Increasing duchy historicality and revisiting their borders

[unmerged(21937)]

The Duchy of Lennox was created after the ck-period.

As were duchies of Northumberland and Argyll. Argyll even (quite a bit) later than Lennox.

And, alltough this doesn't really way heavy in a debate, the name Lothian is a name with more flavour then Lennox. Lennox doesn't sound Scottish to me, alltough it must have been Scottish.

I would disagree, since we have a noble called Lennox in Shakespeare's Macbeth too.

Maybe we should wait for some others to join this discussion. There are some guys out there who now a lot about Scottish earl/dukedoms. At least from reading there posts I get that impression.

To be fair, I'm hoping on that too. That's why I now have an advert about this in my signature.

BTW Finnellach had decided to not be on the forum for a while (or forever). Which wasn't the intend of any discussing I had with him.

Mine neither and I hope he'll come back somewhen.

 

[AKjeldsen]

Well I don't know much about Scotland and even the books I have hardly show maps of Scotland.

The Duchy of Lennox was created after the ck-period.

And, alltough this doesn't really way heavy in a debate, the name Lothian is a name with more flavour then Lennox. Lennox doesn't sound Scottish to me, alltough it must have been Scottish.

I know very little about Scotland as well, but I can see that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions a certain "John, Bishop of Lothian" in 1125, in a passage most likely written in the early 1130'es. I guess it could just be the diocese using that name, though.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I know very little about Scotland as well, but I can see that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions a certain "John, Bishop of Lothian" in 1125, in a passage most likely written in the early 1130'es. I guess it could just be the diocese using that name, though.

And bishop is usually count, not duke, level title. Sticht / Utrecht is rather an exception.

 

[AKjeldsen]

And bishop is usually count, not duke, level title. Sticht / Utrecht is rather an exception.

Of course, but at least it shows the name was still in use at that time.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Of course, but at least it shows the name was still in use at that time.

Certainly, I'm not disputing that at all. I believe no-one was earl of Lothian earlier than 1606 primarily because the lands of Lothian were the royal fief of the kings of Scotland. 1606 is pretty close to ascendancy of James as king of England after all.

 

[Calgacus]

And, alltough this doesn't really way heavy in a debate, the name Lothian is a name with more flavour then Lennox. Lennox doesn't sound Scottish to me, alltough it must have been Scottish.
.

Lennox is a name of Scottish origin, unlike Lothian, which is British.

 

[Calgacus]

Certainly, I'm not disputing that at all. I believe no-one was earl of Lothian earlier than 1606 primarily because the lands of Lothian were the royal fief of the kings of Scotland. 1606 is pretty close to ascendancy of James as king of England after all.

The Count of Dunbar performed that function previously (modern east Lothian); but you're right, the King of Scots as lord of Lothian controlled the great bulk of it directly

Now about Scotland, I'd like to have Lothian go and Lennox emerge in it's place. I don't know what exactly Lothian is based on, but without any dukes of Lothian ever and earls of Lothian only emerging in 1606, I don't think it should be there. Not with that name at least. Changing Lothian to Lennox would mean exchanging Berwick for Fife for that duchy, since it seems to me that Lennox would be in Fife.

Then Galloway, this doesn't seem like a good name to that either. I remember discussion about having duchy called March in the suggestions about Scotland thread, which could take now freed Berwick as well.

Moray is based on earls of Moray, I presume?

And even though honorific title, Rothesay could not be associated with land?

How about Ross or Montrose?

(Truly) No offense or anything, but your suggestions are really off. This was discussed here, where many of these suggestions were made and explained.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199676

 

[unmerged(21937)]

(Truly) No offense or anything, but your suggestions are really off. This was discussed here, where many of these suggestions were made and explained.

I read that thread through before posting the post you quoted, but I got a little bit of a feeling that there was little agreement on how duchies should really be. Also, I'd like to know what historical entity would Galloway and Cumbria be based on?

Also I'd like to have real duchies (as in, entities that were called duchies in CK era or not too long after it) over earldoms or entities that existed before CK era. If none are available, powerful earldoms and pre-CK entities could do as well, but given the choice, I think real duchy is better.

 

[Calgacus]

I read that thread through before posting the post you quoted, but I got a little bit of a feeling that there was little agreement on how duchies should really be. Also, I'd like to know what historical entity would Galloway and Cumbria be based on?

Also I'd like to have real duchies (as in, entities that were called duchies in CK era or not too long after it) over earldoms or entities that existed before CK era. If none are available, powerful earldoms and pre-CK entities could do as well, but given the choice, I think real duchy is better.

Your queries are answered in the thread I directed you to. But otherwise:

The game-makers unfortunately have imposed the feudal system of France on the rest of "latin" Europe. To be realistic, you have to translate them to native terms

Cumbria of course is based on the "Kingdom" of Cumbria, nowadays often referred to by the anglicized Gaelic word Strathclyde.

In real terms, for much of the CK period (between David I and the Bannockburn), the King of Scots is a de facto dux under loose vassalage to his fellow Frenchman, the man who was King of the English.

