Fix central european borders

[Rhipeen]

Please fix, those borders, especially the Bohemian ones (being native it hurts my eyes), I am suprised that for the entire existence of this game those borders havent been fixed. Here are some of things that are wrong with Bohemia on bordering provinces:

Praha is on the other side of Elbe on the river Moldau (Vltava)
Hradec was never part of Moravia (speaking about duchies, not Great Moravia)
Znojmo on the other hand was always part of Moravia and never bordered Danube
Hradec is north of Boleslav (and much more east)
Plzen is to the east of Domazlice
The whole borders are moved to the east, Vltava (Moldau) that is on the map was always whole under Bohemia and Elbe flows out of bohemia near the northernmost part, not the westernmost
Lusatia was more east (Elbe reason above)
Greater Poland never had an apendix over Silesia

Since we never had much specified areas like the rest of not rome influenced europe, here are some maps from 13th and 15th centuries, where you can see the rivers and important cities on the first one, and administration on the second one. The administration of Moravia on that map is from Premyslid times, ck2 period, and the Bohemian one was done during the reign of Charles IV Bohemian king and HRE emperor who made local nobilities centered around important cities (end of ck2 period and the closest you can get to some administration map).

 

[Wenceslaus II.]

* earlier Czech historians thought them to be princes of 14 tribes, but recent research proved this theory to be wrong and explains it as minor princes of Bohemians, who were in subjected position towards Přemyslids.

 

[Snow Crystal]

I'll just put in a friendly reminder, to keep things civil.
I know people have strong feelings about the topic at hand, but keep it civil nonetheless.

 

[Wenceslaus II.]

@Snow Crystal

Byzantium is given High Centralization. I was thinking Medium would fit Bohemia.

Ok, well. Let's hope it'll be enough. Will you at least give them duchy of Moravia from start, so they can at least get the great duke modifer? Also do you still have Cieszyn instead of Raciborz in Silesia?

Can you please answer?

 

[Wenceslaus II.]

I'm still thinking over Přerov vs. Opava. Opava would be nice due to later start dates, but until the 13th century it was just a forest, so it'd have to be portrayed as a tribe until 1195. And since most people start out in the first three dates, Přerovsko is more practical.

 

[elvain]

I'm still thinking over Přerov vs. Opava. Opava would be nice due to later start dates, but until the 13th century it was just a forest, so it'd have to be portrayed as a tribe until 1195. And since most people start out in the first three dates, Přerovsko is more practical.

I believe Opava makes little more sense though, because it at least was separated from Olomouc and therefore makes sense as separate province. Přerov would only always be a second province for Olomouc with completely identical history.

Also although Opava was first mentioned in 1195, archaeological and other evidence shows it existed before that date. And what I like about this province is also that it would add more diversity - at least one small province next to all those mamooth ones.

Yup, as proven by Třeštík a theory based on wrong translation from Latin sources but still a concept to which generations of Czechs have believed as true

 

[Wenceslaus II.]

I'm still not convinced. I mean it'd totally look sexier. But it still seems to me that Přerovsko makes more sense.

 

[Rhipeen]

I'm still not convinced. I mean it'd totally look sexier. But it still seems to me that Přerovsko makes more sense.

No, it doesnt make more sense, in fact it doesnt make almost any sense, Přerov was always under Olomouc in ck2 time period, unlike Opava.

 

[Wenceslaus II.]

No, it doesnt make more sense, in fact it doesnt make almost any sense, Přerov was always under Olomouc in ck2 time period, unlike Opava.

Yes, but Přerov at least had some castles under Great Moravia, Opava didn't, it was just a forest until at least the 12th century. But, it's just my opinion, I'm content with the fact that Opava will make it instead. (most likely)

 

[Rhipeen]

@Snow Crystal, since this conversation somewhat shifted to Bohemia, here is another Central Europe Problem. Can de jure Great Moravia be fixed?
1) To form it you would need the duchies of Moravia and Nyitra (Nitra) to form it, not Moravia and Bohemia. (as it happened like this in history, with Bohemia subjugated only later on)
2) same problem as above, in Viking Age start date, Nitra should be under de jure Great Moravia, and it should also together with moravia become de jure of the "kingdom" upon forming.

 

[elvain]

@Snow Crystal, since this conversation somewhat shifted to Bohemia, here is another Central Europe Problem. Can de jure Great Moravia be fixed?
1) To form it you would need the duchies of Moravia and Nyitra (Nitra) to form it, not Moravia and Bohemia. (as it happened like this in history, with Bohemia subjugated only later on)
2) same problem as above, in Viking Age start date, Nitra should be under de jure Great Moravia, and it should also together with moravia become de jure of the "kingdom" upon forming.

I believe @Lopatou_ovalil and @DorlasAnther would have something to say about this... to the latter I still owe a reply elswhere... and hope I will soon have the time to do it

I'm not sure, though if it isn't slightly better to discuss this topic in its own thread, since this one turned out to be little too Bohemo-centric and those who don't care about Bohemia might not notice the topic has switched

 

[Wenceslaus II.]

I believe @Lopatou_ovalil and @DorlasAnther would have something to say about this... to the latter I still owe a reply elswhere... and hope I will soon have the time to do it

I'm not sure, though if it isn't slightly better to discuss this topic in its own thread, since this one turned out to be little too Bohemo-centric and those who don't care about Bohemia might not notice the topic has switched

Yeah well, no other nationality showed up.

 

[elvain]

Yeah well, no other nationality showed up.

