All right, let's see what we got in the Iberian peninsula - RW, thanks for your massive help once again!
Part 3: Iberia
EDIT: see the first post for details!
All right, let's see what we got in the Iberian peninsula - RW, thanks for your massive help once again!
Part 3: Iberia
EDIT: see the first post for details!
Last edited by Fair Prince; April 22, 2012 at 01:45 PM.
RW was thinking that as well but while Avignon was home of the Popes away from Rome for about 100 years it wasn't a huge city otherwise though the Papal bureaucracy increased its size. I think he settled on removing Clermont and adding Orleans, Poiters, and dividing present Marseilles into Arles and Nice.
The region gets Arles primarily because HRE emperor was crowned there and it was a part of early Burgundy. Avignon was actually sacked during Cathar Crusades and then given to the Pope by rulers of Duchy of Naples and remained Papal territory with taxes collected going to Rome for next few centuries. Wikipedia says until the Revolution but I am pretty sure Rome gave power to Paris to collect taxes and administer the region prior to that I read that long ago at least and sometimes wiki is in-exact on small details like that.
It might be quite complicated to use Avignon for later campaigns if it historically belonged to the Papal States.
As far as the proposals for the Iberia- I am not sure how you figured +2 and -2... it looks +3 -1 to me. I think having Galicia/Asturias represented by some territory in an 1100 campaign makes sense as it was still quite important.
Coimbra seems very good addition but not as sure about the others. Braga over Porto could as easily be Evora or something else. It probably comes down to where is best place to put it on the map. In early campaign Braga is maybe a tiny bit better but Portugal changed so much from 1100 to 1400 that there are several competing choices that would make sense. Porto became significant place in late 1200s and remained so until 1600s while Braga declined after 1200s so...
Basically I don't see a good reason to +2 net in Portugal. How would you have Santiago de Compostela start in 1100? Rebels? It sounds nice but in practice I am not sure. Coimbra is the best addition and its a coin flip for Braga over Oporto in 1100 though I think Oporto is clearly more important later. Look at the map and it starts getting quite crowded on the northern tip of Iberia. Especially in light of places like Ireland and Switzerland only getting 1 region to add alot in Spain seems a bit weird to me.
Last edited by Ichon; June 29, 2011 at 05:43 PM.
Avignon is not that far from Arles... Clermont-Ferrand is quite a bit further north. That area of France from Clermont to Toulouse is the least populated and also serves a good barrier between Provence, Toulouse, and north Atlantic coastal France. Historically it was not 'French' until much later than almost all other parts of France aside from the German contested areas.
If you look at RW map Orleans and Poiters push the region that Clermont is now south and with Arles and Nice splitting Mareilles there is not that big an empty space as you might think- the part that is empty is a good barrier like I said as historically there was a separation of southern France there from the north and coastal areas.
The reason to split Marseilles is that Provence and lower Burgundy were important regions but not exactly in the 'French' sphere for long time. Nice was under control of Savoy which ruled parts of N Italy for a long time and which tried to create Kingdom of Burgundy. That area of land from Toulouse to Nice to Milan/Genoa was quite contested between several kingdoms and a large part of the various Italian wars.
Once France got better organized and King established more clear central authority and left its feudal ways behind it with dukes controlling lower vassals and not always obeying the King and finally kicked English out of north coastal France the Royal family turned its attentions south as the south had not been traditionally 'French' even under Martel. The Moorish invasions and closer customs to Catalans in Iberia with shared Visigothic migration heritage and language pervaded the area along with Italians in Savoy until France eventually gained control of the region over almost 2 centuries 1200-1400. After that France had only to gain control of Alsace to achieve its present boundaries. France didn't much focus on Languedoc until forced to by the Pope with Cathar crusade- Duke of Toulouse was relatively independent from France and then that Avignon was ruled by Papal States in 1300s was also how Savoy survived so long against French power along with Burgundy alliance with English and various alliances with Italian republics, Swiss, and HRE.