To me, and this is my opinion only, the idea of the "real" duchy you propose is quite absurd (e.g. Rothesay); these weren't de facto duchies, but honorific titles (as you admit), and thus could not coherently be integrated into the CK system systematically .

 

[unmerged(21937)]

The game-makers unfortunately have imposed the feudal system of France on the rest of "latin" Europe. To be realistic, you have to translate them to native terms

Agreed, more or less.

Cumbria of course is based on the "Kingdom" of Cumbria, nowadays often referred to by the anglicized Gaelic word Strathclyde.

Ah, found it.

In real terms, for much of the CK period (between David I and the Bannockburn), the King of Scots is a de facto dux under loose vassalage to his fellow Frenchman, the man who was King of the English.

But making it to be like that ingame makes as little sense as having only duchy of Cornwall in England.

To me, and this is my opinion only, the idea of the "real" duchy you propose is quite absurd (e.g. Rothesay); these weren't de facto duchies, but honorific titles (as you admit), and thus could not coherently be integrated into the CK system systematically .

I agree with you on this too, but since gameplay demands us to have duchies in Scotland (and everywhere else too really), I find them bearing names of historical signifigance more flavourful and interesting. And the more significant and accurate the title, the better. Therefore, I feel duchy of Rothesay, even if it was only a honorific title, would be better than say, duchy of Lothian.

EDIT: My only real gripe with the division you presented in the thread you linked is that it's mostly based on entities that had actually become defunct (as far as I have found out) in the start of CK era.

 

[Calgacus]

But making it to be like that ingame makes as little sense as having only duchy of Cornwall in England.

Ahah ... my fantasy.

It would be nice if, but honestly, I wouldn't dream of making any movement for either suggestion ... since I'm quite aware of the futility.

I agree with you on this too, but since gameplay demands us to have duchies in Scotland (and everywhere else too really), I find them bearing names of historical signifigance more flavourful and interesting. And the more significant and accurate the title, the better. Therefore, I feel duchy of Rothesay, even if it was only a honorific title, would be better than say, duchy of Lothian.

Well, Lothian (under the king), Galloway, Moray (until the mid-12th century), Argyll, etc ... are duchy level lordships in CK-terms (if we take the King of Scots as a king). The fact they aren't called duchies (but kingships or lordships) is of little importance to me, and only reflects the fact that Scotland was never part of the Roman empire.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Well, Lothian (under the king), Galloway, Moray (until the mid-12th century), Argyll, etc ... are duchy level lordships in CK-terms. The fact they aren't called duchies (but kingships or lordships) is of little importance to me.

If you could provide me a link detailing them existing in duchy-level capacity in CK era (ie, after 1066), I'd be happy to go with that setup.

 

[Calgacus]

If you could provide me a link detailing them existing in duchy-level capacity in CK era (ie, after 1066), I'd be happy to go with that setup.

I don't know what you mean.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I don't know what you mean.

I mean, since I unfortunately haven't read very much about Scottish history, especially for so early times, I'd like you to tell me some sources from where I can see more detailed information about the history of these various subkingdoms you mention in the first post of the linked thread. Preferably ones that would disagree with them being defunct in 1066.

I'm asking for this, since we have other proposed duchy setups around (Finellach's one, Paradox one and my idea of using historical yet mostly honourific duchies) and since your proposal's most compelling argument supporting it (as it at least it appears for me to be) is historical accuracy, I'd like to see sources on futher enlightening the matter, so I can make as knowledged choice as possible.

 

[Calgacus]

I mean, since I unfortunately haven't read very much about Scottish history, especially for so early times, I'd like you to tell me some sources from where I can see more detailed information about the history of these various subkingdoms you mention in the first post of the linked thread. Preferably ones that would disagree with them being defunct in 1066.

Still don't quite understand what you're after. I could recommend these books:

John L. Roberts, Lost Kingdoms: Celtic Scotland and the Middle Ages, (Edinburgh, 1997)

E.J. Cowan & R.Andrew McDonald, (eds.), Alba: Celtic Scotland in the Middle Ages, (East Lothian, 2000)

or you could use either Domination and Conquest: The Experience of Ireland, Wales and Scotland 1100-1300, (Cambridge, 1990) or The First English Empire, (Oxford, 2000), both by R.R. Davies,covering the British Isles as a whole, with discussions of "core and periphery" in Scotland.

G.W.S Barrow's The Kingdom of the Scots: Government, Church and Society from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Century, (Edinburgh, 2003), has details on the administrative system of CK period Scotland, with the justiciarships of "Scotia," "Galloway" and "Lothian" covered.

Otherwise, the political relationship of Moray, Galloway, the Isles and Argyll to the core 6-mormaerships is well known, as are the separate identities of Lothian and "Strathclyde."

The only area ... to address your newly inserted concern ... that might be considered "defunct" by 1066, would be Strathclyde (not portrayed helpfully on the CK map)... ... pulled apart by the Scots and the English crowns, and carved between the Justiciars of Lothian (probably taking its English speaking area) and Galloway (probably taking the Scottish speaking area) with the core left to the Bishop of Glasgow,.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Still don't quite understand what you're after.

