[MOD] MEIOU: Romans (and friends!) in 1356

[Sjiveru]

In the last DW version, I had Britain divided between a Brythonic Britain, a Gael Scotland, a Norwegian York and a couple petty Anglo-Saxon states in the southwest. This time around I might make most of England Brythonic, divide it between several Briton kingdoms (Rheged, Elmet, etc.), and then still have a bunch of testy Gaels north of Hadrian's wall.

I think it would be cool with at least one each of an Anglo-Saxon state and a Viking state though ^_^
The Britons probably ought to be Romano-British, at least in most places - if the Saxons hadn't screwed everything up there probably would have been another Romance language in Britain, or at least a Brythonic language with a lot more Latin influence than Welsh has.

So Britons in Britain, Old Gallic sorts in Armorica then?

Yup. Both with some degree of Romanisation, probably (I don't really know enough to know what regions were rural enough to avoid significant Roman influence).

That's slowly being redone to work with MEIOU levels of detail-- in the DW version, Gallo-Roman, Roman, Hispani and Ligurian were all part of the Latin group; Lombards, Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals were all part of the Gothic/East Germanic group, and so on. It wasn't nearly as precise as here, and I've already made several of those cultures completely separate groups now (Gallo-Roman culture to Gallic culture group, fr'instance).

So I don't have a complete list yet, no. :V

Sounds like it'll be worth waiting for ^_^

[shadow121292]

Well if the timeline never has Rome herself conquered by the Germans then there should at least for pure Roman nations have any Latinized Germanic names beyond Germanicus itself(Which is only a nickname anyways for Romans.) Those regions that are Roman culture but experienced some years of Germanic influence are another story but the Byzantine Empire nation and Roma in Rome probably should stick primarily old Latin names.

For the Germans I'd split them into two groups with a West Germans being located primarily West of the Oder River and the East Germans between the Danube, Vistula and Oder Rivers. In terms of Gallo-Roman perhaps the best is to have the southern part of Gaul be culture in the Latin group to represent Rome's big presence in that region like it historically was and the north be part of the Gallic Group and obviously later on in the future if one of the two groups conquers the other have high assimilation rates so that Gallia becomes quickly under the one culture group. I'd also leave the Iberians as part of the Latin group as like Southern Gallia they were heavily Romanized.

The Belgic groups would probably be best around obviously Belgium, the Netherlands, northern France probably where the Soissons are but also a little into Western Germany(Like Trier and such.) Basically to make the Belgic group not so small the best idea is to have it also encompass the areas where Germania Inferior was located which is also mostly where Belgic tribes were.

As for Britain itself. At the time of the Romans there were no prominent Gaels in any region of Scotland beyond the Argyll region and the little islands around that area. The ones located primarily in Scotland were the Caledonians(Where Caledonia comes from for Scotland.) and later the Picts. The Caledonians all of a sudden disappeared OTL around the 200s and the Picts arrived in the power vacuum so perhaps the best for everything north of where Hadrian's wall was is split between the Picts and Caledonians.(You could have Pictland be the unified state for a Pict Scotland which was what they called Scotland and the Caledonians would technically be the unified state for Caledonia.) The Picts came from Aberdeen and the North East part of Scotland so it'd be best to have them start there and Caledonia be located near the Wall.

Without the major Anglo-Saxon invasion Armorica loses her Breton influences and thus remains are part of Gallia so Armorica's culture should remain Gallic. Same thing with Gallaecia in Hispania as they experience no Briton immigration and remain very Iberian.

Perhaps have a very small Romanesque state in the southeast(Colchester was the capital of Roman Britain) so perhaps a state consisting of the southeast corner of Brittania which has Roman culture.(Or even Romano-Britain and be in the Latin group.) This state if it conquers everything can form Britannia. The rest of Britain should be Byrthonic with the unified Briton for them being Albion. Their cores for Britain should go until the end of the Lowlands of Scotland as that was the region that encompassed Brythonic speaking peoples.

