According to my information, by AD 1000 Venice had already conquered Dalmatia. Would this not correspond to land that in the 1066 scenerio is held by Croatia?
-
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.
Venice might have lost Dalmatia between 1000 and 1066 or their possessions in Dalmatia might have been small enough to not warrant them having a whole province there. It would help from gameplay pov though, since Venice is awfully vulnerable with just one prov and it would make grabbing king of Venice more expensive.
May I ask about your source, btw?
May I ask about your source, btw?
From what I recall, Dalmatia remained an important province of Venice throughout it's history because it provided much needed timber.
Or at least, John Julius Norwich's History of Venice claims that.
OTOH, for whatever reason, despite being the most readable and accurate collation of sources and far more reliable then a random intarweb page, he isn't a very popular author to cite.
Or at least, John Julius Norwich's History of Venice claims that.
OTOH, for whatever reason, despite being the most readable and accurate collation of sources and far more reliable then a random intarweb page, he isn't a very popular author to cite.
Does Norwich claim Venice had significant amount of land (to warrant a whole CK province) in Dalmatia in 1066 already?
On this map of 1100, it says "Venice and Dalmatia"... sounds like Dalmatia was a pretty significant part of Venice at that time, which suggests that it wasn't just an insignificant part that Venice held then...Byakhiam said:
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1100.htm
Nothing changes by 1200...
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1200.htm
... or 1300...
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1300.htm
... or 1400 either, for that matter.
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1400.htm
In 1500 however, Venice has a bigger chunk of territory there.
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1400.htm
Dunno how useful this set of maps would be though.
But in the map of year 1000 link in same site the Venetian lands in Dalmatia are smaller by far, so the point where Venetia obtained it's larger possessions in Dalmatia of 1100 and later would fall between 1000 and 1100. Then we would need sources as close to 1066 as possible to confirm whether or not Venice should have a province in Dalmatia in 1066 scenario's start.
Byakhiam said:
To be honest, I'm not sure how Venice's actual territory corresponds to the map of the province.
I do know however, that the principal cities of the region, all of whom were along the coast, were dominated by the Venetians. In fact, one of the rebellions against their rule there was put down by the Fourth Crusades. It also, apparently, controlled enough of it to provide the significant amounts of lumber that were needed.
Beyond that...We know Venice has it by 1100. And we know how the engine works. And we know Venice kept it. Best to err on the side of caution and just give it to them.
Dalmatia and most of it's islands were part of Croatian kingdom until 1090s. At that time Croatian royal dynasty of Trpmirovic's died out and the civil war broke out between various nobles with also Arpads of Hungary getting involed in it due to Ilona(Jelena), wife of the last king Dmitar Zvonimir who passed her claims on her brother Geza...then King of Hungary. Hungary used this situation and took Slavonia in 1092. Venice also took advantage of this situation and took most of the island which were already well in dispute with Croatia for some time but Croatia mainted it's rule over Adriatic coast from late 9th century to late 11th century and Venice payed tribute to Croatia until it suffered decline.
Anyway the Dalmatian cities remained in dispute until 1100 and changed allegiance quite often but Hungarian kings succeeded and beat Venetians in the "diplomatic battle" and Dalmatia(more correctly chief Dalmatian cities namely Spalato-Split and Zara-Zadar with the surrounding area while islands were mainly in Venetian hands) remained in Hungarian hands, but as from 1204 Venice got hold of Zadar(conquered by Crusaders and handed over to Dalmatians as "payment" for ships) and it gradually won most of the islands. Venice had it's peek at the darkest moment of Croatia and Hungary and it used this situation by conquering whole Dalmatia in the 15th and 16th century but as soon as Hungary and Croatia recovered under the Austrian rule Venice was once again at it's downfall.
Anyway the Dalmatian cities remained in dispute until 1100 and changed allegiance quite often but Hungarian kings succeeded and beat Venetians in the "diplomatic battle" and Dalmatia(more correctly chief Dalmatian cities namely Spalato-Split and Zara-Zadar with the surrounding area while islands were mainly in Venetian hands) remained in Hungarian hands, but as from 1204 Venice got hold of Zadar(conquered by Crusaders and handed over to Dalmatians as "payment" for ships) and it gradually won most of the islands. Venice had it's peek at the darkest moment of Croatia and Hungary and it used this situation by conquering whole Dalmatia in the 15th and 16th century but as soon as Hungary and Croatia recovered under the Austrian rule Venice was once again at it's downfall.
So having Venice with a province in Dalmatia in 1066 would be wrong.
That's very detailed explanation Finellach, I hope you would be as exhaustive always.
That's very detailed explanation Finellach, I hope you would be as exhaustive always.
Byakhiam said:
Yes. Istria on the other hand could very well go to Venice already in 1066 IMO.
At the very least, considering that Venetian influence and attempted domination of Dalmatia begin as early as the 9th century, giving them a CB on that whole coastline would be a perfectly historical method of encouraging the growth they began between 1066 and 1100.
Damocles said:
I do this regulary to every patch released... I didn't see any difference in behaviour on Venice part though...
For the same reason Finellach posted I give duke of Slovakia (Ilona's father) Hungary CB on Slavonia.
As suggested.
As for claims on Slavonia they should go to current King of Hungary not to Geza current Duke/Prince of "Slovakia"(should be Nitra) and future king.
Btw. I was also thinking that Byzantine Emperor should also have the claim on Dalmatia..after all it barely passed a hundred years before Dalmatian cities were lost to Croats.
As for claims on Slavonia they should go to current King of Hungary not to Geza current Duke/Prince of "Slovakia"(should be Nitra) and future king.
Btw. I was also thinking that Byzantine Emperor should also have the claim on Dalmatia..after all it barely passed a hundred years before Dalmatian cities were lost to Croats.
