I will reply more later when I have more time. But that theory of 14 tribes is a theory now refuted for decades
[MOD] SWMH 2.0 Map, de jure and general history mod. For a superior CK2 experience
- Thread starter Aasmul
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
it is? where? i have this
the territory of charvats and dulebs equals the territorial shape of the slavnikid domain
Oh yes, the internet lets you publish any bullshit even though it was refuted by the academics, don't you know that?
Vaccines are toxic, you can find tons of "great" sources on the internet proving it. Does it mean it's true?
There was a decade long discussion among Czech medievists in the 1990's and early 2000's and the result of this discussion was that the "tribal theory" does not comply with the current knowledge - both archaeological and textual analyses of historical sources.
If you won't mind I won't bother you with details which led to the refution.. those are mainly details about things most non-Czechs don't even know about.
I agree that the setup of Bohemia isn't ideal. We don't know the situation in 867. In 845 Bohmians had multiple princes/chiefs and in 890's Premyslid Bořivoj was already pretty much undisputed souvereign of Bohemia because for Svatopluk of Moravia it was enough to vasalise Bořivoj to become the overlord of Bohemia.
OTOH from later history we know that it wasn't until the time of Boleslav I. for Bohemia to be propperly united.
That's why I decided it would be the best to have Bohemia already feudal in 867 and its county-tier vasals to remain tribal. I know it isn't ideal, but even after discussing it with other countrymen, we agreed this is the least bad possible setup.
Do you have any valid arguments for other setup apart from the "theory of 14 tribes" nonsense?
Btw the Slavníkids got their areas of influence from Přemyslids as their faithfull allies, not as the "last remaining tribal chiefs" as assessed by the "tribalists".
1. i hate this toxic introduction bs
2. bother me with details I asked for?
3. You dont know the situation of bohemia and its not ideal? How are you so sure about the non-tribalism then?
4. "In 845 Bohmians had multiple princes/chiefs?" you mean like tribal heads?
5. undisputed souvereign of Bohemia? im pretty sure slavnikids competed with them for the control - the reason why they got slaughtered
6. "for Svatopluk of Moravia it was enough to vasalise Bořivoj to become the overlord of Bohemia." This is true because the others were still dependent on the centre of power - prague. plus the next thing you said
7. its county tier vassals are not tribal. everything is feudal.
8. "Btw the Slavníkids got their areas of influence from Přemyslids as their faithfull allies" source please. Spytihněv I. and Vitislav (Slavniks grandfather) were both invited on eye level to meet King Arnulf in Regensburg.
9. The tribes were not invented by some troll. It was a thing. except maybe Záhvozd, Tuhošť and moravia which are rather regions
I am very sorry about the sound. It is really hard to not sound like that. It's very annoying when you base your knowledge on academic resources from the best historians and somebody puts some pic from the internet and tells you you're wrong because this proves it.
You ask for details, yet you obviously don't know the basics, like that who and under what conditions have murdered the Slavníkids. That said, I don't have the time to rewrite 3 400+ pages books here.
Maybe you can read them?
Počátky Přemyslovců and Vznik Velké Moravy by Dušan Třeštík and
Čechy v době knížecí by Josef Žemlička.
These are 2 of the most respected modern experts about Bohemian medieval history, not some random guys writing wikipedia or internet experts.
Yet, let's share some details with you:
Slavníkids were dependent on Přemyslids to get to power. Later on they rose among the most prominent families and became very influential so they indeed were given audiences by powerfull German princes and kings. This happened intime when Přemyslid ruler, Boleslav II. was in bad health btw.
They were murdered against the will of Boleslav II. by Vršovci family, not at Bileslav's orders as some older historians assumed. It is pretty well known among anybody who knows any details about early medieval Bohemia, no matter what English wikipedia may write about them. Should I write more? Well, I don't think I'm here to educate anybody who just reads wrong hiatory sources.
Bohemian princes vs.tribal princes? They were all referred as Bohemians, not Zličans etc. There is no doubt about Bohemians being dispersed across the country with regional leaders. Those can be referred as some clan or even tribe, but let's talk about what do you understand as tribe then.
