Tinto Maps #4 Poland, Ruthenia, Baltic Feedback

[Clyde Wallach]

Of the proper early Russian name, yes.

Russian =/= Rus'

An archaic Russian name for a place in Belarus isn't automatically authentic. The question isn't what a clerk in St. Petersburg would've called the city immediately after it was annexed by Russia, or what a merchant in Moscow would've called it in 1337. It's what the East Slavic locals would've called it around that time.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

Of the proper early Russian name, yes.

oops i was wrong apparently its the name from the primary chronicle which can be considered "old russian" if we're going with the local old belarusian name then its Biereść(also considering its under lithuanian control it should be called Brasta like in eu4)

 

[Cuke]

Russian =/= Rus'

Russian is the English adjective of Rus.

An archaic Russian name for a place in Belarus isn't automatically authentic.

It is because Belarus is a part of Rus.

The question isn't what a clerk in St. Petersburg would've called the city immediately after it was annexed by Russia,

Sure, because the name of Berestye is several centuries older than St Petersburg.

or what a merchant in Moscow would've called it in 1337. It's what the East Slavic locals would've called it around that time.

And those East Slavics were Russians who called it Berestye as evidenced by the Galich-Volhyn chronicle.

 

[Clyde Wallach]

Russian is the English adjective of Rus.

It's not. The adjective for Rus(') is, in English, the same as the noun. Russian is the adjective for Russia.

 

[Linbot#6018]

It's not. The adjective for Rus(') is, in English, the same as the noun. Russian is the adjective for Russia.

I don't think you can state such a thing unequivocally. In fact, there is no clear adjective for Rus' in English. "Russian", "Rusian", and the noun itself are all valid, and neither of them is more correct than the others. Aside from that, the person you responded to was clearly using "Russian" in this sense in particular.

 

[Rayski]

Yeah exactly!

Chrzanów was a private city anyway... Not only castle was created by Casimir the Great but also city rights were given to Będzin and it was designated as royal city (settlement is way older).

As well a mentioned already in this thread Będzin castle was part of Trial of Eagle's Nests which was important protection of the border. By the way border which lasted for hundreds of years (it has changed during desolution of Poland).

Even there could be special events to build a castle etc.

I understand everyone would like to see places they are emotionally connected with represented in game, but if there is a city this location should be renamed to it's Olkusz:

• Already granted city rights at the start of the game (unlike Będzin and Chrzanów). Exact date is unknown, but it happened no earlier than in 1262 and no later than in 1299.
• In 1356 it joined "Court of Six Cities" established by Casimir the Great - the highest judicial body for the cities of Lesser Poland (along with Kraków, Sącz, Bochnia, Wieliczka and Kazimierz).
• Important (arguably the most important) mining town of Kingdom of Poland at that time. It grew rich thanks to mines of lead and silver.

The Mazovian culture should be renamed Mazur, as this is the archaic term for an inhabitant of that traditional region. Inhabitants who would soon move north into Prussia, but I'll get to them a bit later.

As you mentioned, this is an archaic form. Using it would introduce confusion as noone calls Mazovians this way anymore. This term is used to describe Mazovian colonists that settled in southern Prussia (hence the name of the region: Mazuria) who with time developed their own identity.
Moreover, "Mazur" is not an adjective.

Western and Eastern Podolia should be West and East Ponyzzia, respectively. Bratslav province should be Bratslavshchyna. The area they're in should be renamed Ponyzzia & Pobuzhzhia.

Why? What's wrong with naming the area Podolia / Podillia?

Belz province should be part of Volhynia.

The map you linked shows that Belz (but also Bielsk, Drohiczyn, Wizna, Proskuriv and others) were between XI and XIII c. controlled by Principality of Volhynia. Political control does not imply those towns were part of historical region of Volhynia.

Brest litovsk should be called "Bieriestje"

apparently its romanisation of the old belarusian name

I don't speak any east slavic language, but it seems the name you proposed is a Russian variant.
Proper Belarusian one would be "Bieraście" according to this article.
Here you have that in cyrillic (that's the screenshot from Belarusian Historical Atlas):

 

[Polesie Admiral]

Proper Belarusian one would be "Bieraście" according to this article.

Bieraście is the modern name, i dont mind if it get used instead

 

[Bohemian_warlord]

Prussian and Pruthenian?
Is it like Russian (Greek) and Ruthenian (Latin)?

 

[Sir of Dark]

Yeah, proper names are very important, when there are related to historical locations, but now a lot of us just argue, what didn't have sens.

english: Brest, formerly Brest-Litovsk and Brest-on-the-Bug
polish: Brześć (earlier: Brześć Litewski or Brześć nad Bugiem) -> in Poland there is another Brest in Kuyavia region, so we have Litovsk to distinguish it, but if we don't have Brześć Kujawski in game, it can be use shorter name.
belarussian: Brest, Bieraście
russian: Brest, Bieriestje
etc...
and in each language it can be added part as Litovsk or "on the Bug", but the name will be too long and it will decrease readability

----------------------------

Rus and Russia are a different things,
Russian in a lot of languages means the same and is related to both countries.
Even in polish it's kind of confusing, because we have "ruski" and "rosyjski", but a lot of use "ruski" where should be "rosyjski".
--> Pierogi Ruskie are related to Rus (Ruthenia, more precisely Red Ruthenia) not to Russia

 

[Bohemian_warlord]

Rus and Russia are a different things

There are also Rusins who are a different thing. But such nonsensical terminology exists in modern discourse amongst Slavic nationalists

Spoiler: xxx

looking for excuses to kill each other.