Oh, come on! The debate was indeed quite international. What was Bohemio-centric was the topic discussed, so I don't think anybody not interested in Bohemia will care about a thread which has been only about Bohemia for several pages.

 

[Wenceslaus II.]

Oh, come on! The debate was indeed quite international. What was Bohemio-centric was the topic discussed, so I don't think anybody not interested in Bohemia will care about a thread which has been only about Bohemia for several pages.

Alright, let me rephrase: no other nationality started discussing changes about their nation.

 

[elvain]

Alright, let me rephrase: no other nationality started discussing changes about their nation.

That's my whole problem about this approach.

It's not about people asking for national justice or anything like that. It should be people asking for justice for a region which deserves it, regardless their nationality or ethnicity. It too often ends up with people being biased with their national legends and views, which are far from objective truth.

Of course people who know history of their own country often know it better than foreigners, but we should all always keep in mind that not everything what we learned at state schools is true. During my university studies I have noticed that too many things I learned in 1990's schools were far from true. It was taught with good intention to build national confidence - especially in the case of newly created nation-states, but way too many of that medieval history was either misenterpretations or sometimes even lies.... and many of those teachers are still teaching today and it influences our perceptions of history, since this is what many of us, or the people around us who shape our knowledge about history, are based in these mindsets and .... national legends.
We all laugh at the people of the Balkans, but Central Europeans are often no better.... and especially in recent years, we are getting very nationalistic aswell.

Sorry for getting little off-topic.

 

[DorlasAnther]

I believe @Lopatou_ovalil and @DorlasAnther would have something to say about this... to the latter I still owe a reply elswhere... and hope I will soon have the time to do it

I'm not sure, though if it isn't slightly better to discuss this topic in its own thread, since this one turned out to be little too Bohemo-centric and those who don't care about Bohemia might not notice the topic has switched

Thanks for tagging me, this discussion completely eluded me.

Owning Bohemia certainly should not be requirement for forming Great Moravia and instead the player should own Moravia and Nitra. Bohemia was not part of core lands of Great Moravia (even though Přemyslids intermarried with Mojmírids, Svätopluk´s second wife and mother of his son Mojmír was from that house).

About Nitra being de jure part of Great Moravia: There could be few issues. HIP has it like that and because of this, you often see that Hungary never gets it even though it dominates Carpathian Basin. Which is a problem, because historically, they took that area and it made a lot of sense for them to take it (it is just a flat surface, perfect for nomads...I always feel uncomfortable when travelling through that area, how can you live in a place without mountains?). So if Nitra is made into de jure part of Great Moravia, Hungarians should have special CB once they conquer rest of Carpathian Basin, that allows them to take it and immediately turn it into de jure Hungary.

Then again, the whole area is completely messed up for 867 start. Even in HIP, which is something I would love to get into one day and post it on their section, because the counties are wrong (county of Blatnohrad does not include actual Blatnohrad and while capital of Moravia is now close to village of Mikulčice, it was most likely called Morava back then), age of characters is all over the place. For example, Árpád died in year 907, apparently at a young age of 35 (can´t post quote, though, because I forgot where it is, but year of his death was documented by Gesta Hungarorum by Master P. (also called Anonymus) in pretty much only part of that chronicle which did not sound like a fairy tale), yet he is an adult in CK2. Svätopluk´s sons, Mojmír and Svätopluk, were both born after year 870, yet they are already kids in 867 and Svätopluk is married to Bulgarian princess? Where did that come from? And why is the government set to seniority when the only time when Great Moravia was allowed to go through peaceful transition of power, the realm was divided between Svätopluk´s two sons, with older Mojmír becoming overlord of his younger brother, which is basically CK2 gavelkind.

So if we want to talk about fixing de jure (Great) Moravia (since name of the principality was just Moravia), we should also look at fixing other aspects of the game. Because Great Moravia not being de jure kingdom is the least of our problems.

 

[Rhipeen]

So if we want to talk about fixing de jure (Great) Moravia (since name of the principality was just Moravia), we should also look at fixing other aspects of the game. Because Great Moravia not being de jure kingdom is the least of our problems.

Ye, I get where you are coming from, as for de jure kingdom... well this was already discussed somewhere, but the game cant really represent differing titles very well since it only has 5 "slots" (baron, count, duke, king, emperor), you can even see it on freshly added archduchy of austria, thats also clearly not a kingdom but gets that "rank" anyway, just different localisation.
Speaking about localisation, I hope they dont forget to include female localisation (for that archduchy) again, for example Pope title doesnt have it, and if you by any weird means manage to make female Pope, she is just called Queen instead of Popess.

 

[Lopatou_ovalil]

I believe @Lopatou_ovalil and @DorlasAnther would have something to say about this... to the latter I still owe a reply elswhere... and hope I will soon have the time to do it

I'm not sure, though if it isn't slightly better to discuss this topic in its own thread, since this one turned out to be little too Bohemo-centric and those who don't care about Bohemia might not notice the topic has switched

What was the question ?

 

[elvain]

What was the question ?

the question of setup for Nitra and (Great) Moravia in 867. Just read the post I quoted... and the posts below?

 

[Lopatou_ovalil]

I think Great moravia should be titular kingdom or de jure kingdom for duchy of moravia only. Later if you fullfill some prerequisites you can make duchy of nyitra de jure duchy(+ duchy of moravia too in one case) of great moravia. Prerequisites like control more lands or control Nitra for 50 years or medium crown authority (Svatopluk has became de jure king in 880). Remember that those two duchies werent centralised part of Great Moravia. Mainly because greagraphy doesnt allow it and both parts had comparable power. It was more like looser "bind" of two lands.