Tinto Maps #12 - 26th of July 2024 - Germany

[Pentabyte]

The situation of ownership was rather more complicated:
The city of Donaueschingen was held by the Lords von Blumberg. The Lords von Blumberg held Donaueschingen as a fief of the Lords of Fürstenberg. So Fürstenberg held Donaueschingen already indirectly. Via inheritances after the local Blumbergs went extinct, the Fürstenbergs bought Donaueschingen to control it directly. It's therefore more than reasonable to have them start with Donaueschingen because we can't represent local lords and haven't done so in othe cases (like in Austria where local nobility held most of the cities as fiefs).

Btw, all our quotes don't really work.

Okay then its more than reasonable to have them start with Donaueschingen anyway. Thanks for your input!

And yeah I am not really well versed in using the reply function on multiple posts yet, as I have just started posting in the forum.
I tried adding the links to the individual posts for now.
Do you know how to reply to multiple posts from multiple different pages of the thread at the same time?

 

[ArcticKnight]

It is true that the titles were administratively separate, but at that moment two Habsburg Dukes (Albert II and Otto) were in charge. Who inherited the title of Duke of Austria. It is true that from 1329 Otto was more involved in the administration of the Swabian part, but Albert II could not be physically present in three Duchies and one March at once. Unless it could be simulated that Styria, Carniola and Carinthia have their own governor and are still owned by the Habsburgs, something similar to vassalage, except that he cannot resist and can be removed whenever the owner wants.

hm... I still think they should be split, since they were more or less a union rather than just "Austria". The state/entity called Austria did not extend over those lands. All those duchies/counties had their own laws, their own armies, their own levies and own seperate estates. otherwise, all other unions could be represented as one country. Which is why I think Styria, Carniola and Carinthia should be a seperate entity/country, in a union lead by the habsburg ruler. Afterall, the ruler of Austria, which as you noted was Albert II, had the title of Duke of Austria, that gave him right to rule over the Austrian lands and austrian lands are not the same as styrian, carniolan or carinthian lands, which is why he was not only duke of Austria, but duke of Austria, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola.

and the people living in Styria for example, did not view themselves as "austrians" nor even slovenians for that matter but "styrians" (kinda same for carinthia and carniola).

 

[Kyrioris]

I hope this is the right place for feedback, I just created an account for this. If not, please tell me where I can find the right place to give feedback.

My comment would be about the Thuringian location Mühlhausen - or rather what it isn't. My problem with it is that it includes the Eichsfeld, a region to the north of the actual town of Mühlhausen. While the lower Eichsfeld with Duderstadt has it's own location, the inclusion of the upper Eichsfeld into Mühlhausen doesn't really make sense. Neither in the starting date, nor in its past, nor in the future did the imperial city of Mühlhausen own the Eichsfeld. As far as I know, most of the (Upper) Eichsfeld was owned by the Archbishop of Mainz at the beginning of the period, although it was not completely united. The Lower Eichsfeld also became more and more the property of Mainz, a process that lasted from 1342 to 1434.

Unlike the political part, the cultural part is of course less well documented - but there should be enough evidence to support a union with Mühlhausen. The latter was quite centralized around the city, the Eichsfeld decentralized, with numerous monasteries governing the neighboring villages.

If you need sources, I have some booklets on the history of the Eichsfeld here, but unfortunately no good online sources. If it would help, I can scan the relevant parts and send them via DM (if that is a thing here in the forum). Also they are of course in German, but i would offer to translate them if this supports my cause.

To mitigate this inaccuracy, it would of course be possible to split the region into the Imperial City of Mühlhausen and the Upper Eichsfeld with it's capital Heiligenstadt. I've had a bit of a go at the exact boundaries, as my drawing skills are as bad as my English, but I hope you get the idea. To be honest, the new regions would not be "too small" either, especially when compared to the surrounding area.

Edit: Unfortunately, i cannot use Images as a new forum user.. Lets see if i am allowed to post this without an Image.

I did not found any map from the Medieval ages, but at wiki-common there is something from mid 18-th century. This is of course 400 years later, but between the acquisition by Mainz and the Wiener Congress in 1815-ish not that much happend here, beside a further consolidation of the location under Mainz.

Edit: and no links.. If you search for "Tractus Eichsfeldiae wikipedia", you can find it. Sorry for inconvenience.

I understand, that you cannot fracture the HRE infitissimally, so if it is impossible for you to cerate the new region, my next guess would be to unify both the upper and lower Eichsfeld with Heiligenstadt as Capital- this would create a quite big area for the surrounding, but would a better fit historically, both political and cultural, than giving it to Mühlhausen.

I guess the your current borders take the "modern" borders between Germanys federal states into account, As the lower Eichsfeld is now part of lower saxonia and the upper Eichsfeld/Mühlhausen is part of Thuringia, but having this as a reason would be foreshadowing of events (namely the Wiener Concres), that happen almost 500 years in the future.

I'd love to get your opinion about my remarks!
Kyrioris

 

[mattd_]

It definitely feels like there would be some areas that deserve some impassable terrain here. In particular the Harz mountains in Germany and the Ore mountains and Sudetes in Bohemia.

