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

[Aasmul]

Definately.

I think you should have split zhmud in half, one bit going to aukshys and the other going to samogotia. Its an awkwardly shaped and quite large province.

You've made poitou go really far south. I don't think Poitou ever made up that much of aquitaine. It wasn't even a duchy after all (though neither were anjou, provence or flanders and even normandy for a time). Your Poitou is the modern region of Poitou-charentes.

Baxenbere means the king of france can usurp Navarre on day 1.

Innsbruck was the capital of Tyrol. Should be in the duchy if anything is. Its more tyrol than Chur which was just a zone of influence.

Carinthia was a duchy since 976. Steirmark was a seperate duchy for 12 years before being combined with austria. Karnten (eg carinthia) should not be a county of a massive duchy of steirmark.

You left Wittelsbach as the capital of Niederbayern. Wittelsbach is no where near niederbayern and should just by a barony in Kempten or ulm. Landshut should be the capital of neiderbayern and of Bavaria proper. Munich wasn't even founded until 1158 and became the capital of oberbayern in 1255.

If you're going to divide Moldau in two it should be divided east/west into bessarabia and moldavia rather than north/south. But since that's a much later distinction I suppose you might as well just make things up.

Netherlands is completely ahistorical for this time period. I'm happy to see it in mods it just doesn't fit in a 'historical' one. Flanders is de jure france in this period. If you're going to put in a modern concept of the netherlands at least make a 'picardie' and leave it in france.

Lausitia wasn't part of brandenburg until 1815, where it was actually put into silesia. It was always either its own march or part of meissen or Bohemia.

Altmark made sense as part of brandenburg in vanilla. Makes no sense in Saxony, only saxony it was ever part of is the stem duchy which you have as a kingdom. You put in a neumark and didn't put it into Brandenburg? You renamed province brandenburg to mittelmark (middle march) and then didn't let the duchy have the two marks that it was in the middle of? Brandenburg should be mittelmark, altmark, neumark and lubusz (the last because it ended up in brandenburg and looks dumb in wielpolska.)

Wessex was pretty much invented by Thomas Hardy in the 19th century. Wasn't a real region of england since 927.

Bedford was a duchy, though only after 1427. Essex was never more than an earldom. The Duke of Bedford owned a lot of land in london, the earl of essex not so much.

Thats quite a lot of feedback)

Lets take it one by one:


Zhmud. If you have a map I would like to se it.


With Poutiou and the rest of the french duchies that is taken straight out of vanilla(thats acutally everything except baxenbarre) I think you will find that the issue of regions from the 16th-20th being used as template for duchies(and modern provinces for counties) is equally acute in most other areas of CK2. I am working on it but I can't be everywhere at the same time. You will probably also have to accept that a duchy entitiy in CK2 isn't exactly the same as it was in real life, many regions simply didn't have duchies and its the same problem with counties. If you take Denmark as an example there wasn't counties until the late 17th centry(the way I got around that problem while designing the new dansish provinces in jutland was to make them so that the province borders roughly corresponds with the layout of the administrative enteties in Jutland from the 11th centryShires(Syssler) and dicoteses(stifter) while balancing the placement of citys and major fortifications(I haven't yet put all the correct citys etc into the danish history folder but the provinces is drawn in a way that they fit) I have tried to do similar things to other area where it wasn't possible to get hold of counties(if you have a better idea im all ears)

Baxenbarre. Your right I will put on additonal requirements for usurption/creation

Steiermark. Well the duchy did exsist for most of the timeline of CK2 if it has to be ruled independedly to be in the game we might as well remove half the duchies(and thats out of those that actually were duchies in real life)

Moldovia. This was made completly for balance, the area was completly run over by ever changing waves of tatar and turkish nomads until the mid 14th centry so I didn't really se the point of keeping moldovia as one big blob(if you prefer I can put the belgorod duchy into moldovia and leave it as a 6 county mega duchy(I just don't see the point))

Netherland: Yes you are correct(If you had clicked on the link of my old mod that I posted you would have gotten the explination of why its in(and it might get removed after patch 1.5, dependingly on how paradox change the de jure mechanics)

