Tinto Maps #8 - 28th of June 2024 - Russia

[Mickyy]

I'm creating an overhauled cultural map of the region currently and Vyatka shouldn't be Novgordian or Muscovite. In reality most of the region was majority Udmurt in 1337, as large scale Russian settlement in Vyatka had only started in the late 13th century. So the region should be majority Udmurt with a strong Novgordian minority in Vyatka itself. Also several Mari were present in the region. Generally Udmurt is extremely poorly represented in game as Vyatka is represented as being Komi, despite Komi only being present in one location in Vyatka. Udmurt is also made the only culture in Perm and to the east, despite that region being mostly Komi and Ugric.

I'll finish the map when I get home, but all I have left to do is redraw Bashkir, Erzya, Moksha, Veps and Pomors. Expect it later today.

Well. I was speaking about slavic settlement culture so my point still stays.
Although I agree that there should be more Udmurts than Komi and Slavs, However, "The Tale of the Vyatka Country" tells us date of 1174-1181 as first slavic settlements in this region. So late 12th century. I guess current representation of Slavic settlements despite culture more or less correct. Region must be more populated with udmurts, with large (Like really large) minority of mari in slavic locations
UPD: And really need to change the borders of Vyatka Republic. Because now the Northwestern border looks like the modern Kirov region.
UPD2: Found archaeological material about Slavic settlements in Vyatka: Makarov/About the origin of the cities of the Vyatka land

 

[Booperboberino]

Why is most of Russia's climate the same as most of the rest of europe and places like northern anatolia ("Continental")? How will this affect your ability to represent the difficulties a foreign army would face when trying to invade russia, is there another thing that is tracked like "Severe winter" in eu4?
Still, I feel like there should be some more granularity than just a line that says "this is a normal temperature" and "this is siberia", maybe one that's like "yeah its kinda cold here but not siberia or anything".

 

[Pescavelho]

Of course, there never was and never could be a single Russian culture on the lands of Kievan Rus. No one disputes this, and I completely agree with your following statement:



Throughout the existence of Kievan Rus, these different peoples could not merge into a single Russian culture. This is a fact. We have enough sources showing that even in the 16th century, non-Slavic peoples still existed within Moscow's territory, with their unique languages that differed from Slavic.

BUT!

You then mention that there was a Ruthenian language and no common language in Rus except for Old Church Slavonic. But what about Old East Slavic? From which the Ruthenian language emerged? Old East Slavic was not the language of the entire population, as previously mentioned, as non-Slavic peoples also inhabited Rus, speaking their own languages. However, among the Slavic population, a unified language began to form from the 9th century.

Old East Slavic had various dialects, and like any dialect, they had the potential to evolve into separate languages. This is what happened in the 14th century, when Old East Slavic began to split into two different languages: Ruthenian and Old Russian. In the 18th century, the dialects within the Ruthenian language also began to develop into independent languages: Ukrainian and Belarusian.

But the fact remains that during the times of Kievan Rus, the Slavic population had a common language (albeit with diverse dialects). This was Old East Slavic.

Therefore, I think it is quite acceptable to divide the culture in the Russian region into Ruthenian and Rus, just as Old East Slavic began to split into Ruthenian and Old Russian during this time. Ideally, we want to include Baltic and Finno-Ugric cultures mixed with Russian culture in specific locations. But this requires thorough research to accurately represent these cultures in the appropriate areas.

Fairly, it might be acceptable to consider the separation of Novgorod culture. Novgorod repeatedly rebelled against Moscow, sought independence, and had its dialect, which, although it did not become a separate language, could have done so in an alternative reality.

"However, findings by Russian linguist Andrey Zaliznyak suggest that, until the 14th or 15th century, major language differences were not between the regions occupied by modern Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, but rather between the north-west (around modern Velikiy Novgorod and Pskov) and the center (around modern Kyiv, Suzdal, Rostov, Moscow as well as Belarus) of the East Slavic territories. The Old Novgorodian dialect of that time differed from the central East Slavic dialects as well as from all other Slavic languages much more than in later centuries. According to Zaliznyak, the Russian language developed as a convergence of that dialect and the central ones, whereas Ukrainian and Belarusian were continuation of development of the central dialects of the East Slavs." wiki

So perhaps the Novgorodian culture is justified... Maybe I would remove the Severian culture, keep the Novgorodian culture, and rename the Muscovite culture to something that fits better with the territories (which, besides Muscovy, included many other principalities). This way, we could divide the Rus culture into two and leave the Ruteniаn culture undivided at the start of the game. Additionally, we could add Baltic and Finno-Ugric minorities in the territories of Novgorod and other principalities.

