Improving the overall historical accuracy of the game, discussion thread

[Veldmaarschalk]

This thread is a continuation of this thread in the general forum of CKIII.

Please keep the following guidelines in mind

1. Be respectfull towards other posters, the developers etc.
2. Keep it friendly, discussions about historical accuracy can sometimes get heated, so before you make a post, read it again and think to yourself, 'If someone would make a post like this, would I become angry/mad' if yes, then rephrase your post.

 

[Frankie]

I will focus most on the Western Slavs. (Because this is the region of the game I had a chance of playing)

-Slovianskan should have it`s own namelist just like Asatru has. Seeing pagan slavic characters with christian names (Aleksander, Gaudenty, Salomea, Józef, Petr, Robert, Barbara, Wincent etc.) is quite annoying. Same goes for the names of germanic origin: Berta, Heriman, Gertruda, Fridrich, Jindrich, Karel, Guta.
We could just copy wikipedia slavic namelist and write a simple script that would change the ortography depending on the culture of the character (like in culture_name.txt).

-West Slavic dynasty names are so ridiculous: examples:

POMERANIAN: Obodriten is a german plural word for Obodrites (upperSorbian: Obodritojo, LowerSorbian: Obodrity) - a Polabian confederation of tribes living in the northern-west of Polabia. Why is it a pomeranian surname?
Next one is minor: Gryfita is a dynasty name deriving from a griffin Coat of Arms. I do not think any 9th century Pommeranian has ever heard about a griffin.

CZECH: Markvart is a German name, so Markvartid as a Czech dynasty name should be preceded by at least SOME German colonisation. Same goes for z Lichtenburka, z Vartberka, z Rozmberka, z Falknstejna, z Pernstejna, z Cimburka, z Homberka, von Harrach, VON STERNBERG

POLISH: Polish nobles did indeed create their surnames, by the formula (village_name_i_control + "ski"), but this tradition started at the very end of the middle ages. So names like Potocki, Sobieski, Zamojski, Zbarski.... etc. Are based on villages that were built 700 years later. Those names are more fitting to the EU4 period.
Also the formula is not (REGION_i_control_or_live_in + "ski"), so Wielkopolski, Kujawski, Halicki, Opawski are not dynasty names. Those are just plain adjectives. Or nicknames (more about it in the next line).
Also the formula is not (CITY + "ski"). Świdnicki was a nickname o Bolesław II Piast, who happened to be the second of the Świdnica region (which happens to be also a city). His nickname was used to differentiate between him and buch of all others Bolesławs II Piasts ruling in other regions. Surnames like Opolski, Głogowski were coined in 19th century by Jewish families who wished to assimilate. They typically lived in the cities and figured out the "ski" suffix is considered prestigious. This is definitely not typical for a Polish noble living in the middle ages.
Gryf (literally the same surname as in Pomerania).
Wolin is a island in Pomerania, so this one is more fitting to Pomerania
Lewicki is a Jewish surname meaning Levite. Urban is also a Jewish surname.
Szczepańczyk, Maciejewski etc are surnames deriving from christian names.
Rudolf and Giese are so germanic I do not know what to say.
Nowak is a peasant name. It means "a newcomer".
Surnames like Lanckoroński, Kmita, Chodkiewicz, Sapieha etc. are quite famous. So famous, that they have their english wikipedia articles. You can check that most of them started to appear in the EU4 period.
Polish patronymics are not suf_owski/suf_owska. They could be suf_icz/suf_ianka, suf_ewicz/suf_ewianka or suf_owicz/suf_owianka.

POLABIAN: dynasty names are shared with pommeranians. This should explain Obodrites, I guess? Names like Obodrytow probably were ment to have a letter z in front of them. But they do not have it. Some of them lack diacritics. In 867 there exist one guy from the dynasty called Luzyc (z Łużyc i suppose) and there is another one from the dynasty called Lusici. I do not know what to make out of this.
Also Polabian patronymics are suf_owy/suf_owa.

SLOVIEN: I am not competent enough to question any of the surnames, however...

-Slovien culture by itself is an issue. The name does seem to be a neologism. Moreover it wouldn`t be so bad if the concept it is meant to represent was something indeed valid. If we assume the Moravians, Slovenians and pannonian Slavs are considered to be of one culture (Moravian would be a better name then), then why is the Czech separate? Also pannonian Slavs were much closer with the Slovenians, who are for some reason of croatian culture in the game.... And why is the lechitic group split into Polish, Pommeranians and Polabians? Slavs started to expand and differ very late, so the split from West Slavic into more detailed language groups: Lechitic, Lusatian and Czechoslovak started around 9th century. I wasn`t until much later when those groups stared to split more.
We could also treat the culture split diferently. Give every smallest tribe it`s own culture and make culture merges instead of splits.