Question do the German tribes migrate like they did OTL because of Attila? If not then I would say completely leave any Latin Germanic names out unless the tribe is a German tribe that is heavily influenced by Latin. I thought about it now and it might be the best option to do this as it leaves the Germanic cultures all in one area instead of having say Visigoth culture in the middle of Spain cut off from the rest of German culture provinces. You could say they did migrate but beyond making sizeable minorities in the former Roman territory they didn't get any farther and remained primarily in Germany.(That would allow for Latin Germanic names in Latin countries and still keep the countries Latin.

Whenever's best just send me the country files and I'll get cracking on the names for each country. Also I can help with how to split the German tribes linguisticly into the three dialects they developed into historically.(East Germanic died out but it did exist until around 800-900, North Germanic became the Scandinavians, and West Germanic is France and Germany.)

[Ofaloaf]

Note: To establish a more concrete AH basis to work with, I figured that having Anthemius successfully retake Carthage (at least temporarily) in 467/8 would mark a good point of divergence. That was the closest I could get to the Fall of Rome without totally messing up the barbarian migrations. By then Attila had already come and gone, the Visigoths were in Aquitania and Hispania, the Franks were seeping into northern Gallia, the Vandals were in Northern Africa, the Lombards and Ostrogoths were not yet in Italy but were certainly on a trajectory towards it that could justify their placement in Northern Italy, Burgundians were in Burgundy and things were generally crazy. The recapture of Carthage is too late to successfully restore the Western Roman Empire to the state it was in the fourth century, but it's enough to at least save Rome itself from total collapse by giving some additional funding to the Roman state and the Roman army. When pressed, it's the alternate history I've worked with and it's the one I'll probably continue to work with.

By that point very few areas remain untouched by Germanic peoples. Ricimer, of the Suevic peoples later settled in Galicia, was largely recognized as the true power behind the throne in Rome from 456 to his death in 472. Heck, his nephew was both King of the Burgundians and a Roman patrician. Germanic influences were everywhere.

Mind you, this is only a rough sketch of the background behind the scenario. It cannot be taken as 'hard' alternate history-- I'm not going to flesh out an entire detailed history of everything between 467 and 1356 and I'm not going to work out all the cultural ramifications of said changes-- but neither is it a perfectly-preserved slice of the fifth century transplanted into the fourteenth. Ultimately, this is just a fun scenario of anarchronisms armed with pike and shot.

Well if the timeline never has Rome herself conquered by the Germans then there should at least for pure Roman nations have any Latinized Germanic names beyond Germanicus itself(Which is only a nickname anyways for Romans.) Those regions that are Roman culture but experienced some years of Germanic influence are another story but the Byzantine Empire nation and Roma in Rome probably should stick primarily old Latin names.

Byzantium would be more Roman here than in our own Byzantium of 1356, but they shouldn't be perfectly the same. A 7th-century Byzantium would be most fitting, surely. That allows for a balance of Latin and Greek influences that create something distinctly Romantic but also clearly different from Rome proper.

For the Germans I'd split them into two groups with a West Germans being located primarily West of the Oder River and the East Germans between the Danube, Vistula and Oder Rivers. In terms of Gallo-Roman perhaps the best is to have the southern part of Gaul be culture in the Latin group to represent Rome's big presence in that region like it historically was and the north be part of the Gallic Group and obviously later on in the future if one of the two groups conquers the other have high assimilation rates so that Gallia becomes quickly under the one culture group. I'd also leave the Iberians as part of the Latin group as like Southern Gallia they were heavily Romanized.

