Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

New map: Poland and Lithuania

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Mad King James said:
It's like that in MyMap, and Poland still usually wins. The difference is that sometimes the Teutonic Order manages to defeat Poland, sometimes noone wins, and most of the time Poland wins after a hard-fought war.

The Teutonic Order wasn't a cakewalk for Poland to defeat, and it was by no means assured they would win. To hand Poland an easy victory here is to do history a disservice.
Click to expand...

OK, as you said in MyMap there are higher taxes :D, I checked and Chelmno has 7 Warmia 7 Masovia 10, Warsaw 6 Prussia 8.
However the rule (and I assure you that it is not mine rule) as explained two pages back is: take tax of vanilla province, split is between new provinces and add +1 tax to each province.

Due to this constraint and that most provinces around Prussia were splitted we would end with tax 4 or 5 provinces, which IMO does not have much sense. Anyway AI usually takes 1 or 2 provinces in peace deal. That is why I proposed to merge/delete Chelmno.



BTW can you explain me what does Ostrov (between Pskov and Polotsk) represent? (half of it should be in Pskov and half in Polotsk) and what has happened to Mozyr(Moghilev) and western half of Krementjug (merged with Jedysan, while after 1667 Polish border was on Dnieper)?


Edit: and on the vanilla map Prussia has tax 9 Danzig and Masovia about 10. Divide by 2 and add 1: gives 5 or 6. Say Pomerelia with Danzig is more important so will have 7 and Warmia only 5. Prussia will have 6. And then people will start: Prussia ws much more important, needs more tax, Danzig had CoT, other CoTs in western Europe have tax between 10 and 15, it should be at least 10.

I have nothing against Chelmno but I do not like idea of tens of tax 5 provinces.
 
Last edited:
zdlugasz said:
OK, as you said in MyMap there are higher taxes :D, I checked and Chelmno has 7 Warmia 7 Masovia 10, Warsaw 6 Prussia 8.
However the rule (and I assure you that it is not mine rule) as explained two pages back is: take tax of vanilla province, split is between new provinces and add +1 tax to each province.

Due to this constraint and that most provinces around Prussia were splitted we would end with tax 4 or 5 provinces, which IMO does not have much sense. Anyway AI usually takes 1 or 2 provinces in peace deal. That is why I proposed to merge/delete Chelmno.



BTW can you explain me what does Ostrov (between Pskov and Polotsk) represent? (half of it should be in Pskov and half in Polotsk) and what has happened to Mozyr(Moghilev) and western half of Krementjug (merged with Jedysan, while after 1667 Polish border was on Dnieper)?


Edit: and on the vanilla map Prussia has tax 9 Danzig and Masovia about 10. Divide by 2 and add 1: gives 5 or 6. Say Pomerelia with Danzig is more important so will have 7 and Warmia only 5. Prussia will have 6. And then people will start: Prussia ws much more important, needs more tax, Danzig had CoT, other CoTs in western Europe have tax between 10 and 15, it should be at least 10.

I have nothing against Chelmno but I do not like idea of tens of tax 5 provinces.
Click to expand...

so maybe it is better to count tax from all provinces in poland in vanilla map add tax due to new provinces and divide it reasonably into new provinces: poznan, sieradz, kuyavia, lublin, sandomierz, krakow, ruthenia,

and do the same for provinces of teutonic order:gdansk, chelmno, warmia, prussia, mazuria (this one really should be merged with prussia)

i also think we have to compare average taxincome in other countries, if in spain it is 7 and in poland 5 its no correct, since spain itself was poorer country than poland
 
I would like to propose to rename province Navagradak, which I is direct transliteration of Byelorusian name of province's main city (wikipedia gives Navahradak as English transcription of city name) to Black Ruthenia, which is name of geographical area more or less equivalent to voivodsip of Navahradak.

And since in the next foreseenable future provinces and their borders will be not changed I would like to propose to rename Polotsk to Vitebsk which (together with Mstislav) was bigger than Polotsk and Vitebsk would represent three voivodships: of Vitebsk, Polotsk and Mstislav (and on vanilla map Vitebsk was the main city of Province Polotsk anyway)
 
zdlugasz said:
I would like to propose to rename province Navagradak, which I is direct transliteration of Byelorusian name of province's main city (wikipedia gives Navahradak as English transcription of city name) to Black Ruthenia, which is name of geographical area more or less equivalent to voivodsip of Navahradak.
Click to expand...
This name is absolute anachronism for the 15th-18th centuries. It was never named so in Lithuania during this period (if you want to prove otherwise show me a single Grand Duchy’s document of this time with this name), but only several West European archaic maps continued to use this name (together with such pearls as ‘Gallia’ etc). Navagradak is the name of the voivodship and it feats much more than some amorphous anachronistic name of the 11th-12th centuries. It is the same like to name some Polish provinces according to the old Slavic tribal names or something.

