[MOD] SWMH 2.0 Map, de jure and general history mod. For a superior CK2 experience

[ZmajOgnjeniVuk]

We shouldn't do this here... I know everybody hates this.

I am aware that later rulers dealt with heresy, but most of them embraced it. I already told that Tvrtko took the Serbian crown... as far as I am concerned Bosnian Kingdom could be titular, and require some provinces to be created. I know every argument you mentioned, it's nothing new... but we shouldn't do it here. Bosnia always had their way of living and ruling, that was testified in De Administrando Imperio, so we should refer to that culture in the game for distinction, because Bosnians called themselves that way, they had their church and so forth. Rulers were feudals who could not care less for national identity that is associated with today nations...


So please...

Most of them played on the edge of the blade between the external pressure of Roman Catholicism and the internal pressure of the heretical organization tbh. Look at Kulin Ban - he pledges his fealty to the Pope, only to return to his ways as soon as the papal emissaries were gone. Next two rulers fight off Hungarians, only to have Prijezda install Dominicans and styled Fidelis Noster, then Stephen I again being accused of heresy, while Stephen II allowed the Franciscans in, and was eventually buried in an Franciscian monastery. Not to mention Tvrtko, who played a three-sided game, pledging for Roman Catholicism (a letter from Florence styles his a "most Christian of the rulers"), going to pilgrimage into an Orthodox monastery, while the whole time probably doing nothing against the heresy. What I'm trying to say, it's not so much a yes/no thing, it's a rainbow of affiliations/allegiances/preferences.

"Bosnian church" never existed under that name (the term is a translation of “ecclesia bosnensis" used for old bishopric before the Slav migration, used nowdays as a conventional name for the heretic organization) - believers attributed to it called themselves simply "Christians".

I can't be made to believe that rulers & people in general didn't care for a common identity - we wouldn't have rex Francorum, rex Bohemorum, rex Croatorum and such if that was not the case. Or we would have personal names on the central Balkan like "Grčin" (Greek), "Ugrin" (Hungarian), "Hrvatin" (Croat), "Kuman" (Cuman) etc among the common folk to denominate foreign settlers. Sure, affiliation was more flexible than the modern one, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Please don't think that I'm trying to start a flame war - not even remotely. I just wanted to state my personal pros and cons about the subject in a (hopefully perceived as) polite manner.

I understand the reservation with adding Bosnian culture, but I think eXmAn is right that the diffrences would be more pronounced on people who weren't part of the noble class(at least the nobles and rulers would probably not let its show, as more than a few of their titles was Serbian and they would not want to undermine their legitimacy). Anyway Danish, Swedish and Norwegian is seperated in three cultures (and thats not very fact like, since Danes and Norwegians in partucular were pretty much identical back then(If one looks away from the west norse language that the isolated parts of Norway used)) and if they can be seperated, I think its okay to seperate Bosnian from Serbian(and it would add some gameplay flavour to the region).

I'm in no way insisting upon it, just trying to add another point of view. Ok, the Scandinavian analogy seems good (CK1 had Norse culture instead of those 3, right?), but with a difference in that while the Danes and Norwegians got different along the way - Bosnian Serbs still remained - Serbs, but Bosnians (kinda like Bavarians are German, but also Bavarians if you get what I'm trying to say). If you think that it will add flavor to the setup of the region, then do proceed with it

Im very happy you think its looking brigther in the balkan area , a word of warning, I have started to work on Hungary so Im going to pester you with quetions the next couple of days:blush:

Sure, though I know something only about the southern parts of Hungary, and very little about the rest (don't let my Robo-Hungaria location fool you, it's there as a Futurama joke). I'm sorry I wasn't helpful with Croatian counties, but it's been a couple of busy days, couldn't find the time for a proper reply, and you did a very good job there in the mean time

 

[Sniggles]

Would Albion not exclude Ireland?

Unfortunately I don't know enough about the mythology of King Arthur to make that determination. I think any hypothetical Empire of Albion would only include the main isle, but I'm honestly not sure. Even if that were the case, though, I'd say that a minor historical alteration (including Ireland in Albion) would be better than leaving in the anachronistic Britannia.

Im sorry, but I can't see the "roman empire" and two succeor empires(or continuation for the ERE's part) coexsiting.

