-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Liubartas only ruled Lutsk and Volodymyr until Yuri II's death in 1340, he was not Grand Prince of Volhynia yet.
You could do like this, they start as a duchy and:
Catholic=Grand duchy(historical option)
Romuva=Kingdom(through a decision where they remain pagan and declare themselves kings to boost their authority that the pope did not give)
Orthodox=Grand Principality(to put themselves above the other rus principalities by claiming themselves as the heirs of Kievan Rus)
- 2
- 1
Hi,
Great work!
I've made a feedback on the original post about this region, but right now I see, that some locations in Estonia are even worse, than they've been before. First of all, some locations are in the wrong place. Other point of critique - some locations could be somewhat relevant at the starting date, in role of some knightly manors in minor villages, or church parishes belonging either to Livonian Order or local bishoprics, but will be completely irrelevant and forgotten later in history.
0. Thank You for not ignoring the Võrtsjärv lake!
1. On the map, Wolde (Valjala) is located nowhere near the place it really located and this north-south divide of Saaremaa seems unnatural. It would be better to divide it diagonally, with North-Eastern part being Wolde and South-Western part being Arensburg and line divide in the centre. But considering the start date, it would be better to add Maasilinna (Sonneburg), owned by the Livonian Order, instead of Valjala, as both Valjala and Kuressaare were owned by the bishopric and not the Order.
2. I am not really sure, what St. Martins means to represent, but I assume that it's based on Martna church parish (Martens, if You prefer German). The thing is, it's nowhere near it's location on the map, and also it would not make any sense to add some kind of local village as a location.
3. Same applies to Saarahof, Gross St. Johannis and Vasknarva. First is merely a manor, second is a small town, and third is a minor castle, which was pretty relevant up until 17th century, they don't really add anything to the map, just filling the free space. There are always better solutions and better used space, than adding random parishes and manors.
4. Again, same point about Wendau. It's in wrong place. And it's a completely irrelevant place, adding nothing.
5. It's hard to see where border between Toolse and Rakvere is located, but it seems that Toolse has moved Rakvere from it's original place. I don't thnik that adding Toolse is required, as it was also a castle and was relevant until the end of Livonian order, but there was nothing of significant afterwards.
6. Keinis (Käina) wasn't mentioned before 1522, and likely didn't exist at the start of the game, as population on island of Hiiumaa was really scarce, even temporary and seasonal in most places, and Grossenhof (Suuremõisa) was more relevant during the middle ages, with it's gothic stone church. But later the most significant settlement would become Kärdla (Kertel) and it would remain the only real town on the island until today, so I would that's more appropriate choice. Either that or Grossenhof.
7. Don't understand why Wolmar got a piece of Southern Estonia, as it has nothing to do with that historically.
8. I am not really see the need of making Tartu and Rotalia their own provinces with such a small number of locations. There were bishoprics, that can be seen as "counties" in simplyfied county-duchy-kingdom rank system, and it could be somewhat reasonable for the Middle Ages and the Livonian order, but would make no sense later down the line, when territory of Livonia was always diveded into provinces of Curonia, Livonia and Estonia. So I believe it's better to use theres historical provinces, not creating new. Province of Livonia could be divided into Northern and Southern parts, as they were culturally different.
My first feedback included the Latvian part of Livonia, but I will not comment on it right now, as I have much less historical knowledge about it.
As I see it, locations must be added according to these principles: they posses significant historical value as a centres of smaller areas, and they were economically or politically important during the duration of the game. According to this, my proposed version of the map, with it's Latvian parts updated by Paparrde is much better at this, as all locations are at least somewhat relevant both at the start of the game, and later. It also respects historical and cultural boundaries between historic provinces and allow for real historic outcomes.
I will also include German and Estonian location names for every location on my version of the map:
Great work!
I've made a feedback on the original post about this region, but right now I see, that some locations in Estonia are even worse, than they've been before. First of all, some locations are in the wrong place. Other point of critique - some locations could be somewhat relevant at the starting date, in role of some knightly manors in minor villages, or church parishes belonging either to Livonian Order or local bishoprics, but will be completely irrelevant and forgotten later in history.
0. Thank You for not ignoring the Võrtsjärv lake!
1. On the map, Wolde (Valjala) is located nowhere near the place it really located and this north-south divide of Saaremaa seems unnatural. It would be better to divide it diagonally, with North-Eastern part being Wolde and South-Western part being Arensburg and line divide in the centre. But considering the start date, it would be better to add Maasilinna (Sonneburg), owned by the Livonian Order, instead of Valjala, as both Valjala and Kuressaare were owned by the bishopric and not the Order.
2. I am not really sure, what St. Martins means to represent, but I assume that it's based on Martna church parish (Martens, if You prefer German). The thing is, it's nowhere near it's location on the map, and also it would not make any sense to add some kind of local village as a location.
3. Same applies to Saarahof, Gross St. Johannis and Vasknarva. First is merely a manor, second is a small town, and third is a minor castle, which was pretty relevant up until 17th century, they don't really add anything to the map, just filling the free space. There are always better solutions and better used space, than adding random parishes and manors.
4. Again, same point about Wendau. It's in wrong place. And it's a completely irrelevant place, adding nothing.
5. It's hard to see where border between Toolse and Rakvere is located, but it seems that Toolse has moved Rakvere from it's original place. I don't thnik that adding Toolse is required, as it was also a castle and was relevant until the end of Livonian order, but there was nothing of significant afterwards.