The map below might help explain the various relations... France and french language and culture started as the latinized germans(well more complicated than that) and spread south gradually while Normans took it into England and merged back with Anglo-Saxons.
The divisions in the southern parts of modern France didn't just disappear when French crown got some power. It took a long time to settle the issues of France laying claim to those lands.
Last edited by Ichon; June 30, 2011 at 01:24 AM.
The region count status of -2/+2 comes after evaluating the proposals for the 3 parts of the map (British Isles, Scandinavia and Iberia).
I'm glad that you find Coimbra a worthy addition and you also seem to be right with the Porto-Braga change - with a view on the late campaign, perhaps it would be better not to touch Porto. Portugal would start with two regions if Coimbra gets put on the map while Lisbon would remain independent. Santiago de Compostela would certainly be in Leonese hands, practically taking the place of Salamanca.
As for your remark, I don't think the map looks weird, after all, you were also complaining about the unfairly low number of regions in Iberia and France.
I'm currently preparing my ideas for Western Europe, I'm gonna post them later today folks!
Okay, let's see the western part of Europe with Groningen being the eastern borderline this time.
Quite probably not all of my ideas will be liked, but as always, I'm open to discussion.
Part 4: Western Europe
EDIT: see the first post for details!
Last edited by Fair Prince; April 22, 2012 at 01:45 PM.
The real point of the Arles / Marsellie swap is more or less because of adding Nice, Arles is a little more to the west which gave the two region a little bit more seperation (Marsellie is still the port of the region) . not changing that isn't a huge issue.
I'm not sure about removing Lyon, Clermont had a more clear historical region but Lyon was clearly the far bigger city it also give a more clear axis of the Burgundy / France split if you remove Clermont and have Lyon still there.
1180, an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity in East Asia, it's technology and wealth is the envy of the world. But soon conflict will engulf the entire region with great consequences and lasting effects for centuries to come, not just for this region, but the entire known world, when one man, one people, unites.....
France has unfairly low! Iberia I didn't find that bad- probably one of the best done places on the map other than the Levant. It can still benefit from some small corrections but on the scale of places that need changes its fairly low.
As for most recent proposal-
Ghent to be included seems quite good. However- the Low countries in this period were quite densely populated and the source of much trouble to France. I would actually say Ghent for sure- but not at the expense of Bruges which was one of the most important trading centers in Europe until its access to the sea gradually disappeared in early 1500s. Brussels as well was quite important. I actually would prefer all 3 included as that would make the France-English war more interesting and add potential for Burgundy in a later campaign but that would crowd map a bit so...
Ideally I would have Caen, Rouen, Bruges, Ghent, Groningen... so actually +2 in that area in early campaign. If a later campaign were done then maybe drop Bruges and add Brussels but all were quite important to the politics of the day and also had large populations for most of the era. It would also help with the current travesty that is France on the map. Including the additions of Rouen, Orleans, Poiters, Arles, and Troyes, and Nice it would bump up current area of France compared to SS map from 12 to 18 with France having to fight England and HRE to gain the north and have to fight Aragon, Genoa, and HRE to gain the south. Adding Burgundy perhaps in a later campaign as well to have a very interesting mix.
If the British isles has 8 regions and England starts there with 4 + Caen and Rouen while France starts with Paris, Orleans, Poiters, and Troyes(rest of France controlled by powerful Dukes that French crown must defeat). Personally I would like to add more the France than 18 regions but for game balance and if HRE also gets some additions that seems about right. Also that is assuming France ever comes to actually control all of modern France... probably alot of the game especially if Toulouse and Low Countries are very strong rebels France would take quite long to gain that- even more adding in England in the north starting with both Caen and Rouen so that there is more conflict and England doesn't lose Caen so quickly and then stays in the isles the rest of the game.
Lyons was actually very important for France and represented the south western boundary of 'French' sphere for a long time. Bordering with HRE territories, Swiss, Burgundy, and Savoy. I can't see removing it... what would you put there? Clermont? I know you are trying to work this with your titles project but just because a title exists doesn't mean it was a powerful one. Some duchies were much more powerful and important than others. Also many titles were traditionally held with other titles so just because there is a capitol with a title does not mean it was equal to another title of same prestige.
