Veldmaarschalk said:
Roussel of Bailleul. There is an historical novel about this incident by Alfred Duggan called "The Lady for Ransom".
-
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.
Roussel of Bailleul. There is an historical novel about this incident by Alfred Duggan called "The Lady for Ransom".
So Leon actually conquered all the way to the southern coast?Byakhiam said:Current setup is historical bar Granada for pretty close to half of CK era, as I've pointed out to you earlier. To be strict, we could dig a Granada-sized hole to Castile, but I'd argue that if Granada would have been conquered like the other emirates, it would have been just as well part of Castile, while as an emirate, it will not pledge fealty to Castile.
Riddermark, ok, I'll redefine my statement, Bulgaria extending over Danube after 10th century.
Besides the same thing could be argued for Britany and Wales.
And southern Iberia was notorious for being scattered with independant rulers that had to be focibly reannexed. They didn't autopledge to anyone.
Not saying it is dreadful, just proposing an alternative for those who think it is.Byakhiam said:
Personally, I'd prefer them being included in Cuman as that tribe did historically control that area for a long time (IIRC).
I'm not so sure if separating the marked Anatolian territory would produce any "historically very awkward results"...
Veldmaarschalk said:
I am very confused with this duchy of Baden. I found that in 1066 it was a margraviate, which means a "border state" at this time. Does it deserves a "duchy" status??
if the situation is kept like it is, maybe a creation of "Duchy of Alsace" would be a good point.
it would solve the Sundgau problem : Louis de Scarpone, count of Montbéliard (in-game : Besançon) and Sundgau would try to fight with the dukes of Upper Lorraine for Nordgau to create this duchy, and it is not completely ahistorical since he claimed the duchy of upper lorraine for Sophie , countess of Bar (Upper Lorraine vassal) who is from a side branch of a former ruling dynasty in Upper Lorraine
and, dukes of Swabia nore margraviate of Baden never claimed to rule Alsace at this time, I think. So, it is my final consideration for that area :
- creating a tag for Duchy of Alsace including Sundgau(owned by count of "Besançon") and Nordgau (directely ruled by duke of Upper Lorraine)
or
- switching Sundgau to Lesser Burgundy or Baden, Nordgau to Baden or kept to Upper Lorraine
it would be nice if anyone knowing very well the history of this area (SW of Germany) would give his opinion about it
o
Duc de Guise said:I am very confused with this duchy of Baden. I found that in 1066 it was a margraviate, which means a "border state" at this time. Does it deserves a "duchy" status??
if the situation is kept like it is, maybe a creation of "Duchy of Alsace" would be a good point.
it would solve the Sundgau problem : Louis de Scarpone, count of Montbéliard (in-game : Besançon) and Sundgau would try to fight with the dukes of Upper Lorraine for Nordgau to create this duchy, and it is not completely ahistorical since he claimed the duchy of upper lorraine for Sophie , countess of Bar (Upper Lorraine vassal) who is from a side branch of a former ruling dynasty in Upper Lorraine
and, dukes of Swabia nore margraviate of Baden never claimed to rule Alsace at this time, I think. So, it is my final consideration for that area :
- creating a tag for Duchy of Alsace including Sundgau(owned by count of "Besançon") and Nordgau (directely ruled by duke of Upper Lorraine)
or
- switching Sundgau to Lesser Burgundy or Baden, Nordgau to Baden or kept to Upper Lorraine
it would be nice if anyone knowing very well the history of this area (SW of Germany) would give his opinion about it
In the first thread about this area, I supported the idea of a duchy of Alsace, instead of Baden. But it was decided that Baden was the more important title.
The Margravate of Baden was a honourary title, the dynasty that ruled Baden had also been the Margraves of Styria or Krain and when they 'lost' that title, they were allowed to keep the title margrave.
There are more Margraves in the game that are already made a duchy, like Brandenburg, Österreich, Verona and more I guess.
The dukes of Swabia claimed to be the rulers of Alsace on ancient grounds a about 100 - 150 years before 1066, Alsace was part of duchy Swabia
And they are described as duke in Alsace but not as dukes of Alsace.
I can't find the post Jinnai is quoting but I will answer it anyway. If we are talking about historicality:Byakhiam said:
_ Provinces 168 (Almeria) and 169 (Murcia) should go to Castille. So should 201 (Rioja).
