• Victoria 3 - Sign up now!

    The journey begins, sign up now and get a special in-game item when the game is released.


  • Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning
  • Crusader Kings II Expansion Subscription

    Subscribe to the CK II Expansion and enjoy unlimited access to 13 major expansions and more!


unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Birger said:
You seem to know your history... :rolleyes:
Sure thing. I've got some rather vague knowledge about some thing with name "Vasa loppet" or something like it. I've got an vague impression - this thing is sort of inofficial celebration for Swedish revolution/rebellion start which finished Danish rule over Sweden. I've got some vague impression - Sweden under first Vasa's received just northern part of Kalmar Union realms with notable exception of Norsk-lands.
Any Scandinavian possessions in Baltic states/Ingermanland region belong to Danish crown - not to Sweden, I'm afraid.

And if you like to clarify these things - yep, Sweden as juridical subject didn't exist in 1419 as well as Muscovy, Tver or Rjazan principalities.

Kalmar Union was Danish thing - I'm afraid ;).

Do you know your own history? (By the way - what country are you from? I assume you are Swede - excuse me if I'm wrong - then "Do you know history of states of Scandinavia?".)

Dixi.

Bash.

P.S. By the way I made proposition to include Muscovy, Tver and Rjazan as parts of "Big Horde" in 1419 setup. It would keep them from any form of Lithuanian, Order or Horde (itself!) aggression. Majority was strictly against this idea. Fine.
We've got "independent Muscovy" now. But it is rather creepy thing - the same situation like Ukrainian SSR in 1960s would start her independent war without USSR acknowledgement or somebody could attack Armenian SSR without retaliation blow from whole Soviet Union.
Muscovy was rather staunch and quite loyal part of Horde. Strictly speaking Horde itself was more un-loyal to Muscovy then vice versa.
 

Birger

Not really here...
6 Badges
Sep 21, 2001
3.993
0
www.wappenwiki.org
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
Bash said:
Sure thing. I've got some rather vague knowledge about some thing with name "Vasa loppet" or something like it. I've got an vague impression - this thing is sort of inofficial celebration for Swedish revolution/rebellion start which finished Danish rule over Sweden. I've got some vague impression - Sweden under first Vasa's received just northern part of Kalmar Union realms with notable exception of Norsk-lands.
Any Scandinavian possessions in Baltic states/Ingermanland region belong to Danish crown - not to Sweden, I'm afraid.

And if you like to clarify these things - yep, Sweden as juridical subject didn't exist in 1419 as well as Muscovy, Tver or Rjazan principalities.

Kalmar Union was Danish thing - I'm afraid ;).

Do you know your own history? (By the way - what country are you from? I assume you are Swede - excuse me if I'm wrong - then "Do you know history of states of Scandinavia?".)

Dixi.

Bash.

Yup, you're right, I'm a swede.

Sure thing, it was a "danish thing" but Sweden did exist, the countries of the Kalmar Union had given up their sovereignty but not their independence. So there goes your knowledge... ;)

I know at least Swedish history pretty good and Scandinavian and European somewhat good.
What are you saying, that Tver, Muscovy and Ryazan DIDN'T exist in 1419? Now you're confusing me... :confused:

Edit:
Sweden should have the western Karelia, if that province is added to the game...
 
Last edited:

Herr Doctor

Learned cat
17 Badges
Jul 11, 2002
3.868
168
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II
Bash said:
Sure thing. I've got some rather vague knowledge about some thing with name "Vasa loppet" or something like it. I've got an vague impression - this thing is sort of inofficial celebration for Swedish revolution/rebellion start which finished Danish rule over Sweden. I've got some vague impression - Sweden under first Vasa's received just northern part of Kalmar Union realms with notable exception of Norsk-lands.
Any Scandinavian possessions in Baltic states/Ingermanland region belong to Danish crown - not to Sweden, I'm afraid.

And if you like to clarify these things - yep, Sweden as juridical subject didn't exist in 1419 as well as Muscovy, Tver or Rjazan principalities.

Kalmar Union was Danish thing - I'm afraid ;).

Do you know your own history? (By the way - what country are you from? I assume you are Swede - excuse me if I'm wrong - then "Do you know history of states of Scandinavia?".)
You are really very mistaken. Swedish Crown never was a part of the Danish. Indeed, Queen Margareta and King Erik of Denmark were elected Swedish sovereigns in 1397 (after in March 1388 at a conference held in Dalaborg Castle Swedes elected Margareta "Sovereign Lady and Ruler", and after on 24 February 1389 Albert of Mekclenburg, another pretender on Swedish Crown, was defeated) and the nobles of Denmark, Norway and Sweden in Kalmar decided to have henceforth one monarch, but this in no way mean that the all Crowns were united into one (“Danish” or any other). All three kingdoms save their authority and government structures and the monarchs still stylized themselves as the Kings of Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

Btw, have you ever seen the text of the document signed in Kalmar?…
 

Ges

Captain
7 Badges
Oct 23, 2003
312
0
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • 500k Club
Bash said:
1) Excuse me for asking - what part of Karelia belong to Sweden in 1419?

Just for sure that everybody will get their facts straight...

Novgorod lost 3 karelian pogostas to Sweden in peace of 1323. So pogostas of (in Finnish) Jääski, Äyräpää and Savo became swedish "Karelia". Pogosta of Savo later was foundation of Savolax Province, but those two other pogostas stayed part of Karelia til USSR decided sometime during or after WWII that they won't be part of Karelia anymore.

Again - No offence - just making sure that anyone won't get false ideas of Karelia.
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Birger said:
Yup, you're right, I'm a swede.

Sure thing, it was a "danish thing" but Sweden did exist, the countries of the Kalmar Union had given up their sovereignty but not their independence. So there goes your knowledge... ;)

I know at least Swedish history pretty good and Scandinavian and European somewhat good.
What are you saying, that Tver, Muscovy and Ryazan DIDN'T exist in 1419? Now you're confusing me... :confused:

Edit:
Sweden should have the western Karelia, if that province is added to the game...

Sure thing your country existed. If I remember correctly - United Kingdom of Great Britain consisted from England, Scotland and so on. And Scotland part of it didn't gave up its independence in Crown combination - you can check statutes about it yourself.
I had an impression - Aragon and Castillo didn't give up their respective independence (in treaty moment) as well.
If I remember French history - County of Chamagne didn't give up its independence in marriage treaty with ruler of lle-de-France.
Strictly speaking - there isn't any example of ANY sovereign state who gave up its independence in marriage procedure or case of inheritance
Big problem was - Scots (Aragonians/Champagne) didn't her their own Vasa for keeping this part about "not giving up independence" in Great Britain (Spain/France) History. More then that these country opposed any attempts of any bounty-hunters to divide these new entities for some menial reasons.

Let's imagine - there wouldn't be any Vasa at all - modern Sweden would be part of modern Denmark - it seems. Or Vasa wasn't your national hero, who "weaken up Swedish Nation"? ;)

All fine words in any treaty don't mean anything, - people standing behind these words mean - all things. Big reason in Kalmar Union breaking lies in ethnopsichologic reasons - not in paragraphes of some "marriage" treaty.

Swedish Nation was Strong enough and different (from Danes) ethnic unity enough for Vasa personality appearance and Swedish independence as big result.
Sweden example was big deviation from common rule of "Medieval empires" combination/emergence.

When two different entities have strong urge to combine in the same unity, they used to make some formal treaty with all formal words about all consequences in case of "divorce procedure". This treaty is quite sensible - in "common sense" terms - thing.

But nobody likes to seek this "divorce procedure" especially - everybody likes to live as one unity - "long, happy, till death didn't break us apart" etc...

OK. It means:
France (with Ile-de-France as leader and Champagne as integral part of this country) lived "long and happy";
Spain (with Castille as leader and Aragon as led part) lived "long and (almost) happy";
Great Britain (with England as leader and Scotland as led) lived "long and not-so-happy";
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (with Poland as leader and Kithuania as led) lived "not-so-long and not-so-happy" (this unity was butchered by neighbors), but participitants of this Union "kept their wedding promises" and was killed "in one day" (some Catholics don't believe in divirce procedure - indeed);
Denmark (OK - Kalmar Union) lost his "wife/spouse" Sweden in "divorce procedure" - sad story. But if this "divorce procedure" wouldn't be activated - nobody never would make any point in some points in "marriage procedure", which started Kalmar Union.

Dixi.

Bash.

P.S. Pls, try to understand one small thing - if you've got some FAMILY, it's quite weird thing to mention - some things are "property of WIFE ONLY". It's rather RUDE thing - anyway. Especially in modern society customs - when formal holder of whole family property is HUSBAND anyway.

But in this special situation - property in question belong to HUSBAND before marriage procedure (mind you - what is mean modern name of Estonian capital - "Tallinn" - anyway?)and was kept by former HUSBAND after formal "divirce procedure" as well. Naming property in question under these conditions - aren't just RUDE, it's - OFFENCE, I'm afraid.

P.P.S. This answer is to "Herr Doktarr" as well.
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Ges said:
Just for sure that everybody will get their facts straight...

Novgorod lost 3 karelian pogostas to Sweden in peace of 1323. So pogostas of (in Finnish) Jääski, Äyräpää and Savo became swedish "Karelia". Pogosta of Savo later was foundation of Savolax Province, but those two other pogostas stayed part of Karelia til USSR decided sometime during or after WWII that they won't be part of Karelia anymore.

Again - No offence - just making sure that anyone won't get false ideas of Karelia.

Fine. I can't understand - somebody in Scandinavian part of Forum like to abandon name "Savolaks" or else (Jääski, Äyräpää)for "Karelia"? I've got some rather vague impression - you are happy to keep "Savolaks" name, haven't you?

What other reasons for naming Karelian lands with center in Olonetz as "East Karelia"?!

Dixi

Sincerely yours, Bash
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
To Scandinavians/Swedes:

By the way - are you sure if three mentioned by Ges "karelian pogostas" were - most/biggest part of Karelia? Are you sure if "Savolaks province" still is - Karelian province?

Another question - this thing was started by statement:
"Biggest part of Narva province belongs to Sweden".
I still didn't get any response on my question - what do you mean by "Narva province"? Pls, point its borders and reasons - why "biggest part" of this province "belongs to Sweden"?

Dixi.

Sincerely yours, Bash
 

Herr Doctor

Learned cat
17 Badges
Jul 11, 2002
3.868
168
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II
Bash said:
Sure thing your country existed. If I remember correctly - United Kingdom of Great Britain consisted from England, Scotland and so on. And Scotland part of it didn't gave up its independence in Crown combination - you can check statutes about it yourself.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (with Poland as leader and Kithuania as led) lived "not-so-long and not-so-happy" (this unity was butchered by neighbors), but participitants of this Union "kept their wedding promises" and was killed "in one day" (some Catholics don't believe in divirce procedure - indeed);
Britain after the Union of the Crowns of 1707 (and especially after Act of Union of 1800) is bad example: it was clearly stated that the kingdoms united into the ONE. It was the sense of the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Even King James VI (I) of Scotland and England since October 1604 (before the union of the Crwons) decreed that the Royal Title would use the term Great Brittaine to refer to the "one Imperial Crown" made up of England and Scotland. The official name of this state is “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, not “the united kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales…” or anything else. There is no more Kingdom of Scotland.


Poland-Lithuania was confederative state. Lithuania was independent with the united monarch and Sejm (“by the equal number of the representatives” as it is stated in the Act of Lublin Union) with Poland. It was lead by its own magnates and nobility, not of the Polish origin (of the Polish “culture” but it is another problem). Only for 4 years P-L was unitary state (after the decision of the “Long” Sejm of 1788-1792 until the last partition in 1795).
 

almoravid

I ignore U
51 Badges
Sep 8, 2003
1.271
134
Visit site
  • Age of Wonders
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • For The Glory
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
@Bash
I'm not even remotely able to draw maps as pretty as MKJ does. But here is what seems to be the result of our discussion. Tell me your oppinion on it.
b95f967b.jpg

1.Moscow
2.Tver
3.Yaroslavl
4.Zales'e
5.Nizhny
6.Tula
7.Ryazan
8.Pskov
9.Ingermanland
10.Kexholm
11.Daghestan
12.Kakheti
13.Kolkhis

Note that north of that chart, all the area would be PTI, including Finnmark.



..........
This is maybe off-topic, but I think we should clarify the importance of Galich, even if I don't think any longer that we should include it on our map. As Bash pointed out, it was a small, unimportant fortress quite far in the north, which of course did not provide Yuri Zvenigorodsky with the troops he needed to fight the grand duke. Neither did it provide him with any economic resources, which were sparse anyway as our chronist tells us his troops were rather ill-equipped mob then warriors. So why did Yuri go that far from his powerbase in Zvenigorod, and put his seat at Galich? This Yuri was quite a bright person, on contrary to Vasily II.

The answer is simple. Everybody will see that the first 'civil war' was not a conflict between Yuri and Vasily, but between Yuri and Vitautas. So the reason is a strategical one. If Yuri stayed in Zvenigorod and gathered his troops there, he'd soon see 40000 Lithuanians at his gates, plus the troops of the duke. Vitautas could easily attack a place on his border, but he could not march through the entire Muscovy to get Yuri at Galich. The warriors of that time were willing to die in battles, but long marches took tremendous tolls on their capability. Also, if a horde of Lithuanians marched through the realm, they would need to be supported - on costs of local population. Then the war could quite easily gain a national-liberation character, and Vasily would lose his last supporters. Besides, Vitautas got his lesson on Vorskla, and did not wish to repeat it.

Looking at these aspects we see why Vitautas decided to conservate the situation, and 'advised' Vasily to offer peace. When Vitautas died and Lithuania fell into a civil war, Yuri again pressed his demands to go to the horde, and Vasily went, because now he could not count on Lithuanian swords to protect him. Although the Khan supported Vasily, Yuri could see he was quite indifferent on the issue. So Yuri had good reasons to hope that the Khan would not send his armies against him if he deposed Vasily. And so he stroke...

Ergo... Galich played a very important role in that long story :)
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
almoravid said:
@Bash
I'm not even remotely able to draw maps as pretty as MKJ does. But here is what seems to be the result of our discussion. Tell me your oppinion on it.
b95f967b.jpg

1.Moscow
2.Tver
3.Yaroslavl
4.Zales'e
5.Nizhny
6.Tula
7.Ryazan
8.Pskov
9.Ingermanland
10.Kexholm
11.Daghestan
12.Kakheti
13.Kolkhis

Note that north of that chart, all the area would be PTI, including Finnmark.



..........
This is maybe off-topic, but I think we should clarify the importance of Galich, even if I don't think any longer that we should include it on our map. As Bash pointed out, it was a small, unimportant fortress quite far in the north, which of course did not provide Yuri Zvenigorodsky with the troops he needed to fight the grand duke. Neither did it provide him with any economic resources, which were sparse anyway as our chronist tells us his troops were rather ill-equipped mob then warriors. So why did Yuri go that far from his powerbase in Zvenigorod, and put his seat at Galich? This Yuri was quite a bright person, on contrary to Vasily II.

The answer is simple. Everybody will see that the first 'civil war' was not a conflict between Yuri and Vasily, but between Yuri and Vitautas. So the reason is a strategical one. If Yuri stayed in Zvenigorod and gathered his troops there, he'd soon see 40000 Lithuanians at his gates, plus the troops of the duke. Vitautas could easily attack a place on his border, but he could not march through the entire Muscovy to get Yuri at Galich. The warriors of that time were willing to die in battles, but long marches took tremendous tolls on their capability. Also, if a horde of Lithuanians marched through the realm, they would need to be supported - on costs of local population. Then the war could quite easily gain a national-liberation character, and Vasily would lose his last supporters. Besides, Vitautas got his lesson on Vorskla, and did not wish to repeat it.

Looking at these aspects we see why Vitautas decided to conservate the situation, and 'advised' Vasily to offer peace. When Vitautas died and Lithuania fell into a civil war, Yuri again pressed his demands to go to the horde, and Vasily went, because now he could not count on Lithuanian swords to protect him. Although the Khan supported Vasily, Yuri could see he was quite indifferent on the issue. So Yuri had good reasons to hope that the Khan would not send his armies against him if he deposed Vasily. And so he stroke...

Ergo... Galich played a very important role in that long story :)

First things must be first. Your chart is fine - it can be initial draft for Russian map indeed. Just one small thing or another.

I'm not sure if we need to create special "Kamenny Poyas" province. Ural mountains start to elevate quite hard to south direction and was quite non-passable - in contrary to Mid-Ural region. Espacially ugly is proposition to make link through "Kamenny Poyas" between Sibir and Bashkiria.
I would vote for making PTI instead of this province.
More then that "Bashkiria" must be rather onto left bank on Kama river to East from "Kazan" - not to South. If you check in official chart of Russian Federation like - http://maps.yandex.ru - you will realize Kazan must be placed - strictly in mid-section of line Ufa (capital of Baskiria) - Nizhgorod. Strictly speaking it is almost direct line into East - Moscow-Nizhgorod-Kazan-Ufa with equal distances between all 4 cities, but in you presentation it is rather steep parabola with quite hyard dpwning into Moscow and Ufa ends.
I've mean vanilla Paradox chart with placement of Nizhgorod - strictly to East from Moscow and Kazan - strictly to East from Nizhgorod was correct thing. Non-correct thing in Vanilla chart in this region was placemant Bashkiria to South from Kazan, when it is situated in East direction.
Please, see it on official RF chart yourself.
I would strictly against any name like "Mordva" on the chart. "Penza" would be more appropriate, because "Penza province" was most important district of region, when "Mordva/Saransk" thing was implementation of more recent times. Ugh... Well, "Mordva" will do anyway - if you prefer this name and if we make any decision to implement this province - anyway.
I would vote for dividing of land "Mordva/Penza" region for simplification process - give it to Tambow, Kazan, Nizhgorod or you will get a huge headache when start to make event list for Russia - I warned you.
Next thing - I can't find most important feature for Russian - core-land region - where is Oka River?
Oka River must be most important barrier between Muscovy and Lithuania, Muscovy and Rjazan. Yep, "Tula" region is representing "Zaokovskije principalities" then it must be on south bank of Oka river as well as Lithuanian' Kaluga and independent Rjazan. Sure thing you can make some token river (like Osetr) between Kaluga and Tula for underlying problems to making direct march from Kaluga to Tula through rather impassable forests of region.
Next thing - Astrakhan region MUST be on East bank of Volga River - not in West bank - definitely, then your Yaik province must be halved.
Forget about "Sarai" province of this magnitude - West bank of Volga must receive name of "Tzaritzyn" - early or later, then corresponding/neighboring province to West of "Bogutjar" or something similar must exist as well.
Land of your "Astrakhan" is quite non-fertile then some "Kalmyk" region with quite shitty numbers would be appropriate as quite good "screening" thing to Crimean Khan appetites in East direction.
It's my first impression about this chart.

Dixi.

Sincerely yours, Bash

P.S.
Excuse me for asking - are you sure if Juri Zvenigorodsky outlived Vitautas or could hear about Vorskla battle outcome??
Are you sure if Lithuanians had in 1419 strenght enough for crushing Zvenigorod fortress - let's put aside more hard task about crushing wall of Kremlin??
Excuse me for pointing you but well-known by EU2 game Muscovy leader "Juri Patrikeev" was... commander-in-chief of Juri Zvenigorodsky forces - not vice-versa and came to Grand Duke service only after Jury untimely death. More then that Patrikeev was quite famous for this "neutral" stance in Civil war as well as all his veteran troops. He wasn't on side of "Galich insurgents", but he wasn't on side of Grand Duke as well!
Grim truth about Civil war is - both sides were "armed mobs" more then regular army, when regular army preferred to "wash hands" by strenghtening fortresses on Lithuanian border - it is big reason to name Patrikeev and his brethren as "Jurieviches" backer more then Grand Duke backer.
Excuse me for pointing - Zvenigorod was never sieged by Lithuanians due to quite "impregnable" astatus of this bordering fortress. Did you see Zvenigorod' walls for making statement - local inhabitants feared Lithuanian invasion?!
Quite contrary - this land was constant wasp' nest for Lithuanians, because Juri' backers (as well as his precedessors or descendants) constantly broke any treaties with Lithuanians by harrasing/robbing/pillaging Lithuanian lands - not vice versa. Lithuanians suffered from Zvenigorod assailants more then Zvenigorodians - it's historical truth, not something else!
According to historical annales - Prince Golytzins bear more lithuanians blood in their veins due to common Lithuanian policy - to marry bothersome neighbors for calming their appetites, because Golytzins (yep, direct descendants of Juri and his sons) kept their Zvenigorod stronghold and used to harass/stalk/thug/knuckle down any Lithuanians in vicinity due to their "blood feud with Lithuanians".
Main phase of Civil war came to end as soon as Basil II was knuckled down enough by "Galich/Golytzins" family to taking back his initial demand to "free Zvenigorod fortress from Galich troops and go out to Galich". Sure thing - absolute majority of rebels seek just that - keeping their impregnable stronghold and continue their quite Raubritter-life. Just imagine - you are making a lot of joyriding into enemy lands, has got a lot of bounty and - robbed Lithuanian nobles prefer to make wedding proposals instead of counter-raids. It is quite funny way of life for Medieval feudal, isn't it? Why it was? Little hint - come to Zvenigorod ans see its Fortress walls. They are a bit higher then Kremlin walls ;). Situation when Fortress walls of some Feudal are more sturdy and higher then Fortress walls of Grand Duke is good enough reason for any medieval insurgency - isn't it?
Pls, check in History - Muscovy never took over any lands to west from Zvenigorod from Lithuania in straight battle. All these lands came to Russian realms as property of Princes Golytsins received by them as marriage results.
Then we came to core of Civil war problem - as soon as "Galich/Golytz/Golytzin" family kept their stronghold instead of initial demand of Grand Duke to give it up to his direct posession, "Galich family" took back their claim on throne of Muscovy - and both sides were happy.
Then there were "insurgents" inside "Galich/Golytzin" family - like Vasil Squinty-Eyed and Dmitry Shemyaka which led rebellion against Grand Duke and their own family! Try to realize - Galich/Golytzin family kept their Zvenigorod stronghold as main part of bargain with grand Duke - then Basil Squinty-Eyed and Dmitry Shemyaka was "pushed out" to real Galich by their own Family as trouble-makers and violators of "mutual hearty agreement"!
Pls, understand historical fact - all Golytzins and Godunovs kept their hereditary lands around Zvenigorod - most sturdy and strong Muscovitan fortress of XV century - nobody of them went to Galich. Then any speculation about their fright of Lithuanian invasion is just speculations - these guys led their inofficial "small war" with Lithuanians - all times and were happy to make as many mischiefs in Muscovy/Lithuanian politic as possible. Sad Truth is - "constant small war with Lithuanians" was most profitable Business for these guys. In some sense they were direct analogues of Chechen warlords of modern times, which used to harass neighboring territories with strong backing of inpregnable Zvenigorod/Chechnia - if something goes wrong.
I'm far from comparing some grand-dad of Boris Godunov (of Galich family) with Shamil Basaev or Aslan Maskhadov, but some parallels are on surface - I'm afraid. Civil war came to end for these Chechen/"Galich" warlords as soon as Grand Duke took back his demand for Chechnia/Zvenigorod as part of RF/Muscovy. Some guys which was against this agreement was "pushed out" from "Chechnia"/Zvenigorod and second phase of Civil war started. (By the way - I'm sure - if Chechen warlords would be strong/smart enough for kicking out from Chechnia some "breakers of agreement" - we would get in Chechnia eventually the same result as in Muscovy of XV century. Russian history shows - whole Golytzins/Godunovs family was incorporated in Russian nobility in "seamless fashion" in 100-150 years time-period. More then that - one from descendants of these fiery Raubritter - Boris Godunov was Russian Czar ;). It's rather weird - historical interpolation to modern Chechnia affairs - if we wouldn't get "second phase of Chechnia war" - isn't it?

Well, I mean - it's quite different picture of Civil war then picture in your perception. Yep, it's rather difficult to see Lithuanians as victims of this constant "small war" - not predators like in your perception, but pls, compare this situation with modern Chechnia picture.
Are you sure if "Chechen warlords" are victims of all their neighbours, - not actual predators in this relationship, huh? ;)
Are you sure if "Golytzin warlords" were victims of all their neighbours, - not actual predators in this relationship, huh? ;)

Dixi.
 

Hallsten

Hairloss Ninja
36 Badges
Mar 17, 2001
5.273
61
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • 200k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV
Concerning the the Russo-Swedish border, this is what has been decided upon here . I just want the map to be historical in eastern Scandinavia as well... :)

eastcopy3se.jpg

1: Estland
2: Ingermanland
3: Kexholm (North Karelia ?)
4: Savolax
5: Karelen (South Karelia ?)
6: Nyland
7: Tavastland
8: Österbotten
9: Finland

Since Russia had no significant Baltic navy before Peter I it might be proper to remove the port in Ingermanland. This will force Russia to conquer 5 (historical) to be able to build a navy.
I know that St. Petersburg has a good port, but building such a port would not have been easy with the enemy so close by (in prov. 5).
Maybe russia can be compensated with a port in Archangelsk since it was such an important trading-port?
 
Last edited:

doktarr

Wet Blanket
16 Badges
Aug 3, 2003
2.071
33
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
Bash said:
I'm not sure if we need to create special "Kamenny Poyas" province. Ural mountains start to elevate quite hard to south direction and was quite non-passable - in contrary to Mid-Ural region. Espacially ugly is proposition to make link through "Kamenny Poyas" between Sibir and Bashkiria.
I would vote for making PTI instead of this province.
I'd agree with this from a gameplay perspective. If Perm and Ob started as TI, then this change would ensure that there wouldn't be any direct contact between Sibir and Russia until Russia begins expanding eastward.
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Hallsten said:
Concerning the the Russo-Swedish border, this is what has been decided upon here . I just want the map to be historical in eastern Scandinavia as well... :)

eastcopy3se.jpg

1: Estland
2: Ingermanland
3: Kexholm (North Karelia ?)
4: Savolax
5: Karelen (South Karelia ?)
6: Nyland
7: Tavastland
8: Österbotten
9: Finland

Since Russia had no significant Baltic navy before Peter I it might be proper to remove the port in Ingermanland. This will force Russia to conquer 5 (historical) to be able to build a navy.
I know that St. Petersburg has a good port, but building such a port would not have been easy with the enemy so close by (in prov. 5).
Maybe russia can be compensated with a port in Archangelsk since it was such an important trading-port?

All your posts will be ignored while you don't give any clarification to this your statement.

Hallsten said:
A big part, almost half, of the province "Narva" belongs to Sweden. "Karelia" should be "Eastern Karelia" or "Far Karelia" since...
Check the Scandinavia-thread.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...7&goto=lastpost

Must I repeat my question? OK.

What do you mean by "Narva" province?
What do you mean by "big part, almost half, of the province "Narva" belongs to Sweden"?

Dixi.

Bash
 

Hallsten

Hairloss Ninja
36 Badges
Mar 17, 2001
5.273
61
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • 200k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV
Bash said:
All your posts will be ignored while you don't give any clarification to this your statement.

That's not very friendly, but I'll overlook that for now.
According to the sources I've found, mainly here , the main shipyard before the reign of Peter I was in Nizjnij Novgorod, nowhere near the Baltic. The few ships that actualy entered the Baltic were smaller craft looking somewhat similar to ths ships the vikings used. These had been built mainly in ake Ladoga and then transported down the river Neva.
This is why I think that the port in Ingermanland should be moved to Swedish Karelia and that Russia in turn should get a CB-shield on that province in the first half of the 16th century.

Bash said:
Must I repeat my question? OK.

What do you mean by "Narva" province?
What do you mean by "big part, almost half, of the province "Narva" belongs to Sweden"?

Dixi.

Bash

The "Narva"-province I mean is the one posted here . Anyway, after the peace of Nöteborg (Oresjek ?) in 1323, which was still valid in 1419 and follows the borders of the 1595 peace in Karelia, the Karelia-area looked like this:
karelennecopy0le.jpg
 
Last edited:

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Hallsten said:
That's not very friendly, but I'll overlook that for now.
According to the sources I've found, mainly here , the main shipyard before the reign of Peter I was in Nizjnij Novgorod, nowhere near the Baltic. The few ships that actualy entered the Baltic were smaller craft looking somewhat similar to ths ships the vikings used. These had been built mainly in ake Ladoga and then transported down the river Neva.



The "Narva"-province I mean is the one posted here . Anyway, after the peace of Nöteborg (Oresjek ?) in 1323, which was still valid in 1419 and follows the borders of the 1595 peace in Karelia, the Karelia-area looked like this:
karelennecopy0le.jpg

Sure thing it's not friendly - indeed. And you know BIG reason for this not friendly attitude - your statement, or some equal statement was enough reason for "Great Northern War" start in history.
Official excuse for Peter the Great to have these lands were aforementioned by you treaties, then any ideas about REVISING their terms would be met in REALLY NOT FRIENDLY fashion. I'm sure - you know what is common meaning of "Narva province" is for any Russian, Swedish, German or Finnish historian.

I haven't any idea - what sources this guy used for naming THIS LAND (which he draws) as "Narva province" but let's slide this thing away. In other approach I would come in Scandinavian part of thread under any bot-name and draw some quite funny chart with Stockholm and Goteborg as part of big "Muscovy province" and make any smart remarks under my usual nick about lands in "Muscovy province" - can't I?

I've got an impression after Castellon post - if you receive any strange message from strange person about any things, which concern you in any way - you must IGNORE it. OK.
This chart was received from really strange poster then it was ignored - with quite NOT FRIENDLY attitude from usual "Russian posters" in comments.
You are the one of most important contributors for "Swedish" part of or community - then you must realize - any YOUR word has quite different weight for any your neighbor, hasn't it?
Some guy from nowhere can make any statement about any things, any guy which proved his credentials and who is respected part of community can make any statement as well, but his words would get quite different value.
(In other words - the same remark from commoner is one thing and from King - is quite different.)
Some foul words from commoner is just bragging about nothing. Then same words from King is "plain CB" for "Great Northern War" - do you see?
OK. Let's forget about this unfortunate incident as well as my/our immediate reaction on this remark from Scandinavian side.

Well, let's see a bit closer onto "Karelian" issue. I made some "catches" for the case - if you'd insist on "Narva" issue insolency, but if this case is dropped - I'll discharge them immediately.

Worst problem for Swedish side in "Karelia" issue is - according to treaties of 1323 and 1595 - "Karelia" belongs to Novgorod/Russia on non-conditional terms. As soon as you start to name any parts of modern Finaland like "Karelia" it would means - you are insisting on remove any Swedish shield from this province and place Novgorodian/Russian shield instead of it.
As Russian guy, I haven't any objection on this idea from Swedish side, but I have an idea - it would be rather weird idea to place a lot of Novgorodian shields on Swedish lands in Finland soil - just for merit to name these lands as "Karelia".
Please, check in these treaties and keep in mind - according to these treaties - all territories with "Karelia" clause in its name MUST be Russian. It is big reason for Savolaks to be "Savolaks" - not any part of "Karelia". It is hidden reason for Swedish side to prefer naming some land as "Kexholm" not as "Karelia" - as well. While this land has common name of "Kexholm" - Sweden side could make any claim on it, but if these land would be named as "Karelia" (South, West, Nord, Near or Far - no difference) - these lands would be part of Russian Empire/Novgorodian lands.
You start to mix different approaches from different historical periods. Lenin in 31 of December 1917 gave up - "full independence to Finland" with "inclusion of all Karelian lands". Whole "Karelian issue" start to be valid for Finnish politicians - not to Swedes at all! Finnish leaders used to name Karelian SSR as "Eastern Karelia", because Lenin in 1917 yielded "whole Karelia" to Finland. Then - any "Karelian issues" (as I pointed earier) is political phenomena of XX century - not more earlier times.
More then that - any Swedish politician in 1419-1819 time-span seek any reason to avoid any "Karelia" appearance in any Russian-Sweden relationship, because it would means some giving up of Swedish ground on negotiation table. (And Russian negotiators prefered to give name "Karelia" for any Finnish land on the same reason.)

Moral is: if you will insist on "Karelia" name for any part of Swedish territory, we would happy to accept your naming, because it would means - these lands would get Novgorodian/Russian shields on them - in place of Sweden shields. If you like it - I like this proposition too ;).

I explain you this issue for one thing - if you would be nasty in "Narva" thing - we would be nasty enough for letting you to have upper hand in "Karelia" names issue - and would make Russian claim on all "Karelian lands" after this thing would be implemented - in new chart officially. It was our quite evil plan/idea - I warn you. ;) In most evil proposition we would placate you as "Russian infiltrator" in Scandinavian part of Forum for seeding this idea in other Swedish minds - do you see? ;)

It's just one - most simple "catching" thing - in these bordering issues. I would keep all others, because "all historical issues is quite touchy things" and I like to have couple of "historical stones" for some really offending glass-houses on Russian-Swedish border. ;)

Dixi.

Sincerely yours, Bash

P.S.
1. We would insist on port for St.Peterburg in "Ingermanland/Narva" province. We can yield for your reasons - about inability to making this port before our Peter the Great times. In other words - St.Petersburg has port, Narva - hasn't.
Pls, can anybody to clarify - can we create port in some coastal province by event? It would be best solution for this issue.
2. We had quite long discussion about possibility of Arkhangelsk port inclusion in EU2 - and absolute majority was definitely against this idea as quite disbalancing thing for whole Russian gameplay. If we would get port in Arkhangelsk - Russia hasn't enough reasons for reaching Baltic and Black sea shores.
Then univerasal opinion is - we must continue Scandinavian peninsula a bit to north - making White Sea as closed inland lake. It would decide any "Arkhangelsk" issue for good and on permanent basis. Britons can "open Arkhangelsk/Lukomorje" area - by event in any case.
It means - we would ask High council to eliminate "kola province" completely as quite irrelevant and not-needed for gameplay thing.
We've got some suggestion to your part of Forum to eliminate corresponding to our "Kola province" your "Finnmark province" as well. Your "Finnmark" blocked by PTI's from "Kola" on East side and "Narvik" on West side is quite ugly thing - anyway. I've got an impression - Narvik as Northernest port on Scandinavian peninsula is good enough for gameplay purposes, but it must be your decision anyway.

3. We've got quite universal impression - we need just one "Kexholm" province with Viipuri/Vyborg as is capital. (Provinces 3 and 5 on your chart). Vyborg was in Sweden part in 1419 setup and all other Kexholm province in Novgorodian part, but we ready to forget about it. This land must start as Novgorodian. but goes to Sweden in some moment and became to be Protestant (as in history) - in other way I'm afraid it would be converted into Orthodoxy - our "batjushky" were quite busy-bodies in faith-converting issues. This land would be given to Russia back as result of Great Northern War, but usually Russia hasn't enough free money for successful convertation of rather populated province in XVIII-XIX centuries - anyway.

4. We are ready to make just one big province from vanilla map "Karelia" and "Olonetz" with name of "Karelia" and Olonetz as Karelian capital as in history.

5. All other thing in your presentation of our mutual border is just fine.

Dixi.

Sincerely yours, Bash
 

Hallsten

Hairloss Ninja
36 Badges
Mar 17, 2001
5.273
61
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • 200k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV
Bash said:
Worst problem for Swedish side in "Karelia" issue is - according to treaties of 1323 and 1595 - "Karelia" belongs to Novgorod/Russia on non-conditional terms. As soon as you start to name any parts of modern Finaland like "Karelia" it would means - you are insisting on remove any Swedish shield from this province and place Novgorodian/Russian shield instead of it.
As Russian guy, I haven't any objection on this idea from Swedish side, but I have an idea - it would be rather weird idea to place a lot of Novgorodian shields on Swedish lands in Finland soil - just for merit to name these lands as "Karelia".
Please, check in these treaties and keep in mind - according to these treaties - all territories with "Karelia" clause in its name MUST be Russian. It is big reason for Savolaks to be "Savolaks" - not any part of "Karelia". It is hidden reason for Swedish side to prefer naming some land as "Kexholm" not as "Karelia" - as well. While this land has common name of "Kexholm" - Sweden side could make any claim on it, but if these land would be named as "Karelia" (South, West, Nord, Near or Far - no difference) - these lands would be part of Russian Empire/Novgorodian lands.
You start to mix different approaches from different historical periods. Lenin in 31 of December 1917 gave up - "full independence to Finland" with "inclusion of all Karelian lands". Whole "Karelian issue" start to be valid for Finnish politicians - not to Swedes at all! Finnish leaders used to name Karelian SSR as "Eastern Karelia", because Lenin in 1917 yielded "whole Karelia" to Finland. Then - any "Karelian issues" (as I pointed earier) is political phenomena of XX century - not more earlier times.
More then that - any Swedish politician in 1419-1819 time-span seek any reason to avoid any "Karelia" appearance in any Russian-Sweden relationship, because it would means some giving up of Swedish ground on negotiation table. (And Russian negotiators prefered to give name "Karelia" for any Finnish land on the same reason.)

Moral is: if you will insist on "Karelia" name for any part of Swedish territory, we would happy to accept your naming, because it would means - these lands would get Novgorodian/Russian shields on them - in place of Sweden shields. If you like it - I like this proposition too ;).

Am I right to understand that you claim that everything called Karelia was Russian through the treaties of 1323 and 1595 just cause it was called Karelia? I've never heard anything about that and with all due respect I'd like to see sources on that. :)
In Sweden, the area around Viborg/Viipuri/Vyborg has always been called "Karelen" or "Viborg-Karelen". What was it called in Russian?
Moreover, since the area still is called "Karelen" I see no problem calling it "Southern Karelia", "Viborg-Karelia", "Swedish Karelia" or anything else. The treaties of 1323 and 1595 may have changed the borders, but what people called the land they lived in didn't change and they were Karelians.


Bash said:
I explain you this issue for one thing - if you would be nasty in "Narva" thing - we would be nasty enough for letting you to have upper hand in "Karelia" names issue - and would make Russian claim on all "Karelian lands" after this thing would be implemented - in new chart officially. It was our quite evil plan/idea - I warn you. ;) In most evil proposition we would placate you as "Russian infiltrator" in Scandinavian part of Forum for seeding this idea in other Swedish minds - do you see? ;)

I'm quite happy with calling Estonia Estland and Ingermanland Ingermanland. I don't want to change good names if that's what you mean... :)

Bash said:
It's just one - most simple "catching" thing - in these bordering issues. I would keep all others, because "all historical issues is quite touchy things" and I like to have couple of "historical stones" for some really offending glass-houses on Russian-Swedish border. ;)

Dixi.

Sincerely yours, Bash

Good, let's stay friends here. We don't want a war on out hands, that's what the game is for... :D

Bash said:
P.S.
1. We would insist on port for St.Peterburg in "Ingermanland/Narva" province. We can yield for your reasons - about inability to making this port before our Peter the Great times. In other words - St.Petersburg has port, Narva - hasn't.
Pls, can anybody to clarify - can we create port in some coastal province by event? It would be best solution for this issue.

Ports cannot be added through events. I know that the lack of a port will hamper Russia slightly, but can't we add a port in the Caspian Sea to compensate? I still think that historicity will be helped with a port in Swedish Karelia (sorry... :rolleyes: ) and none in Ingermanland.

Bash said:
2. We had quite long discussion about possibility of Arkhangelsk port inclusion in EU2 - and absolute majority was definitely against this idea as quite disbalancing thing for whole Russian gameplay. If we would get port in Arkhangelsk - Russia hasn't enough reasons for reaching Baltic and Black sea shores.
Then univerasal opinion is - we must continue Scandinavian peninsula a bit to north - making White Sea as closed inland lake. It would decide any "Arkhangelsk" issue for good and on permanent basis. Britons can "open Arkhangelsk/Lukomorje" area - by event in any case.
It means - we would ask High council to eliminate "kola province" completely as quite irrelevant and not-needed for gameplay thing.
We've got some suggestion to your part of Forum to eliminate corresponding to our "Kola province" your "Finnmark province" as well. Your "Finnmark" blocked by PTI's from "Kola" on East side and "Narvik" on West side is quite ugly thing - anyway. I've got an impression - Narvik as Northernest port on Scandinavian peninsula is good enough for gameplay purposes, but it must be your decision anyway.

If a Russian port in Archangelsk has been decided against earlier on I'm allright with that. Why cut the white sea off? Can't we just make it TI at the start?
The PTI in northern Scandinavia may look ugly, but it's very efficient in modelling the area in a good way since movements on land was more or less impossible there, especially with a large army.
If Finnmark should be removed or not I think we'll have to ask a learned Norwegian...

Bash said:
3. We've got quite universal impression - we need just one "Kexholm" province with Viipuri/Vyborg as is capital. (Provinces 3 and 5 on your chart). Vyborg was in Sweden part in 1419 setup and all other Kexholm province in Novgorodian part, but we ready to forget about it. This land must start as Novgorodian. but goes to Sweden in some moment and became to be Protestant (as in history) - in other way I'm afraid it would be converted into Orthodoxy - our "batjushky" were quite busy-bodies in faith-converting issues. This land would be given to Russia back as result of Great Northern War, but usually Russia hasn't enough free money for successful convertation of rather populated province in XVIII-XIX centuries - anyway.
I disagree. prov. 5 was Swedish in 1419 and prov. 3 was not.
Why do you think that prov. 5 should belong to Novgorod?
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Hallsten said:
Am I right to understand that you claim that everything called Karelia was Russian through the treaties of 1323 and 1595 just cause it was called Karelia? I've never heard anything about that and with all due respect I'd like to see sources on that. :)
In Sweden, the area around Viborg/Viipuri/Vyborg has always been called "Karelen" or "Viborg-Karelen". What was it called in Russian?
You will laugh - this land has name of "Vyborg". ;)

Hallsten said:
Moreover, since the area still is called "Karelen" I see no problem calling it "Southern Karelia", "Viborg-Karelia", "Swedish Karelia" or anything else. The treaties of 1323 and 1595 may have changed the borders, but what people called the land they lived in didn't change and they were Karelians.

If you will insist on keeping just another shitty province - suit yourself - it was your part of Scandinavia. Just take in a minute notice - you must keep game balance - then 34 Scandinavian province would be quite shitty in comparison with just 17 Russian "core-land" provinces and this number include "Karelia", Ural-mountains area and all Ob-provinces!
I've got an impression we will calculate resulting province value as part on province in question in National GNP of some country in question of some time-period. It would means - if you give "Vyborg/Karelen/South Karelen" province annual income of 1 ducati, it would mean "Moscow" province would receive around 25-27 ducati as result.
In other case some Muslim countries of Al-jazair region, which receive a lot of provinces, would get some fantastic annual revenues. More then that - China region, which is bursting now with new provinces, would be "rich as Croesus".
Price for bailiffs, governors and faith conversion and such would raise accordingly.
It means majority of Finnish provinces of Sweden would receive some quite weird numbers like 0.3 - 0.4 in present situation, but due to fact we can't give them partial numbers, they would get rather universal quantity of 1 ducati per anno.
Huge benefit for Swedish economy, revolt risks and stab costs.

