Georgia Changes for Flavour and Accuracy

[Delurker]

I’d like to make some suggestions for how to improve Georgia in the game.


First I’d like to suggest some dynamic province names:

Spoiler

12 Sjælland - Zelandia


41 Koenigsberg – Kenigsbergi


50 Berlin – Berlini


85 Koeln - K'elni


97 Holland - Holandia


101 Genoa - Genua


102 Nice – Nitsa


110 Trent - Trento


112 Venezia – Venetsia


113 Ferrara - Ferara


115 Pisa - Piza


116 Firenze -Florentsia


118 Roma – Romi


121 Napoli – Neapoli


134 Wien - Vena


144 Epirus – Epiri?


146 Athens – Ateni


147 Thessaly – Tesalia?


148 Macedonia - Mak'edonia


149 Edirne – Adrianopoli


150 Tarnovo – Tirnovo?


151 Constantinople - (Istanbul = Stanbuli; Constantinople = K'onst'ant'inop'oli)


153 Pest – Peshti?


163 Crete - Kreta


183 Paris – P’arizi


236 London - Londoni


257 Warszawa – Varshava


262 Krakow - Krakovi


280 Kiev - Kievi


284 Crimea – Qirimi


286 Azov – Azovi (I think)


287 Kuban – Jiketi


(N.B. Kuban should have alternative name if Circassia takes it - Pshyze)


295 Moskva – Mosk’ovi


310 Novgorod – (Didi) Novgorodi – “Didi” means “The Great”, like “Velikiy Novgorod” in Russian


317 Hüdavendigar – Bursa (or Brusa)


319 Mentese – Menteshe?


320 Rhodes – Rodosi


321 Cyprus - K'vip'rosi


327 Adana - Adana


328 Sinop – Sinopi


329 Sivas - several options – Sebastia probably best


330 Trebizond - T'rap'izoni


331 Erzurum - Karnu-Kalaki is probably the best choice


365 Sinai - Sinai


379 Jerusalem – Ierusalimi


382 Damascus - Damask'i


410 Baghdad - Baghdadi


411 Mosul – Mosuli

Edit to add: 416 Tabriz - Tavrizi

418 Diyarbakir - Diarbakiri


419 Yerevan – Erivani/Erebuni


421 Shirvan = Shirvani


424 Ardabil - Ardebili


428 Teheran - Teirani


429 Isfahan – Ispaani


442 Bukhara - Bukhara


445 Merv - Mervi


454 Samarkand - Samarqandi


462 Mingrelia – Samegrelo - Mingrelia is the Russian name, not the Georgian one. EDIT: on further reading actually Odishi is an even better choice for the name of the province than Samegrelo, which was only really used in the 19th century. Definitely not Mingrelia though.


463 Circassia – Cherkezeti


464 Astrakhan - Ast'rakhani


475 Bashkortostan - Bashk'ireti


522 Delhi – Deli


1765 Sofia – Sofia


1773 Achaea - Akaia


1816 Beijing - P'ek'ini


1855 Sidon - Sidoni


2205 Nakhchivan – Nakhichevani


2208 Terek – Tergi


2218 Shiraz - Shirazi


2306 Mush - Mushi


2307 Van – Vani


2313 Antioch - Ant'iokia


2331 Jeddah – Jida


2348 Chios - Kiosi

Other changes:

My major source for all this is Edge of Empires: a History of Georgia by Donald Rayfield, which as far as I can tell is the most comprehensive study available in English. All the events apart from the baths one are featured in that text. Many of these ideas have been suggested before on these forums but I wanted to collate and polish them a bit, as well as back them up a bit more with sources so they seem more credible to those who don’t know this region very well.

The Darial Pass

The South Caucasus should have a break in the middle for the Darial Pass. It should link Kartli to Alania. The Darial Pass was very important in the history of the region. In the period roughly 1000-1400 the fact that the pass was controlled by Georgians or their allies (the Ossetians) was crucial in stopping Georgia being invaded by the steppe peoples to the North. Later, when Russia finally decisively invaded Georgia at the end of the 1700s, they did so through the Darial Pass. The current situation is ahistorical and encourages powers in the Northern Caucasus to attack via Abkhazia, which was famously difficult and swampy terrain in real life and so was only subdued by the Russian Empire later.

Darbazi

Very minor, but if possible it would be nice to change the “Call Diet” action in the estates tabs to “Call Darbazi”, since that was the name of the roughly equivalent Georgian institution (it was basically the King’s council.) For added flavour, it could increase the influence of the clergy as well as the nobility, as the key religious figures were also invited to darbazis.

Noble influence

A small change that I don’t know how easy it would be to modify, but the common thread for Georgia in this period is a strong and disloyal nobility. It would be good to have higher noble influence as a result, to make it harder to manage that estate. I think there’s a reasonable case for making Georgia a Feudal Monarchy rather than a Despotic Monarchy.

Events:

Currently, Georgia has no events of its own at all. I am aware that it's a bit difficult to create events for Georgia because it spent most of the period hopelessly split, with the West under the thumb of the Ottomans and the East the Persians. For this reason I've gone for cultural achievements because 1) they're not railroady and 2) they are not dependent on the overall geopolitical situation to the same extent. Here are my suggestions. I'm flexible on the effects they have - the aim is to provide flavour for a tag that has no flavour of its own beyond being Orthodox at the moment, not to turn Georgia into some kind of superpower.

Spoiler

Zaza Panaskerteli-Tsitsishvili’s Karabadini


Conditions:


Year = 1486 or so


http://www.medgeo.net/2009/12/25/სამკურნალო-წიგნი-კარაბად/ (kinda has picture – but could just use generic manuscript pic)


(In 1486) Eristavi Zaza Panaskerteli-Tsitsishvili wrote and compiled an important collection of Georgian medical knowledge. Drawing on Galenic and Sumerian ideas, as well as local remedies, the two volumes of the Karabadini describe methods of identifying diseases and how to examine patients. The Karabadini examines both physical and mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are said to be a product of physical issues in the brain, and therefore they require medication, not magic rituals. In Panaskerteli-Tsitsishvili’s opinion, it is necessary to heal the patient using accurate knowledge based on rational methods of treatment.


