Caucasian and Anatolian Culture Groups

[pengoyo]

I think the Anatolian and Caucasian Cultures should be split off from the Persian Culture groups into their own culture groups (I have thought this for a while, but am suggesting it now as there seems to be plans to make multicultural kingdoms more interesting). Currently in the Persian culture group there are 4 language families, (Northeast Caucasian, Northwest Caucasian, Kartevalian, and Indo-European), Note, Northwest Caucasian isn't really represented which I'll discuss below. The Indo-European languages in the Persian culture group are from 3 major branches (Anatolian, Armenian, and Iranian). While this isn't the only culture group to include very distinct languages, Tocharian in the Scythian culture Group & Etruscan in the Italic Culture group, these are either because they would otherwise be in a group alone (Tocharian) or, I'm guessing, unclear classification with a shared Religion (Etruscan, Ligurian, and Rhaetian; IMHO these should also be split off from Italic, but I don't know as much about that so I'm not going to discuss that). The Persian culture groups distinct languages/cultures don't fit either of these.

The Persian culture group is currently the largest and arguably most diverse which is an odd combination as I:R seems to favour more closely related languages/cultures in the larger groups (I'm pretty sure this is to help split up extremely large groups, like how the Celts, a single branch of Indo-European, is split into 3 culture groups). My only guess as to why the Caucasian and Anatolian languages are in the Persian culture group is due to the idea that these cultures have been culturally influenced by their time under the Persian Empire. If this is the case, I don't think this is a good reason as the Scythians and Bactrians are more closely related to the Persians (all are Iranian) and the Scythians and Bactrians are each in their own culture group; also there are better ways to model the influence of Persian on this region in game which I'll get to below. But first I want to cover how exactly I'd divide the Persian culture group up.

The cultures currently in the Persian culture group fall into these linguistic groups:
Northeast Caucasian: Albanian
Kartevalian: Colchian & Ibero
Armenian: Armenian
Anatolian: Cappadocian, Carian, Cilician, Isaurian, Lycaonian, Lycian, Mysian, Pamphylian, Paphlagonian, Phrygian, & Pontic
Iranian: Agartian, Amardian, Cadusian, Carmanian, Cossian, Elamite, Gedrosian, Hyrcanian, Median, Pactyan, Parecanian, Parthian, Pasargadi, Sarangian, Sattagydian, Utian, & Uxian

Now while language is a huge part of culture, it is not the only thing that makes up culture. Additionally, I:R seems to prefer cultures not be alone in their culture group (only Aestian is alone its culture group, but most of its culture group is currently off map). So I thinks there is some freedom to fold some of the more minor linguistic groups into larger ones.

Armenian can be folded into the Anatolian group. This is partially because Armenian and the Anatolian languages are both Indo-European, and partially because there is some evidence of early influence of Anatolian languages on Armenian, meaning they have probably been in cultural contact for a long time.

Northeast Caucasian can be folded into Caucasian group with Kartevalian. Though Northeast Caucasian and Kartevalian (sometimes called South Caucasian) are part of different languages families, they have been in contact for a long time allowing for a lot of both cultural and linguistic exchanges (in game they have a shared religion). These 2 plus the 3rd endemic Caucasian languages families are often grouped into Caucasian for this reason. Now I mentioned the 3rd endemic language families, but so far we have really only talked about only 2. The 3rd language family, Northwest Caucasian, has no representative in IR despite the fact that it is thought to be around during this period. Now there isn't any solid evidence, but the Heniochi in the northwest Caucus on the shores of the black sea are possibly the ancestors of the modern Abkhaz people, a Northwest Caucasian people (in game there is Heniochia, but its culture is Colchian). I think adding the Heniochian as a culture within the Caucasian culture group would be nice nod to this and would add one more culture to the Caucasian culture group (the Caucasian culture group wouldn't be the smallest culture group in IR, but it is below average). I'd recommend all the major families of Heniochia and all the Colchian pops in the province of Abasgoi (which contains Heniochia) be changed into Heniochian.

My recommended culture groups:
Caucasian: Albanian, Colchian, Heniochian, & Ibero
Anatolian: Armenian, Cappadocian, Carian, Cilician, Isaurian, Lycaonian, Lycian, Mysian, Pamphylian, Paphlagonian, Phrygian, & Pontic
Persian: Agartian, Amardian, Cadusian, Carmanian, Cossian, Elamite, Gedrosian, Hyrcanian, Median, Pactyan, Parecanian, Parthian, Pasargadi, Sarangian, Sattagydian, Utian, & Uxian

This would leave the Persian culture group with cultures that are more closely related to each other than to any outside the group. It would also still be an above average sized group. As for how we would show the influence of Persian on Caucasian and Anatolian, it would be multi-pronged. First these two new culture groups would still use the Persian military ideas (this would keep them as possible satraps, which is even more useful for a re-emergent Persian empire as it would save them from dealing with any unhappiness due to cultural difference). Second there is already the Zoroastrian religion scattered throughout the region. But a proper Persian culture should lightly sprinkled in too. This should be mainly aimed at the capitals of the kingdoms in the Caucus and Northern Anatolian. This is to represent the Persian that were not kicked out as these kingdoms were largely ruled by the same people as when they were Satraps of the Persian empire due to the fact they simply just declared their independence and were not conquered by Alexander. Additionally these kingdoms should have one of the major families be Persian. It's been less than 30 years since these kingdoms became independent so they are likely to have major families that are Persian who have not yet assimilated into the local culture (Armenia might even be ruled by such a family). It would also make these kingdoms a little more interesting and unique as they would have to deal with a multicultural power base (similar to but not the same as Egypt).

I think this could nicely compliment the dev's work on cultures, especially multicultural states, they have mention coming up in the future. If this is too late of a suggestion for that, it could work nicely along side an update that added events to simulate all the title claimant in other kingdoms courts in Anatolia during this period as well as the rise of the Mithridatic Pontic Kingdom.

 

[pengoyo]

Sorry for the delay, but finally got some time to show how the changes would look of the I:R map. Persian culture group keeps its original cyan colour; the Anatolian group is the dark green, based on the Cybelene religion; and the Caucasian group is purple, based on Armazic religion (Aramaic is the Reddish brown, Hellenic is the blue, and Scythian is the light green). The territories surrounded in red (near the top on the black sea coast) are the territories for the new Heniochian culture (so the Colchian pops in these would be converted to Heniochian).

Edit: All Persian cultures outside this area would stay in the Persian culture group.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Excellent ideas, we fully agree that the Persian culture group is too large and these new groups are necessary.

Here are a few questions we have:
- The Lydian culture is currently in the Hellenistic group, like several other Hellenised cultures (Thracian, Bithynian, Graeco-Illyrian). without an anatolian group this is definitely more accurate than sorting them into the Persian group, but if an Anatolian group is made, should they be included into it as well or should they stay Hellenistic? Especially considering that the Pamphylians are currently in the Persian group and would become Anatolian in your suggestion.
- what about the Tibareni? Neither the current version nor your proposal mentions them, but we think they should be added. How would you classify them?