I can understand your view, but there's precedent even for that. The Holy Roman Emperor and the Byzantine Emperor were both alive and in power when the Van Vlaanderens were crowned the Latin Emperors of Constantinople. Three Romanesque Empires already coexisted (albeit the Latin and Byzantine were not friendly with one another) in historical fact. Another Romanesque--I must stress Romanesque, NOT the Roman Empire--doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. This is of course your mod and your decision, but there's evidence to alleviate all of your concerns.

 

[unmerged(24064)]

Most of them played on the edge of the blade between the external pressure of Roman Catholicism and the internal pressure of the heretical organization tbh. Look at Kulin Ban - he pledges his fealty to the Pope, only to return to his ways as soon as the papal emissaries were gone. Next two rulers fight off Hungarians, only to have Prijezda install Dominicans and styled Fidelis Noster, then Stephen I again being accused of heresy, while Stephen II allowed the Franciscans in, and was eventually buried in an Franciscian monastery. Not to mention Tvrtko, who played a three-sided game, pledging for Roman Catholicism (a letter from Florence styles his a "most Christian of the rulers"), going to pilgrimage into an Orthodox monastery, while the whole time probably doing nothing against the heresy. What I'm trying to say, it's not so much a yes/no thing, it's a rainbow of affiliations/allegiances/preferences.

"Bosnian church" never existed under that name (the term is a translation of “ecclesia bosnensis" used for old bishopric before the Slav migration, used nowdays as a conventional name for the heretic organization) - believers attributed to it called themselves simply "Christians".

I can't be made to believe that rulers & people in general didn't care for a common identity - we wouldn't have rex Francorum, rex Bohemorum, rex Croatorum and such if that was not the case. Or we would have personal names on the central Balkan like "Grčin" (Greek), "Ugrin" (Hungarian), "Hrvatin" (Croat), "Kuman" (Cuman) etc among the common folk to denominate foreign settlers. Sure, affiliation was more flexible than the modern one, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Please don't think that I'm trying to start a flame war - not even remotely. I just wanted to state my personal pros and cons about the subject in a (hopefully perceived as) polite manner.

Well I know too well about that game of Bosnian rulers doing nothing about heresy. It was only way to survive. But the fact remains - it was never abolished. Of course it was a rainbow, but there it was, only by impeding Turkish invasion were followers of 'heresy' forced to flee Bosnia or to convert to Catholicsm in 1459. In 1461 there was document about "50 delusion of heretics in Bosnia", and Đuro Kačinić, Stojšan Tvrtković i Radmil Voćinić were brouth in chains to the Rome...

About 2000 was converted by force, and about 40000 or more who didn't refused their heresy, fled to Stjepan Kosača, Bosnian noble and their compatriot in faith
– Pio Pegolomini, “Comentari verum memoralitum”

And Kosača was, where? Of course, southeast, where Turks already were making progress. As a institution there was no structure in ending years of kingdom, but the fact remains, a lot of them found refugee at Kosača lands. They were probably among first to be islamised.

There was a census shortly after Ottomans conquered Bosnia, there was couple of villages whose inhabitants declared themselves as kristian, which is similar to krstjani - what they called themselves. As you said, simply Christians, or Krstjani in slavic.

Before that, it was the Hungarians who destroyed Bosnian nobility (a lot of Croatian also), during Tvrtko II reign and gave way to Turks. Even thou, that proved to be mistake, a lot of noblemans just continued to wage war, only this time together with Ottomans as their vassals.

As of identity of people, thats a very patchy subject, without much of solid evidence. I hold Stećci as most solid evidence of life and identity of that people. They sometime wrote and expressed themselves on stones. And vast majority of those tombstones are found in Bosnia, and that is not a coincidence. As De Administrado Imperio says... they have their own way of living and ruling, especialy what he considers Bosnia, and that is that small mountainous area that formed first Bosnian banate, because I know other areas were already populated with Serb and Croats, and others as well. But that part was made seperate from X century.

 

[El-Fatih]

Aasmul I've checked the map, I think you should rename Licko to Lika, Pozeski to Pozega, then Viroviticka to Virovitica, because it is more gramatically correct. About the province in the corner of Croatia you should just leave Krizevci, but I think Krizevci should be the neame instead of Virovitica. I'll check again and then I'll let you know.

