Does the Form Portugal decision make sense?

[Dayvit78]

I'm asking from a cultural perspective. I started in Galicia, which makes a natural goal to expand south and eventually form Portugal. However, the cultures are completely different. Is this really what Portuguese is? To me it looks more like French. But regardless, it's very different than Galician and also doesn't make sense for the type of terrain (hilly and coastal). I go from Spiritual to Bellicose and lose all my trade and hill buildings - for just a bunch of martial stuff?

 

[Atalvyr]

It is one of the decisions that really should have been revised post Royal Court IMHO.

Losing your culture without a choice in the matter is pretty bad, given the culture you already have is likely superior for your situation.

You can already diverge into a culture that has Portuguese aesthetics as long as you control counties in the area, so you could easily separate the formation of the kingdom of Portugal from the emergence of Portuguese culture.

 

[Axis89]

I'm asking from a cultural perspective. I started in Galicia, which makes a natural goal to expand south and eventually form Portugal. However, the cultures are completely different. Is this really what Portuguese is? To me it looks more like French. But regardless, it's very different than Galician and also doesn't make sense for the type of terrain (hilly and coastal). I go from Spiritual to Bellicose and lose all my trade and hill buildings - for just a bunch of martial stuff?

View attachment 931201View attachment 931202

Yes it makes sense because there is french nobility coming on and merking with the local, also Portugal was founded by a lot of crusaders so the orders like the Templars have a very central role to the foundation of Portugal. So bellicose is correct for the time, but of course this could be debated ehat fits Portuguese.

 

[Dayvit78]

Yes it makes sense because there is french nobility coming on and merking with the local, also Portugal was founded by a lot of crusaders so the orders like the Templars have a very central role to the foundation of Portugal. So bellicose is correct for the time, but of course this could be debated ehat fits Portuguese.

Thanks for the historical context, I wasn't aware of that. So it's good they got Portugal culture correct. I'll still question the decision from a gameplay perspective whether it makes sense to completely overwrite your previous culture since we created Portugal different than the actual history. I didn't have France helping me and I formed it a few hundred years earlier.

 

[Dadoverde]

Thanks for the historical context, I wasn't aware of that. So it's good they got Portugal culture correct. I'll still question the decision from a gameplay perspective whether it makes sense to completely overwrite your previous culture since we created Portugal different than the actual history. I didn't have France helping me and I formed it a few hundred years earlier.

Yes, I think it's about some historical accuracy. Galician culture reflects the not very lasting kingdoms of early medieval, and Portuguese nearly renacentist.
Aside Ritualized Friendship common to Iberians, Galicia was more rural, hilly interior, with small monasteries and communities and a long sea tradition.
Portugal flourished with great temples (see Batalha) and a fierce Reconquista towards south (Lisbon 1147, Algarve 1249, and beyond Ceuta 1415). Chivalry would have a disastrous ending in 1578, with the young king Sebastian and most of the nobility being killed in a foolish incursion against Morocco.

 

[migdeu19]

I'm asking from a cultural perspective. I started in Galicia, which makes a natural goal to expand south and eventually form Portugal. However, the cultures are completely different. Is this really what Portuguese is? To me it looks more like French. But regardless, it's very different than Galician and also doesn't make sense for the type of terrain (hilly and coastal). I go from Spiritual to Bellicose and lose all my trade and hill buildings - for just a bunch of martial stuff?

View attachment 931201View attachment 931202

Do not make any sense, specially from cultural perspective, and as someone said before, is one of the things that should have been re-done in the last dlc's.
Neither do politically, the portuguese kingdom exist quite before Afonso Henriques war against her mother Tersia/Tareixa whatever.

