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

[Inzano]

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).

Then Carniola, Styria and Carinthia would be international organizations? And when only one actor remained within the territory, they would be terminated or become one of them as tag.

 

[BugBugar]

This looks so damn cool

Considering if there are any borders not yet set in stone -
I would love to see nature integrated into the map like more lakes or maybe some names for the different mountains and rivers.

You could arrange the borders so you maybe have to move around a lake or bigger rivers.

I used to grow up in bavaria and really love it's nature. We have for example the Starnberger See, Ammersee, Chiemsee, Forggensee etc so many lakes and that's just Bavaria alone imagine Mecklenburger Seenplatte or further away Masuria in Poland. It would make me and perhaps others nostalgic or finding themselves in their favourite places.

Also the different mountains in the Alps could maybe get some names so you find yourself familiar again.
As well as with the rivers which itself also host a big chunk of history.

You could integrate so many events and history to all those places and even locate them on the map

 

[Nhaiiar]

Angrian culture in northwest Germany:

The Angrians or Angrivarians were a tribe described by some Roman historians and also later during the Middle Ages around the year 1000. However, as someone from the region, I find it a bit odd to see them still existing in 1337 as a large group next to the "Lower Saxons". Historically speaking, the actual tribe of the Angrians dominated the entire area you depict them in, as well as the area you depict as Lower Saxons, but like I said around the 11th century.

If the Lower Saxons were not on the map, I would not really mind, but the thing is that in my understanding we as of today looking back understand it like the Angrians developed into the Lower Saxon culture over time and thus I'd find it nice if you rather homogenize them with the Lower Saxons or let them develop into that state over the first 100-ish years in the game, maybe, simulating the actual historical process. Please let them start as friendly towards each other, if you have cultural dimensions like that planned like you did in Vicky 3.

(btw, I am fully aware that as a political name on the map, the region of Engern (Angria) was still used into the 1800s in German laws and titles, but I'm strictly talking about the culture, which should not really exist as something apart from Lower Saxon culture in the last century of the Middle Ages.)

 

[Linbot#6018]

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.

I think this is important to represent in the game, especially since if Austria is ever partitioned or divided, it would almost certainly be along the borders of these different lands. Aside from this, an "governorship" subject type would be very useful all over the world for many kind of nuanced political situations.

 

[chpf]

Why is pruthenian not it's own culture?
It looks like it is larger then polabian (which could arguably be united with the sorbs into wendish; like in ck3)
And even in the east of prussia its the dominate culture

 

[HoIo]

As I'm looking at my Home Region.
1st: Eckernf(ö)rde the ö is important. Unless that was the way it was written back then.
Slesvig is recognized by googling a bit but I always thought that Schleswig is the way it's written.

 

[DOURIOS]

I have to say I am pleasantry surprised that you have added the Oswiecim- Zywiek locations as a vassal under Bohemia and part of the HRE (they are usually not included as part of Bohemian Silesia since Poland acquired them in the 15th century and are often overlooked).


A brief history for these locations, In 1337 those two locations were part of the duchy of Oswiecim, the duchy came under the control of Bohemia at the same time as the rest of Silesia however those two locations (who make the duchy of Oswiecim) would be purchased by the Polish king Casimir IV Jagiellon in 1457. And it's for this reason that those locations are often forgotten to be added in the HRE. There is however a third location, Siewierz which was a part of the duchy of Bytom (that was a vassal of Bohemia) and part of the HRE in 1337 (the town would come under de facto Polish rule in 1443 as it was purchased by Zbigniew Oleśnicki, the bishop of Kraków it will however remain a part of the HRE).

No unto the maps, unfortunately Siewierz doesn't exist as a location in the map so I decided to add it. Below you can see with white borders the location of Siewierz who should be part of Bytom at the start of the game.

I have also marked with white a proposed correction for the border of Oswiecim as the location didn't reach that far southeast, so the area of the white marked stripes should be given to Zakopane (It isn't shown on the map but it's the location southeast of Oswiecim with a light tin colour), while the red border signifies the boundaries of the HRE and Poland.


Basically the below map is the changes am proposing, Siewierz becomes a new location as part of Bytom at the start and a member of the HRE while a more accurate border for the Oswiecim Duchy.

This is an excellent 1444 map of Silesia that shows the locations borders and their affiliations (and so highly detailed!).

 

[Palando]

View attachment 1168156

I have the feeling that this province of Bohemia is very lacking compared to other provinces around it. Pisek looks like the biggest location in the region.

