Hi, I have access to this forum through my son`s account. We both are fans of Paradox games since EU I. But I am also a historian and lover of historical maps. Paradox maps always drove me crazy. So I corrected those maps (EU and Victoria) as I could, just for fun only. This time I also started my own correction. However, since I`m not the best moder, I would like to point out to the SWMH Team below mentioned historical inaccuracies that I found and IMO should be corrected.
1. Some dynasties are duplicated:
At Vanilla '00_dynasties.txt' among others we can see:
11112 = { name="Jablonowski" culture = polish }
11124 = { name="Sapieha" culture = polish }
100417 = { name="Glinsky" culture = russian }
and in HIP '52_lithuanian dynastiesSWMH.txt' we can see the same families:
1000053445= { name="Jablonovskis" culture = lithuanian }
1000053488 = { name="Sapiega" culture = lithuanian }
1000053425 = { name="Glinskis" culture = lithuanian }
For example dynasties d`Anjou or von Habsburg are only single, no matter where and when they lived or ruled. This rule should be applied to all dynasties.
2. Many dynasties (surnames) did not exist in the time interval of the game (many of them are in Vanilia file). This is one of many examples: dynasty 21002 Czetwertynski, a side branch of Rurikids. In file HIP/history/characters/polish.txt we can see persons 471600, 471603, 471604, 471605 who lived between 1221 and 1337, when the FIRST man using the name Czetwertynski was mentioned in 1338. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czetwertyński_family
3. HIP/history/titles/c_lublin.txt - this PROV in 1066 scenario belongs to Volhynia. Why?
4. Morover Lublin land did not exist as an independent territorial unit until 1474, when the king Casimir IV Jagiellon created Lublin Voivodeship out of three eastern counties of Sandomierz Voivodeship. The game ends in 1453, so there is no historical justification for the existence of Lublin province. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lublin_Voivodeship_(1474-1795)
5. Lesser Poland (d_lesser_poland) until 1474 consisted only of two lands: Krakow (c_krakowskie) and Sandomierz (c_sandomierskie). Never existed province or duchy Sacz or Stary Sącz. So IMO both Lublin and Sacz should be deleted and free space should be used, for example at Kujawy (c_kujawy).
6. It would be very reasonable to divide Kujawy in 3 parts, because present SWMH province c_kujawy - 428 presents at least three provinces: Kujawy-Inowroclaw, Kujawy-Brzesc & Dobrzyn Land. http://herbypolskie.strefa.pl/HIST_pages/kujawy.htm
Kujawy was the area of fierce fighting among Prussians, Poles, Pomeranians and the Teutonic Knights. The boundaries were constantly changed. Single province can not represent those changes in game. To make mod more SWMH, IMO Lublin and Stary Sącz should be deleted, Kujawy divided into three parts. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kujawy - Kujawy IS NOT a part of the bigger region – Greater Poland. And "c_chelminskie" was not a part of Kujawy, it was a part of Mazovia.
7. Province Cieszyn (c_cieszyn) should be named "Raciborz". After 1138 Silesia was inherited by Wladyslaw II the Exile. In 1172 Silesia was divided: Duchy of Opole and Duchy of Raciborz were seperated. As a result of further division of the Duchy of Raciborz, about 1280 Duchy of Cieszyn was established - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Teschen
8. HIP/history/titles/c_gnieznienskie: since 999.1.1 contains holders of this province, it means bishops of Gniezno. IMO this list of holders may eventually concern "b_gniezno", but not "c_gnieznienskie", which was owned and inherited by the Piasts.
9. k_poland/d_mazovia/c_pultusk (also file history/provinces/1055 - Pultusk.txt) There is no historical reason to call this province Pultusk. Pultusk was only one of many cities in Mazovia. The first mention of Pultusk was in 1231 only! Pultusk was not even the capital of the district or land. PROV Pultusk-1055 corresponds to the north-east part of Masovia. It was never independent and always was a part of another masovian duchy: Duchy of Plock (c_plock) or Duchy of Rawa (c_rawamazovia) or Duchy of Czersk (c_czersk). This north-east part of Masovia contain lands: Ciechanow land, Zakroczym land, Rozan land, Lomza land and Wizna land. Lomza land was biggest, so IMO province 1055 could be named eventually "c_lomza" or "c_lomzynskie".
...
c_lomzynskie = { # Lomza (1055)
color={ 130 121 2 }
color2={ 255 255 255 }
b_lomzapoland = {} # about 1000, tribal
b_ciechanow = {} # first mention 1065, castle
b_wizna = {} # about 1050, castle
b_zakroczym = {} # mentioned 1065, castle
b_swieck = {} # about 1075, castle
b_czerwinsk = {} # monastery mentioned 1155 # bulla of pope Hadrian IV # temple
}
...
