Tinto Maps #6 - 14th of June 2024 - Great Britain & Ireland

[fionnlagh1]

It seems like English is set to be the second most dominant culture on Man. I wonder if it would make more sense to have it be highland given the culture of the locals was Manx a Gaelic language.

I know that the monolithic English culture will also be hotly debated, a simple fix would be to include the Scottish Marches down towards Durham in the Scots cultural group. Northumbrian, Cumbrian and Scots being much more closely related than they would be to what was spoken in Wiltshire.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Swindon as a location makes zero sense. That only became a place of any significance in the mid-late 19th century. Highworth or possibly Marlborough would be a better choice for that location's name.

Crewe is another railway town that was of no importance during this period. Nantwich is the best name to use there. Also, salt might be a better good there.

 

[Teutonic_Knight_2000]

It also settles the debate about Polish culture. If English and Irish are monolithic, you should also have one Polish culture rather than various dialect groups.

There is a huge difference between Poland and England. The national identity of the English is definitely older than the Polish one. Moreover, Poland on at the beginning of the game, it barely returned to the map and is gradually eliminating the effects of district division - by connecting culturally typically Polish lands in Mazovia, Kujawy and Sieradz Land and incorporating them into the Kingdom of Poland... England, on the other hand, was already completely united.

 

[Prince Wo]

Locations​

You might notice that the locations in Ireland are varyingly written in both English and in Irish. This is because we have the new system up-and-running where we can name Locations by the primary culture of the country they are owned by.

This means that for example London might be called Londres if it was ruled by a Catalan country. It’s currently a WIP feature and we might add more elements, such as a game setting to base the name on dominant culture of the location instead, or to just use default (English) names.

View attachment 1148223

I understand that the reasoning was likely in order to give London port access, but considering that Paris and Versaille, two major locations within the games time period that are 20km apart, were merged into one location on the French map (the reasoning being there was 'no need' to geographically represent their political separation), the fact that here Southwark, London and Westminster, regions that are about 4km away from one another and a 40 minute walk if you're chipper, are all separate and enormous locations on this map seems odd. They've been blown up in size in order to represent the significance in political separation between London and Westminster during the time period, but this has resulted in London seemingly occupying the area between Basildon and Barking rather than the true location of the old city, making middlesex eat a big chunk out of areas that are traditionally in Essex. For gameplay reasons as I said it makes sense, and the towns weren't to be unified into one entity until far into the games time scale, but this was more due to de jure geographical boundary making with regards to the old medieval walls of the city of London than it was due to the actual geographical realities, and has resulted in an abstraction akin to Venices enormous island in EU4.

Similarly, the choice to represent the Forest of Dean, fair as it was a significant location within the region, has resulted in pushing Gloucester significantly south of where it is in real life. Dean also seems an odd name choice as locations are named after their largest settlement. Perhaps renaming Dean to Gloucester and readjusting the boundaries for Bristol into Gloucester in order to move it further north would be better, as it has also been shifted south.

 

[Edam42]

There should be generally be less woods in England; only 10-15% of land was considered woodland by 1350. England in the century prior to the start date had experienced severe deforestation, with many areas just clear cut for profit and to acquire new farmlands.


I’ll focus most of my observations/recommendations on the Southwest/West Country as it’s the area I know best.


Cornwall

Launceston
Should be sparse; central to the location is Bodmin Moor, a large expanse of rocky heathland and bogs.

Ideally (Definitely if Im being honest) Cornwall should have a third location so it is able to have a copper raw good, as well as tin and fish, all of which are important in representing Cornwall’s historical significance. Copper was especially important for Cornwall since it was where the majority of copper used in Britain was mined until the middle of the 19th century.
I recommend adding one in the middle (taking land from both Truro and Launceston) and calling it Bodmin, which would have the Copper, this location should be flatland and grassland (Bodmin Moor would still fall within the Launceston location).


Somerest

Wells
Should be Marsh. The primary geographic feature that the location covers is the Somerset ‘Levels’, an area of major wetland before it was drained in the latter half of PC’s timespan (it still requires regular drainage by pumping stations and artificial waterways).
Should be grassland; even before mass deforestation woodland wouldn’t have been a major feature of the levels.

Taunton
Should be Hills. The primary geographic features covered by the location depicted are the Blackdown Hills, Brendon Hills, the Quantocks, as well as most of Exmoor. If neighbouring Exeter and Barnstable locations are hills, this one would most certainly be so as well.
Potentially should be Wool. It would have been the dominant economy here. There is generally a lack of wool in the West Country despite it being a prominent part of the economy until the later stages of the time period.

