How does Paradox decides which countries are added to the game?

[Zelius]

"The Jersey Doomsday Book was compiled in 1331. Syvret and Stevens (1998) suggest that there were at least 2,000 houses, and with an average of six persons to a house, at least 12,000 people"

"The first thing that would surprise us about those towns would be their small size. At the time of the Domesday Book in 1086 London had a population of about 18,000. By the 14th century it rose to about 45,000. Other towns were much smaller. York may have had a population of about 13,000 by 1400"

I was going to put something here about the population of iceland, but it was too insigificant for anyone to actively measure at the start of EUIV's timeline.

As I said before, the process for Paradox to add countries and/or provinces can only be an arbitrary one. If it were done by population, Jersey would actually be around somewhere in the top 200 for the timeline start, if it's by wealth, Jersey would likely be even higher especially being a holiday home for active and exiled nobility.

It's disappointing, but all you can do is constantly pester and/or ask for provinces and countries to be included if they aren't already. Sadly, custom nations don't fix my problem because the land itself simply doesn't exist. You can at least make a custom nation Iceland and play it.

On the bolded text: either it's from Wikipedia or wiki copied it verbatim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey's_population). However the next sentence reads:

"Platt (2009) comments that the average death rate in the black death of 1348-49 was 30-40%, and he suggests that by the early 15th century the population may have fallen to 4,000-5,000."

which is in line with your graph:

Regarding the population counts vs London. Would that be the 'urban' population of London vs the entire domain of Jersey? What number of people would you suggest was involved in farming etc. just in the in-game London province, then? Not to forget other settlements covered by that province. And are you suggesting the economic activity per capita on the Jersey islands was in any way comparable to London?

 

[Wizzington]

More importantly, Iceland has geysers. Does Jersey? I think not.

 

[Golladan]

Soon...

Soon being 1.16, not 1.15. So not that soon.

 

[londoner247]

More importantly, Iceland has geysers. Does Jersey? I think not.

Dodgy geezers? Pretty sure Jersey has plenty of those ...

 

[klandri]

More importantly, Iceland has geysers. Does Jersey? I think not.

The Geyser actually. The word geyser comes from Icelandic "Geysir" which is the name of the most famous geyser in Iceland.

 

[Edmon]

The Icelandic population remained relatively unchanged from the middle ages until the 19th century, usually around 50-60,000 people, one fifth of Norway during the middle ages but unlike Iceland Norway's population didn't remain static throughout the period. According to your numbers that's four or five times that of Jersey at the time.

Iceland was not as insignificant as you may think. The Hanseatic league, the king of England and the king of Denmark all had considerable disputes over trading rights with Iceland. At its height the Icelandic trade was about 1% of total English trade and about 100 ships sailed to Iceland from England every year. The Anglo-Hanseatic war of 1468 was for example was fought partly over trading with Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Northern Norway.

Interestingly enough Iceland also has the first recorded complete census of any country in the world with the census of 1703 which counted around 50,000 people.

No, Iceland did not have a population of 50,000 or anywhere close to it during the start of the period. That would have been more than London, in a place that was critically inhospitable for the period time. In 1700 sure, but by that time, almost 300 years later, Jersey was well on it's way to 50,000+ alone, not including the other islands. The data is not known and anything you write is complete and utter conjecture and not even reasonable conjecture.

 

[Edmon]

More importantly, Iceland has geysers. Does Jersey? I think not.

Built in 1204 and modernised in 1450, Jerseys "Mont Orgueil" castle, represented the De Facto most prestigious holiday home of anyone who mattered at the time. Considered more important than London or France* tactically, the castle had bigger garrison, more defences and better construction than any other castle in England or French lands for period.

I mean, just look at it:

It also had the benefit of coming with it's own port and harbour, large enough to support even the most massive fleet.

*In terms of defensible harbouring

 

[Red_warning]

Maybe they'll add the Channel islands when they revise the provinces of western Europe, but Iceland is already there and their unique national tags are long overdue.

 

[Wizzington]

Not a geyser and thus not important.

 

[Lord_P]

Maybe they'll add the Channel islands when they revise the provinces of western Europe, but Iceland is already there and their unique national tags are long overdue.