Although they're heavily Latinized, I'd still keep Gallo-Roman and Hispanian separate from the Latin group. Look at standard MEIOU; cultures and cultural groups are very finely divided, what with the "German" group being divided into four distinct cultural groups, Low Franconian, Oil and Oc groups in France, and so on. Having one cultural group for all Romanized cultures goes against that. As it is, I've got the Latin group limited to central Italy, with Southern Italy still culturally separate and northern Italy full of Lombards. The Gallo-Romans can be so finely divided that they're what I based the Gallic group on. They're still chok-full of Romantic influences, but they're still Gauls and still separate from the Latin group. Likewise, Romantic Hispania will probably be culturally divided along provincial lines within a Hispanic or Iberian cultural group.

The Belgic groups would probably be best around obviously Belgium, the Netherlands, northern France probably where the Soissons are but also a little into Western Germany(Like Trier and such.) Basically to make the Belgic group not so small the best idea is to have it also encompass the areas where Germania Inferior was located which is also mostly where Belgic tribes were.

Expanding the Belgic group to reach Trier is a good one. I'd just been staring blankly at a wall and wondering how to make a Romantic "Rhenish" group for Treverorum, and completely missed that. Thank you!

As for Britain itself. At the time of the Romans there were no prominent Gaels in any region of Scotland beyond the Argyll region and the little islands around that area. The ones located primarily in Scotland were the Caledonians(Where Caledonia comes from for Scotland.) and later the Picts. The Caledonians all of a sudden disappeared OTL around the 200s and the Picts arrived in the power vacuum so perhaps the best for everything north of where Hadrian's wall was is split between the Picts and Caledonians.(You could have Pictland be the unified state for a Pict Scotland which was what they called Scotland and the Caledonians would technically be the unified state for Caledonia.) The Picts came from Aberdeen and the North East part of Scotland so it'd be best to have them start there and Caledonia be located near the Wall.

To have enough material just to cover Europe I made the timeframe for anachronisms go from 400 to 800 (tho' I have sneaked in one or two little bits of the 11th century), which means that both Picts and Gaels are valid residents of Scotland in this time-warped fest. Yeah, Picts were as stubborn as any other people in Scotland and lasted well into the Early Middle Ages, but the Gaels were quite prevalent by 800 as well.

Without the major Anglo-Saxon invasion Armorica loses her Breton influences and thus remains are part of Gallia so Armorica's culture should remain Gallic. Same thing with Gallaecia in Hispania as they experience no Briton immigration and remain very Iberian.

Armorica, sure, but Gallaecia should go to the Seuvi, to go with the barbarian kingdoms there.

Perhaps have a very small Romanesque state in the southeast(Colchester was the capital of Roman Britain) so perhaps a state consisting of the southeast corner of Brittania which has Roman culture.(Or even Romano-Britain and be in the Latin group.) This state if it conquers everything can form Britannia. The rest of Britain should be Byrthonic with the unified Briton for them being Albion. Their cores for Britain should go until the end of the Lowlands of Scotland as that was the region that encompassed Brythonic speaking peoples.

I'd blur the two together and just have the Britons still have moderate Romantic influences-- kings with names like Aurelius, Vortiporius and Artorius.

[Aliasing]

Since Judaism is in this mod (played it from the Althistory board, or at least I'm assuming this is it)
Shouldn't the regions Historically Jewish be so? I know Khazaria is in it. But I forgot if Jewish Yemen, Medina, and Israel are?

[Ofaloaf]

Since Judaism is in this mod (played it from the Althistory board, or at least I'm assuming this is it)
Shouldn't the regions Historically Jewish be so? I know Khazaria is in it. But I forgot if Jewish Yemen, Medina, and Israel are?

In the last pre-MEIOU draft, there was a Jewish Khazaria and Yemen, but Judea was under Egyptian control and I had made all of the Hedjaz 'Nestorian' in religion. I don't know if there should be an independent Jewish Judea from game start (don't really see why not, but there's just some nagging thing in my head), but certainly a Jewish Medina sounds cool.


Worklog:

• New states:
  • UGL - Ugell. One of the Frankish counties of the Spanish March, but its earliest leaders were apparently Visigothic nobles.
  • PLA - Pallars. As above, a Frankish county of the Spanish March with Visigothic nobility.
  • VAL - Valentia. Ahistorical, Romano-Hispanic state. Wanted whatever Hispanian presence there might be in Iberia to be highly fragmented.
  • HIS - Tarraco. Ahistorical in that it was never an independent state. Hispanian city-state, first time I made a government type 'Imperial City'. Historically, Tarraco was the capital of Hispania Tarraconensis, hence the Imperial status.
    • Might go back and alter Lyon to an Imperial City government type as well.
  • BAR - Barcino. Ahistorical Hispanian state, Grand Merchant Republic.
  • POW - Powys. Historic Sub-Roman British kingdom.
  • DYF - Dyfed. Historic Sub-Roman British kingdom.
    • Status arbitrarily lowered to a principality in-game because they shouldn't all be petty kingdoms in Britain, should they?
  • GWY - Gwynedd. Historic Sub-Roman British kingdom.
• Cultures:
  • "Tarracan" moved to the Iberian group, meant to represent eastern Romano-Hispanians.
  • "Cerretanan" added to Visigothic group, meant to represent the Visigothic states along the Spanish March. Named after Cerretania, the old Latin name for Cerdanya.
• Misc.
  • Cornwall renamed "Cornubia".
  • Rome's tax value, manpower and population increased.
  • Paris' tax value, manpower and population decreased.
  • CoT added to Narbonensis (Montpesliers)
  • CoT added to Rhodanus (Lyonnais)
  • CoT added to Tervanna (Calais)
  • CoT added to Aurelians (Orleans)
  • CoT added to Latium (Lazio). Meant to represent the bustling Roman port of Ostia.
  • CoT added to Thessalonica (Chalcidiki)
  • CoT removed from Genoa.
  • CoT removed from Venica.
  • CoT removed from Dijon, Burgundy.
  • CoT removed from Toulose.
  • CoT removed from Brie.

Some places are easier to fill in with historic petty states than others. Britain is easy; dividing English territories into petty Briton kingdoms isn't hard to do because there's a wealth of information about them all. Spain is much harder, because aside from the counties of the Spanish March the only pre-Islamic states I can find are the Visigothic Kingdom, which covered most of the Iberian Peninsula and if implemented in the game at its historic size would dominate the rest of splintered Western Europe, the Seuvic kingdom in Galicia and the Vasconia/Pamplona. Islamic states are out of the question, given how North Africa's slated to be given a Sub-Roman workover and won't be Islamic either.

It's frustrating having to fudge political divisions in a region.

[Ikenos]

You probably don't want an independent Jewish Judea, but the provinces could be Jewish and there could be a releasable Judea there.

As far as spain goes, the alt history probably messes that up enough that you could do whatever you want. I might suggest putting Visigothic Kingdom cores everywhere, then make a small Visigoth state with lots of OPM vassals. You could probably just use the islamic state-names and just keep them christian. (Were you going to do a Arian/Catholic split?) Then you could have a France/Bohemia-like dominated WRE and either reunite the visigothic kingdom or let it collapse completely.

In areas where you're uncertain what culture to use, you could have greek or Roman outposts in strange places. That's even historical, as the Romans established their little fort-colonies all over the place, leading to very Roman urban centers and rather less Roman countryside.

[Ikenos]

Just checking...you DO have access to Talbert's Barrington Atlas, right?

[Ofaloaf]

You probably don't want an independent Jewish Judea, but the provinces could be Jewish and there could be a releasable Judea there.

As far as spain goes, the alt history probably messes that up enough that you could do whatever you want. I might suggest putting Visigothic Kingdom cores everywhere, then make a small Visigoth state with lots of OPM vassals. You could probably just use the islamic state-names and just keep them christian. (Were you going to do a Arian/Catholic split?) Then you could have a France/Bohemia-like dominated WRE and either reunite the visigothic kingdom or let it collapse completely.

I'd like to keep at least a portion of Visigothic Spain within the WRE, as the Visigoths were foederati. Might make a Visigothic Sargossa, keep that in the empire, and then leave a Visigothic Toledo-based state outside the empire.

I dunno about the Arian split, or at least if it should be in Spain or not. I was thinking of emphasizing differences between the Empire and the non-WRE Germans by making North-Central Europe Arian. Eh.

In areas where you're uncertain what culture to use, you could have greek or Roman outposts in strange places. That's even historical, as the Romans established their little fort-colonies all over the place, leading to very Roman urban centers and rather less Roman countryside.

Should all "Roman" states be within this WRE? I'd like to include a Romantic Lusitania, but if the Empire's continuous territories end at the edges of the Visigothic realms in Central Spain, would Lusitania still be included or would it be free of WRE constraints?

Just checking...you DO have access to Talbert's Barrington Atlas, right?

I am but a mere college student, with a college student income and college student funds. I'd love to have the atlas, but it's way beyond what I can afford. Right now I'm comparing and contrasting maps from Project Gutenberg documents, the David Rumsey map collection (there's some ones about antiquity in there) and Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons and trying to squeeze information from that, along with some historical society information for Sub-Roman Britain.


Worklog:

• Less than usual, because I've been convulsing from poison ivy exposure
• New states:
  • RHE - Rheged. Probable historic Brythonic kingdom.
  • BER - Bryneich. Probable pre-Anglo Brythonic version of Bernicia.
    • Might change it to the Anglo version, I dunno.
  • CYN - Cynwidion. Historic Brythonic kingdom.
• Other stuff:
  • YOR - York redone as the Kingdom of Jorvik. Culturally Norwegian at the moment, new flag, new color, new list of names.
  • 'Cumbric' added to Brythonic culture group.
  • Province and capital names continue to be changed.

[Ikenos]

That's what I thought, and I meant access not owning. UM's library should have a copy.

Well, the Visigoths and Vandals were Arians but not always strongly so. I don't see a problem with including all of them (the Visigothic States) in the WRE as well as having non-contiguous portions.

[Aliasing]

Judea should be there at start, or at least very hard to convert. Since there aren't any Muslims, the Holy land was never considered Holy by the Zoroastrians. Persia was(?) [Citation needed]. Therefor it was just a piece of barren land.
However there is the fault that the Romans had put down several Revolts of the Jews IRL, so I'm assuming more have happened in this timeline.
But if your going to include Khazaria, you might as well put Judea in it too, because hey. One of those revolts might have been successful enough to gain independence.

(Also are you making Ahistorical formation events? Like a Visigoth Iberia?)

[Keanon]

[*]YOR - York redone as the Kingdom of Jorvik. Culturally Norwegian at the moment, new flag, new color, new list of names.

How come Norwegians get all the honour of what the Danes accomplished? Danelaw, Jorvik, England was beset by Danes, the Norwegians colonized bits of Ireland and Scotland but apart from that the Norse presence on the Islands were the Danes, Tani, Ver Asir, Danii, pick your name.

Edit: Sorry I don't mean to sound hostile, but all across the internet I keep reading about the amazing norwegian vikings, and only the amazing brilliant norwegian vikings, it's as if Denmark doesn't exist and Sweden is made of furniture. I love Norway, but Norway should be remembered for what they did, not what the Danes or the Swedes did.

Norway invaded Scotland and England once each, both unsuccesfully, Norway possessed a lot of the islands around Scotland and colonized them aswell as some of Ireland, refugees from Norways religious wars founded Iceland and an Icelandic criminal found Greenland, and his son found Vinland.

Sweden founded tons of petty kingdoms along the rivers of Russia and laid the foundations for the Kievan Rus, served the Byzantines and traded all the way aswell.

Danes conquered Neustria and formed Normandy, besiged Paris and colonized England en masse, aswell as a bit in Scotland and Ireland. Later the Danes ruled England, and many times Norway aswell. The last great danish Viking king of the Danes, English and Norwegians was greeted as an equal by the Holy Roman Emperor at his crowning. (Or so it is written.)

[Ofaloaf]

No insult intended! I wasn't thinking properly; Jorvik is now Danish.

[Ofaloaf]

Worklog:

• New states:
  • ZAR - Saragossa. Visigothic state based around Zaragoza/Caesaraugusta.
    • Didn't want to use the modern name, but didn't want a Gothic state called Caesaraugusta either. Decided to use the old Anglicised name because.
  • CTG - Nova Cartago. Romano-Hispanian state, ahistorical in that it was never a formally independent polity.
  • SAB - Sabaria. Romano-Hispanian state, potentially historical. The Visigothic king Leovigild apparently conquered a place called 'Sabaria' somewhere along the modern Portugal-Spain border; presumably the local Hispanians provided organized resistance to Visigothic advances.
  • BST - Bastetania. Like Sabaria, there's vague references to Leovigild conquering a place called 'Bastania'; this is apparently a later corruption of the more classic 'Bastetania', named after an Iberian peoples and centered around Granada/Illiberis.
• Tweaked states:
  • YOR - York/Jorvik. Now Danish.
  • TOL - Toledo. Redone as a Visigothic kingdom. New color, new names list, etc.
• Misc:
  • "Baetican" added to the Iberian culture group.
  • "Soppos" (a Visigothic term applied to the people of Sabaria) added to the Iberian group.

Flags still need to be finished for Tarraco, Sabaria and Bastetania; Toledo could probably use a new one too.

Also, anyone know how to make a poison ivy rash in its developed stages go away quickly? This is becoming quite a bother.

And have a work-in-progress pic of Spain:

[Tallfellow]

There should be a CoT in either Jutland or on Sjaelland in Denmark, as alot of trade in the North came through Denmark

[Keanon]

The real CoT in Denmark in the middle ages was Skåne, later moved to Sjælland, Helsingør/København, though I guess North Jutland Island could work too.

[YF-23]

Remember though that in this scenario the Scandinavians and Germans are cut off from the rest of Europe due to a religious divide. I'd say Gotland's central position in Baltic would be a good candidate for a CoT in this scenario. You could even turn it into a Venice of the north and make it an independent merchant republic.

[Ikenos]

Remember though that in this scenario the Scandinavians and Germans are cut off from the rest of Europe due to a religious divide. I'd say Gotland's central position in Baltic would be a good candidate for a CoT in this scenario. You could even turn it into a Venice of the north and make it an independent merchant republic.

Seconded. That's a good idea.

[Sjiveru]

Apparently Gotland was a huge trading centre in its day - there's a certain kind of Middle Eastern coin (forget what it's called) that they've found as many on Gotland as in the whole Middle East combined.

[Ofaloaf]

I like this discussion, because I don't know what to do with Northern Europe aside from dividing Sweden between Geats and Svears and plopping a Sami state in the far north.

Apologies for the lack of updates. Life happened. :/

• LST - Lusitania added.
• HBZ - Hy Brazil added. Basically an Icelandic alternative to Hawaii, based off the legends of St. Brendan. Iceland hidden to everyone except HBZ.
• BTS - Baetica added.
• "Insular Irish" culture added to the Gaelic group. Wouldn't want a Hybrazilian Iceland to defect to Ireland, that'd just be weird.

In apologies for having done so little, I'd like to offer up a slapshod sheet showing the flags that have been done so far. Tear it to shreds.

I know the Byzantine flag is anachronistic as hell here, but it goes well with the Roman eagle. I've got Chi-Rho alternatives to both if it seems too out of whack. Many of the flags are entirely fictional and have no basis in reality, either. :S

[Evander]

The flag of Saint-Malo (if we're talking about the corsair city of Brittany) should have a flag close to the actual one (without the stoat as it was a symbol added by Anne de Bretagne) see the link :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Malo