AGC-EEP: Iberian Peninsula

[Third Angel]

Here is a map I made that will hopefully settle the geographical matter:

There everyone can see Burgos and Palencia in "Cantabria", Soria in "Aragon", Teruel split between "Catalonia" and "Valencia" and Leon, well, not in "Leon".

The basque-speaking areas in EU2 province of Cantabria would be in blue and green.

Therion is wrong , castilian is not a kingdom , its a crown. the kingdom was the Kingdom of Leon.

You are defnitely out of your reckoning. There were two kingdoms inside what we call Castile in EU2: Castile and Leon, and even more if one also considers the minor ones: Galicia, Toledo, Seville... But then, again, I don't understand how this is relevant for our issues, neither are the historical bits about Aragon. Yes, both Kingdoms comprised several under-kingdoms, so what? No one said otherwise in this thread.

It remains that ARG does not deserve a penalty in "Aragon" province which, therefore, should not have a non-state culture. We can even make it "catalan" if you can not stand the idea of considering a political definition of "aragonese".

Still, if one thinks that the sub-kingdoms forming the "Crown" of Aragon had been united for nearly three-hundred years in 1419, it does not sound so stupid to me to have them named "aragonese".

 

[Toio]

Here is a map I made that will hopefully settle the geographical matter. The basque-speaking areas in EU2 province of Cantabria would be in blue and green:

There everyone can see Burgos and Palencia in "Cantabria", Soria in "Aragon", Teruel split between "Catalonia" and "Valencia" and Leon, well, not in "Leon".


You are defnitely out of your reckoning. There were two kingdoms inside what we call Castile in EU2: Castile and Leon, and even more if one also considers the minor ones: Galicia, Toledo, Seville... But then, again, I don't understand how this is relevant for our issues, neither are the historical bits about Aragon. Yes, both Kingdoms comprised several under-kingdoms, so what? No one said otherwise in this thread.

It remains that ARG does not deserve a penalty in "Aragon" province which, therefore, should not have a non-state culture. We can even make it "catalan" if you can not stand the idea of considering a political definition of "aragonese".

Still, if one thinks that the sub-kingdoms forming the "Crown" of Aragon had been united for nearly three-hundred years in 1419, it does not sound so stupid to me to have them named "aragonese". It's just a game after all.

but you are using a modern map, this site below clearly states Leon ( check the size ) and description of aragon neighbours, the lands above the soria part are all basque as per viczaya, avala etc etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aragon

And so are you saying that 79% of the basques in the area live in that small tiny area?

even if you add 200000 for burgos and 95000 for palencia, the area is still dominated by basques even with ir without the 400 plus years of ethnic cleansing.


Instead of using a modern map, maybe you should have used an old map like this below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Península_ibérica_1030.svg

but then, i prefer to use the written descriptions like

 

[Third Angel]

Yes, I used a modern map. So? When were the cities marked on it and their surrounding areas displaced between 1419 and now?

Now your map is dated of 1030, a time when the Kingdom of Castile did not exist. It was only a county by then and its countess happened to be married to the king of Pampelune. Did that make the people in Burgos suddenly speak basque?

 

[Toio]

No one said otherwise in this thread.

therion said that catalan was only a language , as you pointed out its more , its a culture and a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Catalonia

It remains that ARG does not deserve a penalty in "Aragon" province which, therefore, should not have a non-state culture. We can even make it "catalan" if you can not stand the idea of considering a political definition of "aragonese".

we are talking about culures and catalan or catalunya ( same thing) was the majority as well as the kings (nobles) of aragon used catalan.

If you want to trial catalan culture for aragon province , go ahead . Let us know the results. I know at the moment even without this extra province for ARG, they sometimes take DAU lands.

Still, if one thinks that the sub-kingdoms forming the "Crown" of Aragon had been united for nearly three-hundred years in 1419, it does not sound so stupid to me to have them named "aragonese".

even though the catalans ruled across the whole ARG empire?

 

[Toio]

Yes, I used a modern map. So? When were the cities marked on it and their surrounding areas displaced between 1419 and now?

Now your map is dated of 1030, a time when the Kingdom of Castile did not exist. It was only a county by then and its countess happened to be married to the king of Pampelune. Did that make the people there suddenly speak basque?

pamplona is basque , old name for navarre

My point is , your map is too modern, as an example, our eu2 map of serbia , correct for its time , would be wrong in modern times, as Serbia is basically where Pest is on our vanilla map.