_ Giving 152 (Navarra) to Aragon could be a possibility as it held most of it for most of the CK era. The only problem would be that this gives Aragon access to the Atlantic coast, which it never had.
_ 164 (Niebla) and 183 (Aracena) should also go to Castille as there was no Leon anymore when these areas were "re-conquested". Niebla might just as well go to Portugal by the way.
I could find you the posts in the SM forum where you agreed about that.
Finally I still think that 166 (Algeciras), 167 (Malaga), 168 (Almeria), 180 (Granada) should be NONE, but if you don't want to hear about that, then they should go to Castille.
Duuk said:Then I humbly request, if Dacia is out, that Wallachia and Maldau be nonaligned.
That will prevent weirdness and is the best compromise solution.
Also, it will prevent the Balkans people from killing you in your sleep. Lord knows we all fear them.
You have to define that weirdness for me to be convinced. Reasons, explanations etc. You keep saying that it will lead to "weirdness" and be "bad for gameplay", but you never actually describe how. Please do so or they'll stay in Scythia.
The Phoenix said:
Well, catholic or orthodox king of Rome or Rum in Anatolia would be historically awkward to me. Why is it so urgent to have Byzantium non-recreatable and consequently non-usurpable?
Duc de Guise said:
It represents duchy of Zähringen as well as Baden and do note that the creatable area setup is supposed to be valid for 1066-1453 period, not just in 1066.
Duc de Guise said:
Adding Alsace could be done.
Third Angel said:
Was Niebla part of Portugal? I thought it wasn't, when I switched it to Leon. Aragon having "access" to Atlantic shouldn't be that big of an issue.
Third Angel said:
Well, I don't think that a NONE-hole there serves any purpose, since there is no historicality-requirement for it, as Muslims don't pledge to Catholics.
Jinnai said:
The difference being, that if Wales is part of England, it instantly pledges to England and same with Brittany/France. Latter being precisely why Brittany is not part of France. This is a non-issue with Granada, as Muslims don't pledge to Catholics.
I have no idea but the area covered by the province was divided between Castille and Portugal, so I was just saying that it could belong to both Kingdoms, your choice here.Byakhiam said:
Regarding Almeria & Murcia, Almeria clearly should go to Castile, but based on this Euratlas map, Murcia could be part of Aragon and thus I'd rather keep in Aragon, since Aragon is the smaller of the two.
Third Angel said:
Guess Niebla would be better placed in Portugal, then?Byakhiam said:
I can see your map. It is accurate but the funny part is that Murcia was only held by Aragon between 1296 and 1304. So I still think it should go to Castille.Byakhiam said:
I primarily want Byzantium to be more like "Greece+westmost Anatolia". I can live perfectly well with Byzantium being recreatable and usurpable; removing the default area completely was just a suggestion that I'm no longer making.Byakhiam said:
What about including it in Mauritania then?
(NONE in "fantasy territories" is an ugly abomination unto Nuggan and should be filled wherever found)
By the way, how about filling out the far eastern Lappish north with Russian provinces (if Finland really can't have them, which I think could be the case for cultural reasons - it'd make more sense to have those regions pledge to Finland than to a new Russia, in that perspective)?
And perhaps making Navarra's area NONE, too, and reducing the kingdom to a duchy (which would be correct by CK standards, as Britanny is a duchy despite being a county historically, IIRC).
Third Angel said:
Ohh, a cunning plan by Euratlas then.
The Phoenix said:
Well, historically Anatolia was the heartland of the Empire, so the argument that if the Turks didn't take it, it should be part of Byzanz holds water quite well. Also Byzantines did try to recover it quite fiercely. The most distant parts of Anatolia, that historically weren't that loyal, like Trebizond, Armenia Minor and Armenia proper, are already included in the new Armenia kingdom.
The Phoenix said:
On the other hand, you wish to reduce NONEs, on the other hand increase. I don't follow.
Yes, I added Perm to Russia for next experiment. Granada in Mauretania just sounds wrong to me, but I'll leave that to the table for now. About Navarra, I thought we wanted to have as little NONE-holes as possible? The territory was held by Castile/Aragon at various points in history, so it makes a valid case to be part of their creatable area and Navarra is a king title that should be a kingdom in the scenarios, even if it is unrecreatable.
