-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'd really like to divide the vast duchy of Ural up a bit. For example like this:
- Bulgar: Bulgar, Kama, Bilyar, Syrt, Votyaki
- Ural: Southern Ural, Bashkirs, Yaik, Uzens
- Itil: Lower Volga, Saray, Ryn Desert, Itil
And Zyriane to Hlynov.
- Bulgar: Bulgar, Kama, Bilyar, Syrt, Votyaki
- Ural: Southern Ural, Bashkirs, Yaik, Uzens
- Itil: Lower Volga, Saray, Ryn Desert, Itil
And Zyriane to Hlynov.
Byakhiam said:
Definitely.
Byakhiam said:
I don't like the name of "Ural," but I can't think of a better one.
Kazan is in province Kama. It could be better name than Bulgar for the northern duchy beyond Volga, but Ural, as the duchy in the central part, could still use a better name.
Byakhiam said:
Bashkir?
I know that there is a region around the Urals named Bashkirskaya, but I dont know when it was started to be called that.)Ayeshteni
Bashkirs are a tribe, unfortunately. As Russians tended to call their principalities after cities, it would be preferable that the steppe duchies would be named after cities as well.
Bah, nobody really lived in those mid-Ural provinces anyway.
So this is the current final Steppe setup:
- Crimea (cyan): Oleshye, Chorlitza, Crimea, Lukomorkie, Lower Dniepr, Lower Don
- Sarkel (purple): Sugrov, Desht-i-Kipchak, Sarkel, Khopyor, Don Portage
- Azov (white): Azov, Tana, Kuban
- Bulgar (yellow): Kama, Votyaki, Bulgar, Bilyar, Syrt, Bashkirs, Southern Ural
- Itil (cyan): Lower Volga, Saray, Itil, Ryn Desert, Yaik, Uzens
- Khwarizm (red): Emba, Aral, Mangyshlak, Khwarizm, Usturt
- Bukhara (cyan): Bukhara, Kara-Kum, Maverannahr
- Merv (yellow): Turkmen, Dihistan, Merv
This is it on map:
Map also includes Caucasus, with following duchies, north to south:
- Alania, blue
- Abkhazia, yellow
- Derbent, purple
- Kartli, red
- Armenia, cyan
So this is the current final Steppe setup:
- Crimea (cyan): Oleshye, Chorlitza, Crimea, Lukomorkie, Lower Dniepr, Lower Don
- Sarkel (purple): Sugrov, Desht-i-Kipchak, Sarkel, Khopyor, Don Portage
- Azov (white): Azov, Tana, Kuban
- Bulgar (yellow): Kama, Votyaki, Bulgar, Bilyar, Syrt, Bashkirs, Southern Ural
- Itil (cyan): Lower Volga, Saray, Itil, Ryn Desert, Yaik, Uzens
- Khwarizm (red): Emba, Aral, Mangyshlak, Khwarizm, Usturt
- Bukhara (cyan): Bukhara, Kara-Kum, Maverannahr
- Merv (yellow): Turkmen, Dihistan, Merv
This is it on map:
Map also includes Caucasus, with following duchies, north to south:
- Alania, blue
- Abkhazia, yellow
- Derbent, purple
- Kartli, red
- Armenia, cyan
In regards to the Duchy set up for the HRE, it appears to reflect the political situation in the later period but would not be correct for the 1066 scenario. There was never any duchy called Upper Saxony or Lower Saxony. Those were the names of the Imperial circles where several Duchies such as Sax- Lauenburg were located.
Saxony is particularly difficult to place as the definition of "Saxony" shifted over time "up" the Wesser river (thus lower Saxony being North of Upper Saxony).
The current set up with a Duchy of Meissen in the area of Upper Saxony is more historically correct for the earlier time period.
Also I do not understand why all Duchies need to have 4 to 6 territories each as historically there were inportant states, such as Thrungia, that should be reflected in the duchy tier but would not have that many territories.
