True. On the other hand India, which is one of the motherlodes, has to go through Gulf of Aden IIRC.
-
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.
True. On the other hand India, which is one of the motherlodes, has to go through Gulf of Aden IIRC.
Eirikr IX, the Noble, Bosson af Munsö
Lived: 1398-1457
King of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa, Arabia and Jerusalem: 1443-1457
Archduke of Verona: 1446-1457
King of Abyssinia: 1447-1457
Head of House af Munsö: 1443-1457
Lived: 1398-1457
King of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa, Arabia and Jerusalem: 1443-1457
Archduke of Verona: 1446-1457
King of Abyssinia: 1447-1457
Head of House af Munsö: 1443-1457
Eirikr IX continued the successful legacy of his forebears who had rejuvenated Egyptian power over the course of the last century. Having been forced to wait until his middle age to inherit due to the long length of his fathers’ life, Eirikr wasted no time in creating a lasting legacy as a great Egyptian King. Within a decade of succeeding to the throne his ambitions in Italy and Abyssinia had led Egypt into a war with Byzantine that sent the country into a decade long period of crisis. Despite this he is usually remembered as a strong King.
Whilst better remembered for his geopolitical manoeuvrings that led to the eventual showdown with the Byzantines, a more lasting impact upon Egypt was his construction of the Kasr Palace in Cairo. From the new Palace in Kasr Egypt would develop an elaborate courtly tradition designed to dazzle and impress.
Eirikr had been strongly at odds with his father’s peaceful policy of fraternisation with the Byzantines in the latter decades of his life. Eirikr feared that the Byzantines had no intention of a long term friendship with Egypt – and were instead looking to ensnare Egypt and destroy their old rival. He therefore sought to counter them at every turn. Travelling to the court of the then 75 year old Queen Birgitta of Abyssinia in early 1446, Eirikr was able to convince his kinswoman to name him her lawful successor – countering the pro-Byzantine faction in Abyssinia that had been growing in strength in the Queen’s old age. The following year the Queen died and Eirikr returned to Abyssinia to be crowned King – 10,000 Egyptian troops ensuring that any potential dissidents were kept in line.
At the same time Eirikr entered unleashed a potent diplomatic campaign in Italy – seeking to forge an anti-Byzantine coalition. The Egyptians were extremely successful, in 1446 Eirkir, who had married the Archduchess in 1444, was made Archduke of Verona following his wife’s passing – creating a solid ally in the North-East of Italy. On top of this, alliances were forged with Urbino (a small dissident Greek Duchy based around Ravenna) and the peninsula’s great power Modena – who were supported in an invasion and annexation of the Patriarch of Rome’s personal possessions in Latinum in 1445-6. On top of this the Mongols of Susa entered into a looser alliance with Egypt with Eirikr arranging the marriage of his younger sister to the Mongol Chief. In just a few short years Eirikr had diplomatically outmanoeuvred the Byzantines completely in both East Africa and Italy. Such a situation was intolerable to the powerful Byzantine Empire – which soon looked to reassert itself through sheer force of arms.
As war broke out in April 1448 with Byzantine troops crossing the Veronese border the Egyptian moved quickly, hoping to make up for the numerical superiority of the Roman armies. Within two days the Egyptians had totally destroyed a large Byzantine army sent to take Achaea, and the single largest Byzantine fleet just off the coast of Egypt – nine recently constructed heavy ships providing the edge as the smaller Byzantine vessels were found incapable of competing. Just as naval superiority was ensured disaster struck in Syria. Here two largely equal sized armies (the Egyptians actually having a narrow numerical advantage) met near Aleppo with the Byzantine Emperor and Egyptian King both leading their armies into battle. The Egyptians were routed, barely 1/5 of their force managed to escape – leading to Eirikr’s retreat all the way back to Egypt. Whilst at the Bay of Alexandria the Egyptians had shown the future of naval warfare with their implementation of larger vessels, at Aleppo the traditional reliance of Egyptian armies of elite ‘huscarl’ heavy infantry formations was shown to be grossly outdated.
