Map modification(South-Central Europe)

[Underhand]

Yes, it would look rather odd if the Ottoman Empire had as its capital such a Greek-sounding city. It looks wrong for their capital to be called Constantinople anyway, but I can live with that, for it would be worse if the Byzantines ruled from Istanbul for their brief period of independence in the 15th century.

It would of course make more sense in general to stick to Latin/English transliterations, but for me (I'm not saying this applies to most people) it adds to the immersion factor of a game if local names are used where possible. Either way though, I won't mind. I can always adapt.

 

[Cagliostro]

I never heard the name 'Pelopponesus' before, I must admit... but now that you mention it, I do think it's too long. I hope you can live with 'Morea'.

You've never heard of the Peloponesian War?

You MUST fix the weird sea thing around Morea. I will scream bloody murder if a modified map makes it in where you can't sail around Morea while remaining next to it.

Also, I really think the city of Constantinople deserves its own province. I suggest a circle with a line coming out of it. But really, the city itself is so incredibly important it's almost impossible to overstate it.

 

[TheArchduke]

Please, please don`t add Trieste to Veneto. Trieste was never, ever part of Venice and Carniola should border the sea and be a harbor..

Istria looks good and should be the venetian part but shouldn`t border Veneto.

 

[Hive]

Underhand,
Yes, we must make sure the name is correct and short--also, considering the Turks took Constantinople and made it their capital, one would want a more "neutral" term than the blatantly Greek "Konstantinoupolis." Well, if we want native transliterations..."Corfu" should be "Kerkyra," "Rhodes" should be "Rodhos," "Crete" should be "Kriti," "Cyprus" should be "Kypros," etc. Perhaps we should just stick with Latin/English usages to avoid confusion? From what I've read in the Western Europe thread, they seem to be having trouble with this problem, too.

I originally started to use the Greek names... however, when I realised what the Greek names were for the islands, I went like "wtf? This ain't gonna happen!"...

Really, I think starting to use local translations that are too much different from the English/Latin ones we are used to could be bad...

 

[Owen]

The current English terms should be used, not local names. Firstly, this saves unnecessary argument in any disputed area, and there are lots of them. Secondly, while most of the people arguing about each region are local to the area in question, English is the common language of the target audience of any mod that uses these map suggestions.

 

[G-Klav]

I'm with The Archduke in this case - Trieste should be in the Carniola/Krain province, and not in Istria. Trieste was owned by the Hapsburgs the entire gamespan. So give Carniola a port, too.
The capital of Istria could instead be Pola/Pula.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Well as far as I can see well Trieste is in Xie's map(and Hive's map) in Aquillea(Friuli) province which I think is the best solution. Krain never had any coast(Istria even when nominally part of Krain or Carinithia was always separate province) and should not have harbours.

Also in Istria province the capital city should maybe be Pola/Pula, but since Istria also covers area more inland and the city of Rijeka/Fiume perhaps that city should be a capital...

 

[G-Klav]

I have been craving for such a change. I considered 'Aegian Isles' first for this province and next for the Lesbos province, but scrapped it for being too long. How this 'Ionia' province ever ended up in the Aegian Sea in the first place is beyond me...

Ionia was in the ancient times (around 500 BC) the area in western Turkey, where you could find cities like Miletos, Ephesus and Smyrna. I'm not sure why the sea off the coast in western Greece is called 'The Ionian Sea', but it could have something to do with the Greek colonization.

Perhaps the one who 'discovered' it was from Ionia...

 

[Quarto]

I played around a bit with Greece. I'm not 100% happy about it yet, but have a look at it:

Would it be possible to split the Pelopponesus into two provinces (Achaia and Morea), like this map shows? It might make things more interesting for the Byzantines... although it might also result in yet another irritatingly small province, so it's not completely necessary .

 

[unmerged(10777)]

Hive & Owen,
Yes, I heartily concur with your usage of the more familiar spellings of Hellenic provinces; as much as I'd like to use them, native names (which aren't entirely native, for the Greeks do use an entirely different alphabet which doesn't always correspond 100% with the Latin one) and smaller, more numerous Greek provinces must wait for mods...Besides, the Venetians controlled many Greek Islands as their current spelling reflects (e.g., "Corfu" is the Italian version of "Kerkyra," if I'm not mistaken--and "Durazzo" was "Durres") as the Turks controlled the mainland--one wouldn't want the Turkish versions of those provinces, so the more neutral spellings are more...efficient, yes?

 

[Hive]

Would it be possible to split the Pelopponesus into two provinces (Achaia and Morea), like this map shows? It might make things more interesting for the Byzantines... although it might also result in yet another irritatingly small province, so it's not completely necessary .

No, I won't do that. It's important to try not to overdo this new province thing either, and I don't want Greece to be *that* crowded.

 

[Underhand]

I agree with Hive about splitting Morea. The new provinces would be too small.

I've been thinking that maybe 'Lesbos' could be named after the island chain in the area, I just can't find what it's called. Any Greeks care to chime in?

Regarding the weird sea zone setup there currently is off the coast of Morea, I think that you should make the sea zone with Corfu in it adjacent to the zone directly north of the Cretan Sea. In doing so, you would remove the 'corner' where the Cretan Sea appears to touch Morea.

It occurs to me that I did not answer your question about naming a province north of your province Thessaloniki 'Macedonia'. I think that you should not do this, but rather rename Thessaloniki to Macedonia instead, as Macedonia was the coastal region, not where FYROM is now. I don't know what you should call a province to the north of your current Thessaloniki province.