Dalmatia looks fine, Bosnia and Hercegovina too, Ragusa and Cattaro looks good too.

About the Rashka province, I think you should add Kosovo so we can have in the game two province one Rashka and the other Kosovo. Macedonia and especially Albania need more work, and when I say more work I mean in Macedonia we could add 1 or 2 more provinces and for Albania it would be good if you could make out of Dyrrachion two more provinces so that part would have 3 instead of 1 province.

Also Csanad looks to big, I would add one more province to that region.

Overall map looks better than in the original game, well done...

 

[ZmajOgnjeniVuk]

Stećci are a Hercegovinian (Hum) phenomena much more then they are Bosnian. Largest concentration of them is found in what is now southern Bosnia & Hercegovina, southwestern Serbia, and west Montenegro, and Croatian littoral and its hinderland - the area marked by the sea at south, Neretva in the west, Polimlje at north and Cattaro in the east.
Also, there's a not-so-inconsiderable amount of older Orthodox churches in Serbia/Montnegro that have stećci built into their walls, or used and doorsteps - a practice which came to use under the Ottoman occupation - whose who renovated a part of the church couldn't afford building material, and used already carved stones found nearby.

De Administrado Imperio doesn't say nothing about "way of living and ruling", it says this: "About Serbs and the lands they now inhabit" and then mentions Bosnia in the very last sentence: "In baptized Serbia there are the following cities [...], and in the region of Bosnia these [...]".

Of course we can see that Bosnia has formed as an entity of its own by then, with its ties to Serbia debatable. But at this time we have 5 other realms (Narentija, Hum, Travunija, Konavle, Duklja) that have their, as you put it, "way of living and ruling", which doesn't imply they are peoples/tribes/nations unto their own (heck, we'd have dozens on nations instead of 1 Irish (for example) if that was implied).

 

[unmerged(24064)]

Stećci are a Hercegovinian (Hum) phenomena much more then they are Bosnian. Largest concentration of them is found in what is now southern Bosnia & Hercegovina, southwestern Serbia, and west Montenegro, and Croatian littoral and its hinderland - the area marked by the sea at south, Neretva in the west, Polimlje at north and Cattaro in the east.
Also, there's a not-so-inconsiderable amount of older Orthodox churches in Serbia/Montnegro that have stećci built into their walls, or used and doorsteps - a practice which came to use under the Ottoman occupation - whose who renovated a part of the church couldn't afford building material, and used already carved stones found nearby.

De Administrado Imperio doesn't say nothing about "way of living and ruling", it says this: "About Serbs and the lands they now inhabit" and then mentions Bosnia in the very last sentence: "In baptized Serbia there are the following cities [...], and in the region of Bosnia these [...]".

Of course we can see that Bosnia has formed as an entity of its own by then, with its ties to Serbia debatable. But at this time we have 5 other realms (Narentija, Hum, Travunija, Konavle, Duklja) that have their, as you put it, "way of living and ruling", which doesn't imply they are peoples/tribes/nations unto their own (heck, we'd have dozens on nations instead of 1 Irish (for example) if that was implied).

I am not trying to take away ties with Serbia and Serbs, or for that matter with other people living by. But I will not take away Illiriyan heritage and later romanized population along river Bosna called Bassans. And the early banate and description of people there.

About Stećci, I must inform you that there is 66.663 stećci (registered) in all of Yugoslavia, and 58.547 of them in Bosnia and Hum. Some early Bosnian noblemen who took islamic faith also built stećak-like monuments and wrote cyrilic on them.


You are right, I confused DAI with writings of Byzantine author in 12th century, Ivan Kinamos.

"And Bosnia is not subordinated...it is on its own; a nation living its independant life and governing itself..."

 

[Aasmul]

Aasmul I've checked the map, I think you should rename Licko to Lika, Pozeski to Pozega, then Viroviticka to Virovitica, because it is more gramatically correct. About the province in the corner of Croatia you should just leave Krizevci, but I think Krizevci should be the neame instead of Virovitica. I'll check again and then I'll let you know.

Dalmatia looks fine, Bosnia and Hercegovina too, Ragusa and Cattaro looks good too.

