1.16: The Patch That Destroyed Russian Culture

[HerrStarr]

The patch who sold the world.
Sorry, i just completed mgsV and all this threads about cultures are really boring considering the new cultures are designed to fit gameplay rather than realism.

 

[giant_sloth]

You are not stupid, I am sure you get my point.

All I get are some far-fetched speculations.

 

[DmUa]

All I get are some far-fetched speculations.

- here were no russian culture, only glorious slavic culture of ancient Slavia country from Ukrainina wikipedia. And then came the mon... the mos... the novgorodians?

 

[wergy]

As long as they lower the rewquirement to make cultures form the same culture group accepted, I don't see this as an issue.

 

[Gratak]

As long as they lower the rewquirement to make cultures form the same culture group accepted, I don't see this as an issue.

They can hardly make this any easier for russia...

 

[Kapitalisti]

As long as they lower the rewquirement to make cultures form the same culture group accepted, I don't see this as an issue.

Glorious Mother Russia can into empire at creation so not much of a problem.

 

[DmUa]

Glorious Mother Russia can into empire at creation so not much of a problem.

- say that to russian minors.

 

[The-Doc]

That's why "Novgorodian" and "Muscovite" would actually make sense, since Novgorodians valued their furs, their trade, their republic, their artistry and science, whilst Muscovites valued their autocracy, orthodoxy, power and influence, etc. It's a battle of Republicans vs. Monarchists between two groups of Russians in a sense.

That is a mischaracterization of Novgorod. If anything religion was more interwoven into their society, with the Archbishop holding significant political power and the monasteries as great landowners. Republic is also a bit of a misnomer. Since Novgorod was practically a city state the veche held influence, but you'll find that almost all large medieval cities had an assembly of some kind.

The notion of a proto-liberal Russia stamped out by oriental despotism owes more to sloppy British historians of the 19th century.

 

[DanubianCossak]

That is a mischaracterization of Novgorod. If anything religion was more interwoven into their society, with the Archbishop holding significant political power and the monasteries as great landowners. Republic is also a bit of a misnomer. Since Novgorod was practically a city state the veche held influence, but you'll find that almost all large medieval cities had an assembly of some kind.

The notion of a proto-liberal Russia stamped out by oriental despotism owes more to sloppy British historians of the 19th century.

British historians aside, there is a crucial difference between Moscovy and Novgorod: Moscovy was a country on its way to become a nation, primarily focused on eating the rest of the Russian principalities. It was interested in territorial expansion above everything else. Meanwhile, like you said, Novgorod was pretty much an oligarchy where the powerful merchants held all the influence, but unlike Moscovy, they were not interested in nation building, or territorial expansion, they were interested in money (and as long as trading was working the rest of the world, including the rest of Russia, could burn for all they cared). So sure Novgorod was not some liberal or really republican country, but it was very different to Moscovy in its core.

 

[al.gb]

If Russian culture need to split into pieces, for some gameplay reasons, best way call them "North/West/Central Russian". "Novgorodian", "Ryazanian" and "Moscovite" just not suitable. About "Ryazanian" said enough already.

But especially ridiculous sounded "Moscovite". Russian people of Moscow Grand Principality never called themselves like that. It was a part of Jagiellonian propaganda.

EU don`t need such propaganda, isn't it?

 

[Megusta]

I suggest add a script that will automatically close any thread with combination of words "historicaly" "sense" "great power" in any order\combination and ban that topic starter.

 

[DmUa]

British historians aside, there is a crucial difference between Moscovy and Novgorod: Moscovy was a country on its way to become a nation, primarily focused on eating the rest of the Russian principalities. It was interested in territorial expansion above everything else. Meanwhile, like you said, Novgorod was pretty much an oligarchy where the powerful merchants held all the influence, but unlike Moscovy, they were not interested in nation building, or territorial expansion, they were interested in money (and as long as trading was working the rest of the world, including the rest of Russia, could burn for all they cared). So sure Novgorod was not some liberal or really republican country, but it was very different to Moscovy in its core.

- truth to that, talking from the point of realism and historicity only Moskovy should be able to create Russia, but still with your "expansion above everything else" ( and your previous putin style this putin style that, from patch thread ) you kinda simplify it to much and make it look like land grab was done for the sake of land grab. After all livonian wars were primarily fought for acces to baltic ports so Russia would be able to trade its grain ( a really undervalued trade good in the game actually ) freely. Because by looking at your description one can think that it was like - whaaaaaghhhh for tsar and land grab!

If Russian culture need to split into pieces, for some gameplay reasons, best way call them "North/West/Central Russian". "Novgorodian", "Ryazanian" and "Moscovite" just not suitable. About "Ryazanian" said enough already.

But especially ridiculous sounded "Moscovite". Russian people of Moscow Grand Principality never called themselves like that. It was a part of Jagiellonian propaganda.

EU don`t need such propaganda, isn't it?

- nah, names would be too long.

 

[al.gb]

- nah, names would be too long.

In this case, best decision is a unified Russian culture.

Who ever gave the devs that idea?

 

[Vaximillian]

I suggest add a script that will automatically close any thread with combination of words "historicaly" "sense" "great power" in any order\combination and ban that topic starter.

I suggest such suggestors to acquire some sense and stay away from such threads unless having anything to say.

 

[DanubianCossak]

- truth to that, talking from the point of realism and historicity only Moskovy should be able to create Russia, but still with your "expansion above everything else" ( and your previous putin style this putin style that, from patch thread ) you kinda simplify it to much and make it look like land grab was done for the sake of land grab. After all livonian wars were primarily fought for acces to baltic ports so Russia would be able to trade its grain ( a really undervalued trade good in the game actually ) freely. Because by looking at your description one can think that it was like - whaaaaaghhhh for tsar and land grab!

Dude the entire history of Moscovy and then Russia is one land grab operation. When grabbing land wasnt done simply for land grabbing sake, it was done to a.) secure natural resources or b.) secure location for future ports, that were to be used to sell natural resources - to make money - to make guns - to make armies - to grab more land. Literally like that.

 

[DmUa]

In this case, best decision is a unified Russian culture.

Who ever gave the devs that idea?

- well, its apparent that it would not happen.

Dude the entire history of Moscovy and then Russia is one land grab operation. When grabbing land wasnt done simply for land grabbing sake, it was done to a.) secure natural resources or b.) secure location for future ports, that were to be used to sell natural resources - to make money - to make guns - to make armies - to grab more land. Literally like that.

- so are you implying that other empires grabbed lands for sake of... i dont know... planting flowers? Sheesh. Whatever.

 

[Vaximillian]

Dude the entire history is one land grab operation. When grabbing land wasnt done simply for land grabbing sake, it was done to a.) secure natural resources or b.) secure location for future ports, that were to be used to sell natural resources - to make money - to make guns - to make armies - to grab more land. Literally like that.

ft4u

 

[nalivayko]

Are you implying that people are only interested in how their own culture/culture group is represented?

I am not implying and I am not not implying that I am saying there is a group within any nationality that is extremely interested with how their own culture group is represented (that doesn't exclude interest in other groups).

 

[E. Cephalopoda]

Novgorod was pretty much an oligarchy where the powerful merchants held all the influence, but unlike Moscovy, they were not interested in nation building, or territorial expansion, they were interested in money (and as long as trading was working the rest of the world, including the rest of Russia, could burn for all they cared). So sure Novgorod was not some liberal or really republican country, but it was very different to Moscovy in its core.

How about no? "not interested" Novgorod colonized a giant territories of modern north-western Russia during Middle Ages, and enforced their law on his colonies.
And it's very strange, that there are no any colonizing ideas for Novgorod in EU.

 

[Itchel]

I agree with some of this but, But i disagree with the uralic tribes because they are not culturally tied to russian not even linguistically (karelian,Uralic,finnish,estonian,"permian" and whatnot)
what else, The splitting of ruthenian, I like zaporisian a bit but aside from that, i dont see the point in any other split

Then we have smolenskian, I love that idea! infact I came up with the same idea a while ago before reading ;p