Duchy of Castille (and any other 1-province duchies)

[unmerged(27913)]

Not necessarily stupid, given that it was a rather important island.

Actually quite stupid. You can't have Duchy of OStergotland and Vastergoltnad and then also a duchy of Gotland - on an island! :rofl:
Thats ridiculous.

Having said that, I still think it should be a duchy-less, country-less island. If we can have duchies that aren't part of any kingdom, why can't we have counties that aren't part of any duchy (or kingdom)? Although it has been the norm this far to have all provinces be part of a duchy (AFAICR), it doesn't have to be that way. It is something that can be changed, the biggest obstacle is just in our heads (our preconceptions of what constitutes the proper way of doing things) rather than in the code.

As I said I would support it as part of nothing, but ideally it would be best if the county would just be added to Ostergotland....it just seems logical.

Actually, as it seems to me, Styrbiorn has much more convincing arguments in this thread than you and he has asked you to provide sources for your claims, which you would do well to do to really continue this discussion in a meaningful way instead of having this "I'm right, you're not." discussion, which can be irritating to both read and participate in.

What arguments would that be? Where is the proof of that island being duch tier province? I don't see any...so what are the "arguments" you are talking about? I see none....

Anyway, you can discuss things in less inflammatory way, so please do so.

Excuse me?

 

[Styrbiorn]

According to various sources that is incorrect. Perhpas they were not duchies exactly but distinct regions certainly. Island of Gotland was just that - and island....it definately cannot be a duchy...it's ahistorical and above all it's stupid.

Yes. Distinct regions. Just as Gotland. It would be interesting to see those "various sources".

You've presented nothing to me...what are you talking about?! :rofl:

Yes I did, but apparently I forgot to provide a few links supporting it -y ou never asked for anything either. Anyway, my sources are all Swedish, but here I found some basic English ones, unless you know Swedish:

Gotland on the other hand acted much independently and was in different shapes a local merchant power from the early Viking age until the 15th century, and Visby were the capital of the north-eastern Hansa.

http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/parla_/history/default.htm

Götaland is just a modern non-administration, geographical area which consists of everything south of and including Väster- and Östergötland. Historically the island of Gotland was far from a part of that. Maps can be deceiving.

Well, it's wrong. The names refer to the main areas of the Swedes/svear and the Goths/Geats/göter which formed the kingdom and Sweden, and even if the names on the map are anachronistic and incorrect, the map correctly does not show Gotland as a part of it, since its population was distinct from the mainland (the so called gutar) with their own set of laws and almost-independence. I suggest you read the Guta saga for some direct knowledge.

Nordic faq

The region Götaland should strictly speeking not be used for more
than the provinces Dalsland, Västergötland and Östergötland, but most often
also Bohuslän, Halland, Småland, Skåne and Bleking are understood as
provinces of Götaland, as they are incorporated in the Swedish realm after
being captured in the 17th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6taland
+from the Swedish version

Invånarna kallades förr götar. Det gamla Götaland hade dock en annan omfattning än dagens Götaland. Troligen avsågs förr (tidig medeltid) Småland (Njudung, Värend, Möre, Ydre och Tjust), Öland, Östergötland, Västergötland (inklusive Dalsland) och möjligen Värmland.

translated: However, the old Götaland had another extension than the modern. Early medieval Götaland consisted of Småland(same), Öland, Östergötland, Västergötland and possibly Värmland.
Do note that it was still a geographical area, not an administrative one.



About the crowns I provided already.

 

[AKjeldsen]

Actually quite stupid. You can't have Duchy of OStergotland and Vastergoltnad and then also a duchy of Gotland - on an island! :rofl:
Thats ridiculous.

Why?

As I said I would support it as part of nothing, but ideally it would be best if the county would just be added to Ostergotland....it just seems logical.

That would make no sense at all. Gotland was a semi-independent Hansestadt at least since the 10th century, and had no particular relation with the two Gotlands in mainland Sweden, beyond the name.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Yes. Distinct regions. Just as Gotland. It would be interesting to see those "various sources".