About the Rashka province, I think you should add Kosovo so we can have in the game two province one Rashka and the other Kosovo. Macedonia and especially Albania need more work, and when I say more work I mean in Macedonia we could add 1 or 2 more provinces and for Albania it would be good if you could make out of Dyrrachion two more provinces so that part would have 3 instead of 1 province.

Also Csanad looks to big, I would add one more province to that region.

Overall map looks better than in the original game, well done...

- Csanad. Im thinking about adding Temes as a province, and that would solve the problem.


- Rashka and Kosovo. I have been looking on a lot of old maps and I don't think you can seperate them, multiple settlements in northern Kosovo was Rashka heartland(again Ras was situated just on the Serbian side of the border with modern day Kosovo)

- Macedonia and Albania. Your right, both need a lot of work. Currently Macedonia is situated inside Strymon which in reallife was a theme located on the coast close to Thessaloniki:huh:

 

[Aasmul]

Sure, though I know something only about the southern parts of Hungary, and very little about the rest (don't let my Robo-Hungaria location fool you, it's there as a Futurama joke). I'm sorry I wasn't helpful with Croatian counties, but it's been a couple of busy days, couldn't find the time for a proper reply, and you did a very good job there in the mean time

I did reconigse the Furutama link(have seen my share of it) but you obviously have more intial knowledge of the layout than I have(being a Danish lawstudent, the details of medival Hungary is not the subject im most familiar with)

 

[LordHoth]

Hi there. Looks like fabulous work in this modification, but if I may, I would like to present a few points.

-- instead of the fictitious Nordmannia, why not name the empire-level creation as the Kalmar Union. It has been the closest thing to anything like the entity in real life, and while not exactly corresponding to the territory, it could at least be represented in-game by the Treaty of Kalmar which made Norway, Sweden, and Denmark share the same king.

-- why the preference of 'Iberia' over 'Spain'. The unification by Ferdinand and Isabella did not result in a directly unified crown, but I would think they would have used Spain rather than Iberia (which is a purely geographical term), especially given that 'Spain' is the recognized form of his official style.

-- historically speaking, the first union was termed Lithuania-Poland, due to the more powerful entity there being the Lithuanian Grand Duchy. Only later one, after the Union of Lublin was it a definite Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania. I admit this is just a minor point though, and would probably confuse people more than it is worth. Just wanted to point that out.

-- now we come to the point where I have actual knowledge and proof, if you want absolute historical correction: the counties in Estonia (Northern Baltic ones, that is)
--- Firstly, this is all descriptive of the original non-Christian Estonian counties for later on most names were changed due to the changing of the ruling class (after 1210's would be a good estimate for the newer names)
--- Tartu should be Ugandi
--- Narva should be Virumaa
--- Kalevan should be Rävala (not to be confused with the later German name for Tallinn, Reval)
--- Järva could be either Järva or Harju based on the present location it has on the map.
--- The Duchy of Estonia as displayed is correct by the boundaries it had up to the point where it was sold to the Livonian Order which is as good as you would want it. However, Saare-Lääne might be better of called by its German name Ösel-Wiek which is how it appeared at the time. And while I am not entirely sure about Vidzeme (which probably, depending on what you want to represent, could rather copy the borders of the later Archbishopric of Riga), then Lettigallia would have never had command over Tartu (which under the 13th century governmental scheme turned into an independent Bishopric of Dorpat (Tartu) that was one of the three main land-holders in the region (alongside the Danish Duchy of Estonia, German Bishopric of Ösel-Wiek, and the Livonian Order).
--- Also, depending on your preferences, you might wish to use the German names for towns in the area (say Hapsal instead of Haapsalu; Dorpat instead of Tartu; Narwa instead of Narva) as do Arensburg and Reval presently (otherwise, Kuressaare and Tallinn). Hermann should be Hermannsburg, Leal I am not quite sure about but probably Lehola because of the location; the present Lehola which is in the wrong county could be renamed into Fellin (German name; Estonian would be Viljandi); and the entirely wrong name of Hiiumaa (which would refer to the island just north of Saaremaa) could be either Valjala or Pöide.

That's all about that region; and I have to say you've already done a brilliant job compared to what the place looked like before. This above is just a few of the recommendations I have, so please be not offended by them.

