• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Depends on what the "Romanised" trait entails, but personally, for the Italian Goths, I would go for Romano-Gothic - the court literature of Theodoric's kingdom shows very little affinity with the other Germanic groups, and there's strong evidence that Gothic as a spoken language was rapidly dying out among the Gothic soldiery, so both linguistically and in terms of self-designation, they're closer to the Romans than anyone else. It's a tricky question, because CK2's black-and-white culture model doesn't represent the idea of a cultural continuum very well, but if I had to put them anywhere, I'd put them on the Roman side of the dividing line.

The thrust of my paper is that, in the Ostrogothic kingdom, the division between Roman and Goth isn't so much a division between two different cultures as between two different roles in society; the "Roman" as civilian, and the "Goth" as soldier. The Goths who remained on the Danube frontier would be a better candidate for "Gothic culture + Romanised trait," although even there the degree to which they're actually Goths or just called Goths is a matter for debate.

Put another way, if Arbogast's culture is going to be "Romano-Frankish" (which presumably means he's got more affinity with Romans than Franks) as opposed to "Frankish + Romanised trait" (which would imply the opposite), then Theodoric should definitely be Romano-Gothic.

edit: is it just me, or is quoting not working? This was supposed to be in reply to Erik W's question.
 
Depends on what the "Romanised" trait entails, but personally, for the Italian Goths, I would go for Romano-Gothic - the court literature of Theodoric's kingdom shows very little affinity with the other Germanic groups, and there's strong evidence that Gothic as a spoken language was rapidly dying out among the Gothic soldiery, so both linguistically and in terms of self-designation, they're closer to the Romans than anyone else. It's a tricky question, because CK2's black-and-white culture model doesn't represent the idea of a cultural continuum very well, but if I had to put them anywhere, I'd put them on the Roman side of the dividing line.

The thrust of my paper is that, in the Ostrogothic kingdom, the division between Roman and Goth isn't so much a division between two different cultures as between two different roles in society; the "Roman" as civilian, and the "Goth" as soldier. The Goths who remained on the Danube frontier would be a better candidate for "Gothic culture + Romanised trait," although even there the degree to which they're actually Goths or just called Goths is a matter for debate.

Put another way, if Arbogast's culture is going to be "Romano-Frankish" (which presumably means he's got more affinity with Romans than Franks) as opposed to "Frankish + Romanised trait" (which would imply the opposite), then Theodoric should definitely be Romano-Gothic.

The trait is for people who remember through culture, a roman inheritage and is mostly about learning. It is not to represent any cultural difference, just about knowledge concerning the since long-dead empire. If you want to get more learning and pick the ambition you can earn the trait. For the culture you have melting-pots and special cultures such as Romano-Frankish.
 
Last edited:
The trait is for people who remember through culture, a roman inheritage and is mostly about learning. It is not to represent any cultural difference, just about knowledge concerning the since long-dead empire. If you want to get more learning and pick the ambition you can earn the trait. For the culture you have melting-pots and special cultures such as Romano-Frankish.

Hmm. I would probably still go with Romano-Gothic, then, as the people Theodoric led into Italy were very much a melting-pot people, and, like I said, they generally felt a greater affinity with the Romans than with other Germans. In fact, I'd probably use Romano-Gothic for most of the Danube frontier in that case, with Gothic culture reserved for the Goths outside the Empire.

I hope you're finding this useful! :)
 
I hope you're finding this useful! :)

Of course! Even if we do not use everything everyone mentions it is always good to have different perspectives and especially if you are doing research on it too. ;)
 
Depends on what the "Romanised" trait entails, but personally, for the Italian Goths, I would go for Romano-Gothic - the court literature of Theodoric's kingdom shows very little affinity with the other Germanic groups, and there's strong evidence that Gothic as a spoken language was rapidly dying out among the Gothic soldiery, so both linguistically and in terms of self-designation, they're closer to the Romans than anyone else. It's a tricky question, because CK2's black-and-white culture model doesn't represent the idea of a cultural continuum very well, but if I had to put them anywhere, I'd put them on the Roman side of the dividing line.

