linguistic studies confirm that Niçard is completely autonomous from Provençal, making it practically a transitional language from the true Gallo-Italic to the Occitano-Romance.

Wasn't it just one dialect continuum from Valencia to Liguria?

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Monaco (24 sq km prior to 1848) is slightly smaller than Couto Misto (26 sq km prior to being divided by Portugal and Spain). @Pavía previously mentioned that Couto Misto is too small to be added as a separate location, so the same applies to Monaco.

Andorra is 468 sq km large.

Of course, not every tiny location and polity can be put on the map, but the important ones should be.


and the Project Caesar already makes compromises between size and importance.

• Some small statelets (City-states like Cologne or prince-Abbey of Prüm) of the HRE seem to be slightly oversized in the game.
• The Mercator projection inflates the size of Europe or Japan with their many tags compared to tropical areas.

Other Paradox games have inflated the size of important locations.


Iwo Jima is 29.86 sq. km (roughly same size)

Gibraltar is only 6.8 sq. km (MUCH smaller)


Both are states in HoI4.


That’s due to their importance.

Monaco was important for multiple reasons:

• Being a natural fortress.
• Genoa as a thorn I their side and source of trouble for over 150 years
• France as a minor ally in the HYW (Monaco set ships to sack Southampton and troops to fight at Cressy)
• Milan, Savoy and Naples due to Monaco’s meeting into Italian affairs.
• Spain, when being a Spanish protectorate in the late 16th-early 17th century, giving Spain a foothold on the coast near southern France.
• other important (catholic) ruling families of Europe. The Grimaldi have intermarried with them historically.

Unlike Couto Misto, Monaco and the ruling Grimaldi family survives to this day.

the Tinto team has 2 options:

• keep Monaco out and over-simplify the things
• add Monaco as a visually oversized location. (Things like pop numbers, arable land, building slots etc etc. should be still kept accurate)

We believe the second option would make better gameplay and more in line with the design principles of the new game.

 

[LDiCesare]

Versailles is part of the Paris location? Should it be separate or no need?

Versailles is completey irrelevant in 1337. It's hardly a village.

Does Joan II of Navarre or her son Charles II the bad have claim on France ?

Yes. Charles of Navarre tried to poison Charles V of France a few times and considered himself the rightful king of France.

 

[AlecBaldwin]

I hope that Britanny will be an independant state at the start of the game , before the civil war between the Montfort and Blois Houses come with the Hundred Year's war.

 

[MasterPaw]

So we would be glad to receive feedback on the names that you think would fit. E.g.: Artois instead of Arras, Anjou instead of Angers, etc.

Yes please, Angers as a province is weird

Other suggestions:
- Thouars -> Bas-Poitou
- Poitiers -> Haut-Poitou
- Saintes-> Saintonge
- Nantes -> Nantais
- Vannes -> Vannetais
- Rennes -> Rennais
- Tours -> Touraine
- ORléans -> Orléanais
- Clermont -> Auvergne
- Limoges -> Limousin
- Le Mans -> Sarthe (or split to icnlude most of it into mayenne )
...

you can do this for a lot of those

And please do regional naming too, it can bee done for brittany and alsace at least, those regions kept their regional language for a while

 

[Kaspar Osraige]

Monaco or we riot!

 

[Admiral Boysen]

Does proximity w/r/t control propagate through subjects/overlord/fellow subjects? If not, France/its subjects will need bailiffs in every exclave (Aquitaine will need one in Mauléon anyway).

 

[TalusOfDixie]

If Tinto decided to not split up Spanish further and to consolidate Dutch cultures into a single Low Franconian, I struggle to understand the level of granularity seen in France and Germany and what it actually achieves.

It achieves realistic representation, one must understand how cultures work in a historical point of view, it seemed kinda obvious to me, but apparently it isn't the case: Different places have different levels of diversity, because different places have different history, and this includes cultural history.

If such was linear, we'd have some points where a language or a culture has matured enough for every few kms walked show noticeably different people – Oh, wait, this is exactly the case we're dealing with. Consolidating "dutch" cultures into Low Franconian is accurate for 1337, because by then someone from Brugge would still pretty much recognize someone from Amsterdam as sufficiently similar, the main cultural divide in that sphere, the Dutch/Flemish one, didn't occur until the late 17th century, and it was only that hard of a divide because of the Dutch Revolt and its consequences, still then, today "Flemish" is still pretty much identified with "Dutch" (as far as, sometimes, people forgetting that "Flemish" and "Walloon" exist, and saying that Belgium is "Dutch" and "French") even with all the history behind trying to force the cultural divide.

