Claimable duchy & kingdom setups for CK 1.05

[Earl Uhtred]

And 'caliphs' should be rare indeed even then.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

I wonder whether the Kingdom of Georgia shouldn't be a little bigger, getting (back) Tao and Dwin. According to the Wikipedia, they kept them prior to Mongol invasion.
map at the Wikipedia

Yes but as you can see the southern part of Georgian kingdom says with big black letters 'Armenia'. In short these territories were in possesion of Georgian kingdoms but should they be part of K.of Georgia demense? I'd say definately no.

 

[Reveilled]

Given the new area of the Duchy of Argyll, should we rename it the Duchy of Lennox?

The Mormaerdom of Lennox predates the Earldom of Argyll, and actually appears in the period. The equivalent title in Argyll prior to the creation of the Earldom of Argyll was the Lordship of Argyll, and while the Lord of Argyll probably had more temporal power than the Mormaer of Lennox, Mormaer was nevertheless the highest title in High Medieval Scotland, and the closest thing to Duke available in Scotland in the period. Further, Lennox itself is right on the border between the CK provinces of Argyll and Strathclyde, and so might be more accurate in geographic terms for a duchy covering the two provinces.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Why Prussia and Courland with Semigalia (and Latgalia???) are parts of creatable Lithuanian kingdom? There never was even in perspective recognized as dominions of Lithuania (neither Grand Duchy, nor Mindaugas kingdom). Even during the pagan era the Prussians, Curshes, Semigalians were not linked to the Lithuanians or Yatvyagians (which are indeed were bounded by the alliance sometimes). This just has no sense. Prussia, Courland, Semigalia and Latgalia all should stay as separate identities without being linked to any kingdoms.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Also, about Ragusa: how it came that it is made a Serbian kingdom sphere? IMO, it should stay same as Venice: indeed it pledged formal vassalship sometimes to Hungary and in later 15th century to the Turks, but it never was integral part of any of the Balkan kingdoms.

 

[unmerged(11427)]

Also, about Ragusa: how it came that it is made a Serbian kingdom sphere? IMO, it should stay same as Venice: indeed it pledged formal vassalship sometimes to Hungary and in later 15th century to the Turks, but it never was integral part of any of the Balkan kingdoms.

It's allways a problem to decide what does the CK province of Ragusa represents. Is it the mostly independant city of Dubrovnik, or the whole geographical province excluding Dubrovnik? In the second case area of Dubrovnik is considered to be to small to be represented and effectively Dubrovnik is not in the game.
Here is a nice map done by Brownbeard some time ago. It shows the problem mentioned above.

In the current setup, option without Dubrovnik is chosen and the CK province of Ragusa is within the realm of Serbian kingdom.

 

[Herr Doctor]

It's allways a problem to decide what does the CK province of Ragusa represents. Is it the mostly independant city of Dubrovnik, or the whole geographical province excluding Dubrovnik? In the second case area of Dubrovnik is considered to be to small to be represented and effectively Dubrovnik is not in the game.
Here is a nice map done by Brownbeard some time ago. It shows the problem mentioned above.

In the current setup, option without Dubrovnik is chosen and the CK province of Ragusa is within the realm of Serbian kingdom.

I see. However I remember the trade republic was still in game in this beta 1066 scenario IIRC

 

[unmerged(11427)]

The benefits with the current setup are:
1) Byakhiam is happy cause otherwise Ragusa would not belong to any Duchy or Kingdom (for some reason he hates NONE, NONE provinces)
2) Slavic Blakan Kingdoms are very evenly balanced in terms of number of provinces (Croatia 9, Bulgaria 9 and Serbia 8). Everyone have equal chances for their time of glory.

I just wish Paradox will once stop naming the province Ragusa and forget that merchant republic cause it was never properly modeled and is generaly to small to get a province of it's own. It's in EU3 too.

 

[Herr Doctor]

So any ideas about the present Lithuanian kingdom setup?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

That those provinces weren't part of Lithuania in real history is true, but making Lithuania smaller is bad for gameplayreasons.

It already is one of the easiest creatable kingtitles, making it smaller will make it even more easier.

 

[Herr Doctor]

That those provinces weren't part of Lithuania in real history is true, but making Lithuania smaller is bad for gameplayreasons.

It already is one of the easiest creatable kingtitles, making it smaller will make it even more easier.

The main problem that controlling Prussia, Courland, Semigalia and “Latgalia” you can form Lithuanian kingdom (sic!). While a bit more “historical” Lithuania without those lands would be much more reasonable. Now having this Prussian Lithuania is kind of odd. It is much as to have Scotland as the English kingdom sphere.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

The problem isn't the size per say, its the variability we have for kingdom titles, far more than duchies. From Germany to Wales.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

NONE;NONE provinces don't serve a good purpose, especially not in the Balkans, which is the Holy Land of tiny duchies and kingdoms as it is. So make every province count.