Gotland is an island, not a region.

Yes I did, but apparently I forgot to provide a few links supporting it -y ou never asked for anything either. Anyway, my sources are all Swedish, but here I found some basic English ones, unless you know Swedish:

YOu still haven't provided no proof whatsoever that would support this ridiculous setup of Gotland being one-province duchy while we also have Ostergotland and Vastergoltand.

Why?

Why?!?!

That would make no sense at all. Gotland was a semi-independent Hansestadt at least since the 10th century, and had no particular relation with the two Gotlands in mainland Sweden, beyond the name.

It would have much more sense then having Ragusa as part of Serbia for example....
In any case I am not disputing semi-indepednet status of the Gotland island, but this being a 'duchy of Gotland' cannot pass with me.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Did you know that I also style myself "King of Gothic chicks"?

Finellachs and Goths, hmmmm

From the reading I have done (following the links in this thread), it seems to me that a duchy of Gotland, constiting of the island of Gotland isn't a-historical nor absurd.

 

[Styrbiorn]

I'm still waiting for the elusive sources you've mentioned repeatedly.

Gotland is an island, not a region.

Yeah, focus on the semantics.
Still, there were no duchies in Sweden, with few temporary exceptions. Do you suggest we should remove them all?

YOu still haven't provided no proof whatsoever that would support this ridiculous setup of Gotland being one-province duchy while we also have Ostergotland and Vastergoltand.

The duchy setup in Sweden is not based on historical duchies, since there were no such duchies. Anyway, I'm addressing your ludicrous ideas about the history of Sweden, not the dukal setup. As for that, there are support for the idea seeing the independence of the region/island. If it should be removed and placed in another duchy (solely of gameplay reasons in that case), it should not be Östergötland, with which it was not related or involved.

It would have much more sense then having Ragusa as part of Serbia for example....

No it certainly wouldn't, since this about the whole province, not a city that occupied a tiny fraction of it, like Ragusa.


edit: hmm, you seem to believe that because of the name similarity of Öster/Västergötland and Gotland they actually had something to do with each other beyond the name. Let me just say it: they had not.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Excuse me?

Routinely disregarding or refuting reasoning of others by calling it "Ridiclous" and accompanying it with :rofl: emotion could be considered inflammatory, especially when it's not accompanied by reasoning of your own anywhere.

Also people who have put lots of work in the current setup we have in CK don't usually like their hard work being called "Ridiclous" or "Stupid" routinely, especially without accompanied reasoning.

As a disclaimer, I'm not telling you this as an official warning, but as a friendly advice from fellow user.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

I'm still waiting for the elusive sources you've mentioned repeatedly.

Are you trying to instigate a flame? Sources on what? We are not here talking about the supposed "duchy of the island of gotland". Where are your sources?

Yeah, focus on the semantics.
Still, there were no duchies in Sweden, with few temporary exceptions. Do you suggest we should remove them all?

There were no duchies in Croatia either, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Croatia, these were all kingdoms should I request them become a kingdoms? Of course not. Sweden was although "duchy-less" divided into various regions and entites which are represented by duchies within CK.

The duchy setup in Sweden is not based on historical duchies, since there were no such duchies. Anyway, I'm addressing your ludicrous ideas about the history of Sweden, not the dukal setup. As for that, there are support for the idea seeing the independence of the region/island. If it should be removed and placed in another duchy (solely of gameplay reasons in that case), it should not be Östergötland, with which it was not related or involved.

I did not adress nor do I have "ludicrous ideas" about history of Sweden. I never mentioned once what you are accussing me of. All I pointed is that island of Gotland can in no case be considered a separate duchy.

No it certainly wouldn't, since this about the whole province, not a city that occupied a tiny fraction of it, like Ragusa.

