[MOD] SWMH 2.0 Map, de jure and general history mod. For a superior CK2 experience

[khanbalik]

(First of all, please excuse my English; I do my best).

Hello there! I'm the guy that gave feedback about some inaccuracies in the 1066 Iberian Peninsula last year (I don't know if you remember me). I'm here for innacuracies about the new (and awesome) 1043 bookmark!

• Fernando I of Castilla should not be the king of Castilla but instead the king of León / Llión. Castile was just a "condado" (aka "duchy", in game terms), and he only made Castile a kingdom ("by decision", in game terms) because he wanted to divide his kingdom into three kingdoms and give a kingdom to each of his three sons after his death. (He also gave a "señorío" (aka "one county") to each of his two daughters, by the way). Then the guy that inherited Castile conquered his brother's kingdoms, and that's basically how the Kingdom of Castile was born.
• Oh, and Fernando I also proclaimed himself to be the "Imperator totius Hispaniae" (Emperor of all of Spain; Spain meaning the entire Iberian Peninsula). That meant he had a claim over the whole Iberian Peninsula. So... some interesting (and historically accurate) gameplay options for ambitious players here
• While in Navarra / Nafarroa the most spoken language was basque, in the court (and the administration) it was not. They spoke a mixture of latin and navarro-aragonese romance, and most probably considered basque to be a peasant's, commoner's and lowly lord's language. In my opinion, the court culture in Navarra should be aragonese (so far as it doesn't make basque dissapear, which would be completely ahistorical). I'd use a romaniced version of their latin names, since that's how they most probably named themselves (for example, Garsea instead of Gartzia. He should also be "Gartzea" and not "Gartzia" in Basque. "Gartzia" seems to be a goofy translation from Castilian "García". The use of "z" in basque is also ahistorical, by the way. It should be a "ç").
  
• The king of Navarra should not be Garcia V but Garcia IV. I've found the mistake is that Garcia Jimenez of Pamplona (this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/García_Jiménez_of_Pamplona) is considered to be a king in the game, probably because the English page of Wikipedia names him "co-king" and says that "he is sometimes called García II". However I find no such information in the (more comprehensive) Spanish and Basque pages of him in Wikipedia, which just talk of him as a "corregente" ("co-ruler"), and not a "co-king". He is also not included in mainstream historiography.
• Returning to Leon / Castile, Fernando I was the son of the king of Navarra, and should probably be culturally aragonese. When he died, he acted against the leonese / castilian tradition, and instead followed his native navarrese tradition by dividing the kingdom between his sons (leonese / castilian law forbade such a thing, which was traditional in both Navarra and Aragon).
• Just to finish: I haven't had a look at muslim Hispania, but I see that the duchy level titles are named "emiratos". That's incorrect from a historical perspective. A duchy level at the time should not be an Emirato but a Taifa (Ta'ifa in Arabic). I've found a reference to them being "usually emirates" (and with no citation) in the English version of Wikipedia, but no such a reference in the (again, better referred and more comprehensive) Spanish one. Their rulers held diverse titles: sometimes they were called Emirs, other times Maliks, but usually (at least in the case of the biggest Taifas) they held the title of Hayib ("chamberlain"). The title of Hayib is usually considered to be a lower one than Emir or Malik, but the Hayib under the Caliphate was such a powerfull and prestigious position that many rulers prefered to name them as such rather than taking another title. Also: the Taifas were not named after dynasties, but after capital cities (aka, duchies). So, unless someone with knowledge of Arabic could make sure by consulting the historiography, in my opinion instead of "Banu Dhi l-Nún Emirato" it should be "Ta'ifa Tulaytulah", for example.

Thank you very much for doing this amazing mod! And please, let me know if you don't agree with something or need help with anything or would rather see some references!


EDIT: About Navarra's kings regnal numbers.

In Galicia, Leon, Castile, Navarra and Aragón, your surname was your father's name without his last vowel/s and finished in -ez (for example, if your father was named "Sancho", your surname would be "Sanchez". If he was "Fernando", your surname would be "Fernandez" and so on). There are just a couple of exceptions, such as "Garcia" -> "Garces" and "Pedro" -> "Perez", which are exceptions just because "Garcez" and "Pedrez" would be difficult to pronounce. But you see the pattern.

