Increasing duchy historicality and revisiting their borders

[unmerged(21937)]

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.

Therefore I'd prefer calling the duchy / archbishopric Utrecht.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

Regarding duchy of Castilla, Lucius Sulla earlier suggested adding Viscaya to it to make it two provinces, but since Soria and Viscaya don't border each other, this can't do. At least not alone.

And you are right, I was just tossing a first impression, thinking without looking the map which provinces would be distinctly 'Castillian', or what would be considered 'Castilla proper', that is, the core territories that would grow from the county of Castilla to the kingdom of Castilla.

In fact, I was under the illusion that Castilla had Burgos, assuming this in such a natural way I would not even realized it was not.

Thus, I would propose the following rearranging of the Castillian & related crown duchies:

ASTURIAS
Asturias de Oviedo
Asturias de Santillana

CASTILLE
Burgos
Soria
Vizcaya

NAVARRA
Navarra
Rioja
Labourd (if this is really the frontier french province, the one that would hold 'upper Navarra - Pau')

I would also be very tempted to pass Rioja from Navarra to Castilla, since Logroño, which is a big part of that county, was usually more under Castillian than Navarrese domain, but would only do so if Labourd (damn, I hate not being able to check that Labourd is the province I have in mind) would be passed to the duchy of Navarra, or we would have a 1 province duch again.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Thus, I would propose the following rearranging of the Castillian & related crown duchies:

ASTURIAS
Asturias de Oviedo
Asturias de Santillana

CASTILLE
Burgos
Soria
Vizcaya

NAVARRA
Navarra
Rioja
Labourd

I was thinking that setup would make best sense as well. I'll have it like that then.

And yes, Labourd is the province next to Navarra on French side of border.

I would also be very tempted to pass Rioja from Navarra to Castilla, since Logroño, which is a big part of that county, was usually more under Castillian than Navarrese domain, but would only do so if Labourd (damn, I hate not being able to check that Labourd is the province I have in mind) would be passed to the duchy of Navarra, or we would have a 1 province duch again.

Since Rioja could be both part of Castilla and Navarra, I think it's best as part of Navarra, since two 3-prov duchies is better than 2-prov and 4-prov duchies.

 

[Deserteur]

My reason for giving Sticht to the realm of Geldern is, that the Duchy of Geldern consisted of Geldern and Ostfriesland.
-> Therefore I chose to give Frisia to it too, because Saxony and Holland can never have a claim on it, Geldern is the only duchy left in the area and we want to get rid of Friesland as duchy.
-> So the Duchy of Geldern consists of 3 provinces until now and we have to decide whether we want to give Sticht to Geldern, Holland or Lower Lorraine. Holland I would not take because of no relations to Sticht. Lower Lorraine I would not take because Sticht did not belong to Lower Lorraine, but was directly under the control of the King of Germany (See my thread in the beta patch forum). Geldern I chose because of the actual geographic position and their closer relation towards Geldern than towards Holland.

So I am not quite sure if we are discussing the setup for the 1066 scenario here too, I mean if a province is a duchy or bishopric and under whose control. But if we do, then don't make Sticht an archbishopric, because it was none. Don't make it a duchy for the same reason. You can rename it to Utrecht, which I would support, because Sticht I believe is only another expression for the German word Stift, which means church land. And Utrecht has to be an independant bishopric, not under the control of Lower Lorraine, as I mentioned and proved in my thread in the beta patch forum.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

So I am not quite sure if we are discussing the setup for the 1066 scenario here too, I mean if a province is a duchy or bishopric and under whose control. But if we do, then don't make Sticht an archbishopric, because it was none. Don't make it a duchy for the same reason. You can rename it to Utrecht, which I would support, because Sticht I believe is only another expression for the German word Stift, which means church land. And Utrecht has to be an independant bishopric, not under the control of Lower Lorraine, as I mentioned and proved in my thread in the beta patch forum.

We're not discussing scenario setups here, this thread is dedicated to names and areas of creatable duchy titles with the goal to improve their historicality.

