Ragusa in CK3 is really weird

[A Frustrated Lowborn]

Some context, first.

Ragusa was a merchant republic much like Venice in CK2, EU4, and historically. It was located on the Balkan coastline, and was a direct vassal under the ERE. It was known for having the unique "Dalmatian" culture, a Latin culture known for being among the first to outlaw slavery, having an obscure Romance language that completely died out... and spotted dogs.

Anyways, in the CK3 timeline the Ragusa Republic and Dalmatian culture simply doesn't exist... except it also kinda does...?

- Ragusa is a county and even has a one-county Duchy much like Gotland, but the holding is a castle for some reason. Also, the duchy uses the same CoA as CK2 and EU4.

- If you diverge a Byzantine, Latin, or Slavic culture in this area it will have the name "Dalmatian", which is weird because it should be in the game to begin with, much like Coptic culture.

- It is a Holy Site for the Krstjani faith (Church of Bosnia).

- It is held by a Feudal Slavic Ruler in 867 and has no history of being held by anyone else. The duchy "Dubrovnik" has not been created in 867 and is simply marked as having been "destroyed" in 1066.

- A Republic vassal under the Byzantines would conflict with Administrative gameplay, since they can't normally have Republic vassals.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, it's just something I find really strange and I never hear anyone talk about it. Thinking about at some point making a Ragusa "pseudo-republic" using Admin government, but I'm just, like... why isn't it already there?

They could just as easily have done what they did with Amalfi, and shoved Ragusa into a city subholding, but that's not the case. It's like Paradox was originally going to commit to Ragusa being a republic but dropped it halfway into development.

 

[Bastian00]

They could just as easily have done what they did with Amalfi, and shoved Ragusa into a city subholding, but that's not the case. It's like Paradox was originally going to commit to Ragusa being a republic but dropped it halfway into development.

I suppose nobody says much, because it is one of the most obvious flaws in the game right now, the lack of merchant republics is a real problem. I suppose that the devs know this and it will eventually be fixed.

 

[Vityviktor]

Yeah, it`s one of the things that were in a decent state at the end of CK2's development but unexplicably are not ported yet (it's been nearly 5 years) to CK3...

 

[Bastian00]

Yeah, it`s one of the things that were in a decent state at the end of CK2's development but unexplicably are not ported yet (it's been nearly 5 years) to CK3...

devs said they were not fans of ck2's merchant republics, maybe that's why it's taking so long, finding a way to make it different to ck2 and fun and distinct than all the other governments, seems like a hard task.

 

[Cassilda]

- If you diverge a Byzantine, Latin, or Slavic culture in this area it will have the name "Dalmatian", which is weird because it should be in the game to begin with, much like Coptic culture.

I completely agree, it should. Five years after being released CKIII still lacks the inclusion of some cultures that were well documented in the game timeframe.

 

[Slime99]

The republic of Ragusa didn't exist until way later on so it is historically accurate for the republic not to exist yet.

 

[Byzantium2000]

This has been talked about numerous times before. I think it was Wokeg who said paradox would probably get to adding a Dalmatian culture proper once they added Merchant republics and had a mechanic to tie it to since it would be a minority culture destined to get wiped otherwise.

Also the Ragusans do transport and sell slaves in CK3s time period, specifically from the Slavic interior, Incase anyone was wondering.

Ragusa historically should be under siege by the Emirate of Bari in 867 before a Byzantine fleet saved them in 868.

Justice for Almalfi too btw

The republic of Ragusa didn't exist until way later on so it is historically accurate for the republic not to exist yet.

While in 867 and 1066 you could say they were just republics integrated into the Byzantine hierarchy with the lead city being Zadar. We have Byzantine Strategoi appointed over Dalmatian Priors(Mayors) in 867 and then Zadar Priors by 1066 with the positions of Strategos and Katepano who oversaw northern Dalmatia while a separate Byzantine Strategos oversaw Ragusa.

But by 1176 Ragusa specifically is a merchant Republic that signed trade deals with multiple cities in Italy such as Molfetta and had merchant communities throughout the Mediterranean. In 1192 it was given the same trade rights as Venice in the Byzantine Empire by Emperor Isaac II Angelos in a treaty that also covered its vassal obligations.

You’re right though it’s not THE Republic of Ragusa that got independence from Venice in 1358. By that time though Ragusa was no longer culturally Dalmatian as we imagine it in CK3s time period.

In 1176 the Republic should also historically be under the Byzantine Doux of Dalmatia in Split hierarchy wise. In game though it could just be an independent merchant republic that’s a tributary to Byzantium to highlight the 1180s collapse that Serbia capitalized on before Isaac regained control in 1192.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

The republic of Ragusa didn't exist until way later on so it is historically accurate for the republic not to exist yet.

We got republic genoa early in ck2 so it could be playable at game start, whilst not a kingdom