Will Italy be super wealthy?

[Denkt]

I have seen economic Estimates of the CK time period and they all seems to Agree that Italy was basically the richest place when looking at per capita, like the average person in Italy may have been around twice as rich as alot of other places such as Byzantine Empire. Not sure what made Italy so rich but I suspect trading as a major factor since other trade Powers like neatherlands in the 1600s reached even higher wealth levels.

I don't know how CK3 would represent this, simply cities and or expand upon trading?

 

[es333]

Interesting point.

I would also bring out that in the last 10 years, there have been massive amounts of archaeological finds in Estonia which have now made historians say that it was the richest area in entire Northern-Europe in the 12th century. In the past, it was thought that it was among the wealthiest but behind Gotland, newer finds paint a picture of Estonia being noticeably wealthier than Gotland.
The trade routes going by the coast of Northern-Estonia to Russia most likely played a role. Even when going from Sigtuna towards Russia, you would use the coastline of Estonia, not Finland, because of an abundance of natural harbours.

 

[Denkt]

Another question, how much of the trading wealth would actually be accessible by the ruler? Even if the region is super rich, you cant simply take the wealth since the traders would probably look for new opportunities or simply fight you with whatever military capacity they hold.

Like Italy maybe is richer then the Byzantine Empire (simply as an example) but it don't mean a ruler that Control whole of Italy would be able to get more wealth than the Byzantine emperor, and could very well get less since much of the wealth may be simply inaccessible for the ruler.

Flanders for example actually fought against the France and defeated them at the battles of golden spurs which is one time when a infantry forced defeated Heavy cavalry.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

This was the result of the societal development, very fertile land, and politics.

I could write a ton on this, but as in regards to ck3... I don't think Italy will be much different than in ck2. At least until other forms of government will be explored.

 

[Arona]

Well as we know CK series is mostly simulation game so decisions by AI and player count so not everything go thought historical route.. If in your game italy will be constantly at war and provinces will be sieged and saced so its normal it loses a wealth and developmnet slows down or degrades. But in the start of game italy might be richest region but also it will be fractured and by uniting it there will be wars wht will harm prosperity

 

[Denkt]

Well as we know CK series is mostly simulation game so decisions by AI and player count so not everything go thought historical route.. If in your game italy will be constantly at war and provinces will be sieged and saced so its normal it loses a wealth and developmnet slows down or degrades. But in the start of game italy might be richest region but also it will be fractured and by uniting it there will be wars wht will harm prosperity

Thats a good Point, however the question is Obviously about the starting situation rather than how the game progress

 

[Woifee]

Well as we know CK series is mostly simulation game so decisions by AI and player count so not everything go thought historical route.. If in your game italy will be constantly at war and provinces will be sieged and saced so its normal it loses a wealth and developmnet slows down or degrades. But in the start of game italy might be richest region but also it will be fractured and by uniting it there will be wars wht will harm prosperity

But you forget the 34th rule of acquisition: War is good for Business

 

[elvain]

It was indeed among the wealthier regions of medieval world. It should be richer than rest of Europe, of course, but from more global perspective, I don't see why Italy should be super rich...

In the 11th century Italy was still poorer than regions such as Syria, Egypt, Iraq or quite a few sections of Andalusia, Greece or Anatolia, and in the 9th century the difference was even bigger..

Only in the late 12th and 13th centuries Italy surpassed them

 

[es333]

Interesting point.

I would also bring out that in the last 10 years, there have been massive amounts of archaeological finds in Estonia which have now made historians say that it was the richest area in entire Northern-Europe in the 12th century. In the past, it was thought that it was among the wealthiest but behind Gotland, newer finds paint a picture of Estonia being noticeably wealthier than Gotland.
The trade routes going by the coast of Northern-Estonia to Russia most likely played a role. Even when going from Sigtuna towards Russia, you would use the coastline of Estonia, not Finland, because of an abundance of natural harbours.

I see that this post got 5 disagrees.

Besides me, can the 5 people also working in archaeology and following the news and research papers based on the newest discoveries please point out precisely what made you disagree?