Thanks,

 

[Aasmul]

Hi there. Looks like fabulous work in this modification, but if I may, I would like to present a few points.

-- instead of the fictitious Nordmannia, why not name the empire-level creation as the Kalmar Union. It has been the closest thing to anything like the entity in real life, and while not exactly corresponding to the territory, it could at least be represented in-game by the Treaty of Kalmar which made Norway, Sweden, and Denmark share the same king.

-- why the preference of 'Iberia' over 'Spain'. The unification by Ferdinand and Isabella did not result in a directly unified crown, but I would think they would have used Spain rather than Iberia (which is a purely geographical term), especially given that 'Spain' is the recognized form of his official style.

-- historically speaking, the first union was termed Lithuania-Poland, due to the more powerful entity there being the Lithuanian Grand Duchy. Only later one, after the Union of Lublin was it a definite Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania. I admit this is just a minor point though, and would probably confuse people more than it is worth. Just wanted to point that out.

-- now we come to the point where I have actual knowledge and proof, if you want absolute historical correction: the counties in Estonia (Northern Baltic ones, that is)
--- Firstly, this is all descriptive of the original non-Christian Estonian counties for later on most names were changed due to the changing of the ruling class (after 1210's would be a good estimate for the newer names)
--- Tartu should be Ugandi
--- Narva should be Virumaa
--- Kalevan should be Rävala (not to be confused with the later German name for Tallinn, Reval)
--- Järva could be either Järva or Harju based on the present location it has on the map.
--- The Duchy of Estonia as displayed is correct by the boundaries it had up to the point where it was sold to the Livonian Order which is as good as you would want it. However, Saare-Lääne might be better of called by its German name Ösel-Wiek which is how it appeared at the time. And while I am not entirely sure about Vidzeme (which probably, depending on what you want to represent, could rather copy the borders of the later Archbishopric of Riga), then Lettigallia would have never had command over Tartu (which under the 13th century governmental scheme turned into an independent Bishopric of Dorpat (Tartu) that was one of the three main land-holders in the region (alongside the Danish Duchy of Estonia, German Bishopric of Ösel-Wiek, and the Livonian Order).
--- Also, depending on your preferences, you might wish to use the German names for towns in the area (say Hapsal instead of Haapsalu; Dorpat instead of Tartu; Narwa instead of Narva) as do Arensburg and Reval presently (otherwise, Kuressaare and Tallinn). Hermann should be Hermannsburg, Leal I am not quite sure about but probably Lehola because of the location; the present Lehola which is in the wrong county could be renamed into Fellin (German name; Estonian would be Viljandi); and the entirely wrong name of Hiiumaa (which would refer to the island just north of Saaremaa) could be either Valjala or Pöide.

That's all about that region; and I have to say you've already done a brilliant job compared to what the place looked like before. This above is just a few of the recommendations I have, so please be not offended by them.

Thanks,

ahh input, I like input

- Nordmannia vs. Kalmar union: Nordmannia was the term used at the HRE(its not known wether norsemen used it aswell, but since Im Danish I have allowed my self to use it) court between roughly 9th-12th century to describe Scandinavia/ the influnence sphere of the Danish king. Everyone from the norse dominated areas was described as being from "Nordmannia" in the imperial annals. The reason I don't like the Kalmar union is that you could just replace Kalmar with any genric midseized bordertown(could just aswell have been called the union of Halmstad or Kungsbakke or after a third town) in the next version every FOA's localication for Empires will be corrected(so in this case it will display as an union instead of an empire and the emperor will be displayed as King)
- Iberia vs. Spain: simply because its molded on the Iberian union rather than Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Union otherwise the Portugese might complain....
-Tartu/Ugandi: You are comlpetly right, I must have forgot to correct it, will fix it for next version.

I have to go back to my research material for the rest of the Estonian stuff, but I can rember there was a reason I went for Saare-Laane instead of Ösel-Wiek(just can't rember what it was). About the nameing for provinces and towns I decided that Estonian and Latvian was prefferable to german(if you start the game at 1066 there is no assurence that one of the german entites will dominate the area...)

 

[LordHoth]

Fair enough, but in that case you should revert back from Arensburg (and maybe change Reval into Koluvan which was the Slavic name for the town).