Byakhiam said:
Yes, if you still need it. I am pleased by all the responses.
It initially caught my attention reading this article: http://www.answers.com/Pietro II Orseolo
I think an important question ought to be, who would have recieved most of the benefits of the region? Croatia appearently controlled most of the mainland territory but the ancient coastal cities were not Slavic, they were Italian, namely Venetian.
By circa 1000 Venice has got control of the coast, and these are sea oriented provinces. I haven't been able to find any evidence to suggest they should have Istria. Judging from the map Byakhiam provided, Venice should have Split province. Croatia can keep Zadar.
Last edited:
A hundred years is a little bit long for a claim to still be very strong... it could almost be said that the Croats had forced Byzantium to recognise their claims / drop the Byzantine claims there, by that time.Finellach said:As suggested.
As for claims on Slavonia they should go to current King of Hungary not to Geza current Duke/Prince of "Slovakia"(should be Nitra) and future king.
Btw. I was also thinking that Byzantine Emperor should also have the claim on Dalmatia..after all it barely passed a hundred years before Dalmatian cities were lost to Croats.
If only the engine could make claims disappear with time, rather than amass like well-fed tribbles...
UeberMensch said:
They were not Italian but Latin. Also that has nothing to do with the fact who controlled them. Venice indeed contrrolled for a short period these cities in 1000 but they were soon lost and then forth and back....as I said Dalmatian cities changed allegiance very often. With the ascendence of 'Petar Kresimir' to the throne the situation stabilized and Croatian cities recognized the rule of Croatian King and payed him vassalage and were obligated to help him in war with ships as well.
And by 1030s Venice again lost the coastal cities....you must understand that these cities were never conquered(except in 1204 when Zara was taken by Crusaders)...they were small autonomous entites that swore and allegiance to whomever was stronger...in 1066 Croatia was the strongest in that region and this continued until 1090s after which Croatia was again weakened and cities again went to Venice....until of course Hungarian Kings(now of course also Kings of Croatia) had enough time to turn their attention to it and the cities were once again lost to venice and went to Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom(to Croatian half).
The Phoenix said:
Well considering that Dalmatia was for quite some time Byzantine teritory I think it is only logical that they would have a claim....but you do have a point....in 910 when Tomislav first 'King of Croatia'(then still a 'Duke of Croatia') came to power Byzantine Emperor handed him over Dalmatia back so it may seem they yielded their claim.
Last edited:
Besides, giving Byzantium claims on Dalmatia would only save him few hundred prestige, since Byza seems to always grab claims on those provinces anyway.
Finellach said:
Oh. There are Italian speaking minorities in Dalmatia to this day, but you're right -- they weren't Italian.
Fair enough.
I haven't found anything which says that Venice paid Croatia tribute.
I also haven't found anything to support your suggestion that Venice could have Istria.....except perhaps that Istria in 1066 is not part of the Great Croatian Fatherland and therefore expendable?
Okay. But let me quote from some encyclopedia entries that appear to contradict your version:
"Following the great Slavonic migration into Illyria in the first half of the 7th century, the Dalmatian hinterland became populated by Slavic tribes. The maritime city-states, however, remained powerful as they were highly civilized and able to rely on the moral if not the material support of their kinsfolk in Italy.
"Since the 830s, the duchy of Croatia controlled the northern portion of Dalmatia. The establishment of cordial relations between the Roman cities and the Croatian dukedom seriously began with the reign of duke Mislav (835), who signed an official peace treaty with Pietro, doge of Venice in 840 and who also started giving land donations to the churches from the cities..."
Why would he have to sign a treaty with the Doge as early as 840 if Venice had no control?
"...the Dalmatian city-states, often isolated and compelled to look to Italy for support, shared perforce in the march of Italian civilization....
"The Narentine pirates of Pagania (named after the river Narenta, today's Neretva), with safe harbors such as the island port of Curzola, defeated Venetian fleets dispatched against them in 840 and 887, and for more than a century exacted tribute from the Republic of Venice itself. The doge Pietro II Orseolo finally crushed them in 998 and assumed the title duke of the Dalmatians (Dux Dalmatianorum), though without prejudice to Byzantine suzerainty."
That's funny how you can create yourself Duke of Dalmatia and yet not have any land there.
"...The Venetians, to whom the Dalmatians were already bound by language and culture, could afford to concede liberal terms as its main goal was to prevent the development of any dangerous political or commercial competitor on the eastern Adriatic. The seafaring community in Dalmatia looked to Venice as mistress of the Adriatic. In return for protection, the cities often furnished a contingent to the army or navy of their suzerain, and sometimes paid tribute either in money or in kind. Arbe (Rab), for example, annually paid ten pounds of silk or five pounds of gold to Venice.
"Hungary, on the other hand, defeated the last Croat king in 1097 and laid claim on all lands of the Croatian noblemen since the treaty of 1102. King Coloman proceeded to conquer Dalmatia in 1102-1105..."
http://www.answers.com/dalmatia
Again:
"The city [of Venice] secured (10th cent.) most of the coast of Dalmatia, thus gaining control of the Adriatic, and began to build up its eastern empire, obtaining trade and other privileges in the ports of the eastern Mediterranean."
http://www.answers.com/venice
(I use this website because it references several different sources.)
Out of curiosity, was Croatia ever part of the Roman Empire or was Diocletian actually emperor of a greater Croatia?
I am neither Italian nor Croatian; I simply think Venice probably had greater influence over the area by virtue of controling the sea.
If the consensus is to just give Venice claims on the area then I guess that will have to be acceptable.
This exact question came up in the scenario forum a few days ago. Here's what I posted then:
Me said: