The Hetmanate

[fr-rein]

Not a suggestion since there are those already.

Would it be possible to add Hetmanate State (encompassing most of Ruthenia) which encompassed this area and lasted for ~130 years:

The main issue is that it is a main state Cossacks ever made, one of the notable stratocracies and just a big event in Eastern Europe. There is a lot of history involving it, so I will skip it.

Point is, it was NOT a Zaporozhia Host. In fact, since 1660s they existed seperately as Russian vassals, more of a march type.

It currently has no events. Due to terrain, it will never happen too - Cossacks only take steppe which is only Zaporozhia province there, so you could easily try to avoid. Thus, it is far from emulating history even if it is as important as other special events like Dutch rebellion.

What is a final point is that, well, we have a DLC about Cossacks already and Cossacks 2 DLC won't happen most likely. With "Polish" update, Crimea update and "Third Rome" there is literally no space for DLC or any prospect of region revisit in a DLC specifically to address it.

But maybe it can be paid attention to in future? I think many people playing Russia already said it, but taking Orthodox lands of Poland is a bad decision and the confrontations between Poland and Russia are quite distorted as a result of not wanting to grab big and poor chunky provinces in Ruthenia, which also get easily converted.
It is quite not right and as I said before, DLC already was there.

If at least the Hetmanate and Khmelnytsky rebellion is added, it can switch a dynamic in the region, add a better vassal proxy to Russia, make sense in acquiring them for Russia, make a deserved challenge for Poland and an opening for Ottomans and Sweden in a war against Russia or Poland.

That is kinda all of a rant.

 

[FrederickF]

https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Republic#Sich_Rada

I think that you can just play as Lithuania; grant all possible land to the cossacks, raise thier influence to 100 than pick the option to tag switch to the new nation when the independence event fires.

 

[fr-rein]

I think that you can just play as Lithuania; grant all possible land to the cossacks, raise thier influence to 100 than pick the option to tag switch to the new nation when the independence event fires.

I can play with a mod, with another Cossack nation or ignore it.
What I do is discussing if it is worth attention and worth having. As well as Cossacks never ever taking those lands by any event, only grabbing steppe mostly which was not a case in history.

Another thing is that region lacks dynamics and context. Like, imagine having no Dutch rebellion and special things for Dutch.
While we could play without it, it removes a specific context of the region and quite substracts from your experience.

I do know that, however, it is not a popular topic, so I just wonder what people think of it.

 

[FrederickF]

So the issue is the lack of flavor for the Cossack nations. I could see it get some attention when an actual PLC focused update comes out.

 

[fr-rein]

So the issue is the lack of flavor for the Cossack nations. I could see it get some attention when an actual PLC focused update comes out.

After Polish patch and previous boons it is unlikely, especially if Poland gets boons in this one patch (which is likely). Russia had boons too, as well as Crimea. Given that Cossacks also got update to government and Cossack crisis intending to emulate that...

Another thing is a misperception that Zaporozhia was the Cossacks or that Left Bank Ukraine was an integral part of Russia.

 

[Frossa]

Another thing is a misperception that Zaporozhia was the Cossacks

How do you mean, exactly? Because the Wikipedia article from where you took that map says "The official name of the Cossack Hetmanate was Zaporizhian Host". It is clear that the Zaporizhia tag in the game is supposed to represent the Cossack state that controlled the area in the mid-17th century and came under Russian protection. Are you saying that it's a misconception?

 

[fr-rein]

How do you mean, exactly? Because the Wikipedia article from where you took that map says "The official name of the Cossack Hetmanate was Zaporizhian Host". It is clear that the Zaporizhia tag in the game is supposed to represent the Cossack state that controlled the area in the mid-17th century and came under Russian protection. Are you saying that it's a misconception?

Pretty much so.
In short, there was a Zaporozhia Host in XVI-XVII centuries. After the Uprising of Khmelnytsky and some wars, he died, leaving the whole entity, Hetmanate, without a worthy heir he designated (as he died during attempt to install friendly monarch in Moldavia).
After a few Hetmans, civil war broke out.
Authorities were divided upon Left Bank and Right Bank Hetmanates, while Zaporozhia Host remained in Zaporozhia as a separate entity since 1660s.
Hetmanates, unlike Host, were Cossacks ruling actual states with real population. They differed a lot from Hosts due to this.
As a result of wars, Right Bank Hetmanate fell, tried to revive under Ottomans, but following their defeats in other wars and battle of Vienna they gave up on Podolia.
Left Bank Hetmanate, along with Zaporozhia, remained under Russia as vassals.
In 1700s ambitious Hetman, Mazepa, occupied Right Bank territories and later joined Sweden in Northern war to defeat Russia and ensure independence. They lost, however, after which the integration happened.
Officially it was annexed in 1783, with local Cossack elites generously given Russian nobility and lands, thus encouraged to integrate in the Empire. Prior to that, it was a vassal state.
As for Zaporozhia - it remained until 1775 as a march against Ottomans. It was destroyed in 1775, however after some break many Cossacks following Empresses Catherine's proposal resettled to Kuban area and to Circassia outskirts.