-Polish culture by itself is an issue. The name polish, Poland etc. comes from the small tribe of Polans, which in the game is led by Siemowit Piast. I do not see why the whole culture is named ater one insignificant tribe.
Lesser Poland should be called Vistulania or Lendia, Lendiania or whatever, because the tribes living there were called Wiślans and Lędzians, not Polans. The term Lesser Poland started to appear in the Reneissance.
Minor: Every region is Poland has some form of the Piast eagle in it`s CoA. It does not seem fitting for the period beore the Piast expansion.
Again: culture split rom Lechitic group or a 'uniting the polish culture' decision would better represent this period.

-Vlachs being Southern Slavs. They should be Latin or Byzantine.

-White Croats being Southern Slavs. It just does not make any sense. At all. It implies they migrated into the Balkans BECAUSE they were south slavic.
Meanwhile, the Sorbs AKA White Serbians are west slavic. Just make a West Slavic culture called 'White Croatian' or 'Old Croatian'. Or put them into this damned 'Moravian' one.

-South Slavs should not split into Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian. The language still in 21th century is the same with some regional variability. Imagine the year 867. There should be a one Yugoslavic culture, which could be prevented from splitting into Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian if you control the whole culture group and every county has the same religion.

-Lendians beore Yaroslav the Wise were west slavic. In the earlier gamestart 'West Slavic' culture group ends abruptly on the Curzon Line. While this is accurate for the 1066 startdate, it is not for the 867. It is a MAJOR MISTAKE, because the settlement changes made by Yaroslav the Wise were one of the first in the region and very successfull. Instead of this we get some blokes called Pyotr and Gavriil...

-Prussians were living even deeper into Poland. But I guess we cannot represent it, since the counties are so big and there cannot be more than one culture in the same county.

-Russian culture group. Rename it to Rus. Or Rusian with one S if you really have to. And make this culture formable if you are Rurik or Dyre. It should not exist in 867.

-De Jure Russia and Southern Baltic Empire sound like a sick joke. The names are so artificial. And why do they include random kingdoms like Lituania, Bjamaland and Vladimir? Lituania could form Baltia with Estonia.
Also Kingdom of Pomerania should be the Kingdom of Polabia. Pomerania is the lesser part. Much less important politically. Or the name could be dynamic, depending on which culture is the ruler or something.

-Was Birlad really one of the most important Slavic holy sites? Seriously asking. I cannot find even one text on this. Mount Troglav on the other hand was quite important place, even named after one of the gods.
I also feel like we should move the Płock holy site to Slęża in Silesia. It not only was more important, but also the spread o the sites on the map would be much better.

-There is no Albanian culture. But there should be one. In at least one county. It could belong to the same culturegroup as Vlach.

-Maybe the religion name could be just "Pravda" (adjective pravdan)?

This is a really long list. And I could fix it all myself. Free of charge. Because I really care about the experiences Crusader Kings can provide. But I am sure it would be forgotten among all the other mods. If I could have some assurance the Paradox would listen to me I would dig into books to find even more informations to make the game more accurate and immersive.

 

[Bshepp]

I'm not sure if this belongs here but it does factor into accuracy.
Conversos as a faith doesn't really exist in the real world its more of a term refering to jews who converted to catholicism. It exist in game but is kind of pointless. I think it needs to be reworked.
Maybe by making jewish players not able to convert directly to catholicism and instead become conversos.
(Also its tenets need a fix too)

 

[es333]

-De Jure Russia and Southern Baltic Empire sound like a sick joke. The names are so artificial. And why do they include random kingdoms like Lituania, Bjamaland and Vladimir? Lituania could form Baltia with Estonia.

I don't understand how 20th century history and WW2 can influence history that has already happened? Estonia has absolutely nothing to do with Balts in the CK time frame and putting Estonia into some kind of empire with the Balts would be very ahistorical and illogical. Even in 2021 Estonians aren't Baltic, let alone 867AD.

 

[Frankie]

I don't understand how 20th century history and WW2 can influence history that has already happened? Estonia has absolutely nothing to do with Balts in the CK time frame and putting Estonia into some kind of empire with the Balts would be very ahistorical and illogical. Even in 2021 Estonians aren't Baltic, let alone 867AD.

