So any comments for South Slavs?
East Slavic tribes, as they should be.
Bottom to top:
Tivertsi [Torki, Belgorod]
Ulichi [Peresechen', Olvia]
Poliane [Kiev, Lyubech, Terebovl', Korsun']
Volyniane [Galich, Peremyshl', Vladimir-Volynsky]
Drevliane [Turov, Beresty]
Severiane [Chernigov, Pereyaslavl', Novgorod-Severskiy]
Dregovichi [Minsk, Pinsk, Podlasie]
Viatichi [Kolomna, Bryansk, Mojaisk, Moskva, Pereyaslavl'-Zalesskiy, Riazan', Pronsk]
Radimichi [Orsha, Mstislavl']
Krivichi [Smolensk, Polotsk, Vitebsk, Viazma]
Slovene or the original Rus' state. [Novgorod, Pskov, Velikiye Luki, Toropets, Bezhetskiy Verkh, Torzhok, Belo Ozero, Tver, Yaroslavl', Ouglich, Rostov]
Oh yeah, south slavs (well Croats and Serbs at least), were well on their way of converting to christianity by 867 so i think at least the royalty will be christian. But there should be some pagans jumping around still. For example the Arentani tribe was still mostly pagan by the end of the 9'th century, and their land was called Pagania
It's pretty funny how we (Serbs) and you (Croats) put so much emphasis on distinction between one another today, and proving something that can't be proven, like "who came first", when nations as a concept didn't exist until the late middle age, if then at all...
From what I know, the christianisation of South Slavs began as soon as they arrived where they are now, meaning 7th century.
As for Bosnia... I believe they were all assimilated into Serbs and Croats, if they ever existed as a distinct ethnic group to begin with. Today's Bosnians are mostly islamised Serbs, but not because that land was Serbian. It was because of migration. As both Serbs and Croats migrated west fleeing the Turks over the centuries of their occupation, Croats were leaving their own lands to the Serbs who came after them. That is why the shape of Croatian territory today is a concaive, because they moved from the Turkish occupied territories into Austria's. However, that it out of the timeframe of this game.
I think we do that because we (Croats), feel threatened by our similarity with you (Serbs). So we develop this weird defensive mechanism of overexagerating history, and trying to make it seem as if we never had any contact with you at all. Well a lot of my people do. Personally i don't feel the need to prove my heritage to noone, so i like looking at things objectively.
Anyway i agree. I think any distinction of nation or tribe was mostly held together by nobles, not common folk.
The christianization of south slavs did start when they arrived but as anything in life it was not instant. Some areas took a long time to convert. For example the Pagania province i mentioned earlier only converted in 10'th century after the Venetians beat some christianity into them. Also Bosnia took a while to convert, and even when it did it still produced a catholic heresy (is Bogomilism in CK2? Cause i seem to remember running into it but i'm not sure if it was my imagination). I'm wondering how Paradox intends to handle this area.
I can't see any pictures in this post, can you fix it up Dragovit? I'd be very interested to know about these tribes because it's a subject I'm trying to research but don't have much knowledge about yet.
East Slavic tribes, as they should be...
The Bulgars are in a similar situation. The King/Emperor (not sure how they'll represent it. It's called the Bulgarian Empire in history but I don't think they really have enough holdings for that) should be Christian, along with the majority -- but not all -- of his vassals, since he had "outlawed" paganism only 3 years prior.
Nice! Here's a map I whipped up showing your setup of tribes (including the colours) alongside the vanilla area of the Russian culture to compare.
Firstly the four southern provinces, Torki, Belgorod, Peresechen' and Olvia, where you have placed the Tivertsi and Ulichi tribes. But is that accurate?
Podlasie is in Poland and the information I can find on it says the area was mixed between West Slavs and Baltic peoples, it's represented as Lithuanian in Vanilla CK2. Would it really be East Slavic?
Bezhetskiy Verkh up there in the North, I doubt it was colonised by East Slavs even in 1066, let alone 867. From what I can gather that area should still be Finnic. The same goes for those other provinces in the East in the 1066 map. I'd say that the East Slavs/Russians hadn't really penetrated into those areas by that date and they were still inhabited by various Finnic tribes.
The same goes for those other provinces in the East in the 1066 map. I'd say that the East Slavs/Russians hadn't really penetrated into those areas by that date and they were still inhabited by various Finnic tribes.
I predict a lot of the people posting on this thread are going to be unhappy when the expansion does come out.
It's pretty funny how we (Serbs) and you (Croats) put so much emphasis on distinction between one another today, and proving something that can't be proven, like "who came first", when nations as a concept didn't exist until the late middle age, if then at all...