Proposal for improvement of the political map of Italy

[Ricartus]

Hi!
As I promised, I post here my proposal for an improvement of the political map of Italy.

I added some provinces and countries, to make Italy more historically accurate, without exaggerations or mania of perfectionism (because that would imply adding hundreds of provinces):

Below, I list the provinces by geographical area. I also list owner, culture and cores in 1444. When the name of the capital city differed from that of the province, I wrote it into brackets.

The provinces I added are marked with + if, on average, their capital city used to have less than 10,000 inhabitants between 1500 and 1800, ; ++ if it used to have more than 10,0000 inhabitants, +++ if it used to have more than 20,000, ++++ if it used to have more than 30,000 (my source for the estimated urban population is http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Italian Economy/Urban_Population.pdf)

I added the "Salentine", "Corse", "Friulian", "Istriot" and "Dalmatian" cultures and I renamed "Umbrian" culture to "Central Italian" and "Romagnol" culture to "Emilian" (the most correct name would be Emilian-Romagnol but, while (A)emilia refers to the Roman "via Aemilia", which included also most of Romagna, Romagna does not include Aemilia in any way).

I only included additions that I considered important. However, I shaded those I considered less essential among them in grey. I also propose an "impoverished" version with less provinces.

En passant, I will also share the historical maps on which I based my own proposal. At the end, you will find the map I created.

Papal States and vassals:
For the Papal States, I based my reshaping on the actual provinces (12 provinces + exclaves) it had in the 18th century and on the most important autonomous/independent cities it had in the previous centuries:

Spoiler

- Latium/Lazio (Roma) (Central Italian culture)
- Patrimony of St. Peter/Patrimonio di S. Pietro (Viterbo) (Central Italian culture) ++
- Sabina (Collevecchio, afterwards Rieti) (Central Italian culture) +
- Perugia (Central Italian-culture 1 province minor)
- Spoleto (Central Italian culture) +
- Camerino (Central Italian-culture 1 province minor) +
- Ascoli (Central Italian culture) +
- Marca anconitana (Macerata) (a march, Central Italian culture) +
- It is in my opinion very relevant to add the de facto independent Merchant Republic of Ancona (Central Italian culture) ++
- Urbino (Emilian-culture 1 province minor)
- Rimini (Emilian-culture independent 1 province minor) +
- Forlí (Emilian-culture 1 province minor) ++
- Ravenna (Emilian culture) (owned by Venice, also core of Ravenna and of the Papal States) +
- Bologna (Emilian-culture 1 province minor)

- Exclave of Avignon
- Exclave of Benevento (Neapolitan culture, also core of Naples) +

Subtotal: 7 or 11 new provinces

Kingdom of Naples:
I would divide the kingdom of Naples based on its historical 12 provinces (instead of the 15 provinces of 1816). However, I created Taranto as the 12th province instead of Avellino (Taranto was a more important city; furthermore, this would let us limit the Venetian conquests of 1484-1509 and 1528-1530 to the province of Otranto, Taranto not included (the Venetian conquests were in fact even less sizeable):

Spoiler

- Campania (Napoli)
- Principato (Salerno)
- Basilicata (Matera rather than Potenza)
- Cosenza
- Calabria (Reggio)
- Otranto (Lecce) (Salentine culture)
- Taranto (Salentine culture) ++
- Bari
- Capitanata (Lucera) +
- Molise (Campobasso) +
- Abruzzo Citra (Chieti) +
- Abruzzo Ultra (Aquila)

Subtotal: 3 or 4 new provinces

A curiosity: the name "Abruzzi" in Italian is the plural of "Abruzzo" and refers to the sum of Abruzzo Citerior and Abruzzo Ulterior.

Kingdom of Sicily:
I would divide Sicily in 6 provinces, based on the most historically important, famous and populous cities and partially on the administrative subdivision (7 provinces) of 1817:

Spoiler

- Palermo
- Girgenti/Agrigento (Sicilian culture) ++
- Trapani (Sicilian culture) ++
- Messina
- Catania (Sicilian culture) +++
- Siracusa

Subtotal: 3 new provinces

Republic of Venice:
I based my map on the important cities and on this map:

Spoiler

- Venice/Venezia (it would be nice to make the map geographically correct).
- Treviso (also core of Treviso)
- Belluno (also core of Belluno) +
- Padova (Venetian culture) (also core of Padova) ++++
- Vicenza (Venetian culture) (also core of Vicenza and of Padova) +++
- Verona (also core of Verona)
- Brescia (Lombard culture, also core of Brescia and of Milan)
- Bergamo (Lombard culture, also core of Bergamo and of Milan) +++
- Friuli (Udine) (Friulian culture, also core of Aquileia)
- Istria (Pola) (Istriot culture)
- Quarnerine Islands/Isole Quarnerine (Veglia) (Dalmatian culture) +

In Dalmatia:
- Zara (Dalmatian culture)
- Spalato and Dalmatic islands (Dalmatian culture) +

Subtotal: 4 or 6 new provinces

I would also add:
- Patriarchate of Aquileia (one 3 development micro-province minor, Friulian culture tag) (I propose to add it, even if so minor, because of the old prestige of the city) +
- County of Gorizia (Friulian culture, vassal of Austria, also core of Aquileia)
- Trieste (Friulian culture, part of Austria, also core of Trieste, of Aquileia and of Venice) +
- Prince-Bishopric of Trent (Venetian culture 1 province minor) +

Subtotal: 2 or 3 new provinces

Duchy of Milan:
I based my map on the most important cities and historical administrative subdivisions:

Spoiler

- Valtellina (Sondrio) (Lombard culture) (also core of Como) +
- Como (Lombard culture) (also core of Como) ++
- Bellinzona (Lombard culture) (also core of Bellinzona) +
- Milan/Milano
- Pavia (Lombard culture) (also core of Pavia) +++
- Lodi (Lombard culture) ++
- Cremona (also core of Cremona)
- Parma (Emilian culture) (also core of Parma)
- Piacenza (Emilian culture) (also core of Piacenza and of Parma) +++
- Alessandria (Piedmontese culture) (also core of Alessandria) ++
- Novara (also core of Novara)

Subtotal: 4 or 7 new provinces

These provinces would be useful to include in War of Milanese Succession and Ambrosian Republic events: when the Republic is proclaimed, Pavia should get level 1 particularist rebels, Parma should declare independence, Piacenza and Lodi should join the Venetians, who were at war against Milan (an event with the possibility to arm the republic and declare war against Venice and Parma should be possible via event). Countries with royal marriages with Milan should get a claim on the Milanese throne instead of the Government Form War' casus belli. Francesco Sforza should initially serve the Milanese as a general, then try to conquer the Milanese throne (an event should pop up, something like "submit to Francesco Sforza or get pretender rebels").

Duchy of Ferrara:
I based my map on the most important cities and historical administrative subdivisions:
- Ferrara
- Reggio (Emilian culture) (also core of Reggio and of Modena) ++
- Modena (also core of Modena)

Subtotal: 1 new province

Republic of Florence:
I based my map on the most important cities and historical administrative subdivisions:

Spoiler

- Florence/Fiorenza/Firenze
- Arezzo (also core of Arezzo)
- Pistoia (Tuscan culture) (also core of Pistoia) +
- Pisa (also core of Pisa)

- Principality of Massa-Carrara (Massa) (Emilian-culture independent 1 province minor) (source of the famous marble of Carrara) +
- Principality of Piombino (Piombino) (Tuscan-culture independent 1 province minor, which includes the Elba island) +

Subtotal: 2 or 3 new provinces

Republic of Siena:
I think that Siena deserves not to be a 1 province minor like e.g. Saluzzo, and I also wanted to reflect its ancient and never really fulfilled aspiration to expand towards the sea:
- Siena
- Grosseto (Tuscan culture) (also core of Grosseto) +
- Talamone (Tuscan culture) (also core of Grosseto) (this province is important because it then became the "State of the Presidi", controlled by Spain) +

In the famous medieval Sienese fresco The Allegory of Good and Bad Government, by A. Lorenzetti, painted on the walls of the "Public Palace" of Siena, one can notice a port city with the legend Talam(one), in the countryside of Siena, on the right. This note was considered important at the time to remark the extension of the Sienese Republic to the sea:

Spoiler

Subtotal: 1 or 2 new provinces

Republic of Genoa:
I based my map on the most important cities and on this map (furthermore, it seemed appropriate to me to give one more province to Genoa):

Spoiler

- Savona (rather than Albenga, much more important city)
- Genoa/Genova

- Bastia (Corse rather than Sardinian culture)
- Aiaccio (Corse rather than Sardinian culture) +

Subtotal: 1 new province

Duchy of Savoy:
I based my map on this one and on historically important independent cities:

Spoiler

- Savoy (Arpitan culture)
- Aosta (Arpitan culture) +
- Turin/Torino
- Vercelli (Piedmontese culture) (also core of Vercelli) +
- Cuneo
- Nizza

I would also create these two independent 1 province minors:
- Marquisate of Saluzzo (Piedmontese culture) +
- County of Asti (Piedmontese culture) ++

Subtotal: 4 new provinces

Kingdom of Sardinia:
I would divide the territory in 4 provinces (a compromise between the 4 medieval Judicates and the Genoese/Catalan areas of interest):

Spoiler

[Late Medieval Sardinia]

[Sardinia in 1324]

- Cagliari (also core of Sardinia and of Pisa)
- Gallura (Olbia) (also core of Sardinia and of Pisa)
- Logudoro (Alghero, then Sassari) (Catalan or Sardinian culture) (also core of Sardinia and of Genoa) +
- Arborea (Oristano) (Sardinian culture) (also core of Sardinia) +

Subtotal: 1 or 2 new provinces

As you might have noticed, I have added a lot of new tags. This should be no surprise, since Northern Italy until the late 13th century was the land of the Communes:

Spoiler

Other relevant historical maps:

Spoiler

Besides, the provinces of Italy immediately after the reunification of the country and the Italian provinces nowadays had some influence in my choice on which provinces to keep and which ones to discard:

Spoiler

[1873]

[Nowadays]

Finally, here is my map [limited to Italy, Dalmatia excluded]:

For those who have problems visualising the map, they can use this link instead: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bpuabkrswgily4a/Proposal for the new subdivision of Italy in EU4 (1444).png?dl=0

Grand total: from 33 to 47 new provinces in Italy and Dalmatia

I hope that you will find my post informative. Let me know what you think about the proposal!

PS: For my suggestions for the improvement of Republics, see: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/better-republics.1368720/

 

[Canute VII]

There's something wrong with your map, though

 

[Ricartus]

There's something wrong with your map, though
View attachment 563911

Try refreshing the page. Can you confirm me that you can see the map?

 

[Chap]

Your map still isn’t available besides, I like some of the changes that you propose and I believe some of them are going to be added in 1.30 patch. Anyway, I would like to give my opinion about your suggestion (it is quite long so I would make some posts)

Firstly, some cultures you propose are quite small or only based in language, like Istriot or Friulian. In the recent patch Dalmatian culture is going to be added which I believe represents italo-Dalmatian language speakers in istria and dalmatia. You suggest adding friulian but it would be only present in Friuli and the same goes for Istriot. Salentine could represent the culture in Puglia area but this would need Calabrian to be added (Neapolitan, Salentine and Calabrian would represent the cultures of the Mezzogiorno). Central Italian replacing Umbrian and Emilian replacing Romagnan seems ok though

 

[Chap]

I would like to see how the areas are displayed but I would suggest the following:

Latium/Lazio (Roma) (Central Italian culture)
- Patrimony of St. Peter/Patrimonio di S. Pietro (Viterbo) (Central Italian culture) ++
- Sabina (Collevecchio, afterwards Rieti) (Central Italian culture) +
- Perugia (Central Italian-culture 1 province minor)
- Spoleto (Central Italian culture) +
- Camerino (Central Italian-culture 1 province minor) +
- Ascoli (Central Italian culture) +
- Marca anconitana (Macerata) (a march, Central Italian culture) +
- It is in my opinion very relevant to add the de facto independent Merchant Republic of Ancona (Central Italian culture) ++
- Urbino (Emilian-culture 1 province minor)
- Rimini (Emilian-culture independent 1 province minor) +
- Forlí (Emilian-culture 1 province minor) ++
- Ravenna (Emilian culture) (owned by Venice, also core of Ravenna and of the Papal States) +
- Bologna (Emilian-culture 1 province minor)

- Exclave of Avignon
- Exclave of Benevento (Neapolitan culture, also core of Naples) +

Subtotal: 7 or 11 new provinces

• Lazio and Umbria (Lazio/Roma, Patrimonio/Viterbo, Perugia and Spoleto)
• Marche (Macerata, Ancona and Urbino)
• Emilia-Romagna (Ravenna, Ferrara, Bologna, Modena and Parma)

Campania (Napoli)
- Principato (Salerno)
- Basilicata (Matera rather than Potenza)
- Cosenza
- Calabria (Reggio)
- Otranto (Lecce) (Salentine culture)
- Taranto (Salentine culture) ++
- Bari
- Capitanata (Lucera) +
- Molise (Campobasso) +
- Abruzzo Citra (Chieti) +
- Abruzzo Ultra (Aquila)

Subtotal: 3 or 4 new provinces

• Campania (Campania/Napoli, Principato/Salerno and Benevento)
• Apulia (Abruzzi, Molise, Capitanata, Bari and Otranto)
• Calabria (Basilicata, Cosenza and Reggio)

I prefer both Abruzzi united and part of Apulia and maybe Calabria province could be divided into Reggio and Catanzaro

Palermo
- Girgenti/Agrigento (Sicilian culture) ++
- Trapani (Sicilian culture) ++
- Messina
- Catania (Sicilian culture) +++
- Siracusa

Subtotal: 3 new provinces

• West Sicily (Palermo, Trapani and Girgenti)
• East Sicily (Messina, Catania, Siracusa and Malta)

 

[mathuser]

Hi,

Your last image doesn't seem to be loading and Dropbox shows an "Error (401)" message indicating "Unauthorized."

Also, I believe Massa and Carrara is Emilian, at least according to their language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilian_dialect


And a minor nitpick is to put the source maps in spoilers for those using phones.

 

[Lightwell]

Grand total: from 33 to 47 new provinces in Italy and Dalmatia

Why does my heart hurt?

 

[Ricartus]

Your map still isn’t available

I added a link, so that my map is accessible also to those who cannot see it (it is strange, since I can see it both from my computer and my smartphone)

Some cultures you propose are quite small or only based in language, like Istriot or Friulian. In the recent patch Dalmatian culture is going to be added which I believe represents italo-Dalmatian language speakers in istria and dalmatia. You suggest adding friulian but it would be only present in Friuli and the same goes for Istriot. Salentine could represent the culture in Puglia area but this would need Calabrian to be added (Neapolitan, Salentine and Calabrian would represent the cultures of the Mezzogiorno). Central Italian replacing Umbrian and Emilian replacing Romagnan seems ok though

Actually, Friulian culture is not only based on language... Friulians have a local pride and a strong sense of regional belonging, probably more than all other Italians (together with Venetians, Sicilians and Sardinians, and of course the foreign minorities in South Tyrol and Aosta Valley). Also the Salentines have a strong local pride. The Istriots... I don't know, now they are almost extinct. However, they are much different from both Venetians and Dalmatians (the difference between Istriots and Dalmatians is bigger, for example, than that between Lombards and Emilians). However, I understand if their culture is considered too local to be implemented.

I would like to see how the areas are displayed

For areas/states, here is a possible subdivision:

Sardinia and Corsica:
- Bastia
- Aiaccio
- Cagliari
- Gallura (Olbia)
- Logudoro (Alghero)
- Arborea (Oristano)

Sicily:
- Palermo
- Girgenti
- Trapani
- Messina
- Catania
- Siracusa
- Malta

Apulia, Lucania and Brutium:
- Bari
- Capitanata (Lucera)
- Taranto
- Otranto (Lecce)
- Basilicata (Matera rather than Potenza)
- Cosenza
- Calabria (Reggio)

Samnium and Campania:
- Campania (Napoli)
- Principato (Salerno)
- Benevento
- Molise (Campobasso)
- Chieti
- Aquila

Latium and Umbria:
- Lazio (Roma)
- Patrimonio di S. Pietro (Viterbo)
- Sabina (Collevecchio, afterwards Rieti)
- Perugia
- Spoleto

The Marches:
- Camerino
- Ascoli
- Marca anconitana (Macerata)
- Ancona
- Urbino

Romagna:
- Rimini
- Forlí
- Ravenna
- Bologna

(South) Tuscany:
- Siena
- Grosseto
- Piombino
- Talamone (then Presidi, with capital Porto Ercole)
(North)
- Firenze
- Arezzo
- Pistoia
- Pisa
(it may be divided into North and South Tuscany)

Emilia:
- Ferrara
- Reggio
- Modena
- Parma
- Piacenza
- Massa

Venetia:
- Venezia
- Treviso
- Padova
- Belluno
- Vicenza
- Verona

Friuli and Istria:
- Friuli (Udine)
- Aquileia
- Gorizia
- Trieste
- Istria (Pola)
- Isole Quarnerine (Veglia)

Tyrol and Trent:
- Trento
- Südtirol (Bozen)
- Tirol
- Lienz

East Lombardy:
- Brescia
- Bergamo
- Cremona
- Mantova

West Lombardy:
- Milano
- Pavia
- Lodi
- Como
- Valtellina (Sondrio)
- Bellinzona

West Piedmont:
- Alessandria
- Novara
- Vercelli
- Monferrato
- Asti

East Piedmont:
- Torino
- Aosta
- Cuneo
- Saluzzo

Liguria:
- Genova
- Savona
- Nizza

I believe Massa and Carrara is Emilian, at least according to their language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilian_dialect

Based on the language, you are completely right (I had never noticed that). Administratively, they are nowadays in Tuscany. I am not really informed about their feelings about it. Anyway, I accepted your correction.

And a minor nitpick is to put the source maps in spoilers for those using phones.

Thanks for the suggestion! I added the spoilers and also a couple of images (including one concerning the importance of Talamone for Siena).

Why does my heart hurt?

Oh, don't be that upset. Consider that, during the Renaissance, Italy was economically as rich as the whole "greater-German" HRI (according to the estimates of Angus Maddison) and possibly even more fragmented. In the game, however, there are around 120 provinces in the three German HRI regions and only 47 provinces in the geographical region of Italy. So, making them 80 or even 94 does not seem completely absurd to me (and I am sure that some important provinces need to be added also to Germany).

Finally, I declare here, since I didn't before, how to merge my new provinces, if by hypothesis 33 provinces were added (rather than 47).

- Spoleto to Umbria (Perugia)
- Ascoli to Marca (Macerata)
- Rimini to Forlí
- Forlí to Ravenna (which in this case becomes Romagna)
- Taranto to Otranto
- Belluno to Treviso
- Quarnerine Islands to Istria
- Aquileia to Friuli
- Valtellina to Como
- Bellinzona to Waldstätten
- Lodi to Milano
- Pistoia to Firenze
- Grosseto to Siena
- Gallura to Cagliari

 

[Lightwell]

Oh, don't be that upset. Consider that, during the Renaissance, Italy was economically as rich as the whole "greater-German" HRI (according to the estimates of Angus Maddison) and possibly even more fragmented. In the game, however, there are around 120 provinces in the three German HRI regions and only 47 provinces in the geographical region of Italy. So, making them 80 or even 94 does not seem completely absurd to me (and I am sure that some important provinces need to be added also to Germany).

Finally, I declare here, since I didn't before, how to merge my new provinces, if by hypothesis 33 provinces were added (rather than 47).

I was talking about province densities for the ROTW. This is honestly painful. You wouldn't even be able to have a single Merchant Republic manage Italy without a number of additional vassals.

 

[BalticM]

- Rimini to Forlí
- Forlí to Ravenna (which in this case becomes Romagna)

I just wonder what makes Ravenna more important than Forli for 15-18th centuries?
We know whom to Romagna belonged to and which city was the principal city of Romagna at the time.

Also no idea how Sabina can be more important than Spoleto for this time?

 

[Ricartus]

I was talking about province densities for the ROTW. This is honestly painful. You wouldn't even be able to have a single Merchant Republic manage Italy without a number of additional vassals.

For my proposal of rework of the Merchant Republics, see: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/better-republics.1368720/

I just wonder what makes Ravenna more important than Forli for 15-18th centuries?
We know whom to Romagna belonged to and which city was the principal city of Romagna at the time

Actually, we know exactly that the capital city of Romagna at the time was Ravenna: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legazione_di_Romagna
I you had ever been in Ravenna, you would know why: there are things which are more important than having a couple thousands inhabitants more. Reasons because of which, for example, Athens became the capital city of modern Greece.

Also no idea how Sabina can be more important than Spoleto for this time?

Well, here you may have a point. In my proposal, I included both of them. Spoleto was more important during the 15th and the 16th century, Rieti during the 17th, the 18th and the 19th century. Having to choose only one, I proposed Rieti because it was indeed preferred to Spoleto in the administrative subdivision of the Papal States of the 18th century (see the map above).

 

[Sanguine Caesar]

Just a few comments on this map. Any threads I link are not for self-promotion, but I feel the attached threads provide the best argumentation I can give for my comments without having to repeat myself here, and because they will have lists of sources for you to use in verifying my comments.

About Corsica, I agree that the island should be split into northern and southern provinces. However, more appropriate names would be Cismonte (the northern province with its capital at Bastia) and Pumonti (the southern province with its capital at Ajaccio), as these are more traditional names for the regions themselves rather than their capitals. If the island is to be split, Pumonti/Ajaccio should also be independent and guaranteed by Aragon, as the nobles of this region did not recognise Genoese control of the island until the 1460s, and still recognised the King of Aragon, despite the Aragonese having been forced to revoke any claim they had to the island. I actually wrote a whole thread on Corsica and how best to represent its situation in the 15th Century here.

Now onto Venezia Giulia. While for the most part I agree with the province decisions here, the province of Aquileia seems so small as to be virtually unclickable. Furthermore, by this time the Patriarchate of Aquileia had already fallen under Venetian control and was actually a key factor leading the Venetians to claim the County of Gorizia after the House of Meinhardiner died out in 1500, as the Meinhardiner had been former vassals of the Patriarchate of Aquileia which was now a Venetian possession. The elite of Gorizia also had Germanic culture, and while the province itself should be Slovene, in-game this would mean that the primary culture would be Austrian (with Slovene as an accepted culture). The counts had also by this time moved their capital to Lienz in Austria, which should also be given to them. Finally, they were not an Austrian vassal but rather a Free Imperial County, and had actually previously ruled over Tirol, Carinthia, and Istria, but over the years had lost control of those regions as the various cadet branches of their dynasty began to die out in the 14th Century. I found this source a while back and it has provided a lot of useful information on Gorizia.

Istria and Trieste should definitely be Dalmatian culture, as they are too small to have their own culture (the general rule being 3 provinces for each culture), but are distinct enough from Venetian at this time that grouping them together wouldn't seem right either. So my compromise would be to give them Dalmatian culture rather than Istriot or Friulian. Friuli could be either Dalmatian or Venetian. Either works. The Kvarner islands could work, but the island of Krk/Veglia itself should be part of Croatia (presumably by being made part of the current Rijeka province they plan on introducing in 1.30) as the island was under control of the Croatian-Hungarian House of Frankopan, and was never under Venetian rule. Zadar/Zara and Split/Spalato should be Croatian culture as well: the Dalmatian language was essentially extinct in the region by this time, and because Venice had only ruled over the region for about 24 years (Dalmatia had been sold to them by one of the Angevin pretenders to the Hungarian/Croatian throne in 1420) there had not been enough time for any serious colonization by Latins to begin. I have another thread all about both Dalmatia and Ragusa here.

Finally, I believe Sicily should be in a Personal Union under Aragon similar to Naples. The King of Sicily at the time was the heir to the Aragonese throne, John II de Trastamara, who was also King of Navarre at the time (something which is actually already represented in-game). However, because I think we can all agree that Sicily starting in a PU under Navarre would be stupid, a better compromise would be to represent it as Sicily being in a PU under Aragon. Furthermore, the Crown of Aragon was not a centralised entity, but rather a composite monarchy which was formed by many constituent Kingdoms and other realms, all of which had high degrees of autonomy, and Sicily was no exception to this. Furthermore, the insular Kingdom of Sicily was a rump state that had at one point been a large and powerful state in the Mediterranean under the Norman kings, and I think it would make for an interesting campaign to start as Sicily and have your goal be the restoration of the borders of the medieval Sicilian kingdom. Another reason to represent it as a PU is the fact that the island retained a separate legislature and administration, and was not fully integrated into the Aragonese demesne. I planned to write a thread on this a while back, but sadly it did not come to fruition. However I will gladly send you some useful sources on the matter if you wish to dig deeper into it yourself.

 

[Ricartus]

About Corsica, I agree that the island should be split into northern and southern provinces. However, more appropriate names would be Cismonte (the northern province with its capital at Bastia) and Pumonti (the southern province with its capital at Ajaccio), as these are more traditional names for the regions themselves rather than their capitals. If the island is to be split, Pumonti/Ajaccio should also be independent and guaranteed by Aragon, as the nobles of this region did not recognise Genoese control of the island until the 1460s, and still recognised the King of Aragon, despite the Aragonese having been forced to revoke any claim they had to the island. I actually wrote a whole thread on Corsica and how best to represent its situation in the 15th Century here.

I agree. I myself was undecided whether to use the names Cismonte and Pomonte/Pumonti or the more widely known city names of Bastia and Aiaccio. My only perplexity is that, perhaps, an Aragonese warranty is too much, because, as you said, "the Aragonese had been forced to revoke any claim they had to the island" and "King Alfonso did not show much interest in Corsica". Entering in a war against Genoa does not reconcile well with this scarce interest. Probably, an after-conquest event which could increase the autonomy of Pomonte by 25% (providing also an alternative, such as severely deteriorating relations with Aragon and giving them a Diplomatic Insult casus belli against Genoa) would be better.

Now onto Venezia Giulia. While for the most part I agree with the province decisions here, the province of Aquileia seems so small as to be virtually unclickable. Furthermore, by this time the Patriarchate of Aquileia had already fallen under Venetian control and was actually a key factor leading the Venetians to claim the County of Gorizia after the House of Meinhardiner died out in 1500, as the Meinhardiner had been former vassals of the Patriarchate of Aquileia which was now a Venetian possession. The elite of Gorizia also had Germanic culture, and while the province itself should be Slovene, in-game this would mean that the primary culture would be Austrian (with Slovene as an accepted culture). The counts had also by this time moved their capital to Lienz in Austria, which should also be given to them. Finally, they were not an Austrian vassal but rather a Free Imperial County, and had actually previously ruled over Tirol, Carinthia, and Istria, but over the years had lost control of those regions as the various cadet branches of their dynasty began to die out in the 14th Century. I found this source a while back and it has provided a lot of useful information on Gorizia.

I mostly agree. Even after the Venetian conquest of Friuli, the patriarch of Aquileia retained his control over the (tiny) city of Aquileia and over some other minor villages. I know that this province was almost insignificant during our timeline. I only proposed to add it in order to offer the player the unique challenge of freeing the Patria del Friuli against all odds, amidst the powerhouses of Venice and Austria (an autonomy that the Friulians, even nowadays, are very proud of, for some reason; they always anger if you refer to them as if they were Venetians). I completely agree with you about Gorizia.

Istria and Trieste should definitely be Dalmatian culture, as they are too small to have their own culture (the general rule being 3 provinces for each culture), but are distinct enough from Venetian at this time that grouping them together wouldn't seem right either. So my compromise would be to give them Dalmatian culture rather than Istriot or Friulian. Friuli could be either Dalmatian or Venetian. Either works. The Kvarner islands could work, but the island of Krk/Veglia itself should be part of Croatia (presumably by being made part of the current Rijeka province they plan on introducing in 1.30) as the island was under control of the Croatian-Hungarian House of Frankopan, and was never under Venetian rule. Zadar/Zara and Split/Spalato should be Croatian culture as well: the Dalmatian language was essentially extinct in the region by this time, and because Venice had only ruled over the region for about 24 years (Dalmatia had been sold to them by one of the Angevin pretenders to the Hungarian/Croatian throne in 1420) there had not been enough time for any serious colonization by Latins to begin. I have another thread all about both Dalmatia and Ragusa here.

Here I disagree entirely. While Istria could be depicted as "Dalmatian", Trieste should definitely be depicted as Friulian as well as Friuli and Aquileia. I also disagree about Veglia. For most of our timeline, it was under the control of Venice (1480–1797).
On the other hand, about the culture of the provinces of Zadar/Zara and Split/Spalato, I agree that it should be Croatian, since the Dalmatian language was limited to these two and a few other cities on the coast (however, it was not extinct yet). Also Ragusa should be depicted as of Croatian culture. If one wanted to represent Dalmatian culture, he could shrink the provinces of Zara and Spalato (retaining Dalmatian as their culture) and add a third (bigger) Croatian province with its capital in Sinj/Signo. He should also make Dalmatian the official culture of Ragusa (while the province itself should be represented as Croatian).

Spoiler

[These maps represent the situation in the 14th century]

Finally, I believe Sicily should be in a Personal Union under Aragon similar to Naples. The King of Sicily at the time was the heir to the Aragonese throne, John II de Trastamara, who was also King of Navarre at the time (something which is actually already represented in-game). However, because I think we can all agree that Sicily starting in a PU under Navarre would be stupid, a better compromise would be to represent it as Sicily being in a PU under Aragon. Furthermore, the Crown of Aragon was not a centralised entity, but rather a composite monarchy which was formed by many constituent Kingdoms and other realms, all of which had high degrees of autonomy, and Sicily was no exception to this. Furthermore, the insular Kingdom of Sicily was a rump state that had at one point been a large and powerful state in the Mediterranean under the Norman kings, and I think it would make for an interesting campaign to start as Sicily and have your goal be the restoration of the borders of the medieval Sicilian kingdom. Another reason to represent it as a PU is the fact that the island retained a separate legislature and administration, and was not fully integrated into the Aragonese demesne. I planned to write a thread on this a while back, but sadly it did not come to fruition. However I will gladly send you some useful sources on the matter if you wish to dig deeper into it yourself.

I completely agree with you!

 

[Ricartus]

If just one province among those I proposed were added, I would love to see, at least, the Merchant Republic of Ancona in the game.

 

[BlackWizardHD]

I acknowledge mine is going to be a necro post, since the thread has not been touched in the last two months, but I believe it to be better than clogging up the forum with another similar thread. With 1.30 having touched Italy up once again it's downright impossible that these changes will be implemented, but they are largely correct. Some things I'd like to note, though.

- Central Italian culture would be a mistake. The culture of Central Italy (Lazio, Umbria, Marche) is largely derived from the ancient Umbrians, which is why it is referred to as such.
- The Republic of Ancona, whilst independent, was still heavily tied to the Papal States. There should be, at the very least, events highlighting so, including one that fires in 1532 that leads to the annexation of the Republic to the States. Ancona should also be allied to Ragusa.
- Benevento would be too small to add. 1.30 added Avellino instead. An easy fix for this would be either an event or a mission tree for Naples/Papal States.
- Salerno should either be split in two provinces, or have a core for Amalfi thrown onto it. either from the 1444 start or via event/decision/mission. Verona has a core and unique ideas, despite the fact that it was probably annexed to Venice long before Amalfi was annexed in the thirteenth century.
- Speaking of the map, both in yours and in the 1.30, there is a massive flaw tied to Abruzzo and Molise. In your map, it's cutting into the province of Naples, when both historically and currently, it's a lot more streamlined . In the game's current map, the latter eats into the former's territory too much, to the point I'm fairly sure Chieti is accidentally Molisan.
- "Salentine" as the name of the culture for Apulia does not make a whole lot of sense. Then again, from a realistic point of view, 90% of the Italian provinces should have their own culture, which is simply absurd. It'd be better if the culture for those provinces was called Apulian.
- With that said, the County (Duchy?) of Apulia should get cores on the state of Apulia and be the primary nation for Apulian culture.
- Abruzzo's culture should stay Neapolitan if it is to stay a single province. If it was to be split between L'Aquila and Chieti, then L'Aquila should get Umbrian as its' culture (dialects in the province of L'Aquila trace their lineage back to Umbrian ones, the Marsi and Peligni were part of the Umbrian people, etc.)
- Elba should be a separate province; it's as big as Ibiza on the map as is, plus it has massive historical relevance; traded back and forth between Pisa, Genoa and various noble families, raided by Barbarossa, sold to Cosimo de' Medici as part of the formation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Napoleon was exiled there...
- Finally, whilst not tied to the map improvement per se, it is tied to the overhaul of the map: Lombardy, Veneto, and Romagna should be formable tags for Lombard, Venetian and Romagnol-cultured nations, especially the latter, as it would be a massive reward for pulling off an incredibly frustrating task in unifying Emilia-Romagna, as well as make retroactive sense; Romagna exists in Crusader Kings II as the alternative to the Papal States.

 

[Ricartus]

Thank you for your critique. However, I mostly disagree, here is why:

- It is false that "the culture of Central Italy (Lazio, Umbria, Marche) is largely derived from the ancient Umbrians". Most of Italian culture is derived from Latin culture, while the influence of pre-Roman cultures is minimal (for example, there is almost no trace of Etruscan language in modern Italian). In any case, the Umbrians could not influence an area larger that that they inhabited, which was relatively small:

- Agreed. The Papal States should also have a core on Ancona and on the whole Central Italy and Romagna (I forgot to make that clear in my first post).
- I know that the Benevento exclave is small, but I think it is worth to add it nevertheless, like the Avignon exclave: the solution adopted in that case was to make the province a bit bigger than the historical one. It is the same thing I propose for Benevento. I want to highlight that Benevento was more important than Avellino.
- Amalfi lost its de facto independence in 1131. It would be anachronistic to add it in 1444, I think. Its importance had drastically diminished, especially after the devastating seaquake of 1343. Verona, on the other hand, was independent until 1387 (much after 1131). During the 14th c., it controlled a large portion of Northern Italy:

- Yes, in the current patch Molise eats half of the province of Chieti and this is very annoying. However, my map is accurate, based on the historical 12 provinces of the Kingdom of Naples between 1454 and 1806 (the only "error" is that Molise did not have access to the sea until 1806, but that would make it too tiny):

- I thought to add Salentine culture (to Salento, not to all Apulia) because it is very peculiar and the Salentine people have a strong cultural identity. However, I don't deny that one could split the Neapolitan culture into 6-7 sub-cultures (or even leave it as it is now). On the other hand, adding only an "Apulian" culture and an Apulian cultural union tag would be arbitrary and artificial, in my opinion. Even the modern region of Apulia is a bit artificial (it wants to retrace the ancient Roman region of Apulia, but it does not respect the modern cultural boundaries).
- To call the people of Abruzzi "Umbrians" seems to me too far-fetched. Even if we extended by generalisation the "Umbrian" ethnonym to the whole Italic peoples (the so called Osco-Umbrian linguistic group), do you understand that there are 2000 years between 500 BC and 1500 AD?
- I proposed a province for Elba and Piombino. I think that one province is enough, even if I understand your reasoning.
- Agreed.

 

[BlackWizardHD]

It is false that "the culture of Central Italy (Lazio, Umbria, Marche) is largely derived from the ancient Umbrians". Most of Italian culture is derived from Latin culture, while the influence of pre-Roman cultures is minimal (for example, there is almost no trace of Etruscan language in modern Italian). In any case, the Umbrians could not influence an area larger that that they inhabited, which was relatively small.

Largely might be an overexaggeration, but excluding northern Marche, Southern Marche (San Benedetto del Tronto) and Southern Lazio (which was Campanian before Mussolini royally messed up the administrative divisions), the dialects of the Lazio-Umbria-Marche rectangle seem to find a common root in Umbrian dialect before evolving due to proximity to other regions (Viterbese, Sabine) or other reasons (Romanesco). This as a whole ties into the issue that each "region" should have its' own culture, but Paradox is not going to do that in a thousand years.

I know that the Benevento exclave is small, but I think it is worth to add it nevertheless, like the Avignon exclave: the solution adopted in that case was to make the province a bit bigger than the historical one. It is the same thing I propose for Benevento. I want to highlight that Benevento was more important than Avellino.

Some mods added Benevento, and it was either oversized or so small it was beyond impossible to click on it (the same way the old Shattered Europe added San Marino and the Principality of Monaco). In some cases it also completely threw the balance off, as it made the Pope constantly hostile to Aragon and/or Naples, often excomunicating them. So it's not just a map issue, but a balance issue.

Amalfi lost its de facto independence in 1131. It would be anachronistic to add it in 1444, I think. Its importance had drastically diminished, especially after the devastating seaquake of 1343. Verona, on the other hand, was independent until 1387 (much after 1131). During the 14th c., it controlled a large portion of Northern Italy.

Going by the latter half of the phrase, then Verona should start off with a lot of cores over Northern Italy. Also, giving Amalfi a tag, unique ideas and core would definitely not be more anachronistic than Gascony, which has a tag and cores despite being inherited into the Duchy of Aquitaine a hundred years before Amalfi. Or, even worse, Normandy having a tag, cores, and unique ideas despite being annexed to England in 1204.

Yes, in the current patch Molise eats half of the province of Chieti and this is very annoying. However, my map is accurate, based on the historical 12 provinces of the Kingdom of Naples between 1454 and 1806 (the only "error" is that Molise did not have access to the sea until 1806, but that would make it too tiny):

Whilst it is period-correct, it honestly feels like the devs flip flop between using the current regional maps and the old administrative divisions. Lazio, even as split as it is between Rome and Terracina in 1.30, resembles its' current-day incarnation a lot more than the more streamlined borders it had as a Papal administrative division. For the sake of convenience, it might be better for Molise to be the same shape it currently is in real life. Some mods did have it as such, and it actually worked rather well.

I thought to add Salentine culture (to Salento, not to all Apulia) because it is very peculiar and the Salentine people have a strong cultural identity. However, I don't deny that one could split the Neapolitan culture into 6-7 sub-cultures (or even leave it as it is now). On the other hand, adding only an "Apulian" culture and an Apulian cultural union tag would be arbitrary and artificial, in my opinion. Even the modern region of Apulia is a bit artificial (it wants to retrace the ancient Roman region of Apulia, but it does not respect the modern cultural boundaries).

Giving just Salento a unique culture is something that is both impractical and that the developers have ruled out (despite giving Malta, a one-province island, Maltese as a unique culture). Giving the state of Apulia the culture of Apulia, however, would not be overly artificial, as I also do not believe the region itself to be overly artificial, even from a cultural standpoint. Each province has its' own strong culture, but nowadays, most Apulians do believe there to be a common root to Apulia and wholly recognize themselves in the region.

That obviously doesn't stop the rivalry/hate between communes, but eh, that's an Italian specialty.

To call the people of Abruzzi "Umbrians" seems to me too far-fetched. Even if we extended by generalisation the "Umbrian" ethnonym to the whole Italic peoples (the so called Osco-Umbrian linguistic group), do you understand that there are 2000 years between 500 BC and 1500 AD?

I did not specify that the Abruzzese were in any way Umbrians. Nowadays, they're (technically we) are just Abruzzese because of the region's spot as a crossroad between the old kingdoms. There is such a thing as Abruzzese identity, basically. From an EU IV point of view, however, L'Aquila and Marsica definitely would get Umbrian as a culture if they were separate provinces (even just L'Aquila or the Aquilano area); their dialects belong to the Central Italian/Osco-Umbrian group, as do a lot of their customs, even as they have evolved over the centuries.