So I made a proposal for Southern Bohemia because I would not forgive me to not have made a proposal for this.

In general I tried to follow the borders between Prácheňsko and Bechyňsko which they seemingly also used.
For the subdivisions I took inspiration from maps from the late Habsburg monarchy, as I could not find further subdivisions dating to before that.

Province Prácheňsko (I gave it its tentacle into Klatovy):
Prácheň (old)
Písek (old)
Prachatice was an important city along the salt trade route.
Strakonice was seat of the important noble family, Bavorové ze Strakonic.

Province Bechyňsko:
Bechyně (old)
Budějovice (old)
Krumlov (old)
Vyšší Brod was one of the most important abbeys (Cistercians) in the Bohemian kingdom. It housed Závišův kříž from the end of the 13th century, one of the most famous and precious treasures of Bohemia.
Jindřichův Hradec was the main castle of the Páni z Hradce (one of the Vítkovci). It's also included in EU IV.
Sezimovo Ústí replaced Tábor. The province should change its name via an event during the Hussite Wars.
Pelhřimov had a nearby silver mine and was a city re-founded and owned by the bishops of Prague (until they lost it in 1416).
(I know that the addition of Pelhřimov might be heresy for southern Bohemians but their later crematorium is still known to this day ).

Spoiler: Map of the Kingdom of Bohemia

Lands of the Czech Crown fix (WIP)

Locations:
Tábor was founded by hussites, Soběslav was the most important city there in early modern era
Pernštejn->Doubravnický Újezd or shortly Doubravník
Jáchymov was founded in 16th century. Maybe rename it to Ostrov
Český Krumlov->Krumlov

Provinces:
Historically Bohemia was divided into 12 Kraj during 14th century (pražský, slánský, žatecký, litoměřický ,boleslavský, hradecký, chrudimský, čáslavský, bechyňský, prácheňský, plzeňský a rakovnický).
Which means...
that Slánský and Rakovnický was merged into Pražsko, OK.
Chrudimský and Čáslavský were merged into Posázavsko, OK
Bechyňský a Prácheňský were merged into "Jihočesko", maybe divide it? Jihočesko is fairly big.

Moravia was divided into 5 Krajs, which perfectly fits PC provinces.

Posázavsko-> Posázaví

Grammar:
Diacritics were not used in 14th century
Some locations had German majority and can have German names. E.g. Ústí nad Labem->Außig

Resources:
Jihlava: Silver (mining stops in 16th century, rgo sould switch perhaps to wool)

Special mechanics:
Cheb is a vassal (free city), you have to buy it from the empire. Historically it was bought in 1348 for the price of 10 tons of silver.
In 1378 silver mines in Jihlava are damage by flooding
In 1512 silver is found in Jáchymov
Silver mining in general should be very important. It allows the country to overcome its geographic limitations until it runs out.

Sources

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/10195/39632/SadilkovaA_VyvojKrajskeho_MCH_2011.pdf

Map for 17th century divisions

From what I found Soběslav was less important than (Sezimovo) Ústí, as the former received city rights only in 1390 whereas the latter was already a city in the 13th century. Because Tábor should replace the settlement name via an event, Sezimovo Ústí makes much more sense (there were only a little more than 20 years for Soběslav as a city before Tábor was founded).

 

[DePapstOnline]

Hey Guys I'm a bit late to the party. Great map, thank you so much. I have some suggestions:
1. Can you please make Cologne a city-state as it was historically since 1288 (Battle of Worringen).
2. Kurköln, the archbishopship of Cologne had its capital at the city of Bonn, which you gave to the Count of Berg. I don't get that location. Following the rhine down to andernach everything there belonged to the archbishop.
3. Its Nordrhein-Westfalen in German, Nordrhein-Westpfalen is just strange

 

[Mef]

As I said, Fürth wasn't important but Cadolzburg was even less important, as the area in general was sparsely populated.

That is just completely wrong. How often do we have to repeat this?
There is no good reason for Fürth to be included:

• It never had a large population
• It never had political influence or importance (not a free city, just a market village)
• It didn't project any control over significant territory and was basically a tiny exclave of Bamberg
• Bamberg's (or anyone else's) control over it was very low for almost the entire game's timeframe and the citizens basically lived in a state of semi-independence
• It has no important resources or industry during the game's timeframe

I just can't understand why you want it in the game so badly. There is no reason for it.
On the other hand, there are obvious reasons for Cadolzburg to be included: While it didn't have much population either (no town in this area did), it was the capital of the Ansbach "country" at the start of the game and it controlled most of the territory that makes up the current Fürth location. That makes it way more important for this time period. If this was Victoria, I'd certainly want Fürth included, but it doesn't make sense in this time period.

Anyway, the argument can be decided both ways, so you should not throw 'ahistorical' at what the devs have done so far. They really don't deserve this, especially not in this case.

It is absolutely ahistorical. They just named the locations after the three modern major cities in the region, which is certainly fine for Nürnberg, okay for Erlangen, but doesn't work for Fürth.
There is no need to get defensive on behalf of the devs. There have been many major errors in the maps shown so far, and that's okay, the threads are there to fix them.

 

[Mrkew]

On what basis is moravian a separate culture?

 

[Thales von Dasos]

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
View attachment 1168741

Usedom wasn't even called Usedom yet

 

[Mef]

it really is not though, there are some sporadic and honestly flat hills here and there around Maastricht but not like around Aachen or south of Liege.

This year's Amstel Gold Race had 3290 vertical meters:

This basically covers most of the Maastricht location in the game. Not big hills, but a lot of them. That's why making Maastricht hilly came up several times in the Low Countries threads.
But anyway, that's not really something for the Germany thread.

 

[Inzano]

On what basis is moravian a separate culture?

Maybe because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravians

 

[Polesie Admiral]

Usedom wasn't even called Usedom yet

would Pudagla be a better name?

 

[Palando]

That is just completely wrong. How often do we have to repeat this?
There is no good reason for Fürth to be included:

• It never had a large population
• It never had political influence or importance (not a free city, just a market village)
• It didn't project any control over significant territory and was basically a tiny exclave of Bamberg
• Bamberg's (or anyone else's) control over it was very low for almost the entire game's timeframe and the citizens basically lived in a state of semi-independence
• It has no important resources or industry during the game's timeframe

I just can't understand why you want it in the game so badly. There is no reason for it.
On the other hand, there are obvious reasons for Cadolzburg to be included: While it didn't have much population either (no town in this area did), it was the capital of the Ansbach "country" at the start of the game and it controlled most of the territory that makes up the current Fürth location. That makes it way more important for this time period. If this was Victoria, I'd certainly want Fürth included, but it doesn't make sense in this time period.

It is absolutely ahistorical. They just named the locations after the three modern major cities in the region, which is certainly fine for Nürnberg, okay for Erlangen, but doesn't work for Fürth.
There is no need to get defensive on behalf of the devs. There have been many major errors in the maps shown so far, and that's okay, the threads are there to fix them.

I just can't understand why you want to remove it from the game so badly. There is no absoluet reason for it to be either way. You're just repeating over and over your position and don't accept anything else. Everyone who disagrees has to hate history and is 'absolutely ahistorical'. You also just assume that the devs did a lazy job and picked some cities which needs to be proven, as it's just a claim on your part. You're now just spilling out vitriolic hate.

Anyway:

1. Wrong. The game starts in 1337 and ends with the Napoleonic era. Before the 30YW, its population was around 1,000 to 2,000, granted rather minor, but still more than Cadolzburg had even in 1800. After the 30YW, Huguenots and others settled also in Fürth, increasing its population to some 6,000 by the early 18th century. This further increased until the Napoleonic era to some 12,000. Cadolzburg supposedly still had less than 1,000 inhabitants, i.e. Fürth was by more than one order of magnitude bigger.
2. Cadolzburg itself didn't have political influence either. It just happened to be a castle with an administrative centre for the region. Fürth was, and I grant you that, a smaller administrative centre for Bamberg. It was at least important enough for three parties fighting each other to get it.
3. Again, this part of the HRE was terribly fragmented and your 'projection' is an odd concept altogether. Don't force me to count the pixels and give you exact numbers. You're gerrymandering of all the non-Hohenzollern and non-Bamberger territories out of its province and downsizing an already small province to further your point.
4. Again, I will repeat it again and again. The conflict over Fürth makes for a fascinating story and associated events. The inclusion of Cadolzburg would not give you anything like that.
5. And what important industry did Cadolzburg have? Fürth at least got a thriving industry at the end of the 17th century.

It's still beyond me why you can't accept that there are two options and the devs should choose whether they'd rather focus on this conflict and Fürth's importance in the second half of the game or rather go with Cadolzburg which was only important in the 14th century. The latter's influence declined until Fürth alone had more inhabitants than the rural areas all together in 1800. History just doesn't end after the 14th or 15th centuries, after all, the game continues until the Napoleonic age.

