Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

1448 Byzantine Saga: Territorial Differences.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
unmerged(1700)

unmerged(1700)

Generalissimo
Mar 10, 2001
1.899
1
www.4adrive.com
Me and a couple of fellow gamers are designing a Byzantine Scenario which is going to begin in 1448. I know that there were some differences in sizes, locations, and numbers of kingdoms in europe between 1448 and 1492.

Therefore I start this thread in order to find out all the nations that existed in 1448 and ceased to exists in 1492 and their provinces, and the changes of the provinces of the nations that continued to exsist. Some of the changes that I encountered or know:

*Golden Horde still had its grip on Rus', untill in 1480 Ivan III refused to pay the tribute.

*The Duchy of Novgorod and Pskov were the two independant Russian provinces.

*In 1453 the Hundred Years War ends with Normandy reclaimed by France.

Thats it so far, I will be searching for more.
 
Genoa had Kaffa till 1475, and 1448 is the date of second battle of Kosowe Pole (sorry, i don't know the name in English), so Serbia may still be independent.
 
In 1448:

England should own Gascogne, Normandie, Caix, and Maine in France. England lost Maine during the course of that year.

Lorraine and Province were united under Rene II, and Lorraine should have a CB on Naples as Rene had a claim to the throne. Province should be part of the HRE if this is possible. Naples itself was temporarily under the control of Aragon, although since it had been conquered only a few years before and would soon become an independent kingdom under an illegitimate son of the King of Aragon, its status would best be symbolized by vassalship.

The situation in Spain shouldn't change too much, as the Reconquista was pretty much on hold between the late 1200s and the late 1400s. Aragon should own Aragon (capital), Gerona, Roussillon, Catalonia, Valencia, the Balearics, Sardinia, the two provinces on Sicily, and Malta. What's left over should be renamed Castilla-Leon (but keeps the same banners, as the "Spanish" banners in EU were really those of Castile) with its capital at Toledo.

Serbia and Bosnia were both independent, but Croatia had been part of Hungary since around 1100.

All of Scandinavia is united under the Union of Kalmar

The Teutonic Knights own Danzig province.

The Russian pricipalities existed, but would be considered vassals of the Golden Horde. There were plenty of petty principalities, but the main ones were Novgorod (which owned Karelia, the Kola peninsula, and the White Sea coast), Pskov, Ryazan, and Vladimir/Moscow. Khazan became independent in 1444, Astrakhan in the 1450s.

In 1448, Burgundy owns Bourgogne, Franche-Comte, Flanders, Picardie, and Brabant (represented by Hainaut) and should be considered a vassal of France; Nevers was controled by a relative, so it could be considered part of that nation as well. Holland (the Hague province in EU) and Zeeland were owned by a close relative of the dukes of Bavaria and should thusly be given to that country, while Luxembourg was a possesion of Bohemia. As for Holland province and Freisen, the best I can think of here is to give them to Bavaria as well as they were pretty much dependent on (the real) Holland during that time.

Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia were all united, but Hungary and Bohemia were on the verge of revolt and should have high revolt risks and cause the united country to be on the verge of collapse. Maybe Hungary and Bohemia should be vassals of Austria?

Two Crusader states, the Duchy of Athens and the Kingdom of Cyprus, were still on the map. Technically there were still crusader dukes in the Cyclades and the Ionian Islands (Corfu), but these were already pretty much under Venetian control. Moldova definitely gets Bujak.

There were various petty Turkis states in eastern Anatolia, although the only one of importance was Karaman in south-central Anatolia. The decendents of Timur the Lame held sway over everything to the east of this, although the Timurid Emirate had the White-Sheep Turks (who were the rulers of Persia early on in EU) as vassals in Northern Mesopotamia and eastern Turkey, while the Black-Sheep Turks ruled southern Mesopotamia, Tabriz, and Azerbaijan.

The Moghul Empire should be re-named the Sultinate of Delhi.

By the way, I can't seem to get into your site. My browser locks up or crashes when ever I do. Do you just want me to post my list of prospective Byzantine monarchs here?
 
Last edited:
Where exactly does it crash and what browser are you using? Maybe the incorrect password causes that, do you know that the password and log in name are case sensetive. Try to log in again and if it does work, can you mail me the file? Thanks Demetrios, your help is unmatched.
 
Originally posted by Demetrios


In 1448, Burgundy owns Bourgogne, Franche-Comte, Flanders, Picardie, and Brabant (represented by Hainaut) and should be considered a vassal of France; Nevers was controled by a relative, so it could be considered part of that nation as well. Holland (the Hague province in EU) and Zeeland were owned by a close relative of the dukes of Bavaria and should thusly be given to that country, while Luxembourg was a possesion of Bohemia. As for Holland province and Freisen, the best I can think of here is to give them to Bavaria as well as they were pretty much dependent on (the real) Holland during that time.
Click to expand...

I don't know much really about Byzantine history, but I'd like to contribute when it comes to Burgundy :

In 1448 they owned all those provinces + Zeeland, Den Hague (real life Holland), Artois and Luxemburg.

Filips de Goede (le Bon) intervened militarily in Hainaut (the real one) and Holland, ruled by Jacoba from Bavaria, married (for the 2nd time) to the Duke of Gloucester, to stop these territories from getting under English control. Jacoba ceased the territories to Filips in 1433. Zeeland came under control of Burgundy at the same time (and the EU province of Zeeland really spans half Brabant)

Artois was part of the Flemish heritage that came under Burgundian control so has been Burgundian since 1384. If u consider the ingame province of Artois as real life Hainaut then I refer u to the piece above.