I don't see the problem with having a Muscovite culture and calling it that, the term was used all throughout the game's ~500 year timeline (granted, after Ivan IV became "Tsar of all Russia" it became a bit of a slur, especially nowadays, but you could say the same about "Greek", except in reverse).

Having "Ruthenian" and "Rus" as separate cultures is kind of awkward because they both mean more or less the same thing.

 

[Kawaii samurai]

Hello, with all due respect but the Karelian part of the map is quite wrong in both culture and names. I’ve noticed several mistakes so here are my suggestions with historical proofs. I’m a history student in Karelia so I know a thing or two.

Names (hope you don't mind wiki links, I don't want to go to an archive):
Kovoda -> Kovda (I assume it’s a typo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kovda...krug,_Kandalakshsky_District,_Murmansk_Oblast
Voigoma -> Kalgalaksha/Kalgalahti (I honestly don’t know where the original name came from) https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalkalahti
Tunga -> Tunguda/Tunguo (typo) https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunkua
Whatever the province is under Kem -> Soroka (big settlements didn’t exist in that area until Soroka was established in 1419) https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сорока_(Карелия)
Soma –> Suma/Sumsky Posad (same history as above but also a typo) https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suma
Spasskij –> Povenets (same as above) https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Повенец
Karhumäki –> Segozero, Seesjärvi (Karhumäki was not established until WW1 and the main city of the area was Povenets, which is in another province on your map, Segozero is a lake)
Rugazerskoj -> Vyg (same story as above but this time Rugazero is another province)
Padanskyi -> Padany (grammar)
Whatver is under Karhumäki -> Girvas/Hirvas https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirvas_(Karjalan_tasavalta)
Whatever is under that -> Konchezero/Kendjärvi https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentjärvi
South of Onegaborg -> Sheltozero/Šoutjarv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyoltozero
North-West of Onegaborg -> Pryazha/Prääsä https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pryazha
Sigovets -> Lojanitsy (No idea where this name comes from, Lojanitsy is the first name of the modern village of Mihailovskoje/Kuujärvi) https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuujärvi

I also think you really need to think about using either Russian only or Finnish-Karelian names, cause it’s to navigate.

Now, regarding the culture map mode, the current iteration of it is quite historically wrong for that period.
First of all, the Sami. Up until 15th century there we still Sami minorities in Karelia (the following is translated text from my research paper):
«But the Novgorodians knew about the Sami back in the 11th century; even then, their documents described the “Lop Land,” which occupied the “northern borders of European Russia.” And in the stories of the 14th century. Sami settlements are mentioned on the eastern shore of Lake Onega - the modern Pudozh region of the Republic of Karelia, which by the 15th century. have already gone to the north, namely to the Povenetsky district - the modern eastern part of the Medvezhyegorsk region of the Republic of Karelia. In the 14th century, Vodlozero residents still had memories of the Sami who inhabited that area.»
«And also already in the Novgorod census books of 1500 and 1501, former Sami settlements on the southern shore of Lake Ladoga, which were called the “Lop side,” were already mentioned. In 1526, Novgorod documents already contain mentions of the Sami in the Kandalaksha Bay, and in 1530 they also write about the Sami who live along the banks of the Kemi and Shuya. And in 1590, “Lapps” were already mentioned near Kovdozero, where small Sami settlements remain to this day. At the end of the 16th century, there were still Sami villages between Nyukhcha and Suma.»

Sources: Харузин Н.Н. Русские лопари: Очерк прошлого и современного быта / Н.Н. Харузин — Москва. 1880. pp. 17-23.

Samis in Olonets Karelia in the 1850s: http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/16869-...am-1873-goda-1879#mode/inspect/page/88/zoom/4
So I think it would be correct to include Sami minorities in certain provinces of Karelia, for example, I think Pudoga should be mixed Novgorodian/Sami, not Novgorodian/Karelian.


The Veps people should also occupy bigger lands in Karelia as a majority, the southern shores on Onega were not colonized by Novgorodians back then (or ever, for that matter, nobody really cared until much later in history), so the province of Sheltozero should be majority Vepsian or mixed with Karelian and you can make Voznesenye mixed Veps/Novgorodian.
«In the 12–15 centuries. significant groups of Vepsians penetrated into areas north of the river. Svir, where they came into contact with the oncoming migration of Karelians. As a result, the Vepsians merged with the Karelian people, taking part in the formation of the ethnographic groups of Karelians - Ludics and Livviks. Relatively later Vepsian settlers who settled north of the river. The Svirs, along the shores of Lake Onega, did not undergo Karelization and formed a group of northern Vepsian. The bulk of the Vepsian migration lasted until the last third of the 15th century, lived within the boundaries of the Obonezh Pyatina of the Novgorod Republic.»