Our people shall benefit greatly from this work!


Effects:


+10% population growth (same as Medical Evolution event) for 500 days or whatever (maybe lower but for longer?)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sayat-Nova

Sayat-Nova was a renowned ashugh (troubadour) singer in the 18th century. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayat-Nova). He was ethnically Armenian but came from Tbilisi and King Erekle II of Georgia patronised him.


The event should fire from 1740 to 1765


"A wandering ashugh who calls himself Sayat-Nova has come to our court singing songs of love and merriment in all the languages of the South Caucasus. Shall we patronise him?"


YES > pay x money, gain prestige


NO > lose prestige


Note: Since Sayat-Nova was ethnically Armenian, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that if an Armenian state had existed at the time he would have tried to gain patronage there, especially after being banished from Erekle II's court. Therefore I propose this event be assigned to Armenia as well. These days he seems to be more famous in Armenian circles than Georgian ones anyway, thanks to being in The Colour of Pomegranates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year is at least 1675. Year is before 1715



Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani

Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani (1658-1725) was a Georgian polymath. He wrote Georgia's first dictionary, wrote a classic of Georgian literature called A Book of Wisdom and Lies when he was only in his 20s, and later was sent as a diplomat to France to try to create an alliance with Louis XIV (Louis died and it came to nothing.) He was also a Catholic monk for a while. Interesting guy. I want to leave the diplomatic stuff out of the blurb because it feels a bit railroady.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulkhan-Saba_Orbeliani


"Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani (1658-1725) was a Georgian polymath. He wrote A Book of Wisdom and Lies (Tsigni Sibrdzne Sitsruisa), a classic of Georgian literature that uses fables to explore human folly and how to live a more moral life. He also wrote the first Georgian dictionary and was instrumental in the development of printing and literacy in the country."


We are fortunate to have such a talent in our realm.


Effects:

Gain 50 Admin

Gain 10 prestige

(I'd be tempted to have something about increasing institution spread speed here.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This event is not *quite* historical. Due to Eastern Georgia's subjugation to the Persians, there was rather little development of urban and social infrastructure there until Vakhtang VI. However, in the game Georgia would almost inevitably have to be independent or they wouldn't be being played, so I think there's a case to be made that they would have invested in this area if they'd had the wherewithal. And there is historical evidence that the baths were being used more by common people in the 17th century. And the oldest still existing bathhouse is from 1726, so well within the timeframe. (http://www.eurasianet.org/node/64912)


Year is at least 1650.


Develop the Tbilisi Baths

We Georgians have been bathing in public baths since the days of the Roman Empire. Indeed our capital Tbilisi was built on hot springs by Vakhtang Gorgasali in the 5th century CE. Since then, we have enjoyed the warm sulphurous waters there. Now, under the cultural influence of the Islamic Empires to our south, the common people and our soldiers have become ever more keen to wash their cares away. We should build more bathhouses to satisfy public demand and show our munificence.


Yes, let us provide for our people in this way.

Pay x money, gain 10 prestige.


No, our people have no need of such amusements.

Lose 5 prestige.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Growth of Armenian Diaspora

Triggers: Armenia does not exist

Year is at least 1600

“Our fellow Christians the Armenians have begun settling in our fair land. They are bringing prosperity to our capital, but some of our people are uneasy at the presence of so many foreigners in our midst.”


Let them stay!

+2 base tax, +1 unrest in Kartli


We have no need of these interlopers!

Lose 5 prestige?


Context: there were a lot of Armenians in Tbilisi and they actually formed the vast majority of the population in the 19th century.

Finally, I’d like to discuss Georgia’s National Ideas.

Spoiler

Georgia’s current National Ideas:

Traditions:

Traditions:

+50% Hostile core-creation cost on us

−10% Shock damage received



Chance of new heir.png Bagrationi Dynasty

+50% Chance of new heir



Improve relations.png Georgian Isolation

+30% Improve relations



Construction cost.png Restoration of Fortresses and Churches

−10% Construction cost



Income from vassals.png Georgian Protectorates

+20% Income from vassals



Stability cost modifier.png Samouravo Counties

−10% Stability cost modifier



Manpower recovery speed.png Sadrosho Districts

+20% Manpower recovery speed



Diplomatic reputation.png Georgian Embassies

+1 Diplomatic reputation



Idea bonus.png Ambition:

−20% Infantry cost



My comments:

There are a couple of these that stick out as being unfitting. First is Georgian Protectorates. Simply put, during the time period of the game, Georgia basically never had any vassals so I have no idea why this is part of the National Ideas. The Georgia of the Golden Age had some vassal states e.g. Ganja for brief periods, the Ossetians/Alans were kind of vassals for a bit in the same time period, and there was the historic relationship to Trebizond. But Trebizond is the only one of these which might be applicable in game terms from 1444 onwards and they only existed until 1461! The constituent parts of Georgia were vassals of other powers (the Ottomans and the Persians) but that does not make this idea make any more sense. I note that I’m not the only person on these forums to have made this point (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...erhaul-suggestion.979905/page-3#post-22755127).

The other one of these that I’m not keen on is Samouravo Counties. Although these were indeed created by Giorgi VIII/I of Kakhetia in the late 1400s, 1) that was only in part of the territory of Georgia and more importantly 2) Georgia afterwards, particularly in the West, was an absolute nest of snakes basically until King Vakhtang VI or so, so reducing stability cost really doesn’t fit the times. (Referring to a slightly more restricted period, Rayfield says “The story of western Georgia between the death of King Alexandre [i.e. 1660] and the accession of King Solomon I [i.e. 1752] is a confusing vortex of internecine war, depositions and restorations, abduction, adultery, mutilation, murder and treachery. The only consolation for the student of Imeretian-Gurian-Mingrelian history is that it was even more terrible to endure in reality than to read about in retrospect.”) Plus to be honest -10% stability cost modifier is pretty boring and limited.