 

[Thales von Dasos]

Freising should own Oberwölz and Skofja Loka. They were gifted to the Prince-Bishopric by Henry II in 1007 and Otto II in 973 respectively

 

[Palando]

Okay then its more than reasonable to have them start with Donaueschingen anyway. Thanks for your input!

And yeah I am not really well versed in using the reply function on multiple posts yet, as I have just started posting in the forum.
I tried adding the links to the individual posts for now.
Do you know how to reply to multiple posts from multiple different pages of the thread at the same time?

You have to click 'quote' on all posts you want to quote

Then 'insert quotes' will become available when you write a reply to the thread.

hm... I still think they should be split, since they were more or less a union rather than just "Austria". The state/entity called Austria did not extend over those lands. All those duchies/counties had their own laws, their own armies, their own levies and own seperate estates. otherwise, all other unions could be represented as one country. Which is why I think Styria, Carniola and Carinthia should be a seperate entity/country, in a union lead by the habsburg ruler. Afterall, the ruler of Austria, which as you noted was Albert II, had the title of Duke of Austria, that gave him right to rule over the Austrian lands and austrian lands are not the same as styrian, carniolan or carinthian lands, which is why he was not only duke of Austria, but duke of Austria, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola.

and the people living in Styria for example, did not view themselves as "austrians" nor even slovenians for that matter but "styrians" (kinda same for carinthia and carniola).

I think you are right and it should be some kind of PU.

 

[Kyrioris]

I hope this is the right place for feedback, I just created an account for this. If not, please tell me where I can find the right place to give feedback.
[...]

.... Then see if i am now allowed to post Images
Here my Proposal:

 

[Palando]

So I'd like to directly post a link to my feedback thread but I have updated this post to include basically everything:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/hre-map-feedback-austria-bavaria-bohemia-swabia-and-more.1679998/

1.) Austria:
Let's begin with Austria which, oddly enough, is the biggest blob in the HRE in the current iteration of the 1337 setup. Austria was ruled by two brothers, Albert II and Otto IV, a similar situation to the Wittelsbachs who also split their dominions. Otto IV died two year later which prevented a more permanent division, but I would personally advocate for splitting Austria. As Otto IV mostly focused on Further Austria, Carinthia and Krain, he could get those parts, whereas Albert II would own Austria and Styria. Additional events (just like I hope Bavaria also gets them for their similar situation) could then lead to the unification. After all, Austria was split in 1379 for a longer time, too.

In this map from the historical atlas, you can see a rough overview of the lands obtained until 1395 by the House of Habsburg. Note that their posessions in Krain and Further Austria were much smaller in 1337, and that there were none in Tyrol or Vorarlberg. Most of the maps for Austria are from the historical atlas of Austria ("Historischer Atlas Österreich" by Manfred Scheuch).

View attachment 1168053
1.1.) Tyrol:
Tyrol is mostly fine as it is, as there would be only one "mandatory" change and two optional ones.

Kufstein (and with it Kitzbühl and Rattenberg) should be owned by Upper Bavaria in 1337. It only shortly belonged to Tyrol from 1342 (until 1369), because of the marriage between Margaret of Tyrol and Louis V of Bavaria. It was finally incorporated into Tyrol in 1504.

Nearby, Zell am Ziller and Itter should be Salzburger territories, as they remained under Salzburg until the Napoleonic era. A pass from Salzburg to Eastern Tyrol could be added; this would be (Windisch) Matrei, a territory owned by Salzburg for the same amount of time.

Brixen has now been added as a separate tag. Possible new provinces could be Anras and some Alpine vallesy around Matzin.

My last observation is that Görz should extend a bit more westwards. Their main territories should be Lienz and Innichen. Although, the latter was a possession by the Bishopric of Freising, the Gorizian counts reduced the Freisinger posessions until only a couple of yards remained, i.e. most of Innichen was also owned by the Gorizians.

The following map from the historical atlas should give you an idea, thereby the numbers correspond to the years they were incorporated into Tyrol. The red borderline corresponds to Tyrol in 1918. The north-western parts labeled with 1432/1468 were owned by ministry officials subject to the Imperial Abbey of Kempten.

Rattenberg and Kufsten go to Upper Bavaria.

Zell and Itter go to Salzburg. Matrei is a new povince connecting Salzburg to Tyrol.

Bruneck gets split and is no longer a territory. (It's now included in the Brixen province, as Brixen owned it). Innichen is a new province owned by Görz, and Anras a new province owned by Brixen.

Southern Tyrol is mostly unchanged. I only added Eppan as it was separately acquired from Brozen. Matzin could be a possible split from Gablöss to represent the valley owned by Brixen.

The most doubtful addition would be Vils which was owned by the Abbey of Kempten (Kempten would need to change from a free city to an imperial abbey).


1.2.) Krain (Carniola) and the Adria:

It appears that all of Krain was added to the Habsburg dominion, but the actual extent of the land acquired in 1335 was far smaller. I will again refer to the historical atlas.

The territories around Veldes (Bishopric of Brixen) and Bischoflack (Bishopric of Freising) were only acquired after the 30YW by the Habsburgs. Furthermore the territories around it were also much later acquisitions dating to the mid 15th century / early 16th century. Veldes is called Bled in Slovenian and Bischoflack Škofja Loka.

