Increasing duchy historicality and revisiting their borders

[Calgacus]

acctualy these are ducal titles, and the kingdom shields are a glitch

Well, they are available. MINS is under the "only available at start" part of worldnames.csv, whilst the province of Minsk is SMOL;LITH provinces.csv. Likewise is NOSE - with the province itself PRON;RUSS.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Ascalon renamed to Jaffa....I don't know about that.
Removing Tyre is wrong IMO, Galilee should be composed of Tiberias and Jerusalem. There should also be Duchy /Principality of Acre. Also Antioch should hold Teluch and Aleppo, Negev certainly shouldn't be in Oultrejourdain(Jordan).

Btw. this last is another issue. OUtlrejourdain is French and means 'beyond [the river]Jordan'. I suggest renaming it simply to Jordan.

Since Aleppo was never conquered by the Crusaders including it in what is historical the crusader principality of Antioch is wrong.

Since there was not title called .... of Jordan renaming Oultrejourdain to Jordan isn't correct, better give it just counties east of the Jordan

And since I can't find any information about Acre being a county or lordship. Just that the Kingdom of Jerusalem was sometimes called Kingdom of Acre after Jerusalem was taken. So having it as a duketitle wouldn't be correct.

And like the article sais, there was a county of Jaffa

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Since Aleppo was never conquered by the Crusaders including it in what is historical the crusader principality of Antioch is wrong.

Antioch was not made on Crusader Princiaplity but on Antioch part of Byzantine Empire. City of Aleppo was part of Byzantine Antioch so putting it anywhere but in Antioch is historically wrong.

Since there was not title called .... of Jordan renaming Oultrejourdain to Jordan isn't correct, better give it just counties east of the Jordan

Jordan and Outlrejourdain is the same thing...I just explained it...

And since I can't find any information about Acre being a county or lordship. Just that the Kingdom of Jerusalem was sometimes called Kingdom of Acre after Jerusalem was taken. So having it as a duketitle wouldn't be correct.

I found several sources speaking of Principality of Acre. It seems that after Jerusalem felt the kingdom became 'Principality of Acre' but they also still titutlated themselves as 'Kings of Jerusalem'. Also I mentioned that Spanish Kings have claimed 'Prince of Acre' title(not sure if they still do). Anyway just the fact Acre was such an important entity/city nominates it for a Duchy/Principality.

And like the article sais, there was a county of Jaffa

Yes County of Jaffa and Ascalon.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Antioch was not made on Crusader Princiaplity but on Antioch part of Byzantine Empire. City of Aleppo was part of Byzantine Antioch so putting it anywhere but in Antioch is historically wrong.



Jordan and Outlrejourdain is the same thing...I just explained it...



I found several sources speaking of Principality of Acre. It seems that after Jerusalem felt the kingdom became 'Principality of Acre' but they also still titutlated themselves as 'Kings of Jerusalem'. Also I mentioned that Spanish Kings have claimed 'Prince of Acre' title(not sure if they still do). Anyway just the fact Acre was such an important entity/city nominates it for a Duchy/Principality.



Yes County of Jaffa and Ascalon.

To have Aleppo in christian (byzantine) hands you have to go back to 7th century. And even then Aleppo was in the province named Syria II while Antioch was in the province Syria I. In 700 both Aleppo and Antioch were under the rule of Omayyad Caliphate in 800 under the Abbasid Caliphate in 900 under the Tulunid Emirate in 1000 Antioch was a Byzantine theme, and south of it there was an Emirate of Aleppo and that would be a strange name for an Emirate if the town with that name wasn't part of it.


As you can see here, Aleppo was lost in 638 by the Byzantines and was muslim afterwards for the entire CK period.