Source: https://raipon.info/narody/vepsy/ (webstie of the Association of small numbered indigenous peoples of the north of Russia)

As for Karelians,
«By the 16th century the main area of the Karelians is formed, preserved until our time. According to the scribe books of the Vodskaya and Obonezhskaya Pyatina and other sources, the estimated number of Karelians by the second half of the 16th century was about 55-63 thousand, of which more than half lived in the of Korelsky Uezd (32-37 thousand) (The Karelian Isthmus and parts of Finnish Karjala). The rest were resettled in Olonets, (14-15 thousand), in the north, in the Lop Pogosts (Wasteland on your map) (6-7 thousand) and in Karealian Pomorie (White sea coast) (2-3 thousand)»

Source: Прибалтийско-финские народы России / Отв. ред. Е.И. Клементьев, Н.В. Шлыгина; Ин-т этнологии и антропологии им. Н.Н. Миклухо-Маклая. -М.: Наука, 2003. - 671 с., ил. - (Народы и культуры). - ISBN 5-02-008715-7 (в пер.) p. 172

Whil it is 300 years off from the start date, it gives a good general idea of Karelian population geography.
Attached: map from my project about the sami, light purple - the areas mentioned in the text i sent, grey-ish blue - Lop' pogosts, Purple - modern samis in Russia.

 

[iambackend]

I don't see Volga. This is big river which can be really impassable for armies at summer in some wide places. Are you planning to take into account it?

Note that nowadays Volga is much wider because of dams. But it the biggest river in Europe anyway, just not 5-30 kilometer wide, as it is today in some places.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

Hi @Pavía, thanks for your work!
I have merged the culture maps from the two TMaps for Ruthenia and actually there can be two ways for the rework of the eastern slavic cultures.
In both cases the division is based on the historical principalities of the Kyivan Rus (that was very decentralised).
At the same time this division would reflect the futher historical development of these lands.
In other words, in 1337 it's a bit of cultural grey zone there, but it both reflects well what was centuries before 1337 and what happened in the next centuries after 1337.
View attachment 1155451

1. The first one is more detailed, just if we take into account that Italy has 11 different cultures, France has 19 cultures, there is a tiny separate Rusyn culture etc. In this case a unified Ruthenian culture makes no logic and should be split into pieces.

- Galician (or Halychan), Volhynian, (South) Ruthenian and Severian cultures would be a base for the unified Ukrainian culture and they represent the historic Galician, Volhynian, Kyivan, Pereyaslav, Chernihiv-Severian principalities.

- Polesian and Polatskian cultures would be a basis for the unified Belarusian culture and represent ancient Turov-Pinsk, Polatsk principalities.

- Novgorodian, Pomor, Muscovite, Smolenskian cultures would represent the principalities of the northern-east Rus and would become a basis for the unified Russian culture.

- This will be an abstraction, but I think this division will be the best compromise between the pre-1337 history and later history, it will allow to have the most flavour and would be somehow comparable with the logic in other regions (like the mentioned 19(!) French cultures).
View attachment 1155439

2. The second option is actually the same, but more general. Split Ruthenian into South, North and West Ruthenian. North can be also White Ruthenian and Galicia-Volhynia was called Red Ruthenia, so it would make sence. Smolensk lands should be culturally divided between Muscovite and North (White) Ruthenian.
View attachment 1155440

P.S. One should think of adding the Cossack culture in the wild fields in the South, as 14-15 centuries was the time when the process of the Cossack phenomenon started to appear there. But the population there should be literally almost zero in the locations (dozens or hundreds of pops, not thousands).
Possible mechanics: Orthodox peasants of Ruthenian cultures illegally migrating to the wild fields, (running from serfdom, especially from Poland/Lithuania) and immediately accept Cossack culture once there. The migration may depend on the laws and policies (serfdom, oppressing of the orthodoxy, conversion).

P.P.S. We should accept that there will be no 100% right decision on the cultures of this region because there are literally almost no data for this period for Ruthenia. These lands were heavily devastated by the Mongols and internal wars. It's a huge historical/political/social grey zone, at least before Lithuania took these lands under control.
So it will always be some kind of a compromise and abstraction.

i like your second option just with a few changes rename w.ruthenian to belarusian, r.ruthenian to halychan, add that the majority of smolensk principality will be belarusian, severian should be in chernigov and the oka area on east of the dniepr on the west of the dniepr ruthenian

 

[Rhipeen]

Since it has been confirmed that norse paganism will have some remaining pops, what about slavic paganism which sort of coexisted in Russian lands alongside christianity in a lot of countryside households? (To cite Evgeny Anichkov "Christianization of the countryside was the work, not of the eleventh and twelfth, but of the fifteenth and sixteenth or even seventeenth century.")