In 1337, the Habsburgs still had a long road to get to the Adria, as it took them nearly 30 years. The lords of Duino switched their allegiance from Görz towards Habsburg, and thus the latter got their first Adriatic port with Fiume (Rijeka) and Duino-Aurisiana. The Lordship of Duino also included Prem (Ilirska Bistrica) and Senosetsch (Senožeče).

Moreover, the Habsburgs didn't own eastern Krain at this time. The Windic March, Möttling (Metlika), Tschernembl (Črnomelj) and Landstraß an der Gurk (Kostanjevica na Krki) were inherited in 1374 after the death of Albert IV. of Görz-Istria. This is sadly not shown in the above map (there's only a small yellow part at the right edge), but Istria is shown which was also part of the inheritance.

The land around Gottschee was owned by the Counts of Ortenburg (who also owned lands in Carinthia, more on that in the next paragraph). After their death, the lands were inherited by the Counts of Cilli and finally by Habsburg in the 15th century.

I don't remember where I read that the castle Lueg (Adelsberg / Postojna) was taken by the Habsburgs from Aquileia.

Furthermore, the Bishopric of Freising owned the Lordship of Klingenfels (Klevevž) until 1622, when they sold it. The Lordship consisted out of three scattered territories (map from the 13th century):

I enlarged Rijeka a bit, so that it's not as small as it currently is.

Klingenfels could also be changed to something else, but I wanted to represent the clerical and non-Habsburg territories in this region.

Rann could also be Cillian territory, but there were some clerical territories, most notably held by Salzburg, that I wanted to represent there.

Krainburg (held by Ortenburg) as name giving territory for Krain would be a nice touch.

Stein in Krain and Schönstein are optional additions to represent more important cities or give Cilli more than one province.

1.3.) Carinthia:

A very positive aspect about the current setup is that all of the territories owned by the Bishoprics of Salzburg and Bamberg are represented, however Gmünd should be owned by Salzburg (it was shortly owned by the Habsburgs at the end of the 15th century, and only finally came into its dominion in 1535). The only thing that is missing are the lands of the Counts of Ortenburg who owned all of the land around Spittal until they died out (then the Counts of Cilli and thereafter the Counts of Görz inherited it). As mentioned before, they also owned a sizeable portion of Krain (Gottschee, Cabar, Laas). Therefore, I would strongly advocate for the inclusion of Ortenburg (capital Spittal).

The Habsburgs only owned Greifenburg and some territories around it in western Carinthia at that time. Greifenburg was more important than Steinfeld, so I'd change the current location name to Greifenburg (or Oberdrauburg if the territory should be Gorizian).

By the way, the connection to the Bavarian Ortenburgs is strongly contested as no blood link could be found.

Here's the map from the historical atlas (which shows Carinthia in its 1914 borders and when which part was obtained):

Feldkirchen was also owned by the Habsburgs, so it would change hands. The borders between eastern and western Carinthia were redrawn, so that Klagenfurt is now bigger. Villach now also includes Tarvis (part of Bamberg) and Gmünd was made smaller and is owned by Salzburg.

Hermagor could also be named Mauthen, but in general the borders here are up to debate, as the surrounding territory was owned by Görz. I tried to include all of the Salzburger land as well as the Habsburger land in Greifenburg. It then would be owned by the Habsburgs to represent their holdings in the region, but the name could also be changed to Oberdrauburg and become Gorizian.

1.4.) Upper Austria:
The counts of Schaunberg could be included as vassals of the Habsburgs. The Luxembourg Emperors tried weakening the Habsburgs by granting them more priviliges but this failed. However, they retained several exemptions until the reign of Maximilian I.

1.5.) Lower Austria:
There were some posessions by the Bishopric of Freising (Waidhofen, Ulmerfeld, Hollenburg and Enzersdorf), but those were rather minor.

1.6.) Further Austria:
See part about Swabia.

1.7.) Styria:
There would be only three changes I would propose for Styria (see the overview map):

1. Rename Oberpölsen to Zeiring (main mine)
2. Redraw Murau and Oberwölz. The latter should contain the city of Katsch, i.e. be western oriented. The former would be then more eastern oriented. Oberwölz would then be owned by the Bishopric of Freising (owned Katsch and Oberwölz).
3. Split Leibnitz into Leibnitz (Salzburg) and Eibiswald (Duino). Eibiswald is a very recent acquisition by the Lords of Duino, as they bought it in 1332 from the Lords of Wildon.

2.) Bavaria:
Moving on to Bavaria, there are some changes I'd like to propose. The most important thing here, would probably be events that represent the imminent unification of Lower and Upper Bavaria in 1340.

The following map, shows the situation after the Treaty of Pavia from 1329 (see also here https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Bayern_(Raum) ).