Third Angel said:
I agree with Third Angel. Murcia was part of Aragon very briefly, before it was handed over to Castilla by King Jaime/Jaume
What I'd really like to see is Kingdom of Navarra back. Maybe you could make it a six province kingdom by puting Labourd, Rioja, Navarra, Jaca, Vizcaya and Labourd and Bearn into it. I know that the last three of those are a bit of a historical stretch but, Navarra survived all through the timespan covered by the game and just a few years before ot the start of the game was actually the christian powerhouse in the Iberian peninsula. It seems odd to put Jaca into this list, since Aragon actually was "born" there (i know quite well, I'm from Aragon
) but I could live with that if that means Navarra is back into the game.If that's not possible at all, I do think that Rioja should go to Castilla and Navarra for Aragon. In fact, just a few years after the start of the game, the crowns of Navarra and Aragon were both on Sancho Ramirez's head (the aragonese one) and it would remain like that for more than 50 years. Also, Castilla conquered Rioja from Navarra almost at the same time, IIRC.
I want as little NONE as possible in non-Christian territory; getting reasonable results in existing Christian realms is of higher priority, though.Byakhiam said:On the other hand, you wish to reduce NONEs, on the other hand increase. I don't follow.
What if it wasn't called "Mauretania", but rather something else?
The Phoenix said:I want as little NONE as possible in non-Christian territory; getting reasonable results in existing Christian realms is of higher priority, though.
Granada together with North Africa sounds really weird. In fact, Granada is still considered to be one of the five kingdoms that originally formed Spains along with Castilla, Leon, Aragon and Navarra. If it's too small to be a Kingdom (and it is, four provinces: Granada, Almeria, Malaga an Cadiz), then it should be either in Castilla or nonaligned, IMO.
Sheesh, finally got to the end of the thread. It was growing as i was reading. eek.
Forgotten what I was wanting to say...... oh yes:
I think the upper-reaches in Russia should go back to Kingdom of Finland. Placing them in Rus increases the amount of provinces needed and they were not necessary for the Rus title to be created. Placed in the 'fantasy' Finnish Kingdom they replace the NONE hole and were sismilar peoples I believe.
Wallachia/Moldau to 'Scythia' sounds reasonable to me, they were part of Cumans at one point.
Kingdom of Rum. I am torn on this. Yes it makes a lot of sense to me. Any civil conflict will be more intense for the Byazantine throne and the Emperor will have to fight hard to regain the territories in Anatolia. I am leaning towards having it implemented myself. A strong Christian could have carved out a Kingdom from those Byzantine holdings if he was able to do so.
Scotland and her Isles . I shall try to be objective here. I think Isle of Man could be given Leinster;Scotland (controversial). It did have strong roots to the vikings in Dublin and was part of Scotland at one point. Personally I would like it to remain part of the Isles. Faroes; I still think it should be part of the Orkney group.
Ayeshteni
Forgotten what I was wanting to say...... oh yes:
I think the upper-reaches in Russia should go back to Kingdom of Finland. Placing them in Rus increases the amount of provinces needed and they were not necessary for the Rus title to be created. Placed in the 'fantasy' Finnish Kingdom they replace the NONE hole and were sismilar peoples I believe.
Wallachia/Moldau to 'Scythia' sounds reasonable to me, they were part of Cumans at one point.
Kingdom of Rum. I am torn on this. Yes it makes a lot of sense to me. Any civil conflict will be more intense for the Byazantine throne and the Emperor will have to fight hard to regain the territories in Anatolia. I am leaning towards having it implemented myself. A strong Christian could have carved out a Kingdom from those Byzantine holdings if he was able to do so.
Scotland and her Isles
. I shall try to be objective here. I think Isle of Man could be given Leinster;Scotland (controversial). It did have strong roots to the vikings in Dublin and was part of Scotland at one point. Personally I would like it to remain part of the Isles. Faroes; I still think it should be part of the Orkney group.Ayeshteni
What if Mauritania was given to Granada (and possibly Africa extended westwards)?tommassi said:
I'm inclined to agree; I would prefer a big Finland over an ever bigger Russia.Ayeshteni said: