Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69866 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10587 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Show only dev responses
pericol said:
By a german lord i meant the cities rulers/temples etc. to be German, not the top liege.
Also, there is no dynamic naming for Transylvania or others provinces with Romanian possible culture if the ruler is Romanian. the used names are still the Hungarian ones for all the provinces.
Click to expand...

I understood what you meant.

It is not on the top of the to-do list to add Barony-level characters, but it could definetely happen.

The addition of Romanian localizations could also definetely happen, but it is not at the top of the to-do list either.

But do remember, as long as the baronies and provinces are under the Hungarian King, it is still the Hungarian localisation that will be used
 
pericol said:
Also, there is no dynamic naming for Transylvania or others provinces with Romanian possible culture if the ruler is Romanian. the used names are still the Hungarian ones for all the provinces.
Click to expand...
Look up the "More Cultural Names" Submod linked in my signature. There is a bunch of Romanian localisations all over the place.
 
I have some suggestions regarding Ekkehard Liudolfinger of Meissen and his fimily(scenario 993, 997, 1000)

Make Ekkehard and Guncelin stepbrothers, Ekkehard as son on unknown mother, Guncelin son of Dubrava, so only Guncelin would be Boleslaw the Brave halfbrother,
IMO it makes more sense because if i'm not wrong bishop Thietmar of Merseburg, german XI century annalist called Guncelin and Boleslaw "brothers" not also Ekkehard
Also Ekkehard son, Hermann marry in 1009(?) Boleslaw daughter, Regalinda, I think it could not be possible it they were brothers

By the way, curently historians believe that Boleslaw and Guncelin were brothers in law, Guncelin marry sister of Emnilda
 
I found 2 bugs with the map.

At least the North Sea strait and the Gibraltar strait definitions in adjacencies.csv are wrongly defined.

Check the images from my game:

njUyl8Z.jpg


WoYgoJu.jpg
 
In the 1081 setup, Alexios' niece is married to Michael Botaneiates, a grandson of Nikephoros III. But he has no father (only a mother, Nikephoros' daughter who is also not mentioned anywhere) and in fact isn't even mentioned anywhere.

Additionally, Michael VII isn't a monk for some reason, he's just hanging around in the court of the son of Romanos Diogenes. He should be a monk in the court of the ecumenical patriarch since he was in a monastery in Constantinople itself.
 
Caeserion said:
In the 1081 setup, Alexios' niece is married to Michael Botaneiates, a grandson of Nikephoros III. But he has no father (only a mother, Nikephoros' daughter who is also not mentioned anywhere) and in fact isn't even mentioned anywhere.

Additionally, Michael VII isn't a monk for some reason, he's just hanging around in the court of the son of Romanos Diogenes. He should be a monk in the court of the ecumenical patriarch since he was in a monastery in Constantinople itself.
Click to expand...

If i remember correctly, i think i read it in the Alexiad, that Anna Dalassena (the mother of all the Komnenos Brothers) arranged the marriage between the grandson of Botaneiates and the daughter of Manuel, her eldest son. I couldn't really find any info on possible sons of Nikephoros Botaneiates, so i made him a placeholder Daughter. But i'm not married to that setup by any stretch of the imagination.

Do you have any suggestions on how i should change it?

I guess i could make him a grandson, through a placeholder son, rather than a daughter. I can't really find any concrete info on Nikephoros Botaneiates' children
 
grzegorz444 said:
I have some suggestions regarding Ekkehard Liudolfinger of Meissen and his fimily(scenario 993, 997, 1000)

Make Ekkehard and Guncelin stepbrothers, Ekkehard as son on unknown mother, Guncelin son of Dubrava, so only Guncelin would be Boleslaw the Brave halfbrother,
IMO it makes more sense because if i'm not wrong bishop Thietmar of Merseburg, german XI century annalist called Guncelin and Boleslaw "brothers" not also Ekkehard
Also Ekkehard son, Hermann marry in 1009(?) Boleslaw daughter, Regalinda, I think it could not be possible it they were brothers

By the way, curently historians believe that Boleslaw and Guncelin were brothers in law, Guncelin marry sister of Emnilda
Click to expand...