It wouldn't be any issue for me as Russian player, because I'd like to see Sweden as feeble as possible, but in AGC-EEP approach these lands wil eventually drop in Russian lap - then I've got a real concern in these issues. I haven't any desire to have a bunch of absolutely shitty provinces as Great Northern War result. :(
Well, it means - Sweden wouldn't be any treat to my country in Livonien War or in Times of Troubles - and it is good thing. OK.
Pls, get any medicine if it would utterly cripple any Russian enemy in long run. You can Finnmark for this purpose as well, we are exterminating our Kola anyway.


Hallsten said:
Ports cannot be added through events. I know that the lack of a port will hamper Russia slightly, but can't we add a port in the Caspian Sea to compensate? I still think that historicity will be helped with a port in Swedish Karelia (sorry... :rolleyes: ) and none in Ingermanland.

It means - we MUST insist on port in "Ingermanland" province. Suit yourself with your part of chart we would suit with ours. St.Petersburg must receive its port anyway.
Vyborg has its own port, St.Petersburg has its own (and we are making a really big nuclear submarines in ST.Peterburg port - if you are wondering).


Hallsten said:
If a Russian port in Archangelsk has been decided against earlier on I'm allright with that. Why cut the white sea off? Can't we just make it TI at the start?

My initia propose was TI - not "closed lake", but majority decided to "close" this area by Scandinavian peninsula.

Hallsten said:
The PTI in northern Scandinavia may look ugly, but it's very efficient in modelling the area in a good way since movements on land was more or less impossible there, especially with a large army.
If Finnmark should be removed or not I think we'll have to ask a learned Norwegian...

Suit yourself. It would be another absolute shitty province with 1 or 0(!!!) ducati per anno. In other way Moscow province (for balance keeping) would receive more ducati then whole Sweden. (If you start to divide rather big GNP on 34 - each province would receive less then in case if you start to divide slightly lesser GNP onto 17 provinces where 5-6 provinces are big and other are shitty). Add to this equation expenses for just one Moscow bailiff to improve russian economy with a lot of bailiffs for lot of shitty provinces. And mind you - basic price of bailiffs will raise (for keeping balance reasons) in very dramatic manner. (We must punish some North-Africans for their magnitude of "new" provinces in midst of Desert, do you see?)

Hallsten said:
I disagree. prov. 5 was Swedish in 1419 and prov. 3 was not.
Why do you think that prov. 5 should belong to Novgorod?

I don't think about it. I know - Vyborg belong to Sweden in starting setup.
Suit yourself. I would prefer to give this province to Novgorod and then yield this province to Sweden very fast - due to constant problem - Kexholm used to be converted to Orthodoxy for good, because it came to Russian posession when Russia hadn't another spending except fath conversion. And Orthodox Kexholm is quite bad sight-seeing of any historian.
Please, just understand one simple idea - if we start to follow method of calculating province value from initial GNP of country - only "Kexholm" of Novgorod would have equal value to sum of all Finnish provinces in Sweden posession - or you must cripple "core-Swedish" lands for keeping Finnish lands value.
I repeat - suit yourself, but remember - Karmar Union GNP would be divided between all your 34 (or such) provinces. Then we will calculate responding values for Muscovy' and Novgorod' lands.
It would means - all Scandinavian countries would be absolute "dwarves/Zwergs" in long run from - technology advance point of view (tech speed is function of provinces number ;).
Oh, by the way, it is history real picture - well done, you (and guys from Polish part of Forum) are crippling your countries fast enough for any Russian player pleasure. No strong Sweden, no strong Poland - this game is starting to be quite joy-riding for any Russian player indeed.

Dixi.

Sincerely yours, Bash
 

Ges

Captain
7 Badges
Oct 23, 2003
312
0
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • 500k Club
This whole Karelia issue is getting out of hands. Bash knows great deal of russian history and things but he's losing his touch when going westward. Same way his "swedish opponents" are losing their touch when going eastward.

We surely need Karelia modeled but with how many provinces and named how - that must to be decided.

It's too bad to see that perfectly good russian thread has been taken over by talk about one northern border province. I would prefer to have completely own thread for Karelia since it's hard matter.

Kola is whole another issue. This poor area has been negleted in vanilla. Best exemple of this is that it had - and still propably has in AGCEEP - tax value of 4.

People are saying things left and right about Karelia which I have to say I disagree most. They just are against my knowledge of history of Karelia.

And BTW: Käkisalmi - the main city of Karelia in these times (with Viborg) was called Kexholm in sweden and Korela in russian (nowadays something like Priozjorsk) - after what the name of Karelia comes too
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Ges said:
And BTW: Käkisalmi - the main city of Karelia in these times (with Viborg) was called Kexholm in sweden and Korela in russian (nowadays something like Priozjorsk) - after what the name of Karelia comes too

Excuse me for asking - is making "Kexholm" province with Vyborg inclusion quite different thing from this YOUR explanation?

Excuse me for asking - if ORTODOX "Kexholm" province in end of game-period is quite UGLY idea from my point of view - (I'd like to keep it as Protestant if it's possible) - then best idea is giving it with Vyborg region to Sweden ASAP and return to Russia as result of Nystadt treaty when Russia would be busy with conversion of south (former catholic and muslim) lands.
What is wrong with this approach?
Alas, successful convertation in game demands (if you are not cheater) to raise tolerance to religion of converting province for your home country. It means - if you are Orthodox you can't convert Protestant and Catholic provinces in the same time-span. You can raise tolerance to Catholic OR to Orthodox not to both simultaneously.

Keep "Kexholm" as part of Russia in Basil III times - and it would be ORTHODOX for good. Reason is - Sweden became to be busy with Army development and start to convert more juicy catholic lands in Germany as result of its victories in XVII century and then it would be XVIII century and Great Northern War.

What is your idea to make "Kexholm" region - protestant to 1819? You are expert in all Karelian issues - pls, explain - what is GAME-METHOD to do it satisfactory - without any artificial legs in form of special event?

Sincerely yours, Bash
 

Herr Doctor

Learned cat
17 Badges
Jul 11, 2002
3.868
168
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II
Bash said:
Keep "Kexholm" as part of Russia in Basil III times - and it would be ORTHODOX for good. Reason is - Sweden became to be busy with Army development and start to convert more juicy catholic lands in Germany as result of its victories in XVII century and then it would be XVIII century and Great Northern War.
Catholic lands in Germany???.. Sweden never did it coz North German lands historically became Lutheran the way earlier than Swedish… Or what do you mean?