View attachment 1168715



2.1.) Upper Bavaria
I already mentioned Kufstein in the part about Tyrol. Then I'm suprised that the Bishopric of Augsburg seems to also own territories to the west of Dillingen, because they only owned a small territory around it there. I would personally give Upper Bavaria the eastern province and call it Gundelfinegn. Upper Bavaria also held territories north of Regensburg, so they should get what I guess is Burglengenfeld from the Rhenish Electorate. Moreover, I would give them the eastern province of the Bishopric of Eichstätt and call it Riedenburg (the alternative Dietfurt which was owned by Lower Bavaria was far less important). Speaking of Parsberg, I would've rather chosen the Bishopric of Regensburg, as the Lords of Parsberg really only owned a small castle with a couple of peasants.

Furthermore, the border in the area of Donauwörth / Oettingen / Heidenheim woul be a candidate for redrawing the provinces. I included the Bavarian city Rain to better shape the borders between Bavaria and the surrounding territories. The Imperial Abbey of Ellwangen could be carved out like and Oettingen could be repositioned to actually include Oettingen. The province of Dillingen can be made smaller, as the Bishopric of Augsburg only owned minor territories in its surroundings.

I also forgot to mention that Miesbach was owned by the County of Hohenwaldeck which broke free from Freisinger overlordship around 1300, so they should be independent in 1337.


2.2.) Lower Bavaria and Upper Palatinate
I would suggest redrawing the border between Lower Bavaria and Upper Bavaria and in general use the maps for the early divisions of Bavaria (Bavaria-Landshut, Bavaria-Munich, Bavaria-Ingolstadt, Bavaria-Straubing). Upper Bavaria extended further east in the area of Wasserburg, while Lower Bavaria owned territories west of Freising, most importantly Indersdorf. Furthermore, as Salzburg only owned a minor exclave (Mühldorf) and nothing more, the province should be renamed to Burghausen and given to Bavaria. Burghausen was an important Bavarian fortress and centre of administration.

Lower Bavaria should lose its northern territories above Regensburg to the Rhenish Electorate and some to the Landgraviate of Leuchtenberg (Pfreimd was the capital and Waldmünchen was bought by Leuchtenberg from Lower Bavaria in 1332). I would also suggest to give Vilseck to the Bishopric of Bamberg or otherwise just merge it with the Sulzbach province. The same applies to Kemnath as an optional addition for the Rhenish Electorate.

Further south, the Counts of Hals could get the strip north of the Danube and centred around Ering. Even more obscure was the situation around the Mond- and Attersee. The former was owned by Bavaria until the Bavarian unification in the early 16th century, whereas the other was held by the Bishopric of Bamberg until it was bought by the Habsburg. There is potential to display both in the game but then it would not be possible to have Hallstatt as a separate province from Gmunden.

3.) Bohemia:
I'd like to primarily comment on the situation of Eger (Cheb). Eger had a special status, as Emperor Louis the Bavarian mortgaged it to John the Blind under the condition that it retains its status of a free city. This mortgage was never repayed and over the centuries Eger became an integral part of the Bohemian crown, but this was certainly not true in 1337. Thus, Eger should be a republic vassal of Bohemia.

3.1) Moravia
Now that the Moravian provinces have been revealed, I would have one improvement:
Bruntál should be owned by the Dukes of Troppau (Opava, illegitimate Přemyslid dynasty), as can be seen in above map (Fulnek was also part of it at that time but that changed much later). Thus, it shouldn't be part of Charles IV's Moravia.
Although both were rather small, I would've chosen Zlín instead of Vizovice, because Zlín became more important later on.

4.) Swabia:
After the fall of the Hohenstaufen, Swabia splintered into many smaller states, and the Habsburgs also took a huge chunk out of it. I'm glad that we finally can have more Austrian presence in Swabia with EUV.

View attachment 11687254.1.) Rhenish Swabia
After the French feedback thread, the provincial density of Alsace is already good. It just needs a couple of more tags andredistribution of provinces.
Mühlhausen, Colmar and Straßburg were independent city states in 1337 (although it took some time for the formal imperial privilege in the latter's case), so they should all become their own tag. Similarly, this should also apply to the Abbey of Murbach and County of Lichtenberg.

Furthermore, the Landvogtei Hagenau (Unterelsass) shouldn't be owned by Austria, as they lost it in 1330 to Emperor Louis the Bavarian. Louis's chancellor Albert II of Hohenberg was the bailiff in 1337, and Louis handed it over to his relative, the Rhenish elector in 1341.

The province of Offenburg is relatively big and its primary city is located in its centre, so there are different possibility how to split it. I went with Ettenheim, as it became the primary residence of the Bishopric of Straßburg after the French conquered Alsace. There also seems to have been some confusion with Müllheim, as there were Counts of Strassberg in possession of it at some time. It should, however, be owned by a side branch of the Margraves of Baden (Baden-Hachberg-Sausenberg), but might as well be merged into the two provinces of the main line if deemed too small.

I would also liketo mention that the Palatinate became vogt of the abbey of Maulbronn in 1325, so they could get this rather important territory, too. Bretten, another important settlement in that area, was owned by the minor Counts of Eberstein who sold it the Palatinate in 1349, too.


Lastly, Triberg joined the Habsburg dominion in 1355, so it should not be owned by Austria in 1337. Freiburg joined even later in 1368, which is already represented (I appreciate that). I can't tell if it's possible to split off the County of Fürstenberg or if it's merged with St Blasien, which was owned by Austria. By the way, I would make Konstanz a bishopric, as the bishops of Konstanz were the clerical leaders in the Swabian Imperial Circle.