Instead I would like to suggest some alternatives that seem much more suitable. The first of these is an idea for reduced war exhaustion. Again, this is not an original idea on these forums http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...erhaul-suggestion.979905/page-3#post-22755127). One of the key threads of Georgian history in this period is that they just kept fighting and resisting (particularly the Muslim empires – not Russia quite so much), even though they usually lost in the end. King Teimuraz I spent 50 years resisting the Persians in the first half of the 1600s, losing and regaining his throne repeatedly in the process. Later, the 300 Aragvians would become famous for their last stand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_Aragvians). When Georgians weren’t fighting the empires that had vassalised them they were fighting one another. The principalities of Western Georgia in particular fought each other over and over again in this period.


Resistance to Foreign Domination

“In spite of our small size compared to the mighty empires around us, we defend our land against all-comers. Our tenacity in the face of adversity has kept the idea of Georgia alive even through our darkest hours as a nation.”

-0.02 monthly war exhaustion

(If anyone can come up with a better name for this idea I’m all ears. I would call it Legacy of the 300 Aragvians but since they come up at the end of the period rather than the beginning it would seem a bit odd.)


The second is something relating to Georgia’s Orthodox faith. Georgia was a very early adopter of Christianity (they tend to say the second after Armenia but I understand there’s a bit of dispute about that) and Orthodoxy has remained a central part of Georgian identity since the 300s. Indeed, in the tenth century, Giorgi Merchule defined Georgia as anywhere where Mass was said in Georgian. Also, unlike say the Russians, who had a variety of sects split off from the main church, as far as I know this never really happened in Georgia. Moreover, their Orthodoxy was crucial to their foreign policy in this period. They kept trying to draw closer to Russia because Russia, unlike the Ottomans and the Persians, was an Orthodox power. Even when some of the rulers of Kakheti, Kartli and Imereti converted to Islam, this was always under strong pressure from the imperial power and usually just for show. Samtskhe was a bit of an exception admittedly, and became rather Muslim under the Ottomans.

So my suggestion for this would be:

St Nino’s Cross

“In the 4th century, St Nino cured Queen Nana of Iberia of a mortal illness. As a result, her husband, King Mirian, made Christianity our state religion. Since that time, we Georgians have tightly held on to our Christian faith. As one of the first Christian nations, it is crucial for us to maintain our faith against all others. May we one day once again have the strength to aid our brethren in Jerusalem!”

Tolerance of the True Faith +2

OR

Something that increases the new Patriarch Authority from Third Rome.

(Note: once again, this is not an original idea: (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...e-of-new-effects.1031640/page-2#post-23034910))

Note: St Nino was the one who converted Georgia to Christianity. Her cross, made of vine branches, is a symbol of Georgian Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapevine_cross). The Georgians set up a monastery in Jerusalem long before 1444 but had increasingly little power to protect their clergy and so on, hence the last line.

I would suggest making this an early idea, possibly even a tradition, but certainly one of the first 2 ideas.


There are four other elements of Georgian history that I think would be particularly appropriate for National Ideas, but I haven’t totally fleshed them out yet. Those are the history as being possibly the birthplace of wine; Vakhtang VI’s code the dasturlamali (a late idea which would reduce unrest in some way) and relatedly the institution of serfdom, or patronqmoba, which was extremely persistent and created a society of nobles and peasants; and something relating to fort maintenance (there are castles all over Georgia, and in particular Svaneti deserves a mention as a place where every single family had their own defensive tower https://www.georgianjournal.ge/pictures/image2/5498601486b096ab6031b59ef9f73764.jpg.) As for which ideas would be eliminated, I know many people find Hostile Core Creation Cost boring, although I understand the gameplay reasons for why that might be necessary. Controversially, since it seems like a bit of a nerf, I’d be tempted to get rid of one of the two diplomatic ideas. Georgia absolutely did send out emissaries throughout the period, but they were notably unsuccessful in gaining support from larger powers, whether they be the Pope, France, or indeed Russia under Peter the Great, who promised support and didn’t show up in 1722. The one exception is the Traktat they signed with Russia under Catherine the Great, which the Russians promptly broke and led to them being annexed. I’m also not particularly keen on the Ambition being reduced infantry cost but I don’t have a strong idea of what to replace it with.

There are obviously lots of more fundamental changes that could be made to Georgia too (a complicated event chain to simulate its breakup in the late 1400s, the introduction of Ossetian and Abkhaz cultures to the game, and so on) but this is long enough already. Thank you if you’ve read to the end. I don’t speak Georgian sadly (although I do speak some Russian) so I’m sure I’ve made plenty of mistakes - please pick me up on them.
I'd like to credit the participants on these threads: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/rome-by-the-euxine.980305/ https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ion-comprehensive-overhaul-suggestion.979905/ as being particularly helpful.

 

[Machabeli]

In regards of having Abkhazian culture, as I believe Abkhazian as a term originates with a people speaking a northwest caucasian language, and when had a fluid meaning throughout history. It could of course be concluded that Abkhaz were merged with Georgians to the degree that they ought to be represented together. And due to current EUIV policies about culture (at least three provinces and a tag) there is some arguments against making Abkhaz into the game. Three provinces could be made, Abkhazia, Jiqeti and Abazinia.

If not all that works out I could see a culture made for western-georgians (mingrelians and svans) and Abkhazians. Wheather it'd be called Abkhaz or Mingrelian is debattable.

As regard of the initial set-up and tags. Adding the Immereti vassals as independent state before 1463 seems inaccurate. Having the tags lying around would be nice, but looking at PDX reluctance to even include Kakheti in it's upcoming overhaul it might be unlikely that they would include 2-4 more tags that wouldn't start independent. Some people have mentioned giving provinces high autonomy, but in general this is an apporach just making gameplay worse. high autonomy dereases the chance of revolt while generating less money and manpower just making the georgia provinces really ardous to play with in the beginning.
One way though to represent the local nobility would be to simply have nobility estate present in the provinces. Given 4 out of 5 provinces would be noble owned Immereti would face some serious challenges from handling the infuence of it's noble estate.