By the autumn of 1448 Eirikr had reached the Nile where he sought to reform his army and bolster his numbers with reinforcements from Abyssinia. However, with the Byzantines reaching as far as Giza he was forced to enter battle for the first time since Aleppo – totally destroying the Roman force. With confidence restored he advanced northwards, defeating another Byzantine army at Acre. Just as Eirikr returned to Syria, at sea the Byzantines were in a state of collapse. By the end of 1448 a full 2/3s of the Byzantine fleet had been destroyed, the power of Egypt’s heavy ships overwhelming the smaller galley based fleets of the Romans. However, in Italy the land power of the Egypt’s enemy continued to overwhelm its opponents. The combined armies of Modena, Urbino and Verona had been no match huge invasion force assembled by the Roman Emperor. By early of 1449 most of Verona had already fallen into Roman hands.
Following Eirikr’s advance up the Levantine Coast in late 1448 and into 1449 led to a deadlock in Syria and both the Egyptians and Byzantines avoided a direct confrontation. In the first months of 1450 this deadlock was broken over the course of two battles to the East of Aleppo. Although the balance between the two powers was not unduly altered by the battles, the extreme casualties suffered by the Egyptians made the continuation of the war impossible. Worse yet, in the aftermath of these battles the Jarl of Basra – Jon Arnbjörn – rose in rebellion, supported by most of the lords of Mesopotamia in an effort separate the Kingdom from Egypt.
With rebel threat and the losses of manpower sustained during war with the Byzantines making Arnbjörn a genuine threat Eirikr was forced to swallow his pride and seek terms with the Emperor. The Byzantines gained Friuli and Treviso, greatly increasing their prestige in Italy and countering Egyptian influence. Although defeated, the Egyptians had performed relatively strongly during the war – victorious at sea they had recovered from an early catastrophe to fight the Byzantines to a standstill in Syria, even if they had been unable to protect Italy.
The Mesopotamian Revolt lasted from 1450 until 1452, Jon Arnbjörn’s army facing a decisive military defeat near Basra in February 1451, after this the revolt gradually petered out. For years after the end of these conflicts the Egyptian military was criminally understaffed and the King’s authority remained in question. From 1453-55 pro-Byzantine elements within the Abyssinian nobility, backed by Constantinople rose in rebellion in East Africa, the nature of the terrain in the region allowing the rebellion to remain a thorn in the side of the monarchists in Abyssinia far longer than their military strength merited. Despite this moment of weakness, Eirikr picked a fight with the clergy in the last days of his reign as he passed legislation equalising the level of taxation levied on ecclesiastical lands and properties when compared with lay holdings. By the mid-15th century the will of the clergy to resist had, on the whole, been broken. Although the Pope of Alexandria (a title in respect of his status as head of the Coptic Church despite the unification of the Orthodox Church) attempted to compel the King to allow the clergy to retain their traditional rights, once it became clear that the King would not relent the Church fell in line.
When Eirikr IX died in 1457 he left Egypt in a stronger position than he had inherited it. Although still recovering from its King’s wars, Egypt now had a network of alliances in Italy, had brought Abyssinia back under its control and had seen its naval domination of both East and West of Egypt exerted in a manner not seen since the loss of Italy to the Mongols two centuries before. However, Eirikr’s greatest misfortune was the death of his two sons by his first wife – one during the war with the Byzantines, the other by natural causes in the 1450s. This meant that the Egyptian throne was left to his five year old daughter, Sofia.
Whelp, first war went... all right, it seems? Your relationships with the byzantines must take quite a hit from those borders.
That was my second ever war in EUIV - in the first I played a game as Castile where I tried to invade Aragon and lost my entire army 
, so this was a definite improvement. Also got very lucky with my inheritances, but does anyone know why I got Abyssinia annexed straight off and Verona only in a PU?
Also, extremely impressed by the number of commenters, looks like this AAR's going to have a good sized audience.
Hope you keep reading.
Yeah, Egypt will start looking East more and more in the Post-Medieval world.
The Catholics (Britain and Bohemia) are in the Western group, the Shia Caliphate is Muslim (tech takes 25% longer) and all Orthodox states are Eastern (tech takes 20% longer). From what I've played the major players stay all roughly the same with the British slightly ahead and the other big powers being further ahead or behind depending how well things are going at the time - so I quite like how it turned out.
Thanks for the praise, hope you keep enjoying.
I'm getting through this AAR at a fair pace thats for sure.