 

[pengoyo]

To be honest the Lydian culture is what first got me thinking about this back when I:R came out, but I had since forgotten about them. So thank you for reminding me. One problem with the Lydians is I don't think you can just move them as is into the new Anatolian language. This is because in I:R we are playing during the death of most of the Anatolian languages (the linguistic group, so not including Armenian). About 100 hundred years into the game, Lydian is thought to have gone extinct. And the coastal area is where this happened first. So I do think those people would be mostly Hellenic during this time (either through moving in of Greeks or cultural conversion). What could be done is rename the current in game culture to Aoelian. Then take all the Phrygian pops in the province of Lydia (plus some of the Phrygian pops in the neighboring provinces to help represent the previous dominant position of the Lydia) and convert them in to a new Lydian culture that would be part of the new Anatolian culture group. This would achieve a couple things: put the Lydian culture in the right group without de-Hellenizing the coast and have the Lydian culture be centred on their historic capital Sardis.

Also this would remove Phrygian from Lydia which would also be good as I forgot to mention Phrygian isn't actually an Anatolian language and might not be closely related. Instead it might be its own branch or closer to Armenian or Greek (besides being Indo-European the language is not well classified). Note, I'd still including it in Anatolian Culture group due to it's long history with the Anatolian languages (it's surrounded by them). Plus if it's related to Armenian that's fine as Armenian is already being folded into the Anatolian culture group (even if it's more related to Greek, it isn't closely related and its previously seem to have had more contact with Anatolian culture than Greek).

As for Pamphylians (and the Cilicians), they should probably lose some more of their coast to the Ionian culture.

I welcome more cultures in and around the Caucuses as for an area with 3 native language families, the Caucuses in I:R aren't very diverse. That said, I don't know much about the Tibareni, but it seems like they are Scythian (at least were thought to be at the time). There are some who claim connection to the Hittites (which were Anatolian), but this seems to be based on a name similarity to a Neo-Hittite kingdom that isn't even in the same area, which seems flimsy to me. And then they are in the same region as other Caucasian languages and were part of the same district as Colchian tribes during the last Persian empire. So an argument could be made for putting them in the Scythian, Anatolian, or Caucasian. Personally, I'd be happy with Scythian or Caucasian. Putting them in Scythian would help highlight the diversity of this area and give them some more uniqueness, but it might not fit well with how the Scythians are a mostly nomadic people and this tribe is probably much more settled and so has probably adopted a lot of the local culture even if they are Scythian in origin. So, I'd lean a little more towards putting them in the Caucasian Family as that is currently a small culture group, so another culture would help it. This could be because they might be Kavelian or it could also reflect the more broad meaning Caucasian languages that isn't just the 3 endemic languages, but also the parts of other language families that have moved there and started linguistic as well as cultural exchanges with the local languages/people.

As for other Hellenized cultures you mentioned it's harder to say as most of my suggestions have been aimed at easier to implement, and IMHO, more necessary changes. Some level of Hellenizing can be represented by the Hellenic religion, but I think the situation is more complicated than that. The Thracian language would exist into the Byzantine empire, so it definitely is around during I:R and Thracian is closely related to Dacian. But Greek had been spreading through Thrace and Bithynia even before Alexander. So if you wanted to make things more accurate you could put Thracian and Bithynian in the Dacian culture group and make a Graeco-Thracian culture to represent the more Hellenized people (spit balling a bit, but convert all the Thracian and Bithynians characters plus the Thracian and Bithynian pops in the cities and along the coast to the new Graeco-Thracian culture). Note, that this wouldn't leave much left for the Bithynian culture and it was probably the more Hellenized of the two, so, alternatively, it might be better for Bithynian to be left as it currently is (as a Hellenistic culture with it's current characters and pops).

The Illyrians are interesting as they might be a group of unrelated peoples, related to the Thracians, or the ancestors of modern day Albanians (which are their own branch of Indo-European). I'd lean towards making them their own group (either as a nod to Albanian or as their own unique branch of Indo-European). For this Illyrian culture group, where the Graeco-Illyrian culture currently is, you could have new Illyrian cultures (Delmatian in the costal Provinces and Deurian in the inland provinces). In addition to the new Delmatian and Deurian cultures, I would add the existing Taulatians, Dardanians, and the Liburnians. Though the Liburnians aren't Illyrian and are currently in the Italic group they also aren't known to be Itallic (unlike the close by Venetic). And since there is a degree of ambiguity I'd lump them in with the smaller culture group. As for Graeco-Illyrian, this could be used to represent the Hellenization of the area (most of the coast especially the southern portion and ports). Additionally the Illyrian culture group could use the Greek military traditions.

Now you didn't ask for it, but since we are branching out, I'd be for the Etruscans, Ligurians, and Rhaetians along with the Corsicans and Nuragics being put in a new culture group, Etruscan (for lack of a better name). I'd put these two sets of cultures together partially because they might be related, partially because the Etruscans conquered Corsica, but mostly because they are distinct from their other neighbours and I feel are too small to be their own culture groups in I:R. This would free the Pre-Indo-European group to be renamed Aquitanian. As a linguist, I appreciate the use of pre-Indo-European, but I don't think it makes much sense as a culture group as the only thing that unites them is not being Indo-European (The Basque language along with the Caucasian and Dravidian languages can all be considered pre-Indo-European despite the fact they are unrelated and geographically isolated from each other). Note, the Etruscan group could use the Italic military traditions to represent that they did have a lot of close ties with the Italic cultures.

But that's probably as far as I would go with breaking up the I:R culture groups. I definitely would not go as far as to break Tocharian away from Scythian, as this would leave it all alone.

Hope that helps.

edit: Clarify some things about Phrygian

 

[Jiben]

I know you said they could keep persian traditions but i think that can be broken up aswell.

A Anatolian military traditions group could have a Armenian path, a Pontic path and then the 3rd slot could be alot honestly everything from a inland hill/mountain anatolian group, a greek focused coastal group or if you wanna include the caucasus make a ibero/colchis group.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

To be honest the Lydian culture is what first got me thinking about this back when I:R came out, but I had since forgotten about them. So thank you for reminding me. One problem with the Lydians is I don't think you can just move them as is into the new Anatolian language. This is because in I:R we are playing during the death of most of the Anatolian languages (the linguistic group, so not including Armenian). About 100 hundred years into the game, Lydian is thought to have gone extinct. And the coastal area is where this happened first. So I do think those people would be mostly Hellenic during this time (either through moving in of Greeks or cultural conversion). What could be done is rename the current in game culture to Aoelian. Then take all the Phrygian pops in the province of Lydia (plus some of the Phrygian pops in the neighboring provinces to help represent the previous dominant position of the Lydia) and convert them in to a new Lydian culture that would be part of the new Anatolian culture group. This would achieve a couple things: put the Lydian culture in the right group without de-Hellenizing the coast and have the Lydian culture be centred on their historic capital Sardis.