Ehm, unless we have a duplicate Guncelin, that i should be deleting it looks like Guncelin and Boleslaw is alrealy brothers in our setup.

But yeah, i can sever Ekkehards connection to Dubravka Premyslid. Looks like an unsubstantiated connection, based on a short search for info.
 
I have a few suggestions for Ireland.

1.In game the de jure duchy in south west Ireland is called Deas-Mhumhain. I would argue that this should instead be called Mhumhain.

The kingdom of Deasmhumhain along with the kingdom of Thuadhmhumhain, was created only in 1118 when the kingdom of Mhumhain was split in two by the High King of Ireland to weaken potential rivals. (They literally mean South Munster and North Munster).

I suggest that Deasmhumhain and Thuadhmhumhain should exist/should be formable in game from 1118 as titular duchies. (Not sure if it's possible to have a date requirement on forming titles).

Deasmhumhain requiring the provinces Corcaigh and Ciarraighe.
And Thuadhmhumhain requiring An Clár and Luimnigh.
Also maybe Urmumhain requiring Tiobraid Árann and An Déise
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Munster


2.Another thing is that some of rulers of the individual counties in this duchy should be switched. The Mac Carthaigh Dynasty were rulers of Corcaigh and not An Clár. The Ua Brian Dynasty should control An Clár.

From 1066 in game the Ó Súileabháin Bhéara dynasty are ruling the province Corcaigh but it would be more accurate if they ruling the province of Ciarraighe with the Mac Carthaigh dynasty in control of Corcaigh.
 
Farfour said:
Wait is this where we make suggestions, because I already created a standalone thread.
Click to expand...

I saw your thread. I haven't figured out a response yet.

Several of the suggestions are not exactly realistic within the CK2 engine, and several of them are actually within the EMF territory. So they are directed towards Ziji and DelnarErsike
 
Last edited:
Have another sugestion: Iron Century scenario - make Igor Rurikovich younger

Currently he is 59 and died very fast without heir. I know very little about Rurikovich family in a the beginning but I/m not wrong Igor is quite mysterious person there is some ambiguity about his age(57-68) and even
Drastically revising the chronology of the Primary Chronicle, Constantin Zuckerman argues that Igor actually reigned for three years, between summer 941 and his death in early 945. He explains the epic 33-year span of his reign in the chronicle to be the result of its author's faulty interpretation of Byzantine sources.[3] Indeed, none of Igor's activities are recorded in the chronicle before 941
Click to expand...
His son Sviatoslav was born in 943 so Igor should be 66-67, IMO it's quite unusual age of fatherhood in that period

I think for gameplay is quite safe to make him 40-46 age
 
theKing1988 said:
If i remember correctly, i think i read it in the Alexiad, that Anna Dalassena (the mother of all the Komnenos Brothers) arranged the marriage between the grandson of Botaneiates and the daughter of Manuel, her eldest son. I couldn't really find any info on possible sons of Nikephoros Botaneiates, so i made him a placeholder Daughter. But i'm not married to that setup by any stretch of the imagination.

Do you have any suggestions on how i should change it?

I guess i could make him a grandson, through a placeholder son, rather than a daughter. I can't really find any concrete info on Nikephoros Botaneiates' children
Click to expand...

Well this was a puzzle to figure out. I checked the Alexiad and Anna does say that a grandson of the emperor was betrothed to Manuel's daughter but there are multiple sources (even the Alexiad itself) that state the emperor was childless. However I think I figured it out.