Fair enough about Portugal included making it more than Spain -- I forgot that part ( ).

Also, erm... is England supposed to be Englaland in the present edition ? Saare-Lääne would be a translation of Ösel-Wiek so if not going for German names, would make sense to havei t like that. My comment about Hermann was directed solely towards the fact that the place is always known (in a set language, that is) as the Tower of Hermann or something similar, so would make sense to keep the settlement-identity bit in the name, otherwise it could just as well be a person's name.

Fair enough about Nordmannia -- I had just never before seen it used in literature/histories, so I wondered about that. I take it that Britannia has a similar reasoning (I would again recommend just a simple "Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" or something along those lines).

Also, while I tried going back and forth in the times, I was unsure how well the changes in lordship were represented history wise. Did you work on that (I have no experience with that particular side of modding) or is that a jump towards the original?

Likewise, while I enjoy that you've changed some of the titles for the Norse people (Konung being a brilliant example), I wonder if you're planning to carry that onwards to other places?

And a final quip, if I may : the Byzantine Empire never existed. There was, admittedly, an Eastern Roman Empire that was named Byzantine by Edward Gibbon, but that is it. May I ask why you have chosen to keep the term in still?

 

[Aasmul]

Fair enough, but in that case you should revert back from Arensburg (and maybe change Reval into Koluvan which was the Slavic name for the town).

I probably ought a do that, after the next update I will go through all the settlement names and see how many german ones from vanilla has been left.

Also, erm... is England supposed to be Englaland in the present edition ?

Its from the Saxon england mod should be old anglosaxon for England(might remove it, looks a bit weired)

My comment about Hermann was directed solely towards the fact that the place is always known (in a set language, that is) as the Tower of Hermann or something similar, so would make sense to keep the settlement-identity bit in the name, otherwise it could just as well be a person's name.

Will fix it then

I take it that Britannia has a similar reasoning (I would again recommend just a simple "Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" or something along those lines).

Britannia dosn't have same amount of basis as Nordmannia I just haven't found a better name, "Albion" would exclude Ireland, and "Great Britain and Ireland" is a bit long/putting a bit to much of later conflict into the game(If you play as an Irish character and manage to form the empire it would feel a bit odd...)

Also, while I tried going back and forth in the times, I was unsure how well the changes in lordship were represented history wise. Did you work on that (I have no experience with that particular side of modding) or is that a jump towards the original?

Most is vanilla, only thing I have put in so far is the provinces I have made/changed(and at the moment its not a refined process but only copy pasting of the ownership file of another province that follows roughly the same pattern in history) I will go into much greater detail once the map and de jure setup is sorted out

Likewise, while I enjoy that you've changed some of the titles for the Norse people (Konung being a brilliant example), I wonder if you're planning to carry that onwards to other places?

I do indeed, but its going to take a lot of time getting all the way around(help woukd be very welcome!!)

And a final quip, if I may : the Byzantine Empire never existed. There was, admittedly, an Eastern Roman Empire that was named Byzantine by Edward Gibbon, but that is it. May I ask why you have chosen to keep the term in still

Complety right, I have thought of putting it up as "Basileia Rhōmaiōn" just not sure wether people will get to confused:mellow:

 

[ZmajOgnjeniVuk]

- Csanad. Im thinking about adding Temes as a province, and that would solve the problem.

- Krizeveci: the wiki page claims it was part of the other province(the one I have merged with Varazdin)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjelovar-Kri%C5%BEevci_County

- Rashka and Kosovo. I have been looking on a lot of old maps and I don't think you can seperate them, multiple settlements in northern Kosovo was Rashka heartland(again Ras was situated just on the Serbian side of the border with modern day Kosovo)

- Macedonia and Albania. Your right, both need a lot of work. Currently Macedonia is situated inside Strymon which in reallife was a theme located on the coast close to Thessaloniki:huh:

- Definitely add Temes.

- About Croatian county names: change Licko to Lika, Požeška to Požega and Virotivitčka to Virovitica - names are in the wrong casus. Križevci is probably a more fitting name for the one in the northwest.

- You could move Raška а bit more north of the (west Morava) river (and it did in fact stretch there), thus getting more space in the south to fit Kosovo in.

