-
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.
Classique said:
Do I have to add more? I fail to see a point in putting Trieste ahistorically into an italian province, too.
Finellach said:
How can you say that Trieste was historically a part of the Friuli province when Trieste was under Habsburg rule for centuries without the Habsburgs owning Friuli as well? That clearly means that the two where seperated.
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.
Maybe I need glasses or something, but the Shepard map you like shows Trieste as a part of the Carniola province...
Oh, and the reason why I disregarded your map is because I feel it's too cramped. Too many provinces that wouldn't serve an enhancing purpose ingame. Too many provinces I can't see being good for anything.
Why does a poor nation like Albania, who's culture noone else have, be split into 2? What do we need a Montenegro province for? Ragusa and Montenegro can perfectly well be merged fro gameplay reasons. What does Bosnia need 2 provinces for?
Hive said:
I don't mind this separation; Ragusa and Montenegro had completely different policies and histories. The only reason to keep them together in my mind is that neither entity really expanded their borders greatly.
Hive said:
Throughout most of its earlier history, Trieste was an independent bishopric & occasionally commune. Traditionally, Trieste was a Venetian client state, the only reason it was not annexed outright was because the Triestines didn't like the notion too much and because the Patriarch of Aquileia (ruler of Friuli) was persistent in his claim on it.
The Count of Goerz/Gorizia (a spit of a state between Friuli & Carniola) also tried to take it on a couple of occasions (he had a titular claim as Margrave of Istria). But by 1291, Trieste was definitely under Venetian control.
The passage of Trieste to Austrian hands is complicated since it overlaps with wider wars in the area. But basically, Trieste rebelled against the Venetians in 1368 and called on nieghboring state. A wide anti-Venetian alliance was formed which included Austria. In the war, the Austrians rushed to Trieste's assistance. But Austria was defeated, withdrew and recognized Venetian ownership of Trieste (as part of a peace deal with Venice signed at Ljubiliana in 1370).
[Note: the reasons the Austrians abandoned the alliance in 1370 has partly to do with the concurrent duel between Aquileia & Hapsburgs over the Friuli-Carniola border. Trieste wasn't at stake in that border conflict. But it was obvious that whomever seized Trieste would have a very strong position. If they couldn't take Trieste from the Venetians, they certainly didn't want Aquileia to have it.]
Anyway, with Trieste secured & the Austrians gone, the Venetians then proceeded to beat the crap out of the rest of the alliance (Hungary, Aquileia, Genoa, Padua, etc.) and got an all-around peace in 1372.
But in the subsequent Chioggia War (1376-1381), Trieste revolted & was tossed around again. In the final peace of Turin (1381), Trieste was made an autonomous city under Aquileia-Friuli.
Unfortunately, the Patriarch of Aquileia died in 1382, prompting a civil war in Friuli for the successsion to the Patriarchate. The Venetians supported one candidate, the Hungarians another. When it seemed the Venetian candidate was gaining the upper hand, Triestans went into a panic, realizing that by sticking with Aquileia-Friuli overlordship meant coming back indirectly under Venetian rule. So, in August, 1382, the citizens of Trieste handed themselves over to Leopold III of Austria in a voluntary act of dedication. A wise move, since Aquileia-Friuli would fall to the Venice eventually (1420). Trieste remained out of that transfer.
Trieste would remain in Hapsburg hands formally as an autonomous city-state under Austrian "protection". It was definitely separate from the crown lands of Carniola. It was ruled by an elected, independent council. Hapsburg involvement in governing was very limited. For a long time, their role was limited to collecting tax revenues & nominating/ratifying "capitani".
P.S. - instead of Shephard's map, try this one:
(the 1378 Aquileian possession date is slightly off. In detail: Trieste revolted 1376, Venetians recovered it 1378, Austrians seized it 1379, Venetians recovered it 1380, Aquileians seized it 1380-81, then you have the 1382 dedication act to Austria.)
Last edited:
To me, this suggests in gameplay terms that Trieste should be merged into Austrian Carniola/Krain, and the province should therefore have a port.Abdul Goatherd said:
I see... interesting. Thanks for the information.
However, as I for obvious reasons can't make Trieste an independent city, I still think making it a part of the Carniola province is the best solution.
However, as I for obvious reasons can't make Trieste an independent city, I still think making it a part of the Carniola province is the best solution.
Here's my latest Balkan map:
Please help me merge some of those too small provinces.
Please help me merge some of those too small provinces.
Hive said:Here's my latest Balkan map:
[...]
Please help me merge some of those too small provinces.