Nikephoros named as his chosen heir a distant relative (probably; Anna only says he was of the emperors race, I'm unsure if the translation means race or relation but lets go with relation) named Synadenus. I'm assuming this niece of Alexios was betrothed either to Synadenus or his son. Given that Anna describes him as 'verging on manhood' its probable that he was also very young but she also says he is "courageous in battle" which means he was old enough to have participated in battle. This Synadenus was most probably adopted into the imperial Botaneiates family and betrothed to the daughter of Manuel. However we know very little about this Synandenus since he all but disappears from the record here on out.

I'm not sure what to do about the setup, probably best to just remove the betrothal altogether since this daughter of Manuel was also a relative of Romanos Diogenes through her mother, making very important as a marriage candidate in Byzantine politics and I can't imagine she would have remained betrothed to an unknown man of a former emperor who had no allies or wealth to speak of.

Wait hold on. I was wrong. The grandson is described as having a tutor which would have put him below the age of 14 in 1081, when the tutor is mentioned. So then this grandson could not be Synadenus due to the fact that Synadenus was old enough to have been in battle (I do not think he would have been much older, just above the age of legal majority, say 18 or 19). Nikephoros III was quite old in 1078 when he was deciding on an heir and did not have the luxury of thinking he could wait for his grandson to grow up and probably chose to appoint the not-as-young Synadenus as heir. The grandson is probably actually a grandson, a fact which makes sense if you consider the descriptions of him being childless as meaning that he had no living children.

So to summarise: Nikephoros III ascends in 1078, he had a son who predeceased and also left a young son behind. Nikephoros III, due to his advanced age and youth of his grandson, turns to his distant relative Synadenus as heir. The grandson is betrothed to Manuels daughter since he is still of the imperial family and an important alliance therefore. All 3, Synadenus, the grandson, the Komnene daughter, disappear from the record after 1081. Yay.

So in-game Manuels daughter should be betrothed to Nikephoros III's grandson (by a son as he was described as Botaneiates although ERE nobles did sometimes go by their mothers family names, especially if it was more prestigious)
from 1078 but probably not in 1081, just because after Alexios' accession his niece is too important to wed to the only relation of a former Emperor who had no other family from the looks of it. Perhaps the grandson was made to enter the monastery along with his grandfather. A church career was not unheard of for annoying claimants.
 
Last edited:
I have a few ideas how to improve de jure setup, as well as many other things regarding Wendland and Polabian Slavs. Should I write about in this topic or it would be better if I create a separate one,so it could be more transparent?
 
Caeserion said:
Well this was a puzzle to figure out. I checked the Alexiad and Anna does say that a grandson of the emperor was betrothed to Manuel's daughter but there are multiple sources (even the Alexiad itself) that state the emperor was childless. However I think I figured it out.

Nikephoros named as his chosen heir a distant relative (probably; Anna only says he was of the emperors race, I'm unsure if the translation means race or relation but lets go with relation) named Synadenus. I'm assuming this niece of Alexios was betrothed either to Synadenus or his son. Given that Anna describes him as 'verging on manhood' its probable that he was also very young but she also says he is "courageous in battle" which means he was old enough to have participated in battle. This Synadenus was most probably adopted into the imperial Botaneiates family and betrothed to the daughter of Manuel. However we know very little about this Synandenus since he all but disappears from the record here on out.

I'm not sure what to do about the setup, probably best to just remove the betrothal altogether since this daughter of Manuel was also a relative of Romanos Diogenes through her mother, making very important as a marriage candidate in Byzantine politics and I can't imagine she would have remained betrothed to an unknown man of a former emperor who had no allies or wealth to speak of.

Wait hold on. I was wrong. The grandson is described as having a tutor which would have put him below the age of 14 in 1081, when the tutor is mentioned. So then this grandson could not be Synadenus due to the fact that Synadenus was old enough to have been in battle (I do not think he would have been much older, just above the age of legal majority, say 18 or 19). Nikephoros III was quite old in 1078 when he was deciding on an heir and did not have the luxury of thinking he could wait for his grandson to grow up and probably chose to appoint the not-as-young Synadenus as heir. The grandson is probably actually a grandson, a fact which makes sense if you consider the descriptions of him being childless as meaning that he had no living children.