Also this would remove Phrygian from Lydia which would also be good as I forgot to mention Phrygian isn't actually an Anatolian language and might not be closely related. Instead it might be its own branch or closer to Armenian or Greek (besides being Indo-European the language is not well classified). Note, I'd still including it in Anatolian Culture group due to it's long history with the Anatolian languages (it's surrounded by them). Plus if it's related to Armenian that's fine as Armenian is already being folded into the Anatolian culture group (even if it's more related to Greek, it isn't closely related and its previously seem to have had more contact with Anatolian culture than Greek).

As for Pamphylians (and the Cilicians), they should probably lose some more of their coast to the Ionian culture.

A good idea, but should the greek pops in Pamphylia all be Ionians, why not af a mix of several hellenic cultures?

I welcome more cultures in and around the Caucuses as for an area with 3 native language families, the Caucuses in I:R aren't very diverse. That said, I don't know much about the Tibareni, but it seems like they are Scythian (at least were thought to be at the time). There are some who claim connection to the Hittites (which were Anatolian), but this seems to be based on a name similarity to a Neo-Hittite kingdom that isn't even in the same area, which seems flimsy to me. And then they are in the same region as other Caucasian languages and were part of the same district as Colchian tribes during the last Persian empire. So an argument could be made for putting them in the Scythian, Anatolian, or Caucasian. Personally, I'd be happy with Scythian or Caucasian. Putting them in Scythian would help highlight the diversity of this area and give them some more uniqueness, but it might not fit well with how the Scythians are a mostly nomadic people and this tribe is probably much more settled and so has probably adopted a lot of the local culture even if they are Scythian in origin. So, I'd lean a little more towards putting them in the Caucasian Family as that is currently a small culture group, so another culture would help it. This could be because they might be Kavelian or it could also reflect the more broad meaning Caucasian languages that isn't just the 3 endemic languages, but also the parts of other language families that have moved there and started linguistic as well as cultural exchanges with the local languages/people.

It is a problem that cultures belong to one culture group only. In relaity, many cultures were somewhat in-between two groups, being equally related to both of them. The Thracians between Greeks and Dacians, Etruscans between Italics and Pre-Indo-Europeans, etc. The game shoehorns such mixed or transitional cultures into just one group, effectively cutting off one half of them. Hopefully that the 1.5 patch will improve this.

As for other Hellenized cultures you mentioned it's harder to say as most of my suggestions have been aimed at easier to implement, and IMHO, more necessary changes. Some level of Hellenizing can be represented by the Hellenic religion, but I think the situation is more complicated than that. The Thracian language would exist into the Byzantine empire, so it definitely is around during I:R and Thracian is closely related to Dacian. But Greek had been spreading through Thrace and Bithynia even before Alexander. So if you wanted to make things more accurate you could put Thracian and Bithynian in the Dacian culture group and make a Graeco-Thracian culture to represent the more Hellenized people (spit balling a bit, but convert all the Thracian and Bithynians characters plus the Thracian and Bithynian pops in the cities and along the coast to the new Graeco-Thracian culture). Note, that this wouldn't leave much left for the Bithynian culture and it was probably the more Hellenized of the two, so, alternatively, it might be better for Bithynian to be left as it currently is (as a Hellenistic culture with it's current characters and pops).

Your idea is very interesting. Could you perhaps repost this part in our thread on Greek minors in Asia and the Aegean? We also have made some suggestions for new hellenic cultures there, it would be good to have your opinion on them.

The Illyrians are interesting as they might be a group of unrelated peoples, related to the Thracians, or the ancestors of modern day Albanians (which are their own branch of Indo-European). I'd lean towards making them their own group (either as a nod to Albanian or as their own unique branch of Indo-European). For this Illyrian culture group, where the Graeco-Illyrian culture currently is, you could have new Illyrian cultures (Delmatian in the costal Provinces and Deurian in the inland provinces). In addition to the new Delmatian and Deurian cultures, I would add the existing Taulatians, Dardanians, and the Liburnians. Though the Liburnians aren't Illyrian and are currently in the Italic group they also aren't known to be Itallic (unlike the close by Venetic). And since there is a degree of ambiguity I'd lump them in with the smaller culture group. As for Graeco-Illyrian, this could be used to represent the Hellenization of the area (most of the coast especially the southern portion and ports). Additionally the Illyrian culture group could use the Greek military traditions.

Now you didn't ask for it, but since we are branching out, I'd be for the Etruscans, Ligurians, and Rhaetians along with the Corsicans and Nuragics being put in a new culture group, Etruscan (for lack of a better name). I'd put these two sets of cultures together partially because they might be related, partially because the Etruscans conquered Corsica, but mostly because they are distinct from their other neighbours and I feel are too small to be their own culture groups in I:R. This would free the Pre-Indo-European group to be renamed Aquitanian. As a linguist, I appreciate the use of pre-Indo-European, but I don't think it makes much sense as a culture group as the only thing that unites them is not being Indo-European (The Basque language along with the Caucasian and Dravidian languages can all be considered pre-Indo-European despite the fact they are unrelated and geographically isolated from each other). Note, the Etruscan group could use the Italic military traditions to represent that they did have a lot of close ties with the Italic cultures.

But that's probably as far as I would go with breaking up the I:R culture groups. I definitely would not go as far as to break Tocharian away from Scythian, as this would leave it all alone.

This is an excellent idea! You should probably make another thread with a suggestiuon for the new culture groups in Italy and Illyria, with a map similar to th one you've made for Anatolia.

A Anatolian military traditions group could have a Armenian path, a Pontic path and then the 3rd slot could be alot honestly everything from a inland hill/mountain anatolian group, a greek focused coastal group or if you wanna include the caucasus make a ibero/colchis group.

An inland hills path would be better. The hellenised coastal countries should just use Greek military traditions.

 

[Rubidium]

I'm not sure we should take the language=culture approach anyway (especially pre-19th century, which is when a lot of language-based nationalism really took off; it's ironically much more appropriate for Victoria than Imperator, despite the latter being set millenia later). There's a reason most Paradox games are actively moving away from it.

Etruscan is actually an excellent example; it's not remotely related to Latin, and yet putting Romans and Etruscans in different cultural groups would make no sense in light of the long, shared cultural interactions between the two (to the extent that Rome was supposedly Etruscan-ruled less than two centuries before the game starts, and one of the starting major families claimed to be the descendants of Etruscan immigrants).

Likewise, Persian and Aryan are extremely closely related linguistically, but culturally quite different, and are appropriately placed in different cultural groups. It's worth remembering that most of the Middle East had been under one ruler (either Persian or Macedonian) for a couple of centuries before the game starts, and that definitely had an impact on how they perceived themselves.

 

[pengoyo]

I know you said they could keep persian traditions but i think that can be broken up aswell.

A Anatolian military traditions group could have a Armenian path, a Pontic path and then the 3rd slot could be alot honestly everything from a inland hill/mountain anatolian group, a greek focused coastal group or if you wanna include the caucasus make a ibero/colchis group.

I honestly don't know much about their military traditions, so if it makes sense I would be fine with them getting their own military traditions. Just need to make sure they still keep access to the Satrapy mechanic.

A good idea, but should the greek pops in Pamphylia all be Ionians, why not af a mix of several hellenic cultures?