Does 'Kosovo' really have to be that big and if it does wouldn't it be better off 'Nis'?
Hive, I like your new map. One thing I would change though is I would rename Gallipoli Thrace, and Thrace Constantinople. I know I suggested Gallipoli, but that was because we couldn't have two provinces called Thrace. If you can't fit the word Constantinople on the map, there's always Byzantium. It's anachronistic, but it can be easily associated with the Byzantine Empire.
If none of that works, perhaps name the provinces West Thrace and East Thrace? Gallipoli is only a small part of the 'Gallipoli' province.
I'm not sure that Hellas should be adjacent to the Straits of Otranto. I would shift the eastern end of the border between the Straits and the Ionian Sea north. This would make Epirus adjacent to both the Strait of Otranto and the Ionian Sea.
Also, I've just noticed that there is a problem with the Ionian Sea: the Apulia province appears to touch the Ionian Sea but is not adjacent to it. However, to get from the Gulf of Taranto to the Straits of Otranto one must pass through the Ionian Sea, meaning that the owner of Apulia cannot sail around it while remaining in national waters. You should either fix it in the same way you fixed the Cretan Sea problem, or make Apulia adjacent to the Ionian Sea. I would favour the former; I think it would look better.
I'm not going to comment on the Balkans, because I have no idea how accurate they are. Like yours, my Balkan knowledge is limited
If none of that works, perhaps name the provinces West Thrace and East Thrace? Gallipoli is only a small part of the 'Gallipoli' province.
I'm not sure that Hellas should be adjacent to the Straits of Otranto. I would shift the eastern end of the border between the Straits and the Ionian Sea north. This would make Epirus adjacent to both the Strait of Otranto and the Ionian Sea.
Also, I've just noticed that there is a problem with the Ionian Sea: the Apulia province appears to touch the Ionian Sea but is not adjacent to it. However, to get from the Gulf of Taranto to the Straits of Otranto one must pass through the Ionian Sea, meaning that the owner of Apulia cannot sail around it while remaining in national waters. You should either fix it in the same way you fixed the Cretan Sea problem, or make Apulia adjacent to the Ionian Sea. I would favour the former; I think it would look better.
I'm not going to comment on the Balkans, because I have no idea how accurate they are. Like yours, my Balkan knowledge is limited
I refuse to use province names with north-, south-, east- or west- something. Constantinople would be nice, but is too long. I suppose I could use Byzantium, Byzantion, Byzanz or something - but I dunno how fitting that would really be...
Oh, and thanks for making me include Gallipoli in the Adrianople province for nothing, you jerk.
I'll look into the sea problem.
Oh, and thanks for making me include Gallipoli in the Adrianople province for nothing, you jerk.
I'll look into the sea problem.
Hive said:
Trieste was never part of Carniola and was always treated as separate entity. By culture and customs it was always closer to Venice and Friulian region.
How do you figure that. Let's observe your last map and compare it to mine and you will see that you are contradicting yourself.
Because Albania is made of two provinces and even today Albanians are separated into two major communities - Tosk and Ghegs(southerners and northerners). Also Albania is by far too big. Albania should be only original Ragusa province with half of Albania province while the rest should be Epirus.
Ragusa and Montenegro are two historically very important region as Ragusa was quite an important factor for stability and Montenegro was basically craddle of Serbian state.
Bosnia does not need two provinces, but there needs to be Hum/Herzegovina province.
Hive said:Here's my latest Balkan map:
Please help me merge some of those too small provinces.
This map is totally wrong and extremly bad.
Hive said:Dunno. My Balkan knowledge is limited.
Let's now get back to your statement about how you think my maps is "too cramped"...
Please either do my map or don't do anything...
Finellach said:
I am perfectly aware that my latest map have too many provinces, and that's why I asked for suggestions to provinces I could merge.
With all due respect, that's really none of your business.
You don't like what I do? Well tough luck, then don't use it. What do I care?
Yeah, I know. It's depressing me slightly that I can't come up with a decent name for those two provinces.Flame of Udûn said:
You didn't include Gallipoli for no reason. I didn't ask you to add the Gallipoli Peninsula to the Adrianople province just so that it could be named 'Gallipoli'. Is it not better that the Ottoman empire own both sides of the Dardanelles at the start of the GC? They did in history, and it stops the Byzantine Empire appearing to cut off land access between Ottoman possessions in Europe and Asia. If you wanted to, you could also remove the weird network of straits in the Aegean. I leave that up to you, though.Hive said:Oh, and thanks for making me include Gallipoli in the Adrianople province for nothing, you jerk.