Separate Slavic cultures

unmerged(606777) · Jun 10, 2013

So we have a unified Norse culture that eventually splits up, but Slavs already start fractured. How much sense do you think that makes?

Imo, there should be one Slavic culture, or 3 branches of it: Western, Eastern and South Slavic. Through events, such as the creation of Poland or Rus', new subdivisions could eventually be created.

Yoshijoe · Jun 10, 2013

Because the Slavic languages had already split into their respective branches by 867.

unmerged(606777) · Jun 10, 2013

Which branches exactly, according to you?

DanubianCossak · Jun 10, 2013

What would have Dragovit?

Eastern Slavs that get split into Russians, Belarus and, well Ruthenians;

South Slavs that get split into Serbs, Croats (and what do we do with Bulgarians, they are kind historical contextual mix?);

and Western Slavs that become Bohemian, Moravian, Polish and Wendish?

Yoshijoe · Jun 10, 2013

The three you named.

Yes, you can argue that you can put some cultures together in those three (say Croatian and Serbian and Bulgarian into South Slavic culture, not culture GROUP) but they were probably already more distinct from each other then Norwegian, Swedish and Danish were when the game splits them. So really, they should be split already. If not, there are a lot more cultures that should probably be one.

Antrolf · Jun 10, 2013

That'd be nice

unmerged(606777) · Jun 10, 2013

DanubianCossak said:
What would have Dragovit?

Eastern Slavs that get split into Russians, Belarus and, well Ruthenians;

Nope, Drazko would just want Russians (as in 'of the Rus', not Russians in modern sense). "Ruthenians" is a vile heresy. But if you insist, they together with 'Belarusians', 'Litvins' would only make sense after Lithuanian seizure of Dniepr lands in 14th century. Prior to that it was all Russians. And it should be possible in game to drove the Varangians outta 'Russian' lands and then there would be no culture split and people would just remain East Slavic.

DanubianCossak said:
South Slavs that get split into Serbs, Croats (and what do we do with Bulgarians, they are kind historical contextual mix?);

Well, pardon me if I say anything silly in this department, but Serbs and Croats have the same language to this day. They were just different tribes that migrated roughly from the same spot in Carpathians. As such they could very well be the same thing. South Slavs living in the kingdom of Croatia would be Croats, and in the kingdom of Serbia - Serbs and there would be no real cultural distinction, just political. Now after one were included into Catholic world and the other - Orthodox, that's where it all started. So in 867 it could be one South Slav group, including the Bulgarinas, while in 1066 of course it should be different.

Well... I dunno, *you* tell me

and Western Slavs that become Bohemian, Moravian, Polish and Wendish?

'Wendish' is an abomination that should never be used. Bohemian is how the Germans called Czechs. Moravians are just a West Slavic tribe, with culture and language identical to thier neigbours. While 'Polish' culture, as you understand, only makes sense if the Kingdom of "Poland" is established by Polans. Otherwise it very well might be Kujawland or Mazovland with kujawish and mazovish cultures xD
Nah, I think the distinction in that are was purely political. And since culture is a much broader term, in 867 all those tribes could safely be West Slavic.

Yoshijoe said:
...Croatian and Serbian and Bulgarian into South Slavic culture ...but they were probably already more distinct from each other then Norwegian, Swedish and Danish were when the game splits them.

Guess we see things differently then, 'cause according to me they to this day are alot more similar than Norwegians, Swedes, Danes and other Germans

Especially when it comes to language.

duhsveti · Jun 10, 2013

Dragovit said:
Guess we see things differently then, 'cause according to me they to this day are alot more similar than Norwegians, Swedishs, Danish and other Germans Especially when it comes to language.

Actually when it comes to Croats and Serbs i think they are special in a way that their languages got more similar as time passed, unlike most other language groups. This was mostly due to Illyrian movement that advocated a standardization of south slav languages in order to unite the south slavs. The old south slav languages were only similar in churches where old church slavonic was still used a bit.

Edit: In other words i think they were different enough by 867 to be seperate. And even if they were not different enough i can't see any gameplay benefits in seperating them.

Nyrael · Jun 10, 2013

Dragovit said:
Well, pardon me if I say anything silly in this department, but Serbs and Croats have the same language to this day.

Until the 19th century, the people called Croats had three dialects: the čakavština, the kajkavština and the štokavština and countless subdialects. The štokavšina, which is the one similar to Serbian language, was the smallest one.
Then came the 19th century and Croatian constant attempts to separate from Hungary. Ljudevit Gaj was given the task to build the official language for Croatia and he chose the štokavština dialect with exact intention to get Croats and Serbs closer by making them have similar (almost the same) languages.

So it is from 19th century to this day that Croats and Serbs had the same language. Before that it was radically more different... to the point Croats from different regions couldn't understand even one another.

They were just different tribes that migrated roughly from the same spot in Carpathians. As such they could very well be the same thing. South Slavs living in the kingdom of Croatia would be Croats, and in the kingdom of Serbia - Serbs and there would be no real cultural distinction, just political. Now after one were included into Catholic world and the other - Orthodox, that's where it all started. So in 867 it could be one South Slav group, including the Bulgarinas, while in 1066 of course it should be different.

Already in 867 AD Dalmatians and and Croats didn't consider one another the same culture. Actually, Dalmatia only started considering itself Croatian during Venetian rule in EU4 era.
Croatian Kings committed systematical assimilations of Dalmatians and Bosnians (which shows that they were also considered an alien culture) with intention to make them into one, Croatian culture. Arguably, Slavonia should be Pannonian culture in 867 and melt-pot into Croatian later.

I won't speak for other Slavs, but South Slavs were already culturally split in 867. Putting them into a unified South Slavic culture would be the polar opposite of well-presented.

Alorand · Jul 28, 2013

When starting in 867 instead of combining cultures entirely, I simply have all of the existing cultures belong to a single Slavic culture group.

At that time Common Slavic might have started to develop regional dialects, but as Cyril's and Methodius' mission to Great Moravia and Pannonia proved those dialects were mutually intelligible.

Plus The East and Wast Slavs still shared their common religion, so the main split was a political one.

Any tribe could have carved out a kingdom and created a shared Slavic identity, for examples look at the tribe of Polans or even Rurik's formation of Kievan Rus.

For an additional comparison look at the Latin culture group from the same period.

I would argue that there is a bigger difference in 867 between say Frankish and Occitan cultures then between Polish and Russian ones.

Raptor_X2000 · Jul 28, 2013

Dragovit said:
Nope, Drazko would just want Russians (as in 'of the Rus', not Russians in modern sense). "Ruthenians" is a vile heresy. But if you insist, they together with 'Belarusians', 'Litvins' would only make sense after Lithuanian seizure of Dniepr lands in 14th century. Prior to that it was all Russians. And it should be possible in game to drove the Varangians outta 'Russian' lands and then there would be no culture split and people would just remain East Slavic.

Why, exactly, is Ruthenian a "vile heresy"? Having one Russian culture in the game is an historical mistake. Linguistic divisions between Pagan East Slavic tribes existed from the 7th Century, perhaps even earlier. Tribal divisions certainly existed earlier than that, as distinct confederations (such as the Antes) are known from the 4th Century. Economic differences existed between tribes: for example, the Polianians practiced more advanced manufacturing and handicrafts than the Krivichians, among whom cattle-rearing was a prime economic activity. Religious differences also existed, in both time and space. Svaroh, once a leading deity in Kyiv, lost preeminence to Perun and Dazhboh by the 10th century, but is thought to have been worshiped by Baltic Slavs into the 11th century. Moreover, paganism is incredibly diverse with different families living in different areas worshiping their own ancestors or local spirits, so a vague sets of beliefs with broad similarities can hardly be used to justify cultural unity anyway.

I think, if anything, the "Russian" culture should be divided in the 867 start into various cultures such as Polianian Drehovichian, Krivichian, Radimichian, etc. While the dynasty/tribal system represents that somewhat, it is a mistake to think all these tribes living hundreds of miles apart with little or no contact, speaking different languages, worshiping different deities, eating different foods, and making their living in different ways would have somehow all been part of one Russian culture. I think instead there should be some kind of "hybridization" event, where if you are East Slavic and de jure king of Rus' and Ruthenia, you can form a new Rus' culture that will then absorb the tribal cultures.

Also, I think it's odd that you want to drive the Varangians out, since "Rus'" most likely originally referred to Varangians. Only in the 10th Century (after Oleh captured Kyiv) did the word "Rus'" begin to refer to Polianians, and then only later did it refer to other Slavs. So, without Varangians, there would have been no Rus', and the already culturally-distinct East Slavic tribes would most likely not have had the commercial or political infrastructure that led to their greater interaction and hybridization.

Finally, "Ruthenia" is simply the Latin name for Rus'. There is nothing heretical about it. Cultural differences between ancestors of modern-day Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians existed well before Lithuania acquired the Dnieper basin. As I've already said, linguistic differences existed well before Kyivan Rus' arose. Acknowledging those differences, instead of pretending they're something Rzeczpospolita invented to divide the "Great Russian nation", is not heresy.

SBolshevik · Jul 28, 2013

Raptor_X2000 said:
Why, exactly, is Ruthenian a "vile heresy"? Having one Russian culture in the game is an historical mistake. Linguistic divisions between Pagan East Slavic tribes existed from the 7th Century, perhaps even earlier. Tribal divisions certainly existed earlier than that, as distinct confederations (such as the Antes) are known from the 4th Century. Economic differences existed between tribes: for example, the Polianians practiced more advanced manufacturing and handicrafts than the Krivichians, among whom cattle-rearing was a prime economic activity. Religious differences also existed, in both time and space. Svaroh, once a leading deity in Kyiv, lost preeminence to Perun and Dazhboh by the 10th century, but is thought to have been worshiped by Baltic Slavs into the 11th century. Moreover, paganism is incredibly diverse with different families living in different areas worshiping their own ancestors or local spirits, so a vague sets of beliefs with broad similarities can hardly be used to justify cultural unity anyway.

I think, if anything, the "Russian" culture should be divided in the 867 start into various cultures such as Polianian Drehovichian, Krivichian, Radimichian, etc. While the dynasty/tribal system represents that somewhat, it is a mistake to think all these tribes living hundreds of miles apart with little or no contact, speaking different languages, worshiping different deities, eating different foods, and making their living in different ways would have somehow all been part of one Russian culture. I think instead there should be some kind of "hybridization" event, where if you are East Slavic and de jure king of Rus' and Ruthenia, you can form a new Rus' culture that will then absorb the tribal cultures.

Also, I think it's odd that you want to drive the Varangians out, since "Rus'" most likely originally referred to Varangians. Only in the 10th Century (after Oleh captured Kyiv) did the word "Rus'" begin to refer to Polianians, and then only later did it refer to other Slavs. So, without Varangians, there would have been no Rus', and the already culturally-distinct East Slavic tribes would most likely not have had the commercial or political infrastructure that led to their greater interaction and hybridization.

Finally, "Ruthenia" is simply the Latin name for Rus'. There is nothing heretical about it. Cultural differences between ancestors of modern-day Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians existed well before Lithuania acquired the Dnieper basin. As I've already said, linguistic differences existed well before Kyivan Rus' arose. Acknowledging those differences, instead of pretending they're something Rzeczpospolita invented to divide the "Great Russian nation", is not heresy.

Ruthenians are heavily Polonized Russians which don't even appear in the period. A precursor to Ukranians.
The fact that Ruthenia is the Latin name for Rus makes k_ruthenia an even bigger abomination. It would be better if the kingdoms were Novgorod and Kiev, with possibly a third one (Rostov or Vladimir-Suzdal or perhaps Polotsk).
EDIT: Also, driving the Varangians out would make a non-Norse influenced Rus, meaning we would have different looking Russians.

Ols · Jul 28, 2013

SBolshevik said:
Ruthenians are heavily Polonized Russians which don't even appear in the period. A precursor to Ukranians.
The fact that Ruthenia is the Latin name for Rus makes k_ruthenia an even bigger abomination. It would be better if the kingdoms were Novgorod and Kiev, with possibly a third one (Rostov or Vladimir-Suzdal or perhaps Polotsk).
EDIT: Also, driving the Varangians out would make a non-Norse influenced Rus, meaning we would have different looking Russians.

I definitely agree on the three kingdoms concept. It'd also be justification to remove Perm from Russia and create a seperate Finnic Empire for it so that Russians can be Tsar without being forced to conquer a non-Russian culture.

Aside from that my knowledge of Slavic history is limited and thus I can't much offer much else. I suppose if cultures could be renamed without them actually changing in any other way, it'd allow for things like East Slavic to become Russian if a non-Russian dynasty (Rurik or Dyre's families for example) takes control and becomes Slavic in culture. That could also be paired with Moravian becoming Bohemian if Great Moravia gets destroyed (as a measure to minimise excessive cultures), Polish being Kuyavian, Silesian or Mazovian if they form Poland, and a couple of others.

I am. · Jul 28, 2013

While we are there, Macedonian could be added to 2 provinces...
And no, Croatian and Serb are no more different than Norwegian and Swedish... The only real difference would be religion at the time of the game...

Ols · Jul 28, 2013

It wouldn't even be religion at the start of the game, just who they are in communion with (which in all honesty is a difference cutting through a lot of cultures). No great schism yet.

Raptor_X2000 · Jul 28, 2013

SBolshevik said:
Ruthenians are heavily Polonized Russians which don't even appear in the period. A precursor to Ukranians.

That was a joke, right? Because if you really believe that, you need to read some more history.

This is a quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine, an academic publication of the University of Toronto (which has one of the best Slavic Studies departments in North America):

"Ruthenians. A historic name for Ukrainians corresponding to the Ukrainian rusyny. The English ‘Ruthenians’ (sometimes ‘Ruthenes’) is derived from the Latin Rutheni (singular Ruthenus), which also gave rise to the German Ruthenen and similar words in other languages... The name Rutheni came to be applied to the inhabitants of Kyivan Rus’.... The first use of the word Ruteni in reference to the inhabitants of Rus’ was in the Annales Augustiani of 1089. For centuries thereafter Rutheni was used in Latin as the designation of all East Slavs, particularly Ukrainians and Belarusians. In the 16th century the word more clearly began to be associated with the Ukrainians and Belarusians of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as distinct from the Russians, who were designated Moscovitae."

Link: http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages\R\U\Ruthenians.htm

There is nothing in there about Polonization, other than that by the 16th Century, they lived within the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Polonization during that time was directed almost entirely at the upper echelons of the nobility. The burghers, peasants, Cossacks, poor nobles and other estates (and thus the vast majority of the population) remained firmly Ruthenian. The myth that Ukrainians and Belarusians were somehow split apart from the "true" Russians (Muscovites) is just that, a myth. Cultural differences were age-old, thus there was really nothing to split. Furthermore, the name "Ruthenia" clearly was used at the time, as was the word "rusyn" from which it was derived. Ruthenians *did* appear in the time period. I'd also like to point out that Slavs living in the southern principalities (corresponding to modern day Ukraine) referred to themselves as "rusyny" while those in the North-east (Russia) referred to themselves as "russkie", so clearly medieval Slavs were aware of national-cultural differences between each other, even within Kyivan Rus'. However, I think it would not make sense to include Ruthenian as a separate culture, at least not at at 867 (where I think lots of tribal cultures should exist) or 1066 (imagine how weird it would be for some of Yaroslav's sons to be one culture, others another....)

As for Ruthenia, I think it should remain a kingdom. Danylo Romanovych was crowned King of Rus' by a papal legate in 1253, so historically there was a Kingdom of Ruthenia (often referred to as Halych-Volhynia). The k_ruthenia coat of arms is the coat of arms of Halych-Volhynia, so it is really not that much of a stretch. There was never actually a King of Kyiv, nor a King of Novgorod, certainly not of Suzdal, so the current de jure kingdoms are not horrific (I think their borders could be changed though). Certainly not any less realistic than some of the other Kingdoms or Empires in the game (here's looking at you, Carpathia).

EDIT: Also, driving the Varangians out would make a non-Norse influenced Rus, meaning we would have different looking Russians.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the face-packs? Or to how actual true-to-life Slavs and Scandinavians appear?

unmerged(206564) · Jul 28, 2013

Samuil said:
While we are there, Macedonian could be added to 2 provinces...

Keep dreaming buddy.

SBolshevik · Jul 28, 2013

Raptor_X2000 said:
That was a joke, right? Because if you really believe that, you need to read some more history.

This is a quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine, an academic publication of the University of Toronto (which has one of the best Slavic Studies departments in North America):

Link: http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages\R\U\Ruthenians.htm

There is nothing in there about Polonization, other than that by the 16th Century, they lived within the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Polonization during that time was directed almost entirely at the upper echelons of the nobility. The burghers, peasants, Cossacks, poor nobles and other estates (and thus the vast majority of the population) remained firmly Ruthenian. The myth that Ukrainians and Belarusians were somehow split apart from the "true" Russians (Muscovites) is just that, a myth. Cultural differences were age-old, thus there was really nothing to split. Furthermore, the name "Ruthenia" clearly was used at the time, as was the word "rusyn" from which it was derived. Ruthenians *did* appear in the time period. I'd also like to point out that Slavs living in the southern principalities (corresponding to modern day Ukraine) referred to themselves as "rusyny" while those in the North-east (Russia) referred to themselves as "russkie", so clearly medieval Slavs were aware of national-cultural differences between each other, even within Kyivan Rus'. However, I think it would not make sense to include Ruthenian as a separate culture, at least not at at 867 (where I think lots of tribal cultures should exist) or 1066 (imagine how weird it would be for some of Yaroslav's sons to be one culture, others another....)

As for Ruthenia, I think it should remain a kingdom. Danylo Romanovych was crowned King of Rus' by a papal legate in 1253, so historically there was a Kingdom of Ruthenia (often referred to as Halych-Volhynia). The k_ruthenia coat of arms is the coat of arms of Halych-Volhynia, so it is really not that much of a stretch. There was never actually a King of Kyiv, nor a King of Novgorod, certainly not of Suzdal, so the current de jure kingdoms are not horrific (I think their borders could be changed though). Certainly not any less realistic than some of the other Kingdoms or Empires in the game (here's looking at you, Carpathia).

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the face-packs? Or to how actual true-to-life Slavs and Scandinavians appear?

The kingdoms are a problem of the current implementation of cultural titles. Historically there was a Grand Prince of Kiev, Novgorod, Muscovy, Vladimir-Suzdal, and many others, but less powerful Principalities also called themselves Grand Principalities. So, how it would work is Russian kings would be Grand Princes, Russian dukes would be Princes, and the Russian culture would utilize the petty kingdom system.
EDIT: Also. what would be the point of Ruthenians if they are not much different from Russians?

SBolshevik · Jul 28, 2013

Ols said:
Polish being Kuyavian, Silesian or Mazovian

You know there's a mod for that (sort of).

Raptor_X2000 · Jul 28, 2013

SBolshevik said:
The kingdoms are a problem of the current implementation of cultural titles. Historically there was a Grand Prince of Kiev, Novgorod, Muscovy, Vladimir-Suzdal, and many others, but less powerful Principalities also called themselves Grand Principalities. So, how it would work is Russian kings would be Grand Princes, Russian dukes would be Princes, and the Russian culture would utilize the petty kingdom system.
EDIT: Also. what would be the point of Ruthenians if they are not much different from Russians?

I could see that system for kingdoms working, now that you put it like that. Perhaps in a mod?

But why you do you say that Ruthenians "are not much different from Russians"? They have always been different; that was the point of my post. Ruthenians couldn't have been "torn away" from Russians because they were never the same people. It is logically impossible to divide something that is not a unit. Hence Ruthenians are not "heavily Polonized Russians", as you so ineloquently (and inaccurately) put it.

Separate Slavic cultures

Colonel

Captain

Colonel

DaputinCozzak Specyal Snowflake

Captain

Sergeant

Colonel

Professional Lurker

Field Marshal

Idealistic Dreamer

Second Lieutenant

Something Something Aŋrômainiiuš

Liberal Nihilist

Lt. General

Liberal Nihilist

Second Lieutenant

Sergeant

Something Something Aŋrômainiiuš

Something Something Aŋrômainiiuš

Second Lieutenant