The thrust of my paper is that, in the Ostrogothic kingdom, the division between Roman and Goth isn't so much a division between two different cultures as between two different roles in society; the "Roman" as civilian, and the "Goth" as soldier. The Goths who remained on the Danube frontier would be a better candidate for "Gothic culture + Romanised trait," although even there the degree to which they're actually Goths or just called Goths is a matter for debate.

Put another way, if Arbogast's culture is going to be "Romano-Frankish" (which presumably means he's got more affinity with Romans than Franks) as opposed to "Frankish + Romanised trait" (which would imply the opposite), then Theodoric should definitely be Romano-Gothic.

edit: is it just me, or is quoting not working? This was supposed to be in reply to Erik W's question.

Okay so, question:

We have the Romanized Goths in Pannonia. One of those Romanized Goths grows up in Constantinople and recieves a Roman Education. After succeeding his father, he is tasked with invading Italy to unseat the unruly Odoacer. He does so and during his 33-year reign in Italy, he recieves the title "Forever Augustus" by the Senate, is compared to Valentinian I and Emperor Trajan and is called a colleague by the Emperor in the East.

Now, what is Theoderic the Great? A Romanized Goth or a Romano-Goth?

Edit: You have already answered this

The trait is for people who remember through culture, a roman inheritage and is mostly about learning. It is not to represent any cultural difference, just about knowledge concerning the since long-dead empire. If you want to get more learning and pick the ambition you can earn the trait. For the culture you have melting-pots and special cultures such as Romano-Frankish.

There is a difference between having knowlegde about the old ways and actually being a full-blood Barbarian that had a Roman education and living your life acording to that education. That is what I define as Romanized.
 
There is a difference between having knowlegde about the old ways and actually being a full-blood Barbarian that had a Roman education and living your life acording to that education. That is what I define as Romanized.

Yes, and that is why that trait is not called that! We could always add in another trait for another purpose...
 
Okay so, question:

We have the Romanized Goths in Pannonia. One of those Romanized Goths grows up in Constantinople and recieves a Roman Education. After succeeding his father, he is tasked with invading Italy to unseat the unruly Odoacer. He does so and during his 33-year reign in Italy, he recieves the title "Forever Augustus" by the Senate, is compared to Valentinian I and Emperor Trajan and is called a colleague by the Emperor in the East.

Now, what is Theoderic the Great? A Romanized Goth or a Romano-Goth?

Edit: You have already answered this

I'm not sure what the essential difference is, seeing as my initial interpretation of the trait-formerly-known-as-Romanised was wrong, but as I said, I'd definitely call him (for CK2 culture purposes) Romano-Gothic. You're overstating the case a little though ;) Don't forget Theodoric also waged war on Constantinople on more than one occasion, and part of the reason Zeno dispatched him and his army to Italy might have been to get rid of a notorious troublemaker who was growing worryingly powerful. The thing to remember about the Goths on the Danube frontier in the late 5th century is that, while they're more Roman than Germanic, they're quite different from the conventional Romans of the civilian interior provinces. The Danube frontier is somewhat akin to the Wild West at this time, and the Romans who live there are an odd mix of settled, somewhat-Romanised immigrants/refugees, local Thracian peasants, and Roman soldiers and their families who'd become permanently attached to the frontier after Theodosius made military service a hereditary profession. All three groups intermarried considerably, which is why there's a significant number of Gothic leaders in the late 5th/early 6th century who have Thracian names, and also why there's usually a mention of Thracian peasants joining the Goths every time they rebel against the Emperor; they're not far off being the same people. As an example of the confusion this results in, the meaning of the word barbarus changes in late Latin from "barbarian" to "soldier." The frontiersmen speak Latin, but in a rough and soldierly way, not the refined Latin you'd find in an Imperial court. They're Christians, but they have their own frontier/army cult in the form of Arianism, which makes them look weird to a lot of Nicene/Chalcedonian Romans. While their dress and grooming isn't outrageously different from the Romans of more civilised provinces, they're scruffy and raffish in the way they wear them; one of the distinctive marks of being a Goth in Italy is a sort of unkemptness that the Italo-Romans found peculiar enough to comment on (and this is not to mention the fact that they're habitually dressed in military garb, like trousers). As a result of Theodosius making military service hereditary, their commanding officers inherit the post from their fathers, which, coupled with the fact that their regiments often take their names from the tribes they're supposedly descended from, essentially turns them into kings.