4.2.) Southern Swabia
So, Triberg joined the Habsburg dominion in 1355, thus it should not be owned by Austria in 1337 but by Hohenberg. Freiburg joined even later in 1368, which is already represented (I appreciate that). The County of Fürstenberg centred around Donaueschingen should be split off from St Blasien, which was owned by Austria. The territory to the south of Donaueschinegn could either be merged with it or made into Stühlingen (Counts of Lupfen) or Klettgau. The latter was owned by the Counts of Habsburg-Laufenburg, a side branch of the Habsburgs, but when it eventually died out, its inheritance went to the Counts of Sulz and not the Austrian Habsburgs.

Note that Donaueschingen was held by the Lords of Blumberg in 1337 who held it as a fief of the Counts of Fürstenberg. The Counts of Fürstenberg bought it in 1448 after the Lords of Blumberg died out.

By the way, I would make Konstanz a bishopric, as the bishops of Konstanz were the clerical leaders in the Swabian Imperial Circle, and split off the County of Nellenburg. I would also switch Wangen with Lindau, as the latter was a trade hub on the shores of Lake Constance.

4.3.) Central Swabia

I'd like to propose here that Zollern should be split off to also include the Hohenzollern (which would give a unique challenge to form the German Empire with them earlier). Hohenberg wasn't really a major player but it currently appears to have several more provinces than the surrounding tags. Probably, the Free City of Rottweil and / or the Counts of Geroldseck could become independent tags here.

A Sigmaringen province could be also added which would be owned by Württemberg in 1337 but was later sold. Likewise, an Ehingen province could be added to represent the last days of the Counts of Berg-Schelklingen whose territories became Austrian in 1346. Lastly, the rather big territories of the Free City of Schwäbisch Gmünd and Helfenstein could be represented to the west. Potentially, a Göppingen province could be carved out of those two and be given to Württemberg. There's also the possibiliy to pick Löwenstein instead of Marbach to represent the County of Löwenstein (which later became part of the Palatinate), but it was rather minor.

6. Franconia
There are also some possible improvements for Franconia:
View attachment 1168722Dinkelsbühl (which should be a free city) could be split into Hohentrüdingen which would be owned by the Counts of Truhedingen.

The Kulmbach-Bayreuth split could be added for "Ansbach" which should rather be called Burgraviate Nürnberg in 1337. The Hohenzollern sold the Burgraves' Castle in 1427 which de-facto ended the existence of the Burgraviate, but they still used this hollow title thereafter. Moreover, Ansbach and Kulmbach(-Bayreuth) came only into existence after the inheritance was split in 1398. Also, Kulmbach and the Plassenburg were owned by the Counts of Orlamünde until 1340 when they sold it to the Hohenzollern.

I would suggest redrawing the provinces in Lower Franconia. This would make room for the Free City of Schweinfurt, the most important city in that area, and Castell which was owned by the Counts of Castell (they later became very prominent and rich during the Industrial Revolution with their pencils). It's also rather odd for me why Henneberg owns territory west of Haßfurt, as the primary settlement of this area, Gerolzhofen, was owned by the Bishopric of Würzburg. Finally, Orlamünde could be split from Coburg and would then be owned by Weimar and Königshofen from Hildburghausen (by giving Hildburghausen some territory from Illmenau), too.

Next to Würzburg and between it and Mainz, the County of Wertheim could be added.

6. Saxony
Compared to other parts of the HRE with comparable heterogeneity, Saxony currently lacks representation of smaller states. I don't know if it's on purpose or if it's because the sources are lacking. There only seems to be the County of Schönburg between Meißen and Landsberg.

Regardless of that, Chemnitz shouldn't be owned by Landsberg but by Meißen.

Personally, I'd advocate to include the following smaller players:
View attachment 1168334


The Bishopric of Meißen was independent until it was incorporated into Saxony after the Protestant Reformation. It owned most of the lands south-east of Dresden and the Elbe river (most notably Bischofswerda and Stolpen) as well as Wurzen and Mügeln and their surrounding areas. Between Wurzen and Mügeln there was a small territory around Dahlen which was owned by the Bishopric of Naumburg, so in general that area was held by bishoprics and not worldly rulers.

The County of Torgau was ruled by the Counts of Torgau (Bodo of Torgau in 1337) until the mid of the 15th century. They held all of the territory around the city of Torgau.

The Lordship of Waldenburg (Heinrich of Waldenburg in 1337) would represent the three small independent worldly rulers of the region (Burgraviate of Meißen and small territories owned by Colditz), as a third Meißen would probably be too much at that point.

The last one would be the Burgraviate of Colditz, althought they owned a smaller strip of land, so they are the most arguable of the aforementioned ones. Thimo VIII of Colditz, however, was an important confidant of emperor Charles IV. Given

Pirna was owned by Bohemia from the reign of Václav II (1293) until the reign of Wenceslaus, King of Germany (1405). Nearby Königstein actually derives its name from this period (there were no Saxon emperors or kings at that time). Alternatively, the territory could be changed to Dohna and then owned by the Burgraviate Dohna.