Which brings me to the point of populations, the bulk of the province of cantabrian , be it my map, your map or whatever was majority basque, there is no argument there

 

[Therion]

In any case, I feel that naming cultures according to ethnicity, language or nationality at this stage is outright anachronistic and prefer to have provincial cultures representing the kingdom/crown they belonged to if that's possible. Ethnic nationalism is a thing of the mid 19th century or later. Before that, the most important factor in the efficient control of a province was not the discrepancies in languages spoken but the historical rights and legitimacy the kingdom had to a province. With this reasoning, it makes perfect sense to name the provinces of the Crown of Castile 'Castilian', those of the Crown of Aragon 'Aragonese' and those of the Kingdom of France 'French'. If we had to take ethnicity/language into account, the lower half of France would have more to do with Aragon than France proper, for example. And that would be ridiculous.

Well, the best thing about EUII is that it can be easily modified to suit one's tastes so we can just agree to disagree.

 

[Toio]

In any case, I feel that naming cultures according to ethnicity, language or nationality at this stage is outright anachronistic and prefer to have provincial cultures representing the kingdom/crown they belonged to if that's possible. Ethnic nationalism is a thing of the mid 19th century or later. Before that, the most important factor in the efficient control of a province was not the discrepancies in languages spoken but the historical rights and legitimacy the kingdom had to a province. With this reasoning, it makes perfect sense to name the provinces of the Crown of Castile 'Castilian', those of the Crown of Aragon 'Aragonese' and those of the Kingdom of France 'French'. If we had to take ethnicity/language into account, the lower half of France would have more to do with Aragon than France proper, for example. And that would be ridiculous.

Well, the best thing about EUII is that it can be easily modified to suit one's tastes so we can just agree to disagree.

I agree with you in that just because your nation is France , it does not make your culture french, like Kosovo as an example, there is no kosovan culture only albanian or serbian.

But the historical part of the game is missing from your text/example. The cantabrian area was basque in majority, it was under castilian rule from the mid 14th century, BUT it was autonomous and paid little or no tax to the crown of castile, this autonomy was only lifted in 1490 when, ferdinand and isabella decided to give Bilbao ( basque city in our map of cantabria) the only city under castile to trade with Flanders . The agreement was a loss of autonomy for the basques.
There is no reason we cannot use basque in cantabria at game start , this will reflect tax loss for castile and then with the event of trade from bilbao to flanders , give CAS/SPA the basque culture.

As for kingdom of france being all "french", well I beg to differ, as you exclude the Breton, Savoyard and Gascon s to name just 3 areas.

I have been to Gascon and the people say, we are gascon in culture, french in nationality.
Nationality does not make a culture, only, your indigenous cultures makes a nation.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

I have been to Gascon and the people say, we are gascon in culture, french in nationality.
Nationality does not make a culture, only, your indigenous cultures makes a nation.

No, we are Occitan...

Where are we going for the two provinces and Catalan culture then? I'm confused now. Is there a consensus?

 

[Crookback]

Is there a consensus?

It would seem not.

 

[Andrelvis]

In any case, I feel that naming cultures according to ethnicity, language or nationality at this stage is outright anachronistic and prefer to have provincial cultures representing the kingdom/crown they belonged to if that's possible.

The country/kingdom/crown a province belongs to is represented by cores. Culture represents ethnicity and language. Even if the effects for the time period are exaggerated, that's still what "culture" in EU2 represents. In any case, language DID have a meaningful impact in the early modern era, but only for people which had to interact with regions other than their own, such as nobles (who had personal links to people far away from where they lived; for example, a duke and his king), merchants and etc.

Ethnic nationalism is a thing of the mid 19th century or later.

Among the lower classes, yes, but only because they only became literate in the 19th. The correlation between the spread of literacy and the spread of nationalism is astounding. Among the aristocracy and urban classes, there could be (and did happen) nationalist revolts.

With this reasoning, it makes perfect sense to name the provinces of the Crown of Castile 'Castilian', those of the Crown of Aragon 'Aragonese' and those of the Kingdom of France 'French'. If we had to take ethnicity/language into account, the lower half of France would have more to do with Aragon than France proper, for example.

Occitan (which I take is what you're talking about when you mention southern France) is somewhat related to Catalan, yes, but Occitan is still more related to French, as it is a part of the Gallo-Roman language group, whereas Catalan is a part of the Ibero-Romance language group. The thing is that Catalan is a partly a transitional language between the Ibero-Roman and the Gallo-Romance language groups, but not as related to Occitan as French is.

 

[Toio]

The country/kingdom/crown a province belongs to is represented by cores. Culture represents ethnicity and language. Even if the effects for the time period are exaggerated, that's still what "culture" in EU2 represents.

