Tinto Maps #7 - 21st of June 2024 - Anatolia

[Kaspar Osraige]

the problem of people in this forum quoting turkish historians is that its known their facts are ... lets say "very imaginary".

I am quoting twice as many foreign sources as I am quoting Turkish sources, as I've told everyone a hundred times. Most of my argument rests on Vryonis, Peacock and the Cambridge History of Islam, and the latest quote on this page is from Paul Wittek.

i think what paradox shows here is 200% more accurat then what some people here seem to think it is

Based on what sources do you think that?

i guess kaspar has his own truth that contridicts everything lol

My truth is in line with about twelve sources I examined, Pachymeres from the fourteenth century, 1330's bishop of Ephesus and Manuel II Palaiologos.

 

[alexkowal123]

i guess kaspar has his own truth that contridicts everything lol

I think you need to back up statements w academic sources, if you can find an academic source assessing the validity of the sources provided that’d work fine, like a review

 

[Ahmadmltft]

Are Kubadids some remnants of Seljuks?their dynasty is "Al-e Saljuq" in the dynastic map mode.

 

[Kaspar Osraige]

Are Kubadids some remnants of Seljuks?their dynasty is "Al-e Saljuq" in the dynastic map mode.

It is founded by a grandson of Kaykaus II, so yes.

 

[Mef]

@Pavía Do you have a zoomed in map of the locations in Western Anatolia?
I'd like to try making a map that includes SulphurAeron's suggestion for impassable terrain and other suggestions as well.

 

[Froonk]

The Rise of the Ottoman Empire by Paul Wittek is a collection of lectures, about sixty pages long, and it is a fascinating read.

These translations start from the page 112 of the Turkish edition of Paul Wittek's work, published in 1934. I hope the devs take these into consideration!

I think this too confirms that there should be Turcoman populations in locations of Güzelhisar, Nazilli, Muğla, Tavas as well as Seydişehir, Beyşehir, Yalvaç and the province between the last two to represent Yörük populations at the minimum.

 

[withche.07]

I think this too confirms that there should be Turcoman populations in locations of Güzelhisar, Nazilli, Muğla, Tavas as well as Seydişehir, Beyşehir, Yalvaç and the province between the last two to represent Yörük populations at the minimum.

Yeah nomadic Turkomans or Yörüks needed lands to move around.
Settled Turks liked them to move around bordering regions with Greeks. There are political reasons of it but out of topic.

 

[Froonk]

In my opinion, vegetation of a location should not be tied to demographics at all.
The player should be free to make use of his subjects as the land allows. If there are fertile river valleys, why not allow the player to make use of them for intensive farming? It's not like there's an inherent trait of Turks that means they can never make use of that fertile land.
The land is inherently fertile, but the people decide what to do with it. If they decide to be sheepherders instead of farmers, that doesn't make the land any less suitable for agriculture. In my opinion, this is something the player should have influence over.

This is completely opposed to my position on mineral resources, by the way. In my opinion, resources that weren't even discovered close to the game's time period should not be included in the game. But you don't need to discover farmland, you don't need any deep mining drills or helicopters (yes this is a reference to the Brazilian iron ore deposit that gets a special modifier in Victoria 3 despite having been discovered in the 1960s by someone in a helicopter, while the most important iron ore deposits of the time period get no modifier at all). You just need to be an agricultural society and you'll quickly figure out which land is the best.

So if the socio-economic realities meant that Turks in Anatolia were mostly pastoral and didn't make use of good farmland, that should be, in my opinion, represented with game mechanics like the tribal pops that we know won't participate in the economy. But some potential should be there if you want to reform your society.

I'm not arguing for making lots of locations in Anatolia farmland, of course. Just the pockets along the coast that had certainly been farmed by Greeks for centuries at the start of the game.

Oh and I also agree that farmland is not a good choice for a vegetation type. Farming isn't inherent to land, it's entirely just human development. So farmland is a misnomer and "fertile land" would be better.

I think we are going to be fundamentally disagreeing here. Because in my view using these sort of things to represent certain demographic and socio-economic asymmetries is not only perfectly fine but actually quite good to properly configure the game to have a certain trajectory to follow. So farmland isn't at all a misnomer in my view because it isn't meant to be just fertile land, after all lands under forests or woods can also be fertile. It's more that it represents lands that have present agricultural intensification. Because in reverse if it was just fertile lands with the current game mechanics of food surplus leading to population capacity Anatolia would naturally tend towards a population that it never really had (with the only real population boom happening in the area in 16th century and then subsequently even that being interrupted in 17th).