If looking forward "Low Franconian" culture in Caesar seems justified, looking back from the start date, the same people have been a coherent cultural group since the Low Middle Ages, and it's from where the "Low Franconian" name comes: They are Franks (Franconian) that live in the Low Rhine Basin (as opposed to other groups, like Moselle-Franconian, that live upriver). If we take the fact that the main material for the PC cultures seems to be along linguistic lines, lumping it on "Low Franconian" is more accurate, too, since language in the area of game start is Middle Dutch, which has basically the Old Low Franconian area but with more dialectal variation, because of more time passing.

Compare this to the supposed "overgranularity" of France and Germany, and in truth you have near-perfection when it concerns to follow its own determined criteria. Of course, we've not seen fully Germany, but the Rhine region seems pretty satisfactory to me, as example: Taking the linguistic approach, we know that the Central Franconian family (Ripuarian + Moselle Franconian) dates to at least the Old High German period, where it was attested as the monastery dialect of Trier, Cologne and Echternatch. In 1337, we're almost entering Early New High German, a full two linguistic phases of development. I personally think it would be more 1337-accurate for Ripuarian and Moselle to be one single "Middle Franconian" culture, but considering that the game is going for the next 500 years, and the actual divide would be occurring very soon (15-16th century), i don't see why it's inappropriate to have both as separate cultures.

France just went the similar path, and it does so very accurately (in its case we know very much that the "dialects" were treated as different languages). Some lumping proposals there were thrown around didn't take at all into account the actual relevance of local cultures in medieval France, it is that diverse, every single of these cultures is "diverging" from Latin for nearly a millenium and a half by game-start (Like really, i think that some will be mad once we get to Italy with this train of thought), and there were no "reunifying" pushes yet. What brings us to Iberia:

I must though agree, Spain ought not be monocultural either. Perhaps there is a way to introduce an emergent Andalucia culture there?

It's not just Andalucia, its Valencian, Asturian, Cantabrian. We need an actual metric for what is a seperate category and what is not.

I think i've already shown that the dev team clearly has an actual metric to separate categories, if we don't know anything else: Language. Iberia's situation is kinda unique in that its apparent cultural homogeneity is "by design", that is actual colonization. Why do you think that every language (besides Basque and Gallician, which, by the way, Gallician should totally just be Gallego-Portuguese by the start date, which would conform to what i'm saying) in Iberia is almost a southwards snake? It's because of the Reconquista.

Let's look up one of these cultures, Asturleonese: Zerodv claims there has to be an Asturian culture, but i don't think so, what you said shows a lack of knowledge about how actually is the divide in the Asturleonese cultural sphere – "Asturleonese" is something because, back in the day, there was a thing called the Kingdom of Asturias, yes, the last christian state in Iberia after the Umayyads took over, it so happens that, when Asturias got back the Douro Valley, they firstly depopulated it, and after the border became secured, repopulated it with people from the mountains. The result is that cultural lines don't go mountains/plains (that is, north to south) but west/east (by the path of colonisation), there isn't a single "Asturian" subculture to branch off "Leonese", "Asturleonese" is a culture where its branches are as such that one living in a "Leonese" town has more in common with the "Asturian" villages that colonised it than with the supposedly "Leonese" brethren at the town on the other side of the river, where colonisation was carried by another group of villages far away from your origin. Compare it to how immigrant comunities in, let's say, the USA, work, you feel that you have more in common with your "fellow nationals" back in Italy than with your German neighbour.

The same is valid for all other Iberian cultures, Gallego-Portuguese expanded from Gallicia to the Algarve, Castilian went from La Vieja to Andalusia, Aragonese went from the Pyrenees to past Teruel and Catalan was literally Occitan brought by the Hispanic Marches and went all the way to Murcia. Which, by the way, is one of the mistakes of last week's map – Murcia should be Catalan, it was colonised by them (but it was already acknowledged and i guess it will be corrected).

Now, i think the Castilian "monolith" isn't wrong at all, the main cause for it to be so big is the Mudéjar expulsions half-a-century ago that Pavía has already referred to. A separate, Andalusian culture, at game-start would be simply wrong, not even the time for a proper separate dialect to show up has passed, "Andalusian Spanish" becomes a reported, coherent, and distinct thing during Early Modern Spanish, primarily in the 16th Century, and "Andalusian" as a separate culture wouldn't make much sense in the game's timeframe (maybe by the late game? I don't think so, the Andalusians seemed Castilian enough when fighting for "King and Country" against Napoleon). I do think that there should be some Asturleonese pops in Andalusia, though, to reflect these populations that did contribute people to the 13th century colonisation.

