• 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.
Can I just make a note of dissension about the Welsh names. First of all, if we're talking dynasties rather than actual names then the 'ap' form is entirely appropriate. One of the ways of proving nobility was to be able to recite your noble ancestors, so although we're used to seeing just X ap Y if a noble was particularly interested in being seen as descended from Z then X ap Y ap Z is entirely possible. Personally I think referring to them in this (just using ap Z - which was used historically) way is much less jarring than the anachronistic and anglicized names like 'Griffiths'. I'll concede that's more a matter of taste though.

More importantly the generic dynasties like 'Bach' should be removed - it's an exact of equivalent of saying that the Normandy dynasty should be called 'the Bastard' (or 'the Conqueror' if we're feeling kind). Finally all the generics based on profession should be removed - they quite simply aren't used like that in Welsh and never have been AFAIK. Sutor and Sayer are definitively Scottish and English surnames btw which adds to the weirdness.

Have fun
Finn
 
FinnN said:
Can I just make a note of dissension about the Welsh names. First of all, if we're talking dynasties rather than actual names then the 'ap' form is entirely appropriate. One of the ways of proving nobility was to be able to recite your noble ancestors, so although we're used to seeing just X ap Y if a noble was particularly interested in being seen as descended from Z then X ap Y ap Z is entirely possible. Personally I think referring to them in this (just using ap Z - which was used historically) way is much less jarring than the anachronistic and anglicized names like 'Griffiths'. I'll concede that's more a matter of taste though.

More importantly the generic dynasties like 'Bach' should be removed - it's an exact of equivalent of saying that the Normandy dynasty should be called 'the Bastard' (or 'the Conqueror' if we're feeling kind). Finally all the generics based on profession should be removed - they quite simply aren't used like that in Welsh and never have been AFAIK. Sutor and Sayer are definitively Scottish and English surnames btw which adds to the weirdness.

Have fun
Finn

Finn;

I disagree that the use of ap Tewdwr would be appropriate spanning 400 years of history. I prefer to take the dynasty names from:

1) the chief seat of power in the tradition of mainland Europe (and is demonstrated by the Aberffraw, Dinefwr, and Mathrafal lines designated by such Welsh historians as Dr. John Davies),
2) Using characteristics and other attributes such as Llwyd (Grey), also taking into account European precidence (Plantagenet)
3) Slightly Anglicized names to be gender neutral.... ap Gruffydd is annoying to me when the gender is a female or the father is NOT Gruffydd after all!

Gwenllian ap Gruffydd? Na!! I would rather see Gwenllian Griffiths myself.

We know that assigning dynasty names to senior families is a post mideival concept... as most nobles (even as late as the 20th century) were more or less known after their primary title of power. There is no reason to assume this tradition is not appropriate for Wales, considering such illuminaries as Dr. Davies himself refers to these senior lines after their primary feudal holdings.


In the end, it is a matter of taste. This is my suggestions, and I base it on precident and reason, fitting it in with the mechanics of the game.

I think it appropriate to use professions as last names too. I took Sutor and Sayer from the Merionydd Tax Rolls which were taken immediatly after the Edwardian Conquest of 1283 to take an accounting of the Principality. So if they are Scottish or English in origion, that is the source.
 
Last edited:
Drachenfire -- as for #3, is "Gruffyd" inherently male? Where possible I'd prefer to use Welsh names rather than Anglified versions.

I agree with points 1 and 2 though, within the limits of the CK engine patrynomics and nicknames should be avoided as dynastic names wherever possible unless these are generally accepted (as in the danish Knýtlings).
 
jordarkelf said:
Drachenfire -- as for #3, is "Gruffyd" inherently male? Where possible I'd prefer to use Welsh names rather than Anglified versions.

I agree with points 1 and 2 though, within the limits of the CK engine patrynomics and nicknames should be avoided as dynastic names wherever possible unless these are generally accepted (as in the danish Knýtlings).

Yes, Gruffydd is inherently male. All of the origional list was inherently male, actually, and I wanted generic names that would be gender neutral.

edit: I did attempt to place more place-name origions in there as well... Yale for instance is in there, the Welsh version. I dont mind massaging the names, but patrynomics ARE important to me, and it is very jarring to see a Gwenllian ap Gruffydd, or a Dafydd ap Llewellyn when he is REALLY the son of Iowerth.
 