6. Keinis (Käina) wasn't mentioned before 1522, and likely didn't exist at the start of the game, as population on island of Hiiumaa was really scarce, even temporary and seasonal in most places, and Grossenhof (Suuremõisa) was more relevant during the middle ages, with it's gothic stone church. But later the most significant settlement would become Kärdla (Kertel) and it would remain the only real town on the island until today, so I would that's more appropriate choice. Either that or Grossenhof.
7. Don't understand why Wolmar got a piece of Southern Estonia, as it has nothing to do with that historically.
8. I am not really see the need of making Tartu and Rotalia their own provinces with such a small number of locations. There were bishoprics, that can be seen as "counties" in simplyfied county-duchy-kingdom rank system, and it could be somewhat reasonable for the Middle Ages and the Livonian order, but would make no sense later down the line, when territory of Livonia was always diveded into provinces of Curonia, Livonia and Estonia. So I believe it's better to use theres historical provinces, not creating new. Province of Livonia could be divided into Northern and Southern parts, as they were culturally different.
My first feedback included the Latvian part of Livonia, but I will not comment on it right now, as I have much less historical knowledge about it.
As I see it, locations must be added according to these principles: they posses significant historical value as a centres of smaller areas, and they were economically or politically important during the duration of the game. According to this, my proposed version of the map, with it's Latvian parts updated by Paparrde is much better at this, as all locations are at least somewhat relevant both at the start of the game, and later. It also respects historical and cultural boundaries between historic provinces and allow for real historic outcomes.
I will also include German and Estonian location names for every location on my version of the map:
- Estland - Nortern Estonia:
Reval, Tallinn
Rappel, Rapla
Padis, Padise
Waissenstein, Paide
Wesenberg, Rakvere
Narwa, Narva
Hapsal, Haapsalu
Leal, Lihula
Kertel, Kärdla - Nord-Livland - Northern part of Livonia (or Southern Estonia) with majority Estonian populace:
Dorpat, Tartu
Oberpahlen, Põltsamaa
Walk, Valga
Neuhausen, Vastseliina
Fellin, Viljandi
Karkus, Karksi
Pernau, Pärnu
Alt-Pernau, Vana-Pärnu
Soneburg, Maasilinna
Arensburg, Kuressaare
Attachments
- 9
- 5
The names of locations and provinces on the territory of modern Belarus (White Ruthenia, Black Ruthenia and Polesia) is still all over the place.
Most names are transliiterated from Belarusian - e.g. Masyr, Kobryn.
Others from Russian - e.g. Polotsk, Turov (Polatsk, Turaw in Belarussian).
Then there is incosistency in transliteration. Belarussian "ў" sometimes is trasliterated as "w" (Barysaw) and other times as "ŭ" (Rakaŭ).
Why is province called Bresta but location is Brest Litowsk (the name which was only used from XII century till WW1). The old name of the city is Berestya, the modern one - Brest.
Overall, I think it would be better if you stick to either only modern Belarusian names or Ruthenian (also called West Russian, Old Belarussian, Old Ukranian) names used before the Union of Lublin (1569).
Most names are transliiterated from Belarusian - e.g. Masyr, Kobryn.
Others from Russian - e.g. Polotsk, Turov (Polatsk, Turaw in Belarussian).
Then there is incosistency in transliteration. Belarussian "ў" sometimes is trasliterated as "w" (Barysaw) and other times as "ŭ" (Rakaŭ).
Why is province called Bresta but location is Brest Litowsk (the name which was only used from XII century till WW1). The old name of the city is Berestya, the modern one - Brest.
Overall, I think it would be better if you stick to either only modern Belarusian names or Ruthenian (also called West Russian, Old Belarussian, Old Ukranian) names used before the Union of Lublin (1569).
- 6
- 1
So does Kyiv(which is ruled by Gediminas brother) have an alliance with Lithuania, are they also at war with the Teutons?
@Pavía I noticed that in the country types tinto talks Danzig had an Hanseatic building that should not be the case since the city joined the league in 1356
- 8
- 2
Let's not be greedy, russians already have a lot of locations. This location was still disputed even in the 20th century.
- 1
Project Caesar differentiate between locations and provinces. What you mean are locations which are regarding their names are indeed based on City/Towns. Province comprise a number of various locations. So far some provinces in PC are named after location or referr to the area those locations are situated in. The later option is what I preferr.
I see that you have done some changes around Maramures like Rakhiv and modifying the shapes of the wastelands, no?
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
@Pavía What was the reason to divide Ruthenian in this way? Why are Halychian and Volhynian splitted? Why linguistic maps were not used for the splitups?
- 1
2. for the cultures in central Poland, they were already present before the feedback:
I assume the gray one is German since you can also see it in Silesia and Lusatia, which means Ashkenazi is the orange-brownish culture.
- 1
Those are just a couple, but there are. not plenty so far or it is not the norm, but there are
It's better to stick with the name Latvians for this time period, although Latgalians and Latvians have always been synonyms historically. Curonian was a Western Baltic language and very different from Latvian (we can see that from just looking at toponyms). The Latvian and Latgalian split appeared sometime in the modern era, possibly because of Latgale staying seperate from the rest of Latvia after the dissolution of the Livonian Order (there's no clear knowledge, when exactly and how it happened, but this is assumed to be a likely scenario).
Etymology of Latvian/Latvia can be seen here.
I suggest reading a book (in Latvian) by Viktors Ivbulis - Indoeiropiešu Pirmdzimtenes meklējumi mūsdienās saistībā ar Indiju un Baltiem. It talks and compares many sources and theories about the Baltic languages and the origins of Latvians and Indo-Europeans. The title mentions India, because in the last chapter it disproves the outdated pseudo-science theory sometimes spread by Indians and some Baltic people without lnguistic knowledge that we come from India.
EDIT: misunderstood your post a bit.
- 1
