CK2 Dev Diary #69: Another Journey to Tibet

[Thure]

The Sakyas are very interesting, and I have not thought about them much as a dynasty, though they of course were all related. Their authority came from Three different offices, that of the Lama, that of the Dishi (basically their emissary at the Great Khan's Court), and that of the Ponchen (governor).

It's not really that the Saka are a dynasty... It was the Khon family which was ruling the Sakya.

'The leadership of the Sakya School is passed down through a hereditary system between the male members of the Sakya branch of the Khon family.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakya#Origins

 

[insoman]

As in 769, both Alan and Saka cultures are present, both of which have a recognized connection to the older pastoral nomad population known as Scythians as recorded by their contemporaries, and whose affiliation, however distant, is generally accepted, then it is a fair comparison to say that the Saka have taken, in the terms of the game Crusader Kings 2, the decision to "settle as feudal", while the Alans have not.

One issue is that was there really an identity of Scythian? As you said the recognized connection, there is another nation which is more representative to eastern saka: Pashtuns, that live as clans and ruled by warlords. For now they retrospect their ancestor to a Muslim but not someone from khazak steppe. Same as Khotanese which did not call themselves Saka but Hvam, they suggested the founder of their kingdom is a son of ashoka. i do not find such Scythian-dominated steppe in recent memory. will you put pashtuns with alan together? if not, then there is no reason to make a special interaction between alan and agriculture Khotanese

 

[SchwarzKatze]

and in the Tarim Basin, notably leaving behind a linguistic impression in the latter. The people here spoke a language we now call Saka, and by all contemporary sources were identified as Scythians contemporary to the Alans and with a Scythian-dominated steppe in recent memory.

May I ask which ones? The Chinese didn't associate any of the Tarim Oasis states with the Saka it seems.

 

[Karlingid]

May I ask which ones? The Chinese didn't associate any of the Tarim Oasis states with the Saka it seems.

the Kingdom of Khotan is the particularly famous one. Yanqi and Quici are mentioned by Chinese historians particularly I believe, it should be found in Records of the Grand Historian where the Sak migrate due to pressure from the Yuezhi who in turn were pushed by the Wusun. Chinese records I don't know the name of also state the Sai (the earlier mentioned "sak") settled in Jibin near what is now Kashmir. The Dunhuang Manuscripts might provide as a further source of reference, but I myself am using second-hand, not first-hand, so largely they are listed as various documents and histories from the Han dynasty.

Overall, though, I can almost assure you that the Book of Han holds a fairly nice record indicating the Sak or Sai as settling in the Tarim, and as being nomads in Kazakhstan/Kyrgyzstan earlier.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

the Kingdom of Khotan is the particularly famous one. Yanqi and Quici are mentioned by Chinese historians particularly I believe, it should be found in Records of the Grand Historian where the Sak migrate due to pressure from the Yuezhi who in turn were pushed by the Wusun. Chinese records I don't know the name of also state the Sai (the earlier mentioned "sak") settled in Jibin near what is now Kashmir. The Dunhuang Manuscripts might provide as a further source of reference, but I myself am using second-hand, not first-hand, so largely they are listed as various documents and histories from the Han dynasty.

Overall, though, I can almost assure you that the Book of Han holds a fairly nice record indicating the Sak or Sai as settling in the Tarim, and as being nomads in Kazakhstan/Kyrgyzstan earlier.

That's what I thought:

Actually, what are the historical sources that associate the nomadic Saka with the sedentary Khotanese? The wordings of Wikipedia led me to assume that some contemporary Chinese histories mention it, but after Ctrl+F through the sections about "the West" in Records of the Grand Historian, Book of Han, Book of Later Han, Book of Sui, Old Book of Tang, and New Book of Tang, while all of which except the first mention Khotan, I was surprised to find that only the Book of Han mentions the Sək (塞) people at all.