- About de jure setup of Serbia: you could do a switch between Braničevo and Naissus (Niš) - put the first one into de jure Bulgaria (it came under the rule of the deposed king Dragutin in the late 13th c. and got incorporated into Serbia in the early 14th), and the second one into de jure Serbia (was the capital of Serbia during the Third crusade, and a part of Serbia until the Ottoman invasion, except some two decades in the 13th century when the Bulgarians held it).

- As for Macedonia, the region around Skoplje (today northern Macedonia), was at several occasions briefly held by Serbia, and it became definitely incorporated into it in the last 1/4 of the 13th c. After that, and basically until modern times it was often perceived as a "de jure" part of Serbia (damn me if I know which culture should you put there - but Bulgarian seems the most fitting). Skoplje was also a capital of Serbia, in the 14th century (it should probably not be a de jure part of Serbia in 1066, but could be put there in 1300s).

You could maybe split Macedonia into 4 counties, going by regional strongholds - Skoplje in the north, and northwest, Štip in the east, Prosek in the southeast, and Ohrid/Prilep in the southwest?

- What's your plan for Albania? Going by rivers looks the easiest (Drim to Mat, Mat to Shkumba, Shkumba to Vjosa as county borders f.e.).

 

[LordHoth]

Go ahead with either the Basileia or just Eastern Roman Empire if you want to keep to English but accurate names. I guess that depends on what approach you prefer to take.

You are correct about the weirdness of Great Britain and Ireland. What about something like "the Crown of British Isles" which wouldn't prejudice towards none of the parties but would still retain the correction of geographical terms?

I originally translated quite a few of the different historical ranks/provincial_ranks to what they could have been (say Thema instead of County; Despotate instead of Greek kingdom, and so forth as much as I could find at that moment). I can pass the file to you, and you can look at what there seems fitting to you (certainly some of what I did was more akin to approximate localizing due to the lack of accurate possibilities). Let me know if you'd like to take a look though; it might be useful.

And, yes, Englaland looks very weird. It might be correct-correct, but I don't think it is worth it unless you'd like to translate all of the locality names to their home languages (which, while thorough, would probably be overdoing it).

 

[ZmajOgnjeniVuk]

I am not trying to take away ties with Serbia and Serbs, or for that matter with other people living by. But I will not take away Illiriyan heritage and later romanized population along river Bosna called Bassans. And the early banate and description of people there.

About Stećci, I must inform you that there is 66.663 stećci (registered) in all of Yugoslavia, and 58.547 of them in Bosnia and Hum. Some early Bosnian noblemen who took islamic faith also built stećak-like monuments and wrote cyrilic on them.


You are right, I confused DAI with writings of Byzantine author in 12th century, Ivan Kinamos.

"And Bosnia is not subordinated...it is on its own; a nation living its independant life and governing itself..."

It's really anthropologically & sociologically interesting how every Balkan nation reaches out to Illyrians in a period of redefining themselves. Serbs did it in the 18th century. Croatians in the 19th. Albanians in the 20th. Now Bosniaks in the 21st. But that's a subject for another discussion.

And out of those 60.000 noted in Bosnia & Hercegovina, 75% are found in Hercegovina = Hum.

If you're going to quote Kinamos, please do give a full qoute:

Drina [a part about where its spring is] separates Bosnia from the rest of Serbia. Bosnia isn't subjugated to the archont of Serbia and the people there have separate way of life and rule

There's no dilemma that Kinamos sees Bosnia as an independent entity. But he's also hinting that Bosnia was indeed a part of Serbia in the past long enough that it still echoes in the 12th century.

Kinamos give a lot of valuable info about Serb rebellions against the Byzantines. He also uses the term "Dalmatians" for Serbs, and Dalmatia for Serbia.

"At that time Serbs, or the Dalmatian people, prepared a rebellion"
"Emperor moved onto Dalmatians, wanting to punish their arch-župan [...] When he came to Dalmatia, he destroyed the fortress of Ras (capital of Raška)"
"Peonians (Hungarians) then sent help to the Dalmatians"
"In the Dalmatian nation, there was one, I forgot his name, brother of Beloš" (Serbian prince that became comes palatinus of the Hungarian court)

There's dozens more qoutes like these, but one stands out:

"When the emperor saw this, and got news that the achront of the Dalmatian country of Bosnia, Borić..."

So, 99% of the lines that mention Dalmatians are about Serbs. Why would the 1% be an exception?

 

[unmerged(24064)]

Well thats a lot of hinting and interpretation...

Konstantin referred to Hungarians as Turks... so whats that?

I don't know what to tell you, it is possible and probable that before that Serbs ruled over the region, and were significant factor in colonization of Bosnia proper. For sure they were part of Bosnian statehood. But I must say until Ottoman conquest rulers and peasants of Bosnia didn't really hinted in that way.

 

[ZmajOgnjeniVuk]

Well thats a lot of hinting and interpretation...

Konstantin referred to Hungarians as Turks... so whats that?

I don't know what to tell you, it is possible that before that Serbs ruled over the region, and were significant factor in colonization of Bosnia proper. For sure they were part of Bosnian statehood. But I must say until Ottoman conquest rulers and peasants of Bosnia didn't really hinted in that way.

Proto-Hungarians were partly of Turkic origin, weren't they? And we were not talking about Constantine's naming etiquette, we were talking about the one of John Kinamos. Yes, that "Dalmatian" thing is an interpretation, but a one that is not illogical given the meaning attributed to the term (synonym to "Serb") multiple times throughout the text, except the 1 instance that could be disputed. Odds say that even that instance isn't an accident, since we can see that Kinamos has knowledge of Bosnia, its past and its political situation.

As for hinting: I was not hinting at anything. Kinamos said two things that contradict each other. 1) Bosnia is independent 2) Bosnia is separate from the rest of Serbia (meaning: a part of Serbia with special status). Since we know 1) was true, we must check the why does 2) imply otherwise. If you co-relate 2) with other sources (De Administrando Imperio - as said in above posts, and Chronicles of the Diocleian priest - which says Rasha and Bosnia formed one entity), a logical assumption would be that Bosnia was in fact a part of Serbia sometime prior to the mid 12th century, and long enough so that kind of info may appear in three chronologically & typologically different sources.

Peasants didn't hint at much in Hungary, Croatia or Serbia either. And I'm having trouble to grasp how it does not constitute at least "hinting" if ruler A calls his subjects "Serbs" in a charter, ruler B calls his language "Serbian", and rulers C-Z title themselves "king of the Serbs" (and their legitimacy would not have been damaged if the title had "Serbia" instead "Serbs" in it - no one disputed their right to the crown).

 

[unmerged(24064)]

a logical assumption would be that Bosnia was in fact a part of Serbia sometime prior to the mid 12th century, and long enough so that kind of info may appear in three chronologically & typologically different sources.

Thats probable.

But as I remember whole thing started with Bosnian culture that author of mod was going to add. Mine stance is there is basis for him to do that.

I know about that charter, i know about language thing, but I know other instances with charters that mention Bosnia and Bosnjani. I can't ignore that, even that I acknowledge that you said. Why is that problem with King of Serbs? Tvrtko latter changed that to "by the mercy of God famous King of Rascia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croatia, the Seaside..."

But I don't see problem with king of Serbs, he took the crown in right time, and he choose to crown himself like that. I am not taking away from Serbs anything. I am too having trouble with that constant insisting... It's more modern political issue.

Proto-Hungarians were partly of Turkic origin, weren't they?

They don't belong to Turkic group, so he clearly made a mistake. They had lot of contact with them..

For Byzantine Bosnia was far region, he couldn't know all details. I have trouble with any reasoning where there is only black and white stance. What do Croats say about that. They say pretty much the same, Bosnia was Croat land, inhabited by Croats, etc. Like nobody was living there ever...

 

[LP90]

Any interesst in adding the North african expansion Mod?

 

[Aasmul]

Any interesst in adding the North african expansion Mod?

I really like what Korbah has done with Africa but it would not be a good idea to incoreprate everything, firstly it would add way to many provinces(at some point it will hurt performance, and this mod is more eurocentric orientated so any province additions will be in the already inhabited parts of the CK2 map). Secondly, its a big job to make a mapmod of that scale and even though I have nothing against people using part of this mod(if they ask nicely) I would get very cranky if another mapmod just came along and copyed all of it) I might ask permission to borrow his Nubian and Egyptian parts though.