It's mainly because of this map (I'll admit I don't know how reliable it is) and following how I:R does it, but I would also be fine with a mixture.

It is a problem that cultures belong to one culture group only. In relaity, many cultures were somewhat in-between two groups, being equally related to both of them. The Thracians between Greeks and Dacians, Etruscans between Italics and Pre-Indo-Europeans, etc. The game shoehorns such mixed or transitional cultures into just one group, effectively cutting off one half of them. Hopefully that the 1.5 patch will improve this.

Definitely, if I:R got overlapping culture groups or some other similar mechanic I completely agree. But as it is right now, we have to somewhat arbitrarily put them in groups.

Your idea is very interesting. Could you perhaps repost this part in our thread on Greek minors in Asia and the Aegean? We also have made some suggestions for new hellenic cultures there, it would be good to have your opinion on them.

Thanks, I will give it a lot and post to it later today.

This is an excellent idea! You should probably make another thread with a suggestiuon for the new culture groups in Italy and Illyria, with a map similar to th one you've made for Anatolia.

Thanks, might do. Though especially the new Italian culture group I don't think is as necessary/debatable.

I'm not sure we should take the language=culture approach anyway (especially pre-19th century, which is when a lot of language-based nationalism really took off; it's ironically much more appropriate for Victoria than Imperator, despite the latter being set millenia later). There's a reason most Paradox games are actively moving away from it.

I agree that it is not a one to one. That's why I put the Caucasian languages together despite being from three separate language families. But language does give a lot of indication of who spread from who and also who was in contact with who (through loan words). Also a big part of culture, religion, is already represented in game separately, that leaves language with a larger slice of the culture pie. And if you are from the same branch of a language family it makes it easier to communicate and thus have cultural transmissions. But one of the big benefits of language is that we have an ability to treat it more systematically, verse other aspects of culture which are generally more nebulous.

I'll also add that language does drive a lot of cultural conversion. If a people are conquered and are linguistically close (and there aren't other factors like religious difference creating problem) you are more likely to see a come culture emerge than if they are linguistically distinct. A good example of this is Arabic which with the help Islam spread across the Muslim world. But if you look at where it most readily spread, it was to other Afro-Semitic speaking people (Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa) and it didn't spread as well into Persia despite that being one of the earlier places they conquered. Part of the reason for this is that Arabic and Persian are in completely different language families.

Etruscan is actually an excellent example; it's not remotely related to Latin, and yet putting Romans and Etruscans in different cultural groups would make no sense in light of the long, shared cultural interactions between the two (to the extent that Rome was supposedly Etruscan-ruled less than two centuries before the game starts, and one of the starting major families claimed to be the descendants of Etruscan immigrants).

I do think that the Etruscan is the most tenuous of my suggestions. That marks the most divided I would do the culture groups. But I don't think the Etruscan need to be in there own group, I mainly like it as it helps high light that they are a bit unique from the Italic cultures. I will say that claiming descent isn't a good indicator of being a part of the same culture. The Romans claimed descent from the Trojans and I would not say they are a part of the same culture. The ancient world had interesting views of other cultures often having admiration and disdain for a given culture simultaneously (this is mainly a problem of the I:R culture groups being a poor representation of culture). The conquering is a valid point, and I use it myself sometimes. But in Romans case I find it interesting that they revolted. Obviously there are many reasons for this revolt, but part of it, I'd argue, is rooted in the idea that these were foreign Tyrannical kings. So I see how the rule ending as a reason for putting them in different culture group. That all said, I would be fine with Etruscan staying in the Italic culture group.

Likewise, Persian and Aryan are extremely closely related linguistically, but culturally quite different, and are appropriately placed in different cultural groups.

I agree. Linguistics gives a great starting point, but you still do need to take some other factors into mind (though how you balance them will lead to more subjective results, but that is unavoidable when dealing with something as nebulous as culture).

It's worth remembering that most of the Middle East had been under one ruler (either Persian or Macedonian) for a couple of centuries before the game starts, and that definitely had an impact on how they perceived themselves.

While I'll use conquering as an argument for cultures to be put together, I think its one of the more tenuous reasons. Cultures can remain under an foreign power for centuries and still be culturally distinct. And even when they do grow closer together its not always the conquered who change but sometimes the conquers are absorbed by the conquered culture.

The way the Persian in particular ruled was to allow for a lot of local autonomy which meant that there wasn't as much integration as you'd see in the Roman empire, and the Roman empire didn't even homogenize over its long existence (the entire of Idea of the Persian model of rule is that the people of them empire were culturally diverse and ruling them centrally would create problems). Add to this the mountainous terrain which help keep cultures distinct and finally that the Persian ruled over a similarly "civilized" culture (used for lack of a better term). There is a correlation between technological difference between cultures and the rate at which one culture will adopt the forms of another (this is part of the reason Latin spread much more readily in the west than the east). The Babylonians where ruled by the Persian for pretty much as long as the Anatolians and are much closer geographically yet in I:R they are their own culture group (essentially using the level that I:R has set, the Anatolian and Caucasian cultures should be their own culture groups). They could remain distinct due to both the Persian method of rule and that they were just as "civilized" as the Persians. And since the same applies to the Anatolians, I'd argue that if the Babylonians are not in the Persian culture group, the Anatolians should not be in the Persian culture group. Add to this that for example the Armenians didn't seem to show any sign of kinship with the Persians when a new Persian empire rose. So while they have definitely been influenced by the Persians, I don't think it was enough for them to view themselves as similar to the Persians.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Slightly off-topic, but what do you think about a formable Anatolia?
It could be a decision available for all countries with an Anatolian group culture (perhaps except Armenia) that controll enough of the area and give claims on all of Anatolia.

 

[Pharnavaziani]

I think the Anatolian and Caucasian Cultures should be split off from the Persian Culture groups into their own culture groups (I have thought this for a while, but am suggesting it now as there seems to be plans to make multicultural kingdoms more interesting). Currently in the Persian culture group there are 4 language families, (Northeast Caucasian, Northwest Caucasian, Kartevalian, and Indo-European), Note, Northwest Caucasian isn't really represented which I'll discuss below. The Indo-European languages in the Persian culture group are from 3 major branches (Anatolian, Armenian, and Iranian). While this isn't the only culture group to include very distinct languages, Tocharian in the Scythian culture Group & Etruscan in the Italic Culture group, these are either because they would otherwise be in a group alone (Tocharian) or, I'm guessing, unclear classification with a shared Religion (Etruscan, Ligurian, and Rhaetian; IMHO these should also be split off from Italic, but I don't know as much about that so I'm not going to discuss that). The Persian culture groups distinct languages/cultures don't fit either of these.

The Persian culture group is currently the largest and arguably most diverse which is an odd combination as I:R seems to favour more closely related languages/cultures in the larger groups (I'm pretty sure this is to help split up extremely large groups, like how the Celts, a single branch of Indo-European, is split into 3 culture groups). My only guess as to why the Caucasian and Anatolian languages are in the Persian culture group is due to the idea that these cultures have been culturally influenced by their time under the Persian Empire. If this is the case, I don't think this is a good reason as the Scythians and Bactrians are more closely related to the Persians (all are Iranian) and the Scythians and Bactrians are each in their own culture group; also there are better ways to model the influence of Persian on this region in game which I'll get to below. But first I want to cover how exactly I'd divide the Persian culture group up.

The cultures currently in the Persian culture group fall into these linguistic groups:
Northeast Caucasian: Albanian
Kartevalian: Colchian & Ibero
Armenian: Armenian
Anatolian: Cappadocian, Carian, Cilician, Isaurian, Lycaonian, Lycian, Mysian, Pamphylian, Paphlagonian, Phrygian, & Pontic
Iranian: Agartian, Amardian, Cadusian, Carmanian, Cossian, Elamite, Gedrosian, Hyrcanian, Median, Pactyan, Parecanian, Parthian, Pasargadi, Sarangian, Sattagydian, Utian, & Uxian

Now while language is a huge part of culture, it is not the only thing that makes up culture. Additionally, I:R seems to prefer cultures not be alone in their culture group (only Aestian is alone its culture group, but most of its culture group is currently off map). So I thinks there is some freedom to fold some of the more minor linguistic groups into larger ones.

Armenian can be folded into the Anatolian group. This is partially because Armenian and the Anatolian languages are both Indo-European, and partially because there is some evidence of early influence of Anatolian languages on Armenian, meaning they have probably been in cultural contact for a long time.

Northeast Caucasian can be folded into Caucasian group with Kartevalian. Though Northeast Caucasian and Kartevalian (sometimes called South Caucasian) are part of different languages families, they have been in contact for a long time allowing for a lot of both cultural and linguistic exchanges (in game they have a shared religion). These 2 plus the 3rd endemic Caucasian languages families are often grouped into Caucasian for this reason. Now I mentioned the 3rd endemic language families, but so far we have really only talked about only 2. The 3rd language family, Northwest Caucasian, has no representative in IR despite the fact that it is thought to be around during this period. Now there isn't any solid evidence, but the Heniochi in the northwest Caucus on the shores of the black sea are possibly the ancestors of the modern Abkhaz people, a Northwest Caucasian people (in game there is Heniochia, but its culture is Colchian). I think adding the Heniochian as a culture within the Caucasian culture group would be nice nod to this and would add one more culture to the Caucasian culture group (the Caucasian culture group wouldn't be the smallest culture group in IR, but it is below average). I'd recommend all the major families of Heniochia and all the Colchian pops in the province of Abasgoi (which contains Heniochia) be changed into Heniochian.

My recommended culture groups:
Caucasian: Albanian, Colchian, Heniochian, & Ibero
Anatolian: Armenian, Cappadocian, Carian, Cilician, Isaurian, Lycaonian, Lycian, Mysian, Pamphylian, Paphlagonian, Phrygian, & Pontic
Persian: Agartian, Amardian, Cadusian, Carmanian, Cossian, Elamite, Gedrosian, Hyrcanian, Median, Pactyan, Parecanian, Parthian, Pasargadi, Sarangian, Sattagydian, Utian, & Uxian

This would leave the Persian culture group with cultures that are more closely related to each other than to any outside the group. It would also still be an above average sized group. As for how we would show the influence of Persian on Caucasian and Anatolian, it would be multi-pronged. First these two new culture groups would still use the Persian military ideas (this would keep them as possible satraps, which is even more useful for a re-emergent Persian empire as it would save them from dealing with any unhappiness due to cultural difference). Second there is already the Zoroastrian religion scattered throughout the region. But a proper Persian culture should lightly sprinkled in too. This should be mainly aimed at the capitals of the kingdoms in the Caucus and Northern Anatolian. This is to represent the Persian that were not kicked out as these kingdoms were largely ruled by the same people as when they were Satraps of the Persian empire due to the fact they simply just declared their independence and were not conquered by Alexander. Additionally these kingdoms should have one of the major families be Persian. It's been less than 30 years since these kingdoms became independent so they are likely to have major families that are Persian who have not yet assimilated into the local culture (Armenia might even be ruled by such a family). It would also make these kingdoms a little more interesting and unique as they would have to deal with a multicultural power base (similar to but not the same as Egypt).

I think this could nicely compliment the dev's work on cultures, especially multicultural states, they have mention coming up in the future. If this is too late of a suggestion for that, it could work nicely along side an update that added events to simulate all the title claimant in other kingdoms courts in Anatolia during this period as well as the rise of the Mithridatic Pontic Kingdom.

You are correct, But Heniochians or modern Abkhazians and dead ethnic group of Ubykhs (Zykhia in Roman, Jikian in Georgian, Jiketi as region) were Colchians if we connect them. It is like Swiss Italians still being Swiss or Welsh being British or Basque and Catalans being Spanish, They were part of Colchian culture and Kingdom since the very beginning so I would not seperate their culture group from Colchian even thought they have different language group culturally even modern Abkhazians are Georgian/Megrelian by every traditions folklore and culture. As Northwest Caucasian culture we can seperate Circassians in north caucasus ( though they were in Scythian or Alan borders in that time and long time afterwards till about 16th century) even when north caucasus was influenced or was vassal of Georgia in 12th-13th and end of 14th centuries they were in one borders with Alans)

 

[Pharnavaziani]

To be honest the Lydian culture is what first got me thinking about this back when I:R came out, but I had since forgotten about them. So thank you for reminding me. One problem with the Lydians is I don't think you can just move them as is into the new Anatolian language. This is because in I:R we are playing during the death of most of the Anatolian languages (the linguistic group, so not including Armenian). About 100 hundred years into the game, Lydian is thought to have gone extinct. And the coastal area is where this happened first. So I do think those people would be mostly Hellenic during this time (either through moving in of Greeks or cultural conversion). What could be done is rename the current in game culture to Aoelian. Then take all the Phrygian pops in the province of Lydia (plus some of the Phrygian pops in the neighboring provinces to help represent the previous dominant position of the Lydia) and convert them in to a new Lydian culture that would be part of the new Anatolian culture group. This would achieve a couple things: put the Lydian culture in the right group without de-Hellenizing the coast and have the Lydian culture be centred on their historic capital Sardis.

Also this would remove Phrygian from Lydia which would also be good as I forgot to mention Phrygian isn't actually an Anatolian language and might not be closely related. Instead it might be its own branch or closer to Armenian or Greek (besides being Indo-European the language is not well classified). Note, I'd still including it in Anatolian Culture group due to it's long history with the Anatolian languages (it's surrounded by them). Plus if it's related to Armenian that's fine as Armenian is already being folded into the Anatolian culture group (even if it's more related to Greek, it isn't closely related and its previously seem to have had more contact with Anatolian culture than Greek).

As for Pamphylians (and the Cilicians), they should probably lose some more of their coast to the Ionian culture.

I welcome more cultures in and around the Caucuses as for an area with 3 native language families, the Caucuses in I:R aren't very diverse. That said, I don't know much about the Tibareni, but it seems like they are Scythian (at least were thought to be at the time). There are some who claim connection to the Hittites (which were Anatolian), but this seems to be based on a name similarity to a Neo-Hittite kingdom that isn't even in the same area, which seems flimsy to me. And then they are in the same region as other Caucasian languages and were part of the same district as Colchian tribes during the last Persian empire. So an argument could be made for putting them in the Scythian, Anatolian, or Caucasian. Personally, I'd be happy with Scythian or Caucasian. Putting them in Scythian would help highlight the diversity of this area and give them some more uniqueness, but it might not fit well with how the Scythians are a mostly nomadic people and this tribe is probably much more settled and so has probably adopted a lot of the local culture even if they are Scythian in origin. So, I'd lean a little more towards putting them in the Caucasian Family as that is currently a small culture group, so another culture would help it. This could be because they might be Kavelian or it could also reflect the more broad meaning Caucasian languages that isn't just the 3 endemic languages, but also the parts of other language families that have moved there and started linguistic as well as cultural exchanges with the local languages/people.

As for other Hellenized cultures you mentioned it's harder to say as most of my suggestions have been aimed at easier to implement, and IMHO, more necessary changes. Some level of Hellenizing can be represented by the Hellenic religion, but I think the situation is more complicated than that. The Thracian language would exist into the Byzantine empire, so it definitely is around during I:R and Thracian is closely related to Dacian. But Greek had been spreading through Thrace and Bithynia even before Alexander. So if you wanted to make things more accurate you could put Thracian and Bithynian in the Dacian culture group and make a Graeco-Thracian culture to represent the more Hellenized people (spit balling a bit, but convert all the Thracian and Bithynians characters plus the Thracian and Bithynian pops in the cities and along the coast to the new Graeco-Thracian culture). Note, that this wouldn't leave much left for the Bithynian culture and it was probably the more Hellenized of the two, so, alternatively, it might be better for Bithynian to be left as it currently is (as a Hellenistic culture with it's current characters and pops).

The Illyrians are interesting as they might be a group of unrelated peoples, related to the Thracians, or the ancestors of modern day Albanians (which are their own branch of Indo-European). I'd lean towards making them their own group (either as a nod to Albanian or as their own unique branch of Indo-European). For this Illyrian culture group, where the Graeco-Illyrian culture currently is, you could have new Illyrian cultures (Delmatian in the costal Provinces and Deurian in the inland provinces). In addition to the new Delmatian and Deurian cultures, I would add the existing Taulatians, Dardanians, and the Liburnians. Though the Liburnians aren't Illyrian and are currently in the Italic group they also aren't known to be Itallic (unlike the close by Venetic). And since there is a degree of ambiguity I'd lump them in with the smaller culture group. As for Graeco-Illyrian, this could be used to represent the Hellenization of the area (most of the coast especially the southern portion and ports). Additionally the Illyrian culture group could use the Greek military traditions.

Now you didn't ask for it, but since we are branching out, I'd be for the Etruscans, Ligurians, and Rhaetians along with the Corsicans and Nuragics being put in a new culture group, Etruscan (for lack of a better name). I'd put these two sets of cultures together partially because they might be related, partially because the Etruscans conquered Corsica, but mostly because they are distinct from their other neighbours and I feel are too small to be their own culture groups in I:R. This would free the Pre-Indo-European group to be renamed Aquitanian. As a linguist, I appreciate the use of pre-Indo-European, but I don't think it makes much sense as a culture group as the only thing that unites them is not being Indo-European (The Basque language along with the Caucasian and Dravidian languages can all be considered pre-Indo-European despite the fact they are unrelated and geographically isolated from each other). Note, the Etruscan group could use the Italic military traditions to represent that they did have a lot of close ties with the Italic cultures.

But that's probably as far as I would go with breaking up the I:R culture groups. I definitely would not go as far as to break Tocharian away from Scythian, as this would leave it all alone.

Hope that helps.

edit: Clarify some things about Phrygian

Tibareni were Iberian Georgian tribe in Colchis and in eastern Anatolia before, nothing in common with Scythians, Scythians were in North Caucasus.

 

[pengoyo]

Tibareni were Iberian Georgian tribe in Colchis and in eastern Anatolia before, nothing in common with Scythians, Scythians were in North Caucasus.

Good to know. Thanks for the information.

I had read that a Greek chronicler had said they were descended from Scythians. But that's why you always need to take those kinds of things with a grain of salt.

Edit: sorry for the very delayed replies. I have been very busy until late.

 

[pengoyo]

Slightly off-topic, but what do you think about a formable Anatolia?
It could be a decision available for all countries with an Anatolian group culture (perhaps except Armenia) that controll enough of the area and give claims on all of Anatolia.

I don't have strong opinions on formables. But I can see an argument for it as it is a region that might have coalesced if history went a different way.

Edit: sorry for the very delayed replies. I have been very busy until late.

 

[pengoyo]

You are correct, But Heniochians or modern Abkhazians and dead ethnic group of Ubykhs (Zykhia in Roman, Jikian in Georgian, Jiketi as region) were Colchians if we connect them. It is like Swiss Italians still being Swiss or Welsh being British or Basque and Catalans being Spanish, They were part of Colchian culture and Kingdom since the very beginning so I would not seperate their culture group from Colchian even thought they have different language group culturally even modern Abkhazians are Georgian/Megrelian by every traditions folklore and culture. As Northwest Caucasian culture we can seperate Circassians in north caucasus ( though they were in Scythian or Alan borders in that time and long time afterwards till about 16th century) even when north caucasus was influenced or was vassal of Georgia in 12th-13th and end of 14th centuries they were in one borders with Alans)

The examples you compare them to (Welsh, Italian Swiss, Catalan, and Basque) I would argue are different cultures from their fellow country men (though they do still share a lot in common). I say this as someone from Canada where we have English and French speaking communities. And even though our two communities have a lot in common (and are probably more similar to each other than with the UK or France), but we are still not the same culture. I can easily spot a piece of media as being from Quebec, even if there is no language associated with it.

Now how different you need to be to be separate cultures in a video game is debatable, but most paradox games with cultures separate all those groups out into their own culture. And I:R seems to take a more narrow view of culture than any other parodox game as Greek and Persian, among others, are divided into many subcultures.

Also I'd hazard to guess that the Heniochians started out as less culturally similar to the Colchians. I'm guessing this as there unique language means they propably had a unique culture at somepoint. Now the Caucasian people have been mixing culturally for a very long time, so it's hard to say how culturally different the Heniochians would still be at the start of I:R. But its important to note, all I'm saying is they could be their own culture; I still think they should be in the same culture group as the Colchians. Also remember that I:R takes a pretty narrow view of culture, as various parts of Greece are separate cultures.

The main reason I pick the Heniochians is that in I:R, at the start of the game, the Heniochians have their own country, so their culture would be playable and can potentially survive for a while. Though I imagine in a lot of games they will be absorbed by the Colchians, which is fine. Just because they start I:R as a separate culture doesn't mean they have to end as a separate culture. But it would add a little more interest to the region (and could potentially help the Heniochians citizens have more appropriate names).

Edit: sorry for the very delayed replies. I have been very busy until late.

 

[Samitte]

It is very difficult to accurately portray the vague idea of "Culture" in most of the world during this timeframe. What does it include? Language, which you already mentioned, certainly is one aspect. Art, customs, social hierarchy, architecture, literature, and more are also each elements of Culture. But where does it end? Is Religion Culture? If no, then what about funerary practice, temple architecture, religious texts, and the likes? These two are hard to separate, and so I'd argue to take them into account when dealing with Culture.

With regards to Anatolia, we have a large region that only recently saw great shifts in its top layers of governance. From Achaemenid Persia, to Alexander the Great, to the Diadochi its only been about 30 years. And so the impact of the Persian period is likely still there, as we can see in especially the eastern realms like Armenia, Kappadocia, and Pontus. This Persian influence, however, was not absolute. Elites across the region adopted Persian culture, though often mixed in with local elements. Prof. Margaret Miller words it well: "“Rapid” acculturation was not sought by the Persians; it was a by-product of social and military functions. And “rapid” does not mean universal nor does it mean consistent. Anatolian cultures continued on their own track, with a new overlay of cultural ideas added to the pre-existing mix." (M. Miller, Town and Country in the Satrapies of Western Anatolia: The Archaeology of Empire ) While the elites did Persianise to some degree, they were Persianised Anatolians, not a Persian subculture. This includes the Anatolian Hellenes in varying degrees as well. So instead of having them all in one big Persian group, I think splitting them is a good idea. Especially since around game start many of them are actively Hellenising, further complicating the matter. At the same time, they were and are doing many things which can be considered Culture which are neither Persian nor Hellenic in origin, or merely have a thin veneer of either on top.

Then why split off the Caucasians? Because unlike most of the region, these groups are probably far more ethnically diverse then others. In gameplay terms, the Iberians just managed to federate their tribes and become a Monarchy, the Colchian are a Monarchy too, except all their Great Families are Heniochian, Iberian, Khaldian or Suanian, and the Albanians only unify halfway into the game. There's also some religion elements in which they differ from the Anatolians (such as the temple-states.)

My recommended culture groups:
Caucasian: Albanian, Colchian, Heniochian, & Ibero
Anatolian: Armenian, Cappadocian, Carian, Cilician, Isaurian, Lycaonian, Lycian, Mysian, Pamphylian, Paphlagonian, Phrygian, & Pontic
Persian: Agartian, Amardian, Cadusian, Carmanian, Cossian, Elamite, Gedrosian, Hyrcanian, Median, Pactyan, Parecanian, Parthian, Pasargadi, Sarangian, Sattagydian, Utian, & Uxian

This list looks good, thouhg I would split Colchian up even more. Along the Rioni, Colchians proper, north of there the Suanians, the Henochians in the north-west along the coast, and the Khaldians (combining the Tzannoi, Khalybes, Tibarenians, and others) along the coast and in the mountains to the south, til about Polemonion.

Spoiler: Rough idea of culture split for these four.

The Colchians proper, mostly inhabiting the lands along the Rioni (the Colchis region in game, plus the far north of Bekhyria and the Suaneti provinces along the river), the Suanians, living in and around the 5323 wasteland, the Heniochians, who lived on the coastal strip you indicated (I'd count 1750 and 1739 as Suanian, and the many tribes to the south till Polemonion, united as Khaldians

This would leave the Persian culture group with cultures that are more closely related to each other than to any outside the group. It would also still be an above average sized group. As for how we would show the influence of Persian on Caucasian and Anatolian, it would be multi-pronged. First these two new culture groups would still use the Persian military ideas (this would keep them as possible satraps, which is even more useful for a re-emergent Persian empire as it would save them from dealing with any unhappiness due to cultural difference). Second there is already the Zoroastrian religion scattered throughout the region. But a proper Persian culture should lightly sprinkled in too. This should be mainly aimed at the capitals of the kingdoms in the Caucus and Northern Anatolian. This is to represent the Persian that were not kicked out as these kingdoms were largely ruled by the same people as when they were Satraps of the Persian empire due to the fact they simply just declared their independence and were not conquered by Alexander. Additionally these kingdoms should have one of the major families be Persian. It's been less than 30 years since these kingdoms became independent so they are likely to have major families that are Persian who have not yet assimilated into the local culture (Armenia might even be ruled by such a family). It would also make these kingdoms a little more interesting and unique as they would have to deal with a multicultural power base (similar to but not the same as Egypt).

I'd keep actual Persian pops to a minimum, and then mainly in the satrapal cities. More Aramaic, Assyrian, and Jewish pops should most certaily be spread about though. Plus, more non-Greek pops should spread into these Greek-only provinces, especially along the eastern Pontic coast. The Orontids/Eruanduni might have come from Bactria, though its a very vague period.

The Lydian culture is currently in the Hellenistic group, like several other Hellenised cultures (Thracian, Bithynian, Graeco-Illyrian). without an anatolian group this is definitely more accurate than sorting them into the Persian group, but if an Anatolian group is made, should they be included into it as well or should they stay Hellenistic? Especially considering that the Pamphylians are currently in the Persian group and would become Anatolian in your suggestion.

To be honest the Lydian culture is what first got me thinking about this back when I:R came out, but I had since forgotten about them. So thank you for reminding me. One problem with the Lydians is I don't think you can just move them as is into the new Anatolian language. This is because in I:R we are playing during the death of most of the Anatolian languages (the linguistic group, so not including Armenian). About 100 hundred years into the game, Lydian is thought to have gone extinct. And the coastal area is where this happened first. So I do think those people would be mostly Hellenic during this time (either through moving in of Greeks or cultural conversion). What could be done is rename the current in game culture to Aoelian. Then take all the Phrygian pops in the province of Lydia (plus some of the Phrygian pops in the neighboring provinces to help represent the previous dominant position of the Lydia) and convert them in to a new Lydian culture that would be part of the new Anatolian culture group. This would achieve a couple things: put the Lydian culture in the right group without de-Hellenizing the coast and have the Lydian culture be centred on their historic capital Sardis.

Also this would remove Phrygian from Lydia which would also be good as I forgot to mention Phrygian isn't actually an Anatolian language and might not be closely related. Instead it might be its own branch or closer to Armenian or Greek (besides being Indo-European the language is not well classified). Note, I'd still including it in Anatolian Culture group due to it's long history with the Anatolian languages (it's surrounded by them). Plus if it's related to Armenian that's fine as Armenian is already being folded into the Anatolian culture group (even if it's more related to Greek, it isn't closely related and its previously seem to have had more contact with Anatolian culture than Greek).

Good solution! Indeed the Lydians should be in the Anatolian group, as they too embraced some elements of Persian elite culture, yet kept doing their own thing in the meantime. Compared to the Armenians and Cappdocians they were more Hellenised, of course, but what defines Anatolian and Caucasian groups at game start is that they were already a very diverse mixture of cultures, and Hellenic and Persian were just another element in that mix.