And in modern English it is Belarus and Belarusian, not "Byelorusian".

zdlugasz said:
And since in the next foreseenable future provinces and their borders will be not changed I would like to propose to rename Polotsk to Vitebsk which (together with Mstislav) was bigger than Polotsk and Vitebsk would represent three voivodships: of Vitebsk, Polotsk and Mstislav (and on vanilla map Vitebsk was the main city of Province Polotsk anyway)
Click to expand...
For the 15th century Vitebsk is just provincial solitude in compare to Polotsk with its strong connections with Riga and other Baltic ports. The situation changed during Livonian war, but there is no much chance that it would ever happen so in game.
 
Herr Doctor said:
This name is absolute anachronism for the 15th-18th centuries. It was never named so in Lithuania during this period (if you want to prove otherwise show me a single Grand Duchy’s document of this time with this name), but only several West European archaic maps continued to use this name (together with such pearls as ‘Gallia’ etc). Navagradak is the name of the voivodship and it feats much more than some amorphous anachronistic name of the 11th-12th centuries.
Click to expand...

I guess I just do not like when province and city have the same name :)
 
zdlugasz said:
I guess I just do not like when province and city have the same name :)
Click to expand...
Me too. :)

But only "Russias" names which really survived in the 15th-18th centuries was "Red Russia" (Russia Rubra) and 'White Russia" (Russia Alba); but the last in absolutely other meaning than it is understood these days (for example in the 16th cnetury it was “conffesitonym” for Orthodox of the three eastern Lithuanian voivodships).
 
Herr Doctor said:
Me too. :)

But only "Russias" names which really survived in the 15th-18th centuries was "Red Russia" (Russia Rubra) and 'White Russia" (Russia Alba); but the last in absolutely other meaning than it is understood these days (for example in the 16th cnetury it was “conffesitonym” for Orthodox of the three eastern Lithuanian voivodships).
Click to expand...


In my historical atlas map showing Poland and Lithuania during Jagiello dynasty has Black Russia as geographical term.

BTW your comparison with Slavic tribes inhabiting Poland is inaccurate. There were many slavic tribes in Ruthenia (Kiev Rus) as well. I was proposing Black Ruthenia as purely geographical description.

Regarding Red Ruthenia: I do not agree with you, it is the same anachronism like Black Ruthenia. As administrative unit Red Rythenia was transformed to voivodship of Rus (województwo ruskie) in 1434!!! I was also reading Cronicle of Jan Dlugosz from XVth century and he is not using term Red Ruthenia, he uses terms like wojewódzwo ruskie, ziemie ruskie (land on Rus).

Returning to Polotsk: Ivan IV captured it in 1563, in 1579 Batory retook it and Polotsk, Vitebsk and Mstislav remained in Lithuania till partitioning, Vitebsk and Mstislav were in Lithuanian hands all the time. Currently, because Ivan hold Polotsk these 16 years Russia gains core on Polotsk in 1487 which is completely ahistorical. Since we have only one province representing Polotsk, Vitebsk and Mstislav i propose to rename it to Vitebsk so there will be no problems.

Regarding city itself: no doubt that Polotsk was one of richest and largest town in eastern part of Lithuania till 1563, but it is 150 years against 250 years after that date (till 1820). When Batory retook city it never gained previous importance, richness, and population (Ivan resettled all local population deep into Russia where most of them died - it was time of Oprichnina).
These two issues prompted me to propose this renaming.

Regarding Belarus - sorry, I never know where to put these "y" unless I check in net. It looks so unnatural for me :)
EDIT:On the same map Belorus is area with Vitebsk on east :)
 
Last edited:
zdlugasz said:
In my historical atlas map showing Poland and Lithuania during Jagiello dynasty has Black Russia as geographical term.
Click to expand...
Well, it is just simply incorrect and I pretty now that modern atlases repeats this thing. For example ‘Atlas Historyczny Polski’ (Warszawa 1998) and all its reprints (which I have btw :)).

zdlugasz said:
BTW your comparison with Slavic tribes inhabiting Poland is inaccurate. There were many slavic tribes in Ruthenia (Kiev Rus) as well. I was proposing Black Ruthenia as purely geographical description.
Click to expand...
It is anachronistic – what I want to say. It is the same like to name Transylvania as Dacia or something.