Drachenfire said:
I think it appropriate to use professions as last names too. I took Sutor and Sayer from the Merionydd Tax Rolls which were taken immediatly after the Edwardian Conquest of 1283 to take an accounting of the Principality. So if they are Scottish or English in origion, that is the source.

Quite likely then that they were never these people's names - but were simply recorded as such in the records, or possibly (but less likely) were English settlers/colonists. I say less likely as if surnames based on professions (whatever the origin) were in use you'd expect some survivals to this day - I can't think of a single one either in anyone I know or anyone I've heard of historically. Quick glances through lists of contemporary names around here reveal none either. A spot search on the two cases I used as examples against the 1881 census shows nothing significant for Wales in both cases. I know that's hardly definitive but it does strongly argue against profession based surnames.

Also I disagree with using names like 'Bach' as dynasty names. I mean - would you want to have your dynasty called 'the Lesser' (actual meaning in this context) or 'the Small' as a dynasty? Sorry, it's just silly.

I didn't disagree with the use of locations for generic (or real for that matter) dynasty names btw. In fact I'd be all as its historically accurate (to a degree, as obviously if the ruling dynasty of Gwynedd swapped with, say, the dynasty controlling Powys they'd end up with the wrong titles).

One final option that hasn't been tried would be to move the 'ap's and 'ferch's and their variants into the first names (although then if a Welsh first name became attached to a non-Welsh surname it'd look a bit weird). That way, if you have a family claiming nobility from Rhodri Mawr for example, they can all be ap Rhodri Mawr or ferch Rhodri Mawr which again has a degree of historical (and linguistic) accuracy.

Have fun
Finn
 
FinnN said:
Quite likely then that they were never these people's names - but were simply recorded as such in the records, or possibly (but less likely) were English settlers/colonists. I say less likely as if surnames based on professions (whatever the origin) were in use you'd expect some survivals to this day - I can't think of a single one either in anyone I know or anyone I've heard of historically. Quick glances through lists of contemporary names around here reveal none either. A spot search on the two cases I used as examples against the 1881 census shows nothing significant for Wales in both cases. I know that's hardly definitive but it does strongly argue against profession based surnames.

Also I disagree with using names like 'Bach' as dynasty names. I mean - would you want to have your dynasty called 'the Lesser' (actual meaning in this context) or 'the Small' as a dynasty? Sorry, it's just silly.

I didn't disagree with the use of locations for generic (or real for that matter) dynasty names btw. In fact I'd be all as its historically accurate (to a degree, as obviously if the ruling dynasty of Gwynedd swapped with, say, the dynasty controlling Powys they'd end up with the wrong titles).

One final option that hasn't been tried would be to move the 'ap's and 'ferch's and their variants into the first names (although then if a Welsh first name became attached to a non-Welsh surname it'd look a bit weird). That way, if you have a family claiming nobility from Rhodri Mawr for example, they can all be ap Rhodri Mawr or ferch Rhodri Mawr which again has a degree of historical (and linguistic) accuracy.

Have fun
Finn


I disagree with not using characteristics, even potentially Bach, as a source of a 'generic' dynasty name. It is valid and has historical European precidence. Goch (Red) is a good examble of a potential surname that may have evolved.

To think that after 400 years that the Welsh would not have adopted surnames after personal characteristics or professional trades is short-sighted. They would have evolved in a simular manner as the European whole.

According to Dr. John Davies of the University of Wales, the Meirionnydd tax rolls give evidence to the thirty-seven various professions present in Meirionnydd directly before the conquest of 1283.

Of these professions, there were eight gold-smiths, four bards (poets) by trade, twenty-six shoemakers, a doctor in Cynwyd and a hotel keeper in Maentwrog, and twenty-eight priests; two of which were university graduates. Also present were a significant number of fishermen, administrators, professional men and craftsmen.

To think that none of these decendents would not have adopted or evolved surnames in a simular pattern as in Europe is short-sighted. Surnames by profession is a valid pool to choose from in light of the options available.