The point is that, while they're Romans, not foreigners, they could easily be mistaken for foreigners. They might speak Latin, and they came about as a result of Imperial policy, but they're something a bit new and different. Historically, too many scholars have, for various unsavoury reasons, overstated their "Germanic" attributes and made them into something they aren't (i.e. a mob of pillaging barbarians), and that's how they're remembered in pop culture today. This is really inaccurate; the Goths didn't see themselves as having anything much in common with the other German groups, and actually looked down on them as gentiles (barbarians/non-Romans, in late Latin). But it's possible to go too far the other way in trying to make them Romans. They're an oddball melting pot; more Roman than anything else, but there's plenty of "else" in there to keep things interesting. That's why they fascinate me so much :)
 
It's also important to remember that the word 'Roman' was used akin to 'citizenship'. The Latins in the west considered themselves as Roman as the Greeks in east, and vice versa, though culturally they were all different. It might be an idea to replace Roman as a culture with Latin, and add a Roman trait, which identifies them as a citizen of the empire, and removes the negative opinion for foreigners who also have the trait.
 

Okay, so we have established that the vast majority of Goths should infact be Romano-Goths (Enlil, would you fix that please?!)

Now the question is if we should recognize that Theoderic was a defacto Emperor in the West or not.

It's also important to remember that the word 'Roman' was used akin to 'citizenship'. The Latins in the west considered themselves as Roman as the Greeks in east, and vice versa, though culturally they were all different. It might be an idea to replace Roman as a culture with Latin, and add a Roman trait, which identifies them as a citizen of the empire, and removes the negative opinion for foreigners who also have the trait.

We already have a Latin culture, representing a sort of Barbarian influenced Roman culture in Northern Italy
 
Now the question is if we should recognize that Theoderic was a defacto Emperor in the West or not.

No, and we already discussed about that earlier in this thread.
 
No, and we already discussed about that earlier in this thread.

Fine then, I can settle with him being a Romano-Gothic king
 
Fine then, I can settle with him being a Romano-Gothic king

Great, and I suggest that that should be in the OP to avoid further discussions about the exact same thing.
 
Okay, so we have established that the vast majority of Goths should infact be Romano-Goths (Enlil, would you fix that please?!)

Now the question is if we should recognize that Theoderic was a defacto Emperor in the West or not.

I know all about the "semper Augustus" inscription, and as cool as it is (it's really cool), I don't think an emperor title would reflect Theodoric's reality. If ever there was a country that might be considered a successor state to the WRE (not including Charlemagne and his crew, who don't count), it would be Theodoric's kingdom, and there are a few scholars who've singled him out as the most likely person to restore the Empire (he certainly acted the part, what with rebuilding the Theatre of Pompey and so forth), but that should be something for the player to aspire to; in his official function, Theodoric was essentially just a caretaker for the Emperor of Constantinople.

We already have a Latin culture, representing a sort of Barbarian influenced Roman culture in Northern Italy

Oooh, very interesting. I would dearly love to see this mod's cultures.txt file someday (and find out how much it matches up with the late antiquity mod I'm always messing around with but will never actually make ;) ).

edit:
Great, and I suggest that that should be in the OP to avoid further discussions about the exact same thing.

Oops, missed the memo on that one. Sorry for raising the spectre of a dead discussion!
 
