Albanian culture?

[Nulix]

Yeah, from what I understood proto-albanians were probably in illyria since ancient times. I feel like having one county with Albanian culture wouldn't be too a-historic for the time period or would take away from the Greek culture surrounding it.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Yeah,but we don't know anything about the "Albanian predecessor culture",and I don't think the culture would change that drastically between 1066 and the 1070's,so I'd rather just have an Albanian culture represent both things on the map.
EDIT:

I said only said that because people mentioned having the albanian culture appear in an event,I don't even know how you came up with this,seeing that it seems to be the exact opposite of what I'm saying
EDIT2:
I think you mean that we shouldn't erase any cultures preceding the albanian culture,but we don't even know anything about them,so I don't see why just having Albanians be present on the map would be an bad idea.

Bear in mind that there isn't only 1066 to consider. There's also 867, and how whatever is present in those provinces could "naturally" shift to Albanian if it is not already there, whether this is a migration, an evolution of culture, or a cultural melting pot.

We know that at some stage there were Illyrians of some sort there (the 7th century, when various Slavs came into the area and either displaced, assimilated or eliminated them). Then from the mid 9th century to the early to mid 11th we have Bulgarian rulers over this before the land is taken into the Byzantine Empire.
So, potentially what we have is the Albanian culture rising out of either Bulgarian or Greek rulers over whatever Slavic group is seen as being present.

If we're going to see an Albanian culture on the map, how much territory should it hold? Where? What cultures that have already been placed will this affect?


I'm far from against having the culture on the map at 1066 if the situation is unclear, or if the few years wouldn't make a difference, but having them there "from the start" (which is 867) might be a stretch, as might automatically identifying the culture of 867 with the culture of 1066 and beyond.

Ptolemy (2nd century AD) mentions a people called "Albanoi", an Illyrian tribe, living north of Epirus and west of Macedonia. As I've mentioned before, "Albanians" (an exonym), have probably lived in the Western Balkans since prehistoric times. I don't see why there would be an event needed to create them--They're the majority ethnicity of a region, and probably have been for at least 2,000 years.

Given some of the small tribes appearing as specific ethnicities and some of the minor cultural distinctions made elsewhere on the map, I think it's an oversight to make all of the Western Balkans either South Slavic or Greek.

Are you sure those are the same as the Albanians mentioned in 1070, and that it isn't a case of a later cultural identity having adopted the name of an earlier one? The area has been under several different rulers by that point (Romans/Byzantines, Slavs, Bulgars by the 9th century, and then had a prolonged war run through it by the mid 11th when it comes back to the Byzantines).

 

[Skales]

From my understanding. We don't exactly know where the Albanians came from. But considering they are supposedly derived from the ancient Illyrians and considering they are just mentioned for the first time in the 11th century. I do not think it is that much of a stretch to just include them in the 867 start date. Unless someone can reasonably provide another culture that should take its place as well as a way for the Albanians to appear, but my assumption would be that it would be either Albanians or their predecessors and we do not know anything about their predecessors so I suggest we don't try to artificially create an 'Albanian predecessor' culture whose only purpose is to shift to Albanian once the magical 1070 date comes in.

What I would like to know is how exactly will the culture survive from the 867 start date to 1070 anyway, since CK2 has the tendency to kill off smaller cultures, despite the fact that Medieval realms were often highly regionalized.

 

[The Shacks]

Poor Albanians, arent they to my limited knowledge, the only post-Illyrian natives of the Balklans, ala non Slavic locals? Seems a shame not to represent them sammitched in amongst the croats and serbs and greeks.

 

[Tschobo]

Poor Albanians, arent they to my limited knowledge, the only post-Illyrian natives of the Balklans, ala non Slavic locals? Seems a shame not to represent them sammitched in amongst the croats and serbs and greeks.

Well we also have Bavarian Istria and no Frisians and a Persian culture that probably didn't even exist at that time and should probably be at least renamed. I like the way were the game is heading in many ways, but culture-specific it is a bit wonky in some cases.

 

[Fediuld76]

Any word if there will be albanian culture in CK3? It was sorely missed in CK2 and though I messed with custom modding it in I don't think any great albanian culture mods were ever released.

If they are placed in south west Caucasus yes as existed there. In Balkans before the 15th century no.
Albanians appeared well after the Balkans were conquered by the Ottomans late 14th century (after 1360).

 

[dragonluke]

If they are placed in south west Caucasus yes as existed there. In Balkans before the 15th century no.
Albanians appeared well after the Balkans were conquered by the Ottomans late 14th century (after 1360).

explain please

 

[treb]

It matters if they're artificially present and remove the representation of another culture that *should* be there.

It matters if whatever the event to convert provinces to Albanian is destroys other cultures that should be there.

It was largely Greek or the predecessor culture to Albanian, loosing a bit of the greek blob Isn't that bad a blow.

Not necessarily.