In Galicia, Leon and Castile kings were usually numbered the same way they are in France and England: just taking their names into account. If a king was named "Alfonso", and another "Alfonso" had reigned before, he would be "Alfonso II". His surname wouldn't matter. But that was not the case in Navarra and Aragon.

In Navarra and Aragon your surname was considered to be part of your name. Somewhat like a second name. And therefore kings were numbered taking this into account. So if you look at the most traditional king lists from, say, Navarra, you'll see you have a "García Íñiguez I", a "García Sánchez I" (and a "García Sánchez II" and a "García Sánchez III") and, then, a "García Ramírez I".

I'm writting this not because I'd like to see this implemented in the game (I understand it can be hell, and there are far more important things), but because Navarrese and Aragonese king lists can seem chaotic and nonsensical if one doesn't take surnames into account. After all, if you don't realize the surnames thing, you'll see three different "García I" kings in different centuries.

Traditional Castilian (and Leonese) king lists usually listed Navarrese and Aragonese kings the same way they listed their own kings, and therefore the king in Navarra in 1043 was García IV. But only for those with that numbering tradition. For Navarrese themselves, he was García Sánchez III. And if his heir was named García, he would not be crowned as García V but García Garcés I.

 

[nluc]

Ave,

First of all great thanks for immense amount of work put in to this mod.
I am posting because I spotted some minor historical inconsistencies in the province setup of Poland. Namely Lublin province starting from 1046 (the second starting date) is outside the border of Poland (to be exact is part of the Kiev and then its successors). Meanwhile in the ck time period Lublin was always part of the Poland, and considering topology of the rivers presented in your map I think that whole province should be part of the Poland. For comparison pleas take a look at maps at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Poland
(maps for the period 960 - 1370).

Thanks for the great mod and vale,

 

[Phalanx_]

You do realize that it is actually very much intended that Polotsk is that small? It seems like your suggestion is based solely on your opinion about the size of Polotsk and not the relevance of Polotsk.

Also again for Takrur, your suggestion seems very much based on your opinion of size alone

My first suggestion was only balance-related, and I do realize Polotsk was not nearly as important as Kiev. From what I have read, the only Kingdom level (Grand Duchy) in the Rus other than Galicia-Volhynia during most of the game's timeframe was Vladimir (I'm considering a principality a Duchy). It seems right that Polotsk should be deranked to a duchy in the starts it exists, and if you don't want to increase its size it you might as well remove the Kingdom of give its Duchies to Kiev or some other Kingdom.
On Takrur, from what I've read it wasn't nearly as important as Mali or Ghana, and I see no reason why it can't be represented as only a duchy, both in terms of gameplay and historicity.

If i understand the bit about Genoa correctly that you think it should be a Byzantine vassal in 867 like Ragusa, then the answer is a very big NO. It is only a republic in 867 because Genoa is still a city holding.

No, I meant that it should be a Merchant Republic in 867, just like Ragusa, but still a vassal to Lombardia. It was a city subject to another realm just like Ragusa, with a decent amount of self-rule. With the Republic part, I meant that it is already represented as such in 867, and in my opinion it could be promoted to a Merchant Republic given that it already had some participation in trade at this time.

 

[theKing1988]

No, I meant that it should be a Merchant Republic in 867, just like Ragusa, but still a vassal to Lombardia. It was a city subject to another realm just like Ragusa, with a decent amount of self-rule. With the Republic part, I meant that it is already represented as such in 867, and in my opinion it could be promoted to a Merchant Republic given that it already had some participation in trade at this time.

Aasmul who have done almost all of the research for the Italy overhaul is very adamant that Genoa should at the very earliest be turned into a playable Republic around the 1040'ies.

 

[Phalanx_]

Aasmul who have done almost all of the research for the Italy overhaul is very adamant that Genoa should at the very earliest be turned into a playable Republic around the 1040'ies.

Hm, given this treatment I think it should apply to Ragusa too, given that it didn't get autonomy before the 1000s, for the sake of consistency.

 

[elvain]

On Takrur, from what I've read it wasn't nearly as important as Mali or Ghana, and I see no reason why it can't be represented as only a duchy, both in terms of gameplay and historicity.