I do not know what does it have to do with the 20th or 21th history. Balts are much closer culturally and regionally to the baltic Ugro-Finns than with the western Slavs. Lingustically indeed Balts are somewhat closer with the Slavs, but Estonians belonging to the Scandinavian Empire seems really dumb.

 

[Aquamancer]

I do not know what does it have to do with the 20th or 21th history. Balts are much closer culturally and regionally to the baltic Ugro-Finns than with the western Slavs. Lingustically indeed Balts are somewhat closer with the Slavs, but Estonians belonging to the Scandinavian Empire seems really dumb.

I wouldn't say it's any dumber than Karelians and Sami belonging to the Scandinavian Empire. Besides, the cultural ties of the Estonians during the Middle Ages were closer to Scandinavia than the Baltic states (due to the fact that Estonians had maritime contacts with the Scandinavians via trade and raiding), so it'd be more fitting to place the Estonians under the same empire as the Scandinavians and the Finns, than with the Balts.

 

[es333]

I do not know what does it have to do with the 20th or 21th history.

I get an impression that people want to lump Estonia into a "Baltic empire" just because it is geopolitically called a "Baltic state" in the modern age.

Balts are much closer culturally and regionally to the baltic Ugro-Finns than with the western Slavs.

That is completely false. Viking age Finnic people had a quite different culture from Balts and were the relations between Finnics & Balts were quite hostile.
Finnic people were seafarers who navigated the Russian rivers before Scandinavians arrived there and the (archaeological) culture of Finnics living in the eastern Baltic region was indistinguishable from eastern Scandinavia with whom they had good relations. Baltic areas are a completely different story who had a culture in a different group with a different worldview and so on.

I'm actually interested in your logic. Where did you even get the idea that Viking Age Balts were culturally similar to Finnics and Eastern Scandinavians? The opposite is true.

Lingustically indeed Balts are somewhat closer with the Slavs, but Estonians belonging to the Scandinavian Empire seems really dumb.

Estonians belonging to the Scandinavian Empire is extremely logical as their culture, world view, way of life, ties and common cultural space was shared with Scandinavia. As I said before, it is impossible to differentiate between Estonian and eastern Scandinavian archaeological finds in the Viking age as the Estonians produced the same weapons, jewelry and so on.

No offence but it is quite obvious that you are basing your opinion on the year of 2021 and people calling Estonians "Balts" (which is also false) as archaeological finds clearly show that the Balts shared quite little with Finnics and Scandinavians. For comparison, in the 867 start date, Estonians had almost 3000 islands and a coastline which was over 4000+ km long while the Latgals nor Zemgals did not border the sea and the coastline of Baltic Curonians (who started migrating northwards in the 2nd part of the 11th century) was ~40km long. Balts were inland people who's way of life had little to do with the sea while the Finnics and Norse shared the same cultural space and were seafarers.

 

[es333]

I wouldn't say it's any dumber than Karelians and Sami belonging to the Scandinavian Empire.

Contrary to Karelia and the Sami areas of Northern Scandinavia, Estonia was actually an integral part of the Norse world and cultural zone (starting from the 6th century which predates the Viking age) so those areas aren't really comparable.

 

[Frankie]

It confuses me how a least important suggestion from my whole post gets analysed to the point, where some guys claim thay know what I think better than myself. If I delete this one sentence will you be happy?

 

[RegularJoe]

In principle, I think historical accuracy is a good idea but I don't think we should be getting too hung up on it as history is usually written by the victors or the paid lackeys of those who won the battle, there are numerous examples of Roman scholars writing more than favourable historic "facts" about their patrons.
As for agreed-upon known history, it's all a little subjective anyway as if I start in 867 the whole of Europe is going to be totally different to what it would have been historically anyway. So does it matter to me that the Capet family (or whoever) isn't perfectly represented in 867? No, because they will most likely fade into history in this alternative playthrough of history.
Then there is the fact that most people playing the game will have a broad grasp of history and will not notice even if there are historical inaccuracies. These are all good ideas but ones that I think Paradox will not be in a hurry to prioritise.

 

[elvain]

CZECH: Markvart is a German name, so Markvartid as a Czech dynasty name should be preceded by at least SOME German colonisation. Same goes for z Lichtenburka, z Vartberka, z Rozmberka, z Falknstejna, z Pernstejna, z Cimburka, z Homberka, von Harrach, VON STERNBERG

SLOVIEN: I am not competent enough to question any of the surnames, however...