POLITICALLY:
The first King bearing the title of King of Portugal was probably Garcia II of Galiza, is recorded that his tomb epitaph call himslef "King of Portugal and Galiza", which is quite common in this era as the kings normally elevated his lesser titles to Kingdoms (the king of Navarre was King of Najera and Pamplona, the King of Aragón was also of Ribagorça and Sobrabe etc.). Despite the epitaph being destroyed, the recorded is normally regarder text as "true", as later Pope Paschal recognised Tarasia Afonses (in exchange of replacing the Mozarabic rite by the Greagorian one) Queen of Portugal. Then, the "independence" war of Portugal was a civil war between galicians, those of the lesser nobility, moçarabs and Braga church (sacked by Santiago bishop a few years before to be "upgraded" to archbishop, robbing also to Braga some of the church holdings in that way) around Afonso Henriques (Son of Taresia), against the major house of galicia, the Trava, the mother of Afonso Henriques, at that point countess Tarasia of Portugal (and lover of the head of the Trava's) and Santiago church around Afonso VII, King of Galicia (as first title) and "Emperor" in Galicia, Leon and Castille. So, a culture borning from a civil war.., meh...

CULTURALLY:
Neither do, the first written document in galician-portuguese is from around 1175 (Pacto de Gomes Paes e Ramiro Paes), of course split the culture even before we have the first written document is extrange. I'm native speaker of both modern "languages", despite a few phonetic changes and specific dialects and internal regional differences (Coimbra portuguese is different from Porto one as Braga's one is different from Algarve, as Coruña's galician is diferent from Limian galician), is the same language. I also lived in both places, and is the same culture (as far u go to the north more conservative is the people and the use of obscenities in the speaking language increase (mythical caralho)). The main difference is that galician variety is written in a castillian derived script from 1980, while portuguese use the original script with the last reform around 2011 if I'm not wrong. By the way the main lexical and phonetic differences come from 19th century (far away from CK3); other cultural traits, food, traditional music, romances and traditional tales are the same, even the way of life and timing still really similar. And that is 2023.

During the Middle Ages the culture was obviously regarded as the same, the families from one side of the Minho river cross to the other all the time, in fact the noble families from portugal are almost all galicians from 4 periods (early reconquest 9-10 centuries, Afonso Henriques independence (12th century), galician-castillian wars between late 13th to late 14th centuries, and last late 15th century with castillian civil war) . The language was indistinctly called as galician, portuguese, romance etc.

Of course we had foreign dinasties, as another guy say, but those dinasties were present in both areas, the french dinsaty he said was first seen in Galicia as Raimund of Borgonha was the father of Afonso VII, Count of Galiza and husband of Urraca I, Henry of Borgonha, father of Afonso Henriques was instead a relative of other branch of the extensive Borgonha family, both arriving to the peninsula as allies against musolim powers expecting to get lands and favorable marriages (which they did as one was awarded with Galiza, the other with Portucale, and both with the hands of the king's daughters). So no differences there; we also have english houses, Lancastre (Lancaster) and even hungarian ones, which is certanly common in middle ages.


So conclusion, the split make no sense under any point of view, why they do like that, personally I've no idea, but I hope one day they will seriously rework cultures in the game.

About other comments:
"Galician culture reflects the not very lasting kingdoms of early medieval, and Portuguese nearly renacentist."
1) 11/12 centuries are not renaisance start.
2) Galicia reflect not lasting kingdoms; the so called "kingdom of Asturias" was mainly called Kingdom of gallaecia and have legal and ideological origins in the Suevic Gallaecian kingdom (5th century), the title "kingdom of asturias" is a very unused title that came to prominence due in 19th and 20th centuries, spanish nationalists as Menendez Pidal decided that "Galicia" was not a nationalistic spanish term because there was spoken another language, regarded as a portuguese variety. Galician kingdom was oficially disolved in 1833, after 1400 years of history, so no lasting kindoms, not at all.

"Galicia was more rural, hilly interior, with small monasteries and communities and a long sea tradition"
1) Exactly as Portugal, removing Algarve and Alentejo.

"Portugal flourished with great temples (see Batalha) and a fierce Reconquista towards south (Lisbon 1147, Algarve 1249, and beyond Ceuta 1415). Chivalry would have a disastrous ending in 1578, with the young king Sebastian and most of the nobility being killed in a foolish incursion against Morocco."
1) Galicia had great temples, Santiago, Tui, Mondoñedo, Ourense, Sobrado dos Monxes, Armenteira etc.
2) Of course galicia had no further reconquista after 12 century as the its south was cuted from it and already chrisitian. Despite that reconquista will continue throw Leonese frontier to Seville (Galicia-León kingdom, and yes, both titles together until around 1260 even 1300s.
3) Chilvary, exactly what happened to Vermudo II of Galicia (nor Leon nor Asturias, those titles were not used in that period) against castillian and navarres in Tamarón.

