corrections in the setup for Germany in 1066 part 2

[unmerged(21937)]

I'd say easier classification is, since margrave can be seen as count or duke depending the situation, if the margrave in question either held enough territory to account for at least three CK provinces, he was a prince elector or he had counts as vassals, then he should be duke in scenario setup.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

It should also be taken into consideration that some of the Markgravates became Duchies later, Austria was already a duchy in 12th century....the game covers period from 1066-1419.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

It should also be taken into consideration that some of the Markgravates became Duchies later, Austria was already a duchy in 12th century....the game covers period from 1066-1419.

In whether there should be cretable title bearing that name, certainly, but I'd be little hesitant on adding margrave of Austria as duke in 1066, if he appears to be vassal of Bavaria. Or adding margrave of Nordmark as duke of Brandenburg in 1066. Both should be creatable duke titles nonetheless.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Austria was not a vassal of Bavaria but of the "Emperor"...as all Markgraves/Marquis

 

[Deserteur]

Austria was not a vassal of Bavaria but of the "Emperor"...as all Markgraves/Marquis

no that is wrong. I have posted a link where it is quoted, that the count (Markgraf) of Austria behaves more independant from the Duchy of Bavaria, which means that he was a vassal of it.

And as you already said, some Markgrafschaften later became duchies. Which is logical. At first they were fringe counties at the border and after they have been secured they became duchies. So they cannot be duchies in 1066 because they have to develope.

And eventhough Byakhiam (I always have to check his name..) stated that counts who have at least 3 provinces have to be seen as duchies, Holland which has 3 provinces is no duchy in 1066, which is correct. All the other cases I mentioned only have 2 provinces.
Brandenburg 2 catholic 1 pagan, Meissen 2 catholic counties (which are both Markgrafenschaften.. How do you explain this?) and Austria wich 2 provinces (which belongs to Bavaria as I have stated and linked before).

So you see that I can prove my arguments.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

And eventhough Byakhiam (I always have to check his name..) stated that counts who have at least 3 provinces have to be seen as duchies, Holland which has 3 provinces is no duchy in 1066, which is correct.

As a slight nitpick, I talked about 3 provinces in regard to margraves, not counts in general. Holland was after all a count, not margrave, right?

 

[unmerged(27913)]

no that is wrong. I have posted a link where it is quoted, that the count (Markgraf) of Austria behaves more independant from the Duchy of Bavaria, which means that he was a vassal of it.

Thats because OStmark or Austria started as County but it became a Markgravate which means it was independent entity under the German King and could have had it's own vassals and had the same power as any Duke.

And as you already said, some Markgrafschaften later became duchies. Which is logical. At first they were fringe counties at the border and after they have been secured they became duchies. So they cannot be duchies in 1066 because they have to develope.

I disagree. Duchy of Austria, Brandenburg, Messien and Spanish Marches represent Markgravates/Marquisats...since we have no such title as Markgravate Ducal titles are best to represent them.

And eventhough Byakhiam (I always have to check his name..) stated that counts who have at least 3 provinces have to be seen as duchies, Holland which has 3 provinces is no duchy in 1066, which is correct. All the other cases I mentioned only have 2 provinces.
Brandenburg 2 catholic 1 pagan, Meissen 2 catholic counties (which are both Markgrafenschaften.. How do you explain this?) and Austria wich 2 provinces (which belongs to Bavaria as I have stated and linked before).

So you see that I can prove my arguments.

He was talking about Markgravates not Counties and Austria, Meissen, Brandenburg and even Spanish Marches all have exactly three provinces...it doesn't matter wheter they were pagan, muslim or martians.

 

[Deserteur]

Thats because OStmark or Austria started as County but it became a Markgravate which means it was independent entity under the German King and could have had it's own vassals and had the same power as any Duke.

