Tinto Maps #18 Persia & Caucasus Feedback

[L1nk48]

Regarding paganism, I would like to provide you with sources describing the deities of the Lezgian peoples, though these sources are in Russian:

Алпанские языки » Статьи » Культура » Теонимы в лезгинской лексике

Доисламская духовная культура лезгин

Доисламская духовная культура лезгин

flnka.ru

As for the symbols that could be used on flags:
Animals: Eagles, lions, and the East Caucasian tur (Capra cylindricornis); Celestial bodies: Sun, star(s), and crescent; Religious symbols; Human figures; Weapons; Geographic relief.
In the attached images, I’ve provided examples of modern flags and local symbolism.

 

[L1nk48]

Since the information about this time frame is so scarce (due to Timur's shenanigans), we don't actually know who the wife of Giorgi V is.

According to the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy:

"King Giorgi’s wife could have been either: (1) the daughter of Mikhael Megas Komnenos (emperor in Trebizond 1343-1349), suggesting that the marriage would probably have taken place only after Mikhael returned to Trebizond from Constantinople in [1341], meaning that she could not have been the mother of King Davit IX; or (2) an unrecorded daughter of Emperor Mikhael IX, who would have been born in the late 13th/early 14th century (and so could have been Davit’s mother) and was ignored by Byzantine sources.

Hence, it's up to the developers to decide which queen to choose. It's quite an important decision, by the way - giving Georgia a scripted royal marriage with either Byzantium or Trebizond will definitely impact the way the game plays out.

So, historicity is one thing, but gameplay must also be considered.

I lean toward the idea that George V was married to a daughter of the Byzantine emperor, as this seems to be the most plausible option for the mother of David IX, as you mentioned. I would suggest representing this marriage through an event, where the player or AI can choose who his wife was — or alternatively, have her assigned randomly.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

Shirvan/Azerbaijan Feedback

As nobody has written much about the sub-region, I'll do it.


1. Political Map

As I've written already, Saarishiano/Shaki should control all of the province of Shaki, instead of Shirvan (see "7. Religion" for more detail).

Shirvan should probably remain in the Ilkhanate, as a subject of the Jalayirid faction. As far as I can tell, they shouldn't be independent in 1337.

2. Country Ranks

Shirvan should be a duchy-rank realm.

In Persian tradition, many regional rulers (even during Parthian times) ruled territories autonomously from the Shahanshah, claiming titles such as "Arranshah", "Tabaristanshah", etc. but weren't "kings" per se. In many ways, this system of nomenclature is a vestige of the even older Achaemenid system of Satraps. Even in the absence of a Shahanshah (or later, a Caliph), these polities only claimed to hold their power through greater rulers. Interestingly enough, most scholars believe that the name Shirvan is a corruption of the Old Persian Shahrbān, meaning governor.

And, as said previously, Saarishiano/Shaki should also be a duchy-rank realm, as a notable easternmost march of the kingdom of Georgia.

3. Locations

The location distribution and density are fine, but what I find odd is that there's a location called "Shirvān" in the northern part of the country, even though the toponym wasn't relegated to just 1 location. On top of that, the region where the name Shirvan was used wasn't even there. Shirvan, as defined in the middle ages, to quote Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, was such:

"The country of Shirvan to the east borders on the Caspian Sea, and to the south on the river Kur, which separates it from the provinces of Moghan and Armenia".

The western border moved westward with time, with the displacement of native Georgians and Armenians.

4. Provinces

Again, the province of Shirvan being north of the Caucasus is very odd. I suggest renaming the "Baku" province to "Shirvan", and "Shirvan" to "Derbent" (or whichever localisation you prefer).

Unrelated, but the province of "Kachen" seems to be misspelled.

5. Areas

As @Aramenian has already said, the province of "Muğan" should probably be in the "Azarbāyjān" area, considering historical, political, and geographical definitions.

Again, unrelated, but "Armenian Highlands" should also be merged with "Armenia", among other things.

6. Cultures

Armenians are vastly overrepresented in Arran, especially in the Ganja location. In 1337, Turco-Mongols inhabited that province, due to its very suitable terrain for pasture.

Lezgins hadn't yet migrated to the location of "Qakh" in 1337 (the process known as Lekianoba would only begin in the 18th century). I believe Georgians should be the majority in the location.

If the Lezgins do represent the former Caucasian Albanians, the Udins, then they should be majorities in the locations of "Vartashen", "Qəbələ", and "Göyçay" in the province of Shaki, and in "Quba", "Şabran", and "Shirvān" in the province of Shirvan.

The Adharis, subsequently known as Tats, in this regard, are quite overrepresented.

7. Religion

As said above, Armenian Apostolic Christians are overrepresented in the province of Arran.

As Shirvan was on the periphery of the Islamic world, the "20% rule" with regards to Zoroastrians actually makes a lot of sense. From personal experience, I've noticed that even particularly religious Shia Azeris to this day celebrate Nowruz.

Orthodox Christians are underrepresented in the province of Shaki, which only became Islamised after the genocidal invasions of the region by Shah Abbas in the 16th-17th centuries.

His policy of resettling entire communities deep into Iran, and in their place settling loyal Qizilbashes was highly effective at shifting the demographics of the eastern Caucasus.

Hence, I think Christian pops should be more numerous than Muslim ones, mostly in the western part of the province of Shaki.

According to Donald Rayfield in "Edge of Empires", this was precisely the reason why western Shirvan was directly annexed into the kingdom of Georgia by Demetrius I, while the rest was left as a vassal state:

"In 1129–30 Shirvan was split into two, the border being the Tetri Tsqali (Aksu) river: the northwest, and partly Christian half, was incorporated into Georgia, while Manuchehr was recognized as the emir of the eastern half, his independence limited by an obligation to pay taxes and to supply Demetre in wartime with ‘as many thousands of men as needed’."

According to the "Historical Atlas of Georgia":

"In 1155, monarchy was restored in Sharvan. The Sharvanshah became a vassal of the king (Muskhelishvili 1982: 52-57). Sharvan was divided into two parts. The western, Christian part, which extended eastwards as far as the mountains of Shamakha and the Tetrits'q'ali (White river) (KC II: 207, 251 = Georg.Chron.: 339, 359), was directly incorporated into Georgia as the Saeristavo of Shaki (Vardan cap. 74). Sharvanshah's sovereignty extended only over the eastern, Muslim, part of the territory."





Soo... yeah.

 

[L1nk48]

Shirvan/Azerbaijan Feedback

As nobody has written much about the sub-region, I'll do it.


1. Political Map

View attachment 1280593

As I've written already, Saarishiano/Shaki should control all of the province of Shaki, instead of Shirvan (see "7. Religion" for more detail).

Shirvan should probably remain in the Ilkhanate, as a subject of the Jalayirid faction. As far as I can tell, they shouldn't be independent in 1337.

2. Country Ranks

View attachment 1280595

Shirvan should be a duchy-rank realm.

In Persian tradition, many regional rulers (even during Parthian times) ruled territories autonomously from the Shahanshah, claiming titles such as "Arranshah", "Tabaristanshah", etc. but weren't "kings" per se. In many ways, this system of nomenclature is a vestige of the even older Achaemenid system of Satraps. Even in the absence of a Shahanshah (or later, a Caliph), these polities only claimed to hold their power through greater rulers. Interestingly enough, most scholars believe that the name Shirvan is a corruption of the Old Persian Shahrbān, meaning governor.

And, as said previously, Saarishiano/Shaki should also be a duchy-rank realm, as a notable easternmost march of the kingdom of Georgia.

3. Locations

View attachment 1280598

The location distribution and density are fine, but what I find odd is that there's a location called "Shirvān" in the northern part of the country, even though the toponym wasn't relegated to just 1 location. On top of that, the region where the name Shirvan was used wasn't even there. Shirvan, as defined in the middle ages, to quote Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, was such:

"The country of Shirvan to the east borders on the Caspian Sea, and to the south on the river Kur, which separates it from the provinces of Moghan and Armenia".

The western border moved westward with time, with the displacement of native Georgians and Armenians.

4. Provinces

View attachment 1280599

Again, the province of Shirvan being north of the Caucasus is very odd. I suggest renaming the "Baku" province to "Shirvan", and "Shirvan" to "Derbent" (or whichever localisation you prefer).

Unrelated, but the province of "Kachen" seems to be misspelled.

5. Areas

View attachment 1280605

As @Aramenian has already said, the province of "Muğan" should probably be in the "Azarbāyjān" area, considering historical, political, and geographical definitions.

Again, unrelated, but "Armenian Highlands" should also be merged with "Armenia", among other things.

6. Cultures

View attachment 1280606

Armenians are vastly overrepresented in Arran, especially in the Ganja location. In 1337, Turco-Mongols inhabited that province, due to its very suitable terrain for pasture.

Lezgins hadn't yet migrated to the location of "Qakh" in 1337 (the process known as Lekianoba would only begin in the 18th century). I believe Georgians should be the majority in the location.

If the Lezgins do represent the former Caucasian Albanians, the Udins, then they should be majorities in the locations of "Vartashen", "Qəbələ", and "Göyçay" in the province of Shaki, and in "Quba", "Şabran", and "Shirvān" in the province of Shirvan.

The Adharis, subsequently known as Tats, in this regard, are quite overrepresented.

7. Religion

View attachment 1280608

As said above, Armenian Apostolic Christians are overrepresented in the province of Arran.

As Shirvan was on the periphery of the Islamic world, the "20% rule" with regards to Zoroastrians actually makes a lot of sense. From personal experience, I've noticed that even particularly religious Shia Azeris to this day celebrate Nowruz.

Orthodox Christians are underrepresented in the province of Shaki, which only became Islamised after the genocidal invasions of the region by Shah Abbas in the 16th-17th centuries.

His policy of resettling entire communities deep into Iran, and in their place settling loyal Qizilbashes was highly effective at shifting the demographics of the eastern Caucasus.

Hence, I think Christian pops should be more numerous than Muslim ones, mostly in the western part of the province of Shaki.