In the Book of Han, the said people was said to have lived northwest of Shule ( = Kashgar, at the far western end of the Tarim Basin) before it splintered, and the two states identified as remnants of the Sək were said to live in valleys in/by the Pamir Mountains and were nomadic. Meanwhile, Khotan was already a country with 3,300 households and 19,300 people, which makes it the second most populous country mentioned in the Tarim Basin, but with no mentions of any connection with the Sək people.

Perhaps some Persian account does connect Khotan and the Saka, but unfortunately I know no Farsi so it's a dead end. I don't think the Greeks, the other source of many contemporary records, knew Khotan either.

After re-reading Shiji, I found that it does mention Khotan, but didn't mention the Saka.

 

[Karlingid]

One issue is that was there really an identity of Scythian? As you said the recognized connection, there is another nation which is more representative to eastern saka: Pashtuns, that live as clans and ruled by warlords. For now they retrospect their ancestor to a Muslim but not someone from khazak steppe. Same as Khotanese which did not call themselves Saka but Hvam, they suggested the founder of their kingdom is a son of ashoka. i do not find such Scythian-dominated steppe in recent memory. will you put pashtuns with alan together? if not, then there is no reason to make a special interaction between alan and agriculture Khotanese

The Pashtun are not Scythians. They're East Iranian, but that's generally vague. Early Persians made a very nice distinction between Saka, the nomads of the steppe we call Scythians, the Sogdians, and the Pashtun. Though the Scythians and Sogdians have a fair bit in common, and even share an etymological root with an Iranian term for "archer", they're distinct peoples. The Pashtun are partially nomadic in history, though they're a group of angry hillmen for much of their early recorded presence. The Scythians, meanwhile, are constantly treated historically as a singular group under roughly the same name across the spectrum. The Saka and Alans were closely related, cousins if you will, and I believe I made a point earlier about how language and culture is not inherently tied to one particular system of government or way of life. Did Mongols stop being Mongols when they formed the Yuan dynasty?

There is a distinct genetic and linguistic relationship between the Saka and the Alans. Depicting them with different portraits and radically different names doesn't make much sense. I do, however, trust Paradox- they made a special namelist for the Alans after all, so I'd imagine they'd select historically accurate names for the Saka, which in turn could be representative of their relationship. Though I still believe the Alans should use Iranian portraits (as their modern descendants do indeed appear fairly in line with an Iranian look, and the portraits can already model the fairer hair they sometimes have), I'm quite certain the Saka shall use them.

The Saka certainly had an identity for who they were. They wrote earlier in Prakrit and Chinese, but included references to their Iranian identity within. At some point, they dropped it entirely and just started writing in their own language. They were, as it turns out, Saka, who were related to the Saka who lived on the Pontic Steppe. I find your argument here not particularly strong: the Saka said they had at least partial descent from a son of Ashoka, or rather their monarchy did but says nothing about the actual majority population. So? The Irish of this time said that they were Scythians who migrated to Spain and conquered the island from short, dark men and literal gods. Doesn't mean they should be excluded, then, from the rest of the Celts. Similarly, the Hungarians claimed descent from Attila, but they aren't ruled by the Dulo clan, don't use the Turkic portraits, and bear distinctly Hungarian (Ugric) rather than Hunnish (Turkic) names.

 

[Teutonic_Thrash]

I find your argument here not particularly strong: the Saka said they had at least partial descent from a son of Ashoka, or rather their monarchy did but says nothing about the actual majority population. So? The Irish of this time said that they were Scythians who migrated to Spain and conquered the island from short, dark men and literal gods. Doesn't mean they should be excluded, then, from the rest of the Celts. Similarly, the Hungarians claimed descent from Attila, but they aren't ruled by the Dulo clan, don't use the Turkic portraits, and bear distinctly Hungarian (Ugric) rather than Hunnish (Turkic) names.

I don't think insoman's point was that they definitely are descended from Indian colonists, but rather that they no longer remember their nomadic history and so have created a new foundation myth. This shouldn't be surprising, as there's at least a thousand years of separation between the sedentary Saka and their distant ethno-linguistic cousins (the Alans).

 

[Karlingid]

I don't think insoman's point was that they definitely are descended from Indian colonists, but rather that they no longer remember their nomadic history and so have created a new foundation myth. This shouldn't be surprising, as there's at least a thousand years of separation between the sedentary Saka and their distant ethno-linguistic cousins (the Alans).

And the things I stated are similar situations- the Irish claimed to be Spanish Scythians themselves who fought the gods for the island, while the Hungarians invented a national origin involving their (possible) participation in the Hunnic confederation and their (very unlikely) decent from Attila. Neither of these is an accurate representation of their respective histories, but both were written down almost as if fact repeatedly, with complex genealogies written to support them.

 

[Karlingid]

That's what I thought:

After re-reading Shiji, I found that it does mention Khotan, but didn't mention the Saka.

It is worthy of noting that, although the dating of how the Saka got there is a bit debated, the language written in the area ('Khotanese") is identifiable as one of a couple dialects of Saka and traceable, albeit distantly, to the contemporary Alan/Old Ossetic language.

As for Persian sources, this should do you nicely enough. Call it a stretch, but I can see "Haumavarga" being or becoming Hvam without too much trouble, especially with Persian /u/ (or w) corresponds or became /v/ (like it did in, for instance, Hebrew) in the first half "Hauma".

 

[Prometheus_1]

Asia needs a proper expansion now , I an tired of half measures.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

It is worthy of noting that, although the dating of how the Saka got there is a bit debated, the language written in the area ('Khotanese") is identifiable as one of a couple dialects of Saka and traceable, albeit distantly, to the contemporary Alan/Old Ossetic language.

That Khotanese and Tumshuqese are collectively called "Saka" doesn't imply that they're the historical "Sacae", just like how while Agnean and Kuchean are collectively called "Tokharian", they're unrelated to the historical "Tokharoi". In the latter case, it's due to an early (and proven wrong) speculation that the people who lived in the sites of Agnidesi and Kucha were the "Tokharoi" mentioned in Greek sources, but since the scholarly use of "Tokharian" only applies to the Tarim Basin dwellers (and not the actual Tokharoi, whatever they had spoken), the name stuck.

Similarly, all linguistic evidence of "Saka" comes from the Tarim Basins states of Khotan and Tumshuq AFAIK, with nothing from the steppes. Furthermore, according to Encyclopedia Iranica, there are not special links between Khotanese and Ossetian beyond belonging to the Eastern Iranian Languages.

 

[RedBaronFlyer]

Please just Expand to Asia , its about time now!

Asia needs a proper expansion now , I an tired of half measures.

Post like these are why I hate browsing this forum so much.

 

[insoman]

There is a distinct genetic and linguistic relationship between the Saka and the Alans. Depicting them with different portraits and radically different names doesn't make much sense. I do, however, trust Paradox- they made a special namelist for the Alans after all, so I'd imagine they'd select historically accurate names for the Saka, which in turn could be representative of their relationship. Though I still believe the Alans should use Iranian portraits (as their modern descendants do indeed appear fairly in line with an Iranian look, and the portraits can already model the fairer hair they sometimes have), I'm quite certain the Saka shall use them.

What i propose is not whether they are saka origin,but if there is a special interaction between them in ck2 era except their non mutual intelligibility language. I have never suggested that there is no linguistical linkage between Alanian and Khotanese, or they could even have ancestors lived in same ger in steppe. The point is, the morden linguistic and genetic research had not existed yet in the era of ck2. What played more important role are religion and cultural tranditions, and that is the reason why pdx put greeks, georgians, armenians, alanians and assyrians together. Back to saka and alan, their eastern iranian languages were written indeed, one by Kharosthi to record Sutras since their kingdom was founded and adopted Buddhism equally till their end, the other written by Georgian script for Bible. I suppose that the distinction here is enough to divide khotanese with their steppe ancestors and put these two culture into different groups in game.