They do not exist in primary sources from EU timeline, where people dont have problems calling people living under Rurikids as Ruthenians, Ruskie or goddamn Roxolans. In 1337 the Rus principalities were divided and the Moscow branch of Rurikids has not yet claimed to represent "all of Rus".

 

[Cuke]

Rus and Russia are a different things,

Rus is the local name, Rossia is Greek, Ruthenia is Latin. Same location but 3 names in 3 languages.
Similarly to Prussia and Pruthenia in post #528 by Bohemian Warlord.

In 1337 the Rus principalities were divided and the Moscow branch of Rurikids has not yet claimed to represent "all of Rus".

As of 1337 in particular, it's even more important to remember than Rus is an ecclesiastical province, and there is indeed a metropolitan of all of Rus who is very stubborn about holding on to his grand status and who doesn't want to split his province into 2 (or even 3).

 

[Clyde Wallach]

I don't think you can state such a thing unequivocally. In fact, there is no clear adjective for Rus' in English. "Russian", "Rusian", and the noun itself are all valid, and neither of them is more correct than the others. Aside from that, the person you responded to was clearly using "Russian" in this sense in particular.

I have literally never seen Russian used as the adjective for Rus' in English. I state this unequivocally. Which is why I cannot assume any such intent. I don't have time to correct people who I don't believe to be in the wrong.

 

[Linbot#6018]

I have literally never seen Russian used as the adjective for Rus' in English. I state this unequivocally. Which is why I cannot assume any such intent. I don't have time to correct people who I don't believe to be in the wrong.

Now, to be fair this book (A History of Russia - Nicholas A. Riasanovsky) was printed before the Soviet Union collapsed. Pretty sure it is sufficient evidence of usage though.

 

[Cuke]

I have literally never seen Russian used as the adjective for Rus' in English.

This is Russian Kingdom of Iaropolk son of Isjaslaw from "The making of Europe" by Robert Bartlett.

 

[Clyde Wallach]

View attachment 1192953

This is Russian Kingdom of Iaropolk son of Isjaslaw from "The making of Europe" by Robert Bartlett.

View attachment 1192929

Now, to be fair this book (A History of Russia - Nicholas A. Riasanovsky) was printed before the Soviet Union collapsed. Pretty sure it is sufficient evidence of usage though.

The question is whether the adjective Russian is ever used in reference to the noun Rus('). None of these authors do that. The italics are, and always have been there, for a reason. I'm not talking about the Rus', I'm talking about Rus'. If that sentence doesn't make sense to you, go back and read the whole conversation from the beginning until it does. This conversation has been neither pleasant nor productive for me and I really did mean what I said about not having time.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

there should be jewish population in Brest, Volhynia(mainly in towns), Hrodna and possibly Vilnius

 

[Polesie Admiral]

will there be event or so for the settling of Lipka tatars in lithuania?

 

[Clyde Wallach]

As you mentioned, this is an archaic form. Using it would introduce confusion as noone calls Mazovians this way anymore. This term is used to describe Mazovian colonists that settled in southern Prussia (hence the name of the region: Mazuria) who with time developed their own identity.

What's wrong with archaic forms? And how much confusion would there be in practice? Given the lack of Mazurians in southeastern Prussia, once that province is renamed, anyone familiar enough with that corner of Eastern Europe for the archaism to stand out to them on the culture map will know who exactly is meant from context alone.

The world map includes an Azerbaijan that isn't in the South Caucasus and 2 separate Iraqs, one of which is in the middle of Iran. Archaisms are fine. The people who can figure them out on sight will find them a nice touch, the people who notice them for the first time will either Google them or continue playing in spite of the "inaccuracy," and the people who don't know enough to recognize them... won't recognize them.

Moreover, "Mazur" is not an adjective.

You can call it Mazurian or Masurian if you want.

Why? What's wrong with naming the area Podolia / Podillia?

It's anachronistic, though admittedly not by much. Besides, Ponyzzia reminds me of its past as a Rus'/Tatar borderland. Podolia reminds me of the larger powers who'll end up annexing it.

The map you linked shows that Belz (but also Bielsk, Drohiczyn, Wizna, Proskuriv and others) were between XI and XIII c. controlled by Principality of Volhynia. Political control does not imply those towns were part of historical region of Volhynia.

Doesn't imply the opposite either. Show me a source to the contrary.

Presumably you think Belz province should stay in Red Ruthenia. Is that because the city was in Galicia during Austrian rule? Under the Poles before that it had its own voivodeship, separate from both the Ruthenian and the Volhynian ones. Seems to me like the Galician link shouldn't be treated as the default.

 

[Rayski]

Doesn't imply the opposite either. Show me a source to the contrary.

Since you are the one calling for change of the current setup, the burden of proof lies on your side.
"X should change to Y" in your original feedback suggests you think the current state of matters is incorrect and should be amended, thus I would appreciate if you could back your claims with sources / maps that we could refer to.
So far I learned you would use anachronistic name of Ponyzzia (hardly mentioned in any sources pertaining to the timeframe the game covers) rather than Podolia (mentioned in countless of sources, printed on countless of maps) because the former has positive and latter negative conotations in your head

 

[ErnestvonLauenb]

I don't think you can state such a thing unequivocally. In fact, there is no clear adjective for Rus' in English. "Russian", "Rusian", and the noun itself are all valid, and neither of them is more correct than the others. Aside from that, the person you responded to was clearly using "Russian" in this sense in particular.

Ruthenian?