ALEPPO An ancient city in northwestern Syria, about 80 miles (130 km.) east of Antioch.
Kingdom of Yamkhad Of which Aleppo was capital.
Yarimlim I.........................................fl. c. 1800
Hammurabi I
Abbael I
Yarimlim II
Niqmiepu' I
Irkabtum
Hammurabi II
Yarimlim III
gap in sequence
Abbael II
Ilimilimma I
Idrimi.............................................fl. c. 1550/00
Niqmiepu' II
Ilimilimma II......................................fl. c. 1450
To the Hittites................................c. 1400-c. 1200
Telipinu (son of Suppiliuliumas of Hittites)..mid-early 1300's
Talmi-Sharruma................................fl. c. 1330
Rimisharina...................................fl. mid 1200's
To Aramaeans...................................c. 1200-c. 900
To Assyria......................................c. 900-609
To Babylon.........................................609-539
To Persia..........................................539-332
To Macedon.........................................332-323
To the Kingdom of Antigonus........................323-301
To the Seleucid Empire.............................301-c. 80
To Armenia.......................................c. 80-66
To the Roman Republic...............................68-27
To the Roman Empire.............................27 BCE-395 CE
To the Byzantine Empire............................395-638
To the Caliphate...................................638-868
To Egypt...........................................868-896
To the Caliphate...................................896-945
HAMDANID
Saif ud-Dawlah 'Ali................................945-967
S'ad ud-Dawlah Sharif I............................967-991
Sa'id ud-Dawlah Sa'id..............................991-1002
Abu'l-Hassan 'Ali II..............................1002-1004
Abu'l-Ma'ali Sharif II.................................1004
To Egypt..........................................1004-1023
MIRDASID
Salih ibn Mirdas..................................1023-1029
Shibl ud-Dawlah Nasr..............................1029-1037
To Egypt (Fatamid)................................1037-1042
Fatamid Emir (Governor)
Anush Tegin..................................1037-1042
Mu'izz ud-Dawlah Tamal............................1042-1057 d. 1062
To Egypt (Fatamid)................................1057-1060
Rashid ud-Dawlah Mahmud...........................1060-1061 d. 1075
Mu'izz ud-Dawlah Tamal (restored).................1061-1062
Abu Du'aba 'Atiya......................................1062
Rashid ud-Dawlah Mahmud (restored)................1062-1075
To the Seljuqs....................................1075-1079
Djalal ud-Dawlah Nasr........................1075-1076
Abu'l-Fada'il Sabiq..........................1076-1079
To Mosul (Uqailid)................................1079-1085
SELJUQ - Haleb (Aleppo)
Abu Sa'id Taj ad-Dawla Tutush I(Damascus 1079-95).1085-1086 d. 1095
Malik Shah I (Great Seljuq 1072-1092).............1086-1087 d. 1092
Qasim ad-Dawla Abu Said Aq Sunqur al-Hadjib.......1087-1094
Tadj ad-Dawla Abu Said Tutush I (restored)........1094-1095
Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan..............................1095-1113
Tadj ad-Dawla Alp-Arslan al-Akhras................1113-1114
Sultan Shah.......................................1114-1123
Atabegs of Haleb (Aleppo)
Lulu.........................................1114-1117
Shams al-Havas Yariqtash..........................1117
ARTUQID
Nur ad-Dawla Balaq (in Kharpert 1100-1120’s)...........1120’s
Aq Sunqur al-Bursuqi...................................1120’s
To Damascus (Burids)...........................c. 1125-1128
To Mosul..........................................1128-1146
ZANGID
Mahmud Nur ad-Din.................................1146-1174
Isma'il as-Salih..................................1174-1181
To Mosul..........................................1181-1182
Zangi II 'Imad ud-Din.............................1182-1183
AYYUBID
az-Zahir Ghazi Abu Mansur Ghiyath ud-Din I, governor 1183 d. 1216
al-'Adil I Muhammad Sayf Abu-Bakr ud-Din..........1183-1186
az-Zahir Ghazi Abu Mansur Ghiyath ud-Din I (r.)...1186-1216
al-'Aziz Muhammad Ghiyath ud-Din II...............1216-1236
al-Nasr II Yusuf Salah ad-Din.....................1236-1259 d. 1260
Dayfa Khatun bint al-Adil Muhammad (fem.), regent, 1236-1242
al-Muazzam Turan Shah (in Damascus 1249-1250).....1259-1260
To Egypt..........................................1260-1516
To the Ottoman Empire.............................1516-1918
To Syria..........................................1918-1920 d. 1933
To France.........................................1920-1946
To Syria..........................................1946-

And you just explained what Oultrejourdan means in French and you suggested to rename it to Jordan. Which would be incorrect cause there never was a title Lord of Jordan but there was a title Lord of Oultrejourdan.


As long as Acre was in christian hands it seems very unlikely that the rulers there would ever called themselves just Princes of Acre and not naming themselves Kings of Jerusalem, untill the last days and even beyond the fall of Acre the title King of Jerusalem was a valid title.

Here is a list of the titles of the current king of Spain, Juan Carlos. No Prince of Acre here but a lot of other titles And since they kept all these ancient titles till now it is very unlikely they would have dropped a title which they held.

http://www.nettyroyal.nl/spain.html

Titles: The King, Majesty, is King of Spain, Castile, Léon, Aragón, the Two Sicilies, Jerusalem, Navarre, Granada, Toledo, Valencia, Galicia, Mallorca, Minorca, Sevilla, Sardinia, Cordoba, Corsica, Murcia, Jaén, the Algarve, Algesiras, Gibraltar, the Canary Islands, East and West Indies, of the continent and the islands of the oceans, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Milan, Count of Habsburg, Flanders, Tirol and Barcelona, Duke of Athens and Neopatria, Lord of Biscaye and Molina, Marques of Oristan and Gozianos. The Crown Prince is Royal Highness, Infant of Spain, Prince of Asturias, Prince of Viana and Gerona, Duke of Montblanch, Count of Cervera, Lord of Balaguer. Since 1987 the husband of a Queen will just be Prince of Spain. Only children of the sovereign, his/her heir, and a regent will be Royal Highness, Infant(a) of Spain. Children of Infants will be Excellency, Grande of Spain. A Sovereign can give the title Infant(a) of Spain, with Royal Highness, to family members he wants to distinguish. They all stay Prince(ss) of Bourbon. Titles that are given to members of the royal family before 1978 can't be inherited by their children.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Calgalus, that second one is a reasonable setup, since Belarus is not going to win the world cup. With Tver and Beloozero each taking up one province of Novgorod, it would allow Novgorod to eat up Pskov. But is dropping Rostov out correct? Also where would Kolomna and Bryansk go?

While I could personally like having uncreatable king titles for grand princes, it's not really the point of this thread either.

Acre was part of the personal fief of king of Jerusalem during whole period when it was held by christians. Someone might call the kingdom of Jerusalem the principality of Acre after Jerusalem was lost, so I suppose Acre could be a possible name for the personal demesne duchy as well. Though I really doubt calling it Jerusalem is less historically correct than calling it Acre.

Oultrejourdain should be Oultrejourdain, since that is the name the lordship is known as.

Counts of Jaffa and Ascalon were first counts of Jaffa. And even when they got Ascalon later, they still were counts of Jaffa. So I see it that Jaffa was the primary title, which the duchy should be taking it's name from. And Jaffa province definetly should be part of the duchy, even if one would call it Ascalon.

I'm reserving Aleppo for Moslem territory duchies for now, since it was an important moslem city.

 

[Calgacus]

Calgalus, that second one is a reasonable setup, since Belarus is not going to win the world cup. With Tver and Beloozero each taking up one province of Novgorod, it would allow Novgorod to eat up Pskov. But is dropping Rostov out correct? Also where would Kolomna and Bryansk go?

Kolomna and Bryansk are in Chernigov, the Prince of which controlled them for several centuries. The set up I drew is based upon, and does not depart from in the slightest, the maps contained within Janet Martin's Medieval Russia: 980-1584, p. 95, p. , pp. 136-7 & p. 223. Chernigov looks odder than it should because of the way the provinces are drawn.

. But is dropping Rostov out correct?

Yes, Rostov was independent in the period you seem to be most concerned about, but is so small, I'm not sure its ruler deserves the bonus of duchy prestige. Besides, it'd be inaccurate to associate the city with more than the Rostov province, and it messes up the set-up.

It wouldn't be all that accurate, but Uglich could be transferred to Tver, Kolomna and Bryansk to Moscow ... then Rostov could take Pereyaslavl'-Zalessky (with Pronsk going to Novgorod-Severesk). But that's only if you just had to keep Rostov.

.
While I could personally like having uncreatable king titles for grand princes, it's not really the point of this thread either.

I think it's relelvant in this case, because employing Duke-tier for places like Moscow, Tver and Novgorod necessitates some kind of King-tier to be historically coherent (whilst avoiding the dreaded kingdom of Rus).

 

[unmerged(27913)]

To have Aleppo in christian (byzantine) hands you have to go back to 7th century.

Aleppo was Byzantine in 10th century as well. Besides we are not talking wheter it was Byzantine or not.

And even then Aleppo was in the province named Syria II while Antioch was in the province Syria I. In 700 both Aleppo and Antioch were under the rule of Omayyad Caliphate in 800 under the Abbasid Caliphate in 900 under the Tulunid Emirate in 1000 Antioch was a Byzantine theme, and south of it there was an Emirate of Aleppo and that would be a strange name for an Emirate if the town with that name wasn't part of it.

We are talking about demense. Having Aleppo province is far more historical as part of Antioch then it is as part of Edessa duchy. Thats what I am talking about.

And you just explained what Oultrejourdan means in French and you suggested to rename it to Jordan. Which would be incorrect cause there never was a title Lord of Jordan but there was a title Lord of Oultrejourdan.

Oultrejordain is French...it's like having Bretagne instead of Brittany.
I say if you don't want to name it simply Jordan then rename it to it's latin form - 'Transjordan'.

"Oultrejordain was also known in Latin as Transjordan, and covered territory that would later become part of the Emirate of Transjordan and the modern country of Jordan."

As long as Acre was in christian hands it seems very unlikely that the rulers there would ever called themselves just Princes of Acre and not naming themselves Kings of Jerusalem, untill the last days and even beyond the fall of Acre the title King of Jerusalem was a valid title.

Who said that K.of Jerusalem wasn't a valid title? We are talking here about duchies. There is no place for "Duchy of Jerusalem". There are to ways:
1. either rename the whole thing to Galilee
2. split it into two and name one part Galilee and the other Acre.

Both are valid titles.

Btw. I found this site mentioning Principality of Acre existng for almost two centuries...
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Asia/Armenia/_Texts/KURARM/31*.html

Counts of Jaffa and Ascalon were first counts of Jaffa. And even when they got Ascalon later, they still were counts of Jaffa. So I see it that Jaffa was the primary title, which the duchy should be taking it's name from. And Jaffa province definetly should be part of the duchy, even if one would call it Ascalon.

They were not first this or that but they were Counts of both Jaffa and Ascalon. These titles were united almost from the start.

I'm reserving Aleppo for Moslem territory duchies for now, since it was an important moslem city.

Like for example? Aleppo is currently part of Edessa duchy which is crusader state which never held Aleppo, however the city was part of Antioch several times thus it should be part of Antioch....demense of course...in 1066 politically it should be in muslim hands.

Anyway I think there should also be certain Duchy of Hebron. This was also one of those lordships and Hebron had even it's own vassals so it does classifies.

Anyway I think that 'Holy Land' would look best like this:
Antioch - Alexandretta, Antiocheia, Teluch, Aleppo(?? posibby in Homs?)
Tripoli - Tortosa, Archa, Baalbek, Tripoli
Tyre/Beirut - Beirut, Tyrus, Safed(there were both lordships of Tyre and of Beirut....IMO i'ts good as it is now)
Galilee - Jerusalem, Acre, Tiberias
Jaffa/Ascalon - Ascalon, Jaffa, Darum
Hebron - Hebron, Beerhseb, Negev
Transjordan - Kerak, Monreal, Amman

Btw. have you seen my setup of Portuguese duchies? I've found out that Braganza came some 30+ years after the CK period thus it is totally wrong. Also Coimbra and Viseu were created in 1414 which is 5 years before CK ends...I don't think that classifies them as valid duchies for CK.
I propose to unite current Bragnaza and Coimbra duchies into Duchy of Portugal representing the powerful and extremly important County of Portugal. Also Viseu is not just wrong for the period but it is also in the wrong place....Viseu is small town north of Coimbra(!!!).
Current duchy of Viseu cover part of the region known as Alentejo thus it should be united with Tejo to form Duchy of Alentejo. Of course there never was anything similar to such duchy but since there are no duchies in that area I think this is one of those where we need to improvize. Algarve was also not a duchy but it was a kingdom title...although secondary and titular so it does classifies.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Kolomna and Bryansk are in Chernigov, the Prince of which controlled them for several centuries. The set up I drew is based upon, and does not depart from in the slightest, the maps contained within Janet Martin's Medieval Russia: 980-1584, p. 95, p. , pp. 136-7 & p. 223. Chernigov looks odder than it should because of the way the provinces are drawn.

So Chernigov would be according to your earlier proposal? I agree it looks odd, but at least it's connected and it looks odd in the Euratlas maps too, with Novgorod-Seversk in the middle.

I'd still have Pronsk and / or Mordva in Novgorod-Seversk to prevent it turning into single province duchy though.

Also you are pretty late with the Galich and Volhynia proposals.

Yes, Rostov was independent in the period you seem to be most concerned about, but is so small, I'm not sure its ruler deserves the bonus of duchy prestige. Besides, it'd be inaccurate to associate the city with more than the Rostov province, and it messes up the set-up.

It wouldn't be all that accurate, but Uglich could be transferred to Tver, Kolomna and Bryansk to Moscow ... then Rostov could take Pereyaslavl'-Zalessky (with Pronsk going to Novgorod-Severesk). But that's only if you just had to keep Rostov.

I don't specifically have to keep Rostov, it's pretty crowded region with many two-province duchies in original setup anyway, so if there is good cause for making it less crowded, it's very fine.

I think it's relelvant in this case, because employing Duke-tier for places like Moscow, Tver and Novgorod necessitates some kind of King-tier to be historically coherent (whilst avoiding the dreaded kingdom of Rus).

Still, whether or not there is king-tier for grand princes like you propose, we need to draw a sensible duchy setup.

 

[Calgacus]

So Chernigov would be according to your earlier proposal? I agree it looks odd, but at least it's connected and it looks odd in the Euratlas maps too, with Novgorod-Seversk in the middle.

I'd still have Pronsk and / or Mordva in Novgorod-Seversk to prevent it turning into single province duchy though.

Well, Chernigov is bigger than Ryazan, so it'd prolly be best just to transfer Pronsk. Since Novgorod-Seversk was never larger than the N-S province anyway, giving it three might be excessive ... but I guess giving Mordva to as well wouldn't be too bad since N-S will be starting off with Duke-tier. An alternative, which I don't like very much, would be just to give N-S to Chernigov.

Also you are pretty late with the Galich and Volhynia proposals.

Hah ... it's never too late.

I guess I better go browse back and look at the set-up.

I don't specifically have to keep Rostov, it's pretty crowded region with many two-province duchies in original setup anyway, so if there is good cause for making it less crowded, it's very fine.

I agree with crowded. The only bad thing is that the county of Rostov will prolly declare allegiance to Moscow. I don't know what your views on NONEs are.

Still, whether or not there is king-tier for grand princes like you propose, we need to draw a sensible duchy setup.

Of course, that goes without saying.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Btw. I found this site mentioning Principality of Acre existng for almost two centuries...

The site also calls counties of Tripoli and Edessa as principalities...

They were not first this or that but they were Counts of both Jaffa and Ascalon. These titles were united almost from the start.

Jaffa was fortified by Godfrey of Bouillon after the First Crusade in 1100, and was unsuccessfully claimed by Daimbert of Pisa, the first Patriarch. It remained part of the royal domain until it was given to Hugh of Le Puiset in 1110.

In 1153, Fulk's first son King Baldwin III conquered Ascalon, and it was added to the territory

Right from the start, only forty year difference.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Jaffa_and_Ascalon

Like for example? Aleppo is currently part of Edessa duchy which is crusader state which never held Aleppo, however the city was part of Antioch several times thus it should be part of Antioch....demense of course...in 1066 politically it should be in muslim hands.

If you looked at my setup, you would see I didn't include Aleppo in Edessa.

Anyway I think there should also be certain Duchy of Hebron. This was also one of those lordships and Hebron had even it's own vassals so it does classifies.

It existed 50 years only and parts of even that as a part of royal demesne. Also it would most likely be a single province duchy. A case to include Hebron to Jerusalem / Acre instead of Oultrejourdain could be made however.

Galilee - Jerusalem, Acre, Tiberias

This is just wrong really.

The direct holdings of the principality were around Tiberias, in Galilee proper, but with all its vassals, the lordship covered all Galilee and southern Phoenicia (today Lebanon).

The Principality also had its own vassals, the Lordships of Beirut, Nazareth, and Haifa, which often had their own sub-vassals. Their number and the big size and significance of some of those was disproportionate.

So, having the core of Galilee in Tiberias is correct. And if it's to be expanded from there, it should be to north like my proposal has it. While Tyre could theoretically be added there (though I don't see anything to suggest it should be a real duchy), it would screw over Galilee, which was a lot more important than Tyre.

 

[Calgacus]

Btw. have you seen my setup of Portuguese duchies? I've found out that Braganza came some 30+ years after the CK period thus it is totally wrong.

There was an Archbishopric of Braganza ... a very important one.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Well, Chernigov is bigger than Ryazan, so it'd prolly be best just to transfer Pronsk. Since Novgorod-Seversk was never larger than the N-S province anyway, giving it three might be excessive ... but I guess giving Mordva to as well wouldn't be too bad since N-S will be starting off with Duke-tier. An alternative, which I don't like very much, would be just to give N-S to Chernigov.

Did Ryazan own the land of the province of Mordva for significant period of time? Based on Euratlas maps, it didn't, but they aren't very high detail maps unfortunately. If Mordva wasn't clear part of Ryazan, it can be arbitrarily assigned to N-S based on gameplay needs.

I agree with crowded. The only bad thing is that the county of Rostov will prolly declare allegiance to Moscow. I don't know what your views on NONEs are.

I can take NONEs if it's critically important, but prefer not to inland. County of Rostov will only pledge allegiance to Moscow if Moscow exists though.

 

[Enravota]

don't want to cast another shodow but wasn't it KINGDOM of Acre, not principality. I think the kingdom got renamed after crusaders lost Jerusalem

 

[unmerged(27913)]

There was an Archbishopric of Braganza ... a very important one.

That does not classifies it for a duchy. This Arcbishopric was not independant and had no feudal value. Also the suposed 'Count of Portugal' is in CK 'Duke of Braganza'...I don't need to say thats wrong.

The site also calls counties of Tripoli and Edessa as principalities...

Thats because even today historican debate wheter they were countis or principalities. I have english map showing the area and it says Earldom(County) for Edessa and Tripoli and another German map calls them Grafschaft(Duchy).

It existed 50 years only and parts of even that as a part of royal demesne. Also it would most likely be a single province duchy. A case to include Hebron to Jerusalem / Acre instead of Oultrejourdain could be made however.

Yes but what then with Negev and Beersheb...they can in no way be part of Jaffa/Ascalon....this way you could solve two flies with one hand.

This is just wrong really.

It's not....it's just as Galilee was.

So, having the core of Galilee in Tiberias is correct. And if it's to be expanded from there, it should be to north like my proposal has it. While Tyre could theoretically be added there (though I don't see anything to suggest it should be a real duchy), it would screw over Galilee, which was a lot more important than Tyre.

Galilee is Acre, Jerusalem and Tiberias....Beirut and Tyre are Lebanon....I don't see how this setup would "screw over" Galilee since Galilee is already as it should be. You are mixing political setup with the demense setup.
If England held Aquitaine at some point that doesn't mean Aquitaine should be part of English demense, right?

 

[Calgacus]

Did Ryazan own the land of the province of Mordva for significant period of time? Based on Euratlas maps, it didn't, but they aren't very high detail maps unfortunately. If Mordva wasn't clear part of Ryazan, it can be arbitrarily assigned to N-S based on gameplay needs.
.

It certainly didn't own Mordva for a long time, but from what I can gather from Martin, the CK province or most of it was controlled by Ryazan and post-Mongol-obliteration Ryanzan from the 12th until its disappearance to Moscow-Russia at the end of the 15th century.

 

[Calgacus]

That does not classifies it for a duchy.

As far as I understand, Archbishoprics were taken into consideration when duchies were being decided.

This Arcbishopric was not independant

Well, that's not what the Archbishop would have said.

and had no feudal value.

Of course, the Archbishopric isn't a feudal state, it's ecclesiastical.

Also the suposed 'Count of Portugal' is in CK 'Duke of Braganza'...I don't need to say thats wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the value in the setup and I can't see an alternative to it.

Anyways, Italy and the Byzantine world had 100s of Archbishoprics

... but I do think there should be (non-recreatable?) titles reserved for a few, like important Primates and Patriarchs (Jerusalem a case in point ).

 

[unmerged(21937)]

That does not classifies it for a duchy. This Arcbishopric was not independant and had no feudal value. Also the suposed 'Count of Portugal' is in CK 'Duke of Braganza'...I don't need to say thats wrong.

Remember CK era ends in 1453, so duchy of Braganza falls in CK era. Though I have to admit that Portugal is pretty crowded with it's huge numbers of 2-prov duchies, so I'm not opposed to reasonable revisions to it. Just that calling a duchy based on a county, when a historical duchy existed in the area is kind of opposite of what we're doing here.

Yes but what then with Negev and Beersheb...they can in no way be part of Jaffa/Ascalon....this way you could solve two flies with one hand.

Areas of Negev and Beershab provinces was never really held by christians afaik, so it's just arbitrarily assigning them to prop up otherwise two-prov duchy of Jaffa.

Galilee is Acre, Jerusalem and Tiberias....Beirut and Tyre are Lebanon....I don't see how this setup would "screw over" Galilee since Galilee is already as it should be. You are mixing political setup with the demense setup.

You are talking about regions I believe. Jerusalem and Acre were never part of the principality of Galilee, since they were part of the royal demesne of the kings of Jerusalem. Demesne setup should be based on what really consisted parts of the duchy / principality / whatever, so yeah, it's clearly based on political setup.

If England held Aquitaine at some point that doesn't mean Aquitaine should be part of English demense, right?

If England held Aquitaine for whole existance of England in CK era (1066-1453), Aquitaine should be part of England. That is not the case however.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

It certainly didn't own Mordva for a long time, but from what I can gather from Martin, the CK province or most of it was controlled by Ryazan and post-Mongol-obliteration Ryanzan from the 12th until its disappearance to Moscow-Russia at the end of the 16th century.

Mordva to Ryazan then.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

As far as I understand, Archbishoprics were taken into consideration when duchies were being decided.

Only when they were so powerful to have some "feudal value". For example Archbishopric of Canterbury.

Remember CK era ends in 1453, so duchy of Braganza falls in CK era. Though I have to admit that Portugal is pretty crowded with it's huge numbers of 2-prov duchies, so I'm not opposed to reasonable revisions to it. Just that calling a duchy based on a county, when a historical duchy existed in the area is kind of opposite of what we're doing here.

Tell me how historical is to have Duchy of Braganza in 1066? For Gods sake it was created 1442 which means 9 years before CK ends. Coimbra and Viseu in 1414 which is less then 40 years. Sorry but as far as I am concerned this doesn't classifies for a duchy....and also as I pointed out Viseu is in totally wrong place. Evora and Mertola are Alentejo core provinces while Viseu is small city north of Coimbra...now observe where Coimbra province is and do the math.

Areas of Negev and Beershab provinces was never really held by christians afaik, so it's just arbitrarily assigning them to prop up otherwise two-prov duchy of Jaffa.

For Darum I agree it looks ok, but Negev and Beerhseb in no way. As you said this area was never held by Christians so I don't see why do you oppose in creating Duchy of Hebron there....after all it is historical and would cover the space there and made it appear at least somewhat "historical".

You are talking about regions I believe. Jerusalem and Acre were never part of the principality of Galilee, since they were part of the royal demesne of the kings of Jerusalem. Demesne setup should be based on what really consisted parts of the duchy / principality / whatever, so yeah, it's clearly based on political setup.

Demense setup should be based on both historical regions and political entities. Jerusalem and Acre are in Galille...Beirut and Tyre were not....furthermore they were vassals of Galilee thus again they were not part of it.

If England held Aquitaine for whole existance of England in CK era (1066-1453), Aquitaine should be part of England. That is not the case however.

That is also not the case with Tyre and Beirut.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Calgulus, about Russia again, you originally drew Kolomna to Ryazan and it would better fit Ryazan than Chernigov to make both four provinces, but you later said it should be part of Chernigov. So which one is the right one?

Also is Chud really wrong for Beloozero? It looks pretty odd in Hlynov, but then again, Veliky Ustug is pretty big province too...