Just my 2 farthings worth.
Saxony is particularly difficult to place as the definition of "Saxony" shifted over time "up" the Wesser river (thus lower Saxony being North of Upper Saxony).
The current set up with a Duchy of Meissen in the area of Upper Saxony is more historically correct for the earlier time period.
Also I do not understand why all Duchies need to have 4 to 6 territories each as historically there were inportant states, such as Thrungia, that should be reflected in the duchy tier but would not have that many territories.
Just my 2 farthings worth.
We know that HRE-setup is not correct for 1066 scenario, especially for Saxony, but since Saxony moved to Upper Saxony in around 1180, the "modern" setup is more correct for whole time period than having Saxony in Lower Saxony. A key issue there is that Meissen was never more than a Margravete, while in the same area we have duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg in late period.
Also, all duchies hardly need to 4-6 provinces, as you can well see, there are plenty of smaller ones. However, Thuringia was a duchy only for short time in CK era, reduces to landgravete in 1130, so it was a prime candidate for removal there, since it never was a large duchy or even highly important in CK era either.
Also, all duchies hardly need to 4-6 provinces, as you can well see, there are plenty of smaller ones. However, Thuringia was a duchy only for short time in CK era, reduces to landgravete in 1130, so it was a prime candidate for removal there, since it never was a large duchy or even highly important in CK era either.
I guess this mod is almost finished ?
Or do we have to discuss the remaining muslim duchies ?
Al-Jazireh could be named Jezireh, the latin name for the regio.
Or do we have to discuss the remaining muslim duchies ?
Al-Jazireh could be named Jezireh, the latin name for the regio.
More or less closing to finished, yes. I'll need to go around "fantasy" duchies though.
May I question the Salamanca duchy? How historical is this? I found nothing about Duchy or even any other entity in that area. There is mention of Archbishop of Salamanca but all I get is some unrealiable sources.
Is there any other duchy in the area?
Is there any other duchy in the area?
I have to admit that I assumed Iberia was correct after both Lucius Sulla and you decided that it's fine in more-or-less vanilla setup. Gah, gotta go through that as well. :wacko:
Yes mostly it's fine...except the Portuguesse setup which is rather hard for Ck period...but you already know my opinion on the matter.
Anyway Salamanca is the only open for debate there....IMO it should be renamed Leon if nothing else.
Anyway Salamanca is the only open for debate there....IMO it should be renamed Leon if nothing else.
Did you see my proposals for alternate Portuguese setups on previous page? We kinda put them on hold to hear your opinions too. I mean these:
All alternatives have Algarve too large...it just seems wrong. There is also the matter of 'Count of Portugal' being 'Duke of Braganza' in 1066.
Finellach said:
Nuno of Portugal, "Duke of Braganza" in 1066 was historically count of Oporto, not Portugal. First count of Portugal was Henry of Burgundy 1093. Only counts of Portugal were Henry and his son Alphonse, who became king of Portugal half-way his reign. So, 1066 setup would turn historically, if we'd just replace duchy of Braganza with county of Oporto.
And yeah, Algarve is too large, but your proposed Alantejo eats out room from having Coimbra or Viseu and as afaik Alantejo is based on region, not a historical title, I don't think Alantejo should kick out either Coimbra or Viseu. It could be possible to extend Viseu and Coimbra both one province southwards in the third setup to put Algarve to only two southernmost provinces though. I mean, like this:
- Coimbra: Coimbra, Porto, Lisboa, Alcacer do Sal
- Viseu: Braganza, Castelo Branco, Evora, Mertola
- Algarve: Faro, Silves
You cannot have Viseu and Coimbra because Viseu is in Coimbra CK province.
Observe the map =>
Observe the map =>
Yeah, I checked the maps before. But Viseu is east enough to be in Castelo Branco's side of the border, if we don't want to be too nitpicky.