 

[Mef]

I just can't understand why you want to remove it from the game so badly. There is no absoluet reason for it to be either way. You're just repeating over and over your position and don't accept anything else. Everyone who disagrees has to hate history and is 'absolutely ahistorical'. You also just assume that the devs did a lazy job and picked some cities which needs to be proven, as it's just a claim on your part. You're now just spilling out vitriolic hate.

Vitriolic hate? You're the one who argues in bad faith non-stop and keeps repeating what I write. What is this childish behavior?
Why are you making this so personal? It's simply a matter of historical accuracy.

Wrong. The game starts in 1337 and ends with the Napoleonic era. Before the 30YW, its population was around 1,000 to 2,000, granted rather minor, but still more than Cadolzburg had even in 1800. After the 30YW, Huguenots and others settled also in Fürth, increasing its population to some 6,000 by the early 18th century. This further increased until the Napoleonic era to some 12,000. Cadolzburg supposedly still had less than 1,000 inhabitants, i.e. Fürth was by more than one order of magnitude bigger.

The starting set-up is based on 1337. You can't take the 18th century into account. That's, for example, why Manchester isn't on the map. Warsaw isn't on the map.
It doesn't make sense to add a village to a fragmented region in 1337 because it welcomed settlers in the 18th century after having been burned down in the Thirty Years War.

Cadolzburg itself didn't have political influence either. It just happened to be a castle with an administrative centre for the region. Fürth was, and I grant you that, a smaller administrative centre for Bamberg. It was at least important enough for three parties fighting each other to get it.

How did it have no political influence when it was literally the seat of a ruler from an important family? Fürth was not an administrative center, it was the city itself that was administered. There was no significant land around it that it would have administered, like Cadolzburg did. And yes, it wasn't very populated land, but it was fairly contiguous land that is represented in the game on the map.

Again, this part of the HRE was terribly fragmented and your 'projection' is an odd concept altogether. Don't force me to count the pixels and give you exact numbers. You're gerrymandering of all the non-Hohenzollern and non-Bamberger territories out of its province and downsizing an already small province to further your point.

I've shown you the map and you have not responded with any comment that makes sense. Most of the current Fürth location in the game was made up by the Cadolzburg 'province' of the Hohenzollern territory. That is just a fact.

Again, I will repeat it again and again. The conflict over Fürth makes for a fascinating story and associated events. The inclusion of Cadolzburg would not give you anything like that.

You are out of your mind if you think anyone cares about the conflict over Fürth. The city was so unimportant that three neighboring rulers were basically fine with it coming under various influences.
To me, it's much more flavorful to have an actual castle from the time period that was the seat of the Margrave, rather than a village that only became important during industrialization, mostly after the end of the game.

And what important industry did Cadolzburg have? Fürth at least got a thriving industry at the end of the 17th century.

Another bad faith argument. Obviously I didn't say that all points are true for Cadolzburg, just that they are all missing for Fürth, while Cadolzburg at least had political and territorial importance. 2>0

It's still beyond me why you can't accept that there are two options and the devs should choose whether they'd rather focus on this conflict and Fürth's importance in the second half of the game or rather go with Cadolzburg which was only important in the 14th century. The latter's influence declined until Fürth alone had more inhabitants than the rural areas all together in 1800. History just doesn't end after the 14th or 15th centuries, after all, the game continues until the Napoleonic age.

Again, the map shows the state in 1337 and what we've seen so far from the map threads is that a lot of cities that became important later in the game are not included in the maps. You just admitted that Fürth shouldn't be included in a 14th century map, so I guess you actually agree with me.

 

[Thorum]

From what I can tell, the lowest population country there has 11k people.

Can't wait till someone figures out a WC with them.

Check the Irish map, there's a country with 1396 pops (Con. - so Connaught I guess?)

 

[Pentabyte]

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.

Overdid is maybe an overstatement and of course there was probably more forest back 1337 than nowadays. However as seen in the following image, most of the deforestation in western and central Europe was already done by 1500 and I think locations should probably portrait the vegetation they had for longest time during the period the game is set.

...Unless of course there is a game mechanic that allows us to deforest locations (!?, hint at devs)

 

[Pbhuh]

So having taken some time to review the entire post in more details. One of the current things that bothers me and I guess the developers struggled with this too is the amount of cultures and confusing nature of them in Northern Germany and specifically the Low German/Low Saxon varieties.