Amiens I don't think makes sense for 1100 campaign start. Maybe in 1370 campaign as it wasn't that important until much later. When I say "important" I usually mean economics and population. Religion or culture is more difficult to measure but especially in the case of religion where the districts of control were slightly different than politically and there were reasons to remove an Archbishops seat from the political capitol and Clermont was under Church control until 1500s.
Last edited by Ichon; June 30, 2011 at 11:36 PM.
I agree with the points about France, and that Lyon should remain there. Though I have a few suggestions for the Low Countries.
1. Why not add Utrecht? It was the most important city in the northern low countries. It was also a powerful city that was important in trade.
2. I would not add Ghent, maybe Brussels. Brussels was (and is) a very important city, both in the low countries and in the world. Though I think that a total of 4 settlements is more than enough for the low countries. (Antwerp, Bruges, Groningen, ?)
I see the idea of removing Lyon didn't go down too well with you guys, so I think it's better to keep it.
Ichon also said Amiens is not really worthy of adding and I accept his arguments as well. At the same time, Rouen was mentioned as a possible additon but I have some reservations about it - it's clear that it was the capital of Normandy but if we were to include it what region would Caen represent in the game?
Flanders is probably one of the most trickiest part of the map, there are at least 3 cities that should be included (Bruges, Ghent and Brussels) but unfortunately this area is so small that only one or maybe two can make the final cut...
As for Utrecht, I'd be willing to put it on the map but only in the place of Groningen, as the capital of Friesland/Holland - not sure if it would make sense, either.
Here's a map of 12th century France I used for inspiration:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So as you see, only East-Northeast of the current France should be in French hands at the start of the early campaign. If we stick to the current proposals, the faction would start with 6 regions (Paris, Orleans, Rheims, Troyes, Dijon and Bruges/Ghent) in my 1132 campaign, the same number as England do supposing Rouen won't be added.
At the same time, all French cities would begin with generally more population to reflect the fact it had significantly more inhabitants than any other European country at the time (thanks again to RW and Ichon for the heads up).
Last edited by Fair Prince; July 02, 2011 at 08:50 AM.
Normandy was quite well populated for its size at the time and had the population to support invasions all over Europe. Having 2 regions for those as well for game play reasons seems good idea to me. The English/French wars are often over as soon as France captures Caen while in reality France took over 200 years to completely capture Normandy as the Normans/English always held some parts even after losing Rouen and Caen.
As for what regions France starts with- I wasn't very historical there- more thinking of gameplay as the lands of the crown and the different loyalties of its vassals make any really accurate depiction quite difficult. As long as the idea that France started with quite few regions relatively under full control it seems ok. Removing Poiters and Orleans while adding Ghent and Dijon to starting regions or anything like that I don't really have an issue with. I only think France shouldn't start with more regions than England- same or better less regions but each region aside from Rouen and London having quite higher populations and building levels than England.
Yeah, I agree that the English presence should definitely get more emphasis in France. In the 1132 campaign they would begin with Caen and Angers, but Rouen might also be justified inclusion. With that in mind, I put up a list of the proposed settlemens and regions with their respective ducal titles:
I'm looking for some advice on the question marked items, especially on those settlements that historically belonged to the same region and title but now has to be split in the game.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by Fair Prince; July 02, 2011 at 05:50 PM.
I used English names whenever possible:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Explanation:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Also, the addition of Aachen, as the crowing place of the HREmperors, is important. Even RW has put it cathedral at his sub-mod. Its unfair don't seeing Aachen there.
True, Aachen as a seperate settlement is ok too, as that region has massive political significance, the only real issue that I left it out was because that region was already rather crowded and I ran out of regions to remove though giving it another look i think it's ok to cut another region in between cologne / antwerp / metz / For Aachen... it's a bit crowdeed but not ridiculasly so.
If I update my map the two changes I would seriously consider would be...