It was nowhere near the importance of Ghana or Mali at the peak of their power... but that applies for pretty much everything in the region. At the same time...
1) Takrur was geographicaly marginal part of Mali empire which could hardly be considered its core (de jure)
2) it would be too much to stretch Mauretania all the way to Takrur.
3) in the time of initial islamization it played essential role as it was the origin of first islamic kingdom in the region, which - at that time - was on par with Ghana and Gao (and Jenne) as one of the main power bases in region.
These 3 things were taken into consideration when deciding what to do with Takrur, which - IIRC - I originaly made a duchy inside either Mauretania or Mali, both of which was wrong. Then after comparing it with other mini kingdoms it was decided that making it separate kingdom is the best (though not ideal) of all possible decisions.

 

[Phalanx_]

1) Takrur was geographicaly marginal part of Mali empire which could hardly be considered its core (de jure)

Following this logic, shouldn't Wolof also be separated from Mali?

 

[Jimmy the Slipper]

Hey, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask this, but how do you form the Empire of Occitania in SWMH? I'm thinking about playing the Count of Carcassonne in a multi-player game and eventually becoming the Emperor of Occitania, but I'm not sure how to form the Empire. Is it through a special decision, or something else?

 

[Toa Kraka]

How do you form the Empire of Occitania in SWMH?

You must:
- Have the County of Toulouse within your realm
- Be Occitan or Catalan
- Be Christian
- Satisfy the default empire-creation criteria (own three kingdoms, have ruled for five years, etc.)

 

[elvain]

Following this logic, shouldn't Wolof also be separated from Mali?

Well, I tried to emphasize that the decision was not light-hearted... nd that combination of factors led to it. You can't just separate one of the three factors which only together made me/us separate Takrur and consider it enough for every other region.
Takrur had an organized state which /could have/ competed for domination over the region and played prominent role as a center of essential processes which shaped the region for another millenium - without this it would hardly be made separate DJ kingdom. Wolof 1) didn't have neither of these 2) has much less info about local settlements. While Takrur had initially 4 provinces each with at least 3-5 holdings (which is IMHO at the bottom - or even below it - of being eligible for DJ kingdom), the Wolof region had provinces with 1-3 holdings. And really, making a DJ kingdom with less than 10 holdings would be insane, don't you think?

 

[Jimmy the Slipper]

You must:
- Have the County of Toulouse within your realm
- Be Occitan or Catalan
- Be Christian
- Satisfy the default empire-creation criteria (own three kingdoms, have ruled for five years, etc.)

Thank-you very much!

 

[Phalanx_]

Well, I tried to emphasize that the decision was not light-hearted... nd that combination of factors led to it. You can't just separate one of the three factors which only together made me/us separate Takrur and consider it enough for every other region.
Takrur had an organized state which /could have/ competed for domination over the region and played prominent role as a center of essential processes which shaped the region for another millenium - without this it would hardly be made separate DJ kingdom. Wolof 1) didn't have neither of these 2) has much less info about local settlements. While Takrur had initially 4 provinces each with at least 3-5 holdings (which is IMHO at the bottom - or even below it - of being eligible for DJ kingdom), the Wolof region had provinces with 1-3 holdings. And really, making a DJ kingdom with less than 10 holdings would be insane, don't you think?

Well, both Tarkur and Wolof have exactly 10 holding slots, so this statement isn't really true. You can make Wolof and Takrur a single kingdom, since Wolof conquered some areas of de jure Takrur, but that would be anachronistic.

 

[elvain]

Well, both Tarkur and Wolof have exactly 10 holding slots, so this statement isn't really true. You can make Wolof and Takrur a single kingdom, since Wolof conquered some areas of de jure Takrur, but that would be anachronistic.