According to Donald Rayfield in "Edge of Empires", this was precisely the reason why western Shirvan was directly annexed into the kingdom of Georgia by Demetrius I, while the rest was left as a vassal state:

"In 1129–30 Shirvan was split into two, the border being the Tetri Tsqali (Aksu) river: the northwest, and partly Christian half, was incorporated into Georgia, while Manuchehr was recognized as the emir of the eastern half, his independence limited by an obligation to pay taxes and to supply Demetre in wartime with ‘as many thousands of men as needed’."

According to the "Historical Atlas of Georgia":

"In 1155, monarchy was restored in Sharvan. The Sharvanshah became a vassal of the king (Muskhelishvili 1982: 52-57). Sharvan was divided into two parts. The western, Christian part, which extended eastwards as far as the mountains of Shamakha and the Tetrits'q'ali (White river) (KC II: 207, 251 = Georg.Chron.: 339, 359), was directly incorporated into Georgia as the Saeristavo of Shaki (Vardan cap. 74). Sharvanshah's sovereignty extended only over the eastern, Muslim, part of the territory."


View attachment 1280612


Soo... yeah.

1. Shirvan was conquered by the Jalayirids in 1368 by Uways I, but in 1386, under the rule of Ahmad, most of their territory was lost in the war with Timur. Shirvan regained its independence in the early 1380s with the rise of the new Derbendi dynasty. Internal conflicts between the sons of Uways I also played a significant role in Shirvan’s path to independence. As I’ve mentioned before, Shirvan became a vassal of Timur voluntarily — in return, its lands were spared from plunder, the Derbendi dynasty remained in power, and Timur exercised limited control over the state’s foreign policy. In simple terms, Shirvan acted as a marcher state under Timur, and after his death in 1405, it regained full independence.


3. This province should be named Khizi, while the city of Shirvan itself is located either in Mahmudabad or Gobustan.


4. Either Quba or Derbent.


6. I don’t deny that Georgians made up the majority in Gakh (Kakhi), but part of the population still remained Aghwan. I draw this conclusion based on the church in the village of Kum (not to be confused with the Iranian city), which is considered to feature a blend of Aghwan and Georgian architecture. If you have a source that says otherwise, feel free to share it — I’d be happy to take a look.
As for the resettlements, as far as I know, the first began under Shah Ismail I (Khatai), though the source I found was rather questionable, and it mentioned that mostly Avars were resettled.
Regarding the Armenians in Arran, I’ll leave here a map made by Aramenian.

7.The Armenian Apostolic Christianity in the region likely includes, at least in part, the Aghwan Catholicosate of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which was officially abolished only in 1830.

 

[SuperLexxe]

1. Shirvan was conquered by the Jalayirids in 1368 by Uways I, but in 1386, under the rule of Ahmad, most of their territory was lost in the war with Timur. Shirvan regained its independence in the early 1380s with the rise of the new Derbendi dynasty. Internal conflicts between the sons of Uways I also played a significant role in Shirvan’s path to independence. As I’ve mentioned before, Shirvan became a vassal of Timur voluntarily — in return, its lands were spared from plunder, the Derbendi dynasty remained in power, and Timur exercised limited control over the state’s foreign policy. In simple terms, Shirvan acted as a marcher state under Timur, and after his death in 1405, it regained full independence.


3. This province should be named Khizi, while the city of Shirvan itself is located either in Mahmudabad or Gobustan.


4. Either Quba or Derbent.


6. I don’t deny that Georgians made up the majority in Gakh (Kakhi), but part of the population still remained Aghwan. I draw this conclusion based on the church in the village of Kum (not to be confused with the Iranian city), which is considered to feature a blend of Aghwan and Georgian architecture. If you have a source that says otherwise, feel free to share it — I’d be happy to take a look.
As for the resettlements, as far as I know, the first began under Shah Ismail I (Khatai), though the source I found was rather questionable, and it mentioned that mostly Avars were resettled.
Regarding the Armenians in Arran, I’ll leave here a map made by Aramenian.
View attachment 1280997
7.The Armenian Apostolic Christianity in the region likely includes, at least in part, the Aghwan Catholicosate of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which was officially abolished only in 1830.

One small note I would add, is that the lowlands of Shaki likely held a minggan or less worth of Oirats/Mongols, as Shaki was ruled by the Arlat clan under the Georgians at this time.

This is likely as the great fortification against the Golden Horde was situated there and had an Oirat/Mongol officer corps. Only way I could explain why Sidi Ahmed, an Oirat of the Arlat tribe would rule there.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

I don’t deny that Georgians made up the majority in Gakh (Kakhi), but part of the population still remained Aghwan. I draw this conclusion based on the church in the village of Kum (not to be confused with the Iranian city), which is considered to feature a blend of Aghwan and Georgian architecture.

I agree, there must've still been a minority of them in Kakhi.

But an issue has arisen, I feel.

We speak of Albanians, or Aghwans, and Lezgins, or Udins, as though they're the same people. Though I definitely agree that there is a real historical lineage between the ancient Albanians and modern Udins, can we define them as being the same group, even in 1337?

The ethnogenesis of modern Udins only really began a few hundred years ago, compared to the Lezgins of Dagestan, who can be definitively spoken of as a distinct cultural entity even 800 years ago.