 

[Dualninja]

Well. I was speaking about slavic settlement culture so my point still stays.
Although I agree that there should be more Udmurts than Komi and Slavs, However, "The Tale of the Vyatka Country" tells us date of 1174-1181 as first slavic settlements in this region. So late 12th century. I guess current representation of Slavic settlements despite culture more or less correct. Region must be more populated with udmurts, with large (Like really large) minority of mari in slavic locations
UPD: And really need to change the borders of Vyatka Republic. Because now the Northwestern border looks like the modern Kirov region.
UPD2: Found archaeological material about Slavic settlements in Vyatka: Makarov/About the origin of the cities of the Vyatka land

The Tale of Vyatka County likely is based in history, but it is mostly a fantasy tale and isn't really a reliable source, however the first 100% confirmed source confirming Slavic settlement in Vyatka was from 1374 when a group of Novgorodians from the region raided Sarai. The archeological record also confirms that there was Slavic settlers in Vyatka during the 12th century, but the settlements were quite small until the Mongol invasion, after which Slavic migration to the region truly began. So Vyatka should be mostly Udmurt in 1337, except that Vyatka itself should be majority Novgorodian with a large Udmurt minority and that the Obyachevo location should stay Komi, as it was legitimately Komi for the longest time.

 

[Alexsandr_Rau]

to the question of why the rulers of Moscow-Vladimir made claims to the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania starting from Ivan 3.

1. enough military force appeared)
2. Dynastic claims according to the right of the last bearers.
The Rurik dynasty ruled in the Grand Duchy of Vladimir (Tver or Moscow - one family)
This is the only surviving branch of the Rurik dynasty, which retained its continuity and, most importantly, by the 15th century became Independent - autocratic, i.e. free in foreign and domestic policy.

According to the Vladimir elites and the church, the Rurikovichs in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - vassals of the Gediminovichs - lost the right to manage the common inheritance.

3. Dynastic claims by right of the descendants of Yaroslav (father of Alexander Nevsky)

This member of the Suzdal branch of the Rurikovich in 1239 turned out to be the only senior member of the Rurikovich clan who
1) did not escape (to Poland or Hungary
2) was absolutely legitimate (the eldest in his family, because his elder brother Prince Yuri was killed along with all his relatives).
3) in 1238, returning to Ruined Vladimir from Kyiv, he swore allegiance to the Mongols on the ruins of his principality.

Therefore, the Mongols appointed him Prince of All Rus', who must hold the front accountable for everyone.
Yaroslav supported the title while fighting the Lithuanians in the territories of the Smolensk Principality.
The last titular Prince of All Rus' was his son Alexander Nevsky.
Neither Yaroslav. Neither Alexander visited Kyiv after 1238.

After Alexander Nevsky, no one else bore the title of Prince of All Rus'.
But the memory of this remained among the descendants of Alexander Nevsky (princely surname of the Vladimir principality).

 

[maksoniq]

The Principality of Oreshek suffers from anachronisms. Toksovo is mentioned for the first time only in 1500 (see "Census tax book of the Vodskaya pentina of 1500", ru Переписная окладная книга Водской пятины 1500 года), so this territory could just as well be called "Murino" (1676, although there were settlements on this place in the IX century). If this province is not already Russified at the start, the Finnish name Toksova can be used. Nien and Noteburg are classic inaccuracies for these provinces. Nien was founded under Swedish rule about 300 years after the start of the game, the closest settlement in time was the Landskrona fortress, destroyed by Novgorod in 1301. The historical source on Toksovo that I mentioned also mentions the existence of a Russian settlement "Nevskoe Ustje" (lit. "estuary of Neva") in this place around the end of the 15th century. Noteburg in general looks strange: the principality is named Oreshek, but Oreshek itself, for some reason, is called in Swedish (though not Schlisselburg, as in CK2/3).

And about the terrain. If I understand English correctly, Woods is a sparse, mostly broad-leaved forest, and Forest is a dense, often coniferous forest. The region of the future Leningrad Region, at least to the north of the Neva River, is definitely more Forest with its pine forests and spruce thickets

 

[Reimond77]

Why is most of Russia's climate the same as most of the rest of europe and places like northern anatolia ("Continental")? How will this affect your ability to represent the difficulties a foreign army would face when trying to invade russia, is there another thing that is tracked like "Severe winter" in eu4?
Still, I feel like there should be some more granularity than just a line that says "this is a normal temperature" and "this is siberia", maybe one that's like "yeah its kinda cold here but not siberia or anything".

In fact, no furnaces were built in Russia until the 15th century. "Severe winters" appear after the Little Ice Age (16th-17th century). The Small Ice Age was preceded by a small climatic optimum (10th—13th century) - a period of relatively warm and even weather, mild winters and the absence of severe droughts. This was one of the reasons for the dominance of the Mongol Empire. And one of the reasons for the fall of the Golden Horde is also the deterioration of the climate. In 1337, the "Arctic" climate could not yet exist!!!