All my above objections can be verified on publicly available information at Wikipedia.
vapi13 at gmail.com
1. Some dynasties are duplicated:
At Vanilla '00_dynasties.txt' among others we can see:
11112 = { name="Jablonowski" culture = polish }
11124 = { name="Sapieha" culture = polish }
100417 = { name="Glinsky" culture = russian }
and in HIP '52_lithuanian dynastiesSWMH.txt' we can see the same families:
1000053445= { name="Jablonovskis" culture = lithuanian }
1000053488 = { name="Sapiega" culture = lithuanian }
1000053425 = { name="Glinskis" culture = lithuanian }
For example dynasties d`Anjou or von Habsburg are only single, no matter where and when they lived or ruled. This rule should be applied to all dynasties.
2. Many dynasties (surnames) did not exist in the time interval of the game (many of them are in Vanilia file). This is one of many examples: dynasty 21002 Czetwertynski, a side branch of Rurikids. In file HIP/history/characters/polish.txt we can see persons 471600, 471603, 471604, 471605 who lived between 1221 and 1337, when the FIRST man using the name Czetwertynski was mentioned in 1338. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czetwertyński_family
3. HIP/history/titles/c_lublin.txt - this PROV in 1066 scenario belongs to Volhynia. Why?
4. Morover Lublin land did not exist as an independent territorial unit until 1474, when the king Casimir IV Jagiellon created Lublin Voivodeship out of three eastern counties of Sandomierz Voivodeship. The game ends in 1453, so there is no historical justification for the existence of Lublin province. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lublin_Voivodeship_(1474-1795)
5. Lesser Poland (d_lesser_poland) until 1474 consisted only of two lands: Krakow (c_krakowskie) and Sandomierz (c_sandomierskie). Never existed province or duchy Sacz or Stary Sącz. So IMO both Lublin and Sacz should be deleted and free space should be used, for example at Kujawy (c_kujawy).
6. It would be very reasonable to divide Kujawy in 3 parts, because present SWMH province c_kujawy - 428 presents at least three provinces: Kujawy-Inowroclaw, Kujawy-Brzesc & Dobrzyn Land. http://herbypolskie.strefa.pl/HIST_pages/kujawy.htm
Kujawy was the area of fierce fighting among Prussians, Poles, Pomeranians and the Teutonic Knights. The boundaries were constantly changed. Single province can not represent those changes in game. To make mod more SWMH, IMO Lublin and Stary Sącz should be deleted, Kujawy divided into three parts. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kujawy - Kujawy IS NOT a part of the bigger region – Greater Poland. And "c_chelminskie" was not a part of Kujawy, it was a part of Mazovia.
7. Province Cieszyn (c_cieszyn) should be named "Raciborz". After 1138 Silesia was inherited by Wladyslaw II the Exile. In 1172 Silesia was divided: Duchy of Opole and Duchy of Raciborz were seperated. As a result of further division of the Duchy of Raciborz, about 1280 Duchy of Cieszyn was established - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Teschen
8. HIP/history/titles/c_gnieznienskie: since 999.1.1 contains holders of this province, it means bishops of Gniezno. IMO this list of holders may eventually concern "b_gniezno", but not "c_gnieznienskie", which was owned and inherited by the Piasts.
9. k_poland/d_mazovia/c_pultusk (also file history/provinces/1055 - Pultusk.txt) There is no historical reason to call this province Pultusk. Pultusk was only one of many cities in Mazovia. The first mention of Pultusk was in 1231 only! Pultusk was not even the capital of the district or land. PROV Pultusk-1055 corresponds to the north-east part of Masovia. It was never independent and always was a part of another masovian duchy: Duchy of Plock (c_plock) or Duchy of Rawa (c_rawamazovia) or Duchy of Czersk (c_czersk). This north-east part of Masovia contain lands: Ciechanow land, Zakroczym land, Rozan land, Lomza land and Wizna land. Lomza land was biggest, so IMO province 1055 could be named eventually "c_lomza" or "c_lomzynskie".
...
c_lomzynskie = { # Lomza (1055)
color={ 130 121 2 }
color2={ 255 255 255 }
b_lomzapoland = {} # about 1000, tribal
b_ciechanow = {} # first mention 1065, castle
b_wizna = {} # about 1050, castle
b_zakroczym = {} # mentioned 1065, castle
b_swieck = {} # about 1075, castle
b_czerwinsk = {} # monastery mentioned 1155 # bulla of pope Hadrian IV # temple
}
...
All my above objections can be verified on publicly available information at Wikipedia.
vapi13 at gmail.com
Last edited:
- 4