And more this city wouldn't even be in the current CK Ragusa province, thats the whole point I wanted to make....

edit: hmm, you seem to believe that because of the name similarity of Öster/Västergötland and Gotland they actually had something to do with each other beyond the name. Let me just say it: they had not.

Yes the name popped out of nowhere, right? Don't be ridiculous.

@Byakhiam - thats all nice and dandy, but if you are going to warn me then you should also warn Styrbion as well.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Yes the name popped out of nowhere, right? Don't be ridiculous.

It might very well have. Though similar, the names aren't really close to being identical either:

Got-land (pronounced "Gottland")
Göta-land (pronounced "Jötaland")

It's not impossible that they were all part of a gothic-or-something region a very long time ago, but at the CK time Gotland wasn't really related to Götaland. It was rather a bit closer to the Småland region.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Are you trying to instigate a flame? Sources on what? We are not here talking about the supposed "duchy of the island of gotland". Where are your sources?

Aren't you still claiming that Gotland is part of Götaland? I think Styrbiorn is waiting for you to put up sources to support that.

Besides, I think Styrbiorn's point that other Swedish duchies of the game weren't duchies in real life is to point out that since Gotland was a distinct region, it could be considered a duchy just like Uppland or Norrland. And Styrbiorn has already put up many sources to support his claim that Gotland was a distinct region.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Perhaps....but thats not the issue....all I am saying is that it is unacepptable for me that this island is a duchy. It may well have been semi-independent but so was Holland as well and we have not made it a duchy although it far more deserves a duchy status then this mere island in the Baltic Sea.

Aren't you still claiming that Gotland is part of Götaland? I think Styrbiorn is waiting for you to put up sources to support that.

I never claimed such a thing, I was saying that it looks best as part of Ostergotland, if someone thinks it should look better as part of Smalandia then I have no objections....my only point is that it shouldn't be a separate duchy.

Besides, I think Styrbiorn's point that other Swedish duchies of the game weren't duchies in real life is to point out that since Gotland was a distinct region, it could be considered a duchy just like Uppland or Norrland. And Styrbiorn has already put up many sources to support his claim that Gotland was a distinct region.

I disagree. Gotland was sure distinct as an island, but as a distinct region...I don't think so.


In any case I am tired of this thread....

 

[Styrbiorn]

Gotland wasn't a "mere island". It was the richest place in the whole Baltic region, chief of the eastern Hansa.

Are you trying to instigate a flame? Sources on what? We are not here talking about the supposed "duchy of the island of gotland". Where are your sources?

I posted sources a few posts ago.

I have distinctly asked about sources on the following things you claimed:

1. Norrland being a kingdom and helding no unity beyond being under the king of Sweden.
2. why Gotland better be a part of the Duchy of Östergötland (for this you provided a from your part mis-read map)
2b. how Gotland was a part of Östergötland historically
edit: as of here:

it in fact suggests(like Euratlas for example) that it was part of Gotland [I suppose you mean Götaland](whole southern Sweden plus island of Gotaland [I suppose you mean Gotland] and Oland) and before that part of Ostergotland

3.
you're reply to this:

Bergslagen, Östergötland, Västergötland, Uppland and Norrland were never duchies or something remotely similar either. Do you want to remove those as well?

was

According to various sources that is incorrect. Perhpas they were not duchies exactly but distinct regions certainly.

I'd like to see those various sources, please.

There were no duchies in Croatia either, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Croatia, these were all kingdoms should I request them become a kingdoms? Of course not. Sweden was although "duchy-less" divided into various regions and entites which are represented by duchies within CK.

That's what I've been saying from the start. However, as opposed to Slavonia, Dalmatia etc, the Swedish dukal titles in the game were geographical regions only. There were no "Ban of Bergslagen" for example. The Swedish duchies exists only of gameplay balance reasons. Gotland is actually MORE suited to be duchy given its distinct laws and semi-autonomous status (I have provided sources for that already).