Visby -> Aachen
Salamanca -> Santiago
Caen - Rouen would make sense for a swap but I with the way I set it the English should most likely grab a few French settlement off the bat anyway so losing Normandy doesn't become THAT much of a issue for them. the Normandy region in terms of region draw up is rather small already, cutting it in half would be rather iffy. I usually just preferr to buff up Caen.
Last edited by RollingWave; July 03, 2011 at 06:24 AM.
1180, an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity in East Asia, it's technology and wealth is the envy of the world. But soon conflict will engulf the entire region with great consequences and lasting effects for centuries to come, not just for this region, but the entire known world, when one man, one people, unites.....
Thanks for the ideas, here's some feedback on your proposals:
Île-de-France: actually, I'm currently this using in my 6.4 text updates but honestly I'm not sure if it was also in use in Medieval times, that's why I proposed Paris for region name as well.
Champagne: both Rheims and Troyes should be in Champagne but the title of 'Count of Champagne' can only be related to either one of them. I'd prefer it to be Troyes, with Rheims getting a fictional 'Duke of Rheims' title, similarly to Orleans. Archbishop titles should only be accessible to priests.
Loiret: same here as with Île-de-France, maybe Orleans would be better choice for region name too.
Normandy: well, after reading RW's comments I'm starting to think that one settlement (Caen) will be enough here. Coupled with Angers, these two cities should still provide England a firm presence in the French territory.
Rhône-Saône: initially, I proposed Albon here because the counts of Albon was known to have seated in the area but after a second thought, I think it would be better if the settlement's name would be used for the region in this case too. The title of 'Count of Lyon' sounds reasonable to me, even if it probably wasn't really significant (or didn't exist at all).
As for Flanders and Brabant, I'm still undecided between Bruges/Ghent and Brussels/Antwerp, respectively - so I'd welcome more opinions on this matter.
I inserted a map of the two regions below for your consideration, folks.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by Fair Prince; July 04, 2011 at 01:00 PM.
Why should Archbishop titles only on Priests? Howcome? Most of the higher priests were members of the nobility as well and in fact until the second Lateran Council in 1139 the Church took no firm stand against clerics being married. The councils of Nicea had earlier in fact rejected proposals to ban marriage amongst the clergy. In fact many clergy continued to marry into the 1500s and the Church had to issue further ordinances and instructions restricting clergy from passing on lands and titles to their children and finally the Council of Trent in 1563 did not just ban marriage but instituted the requirements for celibacy where before then even priests that were not married frequently had mistresses. The whole thing had little to do with biblical reasons but was based on the idea that priests outside the bounds of society with no marriages, children, or carnal pleasures would somehow be less corrupt. Corruption was a huge problem through most of the Church's history and nobility that controlled Church lands and in some places even remained in the succession fostered alot of the heretical uprisings which had as the basis a rejection of the corruption in the Church.
As for Flanders:
Bruges and Ghent in 1100 seem the most important. Brussels over Antwerp as well but historically both rose to prominence after the first two. Fitting Bruges, Ghent, and Brussels on the map seems quite tight but then some other areas of the map are also crowded and it might well reflect the importance of the region. I would be fine with just Burges and Ghent if Rouen was also added as that gives the north coastal area the importance it had for France, England, Burgundy and Flanders historically. In a later campaign Burges could be dropped and Brussels then Antwerp added.
Titles are difficult- if I were you I would make the Ducal titles quite better, IE- Duke of Burgundy gets +20% trade, disloyal -3, inspiration to troops +2 morale, and increase in law while Count of Toulouse might get "inspiration to his troops" +1, decrease in piety -3, and +10% tax income. Count of Flanders might get +10% tax and trade, disloyal -1, and increase in farming +1. Rheims could be only a Barony with +2 to loyalty and +2 piety while the Archbishop of Rheims could be +1 loyalty, increase in law, increase in popularity, reduced command skill.
There were actually not many Dukes in medieval France and it might be best not to create titles that didn't exist especially if you do make the Ducal titles a bit better. Aside from the Crown lands(which were actually begun as just the strongest Duke) these were the most important titles in 1100s...
