Gundoaldus, Lombard Dux of Asti c.589-612 #376
Conversation
IhateTrains
added
Flavour
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| 589.1.1={ | |||
| holder = 190180 #Gundualdus | |||
| } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wanted to give them c_monferrato, but the county is already owned by another Lombard duchy (d_monferrato). d_asti holding b_asti seems the best solution in terms of representing both duchies at once.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
b_asti is a city, as per the historical situation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see two solutions:
- let Asti have only b_asti and be a republic
- activate one of the inactive castle-type baronies of c_monferrato and give it to Asti
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the first:
- A land-locked republic? Remember that is unplayable, so completely useless for the player.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added this character mostly for historical accuracy. Asti being a county-less republic wouldn't block the player from playing as "feudal" Monferrato.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, but I don't get you, could you please explain further? How would it be historically accurate to create a land-locked republic lead by a historical feudal dynasty?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's historically accurate in terms of the duchy of Asti existing. For "feudal" government, I can give it one castle-type barony.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then the issue is that we would make the county more powerful. I don't know if that is adequate during this period.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know either.
What I have found is that Tortona (b_tortona) remained quite significant after the fall of the WRE. Even Theodoric the Great called it "the granary of Liguria". I guess we could activate it.
|
I put the PR on hold until we merge the Holy Fury (and previous) vanilla map changes. |
I'm making a PR because many files are edited and they should be reviewed by someone else.