A rough map from the reign of Emperor Charles IV that shows this tentacle.
View attachment 1168336

7. Holstein

There would be two additions to round up Holstein.

1. The province of Eutin which would be owned by the Bishopric of Lübeck. This was an independent territory until the Reformation.
2. The province of Pinneberg which would be owned by the County of Schaumburg which is already represented. Holstein-Pinneberg and Schaumburg were in a personal union at that time, but it should be probably owned by the very same tag, as it's only two provinces in total.

8. Electoral Rhenish Circle

View attachment 1168727

As mentioned earlier, the County of Veldenz could be added which was held by the Counts of Geroldseck(-Veldenz). Geroldseck also held the County of Veldenz along the Rhine; Veldenz was actually no longer part of it, so they would only get Thallichtenberg. Speyer could be split to give the Bishopric of Speyer also territories west of the Rhine; Kirrweiler would be a potential candidate for that. Sadly, there is no room for the Rhinecounty (Rheingrafschaft).

Darmstadt should be owned by the County of Katznelnbogen which could also get a Katzenelnbogen province carved out from Simmern, Rüdesheim and Wiesbaden. Rüdesheim could get some parts of Kreuznach and follow more the borders of Mainz.

So I have updated my first post (here are the new things):

Upper Bavaria


Furthermore, the border in the area of Donauwörth / Oettingen / Heidenheim woul be a candidate for redrawing the provinces. I included the Bavarian city Rain to better shape the borders between Bavaria and the surrounding territories. The Imperial Abbey of Ellwangen could be carved out like and Oettingen could be repositioned to actually include Oettingen. The province of Dillingen can be made smaller, as the Bishopric of Augsburg only owned minor territories in its surroundings.

I also forgot to mention that Miesbach was owned by the County of Hohenwaldeck which broke free from Freisinger overlordship around 1300, so they should be independent in 1337.

Franconia

Additionally, Orlamünde could be split from Coburg and would then be owned by Weimar and Königshofen from Hildburghausen (by giving Hildburghausen some territory from Illmenau), too.

Next to Würzburg and between it and Mainz, the County of Wertheim could be added.

Next to Würzburg and between it and Mainz, the County of Wertheim could be added.

Electoral Rhenish Circle

As mentioned earlier, the County of Veldenz could be added which was held by the Counts of Geroldseck(-Veldenz). Geroldseck also held the County of Veldenz along the Rhine; Veldenz was actually no longer part of it, so they would only get Thallichtenberg. Speyer could be split to give the Bishopric of Speyer also territories west of the Rhine; Kirrweiler would be a potential candidate for that. Sadly, there is no room for the Rhinecounty (Rheingrafschaft).

Darmstadt should be owned by the County of Katznelnbogen which could also get a Katzenelnbogen province carved out from Simmern, Rüdesheim and Wiesbaden. Rüdesheim could get some parts of Kreuznach and follow more the borders of Mainz.

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

Hmm, but then we'd need to make each location a different country, and the IO over them, which would also be kind of weird...

Isn’t this close to how Ireland and early Switzerland are going to be represented? The latter is even part of the HRE.

 

[Pentabyte]

While looking into a comment, regarding the location of Offenburg being rather big for a free city and being a candidate for a split, in this post:

The province of Offenburg is relatively big and its primary city is located in its centre, so there are different possibility how to split it.

I went down a rabbit hole on the dynasty of Fürstenberg.
I remembered that the region to the sout-east of Offenburg (the Kinzigtal) was and is still known for its silver deposits, found in the cities of Haslach (biggest city), Biberach and Prinzbach.
The City of Haslach was likely founded already in the 12th century by the Dynasty "von Zähringen" as a silver mining city with its first mentioning in 1241.
(https://info.haslach.de/sehenswuerdigkeiten/historische-fachwerkaltstadt/geschichte)
Today there is actually still an 800 year old silver mine there that you can visit.
(https://info.haslach.de/sehenswuerdigkeiten/besucherbergwerk-segen-gottes)
In the early 13th century Kaiser Friedrich II. used the silver of this region to mint coins in the close-by Offenburg.
(https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offenburg#Freie_Reichsstadt)
So if you were to split Offenburg into two regions maybe consider introducing Haslach or the Kinzigtal in the South-East of it.

Then I looked into who was controlling Haslach back then and I learned about the dynasty of "von Fürstenberg" starting from 1215 stemming from the Dynasty "von Urach).
They were not unimportant in the region and while being close allies to the Habsburgs were not considered subjects of them.
(fuerstenberg-kultur #dot_here# de/geschichte-der-fuerstenberger/)
During the 1337 start date they owned the following principalities:
- Baar/Fürstenberg (inbetween Villingen and Schaffhausen)
- Haslach
- Wolfach
- Hausach
- Wartenberg
(https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fürstentum_Fürstenberg#Bestandteile_des_Fürstentums)

They also had control over Oberkirch until 1303 and Villingen until 1326, which they sold to Straßburg (due to being short on money) and Austria (somewhat involuntary due to revolts) respectively.
(https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_II._(Fürstenberg))
(https://www.villingen.de/sehenswuerdigkeiten-in-villingen-schwenningen/stadtgeschichte.html)
(http://www.michael-buhlmann.de/PDF_Texte/mbhp_ghv32_pdf.pdf)
In 1488 they acquired Donaueschingen from the "von Habsberg" dynasty (not Habsburg mind you) and made it their new seat.
(http://fuerstenberg-kultur.de/geschichte-der-fuerstenberger/)

HRE map of the black forest from 1400:

Over the time they continued to acquire more and more land in south-west germany through strategic marriages and buying land.

