If you're going to try to use a seven month old dev post as a gotcha, it's best to also check if the other person has already talked about it four months ago.
- 2
Spanish regions (states)
- Thread starter Andreu
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Actually I was thinking that the 1833 map could be even better than my 1873 proposal with the following changes:
- Unite Asturias and León into a single State
- Unite Vascongadas and Navarra into a single State
- Divide Andalucía into 2 States
It would be a pretty balanced division of Spanish States between historical reality and game mechanics. Also with this division States in Spain would have a very similar granularity to the Portuguese States and the French States.
- 7
- 3
Anyway, to get back to the actual topic of the thread, the developers have said that they do modifications to state region borders less frequently and in larger chunks at a time since changing state regions breaks save games. It's proabble that Spain just hasn't been given a look over yet since the state regions seem to be the same as Victoria 2's. I would like to see Murcia split from Valencia and Asturias either its own state region or maybe moved to be with Cantabria if they decide it doesn't work on its own.
- 4
- 1
According to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database 311,900 enslaved persons were transported to Cuba from 1836 onwards. That's 40% of the 766,310 which the database gives as total for the more than 300 years of slave trade to Cuba. Not what I would call "minor smuggling".
- 2
- 1
Post it. Share with us the total data of enslaved persons transported from 1836 onwards. Let's see what % ended on Cuba and what % ended in other parts.
You can check out the database yourself, unfortunately it doesn't allow linking to specific settings so you'll have to adjust the perimeters yourself.
But this is the data it gives you for the Trans-Atlantic slave from 1836 onwards.
And finally if you start in 1850 instead.
But this is the data it gives you for the Trans-Atlantic slave from 1836 onwards.
And finally if you start in 1850 instead.
- 3
My Kaspersky antivirus is literally blocking me the access to that website for some reason. I don't how how much should I trust that source.
Other sources say this for example:
It seems hard to believe that half of all the Spanish Slave Trade was done in a few decades in Cuba.
- 1
- 1
Most slaves in Spanish colonies were not brought in on Spanish ships. That data is meaningless as a source for slaves brought in to in any given region.
- 4
- 1
I have read the Wiki article and I think I understand what you mean. They assume that as Lerida and Tortosa were not annexed to the County of Barcelona they were part of the Kingdom of Aragon. Others say that Lerida and Tortosa were kept as separate entities within the Crown. In any case the wiki article also say that although it was not nominally a Kingdom, the County of Barcelona was treated similarly as others Kingdoms of the Crown, which was my point. A matter of internal organization of the Crown after all as Lerida and Tortosa were conquered when Barcelona and Aragon were already ruled by the same person. In any case, as Interesting as it is to discuss Spanish medieval feudalism, is quite off topic so back to the thing.I'm not an expert in medieval history either.
But honestly most maps on the internet just display Catalonia as a unified entity with modern borders as one of the "kingdoms" of the Crown of Aragon, which is a big simplification and not accurate.
The Wikipedia article "Kingdom of Aragon" displays this map:
As you can see, the south-west of Catalonia is displayed as part of the Kingdom of Aragon (not the Crown), while the rest of Catalonia is not.
The black borders don't matter in this map because they are just displaying the modern borders of the Autonomous Communities of Spain (you can easily tell because of the border in Perpignan, or the borders in La Rioja).
I also found this detailed map if you want to analyse it:
Just a minor comment on this. Spanish provincial borders were established in 1833. Those are still used today as the base for regions as in the 19th century. That’s why modern regional borders of Spain are so similar to the regional borders used back then. In any case the proposal of RacconCity of using the State borders proposed for the Federal Republic in the 1860s-1870s with a couple of changes is the best IMO. It is important to remember that regions are not just administrative divisions. They are the result of geography and culture and other socio-economic really that should be correctly represented in the game.
Because of slavery right? But AFAIK there was not slavery in the Philippines. So what is the reason for the Philippines to be their own tag. Not to mention that having to separate Cuba into a tag so the smuggling of slaves into the isle is represented is a bit sloppy work.
I would like to know the answer to this question too.
Why split Andalucia up? AFAIK fewer states is better for a country, and as you said, the IRL borders were based on real cultural and demographic realities.
Because in the 19th it was proposed like that. There’re also some differences between Western Andalucía and Eastern Andalucia. The western part is a big Valley, while the Eastern part is mountainous. Apparently, when Autonomous Communities were established in 1970s some people defended the idea of creating a different Community in Eastern Andalucia. Also, I’m not sure less states is always good. Production methods are applied in a state base, so less states make it more difficult to adjust production. Taking into account that Andalucia is a releasable this can be important. More states make a country more resistant to invasiones too.
So there’re both historical and gameplay reasons for it IMO.
- 2
I agree with you on everything except cutting Andalusia in two pieces. It's not necessaryActually I was thinking that the 1833 map could be even better than my 1873 proposal with the following changes:
- Unite Asturias and León into a single State
- Unite Vascongadas and Navarra into a single State
- Divide Andalucía into 2 States
It would be a pretty balanced division of Spanish States between historical reality and game mechanics. Also with this division States in Spain would have a very similar granularity to the Portuguese States and the French States.