-Slovien culture by itself is an issue. The name does seem to be a neologism. Moreover it wouldn`t be so bad if the concept it is meant to represent was something indeed valid. If we assume the Moravians, Slovenians and pannonian Slavs are considered to be of one culture (Moravian would be a better name then), then why is the Czech separate? Also pannonian Slavs were much closer with the Slovenians, who are for some reason of croatian culture in the game.... And why is the lechitic group split into Polish, Pommeranians and Polabians? Slavs started to expand and differ very late, so the split from West Slavic into more detailed language groups: Lechitic, Lusatian and Czechoslovak started around 9th century. I wasn`t until much later when those groups stared to split more.
We could also treat the culture split diferently. Give every smallest tribe it`s own culture and make culture merges instead of splits.

Markvartids - it's one of the most ancient Czech noble dynasties, which predated German colonization. Its founder and progenitor could have been a Saxon companion (retinue man) of a Bohemian duke, but his descendants bore old Czech names as well as German (which doesn't mean much as many other Czech noble families of clear Czech origin used German names for their children even before German colonization).
all the other dynasties are also original Czech dynasties. In the 13th and 14th centuries it was quite common that Czech nobles gave their castles Germanized names. None of them is a result of German colonization.

Sloviens - To understand the issue, we need to leave a field of theoretical history and enter a field of a game which is meant to give its players immersion. That's how and why this culture was introduced to CK2 as it is. It is meant to represent the Panonian Slavs, who have later transformed into Moravians, Carantanians and Slovaks as a result of political processes in the region. Sloviens were meant to coexist hand in hand with Carantanians and were a result of adding the latter to CK2, although for some reasons Carantanians weren't added to CK3 (but the devs already promissed they are looking into it).
As for why Sloviens are Sloviens and not Moravians, it was a result of pretty long and emotive discussion, in which some Slovaks suggested adding a Slovak culture, being opposed by those who warned how anachronistic this would be etc. I myself supported calling them Moravians, but had to admit that in the situation of CK2 with its 769 bookmark Moravian culture predating Moravian Mojmírid state would make very little sense (Moravian identity was a result of formation of the state and the fact that Moravia as region has survived it). One of the arguments for creating the culture was to give modern Slovaks culture they could identify with (like Carantanians for Slovenians) and as much as Moravian would seem more accurate for 867 and beyond, it wouldn't solve the issue that Slovaks haven't identified themselves as Moravians. If Moravian state survived Magyar invasion, they probably would, but it didn't happen.
Hence a compromise name was saught and Sloviens were agreed as the most accurate one.
Why there are Czechs then? That's another long story, but to keep it brief:
1) Practical reasons: CK2 already had Bohemian culture (covering all Czech and Slovien areas) and while it might be most accurate to have Slovien culture cover all of Czech, Slovien and Carantanian areas (as well as probably Lechitic areas) in 769 and 867, it would be totally wrong to revert Přemyslids and all later Bohemian kings and nobles from Bohemian/Czech to Slovien for 936 (with which Sloviens were added), 1066 and all later dates.

The whole problem is that culture is a social construct and many people associate it with different things. Furthemore, in reality cultural idendities are very fluid and often change as a result of changing socio-political-religious situation and it is not uncommon that a single person can identify him/herself with multiple (cultural) identities, but in a game like this the cultures are binary and very static. It's not a problem of CK3 only, but every other game, which uses cultures like this. CK3 would certainly greatly benefit from having a dynamic cultural system. I keep dreaming that Paradox will make it one day... but we have been discussing this for years, so who knows?

 

[Frankie]

We are talking about 7th century. I know of the custom of giving the names to the castles. I know the history of the Markvartid family. None of it makes sense in pre-christan Bohemia. 14th century is quite late for CK.

But the rest of your post is actually impressive. You answered many of my doubts.

But just one more question: is "Slovien" a made-up word, or does it have any semantics in the English language?

 

[elvain]

We are talking about 7th century. I know of the custom of giving the names to the castles. I know the history of the Markvartid family. None of it makes sense in pre-christan Bohemia. 14th century is quite late for CK.

But the rest of your post is actually impressive. You answered many of my doubts.

we're not talking about 7th century. The game's earliest start is 2 centuries later, in 867. The main start is 1066 (when you launch the game, you start in 1066, not in 867, and it is so for a reason, but that would be another debate) and the game covers generaly the medieval period. When talking about improving accuracy, we should not pretend talking about history schoolbook describing year 867, but ways how to have lively and fun representation of medieval world, as accurate as possible. And since the medieval period was very dynamic and many things present in 867 were gone by 910, while many things firmly associated with medieval world were only taking shape in the 11th century, the game has to pick some common ground to cover everything somehow accurately, but nothing can be perfectly accurate for no single year.

As you speak about pre-Christian Bohemia and accuracy. 99% of content of Bohemia and Czechs haven't existed in 867, what should be done? What would you suggest, should they delete it?

The oldest Czech historical known dynasties date no sooner than to the 11th century, most to the 13th (Markvartids to the 12th). Should they make some up instead of using what existed? They could create a mechanic which would use different name and dynasty lists for pre-Chriatian and Christian period, but how much do we know about that pre-Christian Bohemia? What should it be based on?

if you want 100% historical accuracy, in 867 there shouldn't even be a concept of noble dynasties among Czechs (Western Slavs in general). How should it work then, I wonder? Any ideas or suggestions? As historically accurate as possible, of course.

Yes, we all want the game to be as accurate as possible, but we should not forget that some things simply are not possible and that we are still talking about a game, which requires some sort of simplification and generalization which might not fit the earliest 3 decades of the first playable bookmark, but does apply for 80% of medieval period where the game is set in, and does apply to what everyone understands as Medieval world. If you expect perfectly accurate description of world in 867, you should look in academic books, libraries, museums and archives (and having studied them myself, I can say you wouldn't get it either), not in a game.

Just please in our Holy war for total accuracy, let's not demand impossible.

EDIT: Anyway, if we pick a nitpicky approach, then don't forget that strictly accurately speaking 867 was no longer a pre-Christian period. Bohemian princes accepted Christianity already in 845. So although it didn't mean them really becomming Christians and even less a Christianization of the whole country, strictly speaking that date marks start of an intermediary period where Christian (and German) influences were on gradual rise... and if we want to be perfectly accurate, it is not incorrect to have them represented in some way.

 

[elvain]

is "Slovien" a made-up word, or does it have any semantics in the English language

Slovien is indigenous Slavic name, the way those people called themselves. As far as I can tell, it's not in English sources. Before suggesting it to the devs we have long been discussing which form would be the best in English, in a group of 10-15 Czechs and Slovaks interested in the game enough to discuss these things.

Just for the record, the alternative names were Moravians (my personal favourite, but the reasons for not taaking it were explained), Venedes, Slavs, Slavians, Slovaks, Nitrans/ Nitravans, Pannonians. I came up with Slovien as a name mentioned in sources and used by some Czech and Slovak historians when speaking about our ancestors.
Not everyone agreed... and many of the doubts and issues were being considered and debated, but still the name happened to be the least inaccurate solution.

 

[Frankie]

Thanks elvain. I really do appreciate the quality of your response.

 

[EmrysValdr]

This post is about the De Jure capitals of the Kingdom of Norway. In 867, the De Jure capital of Norway is Niðaróss (modern-day Trondheim) within Prandheimer. In 1066 the De Jure Capital is Oslo within the county of Vingulmork. My arguement is that for 867, the De Jure capital should be moved to Ogvaldsnes (modern-day Avaldsnes) within the county of Rogaland, and in 1066 the De Jure capital should be Niðaróss (modern-day Trondheim). Contingent on the movement of the De Jure capital in 867 to Ogvaldsnes, the currently placed starting tribal holding in Rogaland must be moved from Jadarr to Ogvaldsnes. Also to clarify, my interpretation of the meaning of the term "De Jure Capital" is a holding that was traditionally (defined by a majority time serving as or scholarly recognition) the seat of power for the reigning Kings of the era. By era, I clarify for 867 I consider the period of 476-1000, and for 1066 I consider 1000-1453, but these are by no means hard dates and are flexible based on a region's history. The time a city may have spent from 1453 onward as a capital I do not take into consideration. There are also cultural and religious factors to consider in establishing a De Jure capital. The capital of a Pagan state can be different than a Christian state, and represent fundamentally different types of state even if the name of the state remains the same. We must also consider the possibility the Christian location was the historic capital for a state longer than the Pagan state, but due to the capitals symbolizing two fundamentally different conceptions of that state, if the goal is to symbolize the De Jure capital of a Pagan state, th Christian capital would not be the appropriate one to use.

As a disclaimer, the placement of De Jure capitals for Norway is somewhat difficult because Norway was said to be founded by Harald Fair-Hair around 872 so on game start in 867 Norway has never before existed as a nation and thus has had no proper or recognizable De Jure capital. That being said, I believe Ogvaldsnes would be a more proper De Jure capital for 867 Norway because after supposedly founding Norway, Harald Fair-fair established his seat of power and main royal estate (the Avaldsnes Kongsgård estate) in Ogvaldsnes. The Avaldsnes Kongsgård estate is recognized today as the the oldest royal residence and seat of power in Norwegian history. Ogvaldsnes also had reportedly served as the seat of power of the the legendary King Augvald in the 7th century, and due to Ogvaldsnes' location on the Karmsund Strait, the settlement was able to levy its strategic positioning to influence trade throughout the centuries. After the establishment of Ogvaldsnes as Harald Fair-hair seat of power, Ogvaldsnes continued to serve as the de-facto capital of the Kingdom for 125ish years till 997 when the capital was moved to Niðaróss. Niðaróss was chosen as capital and grew under Norway's christian kings, and thus I feel it is more appropriate for the De Jure capital of the Norse pagan start date of 867 to be portrayed as Ogvaldsnes, especially since for the period of 867-1066 saw Ogvaldsnes be the primary capital of Norway.

For 1066, I believe Niðaróss (modern-day Trondheim) could be considered the De Jure capital for Norway over Oslo. To begin with, Oslo only begun the process of becoming the capital of Norway around the reign of Haakon V of Norway (r. 1299 to 1319) with an approximate date being around 1314. This is around 248 years after the start of the game. Before 1066, and for a majority of the time in-game (1066-1453), Niðaróss served as the capital of Norway. It served as the capital when the Kings of Norway underwent the Christianization of Norway, was the main site for the coronation of Norwegian monarchs of the era, and served as the center of Norway's spiritual life until the Protestant Reformation. The Nidaross Cathedral, with the Shrine to St. Olav, was thought to be Northern Europe's most important pilgrimage site during the Middle Ages.

To finialize, the De Jure capital of 867 Norway should represent the capital of an Asatru Norway. Niðaróss does not represent that. Niðaróss represents a Christianized Norway, something that can often not happen in 867 starts. Ogvaldsnes is the far more appropriate location to represent the De Jure capital of a Asatru Norway. Ogvaldsnes was made the capital by Harald Fair-Hair, who by all accounts was Asatru, and remained the primary capital throughout Norway's existence as a Asatru state. Nidaross only became the capital after the Kings of Norway began to Christianize. It remained the capital of a Christian Norway for far longer (at least for CK3's period) than Oslo, and was site of the Nidaross Cathedral, a prominent Christian pilgrimage site for Northern Europe. Thus, I contend to properly represent the De Jure capitals of a 867 Asatru Norway and 1066 Christian Norway, the Dee Jure capitals should be moved to Ogvaldsnes and Niðaróss respectively.

If possible, I think a good compromise would be Ogvaldsnes serving as De Jure Capital as long as the holder of the Kingdom of Norway is Asatru, with the De Juree Capital switching to Niðaróss if the holder becomes or is Christian. In 1066, I still contend the De Jure Capital should be Niðaróss, but perhaps after 1300 the capital shifts? If that is even possible. As of now I dont believe the De Jure capital can change under any circumstances.

Edit: Fixed spelling errors and sentence structure (again). Added some further elaboration where I felt necessary.

 

[ZoCurious]

I have some succession law comments and suggestions.

• Basques and Equal succession. Please, please make the Basques less eager to change their succession law to Equal. The concept of equal primogeniture never applied to the Navarrese monarchy; sons were always preferred to daughters in royal succession. It does not make sense then that in every game every Basque ruler adopts Equal succession asap. In the 867 start it always happens instantly and inevitably leads to Muslim Navarra, as Onecca Fortunez, who is married into the Ummayad dynasty, becomes queen ahead of her four younger brothers. Basques who inherit other titles also change their succession law to Equal promptly, and if they switch cultures, they do not change the law back to Male-Preference. Perhaps worst of all, the AI has no reason to do this, and it is always to its detriment.
• More Male-Only succession. I love how West Francia and Aquitaine have Male Only succession added to their top title. Asturias succession is also perfectly modelled. But there really should be many more Male Only titles: East Francia, Lotharingia, Burgundy, and Italy, for example. Indeed, they correctly had agnatic succession in CKII. Everything in Europe to the east of them should also have Male Only succession. It is so weird seeing little girls on the thrones of Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia, and Hungary.
• Byzantines. I am sure this has been mentioned before and that it will be done in a DLC, but Byzantine succession was never strictly hereditary. If/when you do decide to revamp it, consider CKII's solution, which I thought to be very accurate!
• Calculating the succession. Okay, this is what Paradox got so right and might just be my favorite improvement over CKII. Descendants of aunts and of female cousins are now in the succession and that is awesome. Unfortunately, the succession sometimes switches to the wrong side of the family, following the father's line instead of the mother's. I think it happens when a title passes to the son of a deceased daughter/sister; since she did not hold the title, the game assumes it came from his father's family. This may be trickier to fix.

Some more stuff:

• Houses lacking correct dynasty. Some houses are not connected to the correct dynasty, which can be as benign as slightly affecting the roleplay (e.g. House Bavandid should be part of the Sassanid dynasty) or potentially leading to a game over (House de Bourgogne, third in line to the French throne, should be in the Robertine dynasty).
• Brittany characters and dynasty. King Salomon of Brittany should be a Familial Kinslayer, having assassinated his cousin and predecessor Erispoe. Salomon should also belong to the same dynasty (but different houses) as Erispoe's son and grandsons, who are claimants to the throne. I imagine the Asturian model would work very well in Brittany too, with the top title being Feudal Elective and the counties Confederate Partition. Finally, Count Guruant of Rennes should be a son-in-law rather than a son of King Nominoe of Brittany; and instead of being a son of King Nominoe of Brittany, Count Pascueten of Vannes should be a son-in-law of King Salomon, the husband of Salomon's daughter Prostlon.

 

[EpicScizor]

<snip> Moving de jure capital of Norway

I agree with this suggestion, as it coincides with mine. I've been personally looking through ways of improving Norway's setup in general, and have been using the various sagas as a basis (yes, I am aware of the fact that the sagas aren't exactly the best historical documents, but they *do* work for presenting a story, and CK3 is very story-oriented). What I've found is that there are many characters which exist in the right time frame, but which aren't in the correct places.

Here are the ones I've found so far in 867:

Haraldr Fairhair himself should not be homosexual at game start, and I find it weird that he is. Otherwise it appears the devs used Heimskringla as the primary source about him, as can be seen by his uncle Guttorm being the Martial advisor and his plethora of family. His marriage to Ragnhildr (ID 6862, who by right should have the nickname 'the Mighty') does not fit chronologically, as that marriage is said to have happened after the conquest of Norway. He should be unmarried, with his future wives and concubines being in the game (which is the case for Ragnhildr, Gyda, and Snøfridr, but not Åsa Hakonsdottir)

Incidentally, Ragnhildr should not be lowborn. In fact, looking at how Denmark is set up, she should be identified as the child of the deceased Eirikr/Hårik II of Jutland (ID 6866), though the dates will have to be adjusted for this to be biologically possible (Hårik II's real date of death is unclear, but it is somewhere between 864 and 873). Also, Hårik's son and current holder of Jutland, Bagsecg (ID 163113), should probably be participating in the Great Heathen Army, as he is one of its commanders in the sagas.

I have no idea how to make Snøfrid be somewhat plausibly historical, since she is just described as a "Finnish princess", one saga even making her the child of a giant.

The chief of Hordaland, Eirikr (ID186013), should be identified with the same Eirikr (ID 166329) whose daughter is Gyda (166044), the one who spurs Haraldr to conquer Norway. This also means changing the holder of Hordaland to that same Eirikr.

The future Ladejarl, Haakon Grjotgardsson (ID 186003) should perhaps already have succeeded his aging father, and depending on which saga you follow, either be an ally and friend of Haraldr Fairhair, or already own Lade (aka Nidaros), in which case the "historical" path would be for him to be vassalized by Fairhair. Adding Haakon's daughter Åsa is also useful since she married Fairhair (who instead took Gyda as a concubine after killing her father).

In the same vein, the future Jarl of Mære, Ragnvaldr Eysteinnsson (ID 161302) and his brother the future Earl of Orkney, Sigurdr Eysteinnson (ID 161303) should be friends with/in the court of Fairhair, as Ragnvaldr is described as being a very close friend of Harald and was awarded with Møre after the conquest of Norway.
If we follow the Orkneyasaga (which to be fair is very disputed among scholars), Ragnvaldr and Haraldr then hunted down pirating Vikings on Orkney (ostensibly around 900), during which Ragnvaldr's son Ivarr died and Ragnvaldr was awarded Orkney as compensation, which he then gave to his brother Sigurd. The story thereafter is a very tumultuous succesion as people die or resign left and right, and also leads to the splitting of the dynasty into the Orkney earls and the Jarls of Møre.

As for the rest of Norway - the Agder chief is accurate (though it would be nice to add a trait or some stewardship education, since he was known as the Rich) and his son could do with being a berserker (as he is described as during the Battle of Hafrsfjord in Heimskringla), Oppdal should probably be split into more chiefdoms rather than one large duchy - the first three paragraphs of the saga of Haraldr Fairhair alone provides enough detail to give them at least a rudimentary history (four chiefs and one petty king is named).


I also have a suggestion for making Harald's conquest (which historically occured within a few years of 867) into a minor event, but that I think is beyond the scope of this thread. The gist of it is to have the proposal to Gyda lead to the vow to conquer Norway and not cut your hair while doing so (change hairstyles!) which earns you the nickname Lufa/Shockhair, and then have an event after forming Norway about shaving the hair and gaining the nickname 'Fairhair'.

 

[Aquamancer]

I have no idea how to make Snøfrid be somewhat plausibly historical, since she is just described as a "Finnish princess", one saga even making her the child of a giant.

Having looked into Snøfrid, I can start to see the issues surrounding her and how to represent her.

Regarding her culture: both Snøfrid and her father Svási are identified as Sami, but they appear to have lived in the in-game province of Gudbrandsdalen, which has Norse culture. It's worth noting that more recent research indicates that the mountainous regions of southern Norway likely had a mixed population of Sami and Norse people, but there's probably no easy way to represent this in-game. As such, one could make a case for Svási being a Sami vassal ruler of the province of Gudbrandsdalen. I even wonder if it'd be appropriate to translate their names from North Germanic to Sami: after all, I doubt the Sami would've used Norse names, even in a community where the two ethnic groups interacted a lot.

As for their personality traits, I'd imagine that Snøfrid would have the traits Deceitful (as she seems to have used magic to manipulate Harald into falling in love with her), Lustful (to represent her having four children with Harald and making him ignore running his kingdom in favour of spending time with her), an Intrigue education trait (aligns well with her other traits), one of the congenital beauty traits (to represent her description in the sources as very beautiful), possibly Seductress (to again represent her ability to make Harald fall in love with her the first time they met), and Witch (to represent her as being described as a witch). She should also have a rather low health stat and a high base fertility stat (to represent her having four children with Harald before dying rather unexpectedly). Svási, in turn, could have the Giant trait, to represent his description as a giant.

 

[EmrysValdr]

He should be unmarried, with his future wives and concubines being in the game (which is the case for Ragnhildr, Gyda, and Snøfridr, but not Åsa Hakonsdottir)

Is Snøfridr in the game on a 867 start? If so where can I find her?

 

[Kaineman]

I have a few suggestions surrounding the in-game area of present-day Slovenia.

Right now, the 867 start has the area divided into three cultures: Cisalpine, Bavarian and Croatian. This needs some fine-tuning at least. I know others have already touched upon the lack of Carantanian culture, which would be the appropriate culture for at least the County of Villach, County of Kärnten and County of Leibniz (and potentially the County of Kranj).

The Prince-Bishopric of Görz, which is of Cisalpine culture would also need to be of a Slavic culture.

Next, I'd like to touch on the names of Baronies.
Like above, the Barony of Gorizia should be the Barony of Goriza - when it was given to the Aquilean patriarch in 1001 it was referred to as a Slav village.
The Barony of Tricorno (which is named after Mount Triglav), should probably be the Barony of Terglau - which is the German name instead of the Italian (the mountain was only named as such in the 15th century).
The Barony of Ribnica should be named Barony of Rewenitz while under German rule, which would bring it in line with the Barony of Rudolfswerde (today Novo mesto).
The Barony and County of Ljubljana should be named Barony/County of Laibach, as per above.
The Barony of Krško is geographically incorrect, it should be placed where the Barony of Dobovec is now. Also renamed as Barony of Gurkfeld, as per above.
The former Barony of Krško should be the Barony of Cilli.
The Barony of Kamnik is OK.
The Barony of Kranj (alternative Krainburg) is OK.
The Barony of Maribor should be the Barony of Marpurch, as per above.
The Barony of Windische Buhel should be the Barony of Lutenberg/Luttenberg (slov. Ljutomer, market rights 1265, around the same time as other towns noted above).
The Barony of Leibnitz has a typo (is currently the Barony of Liebnitz, despite being in the County of Leibnitz. Despite that, it should actually be the Barony of Lipnizza, which was its name until the 14th century.

Recap: This gives the region less anachronistic names, places the Barony of Gurkfeld (Krško) in the right place, replaces the unimportant Barony of Dobovec with a lot more important Barony of Cilli and sets an actual early town in the Windische Buhel (Slovenian Hills).