Still, it would be preferable to have Kakheti as a country in the begining. For the dynamic of the region it would mean a lot. Having three small kingdoms with the same dynasty could go a lot of different ways.

It could also be argued that Georgia start with the other ones as vassals and the initial king has reduced vassal liberty desire as a trait. However I think this would make Georgia itself too hard to play with as it still would be too small to maintain it's vassals and quickly be eaten. It would most likely be a fairer game if they do not have any preexisisting relations beyond sharing a royal family.

What would be mostly for estetics but would give great flavour would be along these lines, start georgia as the central kingdom (as it still was, it wouldn't become Kartli until later) but have an event like the shadow kingdom event that if it don't own or have a vassal own all georgian provinces before 1463(?) it will tagswitch to Kartli instead. Unsure if dev would think of it as being relevant though.

I don't know if people in this thread is interested disussing the issues of northern caucasus so I will just briefly mention:

I wanted Alania to exist in game, the political status of Alanians in 1444 is precarious, the alan kingdom had collapsed and Kabardins were making themselves a powerhouse in the northern caucasus. Having Alans as an christian OPM would have benefited the gameplay (the more states in the caucasus the more dynamic and the more possibilities) but also in line with the PDX policies it is not possible to make more than three provinces for Alans (Alania and Dvaleti). The idea of including other peoples, Nakhs or Karachays and balkars as Alans doesn't resonate with me so I have to leave them out of the game in the end.

Ehh why would Alania have Dvaleti exactly?

 

[AirikrStrife]

Ehh why would Alania have Dvaleti exactly?

They wouldn't have it, but if Alan culture were to be implemented it would be present in Dvaleti. According to Forsyth Alans settled Dvaleti and became vassals of the georgian kings in the 15th century.

 

[Reavici]

I started discussion with this
>you need to provide realiable source to prove existence of separted Abkhazian culture or identity earlier than XVII century
Your answer:

Vakhusti Bagrationi (1696-1757) confirms a seperate Abkhaz ethnic group alongside western Georgians living in Abkhazia

you brought source, which points out Vakhushti's research over western Georgia. well I don't argue about that, I agree that Abkhazian identity was made up around that time, by Circassian-like nomadic tribes who were constantly raiding and colonising Georgian north-western coastline after desingretation of Georgia from XV to XVII century.

Your parallels with Lithuania is bs. I consider it to be more like modern Macedonia issue, Apsuan claims over Abkhazia is similar, if macedonian slavs were claiming to be ancient Macedonians.

according to Forsyth and other sources mentioning this, the nickname of Queen Tamar's son and Later king, George IV Lasha, is Lasha an Abkhazian word.

original sources are Georgian and they mention "Apsar" not "Abkhazian" word, which is commonly used in Georgian chronicles.

Your whole post only included two weak arguments. why are not you talking about Circassian expansionism at that time. After Timur's invasion both Georgia and Alania were weakened while Circassians gained power. They managed to subjugate and colonise neighbouring areas. For example Kabardians came from Kuban and occupied much Alania after passing Terek river, where they made greater Kabardian principality, in the same way Apsar-jicketian barbarian tribes devasted and later colonised most of modern Abkhazia.

------------
Some interesting facts

Spoiler

In the first part of the 16 th century Abkhazia was considered the principality of the
Imereti Kingdom, though in the 14-15 th centuries it to more extent subdued to Odishi, than
the king. Sharvashidze tolerated such dependency without any enthusiasm. At the begining of the 16 th century "Not all the orders of Dadiani were obeyed by Shervashidze".
Supposedly, the dominion of Dadiani in Abkhazia somewhat weakened.

The Jiks living on the zight bank of the river Bzip and their highlander allies continued
to attack the west Georgia trying to invade the valley passing through Abkhazia. Mamia
III Dadiani and Mamia I Gurieli in their turn organized the great invasion of Jiketi in
1533. The Georgian army headed Jiketi on the military battle boats being constructed in
Odishi.

The time of attack was not occasional: In winter the navigation on the Black Sea, as
a rule was suspended and the Jiks did not expect an attack from the Sea. On the first day
of the battle on the 30 th of January, the Georgians defeated the Jiks, but on the second
day the 31 st of January, the Georgian fleet having been landed the brothers-in arms and
returned back. The encouraged Jiks energetically attacked the Georgians. In spite of their
courage, the number of the enemy played the crucial part. Mamia III Dadiani was killed
in the battle; Mamia I Gurieli with his soldiers what was left from his army was captured.
The captives and the bodies were ransomed for a great sum by Abkhazia and Cathalicos
of Abkhazia Malakhia Abashidze, who specially traveled to Jiketi.

The defeat in Jiketi did not weaken the influence of Odishi. The Abkhazian eristavs with
their army as usual served the Dadiani family. In 1547 when Guria was attacked by the Ottomans from the South-West, Levan I Dadiani collected the Abkhazians and Odishians to
help Guria. "In that time - write Vakhushti, - Dadiani gathered the army and Abkhazians and
marched out; he camped in the Rioni harbor". Unfortunately, due to the political intrigues the
possessor of Odishi did not supported Guria and Chaneti was left in the hands of the Ottomans.


After the death of Levan I Dadiani 1572 the throne of the duke was occupied by his
son Georgi III Dadiani. Soon he was overthrown by his own brother Mamia IV Dadiani.
Giorgi III asked for support the Abkhazians, Jiks and Cherkessians. Enmity and bloodshed between the brothers continued in Odishi for 6 years. This weakened the influence of
the Dukes of Odishi in Abkhazia. In 1578 the throne was returned to Georgi III Dadiani by
his brother and the possessor of Abkhazia again strengthened his influence in Abkhazia.

Read more: https://archive.org/stream/Abkhazia/Abxazia_djvu.txt

 

[Machabeli]

They wouldn't have it, but if Alan culture were to be implemented it would be present in Dvaleti. According to Forsyth Alans settled Dvaleti and became vassals of the georgian kings in the 15th century.