So to summarise: Nikephoros III ascends in 1078, he had a son who predeceased and also left a young son behind. Nikephoros III, due to his advanced age and youth of his grandson, turns to his distant relative Synadenus as heir. The grandson is betrothed to Manuels daughter since he is still of the imperial family and an important alliance therefore. All 3, Synadenus, the grandson, the Komnene daughter, disappear from the record after 1081. Yay.

So in-game Manuels daughter should be betrothed to Nikephoros III's grandson (by a son as he was described as Botaneiates although ERE nobles did sometimes go by their mothers family names, especially if it was more prestigious)
from 1078 but probably not in 1081, just because after Alexios' accession his niece is too important to wed to the only relation of a former Emperor who had no other family from the looks of it. Perhaps the grandson was made to enter the monastery along with his grandfather. A church career was not unheard of for annoying claimants.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable, will implement this
 
ShinsukeNakamura said:
I have a few ideas how to improve de jure setup, as well as many other things regarding Wendland and Polabian Slavs. Should I write about in this topic or it would be better if I create a separate one,so it could be more transparent?
Click to expand...

Thats up to you. Might take a day for me to respond, but i will pay attention to either way you post
 
Ibn Khurdadhbeh's 12 Kuras of Sawad:

set the ratio of price of Wheat to price of Barley is 3:2, and from 1 Kurr Wheat and 1 Kurr Barley cost 60 Dinar = 900 Dirham ( 1 Kurr grain weighted 2925kg )
from the Al-Karāj(land tax) data of Qudāma, in 1000 Dirham, in about 819-851AD, Nahru = Canal
"and" means 2 Ṭassāj, "+" means 1 Ṭassāj.

1, Shādh Fayrūz/Ḥulwān: 900 (added taxes from Kurds, from ibn:1800) 5 Ṭassāj
Al-Jabal, Tāmarrā and Irbil not found in al-Sāwad

2,Shādh Hurmuz: 10504 7 Ṭassāj
Buzurjasābūr:2442, 2 Rādhan: 4440, Jāzira and Al-Madīnatu al-'Atīqah:1320, Nahru Būq:568, Kalwādh+Nahru Bin:1320

3,Shādh Qubādh: 11213.5 8 Ṭassāj
Al-Dhibayn not found
Bandanijin:507.5, Rūstuqbādh:1290, Mahrūdh and Silsil(Bābil in Sasannid): 1770, Jalūlā + Jalultā:1000,Al-Dhibayn:1534, Barāz al-Rūz:3576, Daskarah:1536

4,Bāzijān Khusraw:8843 5 Ṭassāj
Upper Nahrawān: 1916, Central Nahrawān: 820,Lower Nahrawān: 1439,Bādurāyā and Bākūsāyā:4668

5,Shādh Sābūr/Kaskar: 23670(30000 Kurr Wheat? + 20000 Kurr Barley), 4 Ṭassāj

6,Shādh Bahmān/Dijla: 2356 4 Ṭassāj
Data from 873AD
7,Al-Ālī/The Upper Ustān:16196 4 Ṭassāj
Anbār:9076, Maskin:2130,Qaṭrabbul:1740, Bādurayā:3250

8, Ardashīr Bābakān:11270 5 Ṭassāj
Bahurasīr:1680, Rūmaqān:3220,Kūthā:2690, Nahru Durqīt:2000,Nahru Jawbar:1680

9,Bih Dhayūmasufān/Zawābi: 3598 (3 Al-Zāb Ṭassāj )

10,Bihqubādh al-Awsaṭ(Centre Bihqubādh): 7432 6 Ṭassāj
Bābil and Khuṭarniyah: 3770, Upper Al-Fallūjah:520, Lower Al-Fallūjah:2440, Al-Nahrayn:351, Ayn al-Tamr:351
Ayn al-Tamr belong to Frontier district of Sasanid(al-Ḥīra) and should be the enclave in desert