Lithuania should include the Baltic coast, for substance. It's a bit of a fantasy kingdom then, but we can't just cut out half of it and have it as a mini-kingdom. Besides, the Baltic provinces were only either independent pagans (so wouldn't plegde anyhow) or part of a separate kingdom (Teutons), so historically there wouldn't have been any problems with them being part of Lithuania.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

The main problem that controlling Prussia, Courland, Semigalia and “Latgalia” you can form Lithuanian kingdom (sic!). While a bit more “historical” Lithuania without those lands would be much more reasonable. Now having this Prussian Lithuania is kind of odd. It is much as to have Scotland as the English kingdom sphere.

Let’s speak about theory. Prussians and Courlandians, Semigalians and Latgalians are very similar to Lithuanians (culture and language), then Scottish and English are very and very different (culture and language).

Now, speaking about Lithuanian Grand Duchy, which, I guess, was created in face of appearance of Military Orders in Latgalia and Prussia. However, let’s imagine it was created by other reason, and military orders would not disrupt development, then I am 80% sure that first to join Lithuania would be Prussians, Courlandians, Semigalians and Letigalians. For this reason and for Teutonic Order weakness in CK I think these lands should belong to Lithuanian Kingdom.

Btw, please correct me, but Livonia (Courland and Latgalia) became vassal of Grand Duchy of Lithuania (well of course it was part of Lithianian-Polish Republic) in XVI century,

 

[unmerged(47028)]

However, if we speak about history, then all lands between current CK Lithuanian Kingdom and Black Sea (including as, an example Kiev) should belong to Lithuania as by the end of CK it was Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

This means, we should take 1453 map and draw borders of real kingdoms in CK map and that I would call “historical”. Only territories free of kingdoms should be allowed to have their own creatable kingdoms or join logically to existing. If we use this “historical” rule then Lithuania should be much, bigger and Russia much smaller and Courland, Latgalia should belong to Lithuania and Prussia divided between Poland and Lithuania as it is now.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Let’s speak about theory. Prussians and Courlandians, Semigalians and Latgalians are very similar to Lithuanians (culture and language), then Scottish and English are very and very different (culture and language).

It was why I often hate to speak about medieval history with my colleagues from Vilnius university (I believe you are native Lithuanian?)... Ethnic differences has nothing to do with the medieval kingdoms – just watch the 15th century Burgundy (duchy) with its Frenchmen, Flemings and Germans; Holy Roman Empire with the Germans, Slavs, Italians; Hungarian kingdom with Magyars, Germans, Romanians, various Slavic identities (from Croatians to “Slovaks”) etc. The meaning of medieval “Regnum” (Kingdom) is above the “national countries” definitions.

Speaking about Scotland: Lowlands is indeed very very similar to the Englishmen in culture and language (much more than Prussians and Lithuanians), but different in identity (Scottia was a sovereign kingdom and they did not want to be ruled by anyone except the Scottish king). The Highlands is the other issue. You could compare German and English language and culture (German group) and Prussian and Lithuanian (Baltic group) – and you would get a picture how they were similar in the 11th century.

Now, speaking about Lithuanian Grand Duchy, which, I guess, was created in face of appearance of Military Orders in Latgalia and Prussia. However, let’s imagine it was created by other reason, and military orders would not disrupt development, then I am 80% sure that first to join Lithuania would be Prussians, Courlandians, Semigalians and Letigalians. For this reason and for Teutonic Order weakness in CK I think these lands should belong to Lithuanian Kingdom.

Personally I do not see why the Prussians all of a sudden would become subjects of the monarch of Lithuania, with whom they did not share any common economical or political interests.

The thinking that Lithuania became a kingdom because disunited people suddenly found out that because of the Order’s aggression they need to live in one state and with one ruler is very primitive (reminds me of a Soviet era historical analyses). Mindaugas became the “king” only because the political conjuncture allowed so at this time. His heirs did not use this title: you will ask why? Because the Kingdom is not just a fancy title in Europe (like “the Kingdom of Jerusalem”), but a homogenous state model, recognized with this rank by all Europe. This Lithuania never managed to become, no in Mindaugas times, no in Vytautas times, no in its “golden” (in cultural and economical aspects) 16th century.

Btw, please correct me, but Livonia (Courland and Latgalia) became vassal of Grand Duchy of Lithuania (well of course it was part of Lithianian-Polish Republic) in XVI century,

Yes, but this absolutely different story. These lands were never considered part of the Grand Duchy’s dominion (but for example Russian lands did, as soon as the Lithuanian Grand Dukes were recognized as the legitimate “successors” of Kiev throne). They were Polish-Lithuanian Baltic condominium (joint rule), nothing else (and not part of Lithuania).