Great, and I suggest that that should be in the OP to avoid further discussions about the exact same thing.

Yes. By the way, did we reach a conclusion on the "United Roman Empire" subject? Should Anastasius, Justin I, Justinian the Great, Justin II, Tiberius II, Maurice and Phocas all be Emperors of the Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire?

Oops, missed the memo on that one. Sorry for raising the spectre of a dead discussion!

Not at all, you helped us settle it once and for all
 
Last edited:
Yes. By the way, did we reach a conclusion on the "United Roman Empire" subject? Should Anastasius, Justin I, Justinian the Great, Justin II, Tiberius II, Maurice and Phocas all be Emperors of the Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire?

No, not really, but if they should be of the united it would only be in the name and not defacto. I think it would be better to have them emperors of byzantium but with a relatively easy positions to proclaim the "United Empire".
 
Regional Dev Diary 6: Enlil FINALLY shows off Southern India

Well kids, I am finally showing you India, land of Totem Poles, Teepees, Feathered Helmets, and Smallpox for everyone.

Not Northern India, which is Gupta and vassals, nor Bengal, which is the Manipur dev diary. Just Southern India.

utsLVXq.png


Kalabhras Empire:

GUHR21v.png


Ruling over near all of the Tamils, ths Kalabhras are a real South Indian powerhouse, whith 3 lesser states, Pallava, Gangas, and Kadamba acting
a buffers between the Kalabhras and the more powerful, yet declining Vakatakas.

Their vassals though are more interesting.

The majority are Tamil Hindus, which are the following dynasties:

Chola
Pandyan
Chera
Alupa

There is also a pagan ruler, the Nampikkai Dynasty which is a vassal of the Pandyan.

The buffer states are:

Pallava, another Hindu Tamil state
Kadamba, the first nation to use Kannada in government
Gangas, the only Jain ruler.

MJmBogf.png


Also, on the Island of Sri Lanka, the Moriyans continue to rule the Island after Kashyapa's father liberated the island from the Seven Dravidians.

Religons:

Hinduism:
Guys, don't make me do this

Hindu Heresies:
During this time period, Hinduism was impacted by various Heterodox schools, radically different from Mainstream Hinduism. The difference is so great in these, and the violence that would be needed to make these Heterodox schools dominant, Hinduism now has heresies. Hinduism will no longer spawn heresies past a certain point, to acknowledge the end of this era.

Ajivika:
One of the four main Nāstika Schools, which are Jainism, Buddhism, Cārvāka, and Ajivika, only Cārvāka and Ajivika never became powerful enough to develop into their own religions. Their priests go naked, and they commit suicide when they feel they are too old to be of use. They also believed in determinism, that one's actions cannot change one's fate, which is predetermined.

Features in Game:
1. Pacifistic like Jainism
2. Rulers can commit suicide at any time
3. Cannot hold any feasts

Sramanic:
Sramanic represents the various smaller sects that formed during this time, as I'm sure you don't want be making a unique and bland religion for ever single on of those provinces.

Features in Game:
1. Boost to learning
2. Some events regarding the disunity of this religion

Dravidian Paganism:
The paganism of the native Dravidians. I don't really have much flavor for them, so any suggestions would be great.

29qIaps.png


Dev Diary 6.5: Enlil combats rebels

Religions and Support:
rWUx4BS.png


Hypsistarian:
Widespread syncretic religion combining the Mystery Cult of Jupiter-Sabazaios, Thracian Paganism, and Judaism. They are in their own religious group, but their time is short, as around 420, the Empire has begun to crack down on them, taking property and temples, meaning there are now no playable Hypsistarians, as the religion managed to continue under the radar of the Empire, as they were then warring the Goths and Sassanians.

Features:
Relatively featureless, as they mostly accepted Jewish traditions save for circumcison, and had no form of organization.

Cybelian and Hellenic:
Even in the year 480, the Hellenic pagans were a sizable population which often backed various claimants to the throne seeking to end persecution.