zdlugasz said:
Regarding Red Ruthenia: I do not agree with you, it is the same anachronism like Black Ruthenia. As administrative unit Red Rythenia was transformed to voivodship of Rus (województwo ruskie) in 1434!!! I was also reading Cronicle of Jan Dlugosz from XVth century and he is not using term Red Ruthenia, he uses terms like wojewódzwo ruskie, ziemie ruskie (land on Rus).
Click to expand...
Is not it called “Rus Czerwona” on your atlas? ;) :D

zdlugasz said:
Returning to Polotsk: Ivan IV captured it in 1563, in 1579 Batory retook it and Polotsk, Vitebsk and Mstislav remained in Lithuania till partitioning, Vitebsk and Mstislav were in Lithuanian hands all the time. Currently, because Ivan hold Polotsk these 16 years Russia gains core on Polotsk in 1487 which is completely ahistorical. Since we have only one province representing Polotsk, Vitebsk and Mstislav i propose to rename it to Vitebsk so there will be no problems.

Regarding city itself: no doubt that Polotsk was one of richest and largest town in eastern part of Lithuania till 1563, but it is 150 years against 250 years after that date (till 1820). When Batory retook city it never gained previous importance, richness, and population (Ivan resettled all local population deep into Russia where most of them died - it was time of Oprichnina).
These two issues prompted me to propose this renaming.
Click to expand...
It was not part of the Muscovite state, it was only occupied by their troops. Even after the destructions of the Livonian war, Polotsk remained extremely important regional religious and political center.

zdlugasz said:
EDIT:On the same map Belorus is area with Vitebsk on east
Click to expand...
Indeed. I already wrote how this name transformed through the times.
 
Last edited:
Herr Doctor said:
Is not it called “Rus Czerwona” on your atlas? ;) :D
Click to expand...

It is called Ruś Czerwona and in brackets (woj. ruskie since 1434) :D
But it is the last map with Red Ruthenia (chronologically).

And I gave you map with names used at the beginning of XVIIth century and as you see there is no Rus Czerwona there. :)

So I propose to rename Red Ruthenia, and candidates are:
- Rus
- Lwow
 
Herr Doctor said:
What about atlas map with the Commonwealth in the 16th century? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Rule of Jagiellon dynasty ended in second half of XVIth century. There is one or two maps of the whole Europe but they are not detailed enough, plus two maps showing reach of Reformation, localization of different protestant communities and their decline plus map showing "density" of catholics/protestans/orthodoxes but without province labels.

So sorry, no luck :p
 
zdlugasz said:
Rule of Jagiellon dynasty ended in second half of XVIth century. There is one or two maps of the whole Europe but they are not detailed enough, plus two maps showing reach of Reformation, localization of different protestant communities and their decline plus map showing "density" of catholics/protestans/orthodoxes but without province labels.

So sorry, no luck :p
Click to expand...
I mean something like this one? ;)
http://www.geocities.com/kirylaf/maps/map4.txt
 
zdlugasz said:
Hehe, but I see there Rus Czarna (above Polesie) as well :rofl:
So we say that this map is bugged (considerning naming conventions) or rename Navagradak to Black Ruthenia :D
Click to expand...
So, what I would say: no Red, no White and no Black Ruthenias :)
Red Ruthenia to Lwow
Navahradak remains
'Belarus' to Minsk
 
Herr Doctor said:
So, what I would say: no Red, no White and no Black Ruthenias :)
Red Ruthenia to Lwow
Navahradak remains
'Belarus' to Minsk
Click to expand...

That is fine.

Colorless Ruthenians rule!
 
But Navagradak or Navahradak
Podlasia or Podlachia
Troki or Trakai
 
I have updated old-new province split (there was bug with province numbering). I have also added list of countries which should own provinces in 1419.

Two questions remain: will duchy of Opole get TAG?
it was ruled by Piast dynasty till 1532, later Ansbach branch of Hohenzollerns. In 1552 Emperor exchanged Opole for another duchy with Duke of Opole (margrave of Ansbach and supervisor of Ducal Prussia).
At the beginning of XVIIth century Gabor Bethlen was duke of Opole (duke of Transylvania). This duchy Wladyslaw Waza, king of Poland wanted to make hereditary possesion of Polish Vasas (but failed and got it for 50 ears only) in exchange for money lend to Emperor and nt paid by Emperor dowries of Wladyslaw's wife and two wives of Zygmunt Waza.

Let me say: I officially request TAG for Opole :)

And question already asked: is it possible to have vertical instead of horizontal split of old Masovia (into Masovia and Warsaw)? It would allow for more historical development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back