Duke of Normandy, Brittany, Burgundy, Aquitaine, and the counts of Flanders, Champagne, and Vermandois/Valois. Counts of Toulouse and Anjou were also at various times quite powerful but also at times brought down. Same as the Duke of Lorraine which was powerful when united but that was rarely the case.
Normandy was the most powerful Ducal title and lands and rivaled the crown or even surpassed it(hence the 100 years war) while Burgundy was the next most powerful. Below them were Aquitaine and then Brittany. The Count of Flanders was interesting and while only a count, the man who held the title had power more than most Dukes. Next the Counts of Champagne, Vermandois/Valois and Toulouse. Below them were various barons and a few counts which controlled little land relatively. Vermandois/Valois was taken over by Flanders by war and marriage while Toulouse and Anjou lost and gained by marriages and wars until in 1200s the Cather crusades brought the fall of Toulouse and true 'French' dominance over the south(aside from Savoy).
Last edited by Ichon; July 04, 2011 at 03:26 PM.
Here you can see that "Île-de-France" was used on medieval times, but Pays-de-France was used more often on the 1100's. But i really think that Île-de-France should be better, cos "Pays" falled on desusage on 1300's
Also, you have acess to the Historical_Provinces_of_France on this link.
And Loiret is used to call the places near the river Loire
Last edited by Mbrabant; July 04, 2011 at 10:12 PM.
The Low Countries can be divided into two main parts, the upper and lower low countries. The lower low countries can be seen as modern day Belgium, Luxembourg and the southern provinces of the Netherlands. The upper low countries are the present day Netherlands with its most important province Holland, of course excluding their southern provinces.
I would suggest 2 cities for both parts.
The south is the hardest, I myself would go for Bruges as it was maybe the most important one. And while Antwerp is one of the largest ports now it was not as important as Bruges. Then as a second one I would suggest either Brussels or Ghent. Brussels was very important later on in the 15th century as Henry V had is court there (if I am correct). Though it may not have been so important a little earlier, I have little knowledge of Ghent so wouldn't know.
Then we come to the upper low countries. This part was really important later on, though only in the 15th century. I would however suggest to have 2 settlements here too, to represent the big population here. Groningen seems like a fair choice, though the province name should not be Friesland, as Friesland was only small province. Though the most important city there at the time was Stavoren. Stavoren was an independant trade city which was also independant from the Hanseatic League. This could however also be represented by a port in its place (which is already there if I am right).
My second choice would be Utrecht, Utrecht was by far the most important city in the northern low countries at the time. Officially for a long time Groningen was under the rule of the Bishop of Utrecht, so it is actually less important than Utrecht. In the now very important part Holland there was nothing at the time, as it was a poor region without any cities.
I know I already suggested this, I just wanted to give some arguments.
Maybe it's just me, but I can't really imagine sword-bearing generals strolling around with archbishop titles - the only way it could fancy it is to make use of the new Cleric character class I proposed not a long ago but even that would be quite off the mark I think. I'm still on the opinion that only priests should be entitled to archbishop titles.
It would be sort of a challenge to put all of Bruges, Ghent and Brussels on the map considering the short distance between them but it's far from impossible. I'm more curious about what should be the new region's (preferably Ghent's) name and title if they were to be included.
Thanks mate, I accept your arguments even though I still have some reservations about Loire!
Thanks for your arguments, they sound very reasonable to me. I already expressed my opinion about Flanders in my previous posts, we'll see if there will be enough space for all of Bruges, Ghent and Brussels (the latter replaces Antwerp).
As for Friesland, I actually chose to change it to Holland in my text updates but I'm thinking of reverting it back to Friesland because every map I found of 12th century Europe seems to have the latter name on it. After reading your reasons, Stavoren might well be represented by just a port and I also believe Utrecht now has a legitimate claim to replace Groningen as the region's capital - I'm gonna insert this change into the proposals as well.
Btw, I'm glad to announce that SonofPeverel has agreed to join the project as the map designer, let us hope he'll succeed in realizing our cool ideas!