Filips also had great influence in Luxembourg, where he bought the rights from Elisabeth from Görlitz, 1437-1443. Though 1451 is alo a date uttered when it comes to real control, it should be Burgundian already in 1448 IMO though it can be disputed for 1448.

Friesland and Gelre weren't under Burgundian control back then but u can hardly make them independent.
 
Oops! You're right about Holland and Hainaut, BiB. The map I was looking at for dates even says "1433" on it for those two, so I don't know how I was mistaken and thought it was after 1448. The sordid story of Jacqueline of Hainaut (I know she was Jacoba of Holland, but I've almost never seen her called that, was Countess of Hainaut the more senior title?) and Humphrey of Gloucester is one of the more interesting stories of the period, so I guess I was just thinking about that when I worte it. I also simply forgot about Artois altogether.

I have 1451 for the date for the transfer of Luxembourg as well. I knew the Bohemians had sold the rights to their ancestral Luxembourg to the Burgundians, but I wasn't aware of the circumstances.
 
Say Gen.

I'm interested on how colonialism and exploration will be handled. Portugal was active (I forget what years Henry the Navigator reigned), but clearly everything would be at a minimal scale (in Europe).

Do you know if colonists.csv works with the date hack?
 
Portugal should alreday have started from 1415 on in establishing point in Africa and by 1448 alreday have started commercial expansion further down so the yshould get colonists.

Demetrios, I alos figured u just forgot about those esp seeing u forgot Artois too but someone had to rectify it ;)

Should they really be a vassal of France though ? They really were going the independent course bigway alreday by then and trying to become king. would seem sily them breaking away from France but still giving them half their income.
 
Originally posted by BiB
[Should they really be a vassal of France though ? They really were going the independent course bigway alreday by then and trying to become king. would seem sily them breaking away from France but still giving them half their income. [/B]
Click to expand...


I was thinking the same thing about the Russian states. Though they were paying tribute to the Horde, I'm not sure that being Vassals to the Golden. Horde is the proper relationship for the game.
 
There's no doubt that Burgundy was legally the vassal of France at the time (they had brokered a deal in the 1430s when Burgundy switched sides in the Hundred Years War). I'd make them vassals but with a very poor diplomatic rating, liable to breaking away and becoming fully independent at any time (which they were continually threatening to do). Same with the Russian states; they were legally vassals (still paying tribute even), but near enough to breaking free that the diplomatic rating should be very poor. When Ivan III refused to pay tribute in 1480, it was a Big Thing in the eyes of both his people and of the Goldne Horde.
 
Last edited:
This is from a list of Bohemian regents. Not sure how accurate it is??

LUXEMBOURG
John the Blind....................................1310-1346
Charles I.........................................1346-1378
Wenceslaus IV.....................................1378-1419
Sigismund.........................................1419-1437
HABSBURG
Albert............................................1437-1438
Ladislav V Posthumous.............................1439-1457
PODEBRADY
George (Regent 1452-1457).........................1458-1471

http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/centeuro.html#Bohemia

Originally posted by Ami Hund
Changing subjects, can anyone tell me who should be listed as a monarch for Bohemia between Sigismund's death in 1437 and George Podebrad becoming governor (later King) in 1451?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Demetrios
There's no doubt that Burgundy was legally the vassal of France at the time (they had brokered a deal in the 1430s when Burgundy switched sides in the Hundred Years War). I'd make them vassals but with a very poor diplomatic rating, liable to breaking away and becoming fully independent at any time (which they were continually threatening to do). Same with the Russian states; they were legally vassals (still paying tribute even), but near enough to breaking free that the diplomatic rating should be very poor. When Ivan III refused to pay tribute in 1480, it was a Big Thing in the eyes of both his people and of the Goldne Horde.
Click to expand...

Being vassal on paper is still sommink else than giving half ur income to them and only being able to ally with them. If they were to break it soon (whick has quite some diplomatical penalties) then it'd have to happen a lot and soon. Burgunday always has been legally a vassal of France. I don't feel the vassalship as in the game portrays their situation very well.
 
I've been thinking about this as well after some more reading. First, does paying tribute necessarily make one a vassal? For example, had Jefferson decieded to pay tribute to the Barbary pirates instead of sending a naval force, would that have made the U.S. a vassal of Tripoli?
In the game, a vassal may not enter into a royal marraige and must go to war if its Overlord goes to war. Ivan III played the Khanates against one another to ensure they would not unite against him when he decided to stop tribute to the Golden Horde. Also, he annexed Novgorod in 1478, two years before he halted tribute. I think they were already vassals before then. In the game, can a vassal have a vassal? And can a vassal annex other nations?

My thanks,
 
Game wise vassals can only ally with their overlord. They don't go to war when their overlord does when they're not allied though. they can declare war themselves though. They can't RM, diplo annex or whatever though, only declare war. They can have vassals if u set them to be there from the start or when they have them alrdeay when u vassalise them .but they can't get new ones.
 
Since EU doesn't support any kind of inter-national relations that would best describe the Russian-Khanate one. I think vassalage at very low levels of relationship would suffice. With Duchy of Moscow being vassals of Golden Horde and having vassals of Novgorod, Ryzan, and Vladimir.

I'm barely keeping up with the waves of information coming at me, Thanks guys.:D
 
I agree with BiB that Burgundy shouldn't be a vassel. They acted totally indepenedent.

Similarly, I think the English and French had a little disagreement about who was vassel of who. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back