Not a geyser and thus not important.

This is such a Wiz-like answer.

 

[Zelius]

Built in 1204 and modernised in 1450, Jerseys "Mont Orgueil" castle, represented the De Facto most prestigious holiday home of anyone who mattered at the time. Considered more important than London or France* tactically, the castle had bigger garrison, more defences and better construction than any other castle in England or French lands for period.

It also had the benefit of coming with it's own port and harbour, large enough to support even the most massive fleet.

*In terms of defensible harbouring

Come on man, unless something very interesting is done with it, like there being a strait to the British Isles via Jersey, or a Naval overhaul that meant holding the place would allow control of the sea tiles, only one of two things will happen:

a) England / France ignore it when fighting each other,
b) England or France lands their entire army to besiege and player France / England blocks them with a fleet while giggling like a little girl.

 

[Edmon]

Not a geyser and thus not important.

To be fair, forts haven't been important since common sense.

Zing!

 

[klandri]

No, Iceland did not have a population of 50,000 or anywhere close to it during the start of the period. That would have been more than London, in a place that was critically inhospitable for the period time. In 1700 sure, but by that time, almost 300 years later, Jersey was well on it's way to 50,000+ alone, not including the other islands. The data is not known and anything you write is complete and utter conjecture and not even reasonable conjecture.

You shouldn't be commenting when you have no idea what you're talking about. You are free to read pretty much any source you like on the topic, they'll all say the same thing. The historical and archaeological record suggests a similar population in 1700 and as early as the mid 10th century. In fact the wave of settlers after the discovery is estimate to count about 15-20,000 people from around 870 to 930. After stabilizing sometime in the 10th century the population would have fluctuated at around 50-60,000 with a low of about 30,000 in the early-mid 15th century due to the black death and in the late 18th century due to the Laki eruption.

All the causes of population increase elsewhere in Europe, better land usage and increased agricultural output mainly simply did not happen in Iceland until well into the 1700s the earliest.

And you're overestimating the size of cities during the middle ages. The population was overwhelmingly rural and while Iceland was sparsely populated even then I'd like to point you to a map to note that Iceland is almost half the size of Great Britain, significantly larger than the island of Ireland and fitting 50,000 people in farms dispersed around the island is not the same as fitting 50,000 people in a single town.

 

[Edmon]

You shouldn't be commenting when you have no idea what you're talking about. You are free to read pretty much any source you like on the topic, they'll all say the same thing. The historical and archaeological record suggests a similar population in 1700 and as early as the mid 10th century. In fact the wave of settlers after the discovery is estimate to count about 15-20,000 people from around 870 to 930. After stabilizing sometime in the 10th century the population would have fluctuated at around 50-60,000 with a low of about 30,000 in the early-mid 15th century due to the black death and in the late 18th century due to the Laki eruption.

All the causes of population increase elsewhere in Europe, better land usage and increased agricultural output mainly simply did not happen in Iceland until well into the 1700s the earliest.

And you're overestimating the size of cities during the middle ages. The population was overwhelmingly rural and while Iceland was sparsely populated even then I'd like to point you to a map to note that Iceland is almost half the size of Great Britain, significantly larger than the island of Ireland and fitting 50,000 people in farms dispersed around the island is not the same as fitting 50,000 people in a single town.

Conjecture is great and everything, but there is no primary source that even suggests what Icelands population might be before the first census in 1703. Other measurements have been plugged from the preverbial by people who are guessing.

If you were to take average population growth of a nation and reverse engineer it, it would suggest the population was about 15k-20k pre plague and about 10k after. Frankly, since everyone is guessing, my guess is as good as anyone elses.

Jersey, England and France had actual population counts, so we do actually know within reason what the populations were. Icelandic history seems to be written by nationalist historians of the modern varity with no reference to any actual historical documentation.

What we do know is the genetically, iceland is very inbred and related, suggesting a much smaller original population than even my low ended guesswork.

http://gizmodo.com/5882644/iceland-is-so-inbred-it-needs-a-website-to-avoid-incest

 

[Wizzington]

To be fair, forts haven't been important since common sense.

Zing!

Tip: Actually writing 'Zing!' rather reduces the effectiveness of said zing and is generally not advisable when there isn't much to reduce to begin with.

 

[DanubianCossak]

The population of Channel Islands is irrelevant imo, what matters is the fact that those islands are super small and there is hardly any way you can make them work in game. Technically they could be enlarged to be able to fit all the 3d map objects properly, but that would also, most likely, make them look quite ugly.

Not sure what the thing with those islands is. I remember people arguing for them even in EU3 time.

 

[Edmon]

Tip: Actually writing 'Zing!' rather reduces the effectiveness of said zing and is generally not advisable when there isn't much to reduce to begin with.

Well that is just common sense isn't it?

Zi-

 

[klandri]

Conjecture is great and everything, but there is no primary source that even suggests what Icelands population might be before the first census in 1703. Other measurements have been plugged from the preverbial by people who are guessing.

If you were to take average population growth of a nation and reverse engineer it, it would suggest the population was about 15k-20k pre plague and about 10k after. Frankly, since everyone is guessing, my guess is as good as anyone elses.

Jersey, England and France had actual population counts, so we do actually know within reason what the populations were. Icelandic history seems to be written by nationalist historians of the modern varity with no reference to any actual historical documentation.

What we do know is the genetically, iceland is very inbred and related, suggesting a much smaller original population than even my low ended guesswork.

http://gizmodo.com/5882644/iceland-is-so-inbred-it-needs-a-website-to-avoid-incest

Making grand claims doesn't make your "arguments" any more valid.

For solid historical sources there is Landnámabók, The Settlement Book dating from the 12th century, mentions 1400 settlements by name and 3000 notable settlers. Íslendingabók, Book of the Icelanders which mentions the island was largely fully settled by the mid-10th century. The tax counts of 1311 and 1095 each count about 3800 free farmers to be taxed which amounts to at least 60,000 people in total, most historians estimate about 70,000. Farm density suggests the same.

The exact number is spotty until the 18th century but there is plenty to go off before that.

As for your quip at the end there I suggest you read up on Íslendingabók. We do know Iceland is very related. More than that we know exactly how related to the extent that no other nation does. The database is the most comprehensive genealogical database of any nation in the world. It has existed since 1997 and records the large majority of Icelanders from the 18th century onwards and many of the richer and more notable ones before that. Some lines even go as far back as the original settlers. Somehow when they made an app for it foreign tabloids managed to spin this into an incest avoiding story.

Again, I suggest you don't comment when you have no idea what you're talking about. It's embarrassing.

 

[Edmon]

So what you are saying is, that the records show precisely 3000 people and 3800 people at various points and that everything else is an extrapolated estimate?

Oh.

It's almost like that's what I said. Presuming 5 family members and/or other people for every hardworking farmer (generous) of me, you pretty much arrive here:

"15k-20k pre plague and about 10k after. Frankly, since everyone is guessing, my guess is as good as anyone elses"

3800*5 is 19,000 in case you were wondering. If you round it to 4000, you get 20k, which is how I arrived at the number .

I'd be tempted to agree with you, but as I said, nothing can actually be proven and that is really my point.

 

[klandri]

So what you are saying is, that the records show precisely 3000 people and 3800 people at various points and that everything else is an extrapolated estimate?

Oh.

It's almost like that's what I said. Presuming 5 family members and/or other people for every hardworking farmer (generous) of me, you pretty much arrive here:

"15k-20k pre plague and about 10k after. Frankly, since everyone is guessing, my guess is as good as anyone elses"

3800*5 is 19,000 in case you were wondering. If you round it to 4000, you get 20k, which is how I arrived at the number .

I'd be tempted to agree with you, but as I said, nothing can actually be proven and that is really my point.

Mate, there are plenty of sources that outline the social structure in Iceland at the time (most notably the sagas). The taxable farmers were relatively wealthy men with large households comprising of their immediate family, parents, grandparents, children, numerous farm laborers, sometimes siblings, etc. The lowest plausible estimate is at least 10 per farmer and some historians estimate up to 20 or even more. Most somewhere in between but generally closer to 20 than 10.