Closing on the fact that, following the same logic, obviously it's too early for any semblance of "Valencian" (Like, there were references to what "Catalan" was in the time, y'know? And people from Valencia were on that category). Even if it would be acceptable, Cantabrian would be too small of a culture – But it isn't, Cantabrian is solidly a part of the Asturleonese sphere, and at best a transitional between it and Castillian (and we're talking about places where Old Castillian was spoken).

For more on the colonisation stuff, i refer to Economic History of Spain by Jaime Vicens Vives, Chapter 13 (i think?): Reconquest and Resettlement in the 12th and 13th Centuries.

 

[eanske]

It achieves realistic representation, one must understand how cultures work in a historical point of view, it seemed kinda obvious to me, but apparently it isn't the case: Different places have different levels of diversity, because different places have different history, and this includes cultural history.

If such was linear, we'd have some points where a language or a culture has matured enough for every few kms walked show noticeably different people – Oh, wait, this is exactly the case we're dealing with. Consolidating "dutch" cultures into Low Franconian is accurate for 1337, because by then someone from Brugge would still pretty much recognize someone from Amsterdam as sufficiently similar, the main cultural divide in that sphere, the Dutch/Flemish one, didn't occur until the late 17th century, and it was only that hard of a divide because of the Dutch Revolt and its consequences, still then, today "Flemish" is still pretty much identified with "Dutch" (as far as, sometimes, people forgetting that "Flemish" and "Walloon" exist, and saying that Belgium is "Dutch" and "French") even with all the history behind trying to force the cultural divide.

If looking forward "Low Franconian" culture in Caesar seems justified, looking back from the start date, the same people have been a coherent cultural group since the Low Middle Ages, and it's from where the "Low Franconian" name comes: They are Franks (Franconian) that live in the Low Rhine Basin (as opposed to other groups, like Moselle-Franconian, that live upriver). If we take the fact that the main material for the PC cultures seems to be along linguistic lines, lumping it on "Low Franconian" is more accurate, too, since language in the area of game start is Middle Dutch, which has basically the Old Low Franconian area but with more dialectal variation, because of more time passing.

Compare this to the supposed "overgranularity" of France and Germany, and in truth you have near-perfection when it concerns to follow its own determined criteria. Of course, we've not seen fully Germany, but the Rhine region seems pretty satisfactory to me, as example: Taking the linguistic approach, we know that the Central Franconian family (Ripuarian + Moselle Franconian) dates to at least the Old High German period, where it was attested as the monastery dialect of Trier, Cologne and Echternatch. In 1337, we're almost entering Early New High German, a full two linguistic phases of development. I personally think it would be more 1337-accurate for Ripuarian and Moselle to be one single "Middle Franconian" culture, but considering that the game is going for the next 500 years, and the actual divide would be occurring very soon (15-16th century), i don't see why it's inappropriate to have both as separate cultures.

France just went the similar path, and it does so very accurately (in its case we know very much that the "dialects" were treated as different languages). Some lumping proposals there were thrown around didn't take at all into account the actual relevance of local cultures in medieval France, it is that diverse, every single of these cultures is "diverging" from Latin for nearly a millenium and a half by game-start (Like really, i think that some will be mad once we get to Italy with this train of thought), and there were no "reunifying" pushes yet. What brings us to Iberia:


I think i've already shown that the dev team clearly has an actual metric to separate categories, if we don't know anything else: Language. Iberia's situation is kinda unique in that its apparent cultural homogeneity is "by design", that is actual colonization. Why do you think that every language (besides Basque and Gallician, which, by the way, Gallician should totally just be Gallego-Portuguese by the start date, which would conform to what i'm saying) in Iberia is almost a southwards snake? It's because of the Reconquista.