Well, if you read correctly my words, I wasn't referring to the current situation after massive merging, but the situation at the time when the de jure map was made back when I was in the team. Back then I'm almost certain that Takrur did have more holdings and holding slots. What happened later during the merging is other thing.
Making them both one kingdom would indeed be anachronistic. Making Wolof a separate DJ kingdom aswell, since during CK2 era it was nowhere near as important as Takrur. Its importance came later

 

[Phalanx_]

Well, if you read correctly my words, I wasn't referring to the current situation after massive merging, but the situation at the time when the de jure map was made back when I was in the team. Back then I'm almost certain that Takrur did have more holdings and holding slots. What happened later during the merging is other thing.
Making them both one kingdom would indeed be anachronistic. Making Wolof a separate DJ kingdom aswell, since during CK2 era it was nowhere near as important as Takrur. Its importance came later

Well, one could argue that making an area part of a de jure Kingdom before such Kingdom conquered the area is anachronistic as well. My opinion is that, since the Mali Empire took Wolof and Takrur later into the game, the de jure Kingdoms in the West African Coast should be defined geographically or culturally, and not according to history that happened after the start dates.

 

[Phalanx_]

While in Navarra / Nafarroa the most spoken language was basque, in the court (and the administration) it was not. They spoke a mixture of latin and navarro-aragonese romance, and most probably considered basque to be a peasant's, commoner's and lowly lord's language. In my opinion, the court culture in Navarra should be aragonese (so far as it doesn't make basque dissapear, which would be completely ahistorical). I'd use a romaniced version of their latin names, since that's how they most probably named themselves (for example, Garsea instead of Gartzia. He should also be "Gartzea" and not "Gartzia" in Basque. "Gartzia" seems to be a goofy translation from Castilian "García". The use of "z" in basque is also ahistorical, by the way. It should be a "ç").

I've looked into this, and Navarro-Aragonese seems to only have become the official language of Navarre in the 14th century, although I am not sure how widely it was used before that. It should be noted, however, that in 867 Navarre should definitely be ruled by a Basque, since the Iñiguez dynasty was of native Basque origin.

 

[Asakhra]

This is sort of a crosspost from elsewhere, but I have been doing a fair bit of reading into church history in North Africa. It's quite a fascinating topic, and the growing interest in Arabic scholarship from the period is opening up a wealth of information that was previously unknown; it was once thought that African Christianity basically died with the Muslim conquest, but there has been a lot of research by Arabists recently to suggest that the Christian church in the Maghreb had far more vitality after the Islamic conquest of Africa than has previously been assumed and remained the religion of a significant amount of the population for a very long time, as it did in (for instance) Syria and Egypt. Since this appears to be the SWMH suggestion thread, in as much as there is such a thread, I thought I'd post the results of all of my readings here as a suggestion for your consideration

During the ninth century (so the Old Gods start date), we are told in very certain terms by the Arabic/Muslim sources that the population between Gabes and Tripoli were Christian, so the Gabes, Zawiya, and Tripoli provinces should certainly be Christian in the Old Gods start date. Likewise, Bejaia is mentioned as a particular stronghold of Christianity in Africa, holding out and retaining its bishop even into the twelfth century, so Bejaia should be Christian at least in the Old Gods start date as well. Carthage too was still heavily Christian - I'm not sure if they would actually make up the majority in Tunis province, but it's very likely that they did, and it was definitely still the heart of Christianity in Africa, with the bishop of Carthage having authority over all the other bishops of Africa, so Tunis province should be Christian.

So those are the provinces for which I am fairly certain of a Christian majority in the ninth century: Tunis, Bejaia, Gabes, Tripoli, and Zawiya. Having those provinces alone as Christian is a conservative estimate, however; we have plenty of surviving evidence for large Christian populations elsewhere from the eighth century, as the Arab authors from that century speak a bit more about the Christian church in Africa than their counterparts a century later. The picture they reveal is one of a robust and growing community; many towns are mentioned as Christian-majority even quite late in the century, and the eighth-century church was even sending missionaries inland, much as the Church of the East was still sending missionaries eastwards even under the Abbasids. The towns of Barqa, Gabes, Maqqara, Sousse, Beja, Tripoli, and Sabratha are all mentioned as majority-Christian. Also mentioned by Arab sources as a Christian-majority city in the eighth century is "Gummi;" there are two towns with that name, one not far from modern Tunis, the other almost on the site of modern Mahdia (not founded until the tenth century, and probably founded by transplanting the citizens of Gummi, which ceases to be mentioned after Mahdia is founded), in the Sfax province. Given the continuing strong presence of Christians in Mahdia all the way down to the twelfth century, I am inclined to take this as evidence for the town near Mahdia. Sfax itself is not specifically mentioned as a Christian town by ninth-century Islamic writers, but it shows up as a town with a very large Christian population in later chronicles, so at this stage I would say it and Mahdia would probably add up to a Christian majority in the province of Sfax. There was a significant Christian population in Tahert, and one of the more significant towns of the Nafzawa province, Sharwas, featured a mosque in the tenth century with an inscription proclaiming the "equality of the divine truths revealed on the one hand to Muhammad and on the other to the Judaic patriarchs and prophets, including Jesus" - this has been taken as evidence that there was a significant Christian presence in, and a strong link between the Christian and Muslim populations of, the town. Altogether, this paints a broad coastal sweep from Bizerte province all the way down to Tripoli province, as well as certain inland areas. We also have mentions of large Christian populations further westwards in Morocco, on the African side of the Straits of Gibraltar, where they formed a significant population group in the Kingdom of Nekor and the Idrisid Emirate.