They survived a fairly long time in the HRE as this cutout map portraying the HRE in 1789 shows:

Finally the Fürstentum was incorporated in large parts into Baden in 1806.
I think for that long history and the sake of more silver in south-west germany (lol) they should deserve their own tag.

So how to incorporate them into the map.
As their seat in Fürstenberg at 1337 is a fairly small location I would rather introduce the location of Donaueschingen inbetween Villingen Waldshut and Schaffhausen and give it to them from the start.
Fürstenberg is directly next to Donauesching and as the dynasty (von Habsberg) in Donaueschingen at that time does not seem all to important and seemingly died out with the acquisition of the town I think it would make sense gameplay-wise to place Fürstenberg there.
(Someone please correct me if I am wrong on the von Habsberg dynasty).
Also it would be cool to inplement Donauesching as it is the origin of the mighty Danube river.
Secondly as mentioned above I would introduce the location of Kinzigtal, south-east of Offenburg, that basically incorporates all the other principalities listed above.

Kinzigtal
Materials: Silver
Terrain: Hills, Forest, Oceanic
Population: 2000-4000 (guess)

Donaueschingen:
Materials: Wheat (Beer production since 1283) or stay with Wool
Terrain: Hills, Woods, Continental
Population: 3000-5000 (guess)

Both locations belonging to the Fürstentum of Fürstenberg.

I tried drawing them onto the location map but you or someone else might have better ideas and resources on how to shape them:

Some additional information on that region:

Triberg was not owned by Austria until 1355 when they bought it from Hohenberg.
(https://triberg.de/stadt-triberg/stadt-triberg/geschichte)

The following post mentioned that the dynasty in Baden should be changed to "von Zähringen" but that is incorrect as this dynasty died out in 1218.
The Dynasty "von Baden" does stem from the Zähringer but was its own thing since 1112, so your Dynasty map is correct.
(https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haus_Baden)

'von Baden' to 'von Zähringen'

As mentioned already in a post by someone else (can't find it right now), you overdid it a bit with the forest in Germany (at least in south-west germany).
Especially in the Oberrheingraben there is a fair amount of arable land.
I get the idea because there is also the black forest there so let's put some forest there.
But most of the bigger cities like Durlach (today Karlsruhe), Offenburg and Freiburg are mostly in the arable depression next to the rhine river.
So please consider changing some locations to at least woods or perhabs even farmland.

Thank you Palando for explaining me how to insert quotes correctly. Unfortunately you can't insert quotes while editing a post afterwards, so this is a repost of my original one, which I will delete.

Then 'insert quotes' will become available when you write a reply to the thread.

 

[Coolerfratz]

As mentioned already in a post by someone else (can't find it right now), you overdid it a bit with the forest in Germany (at least in south-west germany).
Especially in the Oberrheingraben there is a fair amount of arable land.
I get the idea because there is also the black forest there so let's put some forest there.
But most of the bigger cities like Durlach (today Karlsruhe), Offenburg and Freiburg are mostly in the arable depression next to the rhine river.
So please consider changing some locations to at least woods or perhabs even farmland.

View attachment 1168733

I don't know if they overdid it, but I just wanted to add that things might change over the centuries, especially with all the farmland.

 

[Hapsburg Prince]

Long time listener, first time caller. After desperately searching the map, I have in fact found Parsberg which is my most closely related Noble family after my time spent scouring my family tree. I'm happy to see that y'all have included the itty bitty noble families as well as the larger ones.

 

[GeBuch]

So a few notes/questions on Bremen and the surrounding area.