I think bishop of Utrecht not being vassal to Lower Lorraine, but rather powerful enough to be direct vassal of the king (in essence, independent bishopric) would be an argument for making it an archbishopric actually. But I'm not fundamentally opposed to Gelre either, I just feel Veldmaarschalk's explanations about the matter make a stronger case for duchy (archbishopric) of Utrecht / Sticht than for duchy of Gelre.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Holland I would not take because of no relations to Sticht.

Holland and Sticht had alot of relations with each other, most of them not that good.

Between 1000 and 1375 they fought numerous wars (17 campaigns between 1018 and 1375), mostly over who controlled the tolls over the rivers in the Rhine and Meuse delta. Or who should be the next bishop. Holland having the upperhand mostly and in the end gaining more and more lands from Sticht (county Sticht in CK).

After the Concordat of Worms, the investure struggle, the bishops were no longer appointed by the emperor, but a candidate was put forward and the clergymen could choose. This had the result that the count of Holland could play a decisive part in the election. Since most clergymen, were sons of lesser nobles who had their lands as part of the Count of Holland or were closely related to the count of Holland.

If the duchy title won't be Utrecht, then make it Gelre but not Geldern, cause that was the name of the german county. Gelre being the dutch name of the duchy. A comprosie between Gelre/Geldern would be Guelders then english name for the Duchy. Since most of the other german duchies have there name in english to (Bavaria, Saxony, Swabia, Franconia and so on)

 

[Deserteur]

Holland and Sticht had alot of relations with each other, most of them not that good.

Between 1000 and 1375 they fought numerous wars (17 campaigns between 1018 and 1375), mostly over who controlled the tolls over the rivers in the Rhine and Meuse delta. Or who should be the next bishop. Holland having the upperhand mostly and in the end gaining more and more lands from Sticht (county Sticht in CK).

After the Concordat of Worms, the investure struggle, the bishops were no longer appointed by the emperor, but a candidate was put forward and the clergymen could choose. This had the result that the count of Holland could play a decisive part in the election. Since most clergymen, were sons of lesser nobles who had their lands as part of the Count of Holland or were closely related to the count of Holland.

If the duchy title won't be Utrecht, then make it Gelre but not Geldern, cause that was the name of the german county. Gelre being the dutch name of the duchy. A comprosie between Gelre/Geldern would be Guelders then english name for the Duchy. Since most of the other german duchies have there name in english to (Bavaria, Saxony, Swabia, Franconia and so on)

right we should take Guelders. the problem with Utrecht is the following. because it is independant in 1066 from Lower Lorraine, it cannot belong to the realm of Holland, because then, if Holland becomes a duchy it won't be independant anymore. If we put it to Guelders, then we don't have this problem. And making Utrecht an own duchy/archbishopric would overestimate its importance. Surely it was the most important bishopric in the Netherlands, but it was rather unimportant in Germany compared to Köln, Mainz and Trier, who were later allowed to elect the king. And in the game Köln is only a bishopric, Mainz too and Trier does not even exist, because it is in the same province as Pfalz, which was later a Kurpfalz, which was also allowed to elect the king (and it has no duchy title either).

So if you would create a duchy/archbishopric title for Utrecht, then you would raise its importance over the importance of the other other 3. I am sur that Veldmaarschalk eventhough he is Dutch does not want such an overestimation for the only Dutch bishopric

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I present you with new proposal map, this time including whole western Europe:

Scotland is going to be changed from that, but Scotland matter is waiting for library to open.

Rest of British Isles is like the older British Isles map.

In Iberia all changes are these:
- Castilla (red) expanded to include Burgos & Viscaya
- Navarra (cyan) expanded to include Labourd
- Catalonia (also cyan) expanded to include Tarragona

In France, we have bigger changes to official patch setup as you clearly can see.
- Berry (cyan between Orleans & Bourbon) has been added
- Poitou has been turned into Aquitane
- Bordeaux has been turned into Gascogne
- Toulouse has consumed Languedoc, while giving most of it's former territories to Aquitane, Gascogne and Auvergne
- Picardie has been turned to Valois as extensively discussed in the thread

For Toulouse-Languedoc, Auvergne and Dauphine I adopted province setup from Finellach's proposition for France, since I like the way it looks like.

