Old World Map - (Arabia Universalis)

[cool-toxic]

Thinking about the game engine maybe making the Italian Byzantine dukes vassals of Ravenna would maybe be wrong? The exarches of Ravenna were at bad terms with all of them. So i guess we wouldn't see Rome, Naples nor Venice help them when the Lombards or Franks attack Ravenna. But maybe bad relationship with Ravenna would be okay? And when Ravenna falls I think Venice and the rest should be de facto independent thus it's good they are not under Byzantium.

I gave
Rome - ROM,
Byzantium - BYZ,
Tuscany - TOS,
Friuli - FUC and
IST - Istria.

 

[Basileios I]

Okay I can accept it all. Btw, is this how you'd want Balkans for Byzantium aswell? If so what shall become of the slavic populated area between Byzantium and Rascia?

Okay, for the Slavonic tribes I suggest:

Very little is known about these tribes and I can only guess which tribe was most prominent in some regions. I think Nike should take a look at it as well, since he was the one who originally supplied me with maps and information on these tribes (that was years ago I think).

So here it goes:

Velegzits:

268
269

Sagudats:

516

Bainuits:

275

Dragovits:

517

Bersits:

505
512

Strumci (Strymonoi in Greek):

514

BTW:

266 should be Byzantine, the city named "Nikopolis". I forgot to include it in my map.

Btw, If we make two alliances one with Byzantium and Ravenna and one with Ravenna and her vassals that would prevent weird wars between the Khazars vs. Byzantium and Naples for instance.
But should we maybe instead have Byzantium in the Ravenna and vassals' alliance? In order for Naples to get big-bigbrother Byzantium to help? In this case what should be done about the other alliances.? WHat if the player wants to form another alliance? That can not happen untill he has left all the alliances.

There should be no military alliance between Ravenna and Byzantium.

In 711 the Empire was extremely busy with the Arabs and Bulgars.

The names of the nations will be Sagudatia, Draguvitia and Bersitia?

I'd rather not latinise them. They are loosely organised tribes, not principalities.

 

[Basileios I]

Though it still should be vassalized directly to the Romans, not the Exarchate. Once the Exarchate falls (in-game), Venice will gain complete independence, which is an undesired effect.

I don't think that's a problem.

We'll have to develop an event chain for Venice about its relations with the Lombards, Franks, Ravenna and the Byzantines anyway.

 

[Basileios I]

Thinking about the game engine maybe making the Italian Byzantine dukes vassals of Ravenna would maybe be wrong? The exarches of Ravenna were at bad terms with all of them. So i guess we wouldn't see Rome, Naples nor Venice help them when the Lombards or Franks attack Ravenna. But maybe bad relationship with Ravenna would be okay? And when Ravenna falls I think Venice and the rest should be de facto independent thus it's good they are not under Byzantium.

I think the actual influence of the Exarch fluctuated heavily. But making Venice, Rome and Naples vassals of Ravenna is historically correct. Relations between the states shouldn't be bad from the outset, since that would lead to quick cancellations of the vassalisations and perhaps undesired wars between the different Byzantine duchies, rather than vs the Lombard principalities.

Of course events are very important here as well.

 

[cool-toxic]

I'd rather not latinise them. They are loosely organised tribes, not principalities.

The first is good. But this I must object to. I see no reason for why other nations should be called by their "nation name" and those who did not survive untill they had a centralised state has their "tribe name".
For instance Poland who is to say another tribe could not have done what the Polanes did? I don't think we should discriminate them because in history they did not centralise in time to stand against others. As I suggested earlier we could use the Centralised vs. Decentralised or Quality vs. Quantity as "State vs. Tribe" slider in order to control how far from a centralised state you are.
I would like to centralise the Pechengs for instance and make an empire up in the Wild Fields.

Btw, mind you a nation like Denmark is not recorded as a united state untill around 950. Thus should they also be treated as a tribe? If so we got only nations like Francia, Visigothia, Byzantium, Lombardy and The Caliphate.

 

[Prinz Wilhelm]

I'm with Basileios here, the original tribal name fits better for them.

 

[cool-toxic]

But where should the border between tribe and state go then? Should it be Hungarians or Hungary, Khazars or Khazaria and make this for the Nordic people aswell?

Btw, on other notes I forgot about the Kingdoms of Mide and Ailech.

 

[unmerged(48229)]

Okay, for the Slavonic tribes I suggest:
I think Nike should take a look at it as well, since he was the one who originally supplied me with maps and information on these tribes (that was years ago I think).

I'll have to point out though that the map I sent you was:
1. Specifically about the Slavic tribes.
2. It was for a very loose "period of time", as well as area's location.
Thus most Slavic tribes were rather loosely based upon the various mentions from various sources and different times (including as late as the 9th century). So, yes, some of those tribes might be somewhat anachronistic for 711, but it's the best guesses about the locations of the Slavic tribes on the Balkans (presuming they didn't move that much in the centuries, which is only partially correct).
While Kuber's Bulgars in province 517 are evidenced as the leading ethnicity there by both historical narrative sources and archaeology.


As for the names, I also think Byzantium should be called Roman Empire (or eventually Romania), while Danubian Bulgaria could indeed be called simply Bulgaria (since it's quite unclear and disputable when Volga Bulgaria was formed as a fully independent state, but in 711 most historians agree it wasn't still unified (unlike Danubian Bulgaria)).

 

[Third Angel]

Okay. btw, I asked BiB and he said that P'dox had not made subforums in EU2 forum in years and wouldn't start now. So we'll have to open seperate threads somewhere to do this.

There was a good chance that he would answer that.

I have found another case of misnaming this time on the map, so you may not be willing or able to fix it immediately (I am still hoping that you do take notes for future releases ), anyways here it goes: Calabria and Brutium are the same so they can't be both on the same map, Calabria seems to be the wrong one.

 

[Toio]

Despite much looking for it, I can't find the source where I saw Venice fully independent around 1000. Well o, I'll have to agree with you guys .
Though it still should be vassalized directly to the Romans, not the Exarchate. Once the Exarchate falls (in-game), Venice will gain complete independence, which is an undesired effect. Of course, it can always become a vassal of Byzantium via event triggered by the fall of Ravenna.

so links

http://www.boglewood.com/timeline/dalmatia.html

http://members.tripod.com/romeartlover/Venezia1.html

venice would have broken off its vassalage with byzantine when it secured Dalmatian lands, which was originally byzantine lands.............my guess on the year would be 992AD

 

[Toio]

I think the actual influence of the Exarch fluctuated heavily. But making Venice, Rome and Naples vassals of Ravenna is historically correct. Relations between the states shouldn't be bad from the outset, since that would lead to quick cancellations of the vassalisations and perhaps undesired wars between the different Byzantine duchies, rather than vs the Lombard principalities.

Of course events are very important here as well.

Ravenna was western roman empir major port in the adriatic and venice was the eastern roman empire major port in the adriatic, saying venice came under ravenna, seems wrong, but i am unsure

plus the salians ruled the veneto ( not venice) from there capital in verona, and they kept a watchful eye on their neighbours th Lombards..........but also the salians ruled Provence france at theis time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salian

 

[Basileios I]

The first is good. But this I must object to. I see no reason for why other nations should be called by their "nation name" and those who did not survive untill they had a centralised state has their "tribe name".
For instance Poland who is to say another tribe could not have done what the Polanes did? I don't think we should discriminate them because in history they did not centralise in time to stand against others. As I suggested earlier we could use the Centralised vs. Decentralised or Quality vs. Quantity as "State vs. Tribe" slider in order to control how far from a centralised state you are.
I would like to centralise the Pechengs for instance and make an empire up in the Wild Fields.

First of all, the Polans shouldn't be "Poland" from the beginning of the game on. They should simply be the Polans and only if they manage to unify all Polish tribes form Poland.

I think we should stick with the original tribe's names for accuracy's sake!

 

[cool-toxic]

There was a good chance that he would answer that.

I have found another case of misnaming this time on the map, so you may not be willing or able to fix it immediately (I am still hoping that you do take notes for future releases ), anyways here it goes: Calabria and Brutium are the same so they can't be both on the same map, Calabria seems to be the wrong one.

Calabria was the name for the provinces south of Bari. Later Calabria became the name of the "toe" which was called Bruttium earlier.

First of all, the Polans shouldn't be "Poland" from the beginning of the game on. They should simply be the Polans and only if they manage to unify all Polish tribes form Poland.

I think we should stick with the original tribe's names for accuracy's sake!

But we do not have enough tags to give everyone two tags. IMO either we give tribe names to all who was tribes in 711 and state to those who had a state in 711 if a name for this state is present or else we give state names to everyone.

 

[Basileios I]

But we do not have enough tags to give everyone two tags. IMO either we give tribe names to all who was tribes in 711 and state to those who had a state in 711 if a name for this state is present or else we give state names to everyone.

Every tribe should of course not have its own corresponding state tag, that would be impossible!

But some tribes should have the option of forming a certain state. For example the Polans, Goplans, Vistulans ... whatever ... should all have the option of forming Poland if they manage to subjugate all other Polish tribes, just like the Polans did historically. Of course when a human player is not involved the Polan AI should be given an advantage so that it almost always forms Poland.

So all tribes should be tribes, and all states states.

 

[Toio]

post 652

second link under Venetian Greek fortress says that Venice was independent from BYZ authority at the time of BYZ emperor LEO, I guess around 772AD

Venetian alliance with BYZ lasted till enrico dandolo become doge of Venice

 

[Emperor_krk]

Thank you Toio for providing the links proving my earlier point . I'd like to once again propose that Venice should NOT be a vassal of Ravenna - it never was in any way dependent of the Exarchate, it was either completely independent (as seen HERE, after the 730's and the introduction of iconoclasm by Leo III), or vassalized to Constantinople - at least nominally. In-game I think it should be a vassal of Roman Empire, gaining independence around 750, but remaining closely tied to them (e.g. via alliances).


I see also that my earlier proposal of naming the countries exactly after the tribes' names have acquired support. I agree with Basileios I - all tribes of e.g. Poland should have the chance to become Poland after 950 if they subjugate enough Polish lands (IMO the provinces required for this should be 703, 704, 705, 708, 709, and 710, - giving Polans the historically deserved edge, while also enabling any other player-led Polish tribe to create Poland - after all, conquering 6 provinces isn't that much of a problem). Remember also that Poland didn't exist under this name before year 1000. Before that time it was known under the name 'Civitas Schinesghe cum omnibus pertinenciis' (translated as "the country of Gniezno and all it's belongings"). Polans conquered the Goplans around 950; around 970 Mazovia and Sandomiria was taken as well; before 980 they also conquered Przemyśl (1213) and Grody Czerwieńskie (Cherven, 1209). Around (980)-992 Bolesław, the eldest son of Mieszko I, is known to be ruling Krakow - however, as a Bohemian vassal. Shortly before Mieszko's death, Silesia was conquered by the Polans. After Mieszko's death (992), Bolesław drove Mieszko's other sons (from his second marriage with Oda) and their mother out of Schinesghe, thus uniting all Polish lands. It is, of course, Bolesław I Chrobry I am talking about.

EDIT: See also THIS map.

 

[Basileios I]

Thank you Toio for providing the links proving my earlier point . I'd like to once again propose that Venice should NOT be a vassal of Ravenna - it never was in any way dependent of the Exarchate, it was either completely independent (as seen HERE, after the 730's and the introduction of iconoclasm by Leo III), or vassalized to Constantinople - at least nominally. In-game I think it should be a vassal of Roman Empire, gaining independence around 750, but remaining closely tied to them (e.g. via alliances).

Well originally the Dux of Venice was subject to the authority of the Exarch, the appointed ruler of Italy.

But at this point in time would probably be more correct to vassilise Venice directly to Constantinople. Still there should be no military alliance between Constantinople and Venice. I don't want Byzantium proper to be dragged into wars against the Lombards. That's Ravenna's job.

 

[Third Angel]

Calabria was the name for the provinces south of Bari. Later Calabria became the name of the "toe" which was called Bruttium earlier.

Sorry, didn't know that. Next time I spot a "bug", I promise I'll make some more research before bothering you.

 

[cool-toxic]

Sorry, didn't know that. Next time I spot a "bug", I promise I'll make some more research before bothering you.

Wasn't meant angry. Thank you for reporting I had to check it once again just to be sure it tricked me aswell.

 

[cool-toxic]

Okay so Basileios if you make a list of who gets a tribe name and which nations can be created later on by tribes, then I'll begin to rework naming of Irish and British provinces. Seems like they were named based on various languages? And if we use the English rule then it should be Ulster and not Uladh which in it self is wrong compared to how the others are spelled it would be Ulaidh if I'm not wrong. Thus the nations will also gain English names.

I think I'll rework the provinces of Ireland to something that will show this better:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Ireland_early_peoples_and_politics.gif

I think we should merge Munster into one province, it was not untill 1119 that it was seperated into Desmond and Thomond so instead I would give the province to Airgíalla in the north. Thus we split the current Airgíalla in Ailech and Airgíalla.
Meath and Ailech will be ruled by the Southern and Northern O'Neil's.