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

[unmerged(1862)]

A neutral observation

Right. Everything I know of Swedish history that didn't take place on a hockey rink, more or less, I've learned from Paradox games.

I do not pretend to have anything approaching a constructive knowledge of Swedish history.

But I consider myself a reasonably bright fellow, and able to reason fairly well. Reading this thread it is clear to me that Finnelach is arguing out his ass. When confronted with an opposing view, he has fallen back on sarcasm and ridicule. When pressed with facts, he has stepped up his name-calling. And when told that essentially his goose was cooked unless he came up with sources post-haste, he came up with a link to a wikipedia article that appears to address a period outside the timeframe.

Now I love the wikipedia concept. For many uses it's simply brilliant. But for hard historical research, it's next to useless. It's like getting your daily news from a tabloid. A tabloid that anyone who feels like can change and edit.

Styrbiorn has presented a fact-based case as to why Gotland should have some sort of more independent status. We may debate the merits of making it a duchy-of-some-sort, but he has made it clear factually that something should be done.

In short, he has given us something to discuss. In all honesty it sounds more like Finnelach has some sort of pathological hatred of islands than it sounds like he has a sensical grasp of the history. And while wild speculation about what it was exactly that some island did to Finnelach to make him so uppity may prove entertaining for a few minutes, it's not going to help improve CK.

Hooray research! Boo random, arbitrary "personal opinions"!

 

[unmerged(27913)]

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").

So what would be an equivalanet of that "län"? Duchy? Obviously not..

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

?!?!?! :rofl:

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

And this proves that Gotland should be a duchy how?

@Wheels - your "neutral observtion" is anything but neutral.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

And this proves that Gotland should be a duchy how?

It does "prove" that Gotland shouldn't easily be included in either of the Götaland duchies. Nothing is said about the possibility of Gotland not being part of any duchy.

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

?!?!?!

It is part of Götaland today, but wasn't during medieval times.

 

[Styrbiorn]

So what would be an equivalanet of that "län"? Duchy? Obviously not..

What do you mean? I simply told you that 'county' means a modern administrative area. Gotland is such a county today, that's why you could read that in the link.

?!?!?! :rofl:

I really don't understand what's so hard to understand. Götaland as a region refered to a specific area in the Medieval age; it refers to another area now. In the old days, Gotland had nothing to do with Götaland; today Gotland is considered a part of the geographical area of Götaland.

And this proves that Gotland should be a duchy how?

It doesn't. It refutes your claim that Gotland was a part of Götaland...

 

[unmerged(27913)]

It does "prove" that Gotland shouldn't easily be included in either of the Götaland duchies. Nothing is said about the possibility of Gotland not being part of any duchy.

Noting is said about the posibbility of any of those counties being a duchy. By such logic we could then go and make every county on the map a duchy.

It is part of Götaland today, but wasn't during medieval times.

I have few maps showing the region besides Euratlas and they shows Gotaland and island of Gotland being part of it.

What do you mean? I simply told you that 'county' means a modern administrative area. Gotland is such a county today, that's why you could read that in the link.

Thats not what the text in the link is saying.

I really don't understand what's so hard to understand. Götaland as a region refered to a specific area in the Medieval age; it refers to another area now. In the old days, Gotland had nothing to do with Götaland; today Gotland is considered a part of the geographical area of Götaland.

Again you are making no sense, but as far as I could understand I would say no...you are incorrect.

It doesn't. It refutes your claim that Gotland was a part of Götaland...

It does just the opposite, it shows Gotland being one of 10 provinces of Gotaland. So much about that. You really have selective memory.

 

[Styrbiorn]

Jesus Christ. Did you even read my post?
That site is decribing what Götaland is TODAY. Today. The 21st century. 2005. That is, not Götaland of the Medieval age.

If you try the Swedish version of the same page it states clearly that the Medieval Götaland did not include Gotland, but only the light areas of that map. Which is also supported by the Nordic faq link I gave you.

I have few maps showing the region besides Euratlas and they shows Gotaland and island of Gotland being part of it.

So post them here then.

Thats not what the text in the link is saying.

Which link was it? It really doesn't matter anyway, since the first count in Sweden was created in 1561 - before that no counts existed in Sweden.






------
Thanks Wheels, I was getting a bit frustrated that I never reached anywhere.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Jesus Christ. Did you even read my post?
That site is decribing what Götaland is TODAY. Today. The 21st century. 2005. That is, not Götaland of the Medieval age.

Yes I did. The site shows old Swedish provonces created in the 16th or 17th century and shows Gotland county as part of Gotaland province, but you already know this.

If you try the Swedish version of the same page it states clearly that the Medieval Götaland did not include Gotland, but only the light areas of that map. Which is also supported by the Nordic faq link I gave you.

I've read all links, none say anything similar.

So post them here then (they'd still be wrong, but it'd be nice to see you having any of the sources you claim you have).

I don't have anywhere to host them. And of course they are wrong....only you are right...the supreme commander of the universe.

Which link was it? It really doesn't matter anyway, since the first count in Sweden was created in 1561 - before that no counts existed in Sweden.