I am not in favor of lumping the ap or ferch with the first name either.

Finn, I just dont think we will agree on the format. I am comfortable with the gender-neutral slightly Angalized surnames for "Generic" dynasty courtiers, and you are not.
 
Last edited:
All characters in CK are from the nobility, and nobility usually didn't have dynasty-names like 'Blacksmith', 'Goldsmith', 'Archer' or anything that has to do with a profession.
 
Drachenfire said:
To think that the Welsh would not have adopted sirnames after personal characteristics or professional trades is shortsighted.

Er, why? The simple fact is that they didn't, or at least there's no evidence I've seen that they did. Patrynomics continued to be the usual form until the 19th century (and never died out completely) when they were for the most part 'fixed' (eg Griffith(s), Williams, Jones, Davies, Owen(s), etc) with nobles taking the 'fixed' anglicized versions quite a bit earlier (the first ones in the later period of the CK timeframe AFAIK, the majority in Tudor times).

Do you think if Wales had retained independence it would have had an effect on the surnames which evolved? So that by 1430 we'll have nobles called 'carpenter' or 'shoemaker'? The Welsh language continued to be used for administration well into the reign of Henry VIII (1535) by which point you'd expect professional based surnames to have become established. I'm sorry - in the Welsh context surnames based on professions are just flat out wrong. Patrynomics were such a fundamental part of the social structure in Wales that they were never eliminated despite several attempts to do so and when they went they were replaced by surnames based on that system.

Let's be clear there are two points here. Firstly, what to do about the 'ap' (which cannot be accommodated properly in CK) - where solutions are going to be personal preferences. I would argue that the best solution is to eliminate them completely and go with names based on seat of power (which is historically accurate). As a second best I'd accept something like 'ap Rhodri Mawr' as a dynasty name (with the ap moved to the first names) which also has some historical accuracy in terms of how people where referred to by contemporaries. However, as I pointed out in my original post - it's a preference.

The second point is surnames based on professional names (I especially have a problem with this one) and based on 'characteristics'. In the Welsh context you're purely in fantasy land here and as you freely admit at best they're based on 'what if' speculation. Compare those options to just using place names and I think the case for not using them is quite strong.

Have fun
Finn
 
jordarkelf said:
Question for all: have you seen any "Andalusi" characters in a game started in 1066 or 1187? It would seem DV has completely eliminated the chance a child takes on the province culture (hurray!)...
i'm not sure that's true. in my current game (started as Count of Hereford), i had a Norman father and a Norman mother give birth to a Saxon son. (the province is Saxon.)

so that seems to show that it is still possible to get province culture, but it does seem to be a lot less likely. i think the "elimination" is that light-cultured-tagged parents won't produce a kid with province culture if the province culture is dark, and vice versa. so if Andalusi is a light tag, there's still a chance it'll show up once Castillans, Catalans, etc. start conquering those provinces.

be that as it may, i'd still rather have Vlachs than Andalusi in the game. ;)
 
Can't remember if Andalusi was light or dark, but whatever the case, they can still proginate with the same group, ie light for light and dark for dark. There just won't be any conversions from one group to another, which IMO is good. Andalusi as a culture was dying in this era.

Same thing i believe now with mongols after the updates (haven't confirmed). I believe their provinces were removed in the 1337 scerio for gameplay reasons.
 
jordarkelf said:
Andalusi is iberian, i.e. a light tag using the iberian sprite.
ok. maybe it should be given a few provinces in 1066? Not enough that most of the time it will spread (but an occasional fluke is fine). 1187 and 1337 (definatly) shouldn't though.

EDIT: although we could also just place some generic andalusi courtiers in the game's scenerio file. This isn't something i'd advocate as a norm, but like Jewish religious tag, i'd make exceptions becuase of the difficulty of maintianing it without a decent base.
 
Jinnai said:
EDIT: although we could also just place some generic andalusi courtiers in the game's scenerio file. This isn't something i'd advocate as a norm, but like Jewish religious tag, i'd make exceptions becuase of the difficulty of maintianing it without a decent base.

A bit of a shame to just use one of the rare-culture tags for some random courtiers. Especially when other cultures aren't represented at all, like f.e. Vlach.
 