Sure some other mechanics could represent this but it would have to be really contrived and speculative. You would have to not only have tribal populations not being part of economy but also proactively blocking out agricultural land in their pasture ranges, the dynamics of how agricultural expansion and intensification follows certain demographic patterns, laws, flow of capital and many other things that would require a lot of intricate and interconnected and possibly unfeasible mechanics. While just representing areas already under agricultural expansion and intensification as a terrain type is almost a silver bullet solution to many of those. It's a good abstraction overall as far as what it represents in terms of game mechanics (food surplus and building types?) are concerned.

 

[Mef]

It's more that it represents lands that have present agricultural intensification.

But that doesn't make any sense! The more land you use for farming, the less efficient it becomes. So land that has a lot of cropland shouldn't have more efficient food production, it should have less. What makes the typical intensively farmed land productive are its good inherent qualities.
The only way farmland vegetation as a representation of land that has a lot of farms on it makes sense is in a purely cosmetic fashion for the map. But it doesn't make sense as a positive modifier to agricultural efficiency, unless it represents the inherent suitability of the land.

Because in reverse if it was just fertile lands with the current game mechanics of food surplus leading to population capacity Anatolia would naturally tend towards a population that it never really had (with the only real population boom happening in the area in 16th century and then subsequently even that being interrupted in 17th).

How would 5 or 6 locations with farmlands along the coast make Anatolia naturally tend towards a population it never had?
Tribesmen don't produce food at all (nor consume it) while presumably still counting against population capacity, so the presence of tribesmen pops alone would mean the Anatolian population won't grow that much. Unless you reform your society, which in my opinion, should absolutely be possible for the player.

Sure some other mechanics could represent this but it would have to be really contrived and speculative. You would have to not only have tribal populations not being part of economy but also proactively blocking out agricultural land in their pasture ranges, the dynamics of how agricultural expansion and intensification follows certain demographic patterns, laws, flow of capital and many other things that would require a lot of intricate and interconnected and possibly unfeasible mechanics. While just representing areas already under agricultural expansion and intensification as a terrain type is almost a silver bullet solution to many of those. It's a good abstraction overall as far as what it represents in terms of game mechanics (food surplus and building types?) are concerned.

I don't think it's complicated at all and the game already has mechanics to represent this.
Also what about the Greeks who farmed these areas? What if the Byzantines conquer back Anatolia? Should they not be able to make use of that fertile farmland because historically the Turks didn't? How does taking demographics into account when deciding vegetation make sense if the game allows you to settle all of Anatolia with Greeks and restore the Roman Empire?
I'm generally for more railroading than less, but this is too much determinism even for me. Or rather, land should be deterministic based on geography, not based on historical demographics.

 

[Froonk]

Also what about the Greeks who farmed these areas? What if the Byzantines conquer back Anatolia? Should they not be able to make use of that fertile farmland because historically the Turks didn't? How does taking demographics into account when deciding vegetation make sense if the game allows you to settle all of Anatolia with Greeks and restore the Roman Empire?
I'm generally for more railroading than less, but this is too much determinism even for me. Or rather, land should be deterministic based on geography, not based on historical demographics.

It isn't just about Anatolia though, France or Germany despite their population density also didn't do agricultural expansion and intensification in many of the fertile lands present until their laws for land reform in 19th century. Basically certain territories being turned into farmlands through agricultural expansion and intensification might as well be a natural feature as far as state and player is concerned. It's pretty much functionally a geographic feature because the dynamics and variables that make it happen are basically outside control of any pre-modern state without ability to plan and dictate these things.

If you switch all current farmlands to fertile lands and subsequently switch all the others lands that are sufficiently fertile soil to fertile lands, you would cover a massive portion of the world to that land type, territory even in Europe, India or China wasn't necessarily used for agriculture. You would end up having an innate population surplus everywhere with no obstacle to how you utilize it. Basically the demographic patterns and geography aren't some opposing, exclusionary factors that you can base your dynamics on one or the other separately. They make a coherent whole that end up fostering agricultural expansion and intensification in some places and not the others.

Could a resurgent Byzantine Empire use settlement policies to achieve agricultural expansion in areas of Anatolia they had previously lost to Turkish nomads? Yes, maybe, they even did this to a degree during Komnenian restoration but that can already be represented with migration and peasant pops increasing to a degree. Should the state of Byzantine be able to act as if it's a modern state with elaborate demographic engineering and social control that's no less complicated and also contemporary with many of the modern technology that came in 19th century? I don't believe so. In that case if a few provinces of Anatolia (Mainly the region around Marmara, near Konya and the three big river deltas) could perhaps flip into farmlands via some other events but I don't think that quality should just be innately present providing a food surplus and population capacity by default.

