Why is half of Germania "unoccupied"?

[Vityviktor]

The same question could be asked about Ireland, Pictland or the eastern part of Europe, but in this case I'm talking about Germania. Please, don't take it as a complain, it's not.

What's the main reason of having the northern Germanic peoples portrayed in the game but not the rest of them? Did the devs considered only some of them were "advanced" or "civilized" (in game terms) to be portrayed as playable tags? Was the research too hard to find accurate enough locations and names of the tribes? Was it simply for gameplay value and for having empty "colonizable" regions? Will these gaps eventually be filled?

 

[henzington]

For many areas, records are quite poor. Even much later, the records for Sweden are extremely scarce or myths

 

[Chipmunk216]

My sense is that it's primarily a gameplay decision to make Germanic migrations southwards and westwards a major event (which did happen in this time frame, although of course the land they traversed was not totally empty as you point out). I also wouldn't be surprised if there some additions as they refine the map- how can we have the Saxons (not attested until well into the Imperial period) and not have the Cherusci or Suebi?

 

[IZob]

In the game, people (Pops) are present in that empty space. They're just not unified countries.

 

[Nortrix]

My sense is that it's primarily a gameplay decision to make Germanic migrations southwards and westwards a major event (which did happen in this time frame, although of course the land they traversed was not totally empty as you point out). I also wouldn't be surprised if there some additions as they refine the map- how can we have the Saxons (not attested until well into the Imperial period) and not have the Cherusci or Suebi?

This.
The empty area was not empty. Most probably Celtic lands. They were victims of Germanic migrations at a time of no written records. Think Paradox should fill them with Celtic tribes even if they make up the names.

For many areas, records are quite poor. Even much later, the records for Sweden are extremely scarce or myths

I think we can safely say everything of northern Europe was myth at game start concerning sources.

 

[jmurray27]

My sense is that it's primarily a gameplay decision to make Germanic migrations southwards and westwards a major event (which did happen in this time frame, although of course the land they traversed was not totally empty as you point out). I also wouldn't be surprised if there some additions as they refine the map- how can we have the Saxons (not attested until well into the Imperial period) and not have the Cherusci or Suebi?

I agree with this statement. If fact unless I am mistake, the screenshot of Germany looks alot different than some of the ones i saw a few months ago. it looks to me like they have added some more Germans in the interior and I don't remember ever seeing Bohemia in the game.

 

[Chipmunk216]

I agree with this statement. If fact unless I am mistake, the screenshot of Germany looks alot different than some of the ones i saw a few months ago. it looks to me like they have added some more Germans in the interior and I don't remember ever seeing Bohemia in the game.

Yeah, there have definitely been some changes to fill out the map a bit. The Marcomanni and the Langobardi are new as well as Boihaemum (though I guess those are Celts?). Perhaps more to come.

 

[Vityviktor]

I understand these "empty" lands are in fact settled by people. I remember seing in the streaming how the southern area the Saxons occupied had the "Irminonic" culture, with Tuistic (Germanic) religion.

I agree with this statement. If fact unless I am mistake, the screenshot of Germany looks alot different than some of the ones i saw a few months ago. it looks to me like they have added some more Germans in the interior and I don't remember ever seeing Bohemia in the game.

Indeed, maybe they're actually filling it slowly with new tags.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Look this video, you can see that there are pops in every provinces even if not owned by a political entity and the emptiness of the provinces is used for the migration ability. I agree with you that maybe it's not perfect, but I like this new mechanic.

 

[Palando]

My sense is that it's primarily a gameplay decision to make Germanic migrations southwards and westwards a major event (which did happen in this time frame, although of course the land they traversed was not totally empty as you point out). I also wouldn't be surprised if there some additions as they refine the map- how can we have the Saxons (not attested until well into the Imperial period) and not have the Cherusci or Suebi?

The 'major' migrations were all far, far later (migration period). The only exception to this are the Cimbri, Teutons and Ambrones, off course.

The people that inhabited those areas didn't really move that much, as archeological excavations show us. If someone says something else, he's basing it on outdated information. One prominent example is the Jastorf culture which is often associated with the Suebi, as these emerged from it. We know that the settlements were quite continous from around 600 BC to the turn of the eras. I've written quite a bit about that in this thread here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-the-boii-the-vindelici-and-germania.1134917/
In fact, the Nordic Bronze Age (ending at around 700 to 600 BC) extended well into Germania Magna, so those people were in contact with each other for quite some time.

 

[Chipmunk216]

The 'major' migrations were all far, far later (migration period). The only exception to this are the Cimbri, Teutons and Ambrones, off course.

You don't think there was any geographic expansion at all of the Germanic ethno-linguistic sphere between 300 BC and the Migration period? That's not my impression.

 

[Palando]

You don't think there was any geographic expansion at all of the Germanic ethno-linguistic sphere between 300 BC and the Migration period? That's not my impression.

I wouldn't call them that 'major'. If we talk about events happening up to Augustus's ascension (as that's roughly the end date), there was only the conquest of northern Bohemia by Germanics from modern day Thuringia and Saxony (might have been the Marcomanni and Quadi already) at around or shortly after 50 BC. The Celts were, thereby, pressured by the Dacians under king Burebista, too. That corresponds to around eight to ten cities in Imperator.
You could possibly also include the Bastarnae here, but neither do we know whether or not they were proper Germanics nor where their territory actually was in 300 BC.

The area between Danube and Main didn't have a sizeable Germanic population for several decades after 27 BC, and the Romans made sure that the Germans couldn't move further to the west and south.