Andalusi's purpose in the 1.05 improvement packs was a single one: to make sure that christians in Iberia would not turn berber or arab, but andalusi. And at the same time make sure that the berber and arab rulers over southern Ibera would not get castillan muslim children.
Since DV appears to have eliminated province culture (at least across light/dark boundaries) we can achieve the same goals by making these provinces berber or arab (I'm thinking of restricting arab to Cordoba only, maybe Granada?) -- existing taifas will keep getting children in their cultures, and once the reconquiesta happens the christians will get children of their culture only, as the province culture is dark (until converted) and cannot be adopted.

Iberian thus is a free light tag, so we can reinclude Vlach, or maybe Low German, or Lombard. Vlach seems to have the best papers, as it would have made it into the IP if the norse tag wasn't bugged :)
 
In my 1 game it DV as Cout of Porto have got this charater in 1075

but i give up the game and star another it Count of Porto and this Improvement Pack but in 1075 this charater dont cames again is this charater radome or not.
Please help, i want to forme the Kingdom of Portugal it this charater but y dont want to star another game :mad:
 
"De Borgonha" is one of the random courtier dynasties in the Portugal area, so he's randomly spawned. Nuno of Portugal starts with a nearly empty court: he has one "Of Portugal" guy in there (not a relative), and one woman. So on the first day of gameplay a set of courtiers will be randomly spawned using the Portuguese namelist and the province's courtier last names.
 
I finally fixed the error, so IPV4 is up.
Since some of these changes may not be 100% agreed on (Welsh dynasties, Vlach culture), I'll leave the previous version (v3) up as well for now.
-----
Changelist for IPV4:

Renamed Castillan culture to Castilian
Galicia is now Portuguese (represents Galician)
Iberian tag recycled for Vlach
"Andalusi" provinces are now Berber
Revised setup for Wales and Brittany proposed by Drachenfire:
Welsh provinces given different income and terrain
Welsh ruling dynasties revised
Welsh generic courtier dynasties revised
Breton generic courtier dynasties revised
Breton ruling dynasties given Breton names
Welsh and Breton namelist revised, also including suggestions by Llywelyn

1066:
Welsh province/duchy setup revised, and many characters added
Marriages added to allow for proper succession in Welsh provinces
Relinked the English Saxon royal dynasty in its proper order, also gave them their Saxon names
The treacherous Roussel de Bailleul has appeared in Byzantium
Wallachia's provinces are now Vlach Orthodox, rulers are still Pecheneg (represents Vlach [Romanian] majority which was in these lands as of early 10th C.)

1187:
Tribe of Vlachs is now Principality of Vlachs
Some Cumans turned into Pechenegs

1337:
Wallachia and Moldavia are now Vlach
Some Cumans turned into Pechenegs
 
A note on the Vlachs: it's hard to tell when and where they really arose as a people, so I've made some arbitrary decisions.
In 1066 Wallachia is Vlach Orthodox, but no Vlach courtiers exist. Their lands are ruled by Pecheneg tribes. It looks like Christianization had already occurred in these lands, even if the rulers were still pagans.
In 1187 I've turned the Pecheneg Pagan Tribe of Vlach into Vlach Orthodox. Ruler is now also Vlach, but still the rest of Wallachia and Moldavia are ruled by Pechenegs.
In 1337 both Wallachia and Moldavia are Vlach with Vlach rulers.

Non-Romanian Vlachs are not represented, as I cannot find any CK province where they formed a majority.

This version of the DVIP does not include the proposed "Vlach melting pot" yet. If it is needed, I'll create one for the next version.

As always suggestions are welcomed -- especially regarding the Vlach setup in this mod.
 
Hey!
Great job jordarkelf.

Maybe you could add some characters to the court of Kingdom of Italy such as:

Diepold von Schweinpeunt(or Vohburg), a Staufen lieutenant. Maybe with marshal traits.
Henry Testa von Bappenheim-Marshal
Markward von Anweiler-Noble with diplomatic traits.
 
Thanks :)

Some questions on your suggestion:
Which scenario?
Are they historically significant?
Do they have ties to existing characters?

The game does a relatively good job in creating random courtiers, so unless one of the above applies, they don't really need to be added.