Well, you see, I find it much more satisfying to read up books or other written information detailing a matter and then drawing up conclusions based on what I have read instead of having somebody else tell me something should be like this or that, since he has read about it earlier and made the conclusions himself. I feel doing the research leaves me more knowledged afterwards and I love gathering knowledge. Especially when interested about the subject for some reason (like the duchy-drawing for this matter).

Of course I do accept people telling me something should be like this or that, if I don't disagree with it.

Thank you for the recommendations.

 

[Deserteur]

I'm more convinced by links to sources that talks about history of Hainaut during CK period in detail than few CoAs and list of couple rulers' titles.

I now present you with a map of Lowlands, again open to discussion:

From top right to lower left:
- Sticht, blue
- Holland, purple
- Brabant, yellow
- Flanders, red
- Valois, cyan

Valois is French, I know, but I posted it to show how Flanders-Valois border would look like. Artois and Boulogne are in Valois to have Valois and Flanders to be closer is size instead of having tiny Valois and huge Flanders.

EDIT: Edited correct spelling for Sticht. o

after doing my own research, I agree with your partition of the Dutch provinces. Anyways I cannot say anything regarding Valois, because I have only done research for Germany.
Utrecht never was an Archbishopric in CK time, so it has to belong to the realm of Geldern. Oldenburg then has to belong to Saxony/Germany.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Set up of Poland

Silesia - Upper Silesia (435)/Lower Silesia (434)

Wielkopolska - Lubusz (430)/Poznanskie (431)/Opole (433)

Pomerania - Werle (307)/Wolgast (308)/Stettin (366)

Pomerelia - Slupsk (367)/Danzig (368)/Gnieznienskie (429)

Kujawy - Kujawy (428)/Kaliskie (432)/Sieradzko-....(528)

Mazovia - Plock (529)/Czersk (530)

Malopolska - Krakowskie (527)/Cieszyn (526)/Sacz (532)/Sandomiersk (531)

Volhynia - Vladimir-...(537)/Peremyshl (534)

Prussia - Sambia (371)/Marienburg (370)/Chelminskie (369)/Galandia (427)


This would ad 2 duchies to Poland (Pomeralia and Kujawy). Both existed as a duchy during this period.

If it gets to crowded I then would suggest to leave Pomerania and Prussia as they are and ad

Gnieznienskie to Kujawy, so discharge of Pomeralia then.

The names Pomerania and Pomeralia look much alike, so we could also choose for West- and east Pomerania or we could name Pomeralia to the polish Pomorze. Pomerania is the part of that region that went to the HRE and Pomeralia is the region that became part of Poland or at least not part of the HRE

I have renamed the Duchy of Krakow to Malopolska since that means Lesser Poland, just like Wielkopolska means Greater Poland. At least that is what I believe they mean. And I have added the county of Sandomiersk to it.

Sandomiersk is renamed to Volhynia. I can't find any info on a duchy named Sandomiersk, but Volhynia was there.

http://www.hostkingdom.net/baltic.html

Utrecht never was an Archbishopric in CK time,

True

so it has to belong to the realm of Geldern.

Why ?
Geldern was just county and isn't even on the map. It later became part of the Duchy of Gelre, which had most of its lands in what is called the county of Gelre in CK.

But then again if the only problem is that you say the duchy-title must be Gelre and I say Sticht. Then I settle for Gelre, not because the Duke of Gelre ever held those lands which are now made being part of of Gelre, but since Gelre was a existing duchy (late in the game) and Sticht/Utrecht just a bishop (but a very important one, alltough I seem to be the only one who thinks that )

And then again I live in what is called Gelre in CK, so Yeah, I am in the game !!

Oldenburg then has to belong to Saxony/Germany

Agree

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Utrecht never was an Archbishopric in CK time, so it has to belong to the realm of Geldern. Oldenburg then has to belong to Saxony/Germany.

I promoted bishop of Utrecht to an archbishop on same reasoning as several counts have been promoted to dukes, it was the most powerful realm in the area and in it's greatest size it encompassed several CK provinces, while only real duke that existed there (Gelre) never held a realm of even a single province in CK terms.

But after seeing a page about bishopric of Utrecht, I'd rather call it duchy of Utrecht than Sticht. The bishopric seems to be much better known as bishopric of Utrecht than bishopric of Sticht.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I promoted bishop of Utrecht to an archbishop on same reasoning as several counts have been promoted to dukes, it was the most powerful realm in the area and in it's greatest size it encompassed several CK provinces, while only real duke that existed there (Gelre) never held a realm of even a single province in CK terms.

But after seeing a page about bishopric of Utrecht, I'd rather call it duchy of Utrecht than Sticht. The bishopric seems to be much better known as bishopric of Utrecht than bishopric of Sticht.

I believe that Sticht means Bishopric or Diocese. And since the Bishop of Utrecht was the only bishop in the northern low countries it was simply known as 'het Sticht' or 'Sticht'. So Sticht and Utrecht are the same, but the name Utrecht is more known, that was the town were the bishop lived mostly. He also sometimes held his residence in Deventer, that being the most important town in Over-Sticht.

Since the county was called Sticht in CK I always referred to it as Sticht instead of Utrecht.