Thus, I think Project Caesar should further divide the Lezgic peoples north and south of the Caucasus as Lezgins and Aghwans, respectively. The former should be Orthodox, Muslim, and pagan in a three-way split, while the latter should be overwhelmingly Orthodox.

What do you think?

 

[L1nk48]

I agree, there must've still been a minority of them in Kakhi.

But an issue has arisen, I feel.

We speak of Albanians, or Aghwans, and Lezgins, or Udins, as though they're the same people. Though I definitely agree that there is a real historical lineage between the ancient Albanians and modern Udins, can we define them as being the same group, even in 1337?

The ethnogenesis of modern Udins only really began a few hundred years ago, compared to the Lezgins of Dagestan, who can be definitively spoken of as a distinct cultural entity even 800 years ago.

Thus, I think Project Caesar should further divide the Lezgic peoples north and south of the Caucasus as Lezgins and Aghwans, respectively. The former should be Orthodox, Muslim, and pagan in a three-way split, while the latter should be overwhelmingly Orthodox.

What do you think?

My point of view is as follows: the Aghvans (Lezgins, Udis, and other peoples of this group) did not have enough time or resources to consolidate under a single ethnonym, unlike the Armenians and Georgians. According to Strabo, in antiquity the country was inhabited by 26 tribes who spoke different dialects of the same language. By the time of its decline, far fewer remained — some groups were assimilated by conquerors, while others united around more numerous tribes: for example, around the Legs in the north, the Utians (Udis) in the west, and the Aghvans in other parts of the country — with the exception of a few smaller peoples who have survived to this day.

Cultural and religious customs were almost identical throughout the entire region. Therefore, yes — I believe we can be conditionally considered one people, albeit with reservations regarding minor linguistic differences, especially during the period before heavy borrowing from other languages began.

In my opinion, this is comparable to how some Muslim Georgians today are referred to as Ingiloys. Personally, I believe they are still Georgians, just ones who practice Islam. If I’m mistaken in this comparison, I welcome correction.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

On Northern Armenia ​

In this post I will try to prove that Georgia should directly control and own the locations of Yerevan and Bjni, instead of "Armenia", as presented currently.

Since the early 12th century, this part of what is now known as Armenia was controlled by the Georgian Bagratids. In the final quarter of the century, the lordship of Lore (in the province of Tashir in-game) was granted to Zakaria Mkhargrdzeli (or Zakarid, as I've argued about here). He and his younger brother Ivane further expanded the realm, even crossing the Araxes river and nearly conquering the Sultanate of Khlat, better known as Shah-Armens.

As Zakare's lordship over these lands weren't hereditary, and was instead appointed, similar to the Thematic system in the Byzantine empire, it passed to his brother Ivane. After Ivane's death, during the Mongol occupation of Georgia, they immediately passed to his son Avag, as power of central royal authority in Tbilisi had rapidly declined.

As Avag had no male heirs, after his death in 1250, his lordship of Lore in northern Armenia would've escheated to the king, David VII, had it not been for the fact that the king had just married his widow, Gvantsa Kakhaberidze. Thus, the king gave Avag's only surviving heir (and his new stepdaughter), Khoshak, the right to inherit her father's domain, though as she was a minor, she was assigned a tutor, Sadun of Mankaberd, better known as Mankaberdeli, the Atabeg of Georgia, a title which the king was forced to grant by the orders of the Il-Khan Abaqa.

As she came of age, she was married off by Sadun to his friend, the powerful Vizier of the Ilkhanate, Shams al-Din Juvayni. As she had left the country, he usurped her domains for herself, and as reported in the Georgian Chronicles, became fabulously rich. Among other things, he also usurped the lordship of Kari, or Kars. According to the Historical Atlas of Georgia:

"In the 1270s, Sadun Mank'aberdeli, the Atabag of the Georgian king, settled in K'ari, and, through clever guile, acquired the adjoining lands" from the Akhaltsikheli House (KC II: 273 = Georg.Chron.: 370)."

Think of him as an eviler version of Grima Wormtongue.

In green: Avag's domains usurped by Sadun
In black: other lands, usurped or otherwise gained​

As Sadun's power grew, however, the subsequent king, Demetrius II, began to distrust him. After Sadun's death, his son, Khutlubuga, tried to regain his father's high position of Atabeg, but the king refused, and instead gave the title to Tarsaich Orbeli of Syunik. All of this culminated in Khutlubuga's successful scheme to have the king executed by the Mongols in 1189.

After some time, king David VIII, who succeeded the short reign of Vakhtang II, asserted his authority over the kingdom. Collaborating with the Il-Khan Gaykhatu, he revoked all of Khutlubugha's domains, and had him executed on the charges of treason.

According to "Provincial Kings in 14th-15th Century Georgia", when deciding on what to do with the recovered land, David VIII prudently gave some of it away to please his supporters, instead of hoarding it. This is incidentally the reason why the rulers of Alastani came to own Dmanisi, it being given to the deposed David VIII by Vakhtang III.

I believe this is proof enough that these two locations should be directly owned by Georgia at game start in 1337, unless there is evidence found of these domains being alienated some time before then.