Maybe start from the Wiki article which is outdated and doesn't contain the freshest info but still presents the general point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age_in_Estonia#Archaeology

 

[Denkt]

Our knowledge of the past change all the time. In the past people thought Roman Empire was some super society that was just recently surpassed and medieval europe was absolute terrible time period. Today it seems that the picture have changed alot, many estimates I have seen put the medieval nations at a higher prosperity level than the Roman Empire and Italy in particular seems to be given alot higher prosperity level during the medieval/renaissances time period than during the Roman Empire.

Cities like Milan and Venice would probably be as good as anything seen during the Roman Empire if not even a step beyond the Romans.

People like the celts in Gaul was seen as primitive in the past but now that picture have changed alot, and I think the same apply to the germanic people as well.

 

[Kainser]

I'm no expert but was Italy really particularly rich in 867? I thought that was a later thing. Things that happened historically after the game starts should be *possible* but it shouldn't be guaranteed.

 

[Denkt]

I'm no expert but was Italy really particularly rich in 867? I thought that was a later thing. Things that happened historically after the game starts should be *possible* but it shouldn't be guaranteed.

I don't know, during that time there had been quite a few invasion in Italy which could have a negative effect on the economy, but Italy, especially the north part is probably in a very good position to become very wealthy.

 

[Axis89]

I don't know, during that time there had been quite a few invasion in Italy which could have a negative effect on the economy, but Italy, especially the north part is probably in a very good position to become very wealthy.

Italy was very rich until the Byzantines lost it(a second time). The wars in the 500's reall destroyed Italian economy. But they would still be a very rich european region, especially in the north, and down to Rome.
Sicily too, but was ravaged even more by wars, swapping lords like socks.

Btw, I know medieval society was better than what we previously thought, but remember that the medieval period is from ca 450- 1453.
I wouldnt say most of Europe surpassed the Romans until much much later(I believe 17-1800s approx, in terms of laws, civility etc etc), and european lands which wasnt a part of the Roman Empire, and many who where didnt have, or lost a lot of know how and state structure, technology etc. So we are talking about a thousand years scope here, and I confidently would say no one surpassed the Romans at least until the 1200's.

The Byzantines however had brain surgeons, free bread, horse races, lawyers, the first modern laws, aqueducts, roads, schools, a hierarchical ladder, state of the art architecture etc etc, and libraries with ancient knowladge and battle/strategy handbooks for officers etc in this period.
It's funny that the renaissance began after the fall of Constantinople(Greek refugees to Italy)...

 

[Denkt]

Btw, I know medieval society was better than what we previously thought, but remember that the medieval period is from ca 450- 1453.

Yes I have seen economic estimates that put european countries in that time period as more prosperous than during the Roman period and that include Italy. The countries that seems to have gained the most seems to have been the ones that was poorest like England, France but north Italy seems to have been a big winner. The eastern part of Roman Empire seems to have had smaller gains, maybe because they already was rich during the Roman time or maybe suffered more like the Mongol invasion which west avoided.

Yes there are technologies Rome had that medieval Europe did not have such as concrete but on other hand Rome lacked alot of technologies developed during the medieval era or had spread to the former roman empire during this time.

Byzantines had alot of things but so did the nations to the west of it also, like Venice had its arsenal, Milan had its armories, stuff like gothic cathedrals, mechanical clocks and even eyeglasses was produced during the CK3 timeframe.

West also had sophisticated military, like the normans actually impressed the romans and ended up conquering southern Italy.

 

[Ezumiyr]

Not sure what made Italy so rich but I suspect trading as a major factor since other trade Powers like neatherlands in the 1600s reached even higher wealth levels.

The reasons of Italy's wealth are complex and it's not just because of trade. Like others said, it's basically a combination of social factors (partially inherited from the Romans, including religious structures, but also the relationships with more recent populations like the Lombards), population density in cities, climate, geographical position, and luck.

I could write a ton on this, but as in regards to ck3... I don't think Italy will be much different than in ck2. At least until other forms of government will be explored.

I just want to add that it's not (just) about merchant republics, but Italian cities had their own government form that is quite different from feudalism.

Besides me, can the 5 people also working in archaeology and following the news and research papers based on the newest discoveries please point out precisely what made you disagree?