11,Bihqubādh al-A'lā(Upper Bihqubādh): 11193 4 Ṭassāj
Al-Jubbah + al-Budāh: 2886, Sūrā + Barbīsama: 2455, Bārūsamā and Nahr al-Malik: 3452, 2 Bars: 2400( in Ibn Khurdadhbeh: Al-Sibayn + al-Wuqūf, not a Tassuj)
Nahr al-Malik setted later, and seems to be an enclave near Ardashīr Bābakān

12,Bihqubādh al-Asfal(Lower Bihqubādh): 7512.8 5 Ṭassāj
Furāt Bādaqlā: 2042, Saylahīn: 1220, Nistar: 2208, Hurmuzjird and Rūdhmistān: 470, Ighāru Yaqṭin: 1572.8
Rūdhmistān and Rūdhmistān setted later.Ighāru Yaqṭin is not a Ṭassāj
Furāt Bādaqlā and Saylahīn belong to Frontier district of Sasanid(al-Ḥīra).

city: Wasit 30K Dirham, Basra 6000K Durham

History Revenue:
Revenue of as-Sawād under Kawād(488-531): 150 Million Dirhams mithāḳīl= 214 Million Dirhams
Revenue of Husraw II(607): central amd southern Iraq 168 Million dirhams in the old coinage, at the end of his reign 240 Million dirhams.
Al-Jizya in Uthmān period: 550000 Dinar= 5500K Dirham

Al-Karāj(land tax) in 'Umar ibn al-Khattāb period(634-644): 116 Million Dirham
Al-Karāj(land tax) in Mu'āwiya period(661-680): 150 Million Dirham(?20 Million from Hulwan, 10 Million from Tigris)
Al-Karāj(land tax) in Zeyād period(680-683): 125 Million Dirham
Al-Karāj(land tax) in 'Ubeydullah bin Zeyād period: 135 Million Dirham
Al-Karāj(land tax) in Hajāj period(694-714): 118 Million Dirham
#in 698, new dirham introduced, weight of dirham from 3.98g to 2.97g.
Al-Karāj(land tax) in 'Umar bin Abdul 'Azīz period(717-720): 120 Million Dirham
Al-Karāj(land tax) in Ibn Hubeyra period(720-724): 100 Million Dirham
Al-Karāj(land tax) in Yūsuf bin 'Umar period(742-743): 70 Million Dirham

Revenue in Hārūn al-Rashīd period(787-788): 80.78 Million Dirham from Iraq grains, 14.8 Million Dirham from Iraq's properties, 11.6 Million Dirham from Kaskar, 20.24 Million Dirham from Kūr Dijleh, 4.8 Million Dirham from Hulwān.
Revenue in al-Mamūn and al-Mu'tsṣim period from Qudāmah bin Ja'far(819): 114.45765 Million Dirham from Iraq, 0.9 Million Dirham from Hulwān. [Warning: use the grain price in the beginning of 10th century ]
Revenue in al-Wāthiq and al-Mutawakil period from Ibn Khurdādbih(middle of 9th century): 91.17984 Million Dirham from Iraq(71650 Kurr Wheat+ 112050 Kurr Barley), 8.5 Million Dirham from Kūr Dijleh, 6 Million Dirham from Barseh, 1.5 Million Dirham from Mustaqilāt Baqdād.[Warning: use the grain price in the beginning of 10th century.]
Al-Karāj in 918-919: 27.3541 Million Dirham, Revenue in 918-919: 1.547734 Million Dinar= 30.95468 Million Dirham