You gave the example of an iron mine found by someone seeing it from a helicopter being present with a mining bonus in Victoria 3. Similarly specific conditions that lead to dynamics that allowed widespread agricultural expansion and intensification is also end result of very complex set variables that shouldn't really be completely muted by allowing all fertile lands having same innate potential by default. It was just functionally not available that way.

 

[Mef]

It isn't just about Anatolia though, France or Germany despite their population density also didn't do agricultural expansion and intensification in many of the fertile lands present until their laws for land reform in 19th century.

That is not true. In 1337 Germany, lots of land that wasn't very suitable for agriculture had been cleared and used for farming, because of overpopulation. After the Black Death, these settlements were abandoned and a lot of forest came back (or the land was used for pastures). This had to be done because all the fertile land was already in intensive use. I have no idea how you get the idea that Germans didn't make good use of their fertile land until the 19th century, that is just complete nonsense.

Basically certain territories being turned into farmlands through agricultural expansion and intensification might as well be a natural feature as far as state and player is concerned. It's pretty much functionally a geographic feature because the dynamics and variables that make it happen are basically outside control of any pre-modern state without ability to plan and dictate these things.

I don't understand why you keep on this same point, that people weren't able to use farmland before the 19th century? That's just not true. We're not talking about people without metal ploughs and horseshoes here. Late Medieval and Early Modern societies absolutely used land intensively.

If you switch all current farmlands to fertile lands and subsequently switch all the others lands that are sufficiently fertile soil to fertile lands, you would cover a massive portion of the world to that land type, territory even in Europe, India or China wasn't necessarily used for agriculture. You would end up having an innate population surplus everywhere with no obstacle to how you utilize it. Basically the demographic patterns and geography aren't some opposing, exclusionary factors that you can base your dynamics on one or the other separately. They make a coherent whole that end up fostering agricultural expansion and intensification in some places and not the others.

It depends where you cut off what you consider to be "sufficiently fertile". Obviously it can't just be soil suitability, but also irrigation and climate (that's in the game too) which has to be considered.

Could a resurgent Byzantine Empire use settlement policies to achieve agricultural expansion in areas of Anatolia they had previously lost to Turkish nomads? Yes, maybe, they even did this to a degree during Komnenian restoration but that can already be represented with migration and peasant pops increasing to a degree. Should the state of Byzantine be able to act as if it's a modern state with elaborate demographic engineering and social control that's no less complicated and also contemporary with many of the modern technology that came in 19th century? I don't believe so. In that case if a few provinces of Anatolia (Mainly the region around Marmara, near Konya and the three big river deltas) could perhaps flip into farmlands via some other events but I don't think that quality should just be innately present providing a food surplus and population capacity by default.

You gave the example of an iron mine found by someone seeing it from a helicopter being present with a mining bonus in Victoria 3. Similarly specific conditions that lead to dynamics that allowed widespread agricultural expansion and intensification is also end result of very complex set variables that shouldn't really be completely muted by allowing all fertile lands having same innate potential by default. It was just functionally not available that way.

Well like I said, I think that's a completely inaccurate representation of history. Farming technology in the 19th and 20th century was way more about mechanization and efficiency, than actually expanding farms to more land. Of course you would build more farms as you settle land (think of the US for example), but in many parts of the world, all available farmland was in use WAY before the 19th century. You don't need a modern state for that.

And again, you're completely discounting any possibilities other than what actually happened historically in Project Caesar's timeline.
Take Cilicia for example, it was well known for its agriculture in ancient times and was an important source of wealth for the Armenian state there. It's farmland in Imperator Rome. It starts with a majority of Armenians living there, not pastoral Turkomans.
Why should they not be able to make use of the fertile farmland? It's clearly there. It had been used in the past and agriculture there was expanded under Egyptian rule late in the game's time period (1830s). I just don't see the point in not representing the potential of the land just because it may not have been fully utilized by all its historical occupants.

Edit: Here's an illustration to my point, from ANTHROPOGENIC LAND-USE ESTIMATES FOR THE HOLOCENE; HYDE 3.2, cropland in 1300 and in 1800.

As you can see, there was no expansion of cropland in Germany, rather the opposite, some land was used less intensively. This process varied from place to place, so you can't make a blanket statement about farmland expansion only being done in the 19th century.
Also most of the cropland expansion seen on the maps is woodlands being cleared, which is hopefully something that can be represented in the game. But for areas shown as having plenty of cropland in 1300, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to have farmland vegetation in the game.