Neumark. Firstly Neumark has been made so that the area at the other side of the Oder could be detached from Brandenburg because doing most of the timeline of the game that area was under Pommerish control. The only reason its called Neumark is because I haven't yet found a Pommerish name for it( I try to form the provinces so that they fit into the Duchies and those into the kingdoms(or what ever one wants to call it) but of cause the borders of every entity and the de jure borders moved around quite a lot during the span of timeline CK2 covers. So please bear in mind that I try to balance every entity in the game not just the provinces so that it makes sense through most of 11th-14th centry)

Brandenburg. As far as I can see it wasn't called Brandenburg until 1157 but if people prefer it I can change it back. As for leaving it without Neumark. Neumark was tried anexed by the HRE 928 and 936(just like Heinrich the Fowler tried to annex holstein, and he refferd to that as his Dansih mark btw(not that it was for more than a year or so but that didn't stop him) but shortly after Neumark was back on Pommerish hands where it stayed for 200 years. And as far as I understand it the Marks didn't orignially start as one unit(more a way for the the HRE to say "here now be germans"). So leaving Brandeburg without the other marks I can't se any big problem in. As for Saxony the duchy(I hadnt found an alternative but I will get back to it after England(if you have an idea with what to do with the region Im all ears)

Wessex. No Wessex was removed as an independed duchy after 1066 by William as it was reunited with the crown.

Bedford vs. Essex. Well you have to choose between an earldom and a Duchy made at around the time the game ends, and I choose the prior(currently reworking England but haven't got to the area yet, but if you have a better suggestion already please say so)

 

[Aasmul]

Never heard of this one if supposed to be historical.

Same for occitania : day one creation by France if not "protected" by a creation condition like being occitan to create.

Baxenbarre = lower navarre

Will put creation protection on Octtania also

 

[Ruwaard]

Aquitaine should work as well, maybe even better if you don't want to edit provinces. As Provence should of course belong to the old kingdom of Burgundy.

If you really want to put a correct Occitania in, you can opt for a more modern Burgundy (Charles the bold, last duke of Burgundy, almost successfull attempt to reform it)
This later "version" was supposed to include : burgundian lands including burdundian low countries + Savoie, Lorraine and Liege.
This setup frees Provence and Dauphiné to put into Occitania.

That could have been, however there were various options for the name of the kingdom for the Valois duke of Burgundy IRL (Lotharingia, Burgundy, Frisia, Brabant etc.). Most of that region, the Low Countries (including Liege/Luik/Luttich) and Lorraine would be better represented with the kingdom of Lotharingia, which is a more 'historic' name for that region.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

Zhmud. If you have a map I would like to se it.

I'd just chop it in half east-west.

This is the modern region of zhmud/samogotia.

With Poutiou and the rest of the french duchies that is taken straight out of vanilla

Okay, didn't notice that.

Steiermark. Well the duchy did exsist for most of the timeline of CK2 if it has to be ruled independedly to be in the game we might as well remove half the duchies(and thats out of those that actually were duchies in real life)

Carinthia was a lot more important though. My problem is the lack of carinthia not the addition of steiermark.

Neumark. Firstly Neumark has been made so that the area at the other side of the Oder could be detached from Brandenburg because doing most of the timeline of the game that area was under Pommerish control.

Might have been under pommeranian control but its also an area of brandenburgian expansion that a cassus belli would help them with.

Brandenburg. As far as I can see it wasn't called Brandenburg until 1157 but if people prefer it I can change it back

It wasn't called brandenburg until 1157 because it wasn't under HRE control until then. The castle of brandenburg was built by Henry the Fowler but got retaken by the wends.

Wessex. No Wessex was removed as an independed duchy after 1066 by William as it was reunited with the crown.

There were no duchies in England before the norman conquest.

 

[Aasmul]

Closet Skeleton;13683974]I'd just chop it in half east-west.

This is the modern region of zhmud/samogotia.

Will look into it

Okay, didn't notice that.

I had a feeling you might not have

Carinthia was a lot more important though. My problem is the lack of carinthia not the addition of steiermark.

But wouldn't that require that I put Aquilia and a lot of other provinces in the duchy?(Im worried about balance...)

Might have been under pommeranian control but its also an area of brandenburgian expansion that a cassus belli would help them with.



It wasn't called brandenburg until 1157 because it wasn't under HRE control until then. The castle of brandenburg was built by Henry the Fowler but got retaken by the wends.

I for one think that the HRE don't really need further help in expanding to the baltic coast(have yet to play a game where they don't eat all of pommernia during the first 40 years..)

There were no duchies in England before the norman conquest.

Yes, but what would you call an earldom in CK2 that was makeing up more than half of southern England?

 

[Arko]

That could have been, however there were various options for the name of the kingdom for the Valois duke of Burgundy IRL (Lotharingia, Burgundy, Frisia, Brabant etc.). Most of that region, the Low Countries (including Liege/Luik/Luttich) and Lorraine would be better represented with the kingdom of Lotharingia, which is a more 'historic' name for that region.

But the existing crown that could have been given was the one of kingdom of Burgundy, not a new one, even if the geographical area was mainly Lotharingia's though. (most of Burgundy too, except Dauphiné and Provence.

 

[Arcvalons]

The image links are dead.

 

[Ruwaard]

But the existing crown that could have been given was the one of kingdom of Burgundy, not a new one, even if the geographical area was mainly Lotharingia's though. (most of Burgundy too, except Dauphiné and Provence.

The crown of Burgundy is a strong contender, especially when the focus lies on the negotiations between Frederick III and Charles the Bold, but there were already negotiations for a royal crown between Philip the Good and Frederick III. In all situations the political reality and what was requested by both parties made a compromise eventually not possible. In fact IIRC the first suggestion of a royal crown was made to Philip the Good by the imperial emissaries.
Anyway the chancellor of Frederick III, Kaspar Schlick, made the suggestion to erect Brabant into a (vassal) kingdom (of the empire, like Bohemia, but that would apply to any crown granted to them by the emperor (the duke of Burgundy ideally wanted to be an independent king)) and all the other imperial Burgundian territories would have been attached to it.
Alternatively the duke of Burgundy did toy with the idea of the kingdom of Frisia, which at the time was considered to be a Christian kingdom without a king. Even Lotharingia wasn't considered to be a new kingdom, that would have applied to the example of Brabant or another imperial territory, but the emperor did have the authority to do so; however the duke of Burgundy preferred an 'existing' royal crown like Burgundy, Frisia and even Lotharingia.
By the time of Charles the Bold the only options left were Burgundy and Frisia (Friesland) though.

 

[Arko]

The crown of Burgundy is a strong contender, especially when the focus lies on the negotiations between Frederick III and Charles the Bold, but there were already negotiations for a royal crown between Philip the Good and Frederick III. In all situations the political reality and what was requested by both parties made a compromise eventually not possible. In fact IIRC the first suggestion of a royal crown was made to Philip the Good by the imperial emissaries.
Anyway the chancellor of Frederick Kaspar Schlick made the suggestion to erect Brabant into a (vassal) kingdom (of the empire, like Bohemia, but that would apply to any crown granted to them by the emperor (the duke of Burgundy ideally wanted to be an independent king)) and all the other imperial Burgundian territories would have been attached to it.
Alternatively the duke of Burgundy did toy with the idea of the kingdom of Frisia, which at the time was considered to be a Christian kingdom without a king. Even Lotharingia wasn't considered to be a new kingdom, that would have applied to the example of Brabant or another imperial territory, but the emperor did have the authority to do so; however the duke of Burgundy preferred an 'existing' royal crown like Burgundy, Frisia and even Lotharingia.
By the time of Charles the Bold the only options left were Burgundy and Frisia (Friesland) though.

Ok thanks for precisions.

 

[Ruwaard]

Ok thanks for precisions.

Sorry, I've read some about this matter. Especially the mention, that it even was suggested to erect Brabant, I'm from the Dutch part of Brabant, into a kingdom in a book about the history of Brabant, made me curious about this matter. I already knew about Charles the Bold and Philip the Good and their ambitions less extensively, especially the latter was important for what eventually would become the Netherlands and Belgium, but that mention made me want to know more about it.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

But wouldn't that require that I put Aquilia and a lot of other provinces in the duchy?(Im worried about balance...)

Nope. Aquilia was never in carinthia proper. It was in the march of verona, sometimes called the march of verona-fruili and sometimes seperated into verona and fruili/aquilia and then remained as the patriarchate of fruili/aquilia when the western veronese bit collapsed and the margraves of verona started calling themselves margraves of Baden instead. The duke of carinthia often also possessed fruili and verona but aquilia wasn't under the carinthian title.

Even if aquilia was sometimes integrated into Carinthia the area was still divisable so you can treat it the same way as brabant for example which is de jure its own duchy in game terms but part of lower lorraine at the start.

 

[Arko]

Sorry, I've read some about this matter. Especially the mention, that it even was suggested to erect Brabant, I'm from the Dutch part of Brabant, into a kingdom in a book about the history of Brabant, made me curious about this matter. I already knew about Charles the Bold and Philip the Good and their ambitions less extensively, especially the latter was important for what eventually would become the Netherlands and Belgium, but that mention made me want to know more about it.

well the wiki about the almost successfull attempt of Charles the Bold was updated only recently. I wasn't aware he was so near to succeed. It would have really changed history as he wouldn't died a few years later trying to Lorraine.

Well, I've modded myself this "new" Burgundy setup in my current Mod (only released for French speaking community for now).

 

[Aasmul]

The image links are dead.

Strange, I just clicked on each of them and they still seem to work:mellow: anybody else having this issue?

 

[Aasmul]

Nope. Aquilia was never in carinthia proper. It was in the march of verona, sometimes called the march of verona-fruili and sometimes seperated into verona and fruili/aquilia and then remained as the patriarchate of fruili/aquilia when the western veronese bit collapsed and the margraves of verona started calling themselves margraves of Baden instead. The duke of carinthia often also possessed fruili and verona but aquilia wasn't under the carinthian title.

Even if aquilia was sometimes integrated into Carinthia the area was still divisable so you can treat it the same way as brabant for example which is de jure its own duchy in game terms but part of lower lorraine at the start.

Okay you've just won a Carinthia duchy(will miss Styrias cheerfull green color though) , what about Trieste and Istra? can I go with the setup of the Aquilia duchy I have currently?

 

[Aasmul]

well the wiki about the almost successfull attempt of Charles the Bold was updated only recently. I wasn't aware he was so near to succeed. It would have really changed history as he wouldn't died a few years later trying to Lorraine.

Well, I've modded myself this "new" Burgundy setup in my current Mod (only released for French speaking community for now).

Thats selfish

 

[Arko]

Thats selfish

I should have precised not release YET. I will make it public when it will be polished enough.

 

[Tsar Monarchist]

just so I don't muck it up again, Leczyca is number 2 and and Sieradz is number 3 on that map, right?

That's right And 4th can be a part of Sieradz.

Btw how does my edit of Mazovia stack up(Plock and Brodno)?

Not so bad, but it could actually be not Brodno, but... Czersk. That's how PI made whole Poland - best province borders are in Silesia, but named wrong (Raczynski's polish fixes mod make it correct). Rest of it... oh, I won't waste my breath. In my opinion, if you try to correct it, you would only make it worse.

So, really, your changes are as good as it can be.

 

[Arko]

Baxenbarre = lower navarre

OK. so Lower Navarre shouldn't include Béarn nor Dax.

Lower Navarre includes namely lower Navarre + Lapurdi + Soule.

 

[Aasmul]

I should have precised not release YET. I will make it public when it will be polished enough.

ahh, sorry I didn't get the hint at first, was really looking forward to a mod like that and knowing that one was avalible but not in English made me a bit dissaponinted

OK. so Lower Navarre shouldn't include Béarn nor Dax.

Lower Navarre includes namely lower Navarre + Lapurdi + Soule.

I see I have messed things up again (and here I was, thinking I had been thorougho)
Well at least it won't be a big job fixing it(thanks for letting me know, I would never had discoverd that error myself)

That's right And 4th can be a part of Sieradz.

Thanks, hopefully my next edit will pass the test

 

[Arko]

ahh, sorry I didn't get the hint at first, was really looking forward to a mod like that and knowing that one was avalible but not in English made me a bit dissaponinted

There is a beta version available but without totally operational localisation... you have an PM...

I see I have messed things up again (and here I was, thinking I had been thorougho)
Well at least it won't be a big job fixing it(thanks for letting me know, I would never had discoverd that error myself)

But Lower Navarra is a very tiny area. The namely lower Navarra part of it is supposed to be attached to "normal" Navarra. Soule is only a barony that joined Béarn.
Not really enough place there to be accurate enough apart of rearranging a bit borders.
Personally, I only renamed Dax to Lapurdi, kept it into de jure Gascony, but added it to conditions to form Navarra.