Mad King James said:
thanks
your site failed to mention the trade from those islands (under Venice) to southampton in england in the 14th century, maintrade was raisins for tin.
-
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.
thanks
your site failed to mention the trade from those islands (under Venice) to southampton in england in the 14th century, maintrade was raisins for tin.
Basileios I said:
did not wallachia own thessally in the... IIRC 12th,13th or 14th century??
then romanian would be ok, if romania means from dacia or those this romanians mean the byzantines which the latins called romanians
Hello. I had big problems moving to my new flat, so if somebody could give me some kind of a short summary of the changes made to the project I would be much grateful
Not really. 30.000 is the Danzig population of the Early Modern times (early 1600s)…rybka said:
Herr Doctor said:
im no so sure about this in in agceep thread called population post #16 author claims that in 1427 black death killed 80.000 people in danzig (im not sure where author took this number from and im not sure if this means only city), so you know if 80.000 people died, there had to be more than 80.000 in 1425 for example
rybka said:im no so sure about this in in agceep thread called population post #16 author claims that in 1427 black death killed 80.000 people in danzig (im not sure where author took this number from and im not sure if this means only city), so you know if 80.000 people died, there had to be more than 80.000 in 1425 for example
I seriosously doubt Danzig had at least 120 000 inhabitants in 1425.
I do not think it is a good idea really. In this case we will receive unhistorical division of Champagne (quite homogenous province) and lost passivity to represent historical border between France and Spanish Flanders during Louis XIV and the important conflicts here.Fate said:Champagne is a rather large province surrounded by a number of microprovinces. How about we merge Lille & Vanflandern and then split Champagne into Reims/Troyes?
And how many Swedish or Norwegian troops moved here in the 1500-1600s?Van der Gent said:Lapland:
swedish lapland is terra-incognita, although not in vanilla. It as quite a-historical not having lapland in the game, Lapland was made a part of Sweden under Gustav Vasa. He forced the population there to pay taxes to the swedish king and convert to the protestant faith. The danes/norwegians were very upset about this as they had trading with samerna there. The province should have FUR as resource and a native population of 500. (as in vanilla)
A good way to deal with lapland not being colonized in 1419 can be to leave it undiscovered and then when denmark or sweden discoveres it they can colonize it. Or it should start as a norwegian trading post, though it would probably end up as a danish or norwegian province then.
Edit: You see that Västerbotten and hälsingland will be enlarged and the river
to continue inwards.
No, it is just incorrect. Lille (and the territories around) was incorporated to France during the Devolution War (1667-1668), according to the Treaty of Aachen (2 May 1668). During the later Dutch and Augsburg League wars it was one of the key lands in military actions and later claims at the negotiations. Two provinces Champagne just does not make any historical sense. Antwerp is needed to simulate the important southern part of the Dutch rebellion as well as later claims of the United Provinces to military control the region (to garrison the fortress here and take taxes)…Mad King James said:Lille was always part of Flanders, until after the Napoleonic wars Lille was made part of France and the rest of Flanders went to the Netherlands (later Belgium).
In the scope of EU2, Lille isn't strictly neccisary. Neither is Antwerp really, we could merge Antwerp into Brabant and give Antwerp's port and CoT event to Brabant province.
We could then cut Champagne into two provinces and restore Venaissin province to the Papal States, which is quite important to history.
If you mean the “sovereignty” thing than yeah. But the real owner of the “Antwerp” province fortresses after 1660s was the Netherlands.Mad King James said:
But really, what the political or historical point to split Champagne?Mad King James said:
Could you please quote the source? Possible it is some old chronicle or something where the numbers are crazy exaggerated. In all modern historical works I read the number of the population is 10.000-15.000 in the 15th century, and 30.000 in early 1600s.rybka said:im no so sure about this in in agceep thread called population post #16 author claims that in 1427 black death killed 80.000 people in danzig (im not sure where author took this number from and im not sure if this means only city), so you know if 80.000 people died, there had to be more than 80.000 in 1425 for example
Herr Doctor said:
from polish web pages - in early 1600 gdansk was 77 000 (webpage of trojmiasto -gdansk-gdynia-sopot)
wikipedia - early 1600's gdansk has as many citizens as Lubeck, wikipedia also repeats that prior to polish-sweden wars gdansk was 77000, which btw was more that nurnberg and hamburg at that time
1360 - st mary's church was build, 25000 people easily can gather inside, historical sources say gdansk had around half of this number at that time
i think 20000 in 1419 is fine
Last edited:
Well of course the courts of the kings (and queens) of Castile had not been fixed in an extremely long time and the court simply moved around every few months around the entire kingdom (usually at the local lord's expense) but Burgos was generally forgotten and functioned no purpose as a capital what so ever. The place where the monarchs of Castile spent their most time out of any place though was Valladolid which was the 2nd largest city in all of Castile after Seville and the closest thing to a 'capital' Castile would have until 1561 when Madrid became the capital. Of course I should also mention that Valladolid was briefly again made capital of Spain from 1600 to 1606.
77.000 is the number of the population in 1640-1650 (before Potop), , not in early 17th century. This is after the big Calvinist waves of migrations from Germany, Scotland and the Spanish Netherlands. Same says wiki: “Na krótko przed potopem Gdańsk, liczący 77 000 mieszkańców, stał u szczytu rozkwitu.”rybka said:
Here some more regarding the 14th century (and I doubt that it could be twice as bigger in the 15th century): http://pl.chinabroadcast.cn/248/2005/07/14/42@32952.htm
Some more:
ca. 1000 1000
1235 2,000
1600 40,000
1650 70,000
1700 50,000
http://experts.about.com/e/g/gd/Gdansk.htm
Perhaps we can reach some compromise and make Danzig 15.000 (or 20.000) population in early 15th century.
Herr Doctor said:
I didnt know you speak polish
ok above link says that in mid 14 century gdansk and cracow were NOT smaller than 15000
also note that konigsberg in 1419 in mymap has 15000, i doubt it was as big as gdansk at that time
so Gdansk 20000 and raise Krakow to 16000 in 1419? (i cant remamber how populated is krakow on last version)