 

[Alexsandr_Rau]

on the issue of Novgorod's dependence on Vladimir (Suzdal)

1. Historically, the Novgorod "land" is one of the main principalities - "tables" (Volyn, Galich, Kyiv, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Ryazan-Murom, Vladimir (Suzdal-Rostov), and Turov (usually a vassal).

2. by the end of the 12th century, three main princely families within the Rurikovichs fought for Kyiv.
Smolensk - Olgovichi
Chernigov - Svyatoslavichy
Suzdal (Vladimir) - Yurievichi

3. Novgorod, Kyiv, Pereyaslavl and sometimes Volyn and Galich were the principalities for which there was a struggle in order to place His family on the throne there.

4. by the time the Mongol arrived, Vladimir (Suzdal) most often placed his Prince on the throne in Novgorod. The last was Yaroslav and his children.

5. After Mongol, Novgorod became more independent but still needed both the military strength of the Vladimir principality against Livonia and Lithuania, and supplies of grain.

6. The Principality of Vladimir, in turn, depended on Novgorod, because Novgorod had German silver from trade. But Rus' did not have its own sources of precious metals. and for some time the Mongols took so much of the precious metals as tribute that they returned to eras money “kun” - squirrel skins with a brand.

7. Control over Novgorod remained the most important part of the policy of any prince of Vladimir, be it Tver or Moscow.

 

[Dunadan60]

Of course, there never was and never could be a single Russian culture on the lands of Kievan Rus. No one disputes this, and I completely agree with your following statement:



Throughout the existence of Kievan Rus, these different peoples could not merge into a single Russian culture. This is a fact. We have sources showing that even in the 16th century, non-Slavic peoples still existed within Moscow's territory, with their unique languages that differed from Slavic.

BUT!

You then mention that there was a Ruthenian language and no common language in Rus except for Old Church Slavonic. But what about Old East Slavic? From which the Ruthenian language emerged? Old East Slavic was not the language of the entire population, as previously mentioned, as non-Slavic peoples also inhabited Rus, speaking their own languages. However, among the Slavic population, a unified language began to form from the 9th century.

Old East Slavic had various dialects, and like any dialect, they had the potential to evolve into separate languages. This is what happened in the 14th century, when Old East Slavic began to split into two different languages: Ruthenian and Old Russian. In the 18th century, the dialects within the Ruthenian language also began to develop into independent languages: Ukrainian and Belarusian.

But the fact remains that during the times of Kievan Rus, the Slavic population had a common language (albeit with diverse dialects). This was Old East Slavic.

Therefore, I think it is quite acceptable to divide the culture in the Russian region into Ruthenian and Rus, just as Old East Slavic began to split into Ruthenian and Old Russian during this time. Ideally, we want to include Baltic and Finno-Ugric cultures mixed with Russian culture in specific locations. But this requires thorough research to accurately represent these cultures in the appropriate areas.

Fairly, it might be acceptable to consider the separation of Novgorod culture. Novgorod repeatedly rebelled against Moscow, sought independence, and had its dialect, which, although it did not become a separate language, could have done so in an alternative reality.

"However, findings by Russian linguist Andrey Zaliznyak suggest that, until the 14th or 15th century, major language differences were not between the regions occupied by modern Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, but rather between the north-west (around modern Velikiy Novgorod and Pskov) and the center (around modern Kyiv, Suzdal, Rostov, Moscow as well as Belarus) of the East Slavic territories. The Old Novgorodian dialect of that time differed from the central East Slavic dialects as well as from all other Slavic languages much more than in later centuries. According to Zaliznyak, the Russian language developed as a convergence of that dialect and the central ones, whereas Ukrainian and Belarusian were continuation of development of the central dialects of the East Slavs." wiki

So perhaps the Novgorodian culture is justified... Maybe I would remove the Severian culture, keep the Novgorodian culture, and rename the Muscovite culture to something that fits better with the territories (which, besides Muscovy, included many other principalities). This way, we could divide the Rus culture into two and leave the Ruteniаn culture undivided at the start of the game. Additionally, we could add Baltic and Finno-Ugric minorities in the territories of Novgorod and other principalities.

