Ruthenia & Cossack Immersion Pack

[fr-rein]

There were a few threads and suggesstions for the Ruthenia, Cossacks and the region.
This is a thread to sum up most of (at least recent) suggestions voiced so far for it, scattered among a few threads so that they would be concentrated in ones place. It may refer to some PLC suggestions in context of the region and, if needed, to some of the Russian ones.

I made a compilation of ideas here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...to-ukrainian-region-cossacks-content.1140129/
But in this threads comments, sources and reasoning are more widely provided.


Let me sum up the main ideas and update them:

1) Creating/reforming Zaporozhia and Cossack state mechanics in general (here was one of the ideas).
2) Greek Catholic Church aka Uniate Church.
3) Flavour events, including Khmelnytsky Uprising.
4) Jew estate or another kind of their representation.
5) Election system in PLC (here was quite an interesting suggesstion).
6) Ruthenian expansion in the steppes and settling in regions such as Southern Ukraine, Donbass, Sloboda Ukraine and Kuban.
7) Special Cossack units&NI.
8) Dniester Estuary.
9) The Steppes and Hordes.
10) Small principalities on the Lithuania-Muscovite border and the wars because of switching vassals. Link to the post.
11) Map rework (here).




1. Zaporozhia, Cossack States and their unique mechanics.
I will briefly sum it up.
In the EU4 timeframe the Cossack hosts played a huge role. Often made with people dissatisfied with the social order (runaway serfs, poor peasants, poor/dissatisfied nobles), the hosts played a huge roled in the battles against Steppe Hordes, revolted against authorities and were potentially states (revolts against PLC with emergance of Hetmanate which lasted for a century in different forms and failed revolts against Russian Tsars like Stenka Razin and Pugachev did) and played a huge role in the subsequent colonization of the Steppes and Siberia. For example, (various) Zaporozhia Cossacks and Ruthenian peasants as a result settled in Sloboda Ukraine, Donbass and Kuban, as well as fighting off Tatars, Nogais and etc from there. Cossacks under Yermak were the ones to subjugate Siberian Khans and made possible the expansion of Russia there. Yaik (Ural) Cossacks were the force which was guarding from the Central Asian Steppe hordes and raids.
Their importance isn't that evident in the game at this moment as they protected from something game doesn't show - Tatar (and other horde) raids. Those devastating raids were the main reasons why despite everything the regions bordering Steppes were so underdeveloped - they simply tended to be devastated by the raids. Cossacks were one of the things that helped to attack the Hordes and repel them, as well as raid on their lands themselves.
And, of course, the generic Horde state mechanic is a really weird thing to have for Zaporozhia.
Another point of it would be also altering the way Russia expands, it is weird to see it becoming basically an endgame Russia so early. Probably it would be more correct to redelegate some of the initial power of the expansion to the Cossacks, buffing the Steppe Hordes to counter Russia/Muscovy/PLC/others more, adding more Siberian provinces and the native states there which would be dealt with by Yermak and so on. The very presence of more Cossack hosts would now make not only Muscovy or Russia, but even Novgorod feel a natural need for the Authoritarian suppression and strict control/abandonment/reforming their hosts - which would be a necessary tool for wars and expansion, but at a cost of risking to run into forming new nations/states there if they revolt. It should be pushed for the nations bordering the Steppes to make Cossacks there (although... they didn't spawn because they were allowed to, they did it naturally and were only allowed officially or not later). Right now, it is easy to avoid Cossack troubles even for AI or ignore them as other events or means allow to solve the Siberian expansion and stop Steppe Hordes without too much struggle.
Leaving the link here to the thread with more details. @dayalu suggested quite a few good things there.
P.S. Making ahistorical Cossack Hosts would be great as another way to make client states. Imagine Russia/Ruthenia/someone swimming to North America... and settling there a Cossack Host. Cossack Colony in the New World would be a quite fun achievment - like Cossack States of America (I am serious though)

2. Uniate Church.
It was said before, but it is a huge detail which is missing in the internal politics of the PLC: the spread, often forceful, of the Catholicism. One of the ways it was applied was creating the Uniate Church, basically an Orthodox Church which accepted Catholic supremacy and rites. Since the direct conversion of the common folk (not counting nobles) wasn't spread in Ruthenia and encountered opposition, the creation of Greel Catholic Church as a result of Union of Brest happened. Initially spread in Red Ruthenia and Wolhyn, it was an attempt to sway the local Orthodox Christian majority into the Catholicism which mattered a lot for PLC.
It should be reflected in a way how conversion there works too - with Uniates being more able to convert to their religion while Catholics would face a bigger struggle and minus to conversion. And, with later endgame "bonus" of "annexing" Uniate Church to the Catholicism.
This may look unimportant, especially because the Church would work only on very few provinces historically, but it was a part of a huge religious struggle in the region. People killed because of faith just as ferociously as people did in the rest of Europe, faith was a major drive behind the uprisings that happened. Poland had no easy way to convert people to the "right" (as they perceived) Christianity and they didn't make Ruthenia fully Catholic because they simply couldn't. The Uniate mechanics would be one of the possible means for Poland to promote Catholicism, albeit at the cost of huge dissent - including the possible expansion of Uniate Church into Russia in case PLC takes it.
And in general the religious dynamics for the PLC should matter. Religious struggle was as important as the national and social ones.

3. Flavour events.
As simple as it is - just reflect major events in the local history like Khmelnytsky Uprising since it was like nothing before and was hugely explosive and history-changing. Please.

4. Jews
The issue was raised before, but I would love to repeat it again - the Jews should have a bigger representation in the local history. They weren't just a few traders. They were a numerous people settling in the region, were responsible only to the King and they in general mattered a lot (disliked by many yet providing a lot of money in trade and taxes). Making them a special estate, given that provinces receive more, would be an interesting way for the king to fight traditional estates as Jews, unlike others, would be the most loyal (but worrying for others) ones. It would be a fair point that they don't necessarily have to be an estate and I agree with it, but being a province modifier also doesn't reflect their lasting influence, their huge numbers and the effects they had on the development of PLC - after all, they provided a lot of wealth to it, aiding in the development of the state, including the Ruthenia region, even if people disliked them.

5. PLC election system (and monarchy in general)
While it is not a Ruthenian topic directly, the inner politics of PLC mattered a lot to Ruthenia. It was mentioned in the threads about Polish Content as well as many other ideas here and here recently, one of the users had a good suggestion about it. I won't be delving deeper into it and I hope that the people interested in Poland content and devs will make a good update to the system there.
Why it matters for the Ruthenia? Because of Orhodox nobility. Despite flaws, the very organization of the Polish "parliament" encouraged integration of the major and lesser noble families into the Polish political life, accepting Catholicism and being loyal to them. The fact that Ruthenian nobles stoold with the PLC made it possible and important that common folk looked at the Cossacks and hoped for their support. And it was a reason why Cossacks later as a result became a new national elite and new nobles.

6. Colonization of the Steppes.
An important process which occured in the second half of the EU4 timeframe was about the migration of many Ruthenians from the war-torn lands of Ruthenia to the Sloboda Ukraine, the region we now call Donbass, Southern Ukraine Steppes, Kuban. Those lands were settled by the Cossacks and Ruthenians in the XVII-XVIII centuries and it was important as the reaches of the soil, new trade and generally the shifted cultural makeup of the lands allowed for the expansion of the Russian Empire and for the Ukrainian lands in particular in the future.
Another effect of such an event, except for repeating the natural migration and recreating the supposed natural culture makeup in lategame, would be a removal of the need for the Russia or others to "paint" those territories with their culture, being a small yet nice boost.

7. Special Cossack units&NI.
While unit requests (for something like this) is a selfish part of the proposals, National Ideas for the Cossacks and Ruthenians should be updated.

8. Dniester Estuary.
Yep, the estuary. Given the new border of Yedisan with Southern (coastal) Moldova, I think that it should be present on the map as it wasn't a passable terrain, making an impassable/hardly passable obstacle between Edisanas and Basarabia. It was also a reason why the town of Tighina was important - it was hard to pass Dniester lower because of the estuary and thus why most of the military campaigns went with attacking Tighina (otherwise called Bender/Bendery).

9. The Steppes and Hordes.
There were some threads here and here, and probably other ones I've missed.
But the point is: Hordes should receive a rework. And not just a rework to make them deadlier and more important. I think that in the thread about Russian flavor there were some suggestions, which I'll repost later here.
It is important to make Horde great since without a proper adversary you will never be a hero in the eyes of others. No challenge - no fun!

10. Small principalities on the Lithuania-Muscovite border and the wars because of switching vassals.
Here.

11. Map Rework.
I suggest it here, more details across the thread.

Thanks for attention!

 

[navaluiki]

Wow, amazing thread. Definitely the Pontic steppe should have more attention. It has a much more complex History than it seems

 

[fr-rein]

Wow, amazing thread. Definitely the Pontic steppe should have more attention. It has a much more complex History than it seems

Thank you.
Right now I would like to expand on how important Cossacks were for the Eastern Europe. And one of the main things was.... that they weren't truly controlled well.
Even now Cossack Estate is fine, but only for the certain part of the history. Cossacks, even as subjects to Tsar for example, effectively were proxies in wars. The subjugation of Siberia was effectively done via a proxy Cossack state. Don Cossacks also started independently from Russia/Muscovy at first, being proxies and Cossack settlers.

Same goes for Zaporozhia - it was not in any way a real subject to the Commonwealth. In fact, it was a place where *not registered* Cossacks were. The difference between Register Cossacks and others were huge - first ones were employed by the Commonwealth, given payment and recognized as soldiers. They were very helpful for the Commonwealth... but there was always a demand to expand the register. In fact, one of the first demands of the Khmelnytsky Uprising was to officially expand register - to 40000 people, of regular army factually, instead of 6000 official one which was at that moment.

Cossack Uprisings were also a regular thing for the late XVI-XVII centuries. The fact was, people who failed to become cossacks, primarily farmers, were to become serfs under the Commonwealth. It was a reason why many who failed to become Registered Cossack escaped to Zaporozhia - to escape the serfdom. And it is a reason why Zaporozhia hosted a lot of Cossacks - in fact way more than there ever were Registered Cossacks, at least until Khmelnytsky Uprising. And it is also a reason why after the Uprising Khmelnytsky managed to form rather huge armies (for example a battle of Berestechko).

Right now you can only see it as a mere uprising in Poland if you scroll history map. But in fact, it was way more than that. Nor it was a coincedence that this Uprising happened - but rather, Khmelnytsky Uprising was the first one to succeed compared to others. So I do argue that it should be present, with Cossacks given somewhat more depth - as right now, sadly, they are represented with Cossacks loyal to the state. It may be enough for Don Cossacks and others, but not enough for the Zaporozhian Cossacks or the Hetmanate as they are now.

I also think that the Siberian expeditions and the Cossack participation there should also receive more flavour, as well as some Don Cossack event. Needless to say, I also think that Cossacks should be allowed to spawn in the terrain other than Steppe as well. I mean, aside from Ruthenia, you can see them as far as in Far East. So in my opinion Cossacks could be upgraded somewhat... as right now they are rather stereotypically shown.

The fact that they are shown as cavalry guys first and foremost is an issue too as historically most of them were infantry and famous for being good with guns. Surely, for Registered Cossacks it's not an issue, but for the Cossacks in wider range (which means plenty times more than Registered Cossacks) it wasn't the case.

Another aspect is that Cossacks were essential to prevent and counteract on raiding done by Tatars. They didn't effectively counter it (it would happen very rarely as you can't stop horde raiding), but they would retaliate, raid back or participate in wars with Tatars or Ottomans. This is a reason why Tatar raid mechanics is substential - since right now it is absent. This makes some bullshit - for example, southern Hordes get easily stomped out or even if there is Crimea it is not relevant - staying mostly as an eyesore which did nothing to Russian South. Which is, again, bullshit - since it was barely settled and colonized exactly because of Hordes raiding the region, making only Cossacks being able to survive there for a while. This also brings up the issue of the oddly distributed development. I mean, there is no reason for Horde territories to be more developed than Ruthenia - it makes the latter oddly irrelevant even compared to Crimea, making most of Russian conquests aim for Baltics and Polotskian territories which are more developed, but ignoring Ruthenia - which is wrong. In fact, recognizing the Left Bank and the Left Bank Hetmanate under Russia was a prime reason and a major result of the wars between the Commonweath and Russian in the 2nd half of XVII century. Baltics and Belarus were taken much later, during the partitions.

I do recognize the issues related to putting such things into a game. Or that it is an unpopular topic. But it is still important, especially if there will be any related rework for the region in future.

 

[navaluiki]

Thank you.
Right now I would like to expand on how important Cossacks were for the Eastern Europe. And one of the main things was.... that they weren't truly controlled well.
Even now Cossack Estate is fine, but only for the certain part of the history. Cossacks, even as subjects to Tsar for example, effectively were proxies in wars. The subjugation of Siberia was effectively done via a proxy Cossack state. Don Cossacks also started independently from Russia/Muscovy at first, being proxies and Cossack settlers.

Same goes for Zaporozhia - it was not in any way a real subject to the Commonwealth. In fact, it was a place where *not registered* Cossacks were. The difference between Register Cossacks and others were huge - first ones were employed by the Commonwealth, given payment and recognized as soldiers. They were very helpful for the Commonwealth... but there was always a demand to expand the register. In fact, one of the first demands of the Khmelnytsky Uprising was to officially expand register - to 40000 people, of regular army factually, instead of 6000 official one which was at that moment.

Cossack Uprisings were also a regular thing for the late XVI-XVII centuries. The fact was, people who failed to become cossacks, primarily farmers, were to become serfs under the Commonwealth. It was a reason why many who failed to become Registered Cossack escaped to Zaporozhia - to escape the serfdom. And it is a reason why Zaporozhia hosted a lot of Cossacks - in fact way more than there ever were Registered Cossacks, at least until Khmelnytsky Uprising. And it is also a reason why after the Uprising Khmelnytsky managed to form rather huge armies (for example a battle of Berestechko).

Right now you can only see it as a mere uprising in Poland if you scroll history map. But in fact, it was way more than that. Nor it was a coincedence that this Uprising happened - but rather, Khmelnytsky Uprising was the first one to succeed compared to others. So I do argue that it should be present, with Cossacks given somewhat more depth - as right now, sadly, they are represented with Cossacks loyal to the state. It may be enough for Don Cossacks and others, but not enough for the Zaporozhian Cossacks or the Hetmanate as they are now.

I also think that the Siberian expeditions and the Cossack participation there should also receive more flavour, as well as some Don Cossack event. Needless to say, I also think that Cossacks should be allowed to spawn in the terrain other than Steppe as well. I mean, aside from Ruthenia, you can see them as far as in Far East. So in my opinion Cossacks could be upgraded somewhat... as right now they are rather stereotypically shown.

The fact that they are shown as cavalry guys first and foremost is an issue too as historically most of them were infantry and famous for being good with guns. Surely, for Registered Cossacks it's not an issue, but for the Cossacks in wider range (which means plenty times more than Registered Cossacks) it wasn't the case.

Another aspect is that Cossacks were essential to prevent and counteract on raiding done by Tatars. They didn't effectively counter it (it would happen very rarely as you can't stop horde raiding), but they would retaliate, raid back or participate in wars with Tatars or Ottomans. This is a reason why Tatar raid mechanics is substential - since right now it is absent. This makes some bullshit - for example, southern Hordes get easily stomped out or even if there is Crimea it is not relevant - staying mostly as an eyesore which did nothing to Russian South. Which is, again, bullshit - since it was barely settled and colonized exactly because of Hordes raiding the region, making only Cossacks being able to survive there for a while. This also brings up the issue of the oddly distributed development. I mean, there is no reason for Horde territories to be more developed than Ruthenia - it makes the latter oddly irrelevant even compared to Crimea, making most of Russian conquests aim for Baltics and Polotskian territories which are more developed, but ignoring Ruthenia - which is wrong. In fact, recognizing the Left Bank and the Left Bank Hetmanate under Russia was a prime reason and a major result of the wars between the Commonweath and Russian in the 2nd half of XVII century. Baltics and Belarus were taken much later, during the partitions.

I do recognize the issues related to putting such things into a game. Or that it is an unpopular topic. But it is still important, especially if there will be any related rework for the region in future.

Well, I'm overwhelmed by the amount of information you put. I must confess I don't know that much about the History of the Cossacks (but this thread is enlightening me by the way), but I've missed for a long time some mechanics for how the Cossacks helped Russia expand and perhaps even establish some kind of special marches (hosts) in the borders, like Kuban or Siberia.
I hope developers take a look at your thread

 

[Canute VII]

Well, I'm overwhelmed by the amount of information you put. I must confess I don't know that much about the History of the Cossacks (but this thread is enlightening me by the way), but I've missed for a long time some mechanics for how the Cossacks helped Russia expand and perhaps even establish some kind of special marches (hosts) in the borders, like Kuban or Siberia.
I hope developers take a look at your thread

Yes, "siberian frontier" and "cossacks estate" being independent mechanics seems to be a bit ahistorical.

 

[fr-rein]

Yes, "siberian frontier" and "cossacks estate" being independent mechanics seems to be a bit ahistorical.

Not really.
Siberian Frontier mechanics is quite helpful and nice. There is a lack of content in Siberia though which makes taking over Siberia rather routine task. In particular, if hordes were able to raid you would have to protect your colonies in Siberia - like historically it happened with sending there Cossack groups. This way the frontier is balanced by the need to maintain it with military - where Cossack estate could play a huge role!
As for the "Cossack Estate" - I don't say that it is bad. It is inaccurate, yes. But the model of essentially state-employed autonomous Cossacks is right for many instances - from Polish Registered Cossacks to Russian Cossacks, with latter ones surviving as a kind with their own privileges and rights in Empire until 1917.

I've missed for a long time some mechanics for how the Cossacks helped Russia expand and perhaps even establish some kind of special marches (hosts) in the borders, like Kuban or Siberia.

The idea is that Cossacks, especially as an estate, were often employed on the borders. Especially in Russia. Ural, Yaik, Don, Kuban, Zaporozhia, Terek, Siberia, Far East... They were used not as mere steppe dudes on horses writing funny letters to Sultan.
With Horde Raid mechanics their existence gets meaning as your expansion into Siberia will be challenged, your southern borders threatened and southern province devastated. Partially a reason why I put more provinces in Ruthenia is because of it - to not allow Poland block raids with 1 fort.
Again, hosts didn't really exist all the time as separate entities. And estates would often fill the role of hosts, especially if they could be "grouped" into hosts. Just that estates should be a bit improved to fill the historical role and that the other types of Cossacks should be also represented. And the Hetmanate (essentially, Cossack State including whole Ruthenia at its peak) and the historical events should happen.

Another fact for example: one of the cossack Hetmans, who essentially made Cossacks organized, Petro Sahaydachnyi, supported Orthodoxy a lot, going as far as to get help from Patriarch of Constantinople and restoring organization of the Ruthenian Orthodox Church. He also essentially founded first Academy in Ruthenia (and, mind you, Russia) - Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, which remained relevant for a while, with many Russian people getting education there, until it was later shut down by Russia for political reasons.
All because Jesuits wanted to turn the school that later became Academy into Catholic Seminarium. Counter-reformation in Poland played a huge role in Ruthenian history and oppression of Orthodoxy, with Jesuits fueling it. Sadly, right now Jesuits are purely Iberian thing.

 

[fr-rein]

I have two suggestions for the estate mechanics.

1. Hordes could use "Horde" estate. In real life, many hordes weren't fully united and there were smaller hordes orbiting around bigger ones. Now, in most cases Hordes live in the plains and steppes. They weren't usually developing countryside or doing other silly things - since it would mean Horde settling down. Right now Horde can do it because there is nothing stopping it from investing in Eastern Poland. But what if Hordes were encouraged to keep more "hordish" playstyle, included but not limited to sustaining groups of smaller hordes, represented via estates? This way, for example, Crimean Khanate would be interested to develop capital but give Yedisan to the smaller hordes. I also see Horde estate tied on the Horde unity, it being important for the estate, as well as regular and healthy raiding.
2. Groups within estates. What do I mean: right now estates are mostly generic clergy, cossacks, burghers, aristocracy. In most cases we are fine without getting into details. But... lets say we look at Poland and at Magnates, aristocracy so powerful that it owned effectively entire province or territories close to that. For Poland having such entities would be a great thing as they would play a great role in (improved) Sejm and internal politics. Or, for example, have separate Cossack Hosts which would make sense for Russia for example (having Don, Terek, Far East, Siberian, Yaik and other Hosts during different periods of time) as well as ability to relocate separate hosts and manage relations with them differently, as well as giving different tasks. Or, as I have suggested, in case of Hordes it would mean making Horde Estates tied to separate Hordes. For example, Crimean Khanate could have a group of Nogais in Yedisan as a "vassal" horde, which such an estate would reflect correctly. For burghers such a thing would be a Free City kind of deal - often undesirable unless given to barely developed territories. For Aristocracy it would be great because it would allow Poland to promote general to a powerful Aristocrat and try to tip balance of power in Sejm. All in all, it is introducing internal politics for the bigger nations and even possibility for spawning new nations out of such rebellious estate (and not touching "general" or other "named" parts of the respective estate). So, Don Cossacks could in theory break free all while Yaik Cossacks would stay loyal to the Tsar.

This mainly concerns Cossacks and Hordes, but ideally it would be working with any country and estate. Just naturally limited to bigger countries mostly. Or, for example, in case you integrate some vassal you could have an option to integrate him as a priveleged Aristocrat - making cheaper/quicker integration, but leaving them privileged with an estate and giving them ability to influence your internal politics as a powerful aristocrat.

Edit: for the groups of estates showing us magnates... I think that this mechanics could also apply to some less-than-a-vassal subjects within big countries. For example, there were quite a few principalities under GDL which could be under this representation. Their disloyalty and switching to Muscovy like at the end of XV century and the ensuing wars could help greatly with dynamics in the region.

 

[fr-rein]

1. Union of Brest.
Union of Brest was the major decision of Poland and Commonwealth.
In short, it was about integrating Ruthenian Orthodox (aka Greek) Church into Catholic one. As a result of this Union, Poland made Orthodox priests turn into Catholic side, thus making even those who were previously Orthodox formally under the Catholic jurisdiction - under the Greek Orthodox Church. The Church, which has only a few similar ones in Middle East and other places, united Catholic and Orthodox rites under the Pope. The main purpose of it was to convert Orthodox population into the Catholic side by a "soft force" - as this Church not only was the successor of the Orthodoxy in Rus' (starting for the bapticizing of Rus in Kiev) and the oldest one, but also legally the only Orthodox Church in the Commonwealth.
Partially the plan succeeded, especially in Red Ruthenia and Volyn. The Church had a support from the state and Orthodox Churches were taken into that Church or turned into Catholic ones. However, this Church didn't get the needed support - Polish nobility had no interest to it, Jesuits and other purists weren't keen of it and Ruthenian nobility either held it in disdain or converted directly into Catholicism, leaving the spread of the Church up to the state.

Historically, the Church survived through all storms and exists nowadays. Its area was and is primarily Western Ukraine as it didn't get further due to Ruthenian resistance and later the Khmelnytsky Uprising - and after partitions Russian Empire did its best to destroy it, replacing with Orthodoxy, leaving it intact only on the territories of Habsburgs. However, I've argued previously about the importance of such a Church and of attempts of Catholicism to unite Christianity. What if Poland took Moscow and conquered Russia? What if the Catholic powers got the ground for spreading the Greek Catholic Church and turning Orthodox provinces into Greek Catholic? And, of course, with making Greek Catholics prevail over Orthodox Church there could be done some final kind of Union, integrating the remnants of Orthodoxy into Greek Catholics and Greek Catholics into Catholicism proper. Wouldn't it be fun to have the actually historical counterpart to CKII event, where you could make Catholicism absorb Orthodoxy? If you can win against Protestants then why not?

And in general I wish Catholicism to receive more love.

There also was another similar event - Union of Uzhgorod - which was a Hungarian version of Union of Brest, establishing Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church.
Which probably would mean that any Catholic power could try to convert Orthodox Churches into Greek Catholic ones.

The main idea of such mechanics would be the bonuses to conversion, less unrest and other perks encouraging such an "indirect" conversion, as well as much stronger missionary speed and/or other perks.

2. Restoration of the Orthodox Church in Ruthenia.
The situation after the Union of Brest was rather dire for the Orthodox population.
However, in the 1620s the Cossack Hetman, famous Petro-Konashevych Sahaidachny, managed to get help from the Constantinople Patriarch and restore the Orthodoxy in Ruthenia, having Job Boretsky as the first Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia and all Rus. It marked the opposition efforts to the Greek Catholic Church and greatly reinforced positions of Orthodox Church and Cossacks in Commonwealth, especially among Ruthenian population.
Personally, I envision it as a part of the greater Khmelnytsky Disaster event, where it would be one of the points of no returns.
It is also important for Cossacks too, as it marked their strengths and influences (the battle of Khotyn alone showed how important and strong Cossacks could be).
Another thing is that Petro Sahaidachny was a very loyal Hetman to Commonwealth despite all the disagreements. His actions and time would be one of the defining in the relationships of Cossacks and the Commonwealth.

3. Foundation of the Sich.
Historically Cossacks existed before, dating as far as to the start of XVI century. However, it is Baida Vyshevetsky who is considered as a founder of the Siches to come and the one who made the decisive foundation of the Cossack legacy. His personal charisma led to him gathering Cossacks under him, building a fortress for themselves and organizing as a military organization.

4. Moldova Expeditions.
It may sound strange to you, but historically Cossacks were quite involved with Moldova.
There is a whole (non-English) wiki article about multiple attempts of Cossacks to establish themselves in Moldova, with Hetmans trying to take over it. These events were major, especially for Moldavia, and played quite some role in its history. It mattered for Cossacks too - in Moldavia after the ultimate defeat died elder son of Khmelnytsky, Tymosh, who was designated as a heir. His younger brother, Yurii, was not as capable and certainly not in the time when the crisis was ongoing, weakening the Cossack leadership afterwards.

5. Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.
As I was saying, the opposition to the Polish influence in Ruthenia was quite formiddable and growing as the Catholicism agenda was pushed.
In 1632 effectively appeared Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. The role of this institution, organized by the Ruthenian Orthodox elite, is hard to underestimate. It was the first such institution of the Eastern Slavic group and became a school to many people there - effectively becoming a mother to Russian universities later, as well as giving education to many prominent people of that era (with even Lomonosov studying in there at some point). List of people who studied there (warning: mixed with some contemporary people) shows the relevance of the Academy, with many Hetmans coming from there. This institution played a huge role in the religious and cultural life of the Eastern Europe, being one of the pillars of it in XVII-XVIII centuries and the successors still play a huge role in the religious life.
Notably, the institution wasn't a proper university despite everything - or rather it was quite focused on the religious and cultural education, being a humanitarian academy first and foremost.
The appearance of such institution should be shown in game as it played a key role in history.

---
I do not include most of Uprisings as they could fit in the current rebelling and model of Cossacks, as long as the presence of Cossacks in Steppe only will be reconsidered.

To be expanded. If you can suggest other major events involving Ruthenia then please reply.

 

[Theironemperor]

Wow, you are doing a great job!

Ok, I could help you with gathering the information you need considering Ukraine and the Cossacks.
I'm actually not sure if we should make a new tag or just stick to the UKR one as it is left out of the game anyway.

And it would be nice to represent how the Ukraine joining Russia influenced the Russian culture and history. I mean, firstly Russia got its claim to be legally called Russia or as it will be called later the AllRussian Empire (because there were three Rus'es according to the traditional Russian historiography) as it now had the control over the core region of ancient Rus. Secondly, the early Russian Empire was highly dependent on the Ukrainian culture, with nobility getting their education in Kyiv Mohyla Academy. The first Russian book on grammar was made by an alumni of the Academy and was made by examples of the Ruthenian grammar books made by Smotritsky. The same as the first AllRussian worldwide renown musician was born and got his education in Hlukhiv, Ukraine, which by the time still was a vassal.
Ingame it could be represented by boosting the institution spreading over the Russian lands after taking the Ukrainian lands. It would also make sense to take these lands earlier for Russia to not to lag behind in technology.

 

[fr-rein]

I'm actually not sure if we should make a new tag or just stick to the UKR one as it is left out of the game anyway.

There should be a separate tag for the Hetmanate. Ruthenia has own tag and history&role in game.
It is also notable that Hetmanate could become Ruthenia in case Hetman would manage to establish himself as a monarch. Khmelnytsky in particular tried to do it, but with the death of Tymosh the plan was obviously destined to fail as Yurii wasn't the monarch material.

with nobility getting their education in Kyiv Mohyla Academy

Agreed. The Academy needs a proper representation in game as it played a huge role in Eastern European culture. The influence it had on Ruthenia and Russia was huge.

Ingame it could be represented by boosting the institution spreading over the Russian lands after taking the Ukrainian lands.

I disagree.
Instead, by having Hetmanate historically exist until 1764 as a vassal as it was, Russia would naturally get all benefits of development and etc upon integration.
Not to mention that for Russia and Eastern Europe in general Peter I brought the wave of westernization not dependent on Poland, making the spread of development faster.
And another thing for the development argument you brought would be that the main benefactor was the state. Thus, Russia as a state benefitted from the increased dev - which is what directly happening by having a vassal and later after integration their development.

But I do agree that events regarding Ruthenia in Russia (or reformed Commonwealth?) could be more fleshed out. Especially with Cossacks under service of Tsar - there could be an event about Tsaritsa's shoes referring to famous Gogol story.

I am still not sure about map. I gathered what I had and fleshed out some main ideas there, but I don't know if the map makes sense to others.
Another thing is a trade route along Dniester. I wanna write about it some time later, as well as about Odesa.
Flavour and events need work too. I do not put here most of uprisings as things that occurred a lot under normal EU4 mechanics. Right now, sadly, "flavour" for Cossacks is a scornful insult thing, which on the level of imagining Russia with bears drinking vodka and playing balalaika. A one-time thing, it became a damn mechanics...

 

[Theironemperor]

Here is a book by Joseph Marshall, an English traveler (1770).
https://archive.org/details/travelsthroughh03mars/page/132

He mentions Ukraine a lot in his book and here's a few quotes:
"It should be remembered, that the richest products which Russia exports are those of the most southernly provinces, particularly the Ukraine which is universally allowed to be one of the finest countries in the world" (p. 132)
"the most important province of the empire, the Ukraine" (p. 162)
"Kiovia, one of the most considerable cities I have seen in Russia" (p. 168)
"The Ukraine is the richest province in the Russian Empire" (p. 169)
"I do not hear that there is any thing worthy of notice between the Ukraine and Petersburg" (p. 172)


It's about the development these provinces should have ingame. It were not some poor backward provinces, it was essential to the economy of Russia.


It is quite peculiar how the author refers to the inhabitants of Ukraine as Tartars. He even says that Ukraine once was independent with its own "Tartar prince", probably meaning the Hetmanate. It may originate from the conquering the lands of Crimea and from the name of the former Khanate lands.

 

[fr-rein]

I have previously argued about the absolute misinterpretation of Counter-Reformation in Poland and how Polish high Tolerance and having Ruthenians as Accepted Cultures twists history in a weird way - like as if saying that Ottoman Empire is a good friend and ally to Balkan nations.
In particular, the main issue here is faith. Right now Poland is very tolerant, but that's simply not right as the Counter-Reformation in Poland, Jesuit influence and Catholicism expansion led to the high tensions compared to the bloody bath of Reformation.

But let me show another part of this dynamics.
Orthodox Brotherhoods wouldn't be a thing that you would normally pay attention to.
However, these were a major pillar of the Ruthenian and Orthodox in Commonwealth. They were saving Orthodox faith and customs (and by extension Ruthenian ones) and opposing Polish Counter-Reformation in the Commonwealth. These brotherhoods were keeping faith and language safe, greatly opposing Catholicisation and convertion - which is a reason why Poland attempted to promote Uniate Church which tried to integrate Orthodox churches and faithful into itself and succeeded for the most part in Red Ruthenia and Volyn.

Their existance alone was a major obstacle to the Polish religious and cultural expansion and integration of Ruthenia. Even when Poland did convert most of magnates and nobility to its faith, the fact that there were such brotherhoods kept by common people didn't let the culture and faith die, becoming a fundament for the following Khmelnytsky Uprising and the Cossack wars, as well as a fundament for the Cossack Hetmanate.

It is a thing that shouldn't be overlooked as overlooking such few things made the current place and role of Ruthenia in EU4 twisted and wrong. Poland gets bonuses to religious tolerance and less problems with Ukraine, national rebellions aren't a thing. Cossacks are limited to Zaporozhia and the Hetmanate (map of it at the peak):

is absolutely ignored. The role of Cossacks in Ruthenia is absolutely ignored. Their presence in Ruthenia is ignored.
The Khmelnytsky Uprising is limited now to the "pretenders" regular uprising in the history map - which doesn't make sense and is not really possible either, fully twisting the history. The problems of Orthodox faith and Catholic-Orthodox conflict are ignored - instead, because Poland was known to be tolerant to Protestants it is by extension is tolerant to Orthodoxy. A sad ahistorical logics.
And it is not a problem of just Ruthenia - hey, it is a problem for Poland and Commonwealth as well. It is a poor design that a nation known for its aspirations on the East is very, very poor on the interactions with the said East, with Orthodoxy and even with its own Orthodox land.

So, back to the Orthodox Brotherhoods, this event or perhaps a modificator would be a thing increasing conversion costs for the religious and cultural convertion for Catholicism. This could be also a thing making the game for Uniate Church - as it would not suffer such penalties in conversion and make a groundwork for a Poland which would aim to convert Orthodox East to its own faith. However, in case of Cossack Hetmanate/Russia/other Orthodox nations were to retake the provinces from Uniates, the Orthodox faith would be restored.
The existance and function of such Orthodox Brotherhoods would vary from being "negative" to Commonwealth to even useful ones - with Uniate Brootherhoods appearing in the converted lands, providing some bonuses to compensate for economic disadvantage of conversion, approximating the income and other stats from Uniate Church provinces closer to proper Catholic ones. In case of Commonwealth reforming into the Commonwealth of Poland, Lithuania and Ruthenia all Orthodox and Ruthenian provinces would become effectively unconvertable, but Orthodox Brotherhoods would no longer be negative or even useful for economics.

 

[fr-rein]

3: It's an Immersion Pack don't expect anything that drastically changes a significant part of the game itself. [About the closest we got was Orthodox changes which is basically the Russia religion anyway]

I am taking a liberty to quote this post as it shows one of the core issues and misperceptions in EU4 when we talk about Orthodoxy.
It is seen primarily as the "Russian religion". And I don't blame the player - after all, they play what they see in most cases and don't have to know the history of the region.
However, for EU4 it is not right to stick to this wrong perception of Orthodoxy or limit it mostly to Russia. No, instead Orthodox content should be expanded with its role in Commonwealth, in its role and history in Ruthenia, it should involve the rather hard confrontation between the Orthodoxy and Catholicism (as well as the role of Jesuits there) and have more depth to it.

I know that asking to add these features is basically "nerfing" Poland as it is now, but we must be honest - Poland needs a rework. It was surely strong and powerful country mattering a lot in European history, but we mustn't make it stronger by making it ahistorically stable and by denying Orthodox lands in Commonwealth (and in Ruthenia in particular) their history. Right now even Navarra has more to it than Ruthenia as a region - and I don't really mention the new DLC which already gives it even more content.

He mentions Ukraine a lot in his book and here's a few quotes:
"It should be remembered, that the richest products which Russia exports are those of the most southernly provinces, particularly the Ukraine which is universally allowed to be one of the finest countries in the world" (p. 132)
"the most important province of the empire, the Ukraine" (p. 162)
"Kiovia, one of the most considerable cities I have seen in Russia" (p. 168)
"The Ukraine is the richest province in the Russian Empire" (p. 169)
"I do not hear that there is any thing worthy of notice between the Ukraine and Petersburg" (p. 172)

Ukraine was not hugely populated for the main part of EU4 timeframe, anything south and east to Bila Tserkva suffered a lot for a while from Tatars. The Khmelnytsky Uprising and Ruin destroyed a lot too and Left Bank effectively saw its rise in XVIII century from the migrants from the devastated Right Bank.

Overall, according to the map I propose, the density of provinces would rise significantly. With that density alone the base development for the region would be much higher and hopefully with a proper redistribution of development it would give more weight and accurate development to the region.
With Tatar raids crippling development of the Pontic Steppe and the Wild Field, the amount of new provinces will be countered by a "cap" from Horde Raids - which would be historical and fair for all players in the Eastern Europe.

Given that Hetmanate and other Cossack states/estates already use increases from runaway serfs, we could see how it would historically correspond with Ukrainians settling in regions like Sloboda Ukraine and in Pontic Steppe.

 

[Celdur]

I love the map of Ruthenia you've presented. Keep up the good work!

Ukraine was depopulated in RL history yes, but it always had the potential to grow a massive population its one of the richest lands in the world. And after the tatar raids stopped, its population boomed so the potential was there and it should be reflected in the game, if a power controls Ruthenia and keeps enemy armies off it, the many provinces it should have (similar to France, as in your map, around 60, which i agree) would allow the development of a rich region, with trade buildings, manufactories, etc. That's not really possible now with the small amount of provinces and its even worse for the Crimea region and the steppe lands to the east.

 

[fr-rein]

I love the map of Ruthenia you've presented. Keep up the good work!

Thank you.

Ukraine was depopulated in RL history yes, but it always had the potential to grow a massive population its one of the richest lands in the world. And after the tatar raids stopped, its population boomed so the potential was there and it should be reflected in the game, if a power controls Ruthenia and keeps enemy armies off it, the many provinces it should have (similar to France, as in your map, around 60, which i agree) would allow the development of a rich region, with trade buildings, manufactories, etc. That's not really possible now with the small amount of provinces and its even worse for the Crimea region and the steppe lands to the east.

Yes, the idea is precisely that - to allow the land a way better development and follow a better historical path.
Raids are essential for this as they add so much more to balance, role of Cossacks and to the nature of the Steppe. They would also allow to actually balance colonization of Siberia, halt it a bit and make it a bit more fun and challenging for Russia while not really crippling it.
I didn't really take a look at Kuban and Southern Russia, mostly because I don't have a sufficient knowledge on it. But I do think that those provinces also would enjoy some bit of rework.

Another thing that I would like to see done would be the colonization of the Steppe. It was done not just by Ruthenian-Ukrainian and Russian population, but also even by Germans (later known as Volga Germans) and Pontic Greeks (resettled from Crimea after Russian Empire annexed Crimean Khanate to the territory near Mariupol). I will tell more about it in the next post.

 

[fr-rein]

Well, this is a fairly huge point which will be tied to a few other suggestions.

I have already argued that Tatar Raids should be implemented for the nomads, Horde governments are just that kind of people. It is a huge improvement in the gameplay, it balances Colonization of Siberia without significantly debuffing Russia and adds a lot of gameplay to the Pontic Steppe and the regions beyond it.

Another point was said here that Hordes could be reorganized using estates. In short, a Horde is way more like an estate rather than province - it's not really interested or invested into developing province but instead is about sustaining their numbers and sufficient amount of pastures (yes, still kinda like in CK2) with an exception of an already established cities and agricultural regions they subdued (unless they don't, well, ruin it and turn into pastures I guess). Making Hordes groups (like separate Clans) would also hugely boost the importance of Horde Unity, Horde gameplay (raids, successful wars) and would generally establish a great inner politics for them, with a possibility of clans/hordes splitting-feuding, uniting and with ability for some powers (like Ottoman Empire) to host Hordes within their realm - for example like it happened on the fringe with Budjak Horde and others. Obviously, a normal centralized state would interact with Hordes in a more negative way - since Hordes could raid a state itself, they would normally be not welcome, unless settled on fringe and used for outside raids - kinda like it happened historically.

But here is my idea for the Steppes: make Steppes not inhabited by default. Or rather, these provinces are colonized, but in most cases without a culture and with a modifier "unsettled".
Why do I argue for that?
Because most of the Steppes were indeed uninhabited. They were organized as Hordes, migrating all around - for example see Kalmyks. The settled areas were few, mostly subdued cities and traditionally developed territories and Horde capitals. This is a reason why for example the Pontic Steppe is mostly not Tatar in ethnical composition and wasn't like that - because the most of territories were sort of like pastures.
How would it work for Hordes? Easy, they benefit from such territories more by having more pastures but having the development limited and undevelopable by default (however... for Hordes, some kind of "Horde Dev" could exist, being relevant to mil dev and representing the Horde Army). Hordes could settle down, at a cost of losing their Horde status, and one of such examples would be Ottoman Empire. Hordes settling down would mean becoming a settled proper state or an attempt of Hordes to try another way. Or, as an estate, they could be forced to settle or move by the state which is developed - like Russia did with some Hordes within its territory.

Why do I suggest to make Hordes work in such a way? Because it would allow to realistically see the development of the Steppe, avoid awkward development of Steppes compared to other regions, make sense for Hordes to raid developed neighbors and not each other and lastly - make the colonization of the Steppe.

Steppe Colonization.
Historically, Pontic Steppe was settled by Ruthenian and Russian people mostly. It happened in a few ways - one of them was inviting immigrants from Right Bank Ukraine (harshly suffering from wars and raids), another - inviting immigrants from Germany, another - by resettling Pontic Greeks of Crimea to Mariupol area, another - by building up Cossack Estate on the south, letting it settle the area of Souther Russia.
This is a huge chunk of history that is somewhat ignored and not represented. It would also allow a better game for Hordes - since a Horde migrating to the West, India or China would basically free up the space for other Hordes spawning or migrating or expanding. Not to mention that this way, by remodelling Steppe colonization, we can make a dev of those territories rise instead of being always somewhat semi-decent which is a really odd situation.

 

[Theironemperor]

Ukraine was not hugely populated

Ukrainian sources claim the Hetmanate had around 3 millions of population in the time of Khmelnytsky. So about a third of the whole PLC population. That's probably not that much, but still.

Kuban and Southern Russia

They were similar to the Ukrainian steppes. Not many people lived there, aside from Tartars, until the Cossacks started to settle there as they could defend themselves, so the Tartars were not a threat. And Kuban was settled by the Ukrainian Cossacks after the Zaporozhian Sich was disbanded by Catherine II.
By the way, Ukrainians settled a lot in the Russian Far East, forming the so called Green Ukraine. Would have been nice to somehow represent that.

 

[fr-rein]

Ukrainian sources claim the Hetmanate had around 3 millions of population in the time of Khmelnytsky. So about a third of the whole PLC population. That's probably not that much, but still.

You see, the question in population density and distribution. Not to mention the fact that the outskirts and especially Cossacks were poorly accounted or not accounted at all.
Kiev voivodship (without Chernigov lands), for example, is estimated roughly in 1000000 population in 16th century - but defacto this is a population without Severia (regained territories after 1618). Anything to south-east of Bila Tserkva was poorly accounted and administrated by Poland, it was a subject to many raids... and even Cherkasy and Kaniv were devastated, seeing their repopulation in 16th century - and with repopulation and peasants trying to escape serfdom Cossacks were born. Cherkasy, Kaniv, Chyhyryn were a center for Registered Cossacks because of that - most of recruits were sitting there.
Left Bank Ukraine... I can't properly estimate its population, but anything south to Chyhyryn and Poltava was sparsely populated, due to raids.

The raids played a huge role in crippling population growth, which boomed as soon as raids stopped being a thing.
I mean, Ukraine definitely deserves minimal attention compared to damn Africa or America. It is emberrassing. And Cossacks being a tad reworked, not limited to steppe.
Sadly, this thread isn't popular due to many other regions staying in line for content (like South America, HRE, Italy, Balkans, South-Eastern Asia and Bohemia) and due to the fact that by meta Ruthenia is ridiculously bad and not worth of being conquered, so coupled with 0 flavour it is naturally quite ignored - after all, even Cossacks happen not in Zaporozhia, but defacto in South Russia and huger swathes of Pontic Steppe. A damn shame.

By the way, Ukrainians settled a lot in the Russian Far East, forming the so called Green Ukraine. Would have been nice to somehow represent that.

This is XIX century migration which occurred much later and for different socioeconomical reason.
As for Kuban - yes, I do think that colonization by using Cossacks (and by resettling former Sich Cossacks) should be a thing. As well German migration and settling, Kalmykian, Pontic Greek and of course Russian which should not be downplayed in the end.
The point is, Steppe settling needs a proper mechanics.

 

[Celdur]

As you say its kind of a chiken or the egg problem. The steppeland is poor, few provinces, few events, few political entities, few mechanics, so not many people are interested in the region, but, because not many people are interested PDX won't prioritize it over other regions.

I feel the same problem exist about South America too.

 

[fr-rein]

As you say its kind of a chiken or the egg problem. The steppeland is poor, few provinces, few events, few political entities, few mechanics, so not many people are interested in the region, but, because not many people are interested PDX won't prioritize it over other regions.

I feel the same problem exist about South America too.

South America has a perk of being a New World and important in colonizational dimension.
Another point is that as it is implied from the last DDs, South America will receive a separate update (which is a reason why Brazil in particular won't be getting more content despite Portugal gaining an ability to move to Brazil).
In case of Steppe it is a lot worse - Moldavia, Lithunia, Russia and Poland received updates while Left Bank Ruthenia has lots of issues and Wild Field is just bad. The chances that Wild Field will receive update are rather slim and are tied only to Horde content - and in that case we could expect that little would be reworked for Ruthenia and Cossacks as the focus will be primarily on Hordes.
Well, it doesn't hurt to mention it and hope that changing the region will be considered.

 

[Zak Preston]

Population is not the only factor that defines total development and hordes are the best example: what tax will a khan collect from roughly 50 000 nomads and what will these people produce compared to a 50k-pop city in Lebanon? On the other hand, if you settle 50k nomads, the total development of the province shouldn't be too much different (I'd estimate around 50% delta).
Funny enough, but the whole Eastern European (West and East Slavic culture groups) development is pretty in line with historical pop data from Wiki (not the best source, though). I think Paradox employees did make some research on demographics data. It's hard to deny that Eastern Europe had really good reasons to show considerably lower population density than Western Europe and Near East. As a result Eastern European provinces have roughly the same development, but are much larger. This approach is much more simple and easy, requires less research and efforts than adding more 1/1/1 provinces. However this compromises fun factor, aesthetics and historical accuracy.
Having 6 smaller 1/1/1 provinces is better than having 3 larger 2/2/2 ones because:

• more building slots
• more room for tall gameplay (unless in arctic, or tropical jungles/deserts)
• much more immerssive and aestheic feedback from the game
• and finally, much more engaginf and deep warfare

In my opinion, Eastern Europe and Ukraine in particular should keep it's total development roughly the same, but the amount of available provinces should be increased dramatically.