It is a problem that cultures belong to one culture group only. In relaity, many cultures were somewhat in-between two groups, being equally related to both of them. The Thracians between Greeks and Dacians, Etruscans between Italics and Pre-Indo-Europeans, etc. The game shoehorns such mixed or transitional cultures into just one group, effectively cutting off one half of them. Hopefully that the 1.5 patch will improve this.

I agree with you that this is a problem. I personally would like to see some sort of Cultural Influence system, which would better fit the period.

Slightly off-topic, but what do you think about a formable Anatolia?
It could be a decision available for all countries with an Anatolian group culture (perhaps except Armenia) that controll enough of the area and give claims on all of Anatolia.

I don't think that is very fitting from a historical perspective, but also with modern issues in mind I'd restrict it to only Bithynia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Asia and Phyrgia.

 

[pengoyo]

It is very difficult to accurately portray the vague idea of "Culture" in most of the world during this timeframe. What does it include? Language, which you already mentioned, certainly is one aspect. Art, customs, social hierarchy, architecture, literature, and more are also each elements of Culture. But where does it end? Is Religion Culture? If no, then what about funerary practice, temple architecture, religious texts, and the likes? These two are hard to separate, and so I'd argue to take them into account when dealing with Culture.

I agree with you that this is a problem. I personally would like to see some sort of Cultural Influence system, which would better fit the period.

I agree there are so many aspects to culture. As you point out religion is one aspect that is split off in this game. I've been playing around with the idea split language off from culture too. That way you can have religion, language, and (other parts of) culture as three separate categories that are free to mix. The culture category could become a more broad level category, probably what military traditions are tied to (allowing you see if pops have been Hellenized or not). The language could stay divided pretty similar to how culture already is and could maybe have some effect on communication between countries or even characters. All would effect pop happiness and conversion rates of the others.

This list looks good, thouhg I would split Colchian up even more. Along the Rioni, Colchians proper, north of there the Suanians, the Henochians in the north-west along the coast, and the Khaldians (combining the Tzannoi, Khalybes, Tibarenians, and others) along the coast and in the mountains to the south, til about Polemonion.

More diversity in the Caucasus mountains sounds great to me.

I'd keep actual Persian pops to a minimum, and then mainly in the satrapal cities. More Aramaic, Assyrian, and Jewish pops should most certaily be spread about though. Plus, more non-Greek pops should spread into these Greek-only provinces, especially along the eastern Pontic coast. The Orontids/Eruanduni might have come from Bactria, though its a very vague period.

I very much like this idea. It's not always the top culture that spreads because of an empire.

 

[Don Wing]

PARTHIA
Also Parthia, the future Mayor power, should have a horse archery idea group, the actual called Persian, and not Hellenic.

INDIA
Also india has too few cultural variety, if the game divides the Celts of France, Spain And England in all mayor cultural groups, they should do the same ( ven more ) in the Indian subcontinent of the time.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I very much like this idea. It's not always the top culture that spreads because of an empire.

Unfortunately in Imperator pops assimilate only into the state culture. Hopefully 1.5 will change this.

PARTHIA
Also Parthia, the future Mayor power, should have a horse archery idea group, the actual called Persian, and not Hellenic.

The future Parthia are the Dahae culture tribals, not the Seleukid Satrapy. They have the Persian military tradition and a Form Parthia decision available to them.

 

[Vityviktor]

Completely agree with splitting and revamping this enormous Persian culture group. And, since we're talking about culture groups, I would like to add some of my suggestions for other regions:

Iberia (full topic here):
Culture:
-Ibero-Celtic group: Gallaecian, Asturian, Cantabrian (currently Pre-Indoeuropean), Autrigonian (currently Prre-Indoeuropean), Vaccaeian, Celtiberian, Carpetanian, Turdulian, Celtician, Lobetanian, Vettonian*, Lusitanian*.
*-(Possible) Pre-Celtic group: Vettonian and Lusitanian.
-Iberian: Indiketian, Ausetanian, Ilergetian (currently Pre-Indoeuropean), Ilercavonian, Edetanian, Contestanian, Bastetanian, Oretanian, Turdetanian**, Couneian**.
**-(Possible) Tartessic group: Turdetanian, Couneian.

Religion:
-Iberian tribes should still be Iberian, Pre-Indoeuropeans (Vasconians and Aquitanians) could use their own new religion, but not Iberian (there are Eastern Mediterranean and Punic influences in Iberian religion). Ibero-Celtics should use their own non-Druidic celtic religion (they were disconected from the Druidic cultural phaenomenon that took place in the rest of Celtic Europe).

Dacia and Thracia (full topic here):
Culture:
-Split Thracian into Graeco-Thracian (Hellenic group) and Old Thracian. Maybe do the same with Bythinian.
-Daco-Thracian group (currently named Dacian): Old Thracian, Dacian, Getian, Triballian, Moesian, Old Bythinian, Harpian.
-The Kingdom of Thrace should have Macedonian or Thesalian (the same as Lysimachus) as the state culture, or use the new Gaeco-Thracian culture. Odrysia should be Old Thracian.
-Byzantion and Chaldedon should have the same culture as Megara (they're both Megaran colonies), which, in my opinion, should be Achaean.

Religion:
-Something similar as it is right now, some of the Daco-Thracians being Zalmoxian and some of them Hellenic (those who are closer to the Hellenistic world).

 

[Palando]

Completely agree with splitting and revamping this enormous Persian culture group. And, since we're talking about culture groups, I would like to add some of my suggestions for other regions:

Iberia (full topic here):
Culture:
-Ibero-Celtic group: Gallaecian, Asturian, Cantabrian (currently Pre-Indoeuropean), Autrigonian (currently Prre-Indoeuropean), Vaccaeian, Celtiberian, Carpetanian, Turdulian, Celtician, Lobetanian, Vettonian*, Lusitanian*.
*-(Possible) Pre-Celtic group: Vettonian and Lusitanian.
-Iberian: Indiketian, Ausetanian, Ilergetian (currently Pre-Indoeuropean), Ilercavonian, Edetanian, Contestanian, Bastetanian, Oretanian, Turdetanian**, Couneian**.
**-(Possible) Tartessic group: Turdetanian, Couneian.

Religion:
-Iberian tribes should still be Iberian, Pre-Indoeuropeans (Vasconians and Aquitanians) could use their own new religion, but not Iberian (there are Eastern Mediterranean and Punic influences in Iberian religion). Ibero-Celtics should use their own non-Druidic celtic religion (they were disconected from the Druidic cultural phaenomenon that took place in the rest of Celtic Europe).

I don't get why so many people want to implement singular culture groups for each and every culture; especially, considering that Lusitanian is heavilly affiliated with Celtic and its non-Celtic character is somewhat built on sand. Besides, language is just a part of culture.

There should be just a pre-Indo-European group encompassing Iberians, Vasconians, Aquitanians with their own pre-Indo-European religion (call it Iberic or whatever). Druidic should just be renamed to Celtic altogether, as it's not even certain that there were druids in the eastern part of the La Tène culture sphere. Lugus was e.g. also worshipped by Celtiberians and seems to be one of the most universal Celtic deities.

Regardless of that, the Persian culture group is way too big, so I fully support an Anatolian and a Caucasian group.