Yes, I know about the theory of a common East Slavic language. But the origin of the three East Slavic languages from the common Old East Slavic is a controversial issue in linguistics. The researcher of Proto-Slavic and later Slavic languages, George Shevelov, for example, denies the existence of a common East Slavic spoken language after the disintegration of the Proto-Slavic language, and instead singles out 5 dialect regions in the territory that became part of Kievan Rus: 1) Novgorodian-Tverian; 2) Polotsk-Smolenskian; 3) Muromo-Ryazanian; 4) Kyiv-Polesian; 5) Galician-Podolian. The interaction of the Kyiv-Polesian and Galician-Podolian regions led to the formation of the Ukrainian language, due to the interaction of the Polotsk-Smolenskian and Kyiv-Polesian regions, the Belarusian language appeared, and between Novgorodian-Tverian and Muromo-Ryazanian - the Russian language.

I read on this subject Oleksandr Tsaruk's monograph "Ukrainian language among other Slavic languages: ethnological and grammatical parameters" (1998), the main idea of which regarding East Slavic languages is this: since the Ukrainian language is much closer to Belarusian, Polish and Slovak than to Russian, has no reason to believe that the Eastern Slavs had any common spoken language after the disintegration of Proto-Slavic. The problem with the concept of the East Slavic language group is that the Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Russian languages are united into a common group not so much because of their proximity, but rather because of territorial (Eastern Europe) and political (joint presence as part of Kievan Rus and later the Russian Empire) reasons, and such a classification does not take into account the significant proximity of the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages to the West Slavic languages, primarily to Polish and Slovak.

Regarding the separate Novgorod culture, I agree. Novgorod really had its own separate dialect and distinctive political culture. In my opinion, the Severian culture could be left, but limited to the territory of the historical settlement of the Severian tribe and the later ethnic group of the Sevryuks, which are consistent in the sources of the 15th-17th centuries.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

shouldnt novgorod's population be much much smaller considering its lack of agricultural capability(forested and arctic)?

 

[Mickyy]

The Tale of Vyatka County likely is based in history, but it is mostly a fantasy tale and isn't really a reliable source, however the first 100% confirmed source confirming Slavic settlement in Vyatka was from 1374 when a group of Novgorodians from the region raided Sarai. The archeological record also confirms that there was Slavic settlers in Vyatka during the 12th century, but the settlements were quite small until the Mongol invasion, after which Slavic migration to the region truly began. So Vyatka should be mostly Udmurt in 1337, except that Vyatka itself should be majority Novgorodian with a large Udmurt minority and that the Obyachevo location should stay Komi, as it was legitimately Komi for the longest time.

Well. ~100 years passed from the Mongol invasion to the start date of Project Caesar. And If we look to the location population and Vyatka population we'll see only 4 Slavic locs and only 1/4 оf Vyatka's population is Slavic in absolute numbers (If every one slavic province is 100% slavic). Indeed and truly sad that we have almost no writing sources of Vyatka lands until this mention in 1374, but it's not date of foundation whatsoever.
About The Tale of Vyatka County. I know this is a very controversial source and most probably biased but it kinda matches current archaelogical records.
So really I agree with you that there should be more Udmurts and Mari and large minorities of them in slavic populated locations*

 

[dengeabi]

Hi, nice map.
1. Waaaayy too many sunni's on the map. I think it's fair to say there must be more Christians or nestorians on black sea region.
2. Khazar area must have some turkic jews. Although some departed for Romania after mongol invasion.
3. Tengriists! There needs to be a lot of tengriists on the steppes. You cannot convert all people in so little time.

4. Is it also an idea to depict a yeseviyye (after Ahmed yesevi) sect for turkic peoples? Turkic understanding of Islam is quite different than of the Arabs. Arab missionaries visiting newly converted turkic people are in awe when they see women playing role in society. They wield sword and ride horse. Quite controversial for Arabs. Maybe you can depict this, with a yeseviyye sect something in between tengrism/pastoral/steppe lifestyle and Islam?

 

[Chrysalis2112]

Regarding religion, it was hinted that the obscure Christian offshoot of strigolnichestvo would be in the game; I assume that it's not a majority in any location but I was wondering if we could get more information about this obscure religious sect, where we can find them in-game, and if possible, what sets them apart from other Christians (special mechanics, etc)? Also wondering if there will be an event in the mid-late game that causes the reforms that led to the promulgation of the Old Believers?

 

[MelogoleM]

Not many people inhabit the Russian core, approximately 6M in total. This poses a series of challenges regarding the expansion of any Russian country. Also, we've divided into 4 different maps of the location population of the region, to make it possible to visualize. A side note: you might note that the population of NW Novgorod and Karelia is calculated a bit differently. That's because Johan took care of drawing the Scandinavian map in an early stage of development, and the Content Design team took over the rest of Russia at a later stage when we had already refined a bit more our population calculation methods. This means that when we do the feedback pass after this Tinto Maps, in a few weeks, we'll homogenize the style, as well.

I would also like to provide data on the population. Perhaps someone has already done this in this thread, but just in case, I will contribute, and I apologize in advance for any repetition.

This information is taken from George Vernadsky's book "A History of Russia, Volume 3." Chapter III, part 8. I have summarized the essence and translated it into English:

"In the lands they conquered, the Mongols were quick to determine the paying capacity of the population by conducting a census. The Mongol censuses in Russia were carried out by order of the Great Khan, in agreement with the Khan of the Golden Horde. The population of a district, known in Mongol terminology as a 'tümen,' was approximately 200,000 people. After the 1270s, no general census was conducted.

The total revenue from taxes in Russia (excluding large cities) was estimated based on the number of tümen, which was initially established during the general censuses and considered constant. Large cities had to pay special taxes and therefore were not included in the tümen system.

A list of tümen in Western Russia appears in a decree of the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey, written for the Polish King Sigismund I (1507). The same list, with some variations, was repeated in a letter from King Sigismund to the Crimean Khan Sahib-Girey (1540).

From these documents, we know of the existence of tümen named after the following cities and regions: 1. Kiev; 2. Vladimir-Volynsky; 3. Lutsk; 4. Sokal; 5. Podolia; 6. Kamenets (in Podolia); 7. Braslav (in Podolia); 8. Chernigov; 9. Kursk; 10. 'Tümen of Eholdea' (south of the Kursk region); 11. Lyubetsk (on the Oka River); 12. Okhura; 13. Smolensk; 14. Polotsk; 15-16. Ryazan (at least two tümen – Ryazan and Pronsk). To this list, regarding the first century of Mongol rule, should be added Galicia (ceded to Poland in 1349), which probably had three tümen: 17. Galicia; 18. Lviv; 19. Sanok. As for Eastern Russia, it is known that in 1360 the Grand Duchy of Vladimir consisted of 15 tümen; and during the reign of Tokhtamysh – of 17 tümen.

This figure does not include the Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod, and Tver tümen. As we have just seen, the Grand Duchy of Ryazan paid for at least two tümen. The Grand Duchy of Nizhny Novgorod was counted as five tümen. Tver probably also consisted of five tümen. Tver was the strongest Russian principality after Moscow and could not include fewer tümen than Nizhny Novgorod.

Thus, we come to the conclusion that Eastern Russia had 27 tümen (15 in the Grand Duchy of Vladimir; two in Ryazan; five each in Nizhny Novgorod and Tver). Including 16 tümen in Western Russia, the total number would be 43. Assuming that on average each tümen comprised 200,000 people, the total population in all Russian tümen by 1275 was approximately 8,600,000 people."

As far as I know, these are the best data we have regarding the population of Russia in that era. And if we adhere to these figures, then the numbers presented in the diary clearly do not match them. For example, the Tver Principality should have at least 1,000,000 people. And the Moscow Principality, no less than 3,000,000 people. Which is probably too many . Because in the game, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has only 1.5 million people. But I just wanted to leave these numbers here in case they might be useful.

 

[Veyrxi]

You litterally had one of the two conquering the other and violently (to say the least) opressing the native Novgorodians into submission...

"Thereupon, the Orthodox Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan Vasilevich, lord of All Russia, commanded that the powerful boyars, the important merchants, the administrative officials, and the citizens of every rank be brought before him, together with their wives and children. The Tsar ordered that they be tortured in his presence in various spiteful, horrible, and inhuman ways. After many various unspeakable and bitter tortures, the Tsar ordered that their bodies be tormented and roasted with fire in refined ways. And the Tsar commanded his nobles to bind the hands and feet and heads of these tortured and roasted human beings with fine ropes in various ways. He ordered that each man be tied to a sled, be dragged to the Volkhov bridge behind the fast-moving sleds, and be thrown into the Volkhov River (which bisects Novgorod) from the bridge. The Tsar ordered that their wives and children be brought to the Volkhov bridge where a high platform had been erected. He commanded that they be chained on the arms and legs and that the children be tied to their mothers and then be thrown from the platform into the waters of the Volkhov River. Meanwhile, the Tsar's men, the nobles and soldiers, moved about in small boats on the Volkhov River, armed with spears, lances, hooks, and axes. When the people, men and women of all ages, surfaced, they were stabbed by the soldiers with hooks, lances, and spears, or they were struck with axes. In a horrible manner they were submerged without mercy in the depths of the river, and abandoned to a terrible and bitter death."

Source: Basil Dmytryshyn, ed., Medieval Russia: A Source Book, 900-1700. 2nd edition. Orlando, Florida: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Academic International Press.

You literally forgot, or you're doing it on purpose, but Ivan the Terrible did not just suddenly decided to rape the whole city of Novgorod. He accused city of highest treason, and used fear and terror to put it down. It is a move of an Absolutist ruler at the time of Feudal age, not the great Social Engeneer of 18th century.
Overall, modern scholars find around 2,000 to 3,000 direct victims and around 10,000 indirect, caused by famine and plague.