It's a matter of granularity consistence between States. It doesn't seem right to have Portugal split into 3 States and then have Andalucía, which is almost the exact size of Portugal, as a single State. Or imaging making Scotland a single State, just because it's an internal region of Great Britain.
The more granularity in the map, in general, the better. Because Victoria III doesn't use provinces for most of its mechanics, it uses States.
What countries brought Slaves to Cuba then?
I'm not sure about this. It makes it easier for other countries to take big chunks of territory from you. The more States a country has, the more "casus belli" or "warscore", or whatever is the name for it in Vic3, you need to annex the territory.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
I don't actually see a problem with Scotland being one state. Highlands are big but sparsely populated, Lowlands are dense but small. It's a region that doesn't even have 6 million people living in it today. Perfect candidate for one state.
Well, your "other source" seems to think that slavevoyages is trustworthy as that is where they say they got their information from.
Spanish slave trading did indeed happen almost entireley in a few decades of the 19th century as Spain relied on foreign countries for its slave before then. But slaves were not only transported to Cuba on Spanish ships, but also by Portuguese, Brazilian, French and US ships.Other sources say this for example:
It seems hard to believe that half of all the Spanish Slave Trade was done in a few decades in Cuba.
- 2
It absolutely should thought.
I'll preface by stating the obvious by my username, i have a vested interest in this matter and my opinion is not impartial.
Portugal was created from scratch by Galicians, and for Galicians. And it was almost exclusively populated by them.
Portugal is one of the few countries in the world that wasn't "unified" or had different ethnicities join under a single nation-state, Portugal was a rare example of a single culture (Galicians) forming their own nation-state, it's a rare example of what an ethnostate is supposed to be (of course not in a strict sence since migration has always been a factor).
Of course, since North Galicians have simply been under Castilian rule for over a Millenium while South Galicians created their own nation-state, there were eventual cultural and linguistic diversions, with North Galicians (The "Spanish" Galicians) approaching the Castilian manners, while South Galicians
(The Portuguese) diverged in their own direction.
Whether Galicians want to be part of Portugal or Spain is irrelevant, as the weighted factors are far more of an economic and political forum than regarding Historical origins and culture.
Same with Portugal, they will distance themselves from the name "Galician" as much as possible because the Portuguese historical identity revolves around NOT being "Spanish".
But the fact is that Portugal was in fact, created as THE Galician state, and the Portuguese are nothing more than un-Castilenised Galicians.
- 2
So, this is my proposal for Spanish regions:
- Separate Asturias from Galicia, and León from Castille, and create León region.
- Separate Cantabria from Galicia and put it in Castille region. (It has always said that Cantabria is the Castillian port).
- Separate Murcia from Valencia (Albacete, Murcia and Cartagena from Vicky2 forms Murcia state and Castellón, Valencia and Alicante form Valencia region).
MAYBE:
- Put La Rioja (Logroño from Vicky2) in Castille region, not Navarra region.
- United or Separated Andalucía? I don't know. I think separated is better.
The Catalan homelands problem: I am Valencian and here some people speak valencian, which is similar to catalan language. But one thing is language and another one is nationality. Valencia is not a catalan homeland. It has never been. And Balearic islands: I don't know. Ask them.
Edit: oh and yeah, not 'Toledo region' please. That's a medieval kingdom. Call Madrid, Toledo region 'Castilla La Nueva' (Castille the New or New Castille xd) and Valladolid, Burgos region 'Castilla La Vieja' (Castille the Old or Old Castille xd)
Edit 2: and rename Extremadura, not Badajoz or Caceres region. That is nonesense
- Separate Asturias from Galicia, and León from Castille, and create León region.
- Separate Cantabria from Galicia and put it in Castille region. (It has always said that Cantabria is the Castillian port).
- Separate Murcia from Valencia (Albacete, Murcia and Cartagena from Vicky2 forms Murcia state and Castellón, Valencia and Alicante form Valencia region).
MAYBE:
- Put La Rioja (Logroño from Vicky2) in Castille region, not Navarra region.
- United or Separated Andalucía? I don't know. I think separated is better.
The Catalan homelands problem: I am Valencian and here some people speak valencian, which is similar to catalan language. But one thing is language and another one is nationality. Valencia is not a catalan homeland. It has never been. And Balearic islands: I don't know. Ask them.
Edit: oh and yeah, not 'Toledo region' please. That's a medieval kingdom. Call Madrid, Toledo region 'Castilla La Nueva' (Castille the New or New Castille xd) and Valladolid, Burgos region 'Castilla La Vieja' (Castille the Old or Old Castille xd)
Edit 2: and rename Extremadura, not Badajoz or Caceres region. That is nonesense
Last edited:
Any news about changes in the map of Spain or it remains the same as before?
- 2
- 1
- 1
