Is the political map of 1399 correct?

[unmerged(288807)]

I have done some research about the political situation in 1399. I think I found some flaws.

Central Asia:

The Kazakh horde (1456) and Nogai Horde (1440s) didn't exist in 1399. The area was either a part of the Timurid empire or The Golden Horde.



Georgia:

Georgia was much smaller then presented in the game. The area which is a part of Georgia in the game is either vacant in most of the maps or a part of the golden horde. In the example below its shown as vacant.



Austria:

Austria at the time already controlled most of the area which is today Slovenia including Trieste. The area most certainly wasnt a part of the bishopric of Aqilea (Note: The map shown below is not fully correct, there should be the duchy of gorz, which should control the provinces gorz and lienz if I'm not wrong).



Switzerland:

Was much smaller then it is today. The borders presented in the game were not achieved before 1815 (The red line is showing the approx size (I'm not sure if its correct, because the legend is rather vague) of Switzerland in 1399).



Fell free to comment or do your own research on any of my considerations.

 

[Sakkura]

Austria:

Austria at the time already controlled most of the area which is today Slovenia including Trieste. The area most certainly wasnt a part of the bishopric of Aqilea (Note: The map shown below is not fully correct, there should be the duchy of gorz, which should control the provinces gorz and lienz if I'm not wrong).

Görz was really small (not a duchy but a county), AFAIK Aquileia controlled much of the territory the EU3 Görz province covers. But Austria should definitely control Krain and Trieste.

 

[Misan]

I've been looking up maps of around 1400 to adjust my mod and ended up adding the Hafsids (simply flipped the Tunisia flag)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafsid_dynasty

Spoiler

 

[Johhog]

To the thread title:

No, apparently not. Thanks for pointing that out. *leaves thread*

EDIT: Misan, wasn't the Hafsids basically a dynasty of Tunisia?

 

[Misan]

To the thread title:

No, apparently not. Thanks for pointing that out. *leaves thread*

EDIT: Misan, wasn't the Hafsids basically a dynasty of Tunisia?

Perhaps, honestly I didn't look too much into it, I just did it for (what I feel) are fun changes and a bit more balance to the region.

 

[unmerged(288807)]

Görz was really small (not a duchy but a county), AFAIK Aquileia controlled much of the territory the EU3 Görz province covers. But Austria should definitely control Krain and Trieste.

Can you give me a source confirming this?

 

[Sakkura]

Can you give me a source confirming this?

Don't think I have anything more concrete than Wikipedia and the internet. But if it really was a duchy, you'd think google would give more hits on "Duchy of Görz"; it gave me 4, 2 of them clearly EU-related. "County of Görz" got around 5k hits. And it's the same in German.

There's also this map of the situation in 1350:

Spoiler

 

[Inem]

Thank you, this is all I needed as proof that I am not cheating by giving Austria the gold provinces of Auquileia when I go about editing these provinces to my Austria to start.

 

[Junuxx]

http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1400/index.html

 

[Chamboozer]

The Hafsids were a dynasty of Tunisia as much as the Ottomans were a dynasty of Turkey. But we still call them the Ottomans. Muslim countries never really were named by their geography, but rather by some defining feature, usually the ruling dynasty or tribe. That's why I personally would rename Algiers to Zayyanids, Morocco to Marinids, etc.

If you're looking to get it as close as possible, you should give Constantine and Bone to the Hafsids in 1399.

 

[Razgovory]

The Hafsids were a dynasty of Tunisia as much as the Ottomans were a dynasty of Turkey. But we still call them the Ottomans. Muslim countries never really were named by their geography, but rather by some defining feature, usually the ruling dynasty or tribe. That's why I personally would rename Algiers to Zayyanids, Morocco to Marinids, etc.

If you're looking to get it as close as possible, you should give Constantine and Bone to the Hafsids in 1399.

I would actually do the opposite, since ruling family can change in the new versions of EU3. I would call Ming, China and the Ottomans, Turkey etc. I'm not sure what you would called Timur's empire. Wiki says they were self designated Gurkānī, but I have no idea what that actually means. Not sure what you can do with the Japanese Daiymos. I'm also not sure if the Knights can change government. Would be rather odd to have the Republic of the Knights.

 

[IconOfEvi]

Forget all that, the Rajput flag still isn't correct XD

In the game, the Rajput's flag has the Sikh khanda on it - for a religion that didn't pop until centuries later, and in the Punjab. Infact, an argument could be made that the Rajputs should be divided, like in WWM

The actual Punjab flag in the game is for some totally unrelated place

 

[Zechariah Zevi]

While we're at it from what I can tell the political map for Arabia is completely wrong, though I can't find any sources which give the complete, correct information for that region.