Sources used:

• Bayarsaikhan Dashdondog. (2017). The Mongols and the Armenians (1220-1335) (pp. 77–78). Brill Academic Publishers.
• Jones, S. F. (2018). Kartlis Tskhovreba (pp. 370–386). Artanuji Publishing.
• Mikaberidze, A. (2007). Historical dictionary of Georgia (p. 258). Scarecrow Press.
• Muskhelishvili, D. (2023). Historical Atlas of Georgia (D. Berdzenishvili & G. Liparteliani, Eds.; L. Mirianashvili, Trans.; pp. 26–29, XI–XIII). Artanuji Publishing.
• Ninidze, D. (1995). Provincial Kings in 14th-15th Century Georgia (M. Lortkipanidze, Ed.; pp. 30–46). თბილისის უნივერსიტეტის გამოცემა. Link
• Rayfield, D. (2016). Edge of empires : a history of Georgia (p. 136). Reaktion Books.

 

[Aramenian]

On Northern Armenia ​

In this post I will try to prove that Georgia should directly control and own the locations of Yerevan and Bjni, instead of "Armenia", as presented currently.

View attachment 1281464​

Since the early 12th century, this part of what is now known as Armenia was controlled by the Georgian Bagratids. In the final quarter of the century, the lordship of Lore (in the province of Tashir in-game) was granted to Zakaria Mkhargrdzeli (or Zakarid, as I've argued about here). He and his younger brother Ivane further expanded the realm, even crossing the Araxes river and nearly conquering the Sultanate of Khlat, better known as Shah-Armens.

As Zakare's lordship over these lands weren't hereditary, and was instead appointed, similar to the Thematic system in the Byzantine empire, it passed to his brother Ivane. After Ivane's death, during the Mongol occupation of Georgia, they immediately passed to his son Avag, as power of central royal authority in Tbilisi had rapidly declined.

As Avag had no male heirs, his lordship of the territories in northern Armenia would've escheated to the king, David VII, had it not been for the fact that the king had just married his widow, Gvantsa Kakhaberidze. Thus, the king gave Avag's only surviving heir, Khoshak, the right to inherit her father's domain, though as she was a minor, she was assigned a tutor, Sadun of Mankaberd, better known as Mankaberdeli, the Atabeg of Georgia, a title which the king was forced to grant by the orders of the Il-Khan Abaqa.

As she came of age, she was married off by Sadun to his friend, the powerful Vizier of the Ilkhanate, Shams al-Din Juvayni. As she had left the country, he usurped her domains for herself, and as reported in the Georgian Chronicles, became fabulously rich. Among other things, he also usurped the lordship of Kari, or Kars. According to the Historical Atlas of Georgia:

"In the 1270s, Sadun Mank'aberdeli, the Atabag of the Georgian king, settled in K'ari, and, through clever guile, acquired the adjoining lands" from the Akhaltsikheli House (KC II: 273 = Georg.Chron.: 370)."

Think of him as an eviler version of Grima Wormtongue.


View attachment 1281476

In green: Avag's domains usurped by Sadun
In black: other lands, usurped or otherwise gained​

As Sadun's power grew, however, the subsequent king, Demetrius II, began to distrust him. After Sadun's death, his son, Khutlubuga, tried to regain his father's high position of Atabeg, but the king refused, and instead gave the title to Tarsaich Orbeli of Syunik. All of this culminated in Khutlubuga's successful scheme to have the king executed by the Mongols in 1189.

After some time, king David VIII, who succeeded the short reign of Vakhtang II, asserted his authority over the kingdom. Collaborating with the Il-Khan Gaykhatu, he revoked all of Khutlubugha's domains, and had him executed on the charges of treason.

According to "Provincial Kings in 14th-15th Century Georgia", when deciding on what to do with the recovered land, David VIII prudently gave some of it away to please his supporters, instead of hoarding it. This is incidentally the reason why the rulers of Alastani came to own Dmanisi, it being given to the deposed David VIII by Vakhtang III.


View attachment 1281474


I believe this is proof enough that these two locations should be directly owned by Georgia at game start in 1337, unless there is evidence found of these domains being alienated some time before then.


Sources used:

• Bayarsaikhan Dashdondog. (2017). The Mongols and the Armenians (1220-1335) (pp. 77–78). Brill Academic Publishers.
• Jones, S. F. (2018). Kartlis Tskhovreba (pp. 370–386). Artanuji Publishing.
• Mikaberidze, A. (2007). Historical dictionary of Georgia (p. 258). Scarecrow Press.
• Muskhelishvili, D. (2023). Historical Atlas of Georgia (D. Berdzenishvili & G. Liparteliani, Eds.; L. Mirianashvili, Trans.; pp. 26–29, XI–XIII). Artanuji Publishing.
• Ninidze, D. (1995). Provincial Kings in 14th-15th Century Georgia (M. Lortkipanidze, Ed.; pp. 30–46). თბილისის უნივერსიტეტის გამოცემა. Link
• Rayfield, D. (2016). Edge of empires : a history of Georgia (p. 136). Reaktion Books.

I found this information about the Azizbek Dynasty that ruled from Yeghvard but this source comes from wiki so it is not certain.