The Pashtun are not Scythians. They're East Iranian, but that's generally vague. Early Persians made a very nice distinction between Saka, the nomads of the steppe we call Scythians, the Sogdians, and the Pashtun. Though the Scythians and Sogdians have a fair bit in common, and even share an etymological root with an Iranian term for "archer", they're distinct peoples. The Pashtun are partially nomadic in history, though they're a group of angry hillmen for much of their early recorded presence.

I don't know why you said it so sure that pashtun is no deal with Scythians, for there at least a large clans called sakzai that supposed to interact with saka, and the "sakastan" contains kandahar, which is the traditional seat of pashtun. there are much more traces than khotan, arent it? if there must be a Scythian/eastern iranian culture group, i would like to put these two reckless hillmen together rather tarim dwellers.
Otherwise, consider the wide distribution of saka, maybe the ancestor had reached to southern tarim on the first spread of IndoAryan with ancestors of pashtuns whose language is more closer with Khotanese rather than ossetian, but not with those who stayed in Eurasia steppe.

 

[insoman]

Did Mongols stop being Mongols when they formed the Yuan dynasty?

well, the mongol who adopted islam did. Also Turkish muslim and buddhist had a longdrawnfight in tarim basin. Same things still happen in our time, Urdu/Hindu are one thing essentially, and their speaker regard each as enemies. Those are evidence that language is not determined for nation's relation. And the thousand years buddhism history and hindu/sino/altai cultural impact are enough to differentiate khotanese saka with the scythian ancestor of alanian.

 

[Prometheus_1]

I am looking foward to see the ASIA Expansion .

 

[Karlingid]

What i propose is not whether they are saka origin,but if there is a special interaction between them in ck2 era except their non mutual intelligibility language. I have never suggested that there is no linguistical linkage between Alanian and Khotanese, or they could even have ancestors lived in same ger in steppe. The point is, the morden linguistic and genetic research had not existed yet in the era of ck2. What played more important role are religion and cultural tranditions, and that is the reason why pdx put greeks, georgians, armenians, alanians and assyrians together. Back to saka and alan, their eastern iranian languages were written indeed, one by Kharosthi to record Sutras since their kingdom was founded and adopted Buddhism equally till their end, the other written by Georgian script for Bible. I suppose that the distinction here is enough to divide khotanese with their steppe ancestors and put these two culture into different groups in game.

I don't know why you said it so sure that pashtun is no deal with Scythians, for there at least a large clans called sakzai that supposed to interact with saka, and the "sakastan" contains kandahar, which is the traditional seat of pashtun. there are much more traces than khotan, arent it? if there must be a Scythian/eastern iranian culture group, i would like to put these two reckless hillmen together rather tarim dwellers.
Otherwise, consider the wide distribution of saka, maybe the ancestor had reached to southern tarim on the first spread of IndoAryan with ancestors of pashtuns whose language is more closer with Khotanese rather than ossetian, but not with those who stayed in Eurasia steppe.

I wasn't saying that the Saka and Alans should be in the same culture group- that'd be an absurd gap with the Khazars et al in the way. Despite this, the cultural traditions of the Byzantine group are a bit more sporadic than other culture groups- the Assyrians aren't really that similar to the Greeks, and neither are the Alans, while the Armenians and Georgians could arguably be distinct as well. Rather, it seems more like a grouping of "Old" cultures, which is potentially why the Israelite cultures, though distinct, use its graphics and even similar on-map coloring. Another feature that the Byzantine cultures share is being "Kind of Persian", where people often confused the Armenians for Persians, the Byzantines purposefully brought numerous aspects of Persian military and dress into their carefully-monitored Roman(ish) culture, and the Assyrians lie on the border of Persia and would find themselves being much more "kind of Persian" due to simply being part of the greater Middle East in dress, cuisine, etc., sharing a closer bond with the Persian or Arabic groups perhaps.

I say the Pashtun are unrelated to the Scythians because they are. "East Iranian" isn't a real grouping, it's just an umbrella term for a load of smaller groups that people haven't properly built into families at the moment, but some have tried to do so. The languages show similarities to one another, but this is closer to a sprachbund than it is a proper genetic relationship. Rather than being a solid group of its own, it is instead closer to just saying "not Western". Though there was definitely Saka settlement in Afghanistan, their influence was actually more left on Wakhi (and the Wakhan region) than on Pashto (and most of Afghanistan). If groupings of Eastern Iranian were to represent a proper genetic relationship, then the closest language would actually be Sogdian (now Yaghnobi). The Sakzai/Sakazai are a good example of the Saka settlement, perhaps, but they'd have become heavily Pashtunized (at least seemingly) in much the same way that the Mughal Empire claimed descent from Mongols and Timurids but generally tended to be Persian or Indian. There are also other clans in Afghanistan claiming descent from a variety of places, from the Israelites to the Huns themselves, but all of them generally act in a very Pashtun manner and speak Pashto.

My ultimate point is that I never said to group them together into a singular group, though someone did suggest once a grouping for Tarim or non-Altaic Steppe cultures. My proposals were, rather, a similar namelist (which would happen anyway if Pdox uses historical records for naming), or use of the same portraits (as regardless of how genetic relationship plays into culture grouping, people who are genetically related on the same/similar latitude will often look similar). I believe you will find these proposals, not what you are suggesting I was proposing.

 

[Thure]

I wasn't saying that the Saka and Alans should be in the same culture group- that'd be an absurd gap with the Khazars et al in the way. Despite this, the cultural traditions of the Byzantine group are a bit more sporadic than other culture groups- the Assyrians aren't really that similar to the Greeks, and neither are the Alans, while the Armenians and Georgians could arguably be distinct as well. Rather, it seems more like a grouping of "Old" cultures, which is potentially why the Israelite cultures, though distinct, use its graphics and even similar on-map coloring. Another feature that the Byzantine cultures share is being "Kind of Persian", where people often confused the Armenians for Persians, the Byzantines purposefully brought numerous aspects of Persian military and dress into their carefully-monitored Roman(ish) culture, and the Assyrians lie on the border of Persia and would find themselves being much more "kind of Persian" due to simply being part of the greater Middle East in dress, cuisine, etc., sharing a closer bond with the Persian or Arabic groups perhaps.

Alans, Georgians and Byzantines were part of the great Byzantosphere. They were part of a big geopolitical and cultural group.

 

[Gennadios]

Nobody is worried about performance. Stop bringing up performance. And push the map back to Japan.

 

[Karlingid]

Alans, Georgians and Byzantines were part of the great Byzantosphere. They were part of a big geopolitical and cultural group.

The Alans most certainly weren't especially Byzantine in culture- though the Armenians and Georgians are much more easily explained being together (when I said earlier I had meant that Georgians and Armenians shouldn't share a group with each other, not in relation to Byzantium). They certainly had quite a fair bit of interaction with the Byzantines, including a marriage to a woman who was half-Alan, and though they did indeed (partially) Christianize the Alans, I'd not call their own culture too close to that of the Byzantines, nor to their general allegiance at any rate particularly stronger than others.

In fact, as if to show such a divided history, the Alans are in the Byzantine culture group, use Russian graphics, and follow Tengri. I'd say that their largest motivation for being in the Byzantine group is their Orthodox status at later start dates and their position near to the Caucasus while not being Turkic themselves. Their connection to the Byzantosphere is much weaker than that of the Georgians and Armenians, though not as weak as that of the Assyrians. I'd say the Assyrians are easily the most distant for a plethora of reasons.

There is one thing I shall eagerly agree on, though- The Byzantosphere certainly was great.

EDIT: As a side note, I don't have a problem with the Alans being in the Byzantine culture group. I can't really imagine where else to put them, except maybe Iranian, though I think their connection to the medieval Persian world is not strong enough to warrant that and it'd mostly be for graphics.

 

[Masoud22volk]

Tibet looks great