Let's look up one of these cultures, Asturleonese: Zerodv claims there has to be an Asturian culture, but i don't think so, what you said shows a lack of knowledge about how actually is the divide in the Asturleonese cultural sphere – "Asturleonese" is something because, back in the day, there was a thing called the Kingdom of Asturias, yes, the last christian state in Iberia after the Umayyads took over, it so happens that, when Asturias got back the Douro Valley, they firstly depopulated it, and after the border became secured, repopulated it with people from the mountains. The result is that cultural lines don't go mountains/plains (that is, north to south) but west/east (by the path of colonisation), there isn't a single "Asturian" subculture to branch off "Leonese", "Asturleonese" is a culture where its branches are as such that one living in a "Leonese" town has more in common with the "Asturian" villages that colonised it than with the supposedly "Leonese" brethren at the town on the other side of the river, where colonisation was carried by another group of villages far away from your origin. Compare it to how immigrant comunities in, let's say, the USA, work, you feel that you have more in common with your "fellow nationals" back in Italy than with your German neighbour.

The same is valid for all other Iberian cultures, Gallego-Portuguese expanded from Gallicia to the Algarve, Castilian went from La Vieja to Andalusia, Aragonese went from the Pyrenees to past Teruel and Catalan was literally Occitan brought by the Hispanic Marches and went all the way to Murcia. Which, by the way, is one of the mistakes of last week's map – Murcia should be Catalan, it was colonised by them (but it was already acknowledged and i guess it will be corrected).

Now, i think the Castilian "monolith" isn't wrong at all, the main cause for it to be so big is the Mudéjar expulsions half-a-century ago that Pavía has already referred to. A separate, Andalusian culture, at game-start would be simply wrong, not even the time for a proper separate dialect to show up has passed, "Andalusian Spanish" becomes a reported, coherent, and distinct thing during Early Modern Spanish, primarily in the 16th Century, and "Andalusian" as a separate culture wouldn't make much sense in the game's timeframe (maybe by the late game? I don't think so, the Andalusians seemed Castilian enough when fighting for "King and Country" against Napoleon). I do think that there should be some Asturleonese pops in Andalusia, though, to reflect these populations that did contribute people to the 13th century colonisation.

Closing on the fact that, following the same logic, obviously it's too early for any semblance of "Valencian" (Like, there were references to what "Catalan" was in the time, y'know? And people from Valencia were on that category). Even if it would be acceptable, Cantabrian would be too small of a culture – But it isn't, Cantabrian is solidly a part of the Asturleonese sphere, and at best a transitional between it and Castillian (and we're talking about places where Old Castillian was spoken).

For more on the colonisation stuff, i refer to Economic History of Spain by Jaime Vicens Vives, Chapter 13 (i think?): Reconquest and Resettlement in the 12th and 13th Centuries.

I think you missed the point about the Low Franconian / Dutch culture. I can't speak for Zerodv, but the simplification in the Low Countries isn't lumping Brugge and Amsterdam, but including Maastricht and Enschede in the same group. Even today, after centuries of centralisation efforts from Holland a lot of people from Amsterdam, Maastricht and Enschede can't understand each other without a translator.

See for example this map from 1900, good luck finding the Dutch culture borders from PC here...

 

[zachary123212]

We think that this way we can portray the progressive centralization of the crown under the reigns of Philip II, Louis IX, and Philip IV, while also portraying the powerful jurisdictional powers of the French feuds.

You mean Louis XI, right?

 

[PatatjeFriet]

people from Amsterdam, Maastricht and Enschede can't understand each other without a translator

Where did you get this information from? I am Dutch and I have little problem understanding them nor have I heard much peopl say the couldn't. I have heard people say that other Eastern dialects are difficult to understand but those are not part of this grouping.

 

[Mef]

See for example this map from 1900, good luck finding the Dutch culture borders from PC here...

This map looks wrong. For me as a Franconian, it makes no sense that people from Cologne are grouped up with us in this map because their dialect is completely different. And culture wise (I hate that culture is always equated with language), West Germans are different from us South Germans too.
So just because one map does some weird grouping, doesn't mean these cultures are all very similar.

 

[Alex2008733]

Location of Nice and its county is Ligurian-speaking during this time or part of the ligurian dialect continuum, only during the 18th century Occitan settlers arrived, and as someone said it shouldn't be that big as a province an should probably go to Italy, but France does hold it now even though you could make the same argument for Corsica.

 

[Zerodv]

because by then someone from Brugge would still pretty much recognize someone from Amsterdam as sufficiently similar

But how do you know this wasn't the case in France? How do you reckon that one group should exist and the other not?

For example why shouldn't Maine have its own separate culture form Angevin?