A bit specific info aboyt Sich itself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporozhian_Sich
About the Hetmanate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_Hetmanate
Notably, the last years were ones of integration as a "Little Russia Governorate". However, it was more of an integration period in EU4 terms. Although it could be also represented if people really want. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia_Governorate_(1764–1781)

Sources are wiki for accessability.

 

[fr-rein]

So still no answer, no reason why it was not introduced in a game at all, after all patches regarding Eastern Europe and Cossacks?

It is not Zaporozhia. It is not done by Cossack breakaway states (terrain/estate limits). And it was a state that was more of a state than Zaporozhia or a bunch of other tags on the map. Not to mention the impact it had on history.
And while game isn't railroaded into history, it is still questionable why it is absent at all while Cossack breakaway states fail to recreate such a thing even remotely due to terrain thing.

So why it is overlooked, after Cossack DLC, update to Cossacks and updates to Eastern Europe? Or is WAD, with Cossack breakaway states supposing to be like that?

 

[fr-rein]

Another question is why Zaporozhia vanishes in 1764 if it vanished in 1775.

 

[fr-rein]

I will add another argument.

We all know that EU4 adds most of national historical events, to add flavor. And it actually extends to the nations that aren’t present in 1444, main case being Holland and USA. Manchu receives a way to defeat Ming, allowing player to perform the historical feat in a playable way. Colonial nations, like Mexico (or ones on its territory) also had their playability and subjectivity expanded, with cultures added very recently. Needless to say, Reformation, an event in a religious sphere, is majorly portrayed. Revolutionary mechanics is also there, as a separate major event in the game. Even Oromo migration is a thing, even if it’s a rather obscure event. Most such major events are portrayed, perhaps in DLCs/packs, but still gotten attention.

It’s not the case with Hetmanate.

As I argued, Khmelnytsky it is a huge event that was important to the Eastern Europe, one of the major ones that defined its history. It was an uprising which involved simultaneously a few dimensions – Orthodox vs. Catholicism, Ruthenians vs. Poles, Cossacks and Serfs+Peasants vs. Nobility and (foreign, mainly jewish) Burghers. The reasons for it were complex and intertwined, exceeding a mere Cossack revolt. The consequences resulted in Hetmanate, which exceeds anything Cossack Breakaway States would offer – in fact, Zaporozhia breaking away from Hetmanate which was plagued with instability and civil war at one time would be an example of breakaway state forming out of it. The number of historical events and their relevance exceeds uprising of Stenka Razin or a polish civil war event at the start of XVII century.

But hey, there is a DLC that sells us Cossacks. Except for the fact that it doesn’t sell any historical content or add any events about Hetmanate. Moreover, the DLC doesn’t even make Zaporozhia playable (at later start dates at least), and the lack of Hetmanate and many such events is a huge letdown to them – imagine that you would have no banners and would have to use generic mechanics as Manchu to defeat China, with no events helping you or no Ming being hurt with break of Mandate. That’s how sad the current state of affairs is – with a supposed DLC that adds content about them. You can’t even do raiding as Cossacks, nullifying even that one huge niche that they had. Imagine pirate republics without any privateering, that’s what kind of a sick joke EU4 does to Cossacks.

Sure, we can argue that DLC was no ImPack when released, but with estates becoming free feature they were replaced with Cossack content, establishing the shift in DLC to being more Cossack-oriented in the end.

I don’t even mention map changes. The borders are very flawed, bad even in case we don’t increase number of provinces, with Cherkasy having very bad and regionally rivaled only with Lwow province which is so bad that it doesn’t include Lwow city and nearly all historical province around it.


Why this is ignored? There are a few possible reasons:


Not being important enough in scope

While it was true for Zaporozhia at EU3 and early EU4 times, it’s clearly a way too important event to be ignored. Way many smaller events are attended and paid attention to, even breakaway Cossack States get more attention for some weird reason. Unless a Dutch Revolt becomes a same event with randomly generated flag, way less triggering conditions, often not spawning in Holland, not necessarily being Dutch and gaining a random name after a random province.
Besides, the size of the revolt, how long it lasted and the cultural and political legacy that it brought was essential to the Eastern Europe.

Being realized by Breakaway Cossack states

No. As I argued, it exceeds the scope of such an event. It’s also too tied to national and religious issues to be reduced to just that. Not to mention that it still doesn’t excuse the lack of historical events.

Being outside of DLC content

Very doubtful, especially given that Cossacks have relatively few events. Even some revolts in Russia that were started by Cossacks don’t have much mechanical relation to the Cossacks. It’s simply overlooked.

It should be another DLC/Impack

Interesting. But we have no idea about it. There was a Cossack DLC, Russia Impack, Cossack DLC updates and a regional free update to Poland, Lithuania, Crimea, Moldova. Unless there is a plan revealed to rework region (Ukraine) again (after so recent reworks!) and make new DLC called “Cossacks 2: the electric kobzar” I doubt that there is such a concern at all.

Not interesting content

It feels as a bad argument given that Cossacks are presented yet this part of their history isn’t.

Political concerns

Yet it didn’t stop from making Cossacks DLC and updating it? Or adding Third Rome content?



There are other possible reasons. But instead of assuming one (and not necessarily a good one) to explain this question, or why Lwow province is so abhorrent, or why Sich Rada has no factions, or why no Uprising and etc. the issue can be answered?