 

[Froonk]

Edit: Here's an illustration to my point, from ANTHROPOGENIC LAND-USE ESTIMATES FOR THE HOLOCENE; HYDE 3.2, cropland in 1300 and in 1800.
View attachment 1152289View attachment 1152290
As you can see, there was no expansion of cropland in Germany, rather the opposite, some land was used less intensively. This process varied from place to place, so you can't make a blanket statement about farmland expansion only being done in the 19th century.
Also most of the cropland expansion seen on the maps is woodlands being cleared, which is hopefully something that can be represented in the game. But for areas shown as having plenty of cropland in 1300, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to have farmland vegetation in the game.

This will already be represented though, as the population should increase somewhat from after black death until the end date, the agricultural expansion will already be represented by populations increasing. While agricultural intensification is something more related to law and technology (croplands being parceled in more efficient manner and more effective methods being used). For example Anatolia had a lot of agricultural expansion in 19th century but it had low amount of agricultural intensification.

As I said in the previous post I don't think we will be agreeing here. Because I fundamentally support the decision to create persistent asymmetry for starting conditions and I am not for representing innate potentials uncritically. Ideally you could represent all the variables that leads to conditions of increased agricultural expansion (as shown on the map you posted) and agricultural intensification but I don't find that to be feasible in terms of mechanics to be involved in this game. Moreover a large portion of those variables would be outside of state control or only be available to state outside of the timeframe of the game so farmlands being present by default (i.e outside of player control) is functionally the same anyway.

 

[Mef]

Because I fundamentally support the decision to create persistent asymmetry for starting conditions and I am not for representing innate potentials uncritically.

Uncritically? I repeatedly mentioned the history of Greek and Armenian agriculture in those areas. In my opinion, that's a good reason to represent this potential.
And the land use maps I posted suggest that there was plenty of cropland in Anatolia during the time period, even if a lot of the population was pastoral. So I'm not sure if it's even accurate to say that the Turks never made use of the agricultural potential of these fertile areas at all.

 

[Froonk]

Uncritically? I repeatedly mentioned the history of Greek and Armenian agriculture in those areas. In my opinion, that's a good reason to represent this potential.
And the land use maps I posted suggest that there was plenty of cropland in Anatolia during the time period, even if a lot of the population was pastoral. So I'm not sure if it's even accurate to say that the Turks never made use of the agricultural potential of these fertile areas at all.

They made low use of it. This is because of many factors and is also a matter of current debate (Anatolia having about 10-12m population at turn of century compared to some 80 million in Germany and Austria-Hungary for example, and that's including large amount of refugees from Balkans and Caucus).

If a resurgent Byzantine state reclaims Anatolia and starts putting potential land to use under agriculture, they can still rely on migration and population growth to increase agricultural expansion over time (with perhaps hopefully also deforestation mechanics). I just don't believe Byzantines should be able to step into Konya and start having same level of agricultural expansion and intensification as French farmlands does day one. They shouldn't have that level of demographic engineering and social organization. Because the French themselves didn't just do that as a matter of state policy or in a short time but as a result of various demographic and socio-economic factors (including increased population density).

Again, Byzantines did try to do this already in Komnenian restoration, but they had mixed success. They didn't have enough population and they didn't manage to encourage enough migration or have the necessary population boom or the factors related to capital to do that. Population in general increased from about 1400 to 1800 so that should already be taking care of showing agricultural expansion as it happened with population increase. Basically demography shouldn't be something you can just control at will just because in theory you can by the geographic potential if you had the social organization and demographic dynamics (that's a huge IF).

As I said, in a perfect game all of this could be represented mechanically but currently as it is, I find farmlands to be a sufficient abstraction.

 

[YasinMert]

It is founded by a grandson of Kaykaus II, so yes.

Would be awesome if they have a very unique “mission tree” for forming seljuks

 

[Mef]

I just don't believe Byzantines should be able to step into Konya and start having same level of agricultural expansion and intensification as French farmlands does day one.

But that's not at all what farmland vegetation represents! In order to have agricultural expansion and produce lots of grain, you need to spend gold to expand raw material production. Otherwise you're just producing basic food.
And don't forget that a lot of progress in agriculture will likely be represented by technology.

Also who said anything about Konya? I don't think anyone said anything about Konya being farmlands? It's woodland and sparse in my vegetation map. You're shifting the goalposts...

 

[Froonk]

But that's not at all what farmland vegetation represents! In order to have agricultural expansion and produce lots of grain, you need to spend gold to expand raw material production. Otherwise you're just producing basic food.
And don't forget that a lot of progress in agriculture will likely be represented by technology.