 

[Hive]

I made a new version of Greece, now also including the Balkan coastline... though I'm sure this won't make me popular amongst certain forum individuals.

My original version had more provs both in Greece and on the Balkans. But then it suddenly struck me that making the map really accurate is good - but only as long as the provinces are good gameplay wise (eg. not too small or weird). So I scrapped a few provs.

It's important to try not to go overboard when adding provinces.

Anyway, enough talk:

 

[unmerged(10777)]

Hive,
Although it doesn't contain a separate Constantinople province, your Greece looks quite good. I've quickly consulted a modern atlas of Greece--I can't find a single name for the islands (Chios, Lesvos, etc.) off Turkey, so I suppose "Lesbos" is good enough. I miss all those provinces in the Balkans, but I'm sure you know more about gameplay issues than I do...just remember the large amount of provinces they're carving up in the Western European thread: if Spain and Italy get MANY MANY MANY provinces, then I think the Balkans deserve a few more--of course, I'm probably just a tad bit biased, lol.

 

[Cagliostro]

The one you have labeled as "Macedonia" is more Thessalonika, isn't it? I think that the left question mark is more Macedonia.

I don't like the tapered point in Ragusa; is that accurate? Also, the lettering in Ragusa looks a bit crowded.

Still think Constantinople should be considered a necessary addition.

 

[Hive]

I've quickly consulted a modern atlas of Greece--I can't find a single name for the islands (Chios, Lesvos, etc.) off Turkey, so I suppose "Lesbos" is good enough.

Yeah. The only alternative I can find is "North Aegean Islands", and that's neither good nor short enough.

just remember the large amount of provinces they're carving up in the Western European thread: if Spain and Italy get MANY MANY MANY provinces, then I think the Balkans deserve a few more--of course, I'm probably just a tad bit biased, lol.

Well *you* must remember that the Spanish maps you see presented has nothing to do with me.

I am aware that my Italy have a lot of provinces, and I'll *try* to cut down on it... but frankly, Italy during this time period had a lot more important states than the Balkans.

The one you have labeled as "Macedonia" is more Thessalonika, isn't it? I think that the left question mark is more Macedonia.

Underhill told me to call it 'Macedonia', I'm just following orders...

I don't like the tapered point in Ragusa; is that accurate? Also, the lettering in Ragusa looks a bit crowded.

I had to be a bit.. creative in order to get a reasonably sized Ragusa province. Nevermind the lettering yet, the shading layer is not final in any way.

Still think Constantinople should be considered a necessary addition.

It would be too small, I don't like it.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Regarding Triste. I propose looking at this map Hive made and put in Western European thread. Notice province of Aqulieia, this province should be renamed to Friuli and should own Triest and whole small coastal strip to Istria. Krain/Carniola should not get any sea nor harbour. That is just wrong and ahistorical.

Second matter is constant disregard by Hive for my propositions and maps along with propositions of others in this thread regarding Panonia-Dalmatia region.

The map should look like this(already posted in this thread) =>

This is how the provinces should look. Notice how Veneto region has the strip of Trieste, well if we compare to Hive's Italian flag we can see nicely that this would go to Friuli - historical to the core.

Now regarding Albania region. The province of Durres on the upper Xie's map should maybe get a bit of land to the south and then renamed to Albania. The southern part should be Epirus as on Hive's map posted above.

Regarding other provinces...well as far as I can see Macedonia is totally wrong.
Macedonia on that maps should be divided into two parts one merging with the left question mark province making a new Macedonia province and the right question mark province should also be divided into two parts with one merging into new Macedonia province and the other merging with the macedonia on this map making province of Adrianapolis...or some similar province.

 

[Classique]

Regarding Triste. I propose looking at this map Hive made and put in Western European thread. Notice province of Aqulieia, this province should be renamed to Friuli and should own Triest and whole small coastal strip to Istria. Krain/Carniola should not get any sea nor harbour. That is just wrong and ahistorical.

Correct, Trieste was not part of Carniola. However, the coastal land of Trieste and the harbour of Trieste were under Habsburg control for centuries and contiguous with the Habsburg land of Carniola. The Krain/Kranjska/Carniola province should represent Carniola, Trieste, and Gorizia.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/central_europe_1477.jpg
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/italy_1494_shepherd.jpg
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/europe_1560.jpg

 

[unmerged(27913)]

I am aware of the fact that Trieste was in possesion of Habsburgs but this is not the reason to put this town into Carniola. This region had no access to see, the strip in possesion of Habsburgs among which was also the town of Trieste was part of historical province of Friuli.

Btw. the Shepard map of Italy is great. It also clearly shows the regions in Croatia and Bosnia on my map(and Xie's) as correct.

 

[Classique]

I am aware of the fact that Trieste was in possesion of Habsburgs but this is not the reason to put this town into Carniola. This region had no access to see, the strip in possesion of Habsburgs among which was also the town of Trieste was part of historical province of Friuli.

Well, to me it seems pretty simple: the Habsburgs controlled this land for centuries, and the Venetians did not. We can easily represent a number of small Habsburg lands in this region by combining them in a province called Carniola which includes the historical port of Trieste. This province would separate the Venetian Friuli and Istria provinces, which that little strip of land did historically. I fail to understand the desire to place Trieste under Venetian control and to deprive the Habsburgs of their port.