I did not adress nor do I have "ludicrous ideas" about history of Sweden. I never mentioned once what you are accussing me of. All I pointed is that island of Gotland can in no case be considered a separate duchy.

You have pointed out the following things, for which I'd again ask for sources unless I knew there are none in existance. I should have chosen a more diplomatic word than ludicrous though, sorry about that.
1. Norrland is a kingdom
2. the Three Crowns represent Scania, Norrland and "something else"
(3. Iceland was a duchy)
4. Gotland was always part of a "larger demesne"
5. it's "ridiculous", "hillarious", etc, that Gotland is separate from Östergötland. How were these connected historically, do you think?

Yes the name popped out of nowhere, right? Don't be ridiculous.

The names are prehistoric and the etymology unknown. As Phoenix said, it might have been an original Gothic area, many, many centuries before gamestart. They had no political connections in the CK timeframe. Furthermore, the pronounciation of Götaland is much more close to Jutland than Gotland. I wanted to mentioned this, since you perhaps want to claim it is ridiculous that Jutland is separated from Västergötland as well?

Basic pronouciation guide for English speakers:
Gotland: gaw-tt-lah-nd
Götaland: y-euh-tha-lah-nd
Jutland: y-ewt-llah-nd

edit: and BTW, Väster/Östergötland are modern compound forms of västra/östra (western/eastern) Götaland.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Gotland wasn't a "mere island". It was the richest place in the whole Baltic region, chief of the eastern Hansa.

No one is denying this, however it should not be a duchy tier title in CK.

1. Norrland being a kingdom and helding no unity beyond being under the king of Sweden.

Written on this forum some time ago, I have no will to search for it as it is unimportnat nor did I said I believe in it...I was merely transfering what I read some time ago.

2. why Gotland better be a part of the Duchy of Östergötland (for this you provided a from your part mis-read map)

Actually I was quite clear that it would be better as part of Ostergotland as m own personal judgement. However it can be part of Smalandia as well...I have nothing against it, however it just can't be an independent duchy.

2b. how Gotland was a part of Östergötland historically

Never said that.

edit: as of here:
I'd like to see those various sources, please.

What are you talking about? You are quoting my post where I said they were not duchies but distinct regions....you are saying the same thing....so what do you want from me?!?

Gotland is actually MORE suited to be duchy given its distinct laws and semi-autonomous status (I have provided sources for that already).

I disagree. It works fine as a county. I wish you to show me one source which says it was of higher status.

1. Norrland is a kingdom

Already explained it above. I never claimed Norrland was a kingdom....I was talking about what I READ.

2. the Three Crowns represent Scania, Norrland and "something else"

Same as the above.

3. Iceland was a duchy

So it wasn't a duchy within Danish and earlier Norwegian crown?

4. Gotland was always part of a "larger demesne"

Thats what the maps suggest. There never was emphasized Gotland as separate or semi-independent county not to mention duchy.

5. it's "ridiculous", "hillarious", etc, that Gotland is separate from Östergötland. How were these connected historically, do you think?

It's ridiculous and hillarious that Gotland is a separate duchy not that it's separated from Ostergotland. You really like to read what you want to read, don't you?

edit: and BTW, Väster/Östergötland are modern compound forms of västra/östra (western/eastern) Götaland.

Really? And how did you came to the conclusion I don't know this?

 

[Styrbiorn]

Written on this forum some time ago, I have no will to search for it as it is unimportnat nor did I said I believe in it...I was merely transfering what I read some time ago.

Already explained it above. I never claimed Norrland was a kingdom....I was talking about what I READ.

Semantics again. Whether you "claim" something or "transfer" info I want you to provide sources supporting it, since all mine are saying the opposite.

Actually I was quite clear that it would be better as part of Ostergotland as m own personal judgement. However it can be part of Smalandia as well...I have nothing against it, however it just can't be an independent duchy.

I didn't ask for your "personal judgement" though, I asked for sources supporting your judgement. Never mind though.

Never said that.

No, but you need to provide such sources if you want Gotland to be a part of the Östergötland duchy. Since you've backed down on that one, nevermind.

What are you talking about? You are quoting my post where I said they were not duchies but distinct regions....you are saying the same thing....so what do you want from me?!?

I asked for the "various sources" claiming that my statement was incorrect, and that's what I wanted.

I disagree. It works fine as a county. I wish you to show me one source which says it was of higher status.

I've done so. Visby was the chief town of the eastern Hansa, Gotland had its own set of laws and ran semi-independently from the Swedish realm (in quite the same way as Iceland under Norway).

So it wasn't a duchy within Danish and earlier Norwegian crown?

No, but never mind, it deserves the tier anyway.

Thats what the maps suggest. There never was emphasized Gotland as separate or semi-independent county not to mention duchy.

What maps? Euroatlas? Well, they should've. Further, they never emphasized Bergslagen or any other area as separate either, and the dukal setup isn't based on that.

It's ridiculous and hillarious that Gotland is a separate duchy not that it's separated from Ostergotland. You really like to read what you want to read, don't you?

Yeah, obviously I should have added "or Västergötland"...

this ridiculous setup of Gotland being one-province duchy while we also have Ostergotland and Vastergoltand.

Really? And how did you came to the conclusion I don't know this?

Sarcasm aside, I thought you really didn't know it, seeing how you were so confused about it, interchangably using Gotaland for Gotland and Gotland for Götaland.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Semantics again. Whether you "claim" something or "transfer" info I want you to provide sources supporting it, since all mine are saying the opposite.

Really? Actually none of your sources support anything you say they are.

I didn't ask for your "personal judgement" though, I asked for sources supporting your judgement. Never mind though.

LOL! But you are debating here and arguing with me because of my personal opinion. How ironic is that!!!

No, but you need to provide such sources if you want Gotland to be a part of the Östergötland duchy. Since you've backed down on that one, nevermind.

There are no such sources....how many times do I need to repeat - it is my own personal judgement.

I asked for the "various sources" claiming that my statement was incorrect, and that's what I wanted.

I never said any of your statements are incorrect only that they do not support the main issue we are here debating - "duchy" of gotland.

I've done so. Visby was the chief town of the eastern Hansa, Gotland had its own set of laws and ran semi-independently from the Swedish realm (in quite the same way as Iceland under Norway).

However it was not a duchy, but a semi-independent county, that is the whole point here and what you don't want to admit although you know I am right.

No, but never mind, it deserves the tier anyway.

It doesn't.

What maps? Euroatlas? Well, they should've. Further, they never emphasized Bergslagen or any other area as separate either, and the dukal setup isn't based on that.

I would like you to read this ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Sweden

Tell me now that Gotaland was not associated with Gotaland.

Yeah, obviously I should have added "or Västergötland"...

No you should have read my post carefully not reading what you wanted to read.

Sarcasm aside, I thought you really didn't know it, seeing how you were so confused about it, interchangably using Gotaland for Gotland and Gotland for Götaland.

I wasn't confused by anything.

 

[Styrbiorn]

Really? Actually none of your sources support anything you say they are.

Byak and Veldmaarschalk seem to disagree with that. Exactly what I've said isn't supported?

LOL! But you are debating here and arguing with me because of my personal opinion. How ironic is that!!!

There are no such sources....how many times do I need to repeat - it is my own personal judgement.

Fair enough, but don't expect your ideas to be taken seriously and implemented if you can't support them with sources.

I never said any of your statements are incorrect only that they do not support the main issue we are here debating - "duchy" of gotland.

However it was not a duchy, but a semi-independent county, that is the whole point here and what you don't want to admit although you know I am right.

No, it wasn't a duchy. The duchies in CK doesn't exactly correspond to real life duchies though. It's a matter of game balancing and interpretation how the duchies in Sweden should be assigned, and I'm not convinced of anything yet.

I would like you to read this ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Sweden

Tell me now that Gotaland was not associated with Gotaland.

You mean Gotland and Götaland? I linked those pages already, and quoted a part of the Swedish version saying that the original Götaland was only Väster/Östergötland+Dal (ie not Gotland). What you fail to realize - and admitedly, what that page forgot to tell, since the author probably thought it was obvious - is that Svealand, Götaland and Norrland on that page are modern geographical-only regional designations.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Byak and Veldmaarschalk seem to disagree with that. Exactly what I've said isn't supported?

It is their personal opinion as well which is closer to your view...it has nothing to do with you.
As for the other ting you still have's supported the claim Gotland shoul be a duchy. In fact your own sources claim it was a county.

Fair enough, but don't expect your ideas to be taken seriously and implemented if you can't support them with sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Sweden
This is the source and it shows clearly that Gotland was associated with Gotaland, thus based on this my opinion is that it should be part of Ostergotland...pure logic...however I am not sure on what do you base your "logic".

No, it wasn't a duchy. The duchies in CK doesn't exactly correspond to real life duchies though. It's a matter of game balancing and interpretation how the duchies in Sweden should be assigned, and I'm not convinced of anything yet.

Exactly, thats why Gotland cannot be a duchy.

You mean Gotland and Götaland? I linked those pages already, and quoted a part of the Swedish version saying that the original Götaland was only Väster/Östergötland+Dal (ie not Gotland). What you fail to realize - and admitedly, what that page forgot to tell, since the author probably thought it was obvious - is that Svealand, Götaland and Norrland one that page are modern geographical-only regional designations.

This says otherwise:

Götaland consists of the following ten provinces all within present day Sweden:

* Bohuslän (Bahusia)
* Blekinge (Blechingia)
* Dalsland (Dalia)
* Gotland (Gotlandia)
* Halland (Hallandia)
* Skåne (Scania)
* Småland (Smalandia)
* Öland (Oelandia)
* Östergötland (Ostrogothia)
* Västergötland (Westrogothia)

Also this => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland
I rest my case...

 

[AKjeldsen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Sweden
This is the source and it shows clearly that Gotland was associated with Gotaland, thus based on this my opinion is that it should be part of Ostergotland...pure logic...however I am not sure on what do you base your "logic".

But the corresponding Swedish page lists Gotland as a separate landskap (province).
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landskap

In any case, if we're using landskaper to decide what is a duchy and what is not, it should be a simple matter of finding out whether Gotland was using the landskapslager (provincial laws) of Götaland or not.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

By such logic any of those provinces should be a duchy. The point is that Gotland(the island) was part of region of Gotaland, thus IMO it is more logical to make it part of Gotaland(in this case it's eastern part).

 

[Styrbiorn]

First off, "county" in those pages are a modern term, translation of the administrative areas "län", instituted in the 17th century, and has nothing to do with Medieval counts and counties ("grevskap").

The point is that Gotland(the island) was part of region of Gotaland, thus IMO it is more logical to make it part of Gotaland(in this case it's eastern part).

No. It IS a part of Götaland. It WASN't a part of Götaland.

I thought I said it already. That page shows the current breakdown, which is quite different from the Medieval. Do like this:
1. click on the Götaland link
2. click on "svenska" in the language box
3. read this:

Det gamla Götaland hade dock en annan omfattning än dagens Götaland. Troligen avsågs förr (tidig medeltid) Småland (Njudung, Värend, Möre, Ydre och Tjust), Öland, Östergötland, Västergötland (inklusive Dalsland) och möjligen Värmland.

4.read my translation (or ask someone else if you don't believe me)

However the Götaland of old had another extent than today's Götaland. Back then (early Medieval era), the area refered to as Götaland probably consisted of Småland, Öland, Östergötland, Västergötland and possibly Värmland.

Also read the link I posted on the last pages (though there it was claimed that only Väster/Östergötland constituted Götaland).

5. look at this map, from your own link: light green, Medieval Götaland, dark green, modern additions