I didn't hit the disagree button on your comment, but I still find it off topic. You're talking about the potentially richest place in northern Europe during the 12th century. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that northern Europe wasn't comparable to the mediterranean in terms of wealth before the 14th century.
And even if we're talking about Northern Europe, that depends on the definition of "northern", because Flanders was already an extremely rich region thanks to trade during the middle ages. And it also depends on the definition of "wealth", because as archaeologists, we should know that material evidence is an indicator, but not a precise one. Your sources show that Estonia was probably a wealthy place in northern Europe sooner than we used to think. It doesn't prove that it was #1.
Which is interesting because not much is known about that area in that time. But it's just risible in comparison to what we know about Italy in the same period.

 

[Denkt]

I didn't hit the disagree button on your comment, but I still find it off topic. You're talking about the potentially richest place in northern Europe during the 12th century. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that northern Europe wasn't comparable to the mediterranean in terms of wealth before the 14th century.

It could be as late as 1800s before they are comparable, Northern Europe seems to have been rather poor for most of history. However if you include stuff like Neatherland into northern Europe stuff change but I was thinking about the baltics sea area.

 

[es333]

I didn't hit the disagree button on your comment, but I still find it off topic. You're talking about the potentially richest place in northern Europe during the 12th century. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that northern Europe wasn't comparable to the mediterranean in terms of wealth before the 14th century.
And even if we're talking about Northern Europe, that depends on the definition of "northern", because Flanders was already an extremely rich region thanks to trade during the middle ages. And it also depends on the definition of "wealth", because as archaeologists, we should know that material evidence is an indicator, but not a precise one. Your sources show that Estonia was probably a wealthy place in northern Europe sooner than we used to think. It doesn't prove that it was #1.
Which is interesting because not much is known about that area in that time. But it's just risible in comparison to what we know about Italy in the same period.

We are talking about the wealth of different regions in CK III. Every region doesn't need a separate thread, the information would just get diluted. My post was on topic regarding the general issue at hand.
Regarding the definition of Northern-Europe:

Northern Europe is the geographical region in Europe roughly north of the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, which is about 54°N

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe

Regarding archaeology in Estonia, that country was occupied for 50 years after WW2, until 1991. There were finds in the pre-WW2 period before occupation and also some finds from a pre-WW1 period. Archaeology picked up since the 1990's there and it just keeps affirming the theory that Estonia was extremely wealthy during the viking age and played a very important role in regard to viking trade routes. The findings even make it all the way into Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidn...fragments-discovered-in-estonia/#849a216411c8

One of the most spectacular finds from that region last year was this: https://www.archaeology.org/news/8027-190924-estonia-gold-bracelet
It is from the iron age predating the viking age so doesn't give much to the discussion but just look at that beauty!

 

[Axis89]

Denkt, you are making fair points, but I think you are exaggarating a lot too, no offense.
(edited)

 

[Axis89]

I quoted the wrong post Denkt.. My reply was meant for your argument for how advanced medieval europe was compared to the Roman Empire, ancient Greece, Persia etc etc.
And to how rich italy should be.

Sorry for the mess

 

[Axis89]

We are talking about the wealth of different regions in CK III. Every region doesn't need a separate thread, the information would just get diluted. My post was on topic regarding the general issue at hand.
Regarding the definition of Northern-Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe

Regarding archaeology in Estonia, that country was occupied for 50 years after WW2, until 1991. There were finds in the pre-WW2 period before occupation and also some finds from a pre-WW1 period. Archaeology picked up since the 1990's there and it just keeps affirming the theory that Estonia was extremely wealthy during the viking age and played a very important role in regard to viking trade routes. The findings even make it all the way into Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidn...fragments-discovered-in-estonia/#849a216411c8

One of the most spectacular finds from that region last year was this: https://www.archaeology.org/news/8027-190924-estonia-gold-bracelet
It is from the iron age predating the viking age so doesn't give much to the discussion but just look at that beauty!

Your sources does not prove "EXTREME WEALTH" in Estonia, and findings like these are quite normal in Scandinavia too. Actually, recently Norway has had alot of findings, new longships, Roman coins all over, gold bracelets, rings, swords, longhouses etc. It shows Norway was richer than we previously have thought, but that does not mean EXTREME WEALTH.

Compare Estonia to Constantinople, no? Genoa, no? France, no? Okey, how about Poland, Hansa states, or Denmark? Norway? Sweden?

Who is comparable in your eyes?