The link which was mentioned and posted here about 25 times already.

Thanks Wheels, I was getting a bit frustrated that I never reached anywhere.

Yey thank you Wheels for having such neutral position on the matter. :rofl:

 

[Styrbiorn]

I've read all links, none say anything similar.

I told you three posts ago where to find it. Here then, I'll post it directly: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6taland
Translation in the mentioned post.

You could also try the German version.http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Götaland

"Götaland is the Swedish designation of southern Sweden, and consists of the provinces of Småland, Öland, Västergötland, Östergötland, Dalsland and (since the 17th century) also Scania, Halland, Blekinge, Gotland and Bohuslän."

The link which was mentioned and posted here about 25 times already.

I can't be arsed to go through half a dozen of links to find a mention of county. Please point me to it.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

I told you three posts ago where to find it. Here then, I'll post it directly: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6taland
Translation in the mentioned post.

This site as far as I can understand say that Gotland was part of Gotaland and it also hosts a map showing Gotland part of Gotaland. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sv/9/93/Sverigekarta_med_G%F6taland_markerat.png

I can't be arsed to go through half a dozen of links to find a mention of county. Please point me to it.

The link was posted in my previous post.

 

[Styrbiorn]

I'll say it one more time. Then I'm finished repeating myself and won't bother anymore. That map is the modern Götaland. What Götaland constitutes today, and since the 17th century when some provinces were added (see the Swedish or German link I mentioned in my last post for which). The lighter part of the other map shows the extent of the medieval Götaland, ie the extension of Götaland in the CK period.

There.

The link was posted in my previous post.

There is no link at all in your previous post. Nevertheless county means a modern administrative region, and had nothing to do with medieval counties (which did not exist anywhere in Sweden, which did not have a feudal system).

 

[AKjeldsen]

This site as far as I can understand say that Gotland was part of Gotaland and it also hosts a map showing Gotland part of Gotaland. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sv/9/93/Sverigekarta_med_G%F6taland_markerat.png

That would be a quite accurate map of present-day Sweden, yes. As has been pointed out numerous times already, that does not say anything about how the situation was in the 11th century.

The link was posted in my previous post.

If you mean this link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Sweden

...it's useless as evidence for anything related to the 11th century either way, since it also lists Skåne, Halland, and Blekinge as part of Götaland. At the time, they were a part of Denmark. At best, the article describes the situation at the time of the Oxenstierna reform in 1634.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

The current modern province of Gotaland has a basis in the old Gotaland "kingdom" which covered roughly the same area as it does today(yes including Gotland). I rest my case.

 

[Styrbiorn]

The current modern province of Gotaland has a basis in the old Gotaland "kingdom" which covered roughly the same area as it does today(yes including Gotland). I rest my case.

No. Where do you get this from? I've presented several links claiming the opposite. And the modern Götaland isn't a province, it's just a seldom-used designation of southern Sweden.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Your links which you presented as claiming the "opposite" confirmed everything I was saying. Ironic.

I mean you are aiyng Gotaland today is not the same as Gotaland as in let's say 900 which is ludacris.
The links also shows that Gotland(the island) was associated with Gotaland and still is which you claimed and still claim as wrong.

In any case my point is - Gotland has a valid reason to be a duchy as Oland or Shetland, Faroes or Aland has...thats my whole point. Now if you want to put it in Ostergotland as I suggested or you want to keep it in Smalandia or having it part of no duchy it's fine with me, but Gotland being a one-province duchy is wrong, very wrong.

 

[AKjeldsen]

I mean you are aiyng Gotaland today is not the same as Gotaland as in let's say 900 which is ludacris.

I think any further discussion is pointless at this point. :wacko:

 

[unmerged(27913)]

It was pointless two pages ago...it's like I am communicating with a wall...

 

[Styrbiorn]

:rofl:

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Since this discussion is really going way off topic with little relevance to CK, I ask you to continue it in History forums or Offtopic forums. If you persist, I'll close the thread down for a while.

 

[Calgacus]

Anglosaxon fuedal tier in CK terms-

Count- Sherriff
Duke- Earl
King- King

So Sheriff is count-level, Earl is Duke level.

I see what you're saying. England was so autocratic by "Latin" standards, though, that there was really no Dux-tier, except perhaps the marcher lords.

That's why I don't think England should have many duchies. The great thing about medieval England is the Byzantine level autocracy. English duchies, with the exception of Cornwall and Northumberland (called Cumberland), just spoil things. I could tolerate giving marcher lords duke titles too, but certainly not those in the south, east and midlands.

 

[unmerged(29883)]

But then historically there were many powerful and influential Dukes who weren't on the marches, and to not model them, or their potential, would be incredibly odd.

Only by the later medieval ages did the English Kings truly have authority over the nobility - and not by autocracy, but by devolution of power to the nobility and increasing national stability. The relatively autocratic Norman approach caused rebellion after rebellion after rebellion, often including the largest landowners...but even post-CK, England still suffered from dynastical wars such as the Wars of the Roses, where 'neutral' duchies could potentially gain a lot from throwing their weight behind the right cause at the right time.