Salary and Price of Grain:
common soldiers 20-80 dirhams per month, the cavalryman doubled.in 892-902, a policeman's salary is 50 dirhams per month.(under al-Ma'mūn:20 dirham=1 dinar/month, in AH200:500 dirham=25 dinar/month, before 917:12.5 dinar/month, in 917:4.17 dinar/month)
in 743-744, 1 dinar = 22.715/25.96 kg Wheat.(famine)
in 766-767: 0.112 dinar = 100kg wheat, in 768-769: 0.088 dinar(1 dinar = 12 dirham) = 100kg wheat,
in 791: 0.51 dinar = 100kg Wheat, 0.34 dinar = 100 kg Barley.
in 815: 0.34 dinar = 100kg wheat.
in 822: 4 dinar(1 dinar = 20 dirham) = 100kg wheat, in 874: 5 dinar = 100kg wheat and 4 dinar = 100kg barley.
in beginning of 10th century: 1.367 dinar = 100kg wheat and 0.68 dinar = 100kg wheat(Qūdama use it), in 919: 9 dinar = 100kg wheat

in late-Sasannid period:

Arḍ Jūkhā province:
Shādh Fīrūz/Ḥulwān: Fīrūz Qubādh(city: Ḥulwān), Khānikīn(Tassaj?)

Shādh Hurmuz: Buzurjasābūr(city:Ukbara), Lower Rādhan(city:Ḥale) and Upper Rādhan, Al-Madīna al-'Atīqa(Ctesiphon). Nahru Būq, Kalwādhā + Nahru Bin, Jāzir possibly exist.

Shādh Qubādh: Bābil Mahrūdh, Jalūlā(city:Jalūlā), Daskara(city: Daskara, another city: Dastagird).

Bāzijān Khusraw(centre city: Veh Antiokj-l Khosraw?): Upper Nahrawān(city:Nahrāwan), Central Nahrawān(city:Dayr Al-Aqul) ,Lower Nahrawān(city:Jarjarāyā),Bādurāyā/Bēth Darayē,Bākūsāyā/Bēth Kosayē.

Khusraw Sābūr/Arḍ Kaskar province:
Az-Zandaward, Ath-Thurthūr, Al-Ustān(city:Kaskar), Jawāzir, Al-Mubārak.

Arḍ Maysān province: in Quarter of the South
Shādh Bahmān: Bahman Ardashir(city:al-Furāt), Maysān, Dast-i Maysān, Manādhir.
al-Madhār is the most important town before islam, is it a Tasasij?

Arḍ Bābil province:
Vēh-Artakhshatr: Behrasīr(city:Vēh-Artakhshatr), ar-Rūmaqān, Nahr Durqīṭ, Kūthā(city:Kūthā), Nahr Jawbar, Nahr al-Malik.

Firūz Sābūr/Shādh Fīrūz: Firūz Sābūr/Shādh Fīrūz(city:al-Anbār,containing Hīt and Ānāt), Maskin, Qaṭrabbul, Bādurāyā.

az-Zawābi: Upper Zāb, Lower Zāb.

Veh-Kavāt/Bihqubādh: Bārūsma, Bāniqyā, Upper al-Fallūja,Lower al-Fallūja, Bābil, Khutarniyya, an-Nahrayn, Nistar, Furāt Siryā,Hurmuzjird,Rūdhmistān.
after Islam conquest, Nistar, Furāt Siryā,Hurmuzjird and Rūdhmistān called Lower Bihqubādh, and not existed then, Furāt Siryā not existed in Abbasid period.

Frontier District(al-Ḥīra):
Furāt Bādaqlā,as-Saylaḥīn,aṣ-Ṣinnīn,Ayn at-Tamr

Iraq_under_the_Abbasid_Caliphate0.png
 
All the information is very fascinating, but i would like for you to very precisely just say what it is you are suggesting. That is kind of missing in your post

I can infer (i think) that you feel like Iraq from Basra to Furat and Tikrit should get more provinces. It is a bit of a mess trying to figure out which of the current provinces you would like to see kept, which you would like to see replaced and which you would like to see added.

Its good that you are basing this on a source though. Ibn Khurdadhbeh is something we can definetely check ourselves too

I'm not opposed to us giving attention to Iraq. When we added more provinces, i was pushing for Maysan to be included
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back