 

[Sanny]

I also find this strange considering the area is shown to be populated with pops, I guess Paradox just didnt find any records for the area. That being said they are probably taking their time with the research and continuously adding nations/tribes to the world. As said in the stream they sometimes have to make a logical "guesstimate". A few great forum members have been helping out the team with research though it seems.

 

[Palando]

I also find this strange considering the area is shown to be populated with pops, I guess Paradox just didnt find any records for the area. That being said they are probably taking their time with the research and continuously adding nations/tribes to the world. As said in the stream they sometimes have to make a logical "guesstimate". A few great forum members have been helping out the team with research though it seems.

There are far more records for that region than there are records for Sweden or Norway. In fact, we have Ceasar, Drusus's campaign, Strabon, Velleius Paterculus, Plinius, Tacitus, Klaudios Ptolemaios and some more for Germania Magna. Compare this to only Ptolemaios for the Scandinavian peninsula (and Tacitus and Plinius who mentioned just a single tribe for it, but contrast with Ptolemaios). In the stream, Johan actually denied that and claimed the reverse.

 

[Nortrix]

There are far more records for that region than there are records for Sweden or Norway. In fact, we have Ceasar, Drusus's campaign, Strabon, Velleius Paterculus, Plinius, Tacitus, Klaudios Ptolemaios and some more for Germania Magna. Compare this to only Ptolemaios for the Scandinavian peninsula (and Tacitus and Plinius who mentioned just a single tribe for it, but contrast with Ptolemaios). In the stream, Johan actually denied that and claimed the reverse.

Because all those you mention are far after game start. The myths and Legends are all you got when you look at game start. Central Germany has non of it. Pytheas of Massalia lost works( mentioned trough other writers) are the only outsiders mention beside oral legends. And as he sailed he of course had no mention on the innland.

 

[henzington]

This.
The empty area was not empty. Most probably Celtic lands. They were victims of Germanic migrations at a time of no written records. Think Paradox should fill them with Celtic tribes even if they make up the names.



I think we can safely say everything of northern Europe was myth at game start concerning sources.

It’s more that written records either didn’t exist or were destroyed. There are gaps in Roman history and we know this because volumes can’t be found for certain histories. The myth part is mostly related to the oral traditions which were eventually written down. Iceland is an example of this.

 

[Palando]

Because all those you mention are far after game start. The myths and Legends are all you got when you look at game start. Central Germany has non of it. Pytheas of Massalia lost works( mentioned trough other writers) are the only outsiders mention beside oral legends. And as he sailed he of course had no mention on the innland.

We don't have sources for Britain, for Gaul, for Germania Magna and for Scandinavia up to much later. Those myths you cite are incomplete and were written down several centuries after those tribes were first mentioned by ancient authors. It's just more reliable to extrapolate from the first written source back to 300 BC, when one takes archeology into account.
You should probably also read all of Jordanes's Getica and you'd notice that most of it is just some author's fantasy (Goths sacking Troy right after the Greeks, Goths fighting an Egyptian pharao, Goths being the reason for the Zalmoxian god of the Dacians, ...).

I know that you like to mention the Nordic Bronze age, but you should probably also look at the extent of the Late Bronze age (up to 700 BC):

 

[Nortrix]

It’s more that written records either didn’t exist or were destroyed. There are gaps in Roman history and we know this because volumes can’t be found for certain histories. The myth part is mostly related to the oral traditions which were eventually written down. Iceland is an example of this.

Yes but i must say that Pytheas story that are mentioned by later writers also kind of joins the myth cloub. Also much later roman writers like Pliny have litle knowledge of the north when they can write something like this:

"There are reported the Isles Oonae, on which the inhabitants live on birds' eggs and wild oats. Others also, on which men are born with the feet of horses, and called Hippopodes. Others called Phanesii, who, being otherwise naked, have immensely great ears that cover their whole body"

 

[Palando]

Yes but i must say that Pytheas story that are mentioned by later writers also kind of joins the myth cloub. Also much later roman writers like Pliny have litle knowledge of the north when they can write something like this:

"There are reported the Isles Oonae, on which the inhabitants live on birds' eggs and wild oats. Others also, on which men are born with the feet of horses, and called Hippopodes. Others called Phanesii, who, being otherwise naked, have immensely great ears that cover their whole body"

The difference is that the Romans campaigned in Germania, while they did not campaign in Scandinavia. That's why they had first-hand information for the one region, while they had to rely on travellers or other people to tell them about the Scandinavian peninsula.
I also haven't really used Pytheas as a source, but most of his descriptions turned out to be right later on.

 

[Nortrix]

We don't have sources for Britain, for Gaul, for Germania Magna and for Scandinavia up to much later. Those myths you cite are incomplete and were written down several centuries after those tribes were first mentioned by ancient authors. It's just more reliable to extrapolate from the first written source back to 300 BC, when one takes archeology into account.
You should probably also read all of Jordanes's Getica and you'd notice that most of it is just some author's fantasy (Goths sacking Troy right after the Greeks, Goths fighting an Egyptian pharao, Goths being the reason for the Zalmoxian god of the Dacians, ...).

I know that you like to mention the Nordic Bronze age, but you should probably also look at the extent of the Late Bronze age (up to 700 BC):
View attachment 446772

Goths sacking Troy etc is offcorse in the myth cloub with Homer etc. Unless however unlikely they are in some way connected to the sea people. Never said Jordanes writing facts. Just another player in the myth club.