I based my decision about Aquitane and Gascogne to this map: http://www.friesian.com/images/maps/aquitain.gif

Perigord looks ugly now, but it's part of Aquitane on the map.

EDIT: Following changes have been agreed on, but they are not yet on the map:
- Eu to Normandie from Valois
- Artois to Valois from Flanders

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Eu to Valois ?

There was a suggestion to ad it to Normandy. Since Normandy had lost Maine to Anjou.

And Eu (what a lovely name ) was part of the Duchy of Normandy I believe.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

right we should take Guelders.

I think Gelre is better as it's native name for it and most other duchies use native names instead of English names too.

So if you would create a duchy/archbishopric title for Utrecht, then you would raise its importance over the importance of the other other 3. I am sur that Veldmaarschalk eventhough he is Dutch does not want such an overestimation for the only Dutch bishopric

The "importance" in this matter is about secular importance and power rather than ecclestical importance. However, you seem to miss the point that we want the most appropriate duchy for each area and for that purpose we have to measure the power of candidates between each other instead of measuring the power of one candidate to other comparable realms existing elsewhere.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Eu to Valois ?

There was a suggestion to ad it to Normandy. Since Normandy had lost Maine to Anjou.

And Eu (what a lovely name ) was part of the Duchy of Normandy I believe.

Current setup of Normandie, Valois & Flanders was based on this post by Third Angel: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4189821&postcount=77

I'm fine with moving Eu to Normandie though, but then I'd say Valois should get Artois from Flanders.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Off course Cologne, Trier and Mainz were much more important churchleaders then the bishop of Utrecht.

The bishop of Utrecht was part of the archdiocese of Cologne.

But the bishopric of Utrecht had a lot of secular lands in the low countries, which can't be said about the archbishop of Cologne and Mainz and Trier, I think.

And since I am from the Gelre (or rather the county of Zutphen a title also held by the dukes of Gelre, but before that it the counts recognized the bishop of Utrecht as its overlord but not as his liege), wouldn't it be more logic for me to favour Gelre instead of Utrecht ?

If you look at this, very familiar site to you, you will see that the bishop received 4 counties in 1076 (Oostergo, Westergo, Stavoren and IJsselgo)
The first 3 are what makes up Frisia in CK, the last one is the lower part of the county of Ost-Friesland.

While in 1028, the bishops already had received the county of Drenthe (the middle part of the county of Ost-Friesland in CK.

But I am repeating myself again.

http://www.mittelalter-genealogie.d...trecht/konrad_bischof_von_utrecht_+_1099.html

How effective the powers of the bishops were in these regions I can't say. Frisia was never feudalized like the rest of western europe, but there is no way to represent that with the 3-tier system.

EDIT
Yes, Eu to Normandy, Artois to Valois. That even looks better on the map.

EDIT again
Here are some more links about Utrecht/Holland/Frisia
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/B/Bi/Bishop_of_Utrecht.htm

http://www.keesn.nl/vlaard/vlaar_en.htm http://home.hetnet.nl/~otto.vervaart/utrecht/utrecht_history.htm http://historicaltextarchive.com/books.php?op=viewbook&bookid=54&cid=5
http://springelkamp.nl/groningen/

And I can go on and on and on.

 

[Deserteur]

I think Gelre is better as it's native name for it and most other duchies use native names instead of English names too.



The "importance" in this matter is about secular importance and power rather than ecclestical importance. However, you seem to miss the point that we want the most appropriate duchy for each area and for that purpose we have to measure the power of candidates between each other instead of measuring the power of one candidate to other comparable realms existing elsewhere.

1. Well all names in Germany in CK are English names as long as the provinces have English names. If they have no English names, then they get native (German) names. So in my eyes we should take the English name first to be consistent. (anyways I don't like it. i prefer native names. i even made a mod for EU2 which exchanged all English names into native names)

2. I think that you are right with Utrecht. After checking the site Veldmaarschalk told me about you are right.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I would prefer natives names to.

So:
Bayern
Sachsen
Thüringen
Schwaben

But then we get a whole other discussion. If we would come to Polish, Hungarian, Russian, Greek duchies. we get problems that would be impossible to solve.

So lets stick to the names Paradox has given us.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

After an encounter with reality, seems like I was talking bull about native names being standard for duchies. Sorry about that.

Good that we finally agree about Utrecht.

Then my opinion about naming duchies, I think using names by which the entities are most commonly known is best. So in (now hypothetical) case of Gelre / Geldern / Guelders, I'd favour Gelre, since I heard Guelders version for the first time in this thread, while I had heard about Gelre before (though EU2 having it as Gelre might affect this one). But it's case-by-case thinking.

Also some names sound awful in English versions, like Westrogothia or Ostrogothia (Västergötland and Östergötland).

Let's start tackling Germany then.

And don't worry Veld, I saw your proposal about Poland. It looked otherwise nice, but I think having (essentially) two Pommeranias would feel odd.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

And don't worry Veld, I saw your proposal about Poland. It looked otherwise nice, but I think having (essentially) two Pommeranias would feel odd.

Yes I jumped ahead a little with Poland since it is one of my favourite countries to play.

Pommerania could be 1 duchy agree. Just wanted to point out that there were at least 2 different duchies, Pommerania being divided much more, Like Vor-pommern, Hinter-pommern. But then so was Silesia and a lot of others.

Lets work the map from, west to east and and starting north going south.

We are in Spain now I guess
So besides Castille, Navarra and Tarragono going to Catalonia. Are there some other changes/problems necessary in Spain.

I know there ware a lot of dukes in Spain, but they were mostly titular dukes without any real lands attached to them.

BTW
Gelre in EU2 is called Geldre on the map, that is awfull.

EDIT
Ah you wanted to start with Germany, that is fine to.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Sachsen is a really big duchy now, since it now also has Oldenburg.

Maybe we could make the bishop of Bremen and Hamburg a Archbishop?

That is what he really was after all Archbishop of Bremen I think. Giving him Bremen and Hamburg and maybe Oldenburg (last one I am not sure about)

Swabia
There was once, posted a thread by someone who wanted to have the duchy of Elzass (Alsace) in the game, that should consist of Nordgau and Sudgau (now held by a single count). I only find reference to a duke of Elzass before CK timefrime.

Luxembourg should stay as it is.

Deserteur has posted some things about Germany in other threads. I have to read them again to see what he thinks the setup should be.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

So, Germany. This should be easier than say Scotland, since all kinds of powerful rulers fit to be dukes existed during CK era. But on the other hand we have duke titles fluctuating and changing all over the era.

So about Lower Lorraine. Afaik, this title only existed until 1180, so only about for a quarter of CK era. Would we have better candidate (considering whole period 1066-1453) for this area.

I think Brandenburg should be there, since even if it was only a Margravete, it was also secular Prince Elector for most of the era.

Saxony, this is quite curious duchy, since it moved quite a bit from it's location in 1066 to it's location 1337. Since Meissen wasn't a duchy, but a Margravete, I'd say the later setup of having Saxony in the area of Meissen and a duchy of Brunswick-Luneberg in where Saxony is now would be better. Also this kind of setup was afaik in effect for more of CK era than the other setup.

I suppose the rest are fine.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Luxembourg should stay as it is.

Should Luxembourg be a special case warranting a one prov duchy or should it be a special case of having it exist in start of every scenario, but not be recreatable? Latter would be slightly ahistorical (for about 20 years iirc) for 1066 scen, but since the starting count became duke, I don't think it's so bad.

 

[Calgacus]

I based my decision about Aquitane and Gascogne to this map: http://www.friesian.com/images/maps/aquitain.gif

They're the same duchy, right?

Scotland is going to be changed from that, but Scotland matter is waiting for library to open.

Hehe ... I didn't know you had any power. I'll try and find decent links for you.