Ազիզբեկյաններ - Վիքիպեդիա

hy.wikipedia.org

ARCHTECTURE in MIDDLE ARMENIA by Takeo Kamiya

ARCHITECTURE OF ARMENIA, Chapter 4, Architecture in Middle Armenia, by Takeo Kamiya

www.kamit.jp

Ô±Ô¶Ô»Ô¶Ô²ÔµÔ¿ÕÔ±ÕÕÔµÕÔ» Ô¶Ô»ÕÔ±ÕÕÔ±ÕÔ¸

ÕÕ«Õ»Õ¶Õ¡Õ¤Õ¡ÖÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Õ¡ÕµÕ½ Õ«Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¨Õ¶Õ¿Õ¡Õ¶Õ«ÖÕ« ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ´Õ¸ÖÕ©ÕµÕ¸ÖÕ¶Õ¨ Õ½Õ¯Õ½Õ¾Õ¥Õ¬ Õ§ 13-ÖÕ¤ Õ¤Õ¡ÖÕ« Õ¾Õ¥ÖÕ»Õ¥ÖÕ«Õ¶ ÖÂ ÕÕ¸Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ´Õ¶Õ¥ÖÕ¸Õ¾ Õ·Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¾Õ¥Õ¬ Õ§ Õ´Õ«Õ¶Õ¹Ö 17-ÖÕ¤ Õ¤Õ¡ÖÕ« Õ¯Õ¥Õ½Õ¥ÖÕ¨: Â Â Ô±...

arpiar-ar.blogspot.com

 

[GenericUsername1444]

I found this information about the Azizbek Dynasty that ruled from Yeghvard but this source comes from wiki so it is not certain.

Ազիզբեկյաններ - Վիքիպեդիա

hy.wikipedia.org

View attachment 1281509

ARCHTECTURE in MIDDLE ARMENIA by Takeo Kamiya

ARCHITECTURE OF ARMENIA, Chapter 4, Architecture in Middle Armenia, by Takeo Kamiya

www.kamit.jp

View attachment 1281511

It seems to me that they're just local lords, vassals of vassals. It's unlikely that they can be represented on the map in any meaningful way.

 

[FaeKissed]

Given the huge amount of tiny tags, are there any that could possibly be Zorostrian? Because having one tiny top level Zorostrian tag would be an interesting gameplay experience if there's no proof they're Muslim.

 

[Ottoman Master]

Given the huge amount of tiny tags, are there any that could possibly be Zorostrian? Because having one tiny top level Zorostrian tag would be an interesting gameplay experience if there's no proof they're Muslim.

In a sea of states that are Christian, Muslim, or one of a variety folk beliefs, where Zoroastrianism has been marginalized for over half a millennium, there would not be a Zoroastrian tag, and the burden of proof is on the idea that there should be.

 

[Aramenian]

It seems that the Zakarids own Bjni Castle, although I don't know if this source is sufficient.
@GenericUsername1444

Շահնշահ Գ - Վիքիպեդիա

hy.wikipedia.org

Pages of the pdf file: 177 - 178
19. Shahnshah III, son of Zaza (born in the late 13th or early 14th century, died after 1358). At one time, when publishing the Bjni inscription of 1358, Ghevond Alishan made unnecessary corrections to the original. That is why the erroneous opinion arose that Shahnshah III was not the son of Zaza, but his father. Therefore, Hakob Manandyan rightly considered these corrections unacceptable and drew attention to the fact that G. Alishan later revised his previous opinion and considered Shahnshah III the son of Zaza. At the same time, Levon Babayan, who is not familiar with the scientific publication of the Bjni inscriptions, tried to restore G. Alishan's old mistake and added new corrections. In addition to Zaza, he also declared Aghbugha to be the son of Shahnshah III, without citing any sources.8 Unfortunately, the available data only refer to the period of Shahnshah III's activities between 1357 and 1358, when the "stubborn and big-hearted" Shahnshah, who ruled in Ani, somehow managed to get rid of the "Tachkats" army in 1357. The following year, a record left by Shahnshah III in Bjni makes it clear that Ani was attacked at the same time as
also Bjni, but he was able to return the lost territories. From the examination of the Hov-hannavank inscription (see below), it can be concluded that the Zakaryans' estates in Aragats-otn suffered approximately the same fate.

20. Shirvanshah, son of Zaza (born in the late 13th or early 14th century, died, perhaps, in the 50s of the 14th century). Garegin Hovsepyan was the first to draw attention to the fact that one of the inscriptions of the Havuts Tar monastery, "...the first two lines of which have fallen stones, are written with the mention of Tamar and Atabek Shahnshah. This is Shahnshah III, whose brother was Shirvanshah, mentioned as the lord of Ani and Bjni in the annals of 1357 and 1358, but also in an inscription from Hovhannavank [printed as Hanavank – H. M.), still unknown to philology, "with Tamar", which leaves no room for doubt regarding his personality and time." Thus, the renowned Armenologist has made the important conclusion that Shahnshah III had a brother named Shirvanshah, who acted with him almost in the same years. Before addressing the inscription of the Hovhannes Monastery, it is necessary to cite another source, which was again put into scientific circulation by Garegin Hovsepyan. The author of one of the later chronicles of the Bagnayr Gospel (according to the publisher, mid-14th century) reports that the manuscript was “freely given to a certain Agh-pugha by name... among many laborious vessels, which the God-fearing gentleman ordered to be given to us again in memory of the Holy Mother of God and for the long life of the great king of kings and his oldest children, Atapak Shahansh[shah] and his brother, the gentleman Shrvanshah.” Thus, Shahnshah III’s brother Shirvanshah held a fairly high position in the Zakarians’ rule in the second quarter of the 14th century. Approximately the same conclusion can be reached based on the data of one of the undated inscriptions of Hovhannavank. Considering its importance, I quote it almost in full. "Thank God, in the Lord's presence, Mr. Ddupal Tamar, his son-in-law, the great Melkisetek's son Gavrge. I, Amsayjan, son of Gogor and my husband Besujni, as soon as the lords took the lands from their hands, I did not leave their service. God was with the lords, the lands were ours, the Lords gave me a legacy. The common people had taken the house and had set up a new law on the land. We also separated the common people in Surb Karapet, from that time the law on the land was lifted, because of the generosity of our lords and the souls of the lords Atapak Shahnshah and Shrvanshah."

Hayrapet Margaryan - The Noble Prince Families in Armenia in 12th – first half of 14th century

Vassalage in the 12th-13th centuries, differences in the position of the ruling class in certain parts of the country, the nature of interfaith and interethnic contacts among the social elite are the main problems raised in the preliminary part of

www.academia.edu

 

[GenericUsername1444]

It seems that the Zakarids own Bjni Castle, although I don't know if this source is sufficient.
@GenericUsername1444
View attachment 1282109

Շահնշահ Գ - Վիքիպեդիա

hy.wikipedia.org

Pages of the pdf file: 177 - 178
19. Shahnshah III, son of Zaza (born in the late 13th or early 14th century, died after 1358). At one time, when publishing the Bjni inscription of 1358, Ghevond Alishan made unnecessary corrections to the original. That is why the erroneous opinion arose that Shahnshah III was not the son of Zaza, but his father. Therefore, Hakob Manandyan rightly considered these corrections unacceptable and drew attention to the fact that G. Alishan later revised his previous opinion and considered Shahnshah III the son of Zaza. At the same time, Levon Babayan, who is not familiar with the scientific publication of the Bjni inscriptions, tried to restore G. Alishan's old mistake and added new corrections. In addition to Zaza, he also declared Aghbugha to be the son of Shahnshah III, without citing any sources.8 Unfortunately, the available data only refer to the period of Shahnshah III's activities between 1357 and 1358, when the "stubborn and big-hearted" Shahnshah, who ruled in Ani, somehow managed to get rid of the "Tachkats" army in 1357. The following year, a record left by Shahnshah III in Bjni makes it clear that Ani was attacked at the same time as
also Bjni, but he was able to return the lost territories. From the examination of the Hov-hannavank inscription (see below), it can be concluded that the Zakaryans' estates in Aragats-otn suffered approximately the same fate.

20. Shirvanshah, son of Zaza (born in the late 13th or early 14th century, died, perhaps, in the 50s of the 14th century). Garegin Hovsepyan was the first to draw attention to the fact that one of the inscriptions of the Havuts Tar monastery, "...the first two lines of which have fallen stones, are written with the mention of Tamar and Atabek Shahnshah. This is Shahnshah III, whose brother was Shirvanshah, mentioned as the lord of Ani and Bjni in the annals of 1357 and 1358, but also in an inscription from Hovhannavank [printed as Hanavank – H. M.), still unknown to philology, "with Tamar", which leaves no room for doubt regarding his personality and time." Thus, the renowned Armenologist has made the important conclusion that Shahnshah III had a brother named Shirvanshah, who acted with him almost in the same years. Before addressing the inscription of the Hovhannes Monastery, it is necessary to cite another source, which was again put into scientific circulation by Garegin Hovsepyan. The author of one of the later chronicles of the Bagnayr Gospel (according to the publisher, mid-14th century) reports that the manuscript was “freely given to a certain Agh-pugha by name... among many laborious vessels, which the God-fearing gentleman ordered to be given to us again in memory of the Holy Mother of God and for the long life of the great king of kings and his oldest children, Atapak Shahansh[shah] and his brother, the gentleman Shrvanshah.” Thus, Shahnshah III’s brother Shirvanshah held a fairly high position in the Zakarians’ rule in the second quarter of the 14th century. Approximately the same conclusion can be reached based on the data of one of the undated inscriptions of Hovhannavank. Considering its importance, I quote it almost in full. "Thank God, in the Lord's presence, Mr. Ddupal Tamar, his son-in-law, the great Melkisetek's son Gavrge. I, Amsayjan, son of Gogor and my husband Besujni, as soon as the lords took the lands from their hands, I did not leave their service. God was with the lords, the lands were ours, the Lords gave me a legacy. The common people had taken the house and had set up a new law on the land. We also separated the common people in Surb Karapet, from that time the law on the land was lifted, because of the generosity of our lords and the souls of the lords Atapak Shahnshah and Shrvanshah."

Hayrapet Margaryan - The Noble Prince Families in Armenia in 12th – first half of 14th century

Vassalage in the 12th-13th centuries, differences in the position of the ruling class in certain parts of the country, the nature of interfaith and interethnic contacts among the social elite are the main problems raised in the preliminary part of

www.academia.edu

Presuming the analysis of the source is correct, this information is still irrelevant for the game start of 1337.

I feel like your feedback focuses too much on minor landowners. Just because a nobleman held a castle somewhere doesn't make him eligible for countryhood in Project Caesar. If that were the case, some place like England would’ve had to be divided into a hundred countries.

 

[Linbot#6018]

Presuming the analysis of the source is correct, this information is still irrelevant for the game start of 1337.

I feel like your feedback focuses too much on minor landowners. Just because a nobleman held a castle somewhere doesn't make him eligible for countryhood in Project Caesar. If that were the case, some place like England would’ve had to be divided into a hundred countries.

From my understanding only a very few landowners in Europe ever owned contiguous territories on the same scale as Armenian statelets such as these (especially in England I think there were fewer "great magnates" than normal), and furthermore, European landowners belonged to territorially stable countries, whereas this Armenian statelet is not firmly under the control of any larger government. So I think it should be in the game.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

this Armenian statelet is not firmly under the control of any larger government.

I believe you're mistaken. This land was under continuous Georgian control until 1386, when Tamerlane invaded from the south.

Personally, I wouldn't consider any non-sovereign dynasty in Caucasia a "state" by any stretch of the imagination, especially in this time frame of the late middle ages. Like I said, all government posts and fiefs in Georgia were revocable.

Hence, even presuming @ Aramenian's tenuous source is correctly relaying its information, 1. the document is regarding 1357, 20 years after the start date, and 2. doesn't prove that there was any real, tangible form of statehood that can be presented in-game.

If Paradox's track record is anything to go by, as they didn't add any of the small countries which we proposed, like the Duchy of Tao, Duchy of Ksani, Principality of Ani, etc. I doubt they'll make an exception for Bjni, with by far the weakest claim to statehood out of all the ones named above.

Tagging the omniscient @Ispil for his opinion.

 

[Ispil]

Something to keep in mind is that characters, with all evident appearances, do not frequently move from country to country. This means that if you take a local dynasty and pop them out as their own vassal country, that now those characters will not be interacting with their overlord as characters but instead as subject countries.

Something to keep in mind; if you see one of these local families being caught up a lot in the politics and governance of their overlord country (such as being granted court positions and the like), they would be better off not represented as a vassal but instead as characters in that country.

 

[Linbot#6018]

Something to keep in mind is that characters, with all evident appearances, do not frequently move from country to country. This means that if you take a local dynasty and pop them out as their own vassal country, that now those characters will not be interacting with their overlord as characters but instead as subject countries.

Something to keep in mind; if you see one of these local families being caught up a lot in the politics and governance of their overlord country (such as being granted court positions and the like), they would be better off not represented as a vassal but instead as characters in that country.

Under this line of reasoning, the French appanages should very obviously just be part of France.

Not that I necessarily disagree with that, but it does go to show that there is a really big intermediate zone where some political entity is autonomous enough that its autonomy is really hard to represent without making it a tag, but its interaction with the overlord is really hard to represent if it is a tag. I am tempted to conclude that either this game's vassal mechanics are massively inadequate, or the problem here is the lack of regional estates.

 

[Ispil]

Under this line of reasoning, the French appanages should very obviously just be part of France.

Not that I necessarily disagree with that, but it does go to show that there is a really big intermediate zone where some political entity is autonomous enough that its autonomy is really hard to represent without making it a tag, but its interaction with the overlord is really hard to represent if it is a tag. I am tempted to conclude that either this game's vassal mechanics are massively inadequate, or the problem here is the lack of regional estates.

Yeah. I think in some cases it's possible to wedge vassals into enough of state organization to make them be able to do... something, but that only works for the cases of subjects that are only peripherally interested in the politics of their sovereign.

Like, I wouldn't represent Byzantine aristocratic families as vassal states. Similarly, I wouldn't represent Spanish or Portuguese nobility as vassal states, even though they did have "traditional styling" of things like count, marquis, etc., because even when hereditary they weren't so literally attached to the land.

I think Armenian nobility in this era trends towards an equivalence towards Spanish noble families compared to, say, French appanages.

 

[Linbot#6018]

Yeah. I think in some cases it's possible to wedge vassals into enough of state organization to make them be able to do... something, but that only works for the cases of subjects that are only peripherally interested in the politics of their sovereign.

Like, I wouldn't represent Byzantine aristocratic families as vassal states. Similarly, I wouldn't represent Spanish or Portuguese nobility as vassal states, even though they did have "traditional styling" of things like count, marquis, etc., because even when hereditary they weren't so literally attached to the land.

I think Armenian nobility in this era trends towards an equivalence towards Spanish noble families compared to, say, French appanages.

In my evaluation, it honestly would not be possible for the French appanages to be tied more firmly into politics in Paris than they were in real life. They were major drivers of factional politics in Paris and there was even an entire civil war fought between them for control of the throne.

I also think it's important to not get too distracted with the "styling" of things. The appanages did work a bit differently from just really powerful magnates, but in my opinion they definitely should not be considered states.