Well, I don't like to just post picture without context. Also, since a lot of people haven't been following since CK I thought it would be best to just describe everything in the first two posts so you could join and not be missing anything if you didn't read the first part.
The British are very powerful, and their tech advantage will only make them more so. The big four powers are all roughly the same level of power but the Brits also get the advantage of a pretty much permanent alliance with their coreligionists in Bohemia, who are a top 2nd rank power too.
Hope I can give the game a good showing then. Its definitely a lot of fun, although, as I've said before, it plays way too slow on my computer. :/
With the overextension mechanics and the fact India's provs are high tax level and diff religion and culture (the higher the tax level the harder to convert, and you have to convert before changing culture) would mean taking over all India would be really really hard.
Since the people in Western Europe are in different tech groups I don't get to see what they've colonised in the Americas, but I'd assume the Brits and Shia are taking it over. BTW, any idea how long it takes for provs discovered by a different tech group to spread to your group? I asked in the general EUIV forum and got no replies to my post :/.
I didn't realise just how great my position was. I've not mastered how to work the trade system quite yet, but there is definately a lot of wealth passing through Alexandria and the Gulf of Aden (not to mention Basra as well which is another route for trade from India).
Yeah, that would make a lot of sense. The Shia and British would both obviously be eager to find a way to bypass the Egyptians and Romans. The Shia would have an added incentive of seeking a way of contact with their fellow Muslims beyond the Christian powers of the Eastern Med.
I don't think the reformation works in the converter - if it did then it must have been crushed very quickly because no Prots emerged. This was kinda annoying because the reformation is always an interesting part of any EU AAR. :/
If someone could give me a guide of how to do this I will as soon as I can. But I don't really know how.
I'd say EUIV is easier to handle than EUIII, got a better interface for sure - and ooh so many different maps. The map modes are undeniably its best feature.
Glad to see you carrying on into the second part.
Good prediction.
We've got another four centuries of Egypto-Norse fun to play now.
Luckily for me, in this timeline central Asia is a clusterfuck of various Turkic tribes duking it out for dominance, so the Indian Ocean route is really the only option.
I guess I was pretty lucky that the political situation meant that all Indian trade HAS to go through my realm to get to Europe with the situation to the North, so I didn't have to be that capable with the trade system.
, so this was a definite improvement. Also got very lucky with my inheritances, but does anyone know why I got Abyssinia annexed straight off and Verona only in a PU?Also, extremely impressed by the number of commenters, looks like this AAR's going to have a good sized audience
.Hope you keep reading
.Yeah, Egypt will start looking East more and more in the Post-Medieval world.
The Catholics (Britain and Bohemia) are in the Western group, the Shia Caliphate is Muslim (tech takes 25% longer) and all Orthodox states are Eastern (tech takes 20% longer). From what I've played the major players stay all roughly the same with the British slightly ahead and the other big powers being further ahead or behind depending how well things are going at the time - so I quite like how it turned out.
Thanks for the praise, hope you keep enjoying.
Allright, I'm here, I'm subbing. Geez you are writing these fast.
I'm getting through this AAR at a fair pace thats for sure
.You are some writer. I was just expecting a couple sentences to help describe the pictures but you have us a really well-written post explaining everything. I'm really looking forward to the Renaissance in this messed up world
Well, I don't like to just post picture without context
. Also, since a lot of people haven't been following since CK I thought it would be best to just describe everything in the first two posts so you could join and not be missing anything if you didn't read the first part.The British are very powerful, and their tech advantage will only make them more so. The big four powers are all roughly the same level of power but the Brits also get the advantage of a pretty much permanent alliance with their coreligionists in Bohemia, who are a top 2nd rank power too.
Loved the First Part, looking forward this one!
I don't have or played EU3, so I will probably partly discover the game here
Hope I can give the game a good showing then
. Its definitely a lot of fun, although, as I've said before, it plays way too slow on my computer. :/With the overextension mechanics and the fact India's provs are high tax level and diff religion and culture (the higher the tax level the harder to convert, and you have to convert before changing culture) would mean taking over all India would be really really hard.
Since the people in Western Europe are in different tech groups I don't get to see what they've colonised in the Americas, but I'd assume the Brits and Shia are taking it over. BTW, any idea how long it takes for provs discovered by a different tech group to spread to your group? I asked in the general EUIV forum and got no replies to my post :/.