That is wrong. Eventhough Austria became a Margravate it still was dependant from Bavaria. This is what my source says. And please check the map I have posted a link to in the 4. point in my first post. It shows Austria as part of Bavaria. Kärnten and Verona too, but in the map it is written when and that they became independant.

another addition:
Plauen has to be renamed, because Plauen was first named in documents in the 12th century. The name should be Naumburg, because the first important place was this bishopric. Bishop in 1066 is an Eberhard von Wippra. Birthdate unknown, died 5. Mai 1079. We have to install a duchy, because there was no count in this area.
http://www.mittelalter-genealogie.d...urg_+_1079.html
And this province should have Western Slavic people living in it, because Germans just settled there later in the 12th century.
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/reussen_voegte_von_weida/voegte_von_weida_gera_und_plauen.html

edit:
It is not Germany, but the duchy of Zara in Croatia should be renamed to Dalmatia and the two provinces should be under control of Venice, because in the year 1000 Venice conquered them from Croatia and in 1066 Zadar and Split (the two provinces of the duchy) were under control of Venice. Anyways the rulers in this area are always, not just in this source, revered to as Duke of Dalmatia.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kroatien_im_Mittelalter

edit2: The bishopric of Chur in Schweiz/Italy did not belong into the realm of the Duke of Swabia. Just in 1170 the bishopric came to Swabia, before it was independant.
http://www.mittelalter-genealogie.de/mittelalter/bistuemer/chur/chur_bistum.html

 

[unmerged(27913)]

No it's not wrong....I don't know your "sources" but they are the only thing wrong here.

As for Dalmatian cities i was quite clear on this....there is no chacne that Zadar and Split were Venetian in 1066 but part of Croatian kingdom.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Please discuss matter of who should have what in Dalmatia in the Venice thread, since that is the subject of the whole thread.

 

[Deserteur]

Please discuss matter of who should have what in Dalmatia in the Venice thread, since that is the subject of the whole thread.

Where is this thread?

@Finellach: You give no arguments, no sources, nothing.. So why are you complaining if you can prove nothing?
One more thing about Markgrafschaftenfor you. As example in Northern Italy there have been Markgrafschaften of Piemont, Milano, Liguria. Do you think that all these should be duchies? Then you would have Northern Italy consisting of only 1 province duchies.
All I can say to you is: Have fun with them You are not thinking logical here.

 

[Deserteur]

Another correction in the 1066 scenario would be, that the Duke of Saxony was not the current on at the beginning of the scenario Magnus, but his father Ordulf.
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.d.../ordulf_billung_herzog_vo_sachsen_+_1072.html

p.s.: Just made another post, because noone would notice if I would edit my last post.

 

[Deserteur]

Please excuse that I do not edit my last post, but I suppose, that noone would recognize it.

Anyways would you please include my proposed changes into the patch 1.5? They are all correct and not too much work. They haven't been included in the latest beta patch and noone gave me a feedback why they haven't been included.

Deserteur

 

[Solmyr]

Another correction in the 1066 scenario would be, that the Duke of Saxony was not the current on at the beginning of the scenario Magnus, but his father Ordulf.
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.d.../ordulf_billung_herzog_vo_sachsen_+_1072.html

p.s.: Just made another post, because noone would notice if I would edit my last post.

This has been discussed and according to sources by 1066 Magnus was in power and his father Ordulf, while technically Duke, was not really ruling anymore.

 

[Deserteur]

This has been discussed and according to sources by 1066 Magnus was in power and his father Ordulf, while technically Duke, was not really ruling anymore.

And the other issues?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I don't think they will remove the duchies of Brandenburg and Osterreich in the 1066 setup, because they represent the Margraves in that area.

Here are some changes I suggested which mostly made it in the latest patch.
Some were suggested by you to.

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=208655


http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=208503

 

[Deserteur]

I don't think they will remove the duchies of Brandenburg and Osterreich in the 1066 setup, because they represent the Margraves in that area.

Here are some changes I suggested which mostly made it in the latest patch.
Some were suggested by you to.

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=208655


http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=208503

well that's right, but only a few have been implented..
And if I take a look at those which have been implented in 1.05 I see no reason why my suggestions should not be taken.