Bristol (Bath)
Ideally should be renamed Bath; Bristol should be in Gloucestershire (see below).
Potentially should be hills. It has both the Mendip Hills and southern Cotswolds within its location, but these don’t completely dominate, although it is a relatively hilly landscape throughout.
Fibre crops make more sense in nearby Gloucestershire (see below), so another good should replace it.


Devon

Exeter
Should be grassland (Plymouth and Taunton make sense as Sparse because Dartmoor and Exmoor dominate those locations).

Plymouth
Should swap raw goods with Exeter to have the tin; this is because Plymouth encompasses Dartmoor, notable for its tin mines.


Wiltshire

Salisbury
Should be grassland to represent the Salisbury Plain, an ancient chalky downland.
Potentially should be wool; Salisbury cathedral was built largely with money from the local wool trade, and was completed just prior to the start date.


Dorset

Weymouth
Should have Stone to represent Portland Stone. I would swap this with the stone in Sussex.


Gloucestershire

Gloucester (Bristol)
Should be renamed Bristol; Bristol was part of Gloucestershire (mostly) before it formed its own small county.
Should have Flax as a raw good here instead of the Somerset Bristol/Bath location. It was grown in the lower Severn floodplains and so could be fit here.
Potentially should be hills to represent the Cotswolds.

Dean (Gloucester)
Should be renamed Gloucester. The location as drawn would include Gloucester, and this would allow for Bristol to be moved in to Gloucestershire where it more appropriately belongs. Also for naming consistency there was no settlement called Dean.



Other Observations
Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire look strange.
I’d move Hertford to Bedfordshire then split off Oxford and Windsor to form a new province, perhaps dividing Oxford in two as quite big, with Banbury perhaps a name for the new location and Oxfordshire the new province.

 

[PVC_Plastic]

Darlington should be producing coal, it's a bit mad there is one coal-producing location in the whole region surrounding the Tyne, like even in the medieval period it was a substantive economy, and especially from 1650 onwards County Durham had massive growth from coal mining.

 

[Hussor]

Should Crewe really exist as a location at this point? I thought it only gained significance during the industrial revolution as a major railway hub. Surely neighbouring Nantwich is more fitting as a market town?

Similarly I think during this time period Salford would be the major city in Southern Lancashire and not Manchester, which became the main city during the industrial revolution too. Almost all old maps of Lancashire that I've seen have that area marked as the Salford Hundred.

 

[Vispian]

Plymouth
Should swap raw goods with Exeter to have the tin; this is because Plymouth encompasses Dartmoor, notable for its tin mines.

Exeter was the main stannary town and majority of the Tin shipped came through Exeter. Fish was not a major resource in Exeter and the fisheries of Dartmouth and Salcombe were huge and made up large portions of the trade in Plymouth. The representing of Fish in Exeter is not indicative to the local economy of Cloth (not wool), tin and silver.

Plymouth should be fish and the only other trade good that makes sense is Silver through Bere Alston in the Tamar Valley

Cooke, Richard William Ingram. 2021. "Devon's Economy during the Long Fifteenth Century: Wealth, Population and Trade." Order No. 29424075, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)

Maryanne Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New York;, 1995)

Steve Rippon, Peter Claughton and Christopher Smart, Mining In A Medieval Landscape: The Royal Silver Mines of the Tamar Valley (University of Exeter Press, 2009)
edit: Its called Dean, likely because of the iron mine

 

[Foke]

Am I the only one who can't see the topography map?

 

[Traj161]

Mr Welshy, every single location in Great Britain has a Welsh language variant, they just aren't shown in 1337 as Wales starts with English primary culture. Happy reconquests!

View attachment 1148270

Oeh can we get a map like that of the Netherlands in Dutch, (and in the France thread a map of France conquered by the English & one by the Dutch) for reasons mhuahaha

 

[luigilime]

Some location additions:

ELY - Cambridgeshire - Important medieval town home to an important bishopric. Many parliamentary meetings in the Middle Ages happened here.

ST. ALBANS - Hertfordshire - Important religious city home to abbey and the tomb of the first christian martyr of England. two battles during the War of the Roses happened here (1455, 1461).

BATH - Somerset - Ancient roman city then became one of the seats of the bishopric of Bath and Wells.

BOLTON - Lancashire - where the Bolton massacre happened during the English civil war (1644)

All historically significant locations for medieval and modern England. Since the low location density I believe there is enough room for them.

 

[Rule Britannia]

Thank you SaintDaveUK for this very thorough and interesting Tinto Map. I have far from digested all of it yet and plan to do that over the coming days. However, before doing this I wanted to give a bit of feed back on the part of the map most near and dear to my heart, namely London and the surrounding area.

Middlesex and Surrey:
Firstly I want to praise you for not simply adopting the historical county lines when it comes to the London area. Creating a larger Middlesex province that roughly corresponds to the present Greater London is exactly what I would have recommended. Superimposing historical county lines on this area would have split up the capital region in a way that would not have made sense in practice. I do think it is a shame that you do not carve out a separate Surrey province from Sussex using roughly the current county lines (I am sure you have access to a modern county map so I will not bother with uploading one). The current county of surrey is about 4x bigger than Andorra, so you should be able to have a 3-4 location province. I will try to make a later post suggesting some more locations for the south East of England as the location density seem quite low to me.

Locations in Middlesex:

While part of me loves to see London (which I would suggest should be renamed City of London if you keep this set up), Westminster and Southwark as separate locations on the map, I do think it is a bit problematic.

Firstly, there is the issue that this results in London not actually being the capital of England in game. It is true that Westminster achieved city status in the 16th-century, but it maintains this status to this day, and neither at the end of the game period in the 19th century nor today would anyone question that the capital is London, with Westminster merely a constituent part of the greater city. However, even in 1337 I would argue that it would not make sense to have a capital location separate from London. The very reason why Westminster became the home of parliament was the economic pre-eminence of London. There was also a synergy effect whereby “London’s development as England’s capital city” further enhanced her economic dominance. Writing on the period Prestwhich moreover states; “government business was increasingly concentrated upon Westminster and London”. (M. Prestwhich, Plantagenet England, 1225-1360, pp. 484-485). Thus, to me it would seem wrong to separate London from its status as capital.

Today Westminster is part of the greater urban conurbation known as London, and the same was true in the 14th century, albeit the metropolitan area was much smaller than today. This is clear from the map below showing the central medieval conurbation from around 1300 (J. Schofield’s London 1100-1600: The Archaeology of a capital City, p. 9). It is also worth noting that the City had started to spread into what is now Westminster before Edward the confessor founded Westminster Abbey, as the commercial centre between the 7th and the 9th centuries lay around modern day Aldwych in Westminster (Ibid, p. 5). I mention this to show that even before there was a Westminster, London was not just confined to the area inside the Roman wall to the west. Returning to the 14th century, Harriss refers to London as a city with three “suburbs”, each the size of a small town with about 2000 inhabitants, Westminster, Southwark, and London’s east end, the latter with developments stretching to Poplar. (G. Harriss, Shaping the Nation, England 1360-1461, pp. 308-309). Viewing these “suburbs” as part of London rather than distinct towns is also supported by the fact that they do not appear on the list of towns with a taxpaying population of over 1,000 in 1377 (estimated total population of 1,900 or above) (also from Harris, p. 274). If Westminster had been viewed as a separate town, and the capital no less, surely you would have expected it to be included on this list. Indeed, none of the three “suburbs” mentioned by Harriss are on the list, suggesting that they were likely either included in the London total or not considered towns at all.

One reason to keep Westminster and the City separate is the interplay between the citizens of the City and the crown that you allude to in your post. But I would think that this would be caputures by the estate mechanism with one large London location (like you have for Paris) having a sizeable burger population adding to the power of that estate. Would that not be the case? You could even have events further enhancing this aspect, without having to separate London into the City, Westminster and Southwark.

I would have been less concerned with London being split up in this way if it was the approach that had also been taken for other large cities e.g. Paris, Naples, Florence, Barcelona, Rome etc. But these all appear to be represented by one location (unless I have missed something). Indeed, there is not even a Versailles location separate from the Paris location, which to be would have seemed a more natural choice for a separate location and representing a separation of the effective centre of government from the city later in the game.

Lastly, I will make a gameplay argument. Having London as a separate location from the capital location would not lend itself to players who would want to build London up to be the foremost capital city. Especially if you add any development or pop-growth bonuses to the capital as exist in other PDX games, then London would be at a distinct disadvantage compared to e.g. its historical rival Paris.

Personally I would suggest two alternatives (one probably unrealistic, the other hopefully less so).
1) All larger metropolitan areas like London, Paris, Rome, Constantinople etc, are represented by a province taking the city name, and it is the province as a whole that has the status of capital rather than the locations inside. The locations could be used to represent different parts of the city like, City of London, Westminster and Southwark for London. (I know you are unlikely to make such a drastic change, but wanted to suggest it none the less)

2) Have a London location inside of Middlesex representing what is today central London, with other locations in the Middlesex province drawn from what is today outer London. Depending on how close or far from central London you would want these, the names could be e.g. Richmond, Greenwich, Barking.

I would be very curious to know you you decided on the current set up. Especially why you decided on a different approach to London than for other major cities, and why you do not see an issue with having a separate Westminster location as the capital rather than having London as the capital location, both from a gameplay and historical point of view. It is of course possible that you have some goodies in stall for us gameplay wise that fully justifies the current set up as the best one or that you have taken into account considerations I have not.

 

[NorthernAlliance]

Thats one of the reasons why I asked about dynamic raw resources. Stockton, Darlington and Durham should have a way to change there resources to coal or iron at the later end of the game.

Darlington should be producing coal, it's a bit mad there is one coal-producing location in the whole region surrounding the Tyne, like even in the medieval period it was a substantive economy, and especially from 1650 onwards County Durham had massive growth from coal mining.

 

[klawton]

How come there is so much marble in England?

I'm not too familiar about the other locations in England that have marble but I have never heard of marble being quarried in Nottingham. In fact Nottingham is famously built on sandstone which is why there is an underground network of caves in Nottingham. Are you grouping sandstone and marble together?

I think a better raw material for Nottingham would be coal (first mined around the city in the 13th century but not widely used) or even just the bog standard wool.

 

[riadach]

Great insight just a few points to make.

The great moors, bogs, and fens are represented by Sparse vegetation, meanwhile much of the land is still wooded.

View attachment 1148227

I think the grasslands surrounding Dublin, i.e. The Pale Triangle, should probably be made farmlands. They are the most fertile areas in the country.

Raw Materials​

The raw goods situation aims to reflect the economic reality of medieval Britain. Shepherding was common on every corner of the islands, a lot of the wool produced was sold to the industrial hub of the Low Countries to be manufactured into cloth, which was in turn sold back to British markets.

The further north-west we go, the less fertile the terrain, and as such the greater reliance on pastoral farming such as livestock over wheat. The western hills and valleys also expose a greater number of mineral delights, including the historic stannary mines of Devon and Cornwall.

View attachment 1148228

I like this. Will hides be represented as another sort of good that can be made from livestock? Seems unusual that wool is a raw material and that hides aren't. They were an important export item in Ireland throughout most of the middle ages.

Provinces​

We have fixed the colours of the Provinces mapmode so you can see the individual provinces a bit more clearly. These are largely based on the historic counties, which have remained fairly constant throughout history, while merging some of those that are too small.

We’ve almost certainly offended someone.

The ancient Scottish shires are pretty messy and difficult to coalesce into neat provinces, so any suggestions for better arrangement there would be very welcome.

View attachment 1148226

Oh no Leix. It burns, it burns!

View attachment 1148223​

Can I recommend Uíbh Ráthaigh instead of Cill Áirne, Fingal instead of Malahide (Fine Gall in Irish), Corcu Baiscinn instead of Maigh Fheasta (Corkavaskin in English), Uí mBloid instead of Bun Raite, (Omilid), Conamara instead of An Clochán, Dún Pádraig/Leithghlaisse for an Irish for Downpatrick (or sometimes just an Dún)?

Government Types​

As with most of Europe, most of the countries are under some monarchy or another, but the Irish tuathas begin with the Tribe government type. This, among other mechanics such as [redacted] helps to give them a very unique playing style in Europe.

View attachment 1148222

I'm not sure how happy I am with Irish lordships being represented as tribal. Most historians find the term anachronous for Irish polities in the 10th century, never mind the 14th. Irish politics are now described as dynastic, and there are debates on whether polity was closer to feudal models by even that stage. I will need to see more how being "tribal" affects mechanics before making any judgements. The term itself though could attract some ire. Even Brehon law kingships or tanistry kingships would be less controversial.

​

View attachment 1148225

Can anything be said for including the Kellys of Uí Maine into the the Athenry location? There were quite a thorn in the side during this period as well. I am at a loss as to who Ardmire comes from. Inis Eoghain might be better as a state name Is there a chance Osraige could be split between the Osraighe and the Uí Mhórdha of Loígis (or Laois in modern Irish). They were a rather large obstacle to the 16th century Laois-Offaly plantations.

If you need Irish translations:

Munster - Mumhain
Béarra (equal rights for diacritics)
Thomond - Tuadhmhumhain (Tuamhain in Mod. Ir if easier)
Osraige would be Osraighe during this period
Conamara? Maybe Iarchonnachta (West Connacht) would suit this better
Connacht is actually Connachta in Irish, a common mistake.
Bréifne (again diacritics)
Fermanagh - Fir Manach
Oriel - Oirghialla
Clandeboye - Clann Aodh Bhuidhe
Tyrone - Tír Eoghain
Tyrconnell - Tír Chonaill
Offaly - Uíbh Fhailghe
Meath - An Mhidhe
Annaly - Anghaile
Laigin - Laighin during this period.
Cavan - An Cabhán (wouldn't have been very contemporary. Muintir Maelmórda was their original sept name, might suite better).

Dynasties​

We know about Plantagenet, Balliol, and Bruce, so I've zoomed in on Ireland to show the ruling dynasties of the various chieftains and earls.

View attachment 1148241

The Ó Conchobhair of Connacht and the Ó Conchobhair of Offaly are not related dynasties, the latter are of original Leinster stock completely. They are more commonly called Ó Conchobhair Failghe.

I'd suggest Ó Domhnaill rather than Ó Dónaill, the latter is modern spelling, the former more contemporary. I don't know why the Macs are excluded from Mac Carthaigh (no diacritic) Giolla Phádraig, Mathghamhna and the Mág excluded from Mág Uidhir. These are just as important an element to those names as Ó is to the other names.

Population​

Excuse the seams and the greyscale mapmode. We have something better in the pipeline...

View attachment 1148243

I'd question some of these numbers. Sligo seems quite low considering that it contained Sligo town, which although had been conquered back from the Normans just before the beginning of this time frame, they would still have been quite strong at this period as it remained a borough till the end of the middle ages. 4,000 for the whole of Donegal seems low, but 115 thousand for Clandeboye seems way out of whack. There were no urban centres of any major significance in that area at this juncture. Similarly I can't see what justifies giving Umhaill 42,553 population. 55,107 for Ormond might be a bit on the heavy side too.

 

[Vanticus]

Raw Materials​

The raw goods situation aims to reflect the economic reality of medieval Britain. Shepherding was common on every corner of the islands, a lot of the wool produced was sold to the industrial hub of the Low Countries to be manufactured into cloth, which was in turn sold back to British markets.

The further north-west we go, the less fertile the terrain, and as such the greater reliance on pastoral farming such as livestock over wheat. The western hills and valleys also expose a greater number of mineral delights, including the historic stannary mines of Devon and Cornwall.

View attachment 1148228

For natural resources in Kent, the marble should probably be replaced by salt and the fibre crops with iron to represented Wealden iron ore deposits.

 

[GeneralUrist]

O hey this one is early! I like it. Market control as 'map painting for tall players' is a cool thing! And thank you for the detailed look at individual countries that explains the overall gameplay challenges different tags will face. For Wales, I would advocate extending the tag past the modern border. If some of the Marcher-lords are worthy of the tag, than be consistent and include ALL of them.

meanwhile much of the land is still wooded.

I really hope the team manages to implement deforestation, because that wooded area decreased a LOT over the game's timeframe and that was responsible for limiting supplies of wood to industries and shipbuilding.

The further north-west we go, the less fertile the terrain, and as such the greater reliance on pastoral farming such as livestock over wheat.

Is reduced fertility an actual mechanic in the food system, or is that exclusively represented through the choice of RGO?

Areas​

First time we've seen this. Do they have gameplay effects similar to states in EU4 or are they just geographic catagorization?

such as a game setting to base the name on dominant culture of the location instead, or to just use default (English) names.

This would be an excellent idea and I hope it gets implemented! A three way option between "ruling culture name", "local culture name", and "Default anglophone name" would accommodate everyone. The local culture name option in particular would be great, so that cultures that don't have a powerful tag aren't excluded from naming flavor.

 

[aegeann13]

Anatolia! I'll add it to the main post

yes Yes YES!!! Finally... Love you guys.

 

[Vispian]

First time we've seen this. Do they have gameplay effects similar to states in EU4 or are they just geographic catagorization?

To me it seems to be

Locations (EU5) = Provinces (EU4)
Provinces (EU5) = States (EU4)

Areas being new and probably a geographic grouping

 

[Sirbab]

I think having such cultural division on the continent, but not in England is a mistake. At the least, a northern English or northumbrian makes sense to me.