 

[Herr Doctor]

However, if we speak about history, then all lands between current CK Lithuanian Kingdom and Black Sea (including as, an example Kiev) should belong to Lithuania as by the end of CK it was Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

This means, we should take 1453 map and draw borders of real kingdoms in CK map and that I would call “historical”. Only territories free of kingdoms should be allowed to have their own creatable kingdoms or join logically to existing. If we use this “historical” rule then Lithuania should be much, bigger and Russia much smaller and Courland, Latgalia should belong to Lithuania and Prussia divided between Poland and Lithuania as it is now.

This would be ideal. But in this case what you suggest to do with the “Russian kingdom” without Kiev (sic), which should not be associated just with Novgorod and wild step of the east (which were taken to Muscovy only in the late 15th-16th centuries).

However, you can have an example of Brittany, which feel itself very well without being part of the “French kingdom”. The situation in the Baltics is very similar as Prussia and Livonia had nothing to do with Lithuania (or this fantasy Finland) as its dominions.

I would prefer “smaller” Lithuanian kingdom (almost the same size but without Prussia, Courland, Semigalia and “Latgalia”, which is not historical Latgalia btw ) than this odd monster. Well, Semigalia could be justified to stay in this “kingdom” as it at last was indeed very closely bounded and allied to the Lietuva tribe.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

It was why I often hate to speak about medieval history with my colleagues from Vilnius university (I believe you are native Lithuanian?)... Ethnic differences has nothing to do with the medieval kingdoms – just watch the 15th century Burgundy (duchy) with its Frenchmen, Flemings and Germans;

Yes, but in times of unrest, especially in Prussia, rebels were looking for Lithuanian support. German, Polish or Russian sovereignty was far less attractive then Lithuanian – very similar language, culture and religion. In times of danger, when you face extinction or vassalage, probably you would choose the second.

Second and very good point. Lithuanian Lowlanders are very comparable to Prussian, Curlanders and Letigalians, as their language is much closer. From the point of history we see how they were independent and stubborn, but join Lithuanian kingdom whenever they could in face of danger, even their lands were given to Teutonic order not even once. The problem is that Curlandians and Letigalians were subdued by Germans much earlier, before Lithuanian Kingdom appeared. I almost sure if Lithuanian Kingdom would be earlier by one century, at least, these nations would follow Samogitian example.

Personally I do not see why the Prussians all of a sudden would become subjects of the monarch of Lithuania, with whom they did not share any common economical or political interests.

Of course, but if they would face above mentioned dilemma they would probably chose my reasoning.

The thinking that Lithuania became a kingdom because disunited people suddenly found out that because of the Order’s aggression they need to live in one state and with one ruler is very primitive (reminds me of a Soviet era historical analyses). Mindaugas became the “king” only because the political conjuncture allowed so at this time.

Yes, but political conjecture included danger from imminent invasions and example of fate of other Baltic tribes in Latvia and Prussia. When people start to cooperate against common foes, one day could appear charismatic or ruthless leader who takes an opportunity. This is what Mindaugas did.

His heirs did not use this title: you will ask why?

Because they were pagans and did not want crown from Christian pope. However, when Lithuania became Christian Vytautas just by accident (or Polish intrigues) did not became king again.

They were Polish-Lithuanian Baltic condominium (joint rule), nothing else (and not part of Lithuania).

Yes, but I was just mentioning that due political conjecture Livonia was not far from becoming part of Duchy of Lithuania at any time. As Prussia was after decisive vistory against Teutonic Order in 1410 and there is not much fiction in it to include those lands in CK Lithuania.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Yes, but in times of unrest, especially in Prussia, rebels were looking for Lithuanian support. German, Polish or Russian sovereignty was far less attractive then Lithuanian – very similar language, culture and religion. In times of danger, when you face extinction or vassalage, probably you would choose the second.

Second and very good point. Lithuanian Lowlanders are very comparable to Prussian, Curlanders and Letigalians, as their language is much closer. From the point of history we see how they were independent and stubborn, but join Lithuanian kingdom whenever they could in face of danger, even their lands were given to Teutonic order not even once. The problem is that Curlandians and Letigalians were subdued by Germans much earlier, before Lithuanian Kingdom appeared. I almost sure if Lithuanian Kingdom would be earlier by one century, at least, these nations would follow Samogitian example.