I agree, as this is what AGCEEP did and should maintain.

we have given nations cores on lands and not the culture and I see no need to change this format.

Granted, that culture should be given, where it could be ....historically and for game play.

 

[Toio]

No, we are Occitan...

Linguistically correct, culturally , are u sure ?

 

[Therion]

Among the lower classes, yes, but only because they only became literate in the 19th. The correlation between the spread of literacy and the spread of nationalism is astounding. Among the aristocracy and urban classes, there could be (and did happen) nationalist revolts.

False. You are free to back your argument with examples. All the aristocracy was interested in is the safeguard of its rights and the retainment of autonomy. You'll find that the more powerful an aristocracy the more 'antinationalist' they could become (as in the Polish and Magyar nobles electing foreign kings for example).

Literacy per se is no cause for nationalism. Both were byproducts of other socio-cultural changes.

Occitan (which I take is what you're talking about when you mention southern France) is somewhat related to Catalan, yes, but Occitan is still more related to French, as it is a part of the Gallo-Roman language group, whereas Catalan is a part of the Ibero-Romance language group. The thing is that Catalan is a partly a transitional language between the Ibero-Roman and the Gallo-Romance language groups, but not as related to Occitan as French is.

False. Occitan is way closer to Catalan than French. The Ibero-Romance and Gallo-Romance demarcation is based on the current nation-states of France and Spain and hence useless for honest linguistic purposes.

 

[Third Angel]

Where are we going for the two provinces and Catalan culture then? I'm confused now. Is there a consensus?

Obviously there isn't. I'll try to make things less confused.

1. Cantabria. Toio argues that a majority in the province was speaking basque in 1419, something that was already proposed at least once that I can remember and discarded. He bases his proposal upon geographical assumptions which I have proven in the first post of this page to be false, and upon modern partial demographical numbers which say nothing about 1419.

There is no consensus about that and there won't be so the status quo should prevail, i.e. keep "Cantabria" as catilian.


2. Aragon. Here if I understood things right, we might be nearing some kind of consensus.

[...]

It remains that ARG does not deserve a penalty in "Aragon" province which, therefore, should not have a non-state culture. We can even make it "catalan" if you can not stand the idea of considering a political definition of "aragonese".

[...]

If you want to trial catalan culture for aragon province , go ahead . Let us know the results. I know at the moment even without this extra province for ARG, they sometimes take DAU lands.

It looks like we could at least try to have "Aragon" as catalan in next beta, since Toio will not hear about calling the whole lot aragonese.

 

[Toio]

Obviously there isn't. I'll try to make things less confused.

1. Cantabria. Toio argues that a majority in the province was speaking basque in 1419, something that was already proposed at least once that I can remember and discarded. He bases his proposal upon geographical assumptions which I have proven in the first post of this page to be false, and upon modern partial demographical numbers which say nothing about 1419.

There is no consensus about that and there won't be so the status quo should prevail, i.e. keep "Cantabria" as catilian.

You fail to underestimate the historical fact, there are many net sources which clearly indicate that the area was basque in majority and that they paid little tax to the castile crown.
The capital of the area is Bilbao, is that wrong as well ?

2. Aragon. Here if I understood things right, we might be nearing some kind of consensus.It looks like we could at least try to have "Aragon" as catalan in next beta, since Toio will not hear about calling the whole lot aragonese.

You can go ahead with this and change the province to catalan. Its much better than castilain, BUT you fail to realise that SPA will loose out in the long run if you do make it catalan instead of basque.

Also, Arganose was a minor language then (1419) and has only 30000 speakers today, while catalan ( if you add valencian) was the language and culture of the people and the court in 1419, and in today's numbers it represents approx 22% of the spanish people. ( 11M as of FEB 2009)

While we are on this topic, what was Murcia's culture ? Its was'nt castilian.

 

[Toio]

any reason we have toledo as capital of CAS/SPA when as per notes below it was valladolid

Valladolid was captured from the Moors in the tenth century, being a small village improved by count Pedro Ansúrez in the eleventh century; in 1469 Queen Isabella of Castile and King Ferdinand of Aragon were married in the city and by the fifteenth century it was the residence of the kings of Castile and remained the capital of the Kingdom of Spain until 1561, when Philip II, born here, moved the capital to Madrid

Valladolid is in our map of Leon

 

[Andrelvis]

False. You are free to back your argument with examples. All the aristocracy was interested in is the safeguard of its rights and the retainment of autonomy. You'll find that the more powerful an aristocracy the more 'antinationalist' they could become (as in the Polish and Magyar nobles electing foreign kings for example).

The aristocracy was interested in the safeguard of it's rights, autonomy and customs, which are largely determined by culture. Nationalism in the form that eventually developed in the 19th didn't of course exist, but effects of cultural differences obviously existed. Whether culture did or didn't effect early modern societies isn't important for the matter at hand, though, since the effect of culture can't be modded in EU2; what can be changed is which cultures are where. As for examples, one would be when Charles I of Spain (who had been born in the southern Netherlands) appointed numerous flemings to positions in that kingdom, resulting in revolt.

Literacy per se is no cause for nationalism. Both were byproducts of other socio-cultural changes.

Indeed, the rise of nationalism involved many changes, such as the spread of more democratic ideas (which had effects on what made a state legitimate, in a way that supported the growth of nationalism, but anyway, this isn't important for this matter) but it was still quite important. Mass literacy made faster spread of ideas between the populace possible, as well as the growth of a "national consciousness" and the homogenization of language.

False. Occitan is way closer to Catalan than French. The Ibero-Romance and Gallo-Romance demarcation is based on the current nation-states of France and Spain and hence useless for honest linguistic purposes.

I don't know the specifics of either language, so I can't argue this, I know only of the classification.

 

[sturmvogel]

OK, I'm a little So let me restate things and y'all can correct me if necessary.

Toio wants to change the culture of Cantabria to Basque because he's asserted that they didn't pay much tax to the Crown of Castile. That's not anything I've ever heard, but what evidence can be provided to support his contention? I'm not at all sure that modern population distributions can be adduced in support of anything for the situation in 1419.

And there's a dispute over what to do about the culture of the province of Aragon, if anything. It's currently Castilian which means Aragon doesn't get a full share of tax. Basque has been proposed which would preserve that status while ensuring that the Castilian AI doesn't doesn't get a benefit either. Or it could be changed to Catalan which would benefit Aragon while discouraging Castilian adventurism. Or it could be changed to Basque which would penalize both Aragon and Castile. But some of y'all seem to be having problems accepting either Basque or Catalan as appropriate.

Unlike some I don't really care what language groups are where, but rather how well did the writ of the crown run in those lands. What evidence is there that the province of Aragon didn't pay its full share of taxes to the court in Barcelona? If nothing can be found then I suggest that it be changed to catalan to match the rest of the Kingdom of Aragon.

This will, of course, add another province with reduced taxes for Spain once Fernando dies in 1516 and catalan culture is lost. That's probably not a real problem.

 

[Toio]

And there's a dispute over what to do about the culture of the province of Aragon, if anything. It's currently Castilian which means Aragon doesn't get a full share of tax. Basque has been proposed which would preserve that status while ensuring that the Castilian AI doesn't doesn't get a benefit either. Or it could be changed to Catalan which would benefit Aragon while discouraging Castilian adventurism. Or it could be changed to Basque which would penalize both Aragon and Castile. But some of y'all seem to be having problems accepting either Basque or Catalan as appropriate.

Unlike some I don't really care what language groups are where, but rather how well did the writ of the crown run in those lands. What evidence is there that the province of Aragon didn't pay its full share of taxes to the court in Barcelona? If nothing can be found then I suggest that it be changed to catalan to match the rest of the Kingdom of Aragon.

This will, of course, add another province with reduced taxes for Spain once Fernando dies in 1516 and catalan culture is lost. That's probably not a real problem.

This is what I referred to, and I do not mind that it goes catalan, ( but I tried to keep the status quo), but the issue after 1516 is not a great concern as you say, but the ARG aggression against DAU and ENG early in the game will become more evident with aragon province being made catalan.
granted , my tests are few, but thats the trend I get.

 

[Toio]

Toio wants to change the culture of Cantabria to Basque because he's asserted that they didn't pay much tax to the Crown of Castile. That's not anything I've ever heard, but what evidence can be provided to support his contention? I'm not at all sure that modern population distributions can be adduced in support of anything for the situation in 1419.

some info

page 16 in the link
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA16,M1

the Basque Country and Navarra– are entitled to maintain their historical norms or regimes, which in fiscal terms translates into them having a substantially different Tax system, known as Concierto (Basque Country) and Convenio (Navarra) systems. Both these terms translate into English as ‘agreement’5. The main characteristic of this kind of system is that it entails a maximum level of taxation autonomy, which means in their provinces (Álava, Vizcaya and Guipúzcoa, in the case of the Basque Country, and Navarra, which is uni-provincial)

also map below of hisorical castile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Castilian_people.PNG

brown = Castilla y León
purple = Castilla-La Mancha
red = madrid