Tribe as a unit of political integration etc... but let's talk about it some other time
This is not what i intended to say. Their power made them a target for the Vršovci who also got their lands as a reward for the slaughtering.
"Slavníkids were dependent on Přemyslids to get to power." how?
"They were all referred as Bohemians, not Zličans etc" well bohemia is a region and its far easier to throw everyone from there in one pot. All of these tribes are mentioned as tribes and how do you explain for example the doudleby and two Charvati tribes? How is this a family? those are clearly tribal societys from the east.
My point is that 867 Bohemia did not differ in any way from lets say the sorb union and shouldnt be treated differently in ck2. However they do differ from south slavs because:
they overtook roman fortifications and included roman citizens (vlachs) who had an impact on their way of life and government. plus very early civilization processes like christianisations and direct subjugation to the eastern roman empire and resulting forcefull adaptation to its customs
all of this is not a thing in 867 bohemia and moravia.
also i dont think invading slavic pagans far from civilization with sacrifice rituals and kinship slaughterings for decades suit good as fine lords with centralized power under one dukal monarch who controlls everything entirely.
the current setup doesnt even include what you stated suits best (least bad) - tribal counts
Last edited:
No. Vršovci had estates in the north and north-west and later in Moravia. Slavnikids as you know, got their estates in the east and south.
Both these families "came to history" after Boleslav I. centralized Bohemian state. Although Slavníkids were used by old hiatorians as example of "tribal aristocracy" their power was based on developments 50-100 years after the elimination of regional Bohemian aristocracy, no matter how we call it - tribal(wrong), clan or whatever else. They had nothing to do with it.
Anybody who operates with these families as support for the tribal theory shows that he doesn't really know details about the era in question. And that is why I treat you as sombody who doesn't know much about this particular topic. I apologize, I know you're very educated about many other things and don't deserve this treatment. I'm not happy about this, but I can't do better.
Explanation:
I am very sorry, but I have gone through this few times. I don't have time to prove every single guy on the internet who bases his knowledge of my country's history on a theory which was dominant interpretation of Bohemian history for over 150 years, has been refuted by academic authorities but still has many persistent supporters among amateur historians who don't respect or often don't even know the academic authorities of the late 1990's and 2000's and on, but prefer to respect refuted authorities of 1880's and 1970's. I can live with you guys disagreeing with facts. I'm not going to correct everybody who's wrong on the internet.
I could spend (and it would take me no less than) hours discussing interpretations of events which you either know wrong (like Vršovic/Slavníkid possessions) or haven't even ever heard of. But I don't have this time. I'm not in SWMH team anymore because of this lack of time. I wouldn't have the time even if I was home with the books I could quote for you, which I don't now, since I'm on vacation with sweet 2 years old lady and my partner who are far more important for me than anything written here.
Sorry for that.
That said, I consider this discussion finnished. I suppose you understand
I could spend (and it would take me no less than) hours discussing interpretations of events which you either know wrong (like Vršovic/Slavníkid possessions) or haven't even ever heard of. But I don't have this time. I'm not in SWMH team anymore because of this lack of time. I wouldn't have the time even if I was home with the books I could quote for you, which I don't now, since I'm on vacation with sweet 2 years old lady and my partner who are far more important for me than anything written here.
Sorry for that.
That said, I consider this discussion finnished. I suppose you understand
The setup you complain about is aimed to lead the game towards later developments in the later part of 9th and 10th century. It does not aim to represent exact 867 date which is right in a middle of half a century of very dynamic changes for which we have very little to no historical records about detailed situation in 867. It is not aimed to represent what possibly could be a situation 2 decades before 867 start date, if the "tribal theory" was right, which it wasn't.
Last edited:
Recently play as Muslims, just a question, why is there no sea trade route from Debul to Persia/Iraq?
We had a discussion about this last year (I think), and we figured that adding a maritime route from India to Iraq doesn't add much to gameplay. Specifically, all it would add is a Basra that has permanent Silk Road bonus.
Quick question, are Italians eligible for Outremer culture in SWMH? I’m doing a Sicily -> Outremer run and I’d like to get Sicilian culture but don’t want to lock myself out of Outremer down the line.
Outremer culture hasn't been implemented yet as a functioning culture.
Ah, alas, I guess I’ll just port in the vanilla info myself then. Thanks for the response!
Another question, pardon me if this has been answered before: Why is the Göta älv navigable?
From what I've read, there's a serious 32 meters waterfall (Trollhättan Falls) in its course, which would have made navigation... difficult. Only in modern times a canal was built, rendering the river navigable.
Or am I missing something here? I'm not a Swede so my info stems only form the internet...
From what I've read, there's a serious 32 meters waterfall (Trollhättan Falls) in its course, which would have made navigation... difficult. Only in modern times a canal was built, rendering the river navigable.
Or am I missing something here? I'm not a Swede so my info stems only form the internet...
IIRC that sort of thing is true for a number of navigable rivers, the river travel mechanic was mostly designed with the Norse in mind and apparently Longboats where capable of being carried on land around short obstacles.
I'm a bit hesitant to ask...since I'm not sure if I'm downloading wrong but is there a way to play SWMH with vanilla? I know you can install HIP without it, yet at this time I'd just like to play with the map.
Yes, just answer "no" to every module sans SWMH in the installer.
I think there's a minor issue with 1071 - Skara province:
The original religion is Norse, then in 1008 it's converted to Catholic, and in 1060 it's converted from Catholic to Catholic. Either the 1008 or 1060 entry seems redundant.
There's the same issue in 1075 - Wittenberg.
Code:
# Misc
culture = norse
religion = norse_pagan
# History
1008.1.1 = {religion = catholic}
1008.1.1 = {b_lacko = castle
b_arneasborg = castle
b_skara = temple} # Skötkonung
1035.1.1 = { culture = gothic }
1060.8.2 = {religion = catholic}There's the same issue in 1075 - Wittenberg.
Last edited:
(sorry in advance for grammatical mistakes)
I'm (North-)German and have been playing with this map for a while but I have got a few suggestions for the German Title names.
Whenever the HRE has a revolt it sounds a little off. This may partially be because it says "Kaiserliche Revolt", because it would be "Kaiserliche Revolte" in German, but that can be overlooked bc you cant localize revolt names and "Revolt'" is also a more medieval poetic version of the word. As far as I am concerned the German adjectives for the HRE-Titles are a bit odd though so I tried to make a list to fix some of them:
Baiern: Bairische (for the dutchies its oberbairische etc.)
Kärnten: Kärntische
Schaben: Schwäbische
Italien: Italienische/ Lombardische
Böhmen: Böhmische
Polen: Polnische
Its only a minor thing though but I thought you'd like to know.
I'm (North-)German and have been playing with this map for a while but I have got a few suggestions for the German Title names.
Whenever the HRE has a revolt it sounds a little off. This may partially be because it says "Kaiserliche Revolt", because it would be "Kaiserliche Revolte" in German, but that can be overlooked bc you cant localize revolt names and "Revolt'" is also a more medieval poetic version of the word. As far as I am concerned the German adjectives for the HRE-Titles are a bit odd though so I tried to make a list to fix some of them:
Baiern: Bairische (for the dutchies its oberbairische etc.)
Kärnten: Kärntische
Schaben: Schwäbische
Italien: Italienische/ Lombardische
Böhmen: Böhmische
Polen: Polnische
Its only a minor thing though but I thought you'd like to know.
Should we not still have France as "Francia Occidentalis" and Germany as "Francia Orientalis" in the 936 bookmark?
I can kind of live with "France", but having East Francia as "Deutschland" under Otto the Great is not only slightly (subjectively) disgusting, but also as far as I can tell, very (objectively) wrong.
I can kind of live with "France", but having East Francia as "Deutschland" under Otto the Great is not only slightly (subjectively) disgusting, but also as far as I can tell, very (objectively) wrong.