You can have an example of Novgorod – it looked for Lithuanian protection and sovereignty in the 15th century very positively… Or Crimea during Vytautas times… Both hardly culturally close regions could potentially welcome Lithuanian sovereignty. Should we make them part of this creatable “kingdom”? I doubt sincerely. There is very possible there will be no any German threat in game at all, so this “potential situation” looks not hypothetical. Same with Sardinia or Brittany: why should not they be part of Italian and French Crowns respectively if they potentially could? Or why not to make Walachia and Moldavia part of the Hungarian Crown (as soon as the last ruled them for some time).

Of course, but if they would face above mentioned dilemma they would probably chose my reasoning.

Agree with you that in certain historical situation they would. Same as the mentioned Crimea or Novgorod historically. But is the hypothetical (read fantasy) possibilities are main criteria for kingdoms territories’ definition in CK?

Yes, but political conjecture included danger from imminent invasions and example of fate of other Baltic tribes in Latvia and Prussia. When people start to cooperate against common foes, one day could appear charismatic or ruthless leader who takes an opportunity. This is what Mindaugas did.

As I said this could happen. But I am afraid if we will start basing on “what ifs” arguments we will get nowhere.

Because they were pagans and did not want crown from Christian pope. However, when Lithuania became Christian Vytautas just by accident (or Polish intrigues) did not became king again.

It is not the fact that after Vytautas death and a civil war (which would happen anyway) there will be still a “King” in Lithuania (as much there was no King in Poland in the 13th century).

Besides, Mindaugas son was not pagan (and it is not really clear if Algirdas was really, marring the Christian princes and building a dozen of Orthodox churches in Vilnius and Lithuania), but he did not wish a Crown neither from Rome, nor Constantinople as he would not receive any. They just simply understood it was quite empty ambitions if to take in account real situation (especially during Galician princes - another "kings" of the region - invasions of the 13th century).

Yes, but I was just mentioning that due political conjecture Livonia was not far from becoming part of Duchy of Lithuania at any time. As Prussia was after decisive vistory against Teutonic Order in 1410 and there is not much fiction in it to include those lands in CK Lithuania.

In 1410 there was no chance to incorporate any part of Livonia to Lithuania. The Grand Duchy even did not manage to take “Lithuania Minor” back, traditionally recognized part of Samogitian region (before 1422 at last).

 

[unmerged(47028)]

You can have an example of Novgorod – it looked for Lithuanian protection and sovereignty in the 15th century very positively… Or Crimea during Vytautas times… Both hardly culturally close regions could potentially welcome Lithuanian sovereignty. Should we make them part of this creatable “kingdom”?

Well, because this would make less reasonable, especially because even Kiev is not Lithuania. Besides if Lithuania refused then should we add now?

Same with Sardinia or Brittany: why should not they be part of Italian and French Crowns respectively if they potentially could?

Because it was tested by history.

But is the hypothetical (read fantasy) possibilities are main criteria for kingdoms territories’ definition in CK?

Now, this is the main reason why Prussia and Latvia should belong to Lithuanian Kingdom.

If we talk about history, then Teutonic order made huge impact in the region. However, in CK, Teutonic Order makes no impact whatsoever, except in the last scenario. Therefore the region is left for total fiction.

Now the have question if region is fiction then: would Latvia and Prussia stay independent without Teutonic order involvement? I would say, example of Pomerania says no.

Second question if Pagan Baltic region is not going to stay independent what would the most probably they join? We would have couple of powers: Catholic Poland (Slavs), Pagan Lithuania (Balts), Catholic Denmark (Germans) and Orthodox Novgorod (Slavs). Which kingdom you would vote?

However I would completely agree with you if Teutonic Order was great power in the game, which is not.

Besides, Mindaugas son was not pagan

For the same reason why he did not became Grant Duke after Lithuanian pagan nobility killed herretic (Catholic) Mindaugas

(and it is not really clear if Algirdas was really, marring the Christian princes and building a dozen of Orthodox churches in Vilnius and Lithuania), but he did not wish a Crown neither from Rome, nor Constantinople as he would not receive any. They just simply understood it was quite empty ambitions if to take in account real situation (especially during Galician princes - another "kings" of the region - invasions of the 13th century).

If Mindaugas with much and much smaller duchy and much less power was able to get King title from a pope then Algirdas had much more possibilities to get it as well. I would say, there were couple of reasons. First the main ally was Catholic Country, second the largest territory was Orthodox, third he still remember what happened to the Mindaugas, as nobility was pagan. Therefore, it was not luck of ambitions, but clever reasoning and waiting for right political conjuncture.

In 1410 there was no chance to incorporate any part of Livonia to Lithuania. The Grand Duchy even did not manage to take “Lithuania Minor” back, traditionally recognized part of Samogitian region (before 1422 at last).

I was not talking about Livonia, I was talking about Prussia, where Teutonic knights were detroyed, but Lithuanian-Polish forces waited too long before they could expand victory benefits.