Also who said anything about Konya? I don't think anyone said anything about Konya being farmlands? It's woodland and sparse in my vegetation map. You're shifting the goalposts...

Konya has a lot of agricultural potential and is one of the main vectors for agricultural expansion in that map you sent. However we can use region around Marmara or Bafra, Carsamba and Cukurova deltas as example too. I wasn't trying to give a negative example.

But what does farmland represent? In game terms isn't it just going to be innate food surplus thus have same population capacity day one? I am not disagreeing with you on the fundamentals (nor are you with me I think). We are just disagreeing on what farmlands are representing and what it should represent. Basically I believe (and I remember reading this in EU4 dev diaries), farmlands represent not just fertile land (that can be grasslands, forests or woods too depending) but areas already with already existing intensified agriculture (with all the investment, both in capital and human capital, as was as the soil quality, clime and whatever else that are prerequisite to that).

 

[Mef]

Konya has a lot of agricultural potential and is one of the main vectors for agricultural expansion in that map you sent. However we can use region around Marmara or Bafra, Carsamba and Cukurova deltas as example too. I wasn't trying to give a negative example.

The cropland map just shows cropland, that's all. That doesn't mean it's especially fertile cropland. According to your argument, Konya should actually be farmland, because a map based on research into land use in the time period shows it to have an especially large percentage of land that was used as cropland, even more concentrated than Northern France. According to my argument, it shouldn't be, because I only painted the most fertile land along coastal river valleys as farmland.
So what is it? I'd be interested in a source that contradicts the map I posted. I'm not saying the map is perfect and it has a pretty low resolution, but is there any evidence that suggests that the area around Konya wasn't intensively farmed in the 14th and 15th centuries?

But what does farmland represent? In game terms isn't it just going to be innate food surplus thus have same population capacity day one? I am not disagreeing with you on the fundamentals (nor are you with me I think). We are just disagreeing on what farmlands are representing and what it should represent. Basically I believe (and I remember reading this in EU4 dev diaries), farmlands represent not just fertile land (that can be grasslands, forests or woods too depending) but areas already with already existing intensified agriculture (with all the investment, both in capital and human capital, as was as the soil quality, clime and whatever else that are prerequisite to that).

But intensified agriculture depends on technology and buildings (irrigation), not on natural vegetation. The game can already represent this by starting with buildings and expanded agriculture. I made this point earlier, but, if even vegetation is used to represent this expansion, then there's nothing left to represent the inherent potential of the land. And naturally fertile land was always a big deal throughout human history.

 

[Froonk]

The cropland map just shows cropland, that's all. That doesn't mean it's especially fertile cropland. According to your argument, Konya should actually be farmland, because a map based on research into land use in the time period shows it to have an especially large percentage of land that was used as cropland, even more concentrated than Northern France. According to my argument, it shouldn't be, because I only painted the most fertile land along coastal river valleys as farmland.
So what is it? I'd be interested in a source that contradicts the map I posted. I'm not saying the map is perfect and it has a pretty low resolution, but is there any evidence that suggests that the area around Konya wasn't intensively farmed in the 14th and 15th centuries?

But intensified agriculture depends on technology and buildings (irrigation), not on natural vegetation. The game can already represent this by starting with buildings and expanded agriculture. I made this point earlier, but, if even vegetation is used to represent this expansion, then there's nothing left to represent the inherent potential of the land. And naturally fertile land was always a big deal throughout human history.

Inherent potential can already be represented with grasslands and hopefully deforestation of forests and woods in appropriate topography and clime I think. Those should represent the fertile lands for potential for agricultural expansion and intensification and as I said the existing farmlands at start can instead represents the potential already tapped into at the start configuration with the demographic and socio-economic conditions already in place (with the other potential areas which may or may not be tapped into could reach similar productivity ultimately but not at start).

 

[Mef]

Inherent potential can already be represented with grasslands and hopefully deforestation of forests and woods in appropriate topography and clime. Those should represent the fertile lands and as I said the existing farmlands at start can instead represent into potential already tapped into at the start configuration with the demographic and socio-economic conditions already in place (with the other potential areas which may or may not be tapped into could reach similar productivity ultimately but not at start).

In the maps that we've seen so far, grassland certainly hasn't represented fertile lands, but simply land that doesn't have notable forests and isn't steppes. Brabant, the eastern Netherlands and north-west Germany, for example, have (and should have) a lot of grassland but these areas aren't particularly fertile at all.