• What is the current state of the City of Bremen and the diocese of Bremen in game? All I can see is that Bremen is its own location and state and that most the lands of the diocese are a seperate state "Brema" (Bremervörde?).
  • Historically the the City was not yet fully independent fom the diocese
    • The city received the "Gelnhauser Privileg" in 1186 making it a free imperial City, but it was also often omitted from the list of those cities becaue it failed to fufill it's obligations. It also still owed taxes and tribute to the archbishop, it was in fact the largest contributer and most influential member in the diet of the diocese.
    • While it had a ruling council elected from it's (wealthy) citizens it din't not elect it's first mayor, Heinrich Doneldey der Jüngere, until (about) 1344.
    • The cities laws were not codefied until 1303-1308
    • The city joined and left/was kicked out of the Hanseatic league four times
      • At game start it was not part of the league having been kicked out in 1258, it would rejoin in 1358 in return for a bailout and after promising to support a league blockade of Flandres and anti-piracy efforts.
  • The Diocese of Bremen
    • The Archbishop at the time was Burchard Grelle, who was a commoner born in Bremen and had an unusually good relationship with the city
    • In 1348 two rival Bishops were elected leading to a feud
    • The feud was interrupted by the black death in 1350
    • It restarted in 1351 when the City and the Duke of Hoya got involved, this was disaster for the city and nearl led to it's bankruptcy
• Population of 30k seems about right. The city proper had between 15k and 20k but was also significantly smaller than the location ingame, which is larger than even modern day Bremen. So the ingame location also includes several villages and monasteries.
  • The economic differnce is probably more important than the population. Bremen was significantly more centralized, not as government, but 2/3 of the population lived in the city (most without citizen rights). According to one source it was one of the largest producers of beer in northern europe, and several other atleat suupport the claim, that it was the largest within the Hanseatic league
• For the surrounding area I need to do more research.
• The area around Bremen along the Weser and it's many tributaries was quite wet and consisted out of many peat bogs and might be better represented as marshes. Essentially the entire area betwen Weser-Ems and the Weser-Elbe-triangle were essentially marchlands until significant drainage efforts were made in the 18., 19. and 20. century.
• The goods produced in the area seem to be rather large blobs of the same, especially when ccompared to the lowlands, which were economically quite simliar. Also livestock was significantly less viable at the time. The primary economic driver was peat bog cultivation, so peat, salt, sturdy grains, fish and wood/lumber. Significant parts of the forsts were cut down during the later middle ages leading to an expansion of the bogs.

Edit: I added a (modern) map with german peat bogs. Historical maps will be moore difficult to find.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

i edited pomerania a bit, i cut Rugen and the isles on the Stettin lagoon into 2 and made Wolgast on the mainland strait instead on the isles

 

[Dr_Spleen]

So I have updated my first post (here are the new things):
...

Regarding eastern Swabia this is good solution I want to support.

And I want to use this post to also support the creating of the Helfenstein Tag that owns Heidenheim.
If I see it correctly, and @pavia can correct me, but what tag is owning Heidenheim and Dillingen in the original map? Augusta Vindelikorum? In what relationship is this tag standing to the Bishopric of Augsburg?

 

[Palando]

Regarding eastern Swabia this is good solution I want to support.

And I want to use this post to also support the creating of the Helfenstein Tag that owns Heidenheim.
If I see it correctly, and @pavia can correct me, but what tag is owning Heidenheim and Dillingen in the original map? Augusta Vindelikorum? In what relationship is this tag standing to the Bishopric of Augsburg?

Thanks.

I think they used Augusta Vindelicorum instead of Bishopric of Augsburg. Obviously the tag should be called like that, because Augusta Vindelicorum is the Latin name of Augsburg.

 

[Dr_Spleen]

Thanks.

I think they used Augusta Vindelicorum instead of Bishopric of Augsburg. Obviously the tag should be called like that, because Augusta Vindelicorum is the Latin name of Augsburg.

But then I'm confused why the tag to the south is Aug. and is not connected to the rest. Is Aug the city and vindelikorum the bishopric? Nonetheless it should be Helfenstein for the Heidenheim part.

 

[Palando]

But then I'm confused why the tag to the south is Aug. and is not connected to the rest. Is Aug the city and vindelikorum the bishopric? Nonetheless it should be Helfenstein for the Heidenheim part.

The Free City of Augsburg owns Augsburg itself, while the Bishopric of Augsburg has its capital in Dillingen.

 

[Pek]

I do like it a lot, it's pretty well done.
Specifically the representation of the Polabians still being there, but slowly fading due to Germanization, Sorbians being a lot more prevalent than today.
And Silisians being a different group of lechtics instead of being Germanic, but making a difference between Silisian German and Silisian.

My only correction or recalibration, or even gripe with the map is that Romansh and Ladins should be more relevant in their regions, I.e. Switzerland, Tyrol, Trentino and Veneto.
Mountainous Veneto, Trentino is almost completely Ladin, at the time.
And Romansh/Romach/Romancio was far more prevalent in Elvetia at the time, only nowadays being replaced by German.
While I think South Baverian can be simply swapped bc it's "misleading", should be better adding Tyrolean and Alpine German, or alongs those lines, bc Tyrol, and Austria propper already have significant differences.
I would add that at the time Dalmatian and Friulan(or in this case Istriot) was very much more diffused.
I would remove Friulan expanding the Venetian culture, and adding Istriot in place, would be more correct.

Or making Istria it's own region, since it's pretty unique and different culturally, a bit of a melting pot thanks to the position, and pretty interesting culturally for the mixed heritage of Italics(Dalmatians and Istriots) and Slavs(Slovenian and in general White Croats/Early Slav Inhabitants)
Regardless keep the good work!
Hope it's helpful as feedback, especially as a researcher studying the area!

 

[Demetrios]

I disagree with getting rid of Feldkirch as a location.
In the relevant time period, the town grew to be the richest and largest in the Lower Alpine-Rhine valley, overtaking Bregenz. It was home to a regionally significant school, also being the birthplace of Copernicus' student Rheticus.
Lichtenstein/Vaduz is known nowadays mostly because it survived as a microstate due to events in the 19th century, it was not historically significant prior to that. I support having Lichtenstein as a location for roleplay, but it should not come at the expense of Feldkirch.

Which is why I had the alternate suggestion of having them both as locations at the end of the post.