Alans became vassals of the Georgian kings not dvaleti. having Alan culture in the whole of dvaleti province would make no sense.

 

[Reavici]

AirikStrife
I'm strongly against Abkhaz culture to be represented in game. I am ok with western Georgian culture tho, but as a part of Kartvelian and not Caucasian cultural group.
There could be "Amerni" eastern Georgians and "Imerni" western Georgian cultures...

I agree with rest suggestions, Alania-Ossetia would be cool additional tag indeed. At some point Alans were one of the closest people to Georgians, possible cuz of Orthodoxy and royal ties. We considered them to be our loyal allies

 

[Machabeli]

AirikStrife
I'm strongly against Abkhaz culture to be represented in game. I am ok with western Georgian culture tho, but as a part of Kartvelian and not Caucasian cultural group.
There could be "Amerni" eastern Georgians and "Imerni" western Georgian cultures...

I agree with rest suggestions, Alania-Ossetia would be cool additional tag indeed. At some point Alans were one of the closest people to Georgians, possible cuz of Orthodoxy and royal ties. We considered them to be our loyal allies

'Amerni' 'imerni'? hmm that's interesting way of separating eastern and western Georgia.
Loyal allies eh? i don't know man those Ossetians in shida kartli were always treacherous bunch.

 

[Reavici]

Machabeli, sadly but Alans managed to assimilate local Dvals and later even go south through Caucasus mountains and settle purely Iberian lands... :v

Loyal allies eh? i don't know man those Ossetians in shida kartli were always treacherous bunch.

Well at least until Mongol invasion and desingretation of Georgia later Kabardians subjugated and enslaved Alans, they were forced to move into isolated mountains, most of them were starving to death. Our Monarchs let them settle into Kartli under local aristocracy rule, tbh they were nice additional manpower for devasted Georgia.

Ossetians were mostly assimilated into Georgian society. Before conflict we were even considering them to be sub-group of Georgians. If not separatistic tendecies which were supported by Russia, I think we could avoid this pointless conflict

 

[Reavici]

proposed new new tags: Odishi, Guria, Kartli and Kakheti
The Disintegration of the Kingdom of Georgia

Trigger conditions

• Is Kingdom of Georgia
• Ruler has less than 3 in all skills
• Does not have a regency
• Year is between 1463 and 1493

 

[talilu]

Why not just make Abkhazia Circassian? They come from the same language family.

 

[AirikrStrife]

The majority of non-georgian scholars hold the position that Abkhazians are not recent immigrants. James Forsyth in his book writes about that. The other links I included in my previous text is also clear on that issue.

Graham Smith in the antology "Nation-building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands: The Politics of National Identity" from page 54 discusses the different positions between Abkhazian and Georgian historigraphies and largely discredits both positions for using biased and ethnocentric attitudes on an issue there there isn't enough sources "The academic discourse in question demonstrates how ethnocentric attitudes all too glibly furnish definitive answers to obscure problems of the distant past, where modern scholarship has declined judgment given the lack of firm evidence"
Smith actually gives exactly the same paralell to belarusian/lithuanian identity as I did.
https://books.google.se/books?id=Bt..._summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=abkhazia&f=false

Core evidence suggested by Cyxymu is largely interpretation of ethnic belonging of various tribes described by romans and greeks in modern western georgia, especially the identity of Apsils and Abazgi and similiar sounding ethnonyms. With Georgian authors suggesting a kartvelian identity and Abkhazian authors an Abkhazian identity (or often arguing that they proven one thing or another beyond reasonable doubt), the approach by international researchers are more cautious but is in favor of the names denoting northwest-caucasian speaking group(s).

George Hewitt in his book "The Abkhazians: A Handbook" writes that it is impossible to be sure about the ethnic identity of groups living in Colchis before christ, the emergence of Absilae and Abasgoi tribes in late antiquity is most likely predecessors of Abkhaz-Abazin peoples. This once again largely comes down to interpretation of names and the usage of those names, of which Cyxymu is not giving any firmer ground to why his position that they were georgian.

For more concrete evidence of a seperate people in Abkhazia before 16/17th century (and not just relying on interpretation of ancient ethnonyms) Hewitt marks an European traveller visiting Abkhazia in 1404 who writes about Abcasia as it's own country (not in the sense of independent state but rather nation) and east of Abcasia lies Mingrelia and east of Mingrelia, Georgia and all the peoples speak different languages. (page 14)

https://books.google.se/books?id=-Y...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Hewitt, as well as others notes linguistic evidence for a long lasting symbiosis between Abkhazians and Kartvelians, as well as Abkhazian etymologoies in historical place names in what is now Abkhazia and western Georgia.


Continually, international historians consider the georgian position on abkhazian to be fabricated by georgian nationalists during the russian/soviet era.
Following book (as many others) discusses the rise of the "abkhazians are immigrants" theory and considers it to be a theory originally invented in the 19th century, then later reinvented in 1949 by Pavle Ingorokova, an author disputed by schoolars and who carries low credentials
https://books.google.se/books?id=MH...HaodB3MQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=abkhazia&f=false
Also their is no consensus on when the Kelasuri wall was erected, source estimates ranges from late antiquity to 17th century.