I didn't realise just how great my position was
. I've not mastered how to work the trade system quite yet, but there is definately a lot of wealth passing through Alexandria and the Gulf of Aden (not to mention Basra as well which is another route for trade from India).Yeah, that would make a lot of sense. The Shia and British would both obviously be eager to find a way to bypass the Egyptians and Romans. The Shia would have an added incentive of seeking a way of contact with their fellow Muslims beyond the Christian powers of the Eastern Med.
I don't think the reformation works in the converter - if it did then it must have been crushed very quickly because no Prots emerged. This was kinda annoying because the reformation is always an interesting part of any EU AAR. :/
If someone could give me a guide of how to do this I will as soon as I can. But I don't really know how
.Looks like this should continue to be as interesting as before. Should be interesting to see how EUIV compares.
Might have to get it but it looked far more complicated from the demo... and I'm unlikely to survive long enough to convert a game given how rubbish I seem to be.
I'd say EUIV is easier to handle than EUIII, got a better interface for sure - and ooh so many different maps
. The map modes are undeniably its best feature.Glad to see you carrying on into the second part
. Time to secure the southern border and reincorporate the Ethiopians.
Good prediction
.i love it. the epic story continues
We've got another four centuries of Egypto-Norse fun to play now
.Luckily for me, in this timeline central Asia is a clusterfuck of various Turkic tribes duking it out for dominance, so the Indian Ocean route is really the only option.
I guess I was pretty lucky that the political situation meant that all Indian trade HAS to go through my realm to get to Europe with the situation to the North, so I didn't have to be that capable with the trade system.
The likely reason the reformation never fired is that in EUIV it's driven by the actions of nations- certain decisions and choices in response to events drives up a reform desire marker, and at about 95% some churchman nails a set of complaints to a door.
From the sound of things, you only actually have two Catholic nations. A standard EUIV game has many more. Essentially, there just aren't enough Catholic countries to drive the reform desire up sufficiently. *shrugs* Really, that's why my current Roman Empire megacampaign is a Catholic one (not an AAR, although I'm considering it- main issue is that I did cheat a little to make it... a BIT more stable in the beginning, due to the aforementioned Catholic thing)- the fun of the Roman Empire dealing with the Reformation. :3
On province discovery spread with different tech groups: never. Discovery spread is specifically a thing for the same tech group, which kinda sucks in this circumstance. The other issue is that if that North Sea Empire ever takes the Religious Idea Group... well. Purges of Heresy all around.
EDIT: As far as India goes, no, you shouldn't take EVERY province there- but look for the Center of Trade provinces and take those. Between that and a big enough trade fleet, you should be able to steer a respectable amount of trade to Alexandria.
From the sound of things, you only actually have two Catholic nations. A standard EUIV game has many more. Essentially, there just aren't enough Catholic countries to drive the reform desire up sufficiently. *shrugs* Really, that's why my current Roman Empire megacampaign is a Catholic one (not an AAR, although I'm considering it- main issue is that I did cheat a little to make it... a BIT more stable in the beginning, due to the aforementioned Catholic thing)- the fun of the Roman Empire dealing with the Reformation. :3
On province discovery spread with different tech groups: never. Discovery spread is specifically a thing for the same tech group, which kinda sucks in this circumstance. The other issue is that if that North Sea Empire ever takes the Religious Idea Group... well. Purges of Heresy all around.
EDIT: As far as India goes, no, you shouldn't take EVERY province there- but look for the Center of Trade provinces and take those. Between that and a big enough trade fleet, you should be able to steer a respectable amount of trade to Alexandria.
it seems too homogenous for a full scale revoltinb4 rebels bring down the Roman Empire!
Oi, that was a tough blow at Aleppo. I assume you won't westernize for a while? Ck2 was awesome, defenitely following.
There appears to be no capability to Westernise for... a while. There are only two Western tech nations, and they're on the other side of the continent.
Would there be anyway to have the reformation occur for the orthodox? Neo-Iconoclasts or something? Although there are really only 2-3 orthodox nations, so that doesnt really drive up reform either
That would likely be a separate mod- bit much to ask in this case.
I figure the Reformation would be… unlikely… in this historical situation anyway.
This is brilliant! Consider me subscribed.
I don't really get this picture. On the left one, you lose your entire army but it says you won? Or am I misinterpreting the shields?
EDIT: Never mind, I was looking left-to-right
I don't really get this picture. On the left one, you lose your entire army but it says you won? Or am I misinterpreting the shields?
EDIT: Never mind, I was looking left-to-right
subbed!
that said, the only thought that comes to mind aside from looking forward to another great AAR is how the scale of the battles kinda feel a lot... more subdued now. Years ago, you had half a hundred thousand men clashing with another half a hundred, now you barely have a full legion :laugh:
that said, the only thought that comes to mind aside from looking forward to another great AAR is how the scale of the battles kinda feel a lot... more subdued now. Years ago, you had half a hundred thousand men clashing with another half a hundred, now you barely have a full legion :laugh:
No update today as I started my first day of classes this year - Tuesday is also the only day of the week I have classes so you can rule out updates on that day from now on. For once it seems that an AAR is helping me IRL as one of my modules is on France 1918-68, handily the timeframe of a previous AAR of mine called Vive La Republique that led to alot of reading on the politics of that very period . I digress, on to answer the comments.
Yeah, its pretty much permanently -200. I think border friction alone contributes -187.
Ah, that makes sense for the reformation. Really annoying about the discovery spread :/. But how come every so often I get to see more land in like central Asia and India and stuff (also in West Africa)? Is this because I border these countries?
You might be waiting a long tieme.
Yeah, most of the Byzantine Empire is Greek and Orthodox - unlikely to revolt. The Empire has such an enormous army that it can keep the non-Greek provs in line.
Even if I could get a border with Britain (they do have lands in Italy around Milan-Genoa), would Westernising be worth it? The Eastern tech malus isn't THAT bad if I keep pouring points into research.
Again, its not out of the realm of possibility that I could get a border with the British in Italy.
Yeah, would require probs more modding than I'm capable of, and its too late anyway (I've played into late 16th cent).
I still lose most of my army in the first battle but won the day, in the second I also had a lot of casualties.
Yeah, that part is a little annoying. If I grouped all my armies together I could still have some pretty massive battles, but I need them in lots of different places all the time so its harder.
Miklagard Delenda Est!
For once it seems that an AAR is helping me IRL as one of my modules is on France 1918-68, handily the timeframe of a previous AAR of mine called Vive La Republique that led to alot of reading on the politics of that very period . I digress, on to answer the comments. Yeah, its pretty much permanently -200. I think border friction alone contributes -187.
Ah, that makes sense for the reformation. Really annoying about the discovery spread :/. But how come every so often I get to see more land in like central Asia and India and stuff (also in West Africa)? Is this because I border these countries?
inb4 rebels bring down the Roman Empire!
You might be waiting a long tieme
.Yeah, most of the Byzantine Empire is Greek and Orthodox - unlikely to revolt. The Empire has such an enormous army that it can keep the non-Greek provs in line.
Even if I could get a border with Britain (they do have lands in Italy around Milan-Genoa), would Westernising be worth it? The Eastern tech malus isn't THAT bad if I keep pouring points into research.
Again, its not out of the realm of possibility that I could get a border with the British in Italy.
Yeah, would require probs more modding than I'm capable of, and its too late anyway (I've played into late 16th cent).
This is brilliant! Consider me subscribed.
I don't really get this picture. On the left one, you lose your entire army but it says you won? Or am I misinterpreting the shields?
EDIT: Never mind, I was looking left-to-right
I still lose most of my army in the first battle but won the day, in the second I also had a lot of casualties.
Yeah, that part is a little annoying. If I grouped all my armies together I could still have some pretty massive battles, but I need them in lots of different places all the time so its harder.
It's back! Woo! Burn down Miklagard!
Miklagard Delenda Est!
I've been skimming through your CK AAR, and it was great. So naturally, I will be following this one.
Yeah, I think if you discover countries, you get to see their capitals or something. Not sure e actly how it works.
Nice AAR Tommy, just one thing can you use the kings titles at the start of his reign as the heading and then update at the end.
Just for suspense purposes.
Just for suspense purposes.