I've taken my time to prepare another map to illustrate some of the points I am trying to make:

Lower Saxon on the map is confusing. It primary seems to represent North Low Saxon varieties, yet it is listed as the entirety of Low Saxon. This is somewhat of an issue given that all dialects in the old Kingdom of Saxony were Low Saxon Dialects.

In Schleswig there should probably be more danish. It should either be a mixture of Danish and Holsatian or even further north it should be fully german, like in Flensburg.

Meanwhile in the west Frisian is primarily influenced and eventually replaced by North Low Saxon varieties under the influence of Oldenburg, Groningen (Technically Westphalian town) and the Hanseatic League, this is seen today in dialect of Gronings/Oostfries being very similar to Oldenburgish and not to varieties in the Netherlands in the East such as Drents, Stellingwerfs, Twents or Veluws

Early Modern Dialects were placed in the fashion shown below:

Now this isn't a fully accurate representation of the time, but wouldn't be far off from at least creating some distinctions.

I've taken the personal liberty to describe North Low Saxon as the Hanseatic Main Tongue, while this is somewhat disputed that such a tongue existed. It may help to pick this name to avoid north south east names for dialects and given that this variety is primarily spoken by most of the hanseatic towns which later become important (Bremen, Hamburg) I think it is an option.

Meanwhile it is somewhat odd to see the name Brandenburgish and Märkish as both refer to the same thing. Märkish comes from the Margriavate of Brandenburg, so one name should be chosen or new names should be chosen altogether if there was a specific reason to seperate the two. But I could not figure this one out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchian

Now Angrian is a dialect I did not see much evidence for or at least in this time period it seems to have been subsumed by nearby dialects.

This shows a part of the Duchy of Angria.

While Holsatian can be a nice modern continuation of Nordalbingia region of the Kingdom of Saxony, I think that North Low Saxon should be the modern replacement of any angrian dialects. At least for this period.


Apart from all the dialect things I would also like to focus a bit on North Germany in general:

The Frisian Sealands are still somewhat of a factor in this time. Jever should at all cost shrink a little to allow for much better future borders and allow for Wilhelmshaven's founding in later game.
The area roughly covered by Rüstringen gau was still disputed between independence and being part of Oldenburg and wouldn't become part of Oldenburg until later in 14th century. Varel could make a choice of a town. It was somewhat larger than Elsfleth, though I don't think it matters that much.
The lands of Hadeln and Würsten are very close together and would make for a decent location together with the current choice already made of Ritzebüttel. I would use Otterndorf for the earlier period where Hadeln was still an interesting region as it creates more gameplay opportunities. Later it can be acquired by Hamburg with Ritzebüttel or Cuxhaven as a name.

With regards to provinces I have done some more modern areas than shown. I'd personally add Ratzeburg to Lübeck. Mecklenburg should be split in 2 or 3 provinces. I went with 3, based on Wismar/Schwerin, Rostock and (Mecklenburg)-Strelitz. I would extend the Uckermark from Brandenburg to the mouth of the Ucker and shrink Stralsund to only contain areas associated with Pomerania. Meanwhile Neumark can be that unique shape we all know and love from Europa Universalis.
Altmark should only contain locations that were in the old Stemduchy of Saxony and not the Eastern March. Prignitz can subsume them with Ruppin, while Mittelmark is now in the actual middle of the Brandenburger March.

In 1124, Varel was first mentioned in a document, a list of possessions of the monastery at Rastede. The St. Julian's flood of 1164 was the first of many flood disasters recorded in history. It caused partly permanent flooding and the creation of the sea inlet the Jadeboezem[5]. At that time, Varel was part of the gouw Rüstringen, and was one of the quarter capitals of this gouw. Gradually, the rule in the region was transferred to semi-independent Frisian chieftains, but around 1350 the County of Oldenburg increasingly gained influence. In 1386, there was a first submission to Count Koenraad II of Oldenburg; in 1481, the Oldenburg rule would have become definitive with the death of Hayo, the last chieftain. From 1577 to 1647, the Delmenhorst side line of the House of Oldenburg temporarily ruled over the city. Afterwards, Anton I of Aldenberg (1633-1680), as a vassal of the Counts of Oldenburg, took over the administration of Varel and the Lordship of Kniphausen. When the County of Oldenburg became Danish by inheritance in 1667, Anton I remained in power as stadtholder for the Danish king. Anton I, who also owned Doorwerth Castle near Arnhem for some time, was of great importance to the town of Varel. He had the old castle converted into a more modern residence and founded the orphanage.

Varel (stad) - Wikipedia

nl.wikipedia.org

Geschichte von Hadeln und Wursten – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org