Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

No Tartars?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69866 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10587 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Surgünoglu said:
There's a lot of overlap, though, given that the Crimeans speak a Kipchak language and that many steppe peoples were exogamous and prone to intermarriage. These were not homogeneous groups. And yes, you should write "Tatar," but EU uses "Tartar" so eh. Either way, it's weird that one game notes the cultural divide while CK does not.
Click to expand...
Germans in CK are one united group. Although Saxon get separated probably thanks to Charlemagne.

ekorovin said:
It's quite hard to say were XIX century Russians even wrong, because really, should you ask XIX century Kazakh something like "What is your ethnicity?" he would probably say [clan] [tribe] [jüz] "Baltaly section of Naiman tribe, Middle jüz", or just Naiman, and then you ask Kirgiz the same question, and he answers "Boz section, Naiman tribe". And you can see that they are clearly speaking different languages, so you just pull some random word from your ass and stamp it on the map.
Click to expand...
Some idea of how Russians distinguished them can be found when looking at 1897 census data. Look at "Turkic-Tatar languages" section.

ekorovin said:
Anyway, I can speak about Turkic tribalism all day long, but there was some people identifying themselves as Tartars in the latter half of CK2 timeframe.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe somewhere out of CK map and timeframe. The Siberian examples that you gave might be Russian influence.

Just one interesting fact - a 1654 Italian book about Manchu conquest of Ming is called De bello Tartarico historia - "History of Tatar war". :)
 
Red Khan said:
Germans in CK are one united group. Although Saxon get separated probably thanks to Charlemagne.
Some idea of how Russians distinguished them can be found when looking at 1897 census data. Look at "Turkic-Tatar languages" section.
Click to expand...
Interesting article. Do you perchance know who was speaking Arabic in the Empire? I mean, I get Indians, who had merchant community in Astrakhan and even managed to convert some local Tatars into Hinduism (Агрыжане), but who could spoke Arabic?
 
ekorovin said:
Interesting article. Do you perchance know who was speaking Arabic in the Empire? I mean, I get Indians, who had merchant community in Astrakhan and even managed to convert some local Tatars into Hinduism (Агрыжане), but who could spoke Arabic?
Click to expand...
There were and still are some Arabs in Central Asia, even with their own dialect of Arabic.
Article in Russian Wikipedia. Also some info here.
Some info can be found in English entry for Arabs in the "Central Asia and Caucasus" section.
 
Red Khan said:
Germans in CK are one united group. Although Saxon get separated probably thanks to Charlemagne.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Tatars and Mongols are analogous to, say, Bavarians and Mecklenburgers? That might make sense in the 1200s, but in a few centuries there's both a game reason and a historical reason to see a difference.
 
Surgünoglu said:
Are you saying that Tatars and Mongols are analogous to, say, Bavarians and Mecklenburgers? That might make sense in the 1200s, but in a few centuries there's both a game reason and a historical reason to see a difference.
Click to expand...
It was response too "Either way, it's weird that one game notes the cultural divide while CK does not." In EU and even in Vicky Germans are a whole cultural group consisting of many cultures.

Considering Bavarians and Mecklenburgers. It actually depends on what does culture represent in-game and what gameplay purposes it serves. As an example, Norse are one united cultures but east Slavs are separated into different tribes.

In 769 Mecklenburger are Slav Obotrities btw. :)
 
Good points, Red Khan. I guess I see the main difference being that in one case, peoples grew apart and in another, they grew closer. At some point the Tatars diverge, or ought to. It's a blind spot in Paradox's otherwise detailed assimilation and cultural drift event model.
 
Surgünoglu said:
Good points, Red Khan. I guess I see the main difference being that in one case, peoples grew apart and in another, they grew closer. At some point the Tatars diverge, or ought to. It's a blind spot in Paradox's otherwise detailed assimilation and cultural drift event model.
Click to expand...
Well, Tatars in EU4 are basically western Cumans named by there exonym which was more widely spread in EU time period. As ekorovin pointed out it is not exactly clear how they would define their own cultural identity. Their literary language was called Turki but that name was used very widely, including Asia Minor.

I guess the reason for the Great Steppes to be Mongol in 1377 is probably because they used CK1 files. And the reason why in CK1 these areas are Mongol is probably because they used EU2 data. If I remember correctly Tatar culture appeared only in EU3. They just forgot to fix it in CK2, who plays 1337 scenario anyway. :)
 
Last edited:
AchedTeacher said:
Okay, if we continue this discussion:

Tatars: Turkic steppe nomads
Tartar(e): Ground meat
Click to expand...

This maybe off topic but..I getting hungry reading all this Tatar and Tartar stuff.

Also with many other culture groups CKII hasn't divided things up, the French are far more then Franks,Occtians and Normans, Etc, I think they had to limit culural division so they wouldn't have 15k culture types..also there is also alot of confusion all over Eurasia and Africa over who is what group and who came from where. with in Anglo-Saxon England, you have the Celtic peoples Cymri. Cornish,Deumonnia, Northern Britons( different peoples to) . the Saxons( and their divided up) Angles, Jutes(mainly in Kent) and maybe even some others that we call Saxon because we have no idea what to call them.
So I'm not surprised there is confusion with the Tartars...heck most of them probably only only recogniesd their clan and tribe, beyond that maybe maybe if some warleader unifies a bunch of them. with the steppe nomads I think our ideas of culture and/or Nation limit our prespective
 
rav3n said:
beyond that maybe maybe if some warleader unifies a bunch of them
Click to expand...
That's exactly how Khazakhs came around.
The Kazakh Khanate was founded in 1456-1465 by Janybek Khan and Kerey Khan, on the banks of Jetysu ("seven rivers") in the southeastern part of the present-day Republic of Kazakhstan. The founding of the Kazakh Khanate is considered the ethnogenesis of the Kazakh nation.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_Khanate
 
Red Khan said:
That's exactly how Khazakhs came around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_Khanate
Click to expand...

I was hinting to at some little guy called Temujin, but yeah...with Nomads(Eurasian and North American) a lot of these people identified themselves as Clan/Tribe/ but may have linguistic relatives...some would form "nations" and Confederacies for various reasons( usually mutual protection or resource sharing) Mongols,Huns, Irouguis and Micmaq as examples.
 
rav3n said:
This maybe off topic but..I getting hungry reading all this Tatar and Tartar stuff.

Also with many other culture groups CKII hasn't divided things up, the French are far more then Franks,Occtians and Normans, Etc, I think they had to limit culural division so they wouldn't have 15k culture types..also there is also alot of confusion all over Eurasia and Africa over who is what group and who came from where. with in Anglo-Saxon England, you have the Celtic peoples Cymri. Cornish,Deumonnia, Northern Britons( different peoples to) . the Saxons( and their divided up) Angles, Jutes(mainly in Kent) and maybe even some others that we call Saxon because we have no idea what to call them.
So I'm not surprised there is confusion with the Tartars...heck most of them probably only only recogniesd their clan and tribe, beyond that maybe maybe if some warleader unifies a bunch of them. with the steppe nomads I think our ideas of culture and/or Nation limit our prespective
Click to expand...

There's also the fact that some divisions like many of thosee amongst the Germans arose during the late high middle ages to the early modern area as the HRE grew weaker and the few stem duchies were broken up into a smaller entities as the HRE declined and decentralized after reaching its Zenith in the late 12th century under Henry the Sixth, divisions aided along by the great interregnum and the economic changes of the 13th century. However the game has issues dealing with cultures much less culture changes and mergers.

I don't think the game engine capable of handing cultures dividing assuming the events that sent the HRE into decline and make such divisions possible even happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back