ADDING Another CULTURE TO RUSSIA

[unmerged(4730)]

ADD MONGOL CULTURE TO RUSSIA IN NEXT PATCH
THERE SHOULDNT BE A GOLDEN HORDE IN 1492
Basicly Russia should have mongol culture or ugric , mongol would
be more acurate for two reasons 1 in 1468 after the battle of the
Kulikovskoe Pole where Dmitry Donskoi anihilated the armys of the golden horde two things happened one Russia got most of its possessions except stuff below the don river basicly everything but astrakhan in the game map. 1/3 of the all mongols were orthodox by choice but in the the civil war within the horde before the breakup a lot were anihilated by the clashes but a large portion came to the border of moscowy and were excepted
and settled. During the 250 years of struggle against the orde two things happened mutual exceptance occured between mongols and russians and there was a movement to become a united nation there was a faction trying to bring the horde to
convert to orthodxy instead of muslim religion in order for mutual
assimilation but was lost. Basicly in 1450's pretty sure 52 or somewhere around there began a civil war occured between
pro-orthodox/pro-muslim
mongol factions with the muslim faction winning after which a large portion of the population fled fearing prosecutions into moscowy and other lordships , were excepted and settled. Now Sibir never ever ever ever revolted against russia EVER.(tsarytsin isnt sibir i think)Thats why everyone was sent into exhile there ... Also mongols within the Russian realm after didnt revolt they gradually assimilated and khazaks became one of the guardians of russian expansion.
True muslim religion was kept after in some areas even now there is a republic of tatarstan within russia but during the time of the 1492-1820 mongols in sibir didnt revolt one of the most stable parts of the country , 9 months of uncrossible marsh and sleet and 3 months of somewhat descent weather kinda hard to make a rebellion ain it. with only little villages. Sibir is pretty orthodox wasnt muslim or anything like that altai are like eskimos really stone age werent' muslim. I say this because 1 the corridor should be free of revolts to simulate the extreme stability of sibir.
Mongolia if ever incorporated should be budhist , cause they got lamas & orthodox churches a couple i think there now...
Post this in a diff place if need be kinda got a bit out of hand.
Liked to read bout history ever since i was a kid.

 

[Warhead990]

in 1468 after the battle of the
Kulikovskoe Pole

Not to nit pick, but that battle occured in 1389.
NOt to menton two years after it the horde came back in and sacked moscow.

Basicly in 1450's pretty sure 52 or somewhere around there began a civil war occured between
pro-orthodox/pro-muslim
mongol factions with the muslim faction winning after which a large portion of the population fled fearing prosecutions into moscowy and other lordships , were excepted and settled.

Are you sure that actually happened? I dont remember hearing about it. Anyways, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Are you trying to say that there should be an event where russia annexes the Golden Horde and gets mongol culture or something?

BUT, if that is what you want to do, you can just add an event for russia(Or muscovy or whatever) in the events file...

 

[Kasperus]

Uhm, what Russia did was military annex the restants of the Golden Horde, and not in 1460 or so but not before ~1550 or the conquest of Kazan. Astrakhan followed later, the restants of Golden Horde (which thus still existed, though not as a "permanent" state - not that it was before anyway. Golden Horde still controlled the lower Volga though between Kazan and Astrakhan and the steppe between Volga and Urals).
But thus, there should be no event which gives Russia any steppe. They should conquer it as they did in real life.

Moreover, I don`t see why Russia should get mongol culture. The Mongols did not acquire the position of ruling class or something in Russia. They were not persecuted or so but so were neither any other peoples in Russia in theory. Don`t see why you would have to give culture of all such ther groups to russia though. The same actually for ugric people. Russia could acquire that culture maybe as early as 1815.

What culture it SHOULD get however is the Ruthenian. Russians were Ruthenians after all. It shouldn`t get ukrainian which thus should have come back and be the culture of those ruthenians who lived in Poland/Lithuania.

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by Warhead990
Not to nit pick, but that battle occured in 1389.
NOt to menton two years after it the horde came back in and sacked moscow.

Or actually 1380 . Moscow was sacked 2 years later indeed, in 1382.