There is another part of the story that may lighten up reasons for this event. Ivan the Terrible had an unformal government in charge, for purpose of simplicity it is called an "Izbrannaya rada", and I would call it just "rada". This government consisted of some powerful boyars, some church representatives like Mitropolitan Macarius, and a few other Ivan's supporters. They helped him to reform country in first years of his rule, helped consolidate his power and made him "tsar" eventually.

Russia was based on trade, and Livonia with Lithuania were seeing a huge trouble in how Russians were trying to increase their power in Baltic region, this caused Livonian war. "Rada" lost its importance in the time of constant wars, where Ivan had to seek more help from nobility, which provided main military forces. Ivan also stopped favouring "Rada", because of his wife's death and became more and more paranoid with increasing power of nobility, which resulted in a creation of "oprychnina". "Rada" was put down, and Ivan started pushing centralization higher and higher to keep up with much increasing influence of boyars. This is the main cause of the incident in Novgorod.

Novgorod is the second largest city in Russia at the time, around 30k people. It is also a main trading hub of the north, which lost its importance in the time of embargo and Baltic wars. But it had gained a role of big supply hub, being the closest big city to the main theatre of war: Livonia. Novgorod boyars had clearly became too powerful and after Ivan the Terrible used his power to confront boyars directly. Ivan already used his own power to kill many other boyars, and even some members of his own family, who were found treasonous, like Vladimir Andreevich. Many boyars shift allegeance to Poles, Kurlyatev-Obelensky was sent to monastery for trying to leave for Lithuania. Many other boyars even formed in 1564 a warband to go against the tsar, according to secondary sources.

After all, not even Moscow was a centerpiece of Ivan's paranoid gaze. He centered his power in Aleksandrovskaya sloboda, away from Moscow. In 1565 Ivan tries to abdicate, due to constant plotting of boyars and his enemies. We have all the sources saying he was right and really was a target of many plots, but repressions were constantly random and chaotic, causing big sporadic murders of hundreds of people. Novgorod became a center of anti-Ivan's sentiment, located away from tsar's "oprychnina" lands, and Massacre of Novgorod was Ivan's biggest act of breaking of anti-tsarist foundations. Later he would start repressions against his own "oprychnina" and Moscow's nobility.

It is also worth noting how neither Pskov, nor cities around Novgorod were put into submission by such efforts. Novgorod was already for many years a part of Russian state, its boyars had the same heritage as all other Russian boyars ("Russia" is just a Greek name for the same entity, using "Ruthenian" for the same purpose is just a Latin variation, which is being used in Polish and Lithuanian lands).
This act was just a mere piece in all Ivan's killings and slaughter, which caused Time of Troubles after his death, as he eradicated big cluster of boyar and noble elite, decreased power of Church and caused deprevation in all the lands. Creating system, which simply was a one-man rule, caused power vacuum after his death. Everything I was writing before comes to play here in a summary, where it is clear now that in reallity, not in a fiction, Ivan destroyed not only Novgorod, but every alternative source of power and influence. There is no Moscow's imperialist propagandist something something in saying that Ivan was just an unfit ruler, and by apllying modern concepts to people, who lived such a long time ago, is not going to cause any good in analysis.

Solovʹev and Rhinelander. History of Russia
Skrynnikov and Graham, Ivan the Terrible
de Madariaga, Ivan the Terrible
Skrynnikov, Ivan Grozny, Moscow, AST, (2001), 253-73; [p 462-477]. Madriaga, Ivan the Terrible, [p 249]
Шмидт С. О. Поздний летописчик со сведениями по истории России. // Летописи и хроники. — Сб. статей. 1973 г. — М., 1974. — С. 349.

 

[Sodinc]

We usually take into account linguistics for cultural division. So, 'Novgorodian' portrays the 'Northern dialects' of Eastern Rus, 'Muscovite' the 'Central dialects', and 'Severian' the 'Southern dialects'. But take this as an open answer; I think that there might be reasons to unify the culture into 'Russian', and also to further subdivide it (as another person pointed out on the previous page); we'll review all the informed opinions on the matter after a while, and make a decision regarding that that feel appropriate both for historical and game-logical reasons. Thanks for the input, by the way.

My main issue/suggestion about these cultures is "muscovite". It will feel rather weird if somebody else unifies the region - there is no previous history suggesting that the name of the culture must come from Moscow, it is all in the "theoretical" future. Naming it after the previous dominant center "Vladimirian" would make more sense. Or maybe even "Opolian", after the area around Vladimir, but that one wouldn't be that recognisable.