Edit - I can see a few sources that say Hejaz was controlled by the Mamlukes in 1399.

 

[SapientHomo]

I'm also not sure if the Knights can change government. Would be rather odd to have the Republic of the Knights.

As a Theocratic Government they have an allowed conversion to Absolute Monarchy which would make them the Kingom of The Knights. I once wrote decisions allowing them to secularise and change their name (like the Prussian nation decision for the Teutonic Order) and form Rhodes or Malta depending on where they were based if they ever did this government conversion.

 

[BootOnFace]

It seems that Paradox either changed the boundaries to improve gameplay, or they have done more research and come to different conclusions than us. I trust Paradox's research, but the Austria-Aquilea thing stinks of gameplay balancing.

 

[PanzerKrigs]

I would actually do the opposite, since ruling family can change in the new versions of EU3. I would call Ming, China and the Ottomans, Turkey etc. I'm not sure what you would called Timur's empire. Wiki says they were self designated Gurkānī, but I have no idea what that actually means. Not sure what you can do with the Japanese Daiymos. I'm also not sure if the Knights can change government. Would be rather odd to have the Republic of the Knights.

Hmm.. I seem to have heard somewhere that Turk was actually a degrading word, back in the day, might be wrong though. Am I? I am rather curious. But considering that, I think Ottomans, or Ottoman State, (or the like) is the right name for them Damn those dynastic changes!

 

[hecatomb]

I do not think there are many actual errors on the map. There is a lot of consolidation and liberal land area coverage though due to not having every existing bishopric/duchy/county/free city/etc that existed in the game. Why they could not add at least every county of-size is kind of odd to me since they are only missing a few like Hoya, Gorz, Mark, etc but have included minor free cities (like Ulm [but not Nuremberg... Cologne?]).

The only major flaw I can point out in Europe is the position of Augsburg. It should be to the left of Bavaria, not inside of it. That one is pretty major. Something else that bothers me but does not affect actual gameplay is the size of Genoa controlled Azow. It should be about 1/8th the size it is or probably not even owned by them compared to how the rest of the EU3 map works (since Lesbos etc are not owned by them and they held those longer than the Black Sea areas).

If it really gets under your skin you should mod things to your pleasure. It takes time but it will make you feel better. To me, playing the regular game after the knowledge that there are a number of missing states is not the same. Looking at an historic map of Europe and then coming back to the EU3 map is a bit like opening Pandora's box.


edit:


As for Austria, the way the game portrays it is (I guess) completely for gameplay reasons. It was not as "together" as it is in the game.

 

[unmerged(288807)]

Sakkura-Don't worry i do accept wikipedia as a source. Too bad no one of my professors does lol. Anyway when i read about caranthia (Thats the Territorial unit we are referring to) it says that the territory was consolidated by the Hapsburg's in the 14th century. There were quite some Territorial changes from 1350-1400 (Thats why Trieste is shown as a part of Venice and not of Austria).

Chamboozer-Same goes for some European countries like the Hapsburg monarchy which was not called Austria.

hecatomb-For me personally the game has absolutely some questionable game designs. Lets say the Kazakh horde didn't exist before 1450. But here it already exist in 1399. I could understand Switzerland lets say, since the majority of the land around it was controlled by some micro Territorial units (Those could have been still added as nations tho, there is always room for new nations ).

 

[Trin Tragula]

Outside of Europe the borders are seldom correct, inside Europe they mostly are though
This does fit with the game theme. Getting the HRE or Italy mostly right is probably more important to most players than the fact that India has provinces named after post 1950's cities and CoTs in provinces that should be mostly without sedentary population even today.

 

[e_quality]

Given the political fragmentation of Europe in 1399 an absolutley accurate map for the period would:

• make the game unplayable due the gazillion new provinces that would have to be added.
• not be very politically accurate anyway.

In several areas of Europe the ruling elites had a rather vague idea of the geography and topography of the lands they laid claim to. Add to this the political fragmentation of the medieval political system where a given area, or even worse, various parts of that area, could easily form part of a duchy or two or three, a kingdom and a large empire at the very same time. And it didn't stop there. Within this fragmentation the feudal system further created a veritable cobweb of political allegiances where one's overlord in one area could be one's vassal in the next.

The map must contain a large number of simplifications and compromises, anything else would of course be truly fascinating but also completely unplayable.