 

[unmerged(4730)]

two things

one you are right it was 1380 off by a hundred years heh
and two I still think russia should get a second culture in all the games i play comp never gets it developed properly and also
to be honest austria having 4 and russia having 1 is propostreous in my mind all austria should get is german then and thats it. at very least russia should get ukrainian but mongol as well cause they were treated very well . about ugric i dont know the purges by ivan grozny kinda take that away he didnt like the scan/ugric culture *kinda makes u question those people who say Russians come from scan/germanic countries when there is evidence of skiffic origin in every natural history museum in Russia but hey those 1500 year old golden horses and little statuates of skiff gods as well as other things dont really count in western minds *

 

[Kasperus]

Russians don`t come from scandinavia, only their first rulers did

 

[Impi]

in my games the russians are far too incompetent to keep the steppe lands, even if they do get them. giving them 50 000 ducats through a complex series of saves and reloads helps them get the steppeland in the first place, but keeping it is another story. there really should be some events that change the culture of the steppe to reflect the russification of these areas or the mongol culture should be added for balance reasons.

too many times i see the crimeans and nogai survive - and thru defections - prosper at the expense of the russians. it's very few occasions the russians actually acquire access to the siberian corridor, as they constantly fight endless wars on three fronts against the lithuanians/poles/scandinavians/germans to the west, the mongols/turks to the south and the mongols/turks to the east. their stupid AI doesn't help matters, either. either they never gain anything because they accept terms that are too pisspoor, or they collapse from revolts.

grrr, they never become the sleeping titan of the east like what they're supposed to...

 

[unmerged(739)]

About it being unfair that Russia only gets one culture because Austria gets four, Austria should only get one (German), I don't like the idea of adding more ahistorical changes (giving Russia Mongol and/or Ugric culture), rather I would like to see Austria's extra cultures removed.

That is the only sensible option.

 

[Kasperus]

Well, Austria should get Hungarian - there is really nothing wrong with that.
Russia btw has maybe only 1 culture BUT after it colonizes Siberia it has much more provinces with own state-culture than Austria can ever dream of. THough I still think that Russia should indeed get Ruthenian as 2nd culture.

 

[Hive]

Austria shouldn't get hungarian culture until they become Austria-Hungary, if you ask me...

Anyway, I was thinking A LOT about the lithuanian/ruthenian/ukrainian cultures. As now, I have completely removed the lithuanian culture and made those provinces baltic instead. I didn't do anything about the Ukrainian and Bielorussian areas, as I was quite sure about the Ruthenian thing... obviously, the Ukrainian provinces should be Ukrainian!
But what about the Bielorussian ones? Does anyone know? And if anyone (maybe Kasperus, you seem to have extensive historical knowledge...) furthermore should know exactly which provinces should be what, that would be great....

 

[Kasperus]

Well, that "obviously Ukrainian" is not so obvious at all. There was no real distinct Ukrainian culture in 1419.

As to Byelorussia: Byelorussians - just as Ukrainians and Russians were in basic Ruthenians (that word means actually all the eastern slavs) . I`m not sure when Byelorussians were considered a nation - not too early. In 20th century there were still many groups living in Byelorussia who considered themselves fully distinct and only to be "included" in Byelorussian "nation" after 1945.

So anyway, the basic setup as paradox made it - with only Russians and Ruthenians isn`t so bad. You`re making it only hard for urself if you add ukrainian culture (or add it later - they weren`t thus really considered "distinct" from other Ruthenians before ~1600 or so).

As to provinces: this is hard to say and also a long discussed point. The thing is that the map of that part of Europe is so greatly screwed up that everything is an approximation. And considering thus the fact that I can hardly define where the exact border or Russian and Ruthenian influence would have to be drawn, I will not even consider trying to define border of Byelorussians who weren`t a "nation" at all probably.

 

[Hive]

Okay then, thanx. I just think it's a bit weird that both cultures are in the game if the Russians are actually also Ruthenians... it would be like having a Danish culture for Denmark and Scandinavian for Sweden and Norway! Oh well, I guess I can live with it anyway.

 

[St. Leo]

Baltic Lithuania Code

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by Hive
Okay then, thanx. I just think it's a bit weird that both cultures are in the game if the Russians are actually also Ruthenians... it would be like having a Danish culture for Denmark and Scandinavian for Sweden and Norway! Oh well, I guess I can live with it anyway.

Well, don`t get me wrong, there was thus at a certain moment indeed a distinction - mostly political but later also cultural. Generally after ~1500 all Russians live in Russia while all Ruthenians in Poland/Lithuania or the "free" south-Ukraina. Whether the linguistic difference was less obvious (there were generally many dialect-differences just like with every language before standardizing anyway) the culture developed differently in both territories. Ruthenians were much more influenced by the western culture, their church developed into a more intellectual and "correct" orthodox instantion, while the Russian culture was far more isolated and its church much more traditional Russian and less "correct" in Roman orthodox faith.

 

[unmerged(739)]

Re: two things

Originally posted by eluminate
two I still think russia should get a second culture

You can play with an incorrect setup, don't try and make us have to do so though.

Also, in reply to your first post; why shouldn't there be a Golden Horde in 1492?

 

[Hive]

Really, saying Russia should have mongol culture is like saying France should have italian culture: sure, it would be a nice help when conquering Italy with Napoleon - but it's not at all historically accurate...

 

[unmerged(4730)]

NO ITS NOT THE SAME

BASICLY France starts with about 20 + provs with cores and
doesnt have the penalty of getting its research costs quadrupled by conquest like Russia does
Second Russia really needs another culture for historic accuracy
siberia is Russificed as someone put it before and this doesnt get changed in the game as it should so adding mongol culture would make it simulate the historical progression and settlement of Russian population in the former mongol populated areas as they were driven out... Most of the areas where majority was mongol eventually became Russificed and was very stable ... In game the comp gets revolts like crazy and the player has to deal with the same thing , now considering multyplayer your back should be stable as it was historicly , the urals and sibir wasn't revolting and was colonized and changed to russian culture as russia pushed eastward...

 

[Mad King James]

Cmon man it isn't that big a deal, the biggest problem facing Russia isn't a lack of state cultures, but all the khanates it has to mow through to get at siberia. That and Lithuania is way too strong...

 

[Kasperus]

Re: NO ITS NOT THE SAME

Originally posted by eluminate
BASICLY France starts with about 20 + provs with cores and
doesnt have the penalty of getting its research costs quadrupled by conquest like Russia does
Second Russia really needs another culture for historic accuracy
siberia is Russificed as someone put it before and this doesnt get changed in the game as it should so adding mongol culture would make it simulate the historical progression and settlement of Russian population in the former mongol populated areas as they were driven out... Most of the areas where majority was mongol eventually became Russificed and was very stable ... In game the comp gets revolts like crazy and the player has to deal with the same thing , now considering multyplayer your back should be stable as it was historicly , the urals and sibir wasn't revolting and was colonized and changed to russian culture as russia pushed eastward...

The settlement is abstracted well enough indeed - Russia is able to colonize Siberia. The settlement of the mongol khanate territories didn`t really start before the 19th century.
Further saying that the Mongol territories were Russified and stable is a gross mistake. They were only stable as Russia had there most of the time about a half of all its troops stationned. All the territory between (in eu-terms) saratov and semipalatinsk was one long, fortified military border. Territories outside it were semi-wild steppe with just a few far-away forposts like Astrakhan. That territory was not Russified and open for every single steppe people who wanted to colonize it (as many did - the last examples of 18th century are the Dzjoengars, Baikars and Kalmuks). Furthermore it was there in the south that all the big uprisings started - Mazepa`s, Pugatshov`s... not to mention the tatar raids which didn`t come only from Crim. If you call the Russian steppe stable then I wonder if there is something in the world that can actually be called unstable
Finally, note that apart from Jekaterinburg the urals were still semiwild and uncolonized. Around Ufa and to the south of that it was even forbidden for the Russians to settle as those territories were promised to stay free steppe. That didn`t make things stable or at least not when Russians tried to control the territory in which they also didn`t succed before ~1800. The thing is only that the map excluded most of Urals which is probably the biggest mistake.

 

[Caranorn]

I feel that Russia probably should not get an additional culture, at least not for most of it's existance. Possibly add the culture via event at certain times (rulers) when Russia managed the east easily.

What would make much more sense is the possibility to displace mongol populations and settle russians in their place. I think this happened a few times in reality and should be reflected in the game. Also add a few random events for Russia, where you can do this at monetary and possibly stability cost (pay 500, lose 3 stability, province ??? changes culture to russian, possibly provinc ??? population -2000). But I'm not sure you can select a province by it's culture for an event, probably not (I expect it has to be either clearly identified by number, be the capital province or any random province ???, -1, -2).

As to Austria, it should definitelly get Hungarian culture at some point (though I'd remove culture changes from the major inheritance events to allow culture addition when countries unite earlier via good diplomatic moves). Poland should get Lithuanian (not just via the unification event, I am currently playing a game as Moscowy and Poland-Lithuania recently united by diplo annexation and I fear that country will soon start to disintegrate, which should not be the case, at least not as badly). France should at some point during the revolution (actually during the early Empire, possibly related to code Napoleon and the dissolution of the HRE) get Italian, German and possibly Dutch culture (the Empire is very tough to simulate via vassal states, having no core provinces in those areas should be trouble enough). But France should also lose those cultures if it gets seriously defeated (not sure how such an event can be constructed, stopped looking into that when I found out the game's engine could not adequately simulate the military campaigns).

Culture changes for states and provinces should happen more often. That means add culutures for a state, but also drop cultures for a state. It also means changeing a province's culture via event (as it is not yet possible to do so via game play, other then non city colonies). All of this effects Russia, but also other multi-national states. I think much of the current problem stems from the creation of "playable" non European states in EU2. This has led to the problem of unmanageable provinces and slow tech growth for empires. It also seems to have created unrealistic economic situations (the Iroquois seem to provice the 1419 world in all the furs one may desire, thereby keeping prices low, this obviously affects countries like Russia).

Marc aka Caran... the judgement on EU2 in the end has to be one of good ideas badly incorporated into AW and PT's originaly great concept