Templar orders
1) Were present also in Galicia, even the Portuguese one, the "Orde de Christo", having even galician leaders (Nuno Freire de Andrade).

Yes it makes sense because there is french nobility coming on and merking with the local
1) As I said, Borgonha house came at the same time to all the North Western Iberian Christian Kingddoms, not only to Portugal.



In general terms most of comments born from a lack of knowledge of History, specially galician one, and regaring mythical and stereotipical intentionally selected passages of very generic history.

Honestly, as said before, the split makes cero sense, and if anyone say anything about they are written different, is because ck3 is using 21 century writting rules from both modern varieties, that would happen also if we take arab script turkish and latin script turkish, are because of that diferent languages?, NO.

 

[Hermerico]

I'm asking from a cultural perspective. I started in Galicia, which makes a natural goal to expand south and eventually form Portugal. However, the cultures are completely different. Is this really what Portuguese is? To me it looks more like French. But regardless, it's very different than Galician and also doesn't make sense for the type of terrain (hilly and coastal). I go from Spiritual to Bellicose and lose all my trade and hill buildings - for just a bunch of martial stuff?

View attachment 931201View attachment 931202

They kind of forgot that Portugal existed in Fate of Iberia, so stuff like this is only the tip of the iceberg on the historical inconsistencies.

There are many things wrong with Northwestern Iberia that were not even looked at, however I'm more disturbed about those who where looked at, and made actively worse.

"Galician Aesthethics" imply holding graphics that feature mosque-temples bazaars in the cities, and sandstone castles. As well as character backgrounds straight out of Alhambra. Considering there were absolutely 0 Islamic presence in Galicia, much less any sort of architectural impact.
Fate of Iberia took the aesthethic of Moorish Andalucia, and obnoxiously applied it to all of Iberia.

The previous "Mediterranean" set for Galicia was already bad as it was, Galician architecture looked far more alike what you would find in the British Islands or Central France than what you would find in Catalonia, much less Sicily or Greece. But they went out of their way to find the problem and make it much worse.

Fate of Iberia made Galicia and Portugal completely unplayable for me (in Portugal's case literally unplayable, as they outright removed the option to start as Vimara Peres)

 

[Comrade_Boris]

They kind of forgot that Portugal existed in Fate of Iberia, so stuff like this is only the tip of the iceberg on the historical inconsistencies.

There are many things wrong with Northwestern Iberia that were not even looked at, however I'm more disturbed about those who where looked at, and made actively worse.

"Galician Aesthethics" imply holding graphics that feature mosque-temples bazaars in the cities, and sandstone castles. As well as character backgrounds straight out of Alhambra. Considering there were absolutely 0 Islamic presence in Galicia, much less any sort of architectural impact.
Fate of Iberia took the aesthethic of Moorish Andalucia, and obnoxiously applied it to all of Iberia.

The previous "Mediterranean" set for Galicia was already bad as it was, Galician architecture looked far more alike what you would find in the British Islands or Central France than what you would find in Catalonia, much less Sicily or Greece. But they went out of their way to find the problem and make it much worse.

Fate of Iberia made Galicia and Portugal completely unplayable for me (in Portugal's case literally unplayable, as they outright removed the option to start as Vimara Peres)

This post reeks of islamophobia.

But aside from that very few regions have perfectly accurate backgrounds or architecture. Most of Europe (and the steppe if they feudalize) is dotted with Norman style castles. It's not a uniquely Galician problem, it's just the level of detail represented in game.

 

[Hermerico]

This post reeks of islamophobia.

But aside from that very few regions have perfectly accurate backgrounds or architecture. Most of Europe (and the steppe if they feudalize) is dotted with Norman style castles. It's not a uniquely Galician problem, it's just the level of detail represented in game.

And this post reeks of Islamic-fragility.

I would have no problems with the architecture having been implemented to the Andalusian culture.
Then you would have a diverse Iberia with Christian architecture in the North and Muslim architecture in the Andalusian culture in the South, as it was and still is to some extent. It would be far more immersive and give more personality to the whole place.
It was already like this before Fate of Iberia made the whole region identical.
Culture conversion was hamstringed by the Struggle mechanic anyway, so you would reliably see Andalusian survive until the end of the game, and even if they don't then new emergent/hybrid cultures in the area could spawn such as Extremaduran, Algarvian or Murcian which would keep this architecture.

Giving it to all cultures of the entire peninsula makes as much sense as giving it to all of the Franch Heritage group, because they held Septimania for a couple of decades. Or giving Britain the Norse architecture because of Jorvik having existed.
It's insanity.

I understand Galicia is not the only place where the graphics don't fit, even Russia has Norman architecture, the problem is not that Galicia doesnt have an architecture that fits, at least it sort of fitted the rest of the Iberian Christians.
The problem is that it (all of Christian Iberia) was actively made worse.

 

[Comrade_Boris]

And this post reeks of Islamic-fragility.

I would have no problems with the architecture having been implemented to the Andalusian culture.
Then you would have a diverse Iberia with Christian architecture in the North and Muslim architecture in the Andalusian culture in the South, as it was and still is to some extent. It would be far more immersive and give more personality to the whole place.
It was already like this before Fate of Iberia made the whole region identical.
Culture conversion was hamstringed by the Struggle mechanic anyway, so you would reliably see Andalusian survive until the end of the game, and even if they don't then new emergent/hybrid cultures in the area could spawn such as Extremaduran, Algarvian or Murcian which would keep this architecture.

Giving it to all cultures of the entire peninsula makes as much sense as giving it to all of the Franch Heritage group, because they held Septimania for a couple of decades. Or giving Britain the Norse architecture because of Jorvik having existed.
It's insanity.

I understand Galicia is not the only place where the graphics don't fit, even Russia has Norman architecture, the problem is not that Galicia doesnt have an architecture that fits, at least it sort of fitted the rest of the Iberian Christians.
The problem is that it (all of Christian Iberia) was actively made worse.

But why is the new art worse than the generic Mediterranean art that was there before. You said that was bad too. Why is using Iberian art (that has an Andalusian bias, but arguably isn't true Andalusian either) worse than using the generic Italian "Mediterranean" art? Surely having a close relative (even despite the Christian/Muslim divide much ideas were exchanged) is better than having some far off cousin. Please don't say sandstone again because the art from both implies similar building materials.

The difference between the Galician treatment here and the Britain or French examples is they already have appropriate art for Britain and France. They do not have unique Galician art and likely never will.

While this isn't necessarily a good argument from history, thematically the DLC Fate of Iberia chose to emphasize the similarities of Christian and Muslim Spain turning the traditional reconquista narrative (or even the larger crusading narrative) on its head. We see also reality shows both hostility and togetherness to varying degrees. Using shared hybrid art like they did makes sense thematically.

 

[Hermerico]

But why is the new art worse than the generic Mediterranean art that was there before

Because the Mediterranean art of before at least sort of did fit Castile, Aragon, Catalonia and (not-Asturian) León.
And out of all the available sets so far, i guess it's the closest (Normand doesn't quite fit either).

Bust most importantly, the Mediterranean set does not feature very prominently mosques as their temples and bazaars in their towns (i'm also talking about the 3rd models in the map, not just the drawn art).
The suspense of disbelief with Mediterranean, or even Normand in some cases, would be more believable.

has an Andalusian bias, but arguably isn't true Andalusian

It's definitely Andalusian. It might seem to be a mix Christian-Muslim but that's already what Andalucian was in the first place.
People seem to forget that Iberia was already inhabited before the Ummayads invaded, the architecture of Al-Andalus would still be overwhelmingly or Roman-Visigothic origin by 867 and probably even so by 1066.
It's also a huge stretch to have Andalusian be already the culture in 90% of Al-Andalus by 867, but i find this acceptable due to gameplay limitations.

Surely having a close relative (even despite the Christian/Muslim divide much ideas were exchanged) is better than having some far off cousin

Ideas moving around are one thing (although French, Normand and Italian socio-cultural influences were immesurably more influential in the Northern Iberian kingdoms than their Islamic neighbours to the south).
But buildings are a whole new different thing. No amount of poetry and chess turned any Asturian church into a mosque.

 

[Comrade_Boris]

Bust most importantly, the Mediterranean set does not feature very prominently mosques as their temples and bazaars in their towns (i'm also talking about the 3rd models in the map, not just the drawn art).

No amount of poetry and chess turned any Asturian church into a mosque.

I'll admit the towns are weird, but the temple holdings not so much and the castles should be perfctly acceptable to you then since they're stylistically similar to the Mediterranean ones past tier 1. The Christian and Muslim temples are slightly different (aside from the purple/orange change) if you look at the tower. Arguably the Christian one looks like monastary like one might find in Galicia.

 

[migdeu19]

I'll admit the towns are weird, but the temple holdings not so much and the castles should be perfctly acceptable to you then since they're stylistically similar to the Mediterranean ones past tier 1. The Christian and Muslim temples are slightly different (aside from the purple/orange change) if you look at the tower. Arguably the Christian one looks like monastary like one might find in Galicia.

The christian temple model only fit in certain areas of Castille and Aragón, u will never find anything similar in Asturias-León, much less in galicia and (Center-North) Portugal, architecture here is much more similar to that of the Rormans, remember that the way of St. James is a way of cultural exchange and Galicia and Portugal become areas of Romanesque and gothic development...Even the romano visigothic were u have notable examples in Asturies have nothing to do with the one of fate of iberia.
Even the architecture previous to the expanison of the musolim influence, and during did not look alike, fate of ibera architecture resembles more to a mexican colonial town from 18th century...

By the way, the comments of Hermerico have nothing of Islamophobic, the reality of the peninsula was a fragmented one, with exchanges of course but with strong regional traditions, what is quite criticable in that sense is the representation of the muslim Iberia in that era, as was not a whole "andalusian" thing (if we take it as the arab culture from the elites) but andalusian cores with a majority of (diferent) romance cultures (andalusi romances) and a few cores of berbers, copts and even slavs, fate of iberia in the cultural sense is a huge disaster and an apatic show of lack of interest...

 

[Hermerico]

The christian temple model only fit in certain areas of Castille and Aragón, u will never find anything similar in Asturias-León, much less in galicia and (Center-North) Portugal, architecture here is much more similar to that of the Rormans

I believe he is talking about the 3d map model of the temple holding. Which although isn't exactly the staple of northwest Iberian architecture It IS a Romanesque building. Some churches in Northwest Iberia do look like that,.
And most importantly fits the rest of Christian Iberia, so we can't really argue, as the alternative would be asking for unique Galician-Portuguese specific sets, which would be asking for way too much.

ate of ibera architecture resembles more to a mexican colonial town from 18th century...

Not really... there is nothing islamic-looking about 18th century mexico.
Maybe the landscape on the background of the holding art, but then again, 80% of Iberia looks like that, even the northern areas such as Aragon, Castile and Leon are very dry, so again this would also imply specific Galician/Portuguese/Asturian/Basque backgrounds, which like i said, is asking too much.

By the way, the comments of Hermerico have nothing of Islamophobic

To be completely fair to him, he dropped the accusations and argued in good faith, making solid points.


We cannot expect Northwest Iberia to get unique graphics, best case scenario either France, British Islands or Italy may get a rework at some point later on, and if they look more similar to Northwest Iberian architecture we can try to argue for that to be given to the Northwestern Iberian cultures as well (extremely unlikely, because the current Normand and Mediterranean sets are already based on some areas of these 3 regions, so all these region will probably be stuck with the generic graphics forever).
Ireland is the only place which has a small, but realistic chance of getting unique graphics at some point, which may (or may not

) fit Northwest Iberia better.

 

[Meka66]

It is one of the decisions that really should have been revised post Royal Court IMHO.

Alas, you're right. Unfortunately we don't have infinite time and resources, and there was a desire to touch up this decision specifically with Royal Court and Fate of Iberia, but both had other priorities or complications.

