CK3 Dev Diary #93 - Turmoil in the Peninsula

[Voy]

To be fair, it seems so far only the Catalan counties got a (very minor) map rework. Not even any of the other kingdoms.

Let's not judge it too soon, I'm sure there were other barony changes in the setup elsewhere.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Let's not judge it too soon, I'm sure there were other barony changes in the setup elsewhere.

I hope so as well.
Although Iberia's problem is not the lack of baronies, but a lack of counties/duchies (for a more gradual expansion and accurate border changes)

 

[CirclePete]

I hope that, along with gameplay flavor content, some art flavor content will also come: like unique illustration for men-at-arms (caballeros for this flavor pack).

 

[Gogote54]

Nice addition, I hope it will be deeper than it looks rn.

 

[Axis89]

Less.
They had a considerable impact in the Portuguese Reconquista effort sure, just like the other orders.
But Portugal was founded way before Holy Orders became a thing, and it became a kingdom without any direct action by part of the Templars.


It is objectively not a crusader state as the Reconquista is a different geopolitical conflict that outspaned the crusades by several centuries, Iberian Kingdoms were deliberately left out of the Crusades by the Pope because they were already engaged in their own holy wars (Portugal was founded before the Crusades were a thing).


Meaningless modern political distinction.

What we had in Medieval Hispania were several populations organised as different realms, be that kingdoms or independent counties and principalities (in Catalonia)

Portugal was a mere county belonging to one of those realms, (Asturias first, later Galicia) that gained independence and rose to the status of Kingdom, like the others, expanded further and remained sovereign up to today.

"Spain" in a medieval context meant the Iberian Peninsula, it was a geographical term, irrespective of whether they belonged to the same political entity or not. Portugal was as much Spain as Castile or the Islamic realms.
(In fact, in the early medieval period, "Spain" was the coloquial term for Islamic Iberia, while "Gallaecia" was the coloquial term for Catholic Iberia)

The distinction between Portugal and Spain began with the gradual merging of these distinct kingdoms as a single personal union under a single monarch, his domain began to be colloquially refered to as "Spain" because it involved most of it (Similar to how the E.U and it's people are sometimes colloquially refered to as Europe or the "Europeans") and eventually in 1716 they were formally merged under one kingdom, the modern Kingdom of Spain, thus "officializing" the difference between Portugal and Spain.


To be fair, it seems so far only the Catalan counties got a (very minor) map rework. Not even any of the other kingdoms.


These two are Portugal and Andorra.
The rest of the Medieval Hispanic realms were extinguished in 1716

That's a lot of rubbish. Facts, yes, but it is a very shallow use of facts.
Portugal, for example, is not only a political independent realm from Spain, it is also a cultural and linguistic independent people, who share a common root, except some differences, like the Lusitani, or the Suebi etc.
The geographical location also made Portugal and today's Galicia in Spain less prone to influences of invading armies and cultures like the visigoths and Moors, as it was a little "off the road".

You use technicalities to try to move your point, but say Portugal is doing a holy war, while the ones going east, heeding the Pope and Emperor Alexios I call, a crusade. Well, they didn't call that a crusade either, that term came later, just like the name Byzantine.
But it was a Christian holy war, and the Templars came to Portugal, they settled in Portugal, they became an important power factor in thr newly established realm of Portugal and they still exist there by a new name, in Portugal.

You raise so many points that I can't bother write back and forth about this, but all I say is that your arguments are shallow, they might fool a lot of people, but thr story isn't that simple my friend.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Portugal, for example, is not only a political independent realm from Spain, it is also a cultural and linguistic independent people, who share a common root, except some differences, like the Lusitani, or the Suebi etc.

Unlike Portugal, Spain isn't a linguistic or cultural monolith. There are different peoples with different origins, culture and language across that land.
And this was expecially true in the 9th-11th centuries, where neither Portugal or Spain existed as countries or unifying pressures.

The geographical location also made Portugal and today's Galicia in Spain less prone to influences of invading armies and cultures like the visigoths and Moors, as it was a little "off the road".

Depends on the invasion.
You mentioned the Suebi beforehand, Suebian influence was felt almost if not entirely within Northern Portugal and Galicia.
You could also argue the same for the Celts if you still believe in the (outdated) invasion theory.

You use technicalities to try to move your point, but say Portugal is doing a holy war, while the ones going east, heeding the Pope and Emperor Alexios I call, a crusade. Well, they didn't call that a crusade either, that term came later, just like the name Byzantine.

I'm not making a semantics argument, I'm merely saying that the Iberian realms were excluded by the Pope from requiring to participate in the excursions to the holy land because they were already engaged in their own conflict against "the infidel".
If you call every Christian religious conflict "a crusade" then yes Portugal was technically under such circumstances and with the purpose of continue such efforts so you can call it a "crusader state" in that sense. But i was trying to clarify the difference between that and something like the Kingdom of Jerusalem for example.

But it was a Christian holy war, and the Templars came to Portugal, they settled in Portugal, they became an important power factor in thr newly established realm of Portugal and they still exist there by a new name, in Portugal.

I never denied the impact that the templar order had in Portugal across all it's history. I'm just saying that claiming it was outright founded by the Templars is greatly simplifying and exaggerating their role.

You raise so many points that I can't bother write back and forth about this, but all I say is that your arguments are shallow, they might fool a lot of people, but thr story isn't that simple my friend.

The story isn't that simple, exactly. That's precisely what I am trying to explain by pointing out all the small nuances.

 

[Axis89]

Unlike Portugal, Spain isn't a linguistic or cultural monolith. There are different peoples with different origins, culture and language across that land.
And this was expecially true in the 9th-11th centuries, where neither Portugal or Spain existed as countries or unifying pressures.


Depends on the invasion.
You mentioned the Suebi beforehand, Suebian influence was felt almost if not entirely within Northern Portugal and Galicia.
You could also argue the same for the Celts if you still believe in the (outdated) invasion theory.


I'm not making a semantics argument, I'm merely saying that the Iberian realms were excluded by the Pope from requiring to participate in the excursions to the holy land because they were already engaged in their own conflict against "the infidel".
If you call every Christian religious conflict "a crusade" then yes Portugal was technically under such circumstances and with the purpose of continue such efforts so you can call it a "crusader state" in that sense. But i was trying to clarify the difference between that and something like the Kingdom of Jerusalem for example.


I never denied the impact that the templar order had in Portugal across all it's history. I'm just saying that claiming it was outright founded by the Templars is greatly simplifying and exaggerating their role.


The story isn't that simple, exactly. That's precisely what I am trying to explain by pointing out all the small nuances.

The story isn't simple and you have a need to try to show your well informed, which is good. But you annoy me on two points, the first one being that you assume a stranger(me) has no clue, I do, history is my passion, I read it all the time and there are so many perspectives, sources and sources to be careful about that things sometimes get very murky. But you assumption is what it is, and you take a simple comment, on a CK3 discussion thread and complicate it beyond what I even can bother anymore. I have a 8 month old daughter, I have a life, I wasted too many hours before on random people on the internet trolling or just being pedantic.

The second annoyance is that by not bothering, and by letting you just list up facts, arresting me on some points, and on some other being just pedantic or erristic you seem like thr one with a lot of in depth understanding. But my point to begin with is just lost in you mayham.

If I write at a CK3 forum I try to have low shoulders, when I say that Portugal was founded by crusaders, in an informal setting I was making a point. The be a crusader is a term that was later used, so technically the first crusade wasn't a crusade if we are going to be so insanely nitpicky.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

But you annoy me on two points, the first one being that you assume a stranger(me) has no clue

I don't assume anything, i don't even look at the name of the people I am replying to, i try to make my comments directed entirely at the content of the specific quote i'm replying to and try to go over some basics or extra information to give context to other interested readers who might not be well informed on the subject discussed.

The second annoyance is that by not bothering, and by letting you just list up facts, arresting me on some points, and on some other being just pedantic or erristic you seem like thr one with a lot of in depth understanding. But my point to begin with is just lost in you mayham.

This is not a contest, it doesn't matter who "appears right". We just state our facts, give our opinions based on them, and then other people will make their own.
If you want to contest something i said, go ahead, there is no rush, the forum isn't going anywhere and you may reply when you find the time. Or you can just press respectfully disagree and not be bothered by it anymore.

 

[Axis89]

I don't assume anything, i don't even look at the name of the people I am replying to, i try to make my comments directed entirely at the content of the specific quote i'm replying to and try to go over some basics or extra information to give context to other interested readers who might not be well informed on the subject discussed.

This is not a contest, it doesn't matter who "appears right". We just state our facts, give our opinions based on them, and then other people will make their own.
If you want to contest something i said, go ahead, there is no rush, the forum isn't going anyway and you may reply when you find the time. Or you can just press respectfully disagree and not be bothered by it anymore.

Well then, if you could be so kind and talk about what was my original point, that Portugal has very good reasons for getting some love, as their history and culture differs from modern day Spain, and that the modern day consumers who will buy the dlc from Iberia are Portuguese and Spanish.

I stand by that the Reconquista was a form of crusade, that's why the Pope urged thr Iberians to stay there and fight and not to drain their resources all the way to the east in the holy land.
I stand by that remark, because the first crusade wasn't even branded a crusade until the second or third crusade. I can't remember exactly when they used the term, but it was popularized later.
So the holy wars of Iberia was of the same nature, it was regarded as reconquests in the name of Christ.
The only difference is that the Turks sparked the Christian campaigns to the holy land when they stopped pilgrims from safely entering the area, and creating shockwaves in Anatolia, pushing the Roman's out of their on turf leaving Alexios I vulnerable. If it wasn't for Alexios and the pilgrims we might not have seen crusades as we call them now until much later or maybe not at all.

However, the holy wars as you call them in Iberia was already ongoing, and would continue long after the crusades. Brand them whatever you like but it was very much the same, and holy orders and actual "crusaders" in your view helped the fight in Iberia.
Many of them pit stopped in Portugal to help the Christians.
Germans, English, French.. even Sigurd Jorsalfar, king of Norway, the first actual Crusader King who sacked Lisbon and couldn't yell the difference between Christians and Muslims of the city so that he slaughtered both..

But yeah, it's a holy war, not connected at all to the overall goals of Christianity at the time, not the same as the eastern campaigns. Being ironic here, but I disagree with your assessment. Facts are good, bit I disagree on your use of them on some points, like the one 8 described above, it's more a technicality of our modern hindsights, but for the people at that time it was a holy war, a reconquest for Christianity against the same enemy, the Islamic invaders.

Now I would like to talk about CK3 in a more laid back way.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

that Portugal has very good reasons for getting some love

All my posts in Fate of Ibeira have been requests for more attention to Western/Atlantic Iberia (expecially Portugal)
We want the same thing, I am not your enemy, take a chill pill and stop being so confrontational.

 

[Axis89]

All my posts in Fate of Ibeira have been requests for more attention to Western/Atlantic Iberia (expecially Portugal)
We want the same thing, I am not your enemy, take a chill pill and stop being so confrontational.

Stop being so confrontational.. ok that's fine, I just wanted you to get off my back.
You're not my enemy, I know, and yes we agree, why couldn't we just have said that to begin with?