On the map, this translates into a possibly-Christian-in-the-ninth-century zone of the following provinces: Tangiers and Ceuta in northern Morocco (as well as Sala if you're feeling generous, although Sala is only mentioned as still Christian in the eighth century); Bizerte, Medjerja, Sfax, Qashtiliya, Tell Atlas, and dubiously Nafzawa, in eastern Algeria and Tunisia; and Benghazi in Cyrenaica. Put together with the certainly-Christian provinces of Tunis, Bejaia, Gabes, Tripoli, and Zawiya, this would translate to the following as a map of Christianity in Africa in the ninth-century:

Red in this case represents areas and cities picked out as definitely Christian by Arab authors in the ninth century, and those are the provinces that should definitely be Christian in the Old Gods start date. Yellow is provinces that were very likely Christian majority in the ninth century, and should probably be Christian in Old Gods; there's no direct ninth-century testimony for them, but the testimony of Arab authors from the eighth century and later authors both Arab and non-Arab strongly suggests them to be Christian. Blue is provinces that were dubiously Christian at this time, and should only be added as such if you're feeling very generous.

By 1073, when Pope Gregory VII writes to Bishop Cyriacus of Carthage, the Christian community seems to have experienced a steep decline, to the point where there were only five bishops left in all of Africa (Carthage, Gummi, Gafsa, Tlemcen, and Bejaia), so Christian provinces should be significantly reduced by 1066. There were still enough Christians in Africa in the late eleventh and early-to-mid twelfth centuries that the Normans were able to exploit their presence, though. The above list of bishops shows they were largely to be found in coastal Tunisia, and it would be appropriate to give them the provinces of Tunis, Bejaia, Gabes, and Sfax, and perhaps Qashtiliya as well, although they should probably only have four of these provinces at the most.

However, Christianity should not be gone altogether from Africa until 1160, the date of the conquest of the former Norman Kingdom of Africa by the Almohads (and subsequent forced conversion of most of its Christian population, although holdouts are still mentioned as late as the fourteenth century). We know that most of the coastal towns of Tunisia, including Tunis, Mahdia, and Sfax, as well as Tripoli in Libya, still had large enough Christian populations during the brief period of Norman rule that the Normans were able to use them as a bloc to support their rule in the coastal cities. So the Christian part of Africa on the eve of the Almohad conquest, before its final extinction, should consist of Sfax province for certain, Tripoli as well (as it was rebuilt and repopulated with Christians under Norman rule), and perhaps Tunis. Qashtiliya, the last recorded holdout of Latin Christianity in Africa, could also be included in the list, but the Christian population was not terribly large at that point, so perhaps not. After the Almohads, Christianity could no longer be said to form a majority anywhere in Africa.

 

[Guthix]

I have a quick question:

What does the Non-Muslim CoA say/mean for the Kingdom of Upper Mesopotamia?

 

[khanbalik]

I've looked into this, and Navarro-Aragonese seems to only have become the official language of Navarre in the 14th century, although I am not sure how widely it was used before that. It should be noted, however, that in 867 Navarre should definitely be ruled by a Basque, since the Iñiguez dynasty was of native Basque origin.

Yes, Navarro-Aragonese wasn't used extensively before well into the High Middle Ages. Latin was. That's the same thing that happened everywhere in Spain: since Hispanic (Romance) languages were so similar to Latin, Latin was much more used than in other places in Europe. It was (and still is) more or less easy to understand (or at least learn) Latin if you speak a Hispanic language.