I managed to touch up the Outremer culture for Royal Court only because Outremer culture isn't tied to any historical characters in the database while Portuguese, English, Norman, Swedish, etc. all either exist in the history files or in the 1066 start date so changing them would be much more complex. It's something I'd like to change, but it's a matter of time unfortunately.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Alas, you're right. Unfortunately we don't have infinite time and resources, and there was a desire to touch up this decision specifically with Royal Court and Fate of Iberia, but both had other priorities or complications.

I managed to touch up the Outremer culture for Royal Court only because Outremer culture isn't tied to any historical characters in the database while Portuguese, English, Norman, Swedish, etc. all either exist in the history files or in the 1066 start date so changing them would be much more complex. It's something I'd like to change, but it's a matter of time unfortunately.

Perhaps you need a Custodian team?

 

[heliostellar]

Alas, you're right. Unfortunately we don't have infinite time and resources, and there was a desire to touch up this decision specifically with Royal Court and Fate of Iberia, but both had other priorities or complications.

I managed to touch up the Outremer culture for Royal Court only because Outremer culture isn't tied to any historical characters in the database while Portuguese, English, Norman, Swedish, etc. all either exist in the history files or in the 1066 start date so changing them would be much more complex. It's something I'd like to change, but it's a matter of time unfortunately.

Could we at least get an option to form it as a king? I like forming it for RP reasons in my Iberian games, and currently only independent counts and dukes can take it.

It's silly to me that in an 867 start we are using the Taifa of Badajoz (that only randomly existed for 140 years from the dissolution of the Caliphate in 1009 to its conquest in 1149) to set the de jure map.

 

[Riaman98]

This post reeks of islamophobia.

But aside from that very few regions have perfectly accurate backgrounds or architecture. Most of Europe (and the steppe if they feudalize) is dotted with Norman style castles. It's not a uniquely Galician problem, it's just the level of detail represented in game.

Once in my game Ghaznavid formed a hybrid culture with Afghan and Oghuz and the architecture they used was that used by Europeans, then i came to know that if steppe feudalizes it uses same old French architecture. Looked so out of place that I wanted to nuke that culture from existense.

 

[Darumaka]

Alas, you're right. Unfortunately we don't have infinite time and resources, and there was a desire to touch up this decision specifically with Royal Court and Fate of Iberia, but both had other priorities or complications.

I managed to touch up the Outremer culture for Royal Court only because Outremer culture isn't tied to any historical characters in the database while Portuguese, English, Norman, Swedish, etc. all either exist in the history files or in the 1066 start date so changing them would be much more complex. It's something I'd like to change, but it's a matter of time unfortunately.

I keep seeing these type of responses constantly all across the forums. Ones where Paradox admits that they were aware something wasn't up to snuff with an upcoming release yet still chose to release it and simply blame it on a lack of time. At some point it starts to feel insulting, I'd much rather have the devs admit they just didn't realize somehow (which would still be terrible but perhaps excusable to a certain degree) rather than them admitting they knew the issues and still chose to do nothing about them.

Saying you don't have infinite time and resources baffles the mind. If you can't properly depict the region you're making an entire DLC about, perhaps rethink your release strategy. An Iberian DLC shouldn't neglect 1 of the 2 countries that currently populate the peninsula. The same happened in EU4 with Golden Century, where Portugal got shafted in favor of focus on the Spanish kingdoms.

 

[FishieFan]

I keep seeing these type of responses constantly all across the forums. Ones where Paradox admits that they were aware something wasn't up to snuff with an upcoming release yet still chose to release it and simply blame it on a lack of time. At some point it starts to feel insulting, I'd much rather have the devs admit they just didn't realize somehow (which would still be terrible but perhaps excusable to a certain degree) rather than them admitting they knew the issues and still chose to do nothing about them.

Saying you don't have infinite time and resources baffles the mind. If you can't properly depict the region you're making an entire DLC about, perhaps rethink your release strategy. An Iberian DLC shouldn't neglect 1 of the 2 countries that currently populate the peninsula. The same happened in EU4 with Golden Century, where Portugal got shafted in favor of focus on the Spanish kingdoms.

After the backlash to Royal Court being delayed they might have been told no delays were possible for fates of iberia, but I don't see why editing the required duchies would take more than an afternoon to test