Mayennais — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org

Compare this to the supposed "overgranularity" of France and Germany, and in truth you have near-perfection when it concerns to follow its own determined criteria. Of course, we've not seen fully Germany, but the Rhine region seems pretty satisfactory to me, as example: Taking the linguistic approach,

You switched metric, you went from "they would recognize each other as similar" to "language". This is not the same metric and there is no reason why you shouldn't just try using just one of them or at least combine them instead of merely using one or the other inconsistently.
It's also not clear what exact linguistic criterion is used, because you could split Norman even further based on the Joret line, or you could split other dialects based on alternative classification systems. Can you please state what definition of a dialect/language you think is being consistently used?

France just went the similar path, and it does so very accurately (in its case we know very much that the "dialects" were treated as different languages).

West Flemish is a valid linguistic category too, so is Brabantic. Why doesn't this justify splitting up Low Franconian?

Some lumping proposals there were thrown around didn't take at all into account the actual relevance of local cultures in medieval France, it is that diverse, every single of these cultures is "diverging" from Latin for nearly a millenium and a half by game-start (Like really, i think that some will be mad once we get to Italy with this train of thought), and there were no "reunifying" pushes yet.

Can you please prove this to me? You are just stating this, but I have no way to falsify or corroborate what you are claiming, I cannot tell you whether Flemish or Hollanders felt closer to each other than people from Paris and people from Orleans, why/how do you know this?

Let's look up one of these cultures, Asturleonese: Zerodv claims there has to be an Asturian culture, but i don't think so, what you said shows a lack of knowledge about how actually is the divide in the Asturleonese cultural sphere

Asturian language - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Instead of trying to show of your rudimentary historical knowledge, can you please provide an evidence-based argument for why Asturleonese should be united wile Poitevin-Saitonges which are commonly grouped up and considered one language should be separate?

Cantabrian language - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or why shouldn't Cantabrian exist when Angevin is split from Francien?

(besides Basque and Gallician, which, by the way, Gallician should totally just be Gallego-Portuguese by the start date, which would conform to what i'm saying) in Iberia is almost a southwards snake? It's because of the Reconquista.

You went from describing why Spanish/Iberian cultures are like they are to try to fix it, showing that the criteria you used isn't actually valid.

The issue with this argument ultimately is that it doesn't actually address why the level of granularity seen in France is justified, no one here is talking about having only 2 Romance-speaking cultures for the Oil and Oc languages, the criticism is targeted at the differing level of granularity which is based on an inconsistent application of linguistic criteria.

 

[eanske]

Where did you get this information from? I am Dutch and I have little problem understanding them nor have I heard much peopl say the couldn't. I have heard people say that other Eastern dialects are difficult to understand but those are not part of this grouping.

I am Dutch? And it is something I've occured countless times.

 

[eanske]

This map looks wrong. For me as a Franconian, it makes no sense that people from Cologne are grouped up with us in this map because their dialect is completely different. And culture wise (I hate that culture is always equated with language), West Germans are different from us South Germans too.
So just because one map does some weird grouping, doesn't mean these cultures are all very similar.

There are countless similar ones. And obviously also different, because languages are not that binary.

But if you want one where Cologne is in a different group:

The point I wa s making is that half of the current NL has nothing to do with Low Franconian.

 

[Zerodv]

This map looks wrong. For me as a Franconian, it makes no sense that people from Cologne are grouped up with us in this map because their dialect is completely different. And culture wise (I hate that culture is always equated with language), West Germans are different from us South Germans too.
So just because one map does some weird grouping, doesn't mean these cultures are all very similar.

The map isn't good but that doesn't really matter, the number of valid linguistic categories you could use for a region is arbitrary, you can divide the German-Dutch area in 2, 3, a dozen or more dialectal/linguistic areas.

I previously criticized you for even trying to determine whether people in a specific location were culturally closer to other people nearby or not instead of using language and linguistic categories, but I recognize now that insofar as people don't actually have a clue how linguistic categories work they will end up applying an inconsistent framework and extend this poor understanding to culture.

 

[Thavis]

I know that is Tinto Map, so I probably won't have any answers here, but we never know.
With all of that, how the power balance between France and England during this period will be depicted ? Based only on what we see with the maps, and how the other games work in general, it seem that the dynamic between both countries during the hundred year war will be hard to replicate ?

 

[Zerodv]

There are countless similar ones. And obviously also different, because languages are not that binary.

But if you want one where Cologne is in a different group:

The point I wa s making is that half of the current NL has nothing to do with Low Franconian.

Going by the argument used for Spanish cultures, none of the dialectal categories that exist in East Germany should be separate cultures in 1337.