But that's just the same thing that happened everywhere in the Iberian Peninsula. Castilian became the official language of Castile in the 13th century. Catalan became the official language of Catalonia between the 13th and the 14th centuries. Portuguese became the official language of Portugal in the year 1290.

About the Iñiga Dynasty: Indeed, it was undoubtedly Basque. Things only started to gradually change with the Jimena Dynasty.

The Jimena origins are quite obscure, and we can only say that they were a quite powerful family, most probably either another branch of the Royal Iñiga family or a "Roman" (aka "Romance") family with a Hispanic or Gasconian origin. They ruled from a borderland area, most probably either Sangüesa (in the east) or Alava (in the west), and would be definitely the most powerful noble house in Navarra / Pamplona in the 867 bookmark (the family head, García Jiménez, was actually made co-ruler of the kingdom at this time, having probably roughly as much (or more) power than the king itself). They would claim the kingdom for themselves in 905.

While the Iñiga Dynasty kept marriage ties mostly with Al-Andalus (all of them having an "Arab" wife but Iñigo Arista, the only that MAYBE didn't), the Jimena kept family ties mostly with the Christian kingdoms. Sancho Garcés I, the guy that claimed the throne for himself, did so because he had strong family ties and support from other Christian rulers (most notably Alfonso IV of Leon, and his uncle, the Count of Pallars). He would marry his three first daughters with the Leonese Royal Family, and none of their children with a non-Christian ruler (the only one that did, Orbita, was born after her father died).

For centuries afterwards, the Jimena would basically intermarry with other Romance-speaking noble and royal houses. From Sancho Garcés II (970-994) onwards, every single Navarrese king would be born of a Romance-speaking mother and marry a Romance-speaking wife, and rule their kingdom issuing texts written exclusively in Latin (with some later Romance exceptions, such as the Fuero de Chaca, written in "Latin"). Latin was the language of administration, law, religion, culture and diplomacy. It is difficult to know when did Romance overcome Basque as the language of Navarra's royal family, but it was probably just a gradual and almost natural process given their circumstances.

So I don't know where to put the line and say "Ok, before this point they're Basque, after this point they're Romance". It was probably more complex than that. But in the year 1043 the king in Navarra is the brother of those in León and Aragón. I doubt they would be more Basque than Romance by then.

(EDIT: BTW, I didn't downvote you. I wanted to tell you, because I find that rude).

 

[Lysistrata]

In the next update, I'd suggest getting rid of Adelaide of Susa's duke-tier title (speaking of Adelaide, she always seems to have a harelip, but I can find no historical mention of it). Her title was Marchioness of Susa/Turin, not Duchess of Ivrea, same goes for her father. Add in the fact she only controls one county in the duchy and I don't think it's justified. I'd also maybe relocalise the Duchy of Montferrat (which didn't exist until the 16th century) into a marquisate/march to better fit the time period, and give it to the historical marquises. Either that or rename the county of Bosco back to Montferrat and make Chivasso the capital again, but keep Bosco as a barony (from what I can tell Bosco was a small separate march on the southern tip of the in-game province). I'd also make Saluzzo a marquisate and have it exist after 1125. Maybe separate the del Vasto family from the Aleramici, too?

 

[Aasmul]

My first suggestion was only balance-related, and I do realize Polotsk was not nearly as important as Kiev. From what I have read, the only Kingdom level (Grand Duchy) in the Rus other than Galicia-Volhynia during most of the game's timeframe was Vladimir (I'm considering a principality a Duchy). It seems right that Polotsk should be deranked to a duchy in the starts it exists, and if you don't want to increase its size it you might as well remove the Kingdom of give its Duchies to Kiev or some other Kingdom.

Kiev and Polotsk was by early game held by two rival faction of the Rurikids, the Polotsk side(Izyaslav's line) had a competing claim to the throne of Kiev(which ended up with Yaroslav the wise's line, despite it being the junior one). Due to Izyaslav dying before his father his line had been barred from the line of succession to the Kievian throne. The Polotsk side's answer to this after losing a civilwar to Vladimir's line, was to go it alone when Kiev disintigrated.