Sofia I Eirikrsdottir af Munsö
Lived: 1452-1485
Queen of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa, Abyssinia, Arabia and Jerusalem: 1457-1485
Archduchess of Verona: 1457-1485
Head of House af Munsö: 1457-1485
Lived: 1452-1485
Queen of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa, Abyssinia, Arabia and Jerusalem: 1457-1485
Archduchess of Verona: 1457-1485
Head of House af Munsö: 1457-1485
Sofia I was the first Queen of Egypt since Helena the Bewitched’s troubled 13th century rule, and the first of a line of Queens who would rule over Egypt for several decades. After becoming Queen at the age of five, Sofia’s reign was one of impressive stability considering the latter years of her father’s reign and Egypt’s historical experience with regency councils.
Ever since the reunification of Egypt and Abyssinia in 1447, elements of the nobility had supported the idea of pushing the border of Abyssinia Westward – establishing greater control over the Lower Nile and provided new lands to settle. The Kingdom of Abyssinia had never had the resources nor the political will to embark on any campaign of settlement whilst independent, but with the wealth and power of Egypt hopes of expansion were far more realistic. The prominent position of two significant Abyssinian magnates – the Jarls of Gondar and Aswan – in the regency council that took over Egypt’s government in 1457 gave the expansionist schemes the political backing they needed. Starting in Dongola, Nubia, in 1460 and continuing into Sofia’s personal reign Egypt’s border in East Africa was pushed Westward. The new lands were not especially rich or populous, and there were clashes with native populations resisting Egyptian rule – but they were a roaring political success. The Jarls of Abyssinia poured their own personal resources into the project and became inseparable allies of the Egyptian crown – thus settling a region whose recent reintegration made loyalties somewhat suspect. These early experiments in settlement and expansion would put Egypt in good stead for its rather grander projects of the century to come.
The other major territorial change that occurred during Sofia’s reign left Egypt with a problem that would cause instability for centuries to come – the annexation of Khuzestan. Invading in 1470, and finally securing a treaty from the Central Asia rulers of the province in 1473, the addition of Khuzestan seemed to have some clear benefits – it was a populous and wealthy territory, moreover it provided a valuable buffer between Basra and the instability of Iran. However, the vibrant Ismaili religion that held sway in Khuzestan set itself up as being implacably anti-Egyptian. As early as 1476 as many as 20,000 warriors rose up in the province – temporarily threatening to enter Mesopotamia before reinforcements could be hurried to the region from Syria. Although the province would gradually be calmed and eventually come to accept rule from Cairo and Baghdad, in times of instability Khuzestan would always be an easy region for opponents of the state to raise troops.
In the years 1478-84 the long held independent of the province of the Jarldom of Harer was ended. Unlike the rest of Abyssinia, when the Arabs were ejected from East Africa in the 10th century the Eastern part of the Kingdom was freed by local rebel chiefs who subsequently swore allegiance to the Egypto-Norse Kings. Whilst in the rest of the Kingdom Egypto-Norse nobles moved South to take over their new lands, the East remained uncolonised and distinctively independent under a Black African nobility. By the 15th century the two parts of Abyssinia appeared very alien to one another with a linguistic barrier between the Egypto-Norse speaking West and Ethiopian speaking East. With the reunification of Abyssinia and Egypt in 1447 Cairo had a clear and obvious preference for the West Abyssinian nobility at the expense of Harer. With the crown’s growing interest in the Horn of Africa the fierce independence of the nobility of Harer was seen as a threat, Cairo was angling for the division of Harer into two separate Jarldoms, and a largescale expansion of the crown’s power in the region. By the late 1470s the East Abyssinians saw no hopes of protecting their autonomy by peaceful means and rose in revolt.
It took two years to put down the rebellion and another four to settle the countryside after the eruption of separatist sentiment the Horn of Africa. With support from the rebels coming from the wealthy Swahili they were able to continue their resistance far longer than their numbers should have allowed. However, after the final victory of the crown the last elements of the local Ethiopian population to hold serious political power were swept away – Harer being divided into two Jarldoms, with an Egypto-Norse speaking nobility imported from West Abyssinia and even further afield.
Sofia died tragically young in 1485 as a return of the plague to the Eastern Mediterranean claimed her life. In her place her sister, Edla, was named as Queen of Egypt. Under her reign Egypt would begin to reach out far beyond her shores, as the age of exploration began.
- 1