This book, "Nationalism, politics, and the practise of Archeology" discusses how historians and archeologists in post-soviet countries have become increasingly active as supporters and leaders of ethnic conflicts
https://books.google.se/books?id=6Z..._summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=abkhazia&f=false


And a whole essay about the politicization of history and national academia can be found here:
http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi/orderbooks/secession/secession-03.pdf

Quote:

The politicization of historical research on the basis of an ethnocentric attitude led to a situation where definitive answers were given to complicated scientific problems without any firm evidence.70 There is, of course, great unevenness in the quality of ethnogenetic research on Abkhazia, but it is striking that terms such as ‘undoubtedly’, ‘indisputably’ and similar expressions are used far more commonly in this type of research than might be expected, taking into account the fact that the material sources used in the reconstruction of the ethnic map of the region allow room for different interpretations. This is particularly the case with history before our era. Many researchers in Georgia and Abkhazia seem to be no less confident in the validity of their interpretations than Herodotus when he asserted ‘There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an Egyptian race’ [refering to when he discused Herodotes writing about Colchis which he considered an Egyptian colony]. Certainty is claimed in the interpretations concerning the proto-Abkhazian or proto-Georgian character of the ancient population on the territory of present-day Abkhazia, or concerning the reconstruction of a historical continuity in the ethnic composition of the population in the region, as if the archaeological material or classical texts spoke for themselves.71
The high political value attached to such interpretations, and the lack of academic freedom in discussing research results,
made it difficult to achieve much methodological progress in critical historiography.72
An even clearer sign of the high politicization of the humanities in Georgia and Abkhazia is the direct involvement of intellectuals in the political conflict between the two communities. The number of historical themes and scientific disciplines involved in the justification of Georgia’s and Abkhazia’s right to national self-determination increased significantly in the 1980s, and it was often difficult to distinguish the boundaries between scholarship and political propaganda. Zviad Gamsakhurdia, a senior researcher at the Institute for Literature at
the Georgian Academy of Sciences73 and internationally the best-known leader of the dissident movement, was active in discussing language myths. He defended the thesis that the Georgian language had been humiliated and thrust into obscurity throughout history, but predicted its resurrection and elevation to spiritual leadership. He was at home in the worlds of both professional research and political dissent. Gamsakhurdia was able to make use of research done by philologists
and medievalists who wrote in specialized publications – focusing, for
example, on the interpretation of ancient Georgian manuscripts in their historical context – in order to defend political theses in which the unique character of the Georgian language and culture took a prominent place.74 After his appointment as director of the Abkhazian Institute of Language, Literature and History, the Abkhazian scholar Vladislav Ardzinba likewise belonged to the worlds of both politics and scientific research. The Georgian historian Teimuraz Mikeladze had argued that iron had been first invented by the Chalybs, who were regarded as the ‘ancestors’ of the Georgians. They had introduced the Iron Age, he claimed, thereby making a massive contribution to human culture. Ardzinba argued that iron was in fact discovered by the ancestors
of the Abkhazian-Adyghe peoples who lived, in the second millennium BC, precisely where Mikeladze located the Chalybs.75 The political significance of this thesis cannot be overestimated.


Furthermore the stance that Abkhazians are recent immigrants to Abkhazia is not even universally accepted by georgians. While there are those who engage in divisive and one-sided rhetoric, there are, as in most conflicts, those who try too look at the faults in both sides and strive for peace, dialogue and understanding.
In this documentary:

you can see young georgians trying to form an understanding of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. They interview Shevarnadze who says that it was wrong of the Georgian army to move into Sukhumi, states that war could have been avoided and when asked wheather Abkhaz demands for autonomy, a federation with georgia, "was too much" he frankly says "why shouldn't they?"
It talks to Georgian historians, politicians, journalists and former military on their view of the Abkhazian war.


And even in the case of Ossetians which are relative newcomers to the southern caucasus, and no matter when the Abkhazians arrived in Abkhazia, they were living there and had the same human rights as anyone else in Georgia. No, I don't think they should "fuck of to there they came from" you could say the same thing, tenfold to everyone of European, asian or african ancestry living in the Americas, Oceania. Russians in Siberia, north caucasus etc. It can also be noted that South Ossetians have mixed so much with south caucasians that they're genetically as close to south caucasians as to north caucasians.

In short, the direct evidence for Abkhaz presence is weak, this is recognized by the international schoolarly community, but the evidence against Abkhaz presence is based on two (I believe we can summarize it as 2) points. 1. Interpretation of ancient ethnonyms as being ethnic georgians and 2. the later arrival (or "barbaric invasion" of modern Abkhazians sometimes between 11-17th century (georgian scholars do not agree on when this was supposed to happen).

Both points are disputed by scholars from all over the world, western world, Russia and also Georgia. What evidence there is has instead lead the scholarly word to believe Abkhazians are indigenous to Abkhazia.

Here I think we can conclude that we are of two incompatible mind sets. You have your positions which I will not be able to change. And for you to change my position you would have to first make an impact on the international academic consensus. I see thus no real meaning with further debatte and if PDX decides to rework the caucasus one more time they'll do it their way.

 

[Machabeli]

And even in the case of Ossetians which are relative newcomers to the southern caucasus, and no matter when the Abkhazians arrived in Abkhazia, they were living there and had the same human rights as anyone else in Georgia. No, I don't think they should "fuck of to there they came from" you could say the same thing, tenfold to everyone of European, asian or african ancestry living in the Americas, Oceania. Russians in Siberia, north caucasus etc. It can also be noted that South Ossetians have mixed so much with south caucasians that they're genetically as close to south caucasians as to north caucasians.

But what right did they have for secession? i mean if they hate living in Georgia shouldn't they just leave? it's hypocritical of them to want to secede from Georgia while living in a Georgian city. that's all i'm saying.

 

[Machabeli]

Why not just make Abkhazia Circassian? They come from the same language family.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[AirikrStrife]

But what right did they have for secession? i mean if they hate living in Georgia shouldn't they just leave? it's hypocritical of them to want to secede from Georgia while living in a Georgian city. that's all i'm saying.

Because their homes were in Georgia, they had lived there for centuries or even millenias. They don't know any other home and have nowhere to go to. Obviously I'm not happy with the situation in Georgia now, South Ossetia especially and to some extent Abkhazia are failed states, living off russian support and part of a russian political powerbase in the southern caucasus. The ideal would have been to have federalized Georgia (or autonomous republics) when the Union collapsed, something also Shevardnadze in hindsight says would have been fair. Unfortunatly the political climate in the Georgia and between georgians and abkhazians were bad and deteriorating even worse as both countries came to be led by uncompromising leaders. If you look at the documentary I linked it includes clips of speeches from Gamsakhurdia agitating against abkhazians, and the fact that the georgian government refused to negotiate or dicuss on abkhazian or ossetian autonomy. Much of the origin to these conflicts lays in the divisive politics permeated by russian/soviet powers throughout the century.

In 2003-2004 it almost came to war with Adjaria but fortunatly that did not happen and today Adjaria is an autonomous republic within Georgia and AFAIK it is working well. Same thing would have been beneficial for everyone (except possibly the russians) if Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia could have come to similiar agreement.

Why not just make Abkhazia Circassian? They come from the same language family.

I have to agree with Machabelli here, if not it's own culture they're much closer to Georgian in historical and cultural aspects (even from the perspective of Abkhazian continuity).

 

[Reavici]

I appreciate your research over this topic.

The majority of non-georgian scholars hold the position that Abkhazians are not recent immigrants.

that must be clarified.
every scholars that you are bringing as a evidence, mostly notes "both sides have some biased stories" and nothing more...

Smith actually gives exactly the same paralell to belarusian/lithuanian identity as I did.

on what basis? I mean where are facts that modern Abkhazians are direct descedant of early Abkhazs?
George Hewitt is right when he argues that it's impossible to determine identity by etymology of certain tribes which existed before christ
so quote below, is another unproven theory, which is doubted even by author

the emergence of Absilae and Abasgoi tribes in late antiquity is most likely predecessors of Abkhaz-Abazin peoples.

Antiquity is pretty much irrelevant when we are talking about history of medieval Abkhazia

even if Georgians (Zans and Suans) colonised Abkhazia before christ or in medieval ages, it would be similar scenario to Greeks colonising Pontus.
majority of population in Trebizond Empire where Laz peasantry (including Christianized/Hellenised Lazs) while rulling class were predominantly Greek. ruling class is important requirement to determinine country's identity.
according to your logic Trebizond is Lazian state, since Lazs are autochthonous population of Trebizond

as we already mentioned, out of three medieval estates which existed in feudal Abkhazia, at least two clergy and aristocracy were ones with Georgian identity. the historical Georgian heritage in Abkhazia and importance of Abkhazia in creating first ever united Georgian state is priceless for our country. which led to our golden age.

This book, "Nationalism, politics, and the practise of Archeology" discusses how historians and archeologists in post-soviet countries have become increasingly active as supporters and leaders of ethnic conflicts

well, you routed from the course of debate.
It's ok since you have nothing to back up your arguments except posting documentaries and analysis of Russian provoked conflict, which has nothing to do with history of Medieval Abkhazia

They interview Shevarnadze who says that it was wrong of the Georgian army to move into Sukhumi, states that war could have been avoided and when asked wheather Abkhaz demands for autonomy, a federation with georgia, "was too much" he frankly says "why shouldn't they?"
It talks to Georgian historians, politicians, journalists and former military on their view of the Abkhazian war.

your are closing eyes on Russian activities in Abkhazia and their "divide and rule"politics. dragging us into pointless conflicts, which would turn out into frozen conflicts would only benefit Russia to stop our path towards west and NATO. partially they succeeded doing it.

And even in the case of Ossetians which are relative newcomers to the southern caucasus, and no matter when the Abkhazians arrived in Abkhazia, they were living there and had the same human rights as anyone else in Georgia. No, I don't think they should "fuck of to there they came from" you could say the same thing, tenfold to everyone of European, asian or african ancestry living in the Americas, Oceania. Russians in Siberia, north caucasus etc. It can also be noted that South Ossetians have mixed so much with south caucasians that they're genetically as close to south caucasians as to north caucasians.

wtf that's not even my quote. I would never insult Ossetians nor Abkhazians. debates based on historical facts doesn't implies that I have some hatred toward anyone. personally my ancestors originate from Abkhazia (that's why it's sensitive and principal topic for me). they were forced to leave iAbkhazia, since Russian backed separatists managed to ethnically cleansing it. btw there are some fascist Abkhazian ministers with similar surname as mine, who are known for their racist attitute toward Georgians. you can't compare our officials to theirs.

also I am ok with independent federal Abkhazia if they will let refugess to return to their homes.
------
In short:
Me: you need to provide realiable source to prove existence of separted Abkhazian culture or identity earlier than XVII century.
You: the direct evidence for Abkhaz presence is weak

there is no reason to continue debates indeed

 

[Machabeli]

Because their homes were in Georgia, they had lived there for centuries or even millenias. They don't know any other home and have nowhere to go to. Obviously I'm not happy with the situation in Georgia now, South Ossetia especially and to some extent Abkhazia are failed states, living off russian support and part of a russian political powerbase in the southern caucasus. The ideal would have been to have federalized Georgia (or autonomous republics) when the Union collapsed, something also Shevardnadze in hindsight says would have been fair. Unfortunatly the political climate in the Georgia and between georgians and abkhazians were bad and deteriorating even worse as both countries came to be led by uncompromising leaders. If you look at the documentary I linked it includes clips of speeches from Gamsakhurdia agitating against abkhazians, and the fact that the georgian government refused to negotiate or dicuss on abkhazian or ossetian autonomy. Much of the origin to these conflicts lays in the divisive politics permeated by russian/soviet powers throughout the century.

I don't want to deport people or anything but it's the hypocrisy of Ossetian Separatist government(not people per say) that really frustrates me. It's the unfortunate ignorance of history of that region that leads to these conflicts, i think Federation with Abkhazia would've been most ideal situation for Georgia.(though 'South ossetia' has to go)

 

[Reavici]

Georgians and Abkhazians were living in one socio-political area, known as Colchis, Abkhazia and Georgia in different times. (while Circassians were enjoying nomadic lifestyle with other northern semi-paganist and barbarian tribes like Alans, Khazars, Pechenegs etc..) Abkhazia along with Georgia embraced feudalism and (Georgian) Orthodoxy, later they emerged with Iberia and Lazica into one Kingdom and continued to be part of Georgian sphere of influence even after desingretation of United Georgia in XV century. in 1918 Abkhazia became autonomous region within DRG and later GSSR until declaration of independence of Georgia in 1991.

in medieval foreigin chronicles Georgia was known as "Abasgia" untill XIII century, later it was replaced by "Georgia" term.

Bagrat III, the heir-apparent to the Royal House of the Bagrationis ('the king of Kartvelians') was crowned first as 'King of the Abkhazians', for he was the only legitimate successor to the Kingdom of the Abkhazians in his mother's line. He received the title 'Kings of the Kartvelians only at the beginning of the 11th century, on the decease of his ancestor 'King of the Kartvelians. Following the incorporation of Kakheti and Hereti, Bagrat received also the title of 'King of the Hers (Heretians) and the Kakhis (Kakhetians)'. Thus, at this stage the title of the kings of the united medieval Georgia assumed the following form: "King of the Abkhazians, the Kartvelians, the Hers, and the Kakhis".

even on cultural, genetic and anthropological aspect they do not differ from rest of western Georgians. the only difference is the language, which is highly influenced by neighbouring Mingrelian. btw most of Abkhazs share similar surnames as Georgians

 

[AirikrStrife]

Yes the evidence for a seperate identity (whatever that means) is weak. I wouldn't think it terrible to have Abkhazians not represented as it's own culture. Abkhazians were deeply interconnected with georgians and the culture was largely symbiotic. The exact nature of it in the middle ages is impossible to tell.

I agree with all this:

Georgians and Abkhazians were living in one socio-political area, known as Colchis, Abkhazia and Georgia in different times. (while Circassians were enjoying nomadic lifestyle with other northern semi-paganist and barbarian tribes like Alans, Khazars, Pechenegs etc..) Abkhazia along with Georgia embraced feudalism and (Georgian) Orthodoxy, later they emerged with Iberia and Lazica into one Kingdom and continued to be part of Georgian sphere of influence even after desingretation of United Georgia in XV century. in 1918 Abkhazia became autonomous region within DRG and later GSSR until declaration of independence of Georgia in 1991.

even on cultural, genetic and anthropological aspect they do not differ from rest of western Georgians. the only difference is the language, which is highly influenced by neighbouring Mingrelian. btw most of Abkhazs share similar surnames as Georgians

The quote about ossetians fucking off was from Machabeli, I'm sorry I made it sound like it was your qoute.

 

[Machabeli]

The quote about ossetians fucking off was from Machabeli, I'm sorry I made it sound like it was your qoute.

Yeah he kinda got confused there.

 

[Reavici]

AirikrStrife

The quote about ossetians fucking off was from Machabeli, I'm sorry I made it sound like it was your qoute.

ohh, np then.

btw we are forgetting that nationalism is recent invention. for feudals loyalty was priority more than ethnicity of their servants.

rate my new Caucasus
*I think Circassia needs some boost, since they were powerhouse in Caucasus while others were stagnating. if we consider length of Circasso-Russian wars, Circassia definetely deserves more provinces to resist Russian invasion
*Dar-i Alān added and it's looks aesthetic af.
*not sure if Dzurdzukia, Svaneti and Abasia is really needed. they are tiny i guess.
*I already removed Karachai, which could be nice additional province for possible k.o. Alania along with Kabardia, Dzurdzukia and Abasia. (could also include Terek tho)

 

[AirikrStrife]

It is really good!

Yes I had been thinking myself if Abasinia would really fit into the game. I would really want to try and keep svaneti though. I was thinking if Abkhazia stays Georgian, what culture would Zykhia/Jiqeti have? I thought you said it still belonged to Georgia, while I also read it was inhabited by Sadz, ancestors of modern Abazinians who migrated to Abazinia after Ubykh pressure I think sometime in the 15th century. I was thinking that having Zykhia/Jiqeti as part of Immereti from the begining and but have it with circassian culture representing the complicated ethnic situation (circassian and georgian are both in the same culture group so it wouldn't be full penalty) and use Ubykhia as dynamic province name if it is conquered by Circassia. (most likely circassia would get a mission to conquer it from start) I guess Zykhia would work as a standard province name while Jiqeti is the dynamic georgian name?

My understanding of namings for northwest caucasian peoples,is as follows: Circassians and Adigeas are usually used synonymously

Adigea can be used to exclusively refer to west Circassian (thus excluding Kabardins)
Circassia can be used to include not only Adigea and Kabardin but also Abazins and Ubykhs.

This however seems to be mainly a scholarly (and political) way of using the words for some conviniance.

And as I was thinking about splitting Circassia in two states, based on this understanding of the terminology it would be one western "Adigea" and one eastern "Kabardino" state both using Circassian culture.
I would also not have a province actually named Adigea then but call it Termigoy after the people and dialect which is "standard" circass. Maybe it could also be room for a Baslaney province as part of Kabardino.

I'm not sure what you are trying to do with the Avar Khanate? Is it still Avaria with one extra province? I had thoughts on trying to get a Vainakh state into the game, I realize it would probably not be able to get it's own culture but suffice with Dagestanian one. If so Avaria would remain one province (Khundzia) while a western province would be made. I think it's standard name would be Chechya, while using Dzurdzuketia as a georgian dynamic name. Vainakh/Chechnya would most likely be an OPM tribal democracy. I have been thinking about ways to split it but an Ingushetia province I understand to be too early (Ingushetia was formed by Vainakh migration during 15-17th centuries I believe it was and wasunder influence of the Kabardin tribes) and I was thinking about making one northern Sunzhar province but all in all I think that is too much for so little.

It would be a bit interesting with a tribal democracy around as they reform into oligarchic republics I was thinking of an achievment called something like "Czech...republic" start as Vainakh/Chechnya and reform into a republic. Talking about ahievments I think I saw one for Georgia in todays CoC feature video. One of the achievment symbols showed a man with a hammer I think is connected to David the Builder.

One question in case I start modding this, if I seperate Georgia/Kartli and Kakheti form start, who get's the Mtianeti province?