Nicene:
Pretty widespread

Jewish:
Smyrna had a large Jewish community, which though not the majority, was a place of unrest because of the mob action of the strongly vocal Jewish minority. They have that province in game to create the unstableness in the area.

Melchesdechian:
Monarchistians who believe that Melchesdech is the messiah, due to a variety of gnostic texts and interpretations in the bible. This is not to be confused with the 9th century Athinganoi, but a gnostic sect that existed from the 4th-6th centuries.

Monatist:
Incorrectly spelled, should be changed to Montanist. Their beliefs were as follows:

1. Very strict ethical standards
2. Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and Confessors had the power to forgive sins
3. Female Bishops
4. Strict fasts
5. Prophets dyed their hair and stained their eyelids
6. could not remarry after divorce or death of partner
7. Women could not wear ornaments
8. Continued to have many Prophets, in the style of the Greco-Roman Oracles.
9. The Holy Spirit was supreme, and the Prophets' messages could supersede even Jesus or Paul, as they gave the most recent prophecy.

Now I would like to have all of this in game, but I have no idea on how to prohibit marriage and give special clothing.

Pneumatomachi:
Their name, meaning "Combators against the Spirit", denied the Holy Spirit's divinity

Cultures:
y6OelBP.png


Greek: Tended to be popular

Tsakonian: We discussed this in the forum

Phrygian: The ancient language of Phrygia still exists in Northwestern Anatolia, as it will until the early 7th century.

Galatian: Various writers talked about how the celtic Galatian language was corrupting the nearby Greek.

Isaurian: Zeno!

Lycaonian: Seemed weird to have Greek there, so Lycaonian is here, as it is possible for it to have survived seeing how Phrygian and Galatian has. If there is objection to this, I will change it from the Anatolian Group to the Byzantine Group and call it a Greek dialect.

Pontic: Widespread here, definitely going to stay.

Here is a sneak peak for the next dev diary, Region Diary 7: There was a Scandinavia before Vikings?
8M9pCZd.png
 
No, not really, but if they should be of the united it would only be in the name and not defacto. I think it would be better to have them emperors of byzantium but with a relatively easy positions to proclaim the "United Empire".

What would that mean in-game? If they proclaim the United Empire, should a giant dejure Roman Empire pop up in the mediterranean?
 
What would that mean in-game? If they proclaim the United Empire, should a giant dejure Roman Empire pop up in the mediterranean?

Not sure, but they should be able to get imperial restoration claims on the whole mediterranean. For the balance I do not know: are dynamic dejure empires needed?

EDIT: Enlil, it might be good if you posted links to the dev diaries in the OP. Also, how far are you with covering history?
 
Dev Diary 6.5: Enlil combats rebels

Cultures:
y6OelBP.png


Greek: Tended to be popular

Tsakonian: We discussed this in the forum

Phrygian: The ancient language of Phrygia still exists in Northwestern Anatolia, as it will until the early 7th century.

Galatian: Various writers talked about how the celtic Galatian language was corrupting the nearby Greek.

Isaurian: Zeno!

Lycaonian: Seemed weird to have Greek there, so Lycaonian is here, as it is possible for it to have survived seeing how Phrygian and Galatian has. If there is objection to this, I will change it from the Anatolian Group to the Byzantine Group and call it a Greek dialect.

Pontic: Widespread here, definitely going to stay.

1. Im not even going to comment on India, as I don´t know squat about it

2. Blue Galatian? Are they not Celts? They have to be Green! You could switch colors with Illyro-Roman, that would look pretty nice

3. Tsakonian would also be in Epirus, as Doric was there too. And just had a look at a language map, Crete and Rhodes also was Doric

4. Brown doesn´t really fit Thracian in my min. When I think of Thracians, I think of the light Blue Thracians of Rome Total War 1. But that is strictly what I think

5. Dacian on the other hand should be brown
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.