If they're a development of a previous culture, then they don't have to be present on the map from the start, but rather the predecessor should be there.
If they're a merger of cultures then they don't need to be on the map from the start, but the base cultures should be in the area (probably one as the county, one as the ruling nobles).

It'd be like insisting "English" exists on the map in 1066, despite it being a merger of Anglo-Saxon and Norman, because they "didn't just appear out of nowhere" at a given date. It'd be like insisting that the various Spanish cultures should be there from the start, because they didn't "appear out of nowhere".

If you know where they came from, then by all means suggest where they should be in 1066.
If you know what culture they developed from - and why they developed in those specific provinces rather than any others that previously had the same culture - then feel free to suggest it.

It's also worth noting that "there's an event to create the culture from its predecessors" isn't it "appearing out of nowhere" so much as it's showing the evolution of the previous culture - as is done elsewhere on the map where an old culture morphs into a new one.

Now, if there's no real information about who was there in 1066, then it might be reasonable to have them on map in the 1066 start - but *if* there is evidence there was another cultural identity there at the time, then it should be represented, with something to show the rise of albanian culture as things develop. In either case we need the event to allow for 867's culture in that area to develop or be supplanted, and for that we need some information about where the proto-albanian identiy comes in.

However, that event needs to not just convert the whole of whatever the predecessor culture is to Albanian and thus erase *other* identities in the area.

That is because Albanian as a language and culture is unique, its neither Greek, Turkish, or Slavic. The leading theory is its the sole survivor of the Paleo-Balkan group of Indo-European languages. There are no present cultures for it to spring from, Albanians as a people just pop up in in a byzantine historical document from 1079 as an offhand mention of them being involved in a revolt against the Byzantines in 1036.

Ptolemy (2nd century AD) mentions a people called "Albanoi", an Illyrian tribe, living north of Epirus and west of Macedonia. As I've mentioned before, "Albanians" (an exonym), have probably lived in the Western Balkans since prehistoric times. I don't see why there would be an event needed to create them--They're the majority ethnicity of a region, and probably have been for at least 2,000 years.

Given some of the small tribes appearing as specific ethnicities and some of the minor cultural distinctions made elsewhere on the map, I think it's an oversight to make all of the Western Balkans either South Slavic or Greek.

I'd caution against identifying the Albanoi as Albanians. the Greeks, Romans, and later Byzantines were not ethnographic historians. The name might be entirely coincidental or by that point geographic, as in there a people who live where Albanoi lived.

Yeah, from what I understood proto-albanians were probably in illyria since ancient times. I feel like having one county with Albanian culture wouldn't be too a-historic for the time period or would take away from the Greek culture surrounding it.

Most of the Latin loanwords in Albanian are of eastern romance origin. Romanian specifically, putting it in east Serbia at best at some point.

If they are placed in south west Caucasus yes as existed there. In Balkans before the 15th century no.
Albanians appeared well after the Balkans were conquered by the Ottomans late 14th century (after 1360).

Albanians are first mentioned as "Arberians" and "Albanoi" in byzantine historical documents in the 1070's

 

[Warial]

If they are placed in south west Caucasus yes as existed there. In Balkans before the 15th century no.
Albanians appeared well after the Balkans were conquered by the Ottomans late 14th century (after 1360).

Albanians of Caucasus and Albanians of Balkans are not seen to be related to each other in any way.

 

[Aquamancer]

Albanians should be represented as the majority culture for at least some counties in the Balkans. A pops system for persistent ethnic minorities is a separate issue.

The exact origins of the Albanians are extremely obscure. The most likely explanation is that they are descended from what were termed "Illyrians" in antiquity. Others have suggested that they migrated to the Western Balkans from further east as part of the population shift in the region following the Avar invasion and Slavic migrations into the Balkans. Either way, some counties should be ethnically Albanian at any CK3 start date.

Indeed. To quote @Karlingid from an earlier thread about the inclusion of Albanians in the bookmarks where they aren't included:
"Wherever they came from, we can be quite certain they were roughly where they are now by 769. Even the theories that place them quite far outside of their current territory, which state the name "Albanian" is only because they happen to share the same region and not because of any continuity, generally say they got pushed there by Slavic migrations. Seeing as the Slavs have all but made a new home in the south, the Albanians should be very uncontroversially in their modern territory."

Beyond what the sources say, do we know what the archaeological opinion is?

The latest Albanian archaeological culture I was able to find information about was the Koman culture, which lasted from 500s to 700s and is considered by some researchers to represent the transitional period of Illyrian culture to Albanian culture. Of course, this theory hasn't found much support outside of Albania, and alternate theories have been proposed: for instance, it has been argued that the findings assigned as part of Koman culture actually represents Byzantine garrisons.
Tl:dr; Archaeological research doesn't provide clear-cut answers upon the ethnography of Albania, either.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Seems reasonable to have some Albanian provinces given what we know. Exact borders may be tricky though.

Also, thought Portuguese culture in game came from Suebi, not Visigoths, if the ruler is not Muslim. Seems right, at least according to the wiki.

 

[treb]

Indeed. To quote @Karlingid from an earlier thread about the inclusion of Albanians in the bookmarks where they aren't included:
"Wherever they came from, we can be quite certain they were roughly where they are now by 769. Even the theories that place them quite far outside of their current territory, which state the name "Albanian" is only because they happen to share the same region and not because of any continuity, generally say they got pushed there by Slavic migrations. Seeing as the Slavs have all but made a new home in the south, the Albanians should be very uncontroversially in their modern territory."

I wouldn't be as sure as that. There is ample evidence of them being northeast of what is Albania today for a prolonged period, the Albanian language itself displays a heavy latin infuence and from an east romantic language. This is significant because the romance language that surplanted illyrian in most of illyria was Dalmatian, a central romance language, in addition to this Albaina falls mostly to the south of the Jiercek line, squarly on the greek side, depsite its greek infuence being doric. not kione. All this indicates the ansestors of the albainains spent a prolonged period north of the Jiercek line, and east enough to be hevily influenced by an east romantic language(presumably aromanian or romanian). This is why its so complicated to place them, from the evidence they seemed to have originated near or had frequent contact with Epirus or otherwise had prolonged contact with doric greeks in the classical era. Then moved north and east in the migration era to be hevily influened by Eastern romance then at some point moved below the Jiercek line before the 11th century.

 

[Aquamancer]

I wouldn't be as sure as that. There is ample evidence of them being northeast of what is Albania today for a prolonged period, the Albanian language itself displays a heavy latin infuence and from an east romantic language. This is significant because the romance language that surplanted illyrian in most of illyria was Dalmatian, a central romance language, in addition to this Albaina falls mostly to the south of the Jiercek line, squarly on the greek side, depsite its greek infuence being doric. not kione. All this indicates the ansestors of the albainains spent a prolonged period north of the Jiercek line, and east enough to be hevily influenced by an east romantic language(presumably aromanian or romanian). This is why its so complicated to place them, from the evidence they seemed to have originated near or had frequent contact with Epirus or otherwise had prolonged contact with doric greeks in the classical era. Then moved north and east in the migration era to be hevily influened by Eastern romance then at some point moved below the Jiercek line before the 11th century.

And when would've this migration "below the Jiercek line" have taken place? Did it take during the timeperiod of CK2, or before it? And could the game even model such a movement of an ethnic group within an area already controlled by another state, such as Byzantium or the Bulgarian Empire?

 

[treb]

And when would've this migration "below the Jiercek line" have taken place? Did it take during the timeperiod of CK2, or before it? And could the game even model such a movement of an ethnic group within an area already controlled by another state, such as Byzantium or the Bulgarian Empire?

To put it simply we don't know when. All we can say final migration south took place before the 10th-11th centuries. all we can do is guess based on the languages features. We can only get a rough idea of its history based of loanwords.

 

[rcourtri]

Daco-Romanian is the dialect spoken in modern Romania and Moldova. Albanian loanwords from Romanian are more likely borrowed from Aromanian or Megleno-Romanian dialects spoken in Macedonia, Greece and Albania. This explanation eliminates the need for the Albanians to originate in the western Balkans, migrate eastward, pick up some Romanian loanwords, and then migrate back across the Balkans to the place where they had originally been, all while this mass migration goes unrecorded in Byzantine records.

Again, Albanians have probably been in their current location for more than 2,000 years.

The Albanians have probably always straddled the Jireček Line (a theoretical boundary dividing the Balkans between areas of mostly Latin influence and mostly Greek influence). It would explain the dialectal boundary within Albanian.

The controversies surrounding the origins of the Romanians (Is there meaningful continuity from Roman Dacia north of the Danube, or is Daco-Romanian the result of migration from south of the Danube?) is another great topic, but for another thread.

 

[treb]

Daco-Romanian is the dialect spoken in modern Romania and Moldova. Albanian loanwords from Romanian are more likely borrowed from Aromanian or Megleno-Romanian dialects spoken in Macedonia, Greece and Albania. This explanation eliminates the need for the Albanians to originate in the western Balkans, migrate eastward, pick up some Romanian loanwords, and then migrate back across the Balkans to the place where they had originally been, all while this mass migration goes unrecorded in Byzantine records.

Again, Albanians have probably been in their current location for more than 2,000 years.

The Albanians have probably always straddled the Jireček Line (a theoretical boundary dividing the Balkans between areas of mostly Latin influence and mostly Greek influence). It would explain the dialectal boundary within Albanian.

The controversies surrounding the origins of the Romanians (Is there meaningful continuity from Roman Dacia north of the Danube, or is Daco-Romanian the result of migration from south of the Danube?) is another great topic, but for another thread.

This isn't quite true, the evidence suggests that at its westernmost extreme of the contact area was probably what is today eastern serbia. That said the exact language that influenced albanian is up for debate, there is even a few theories that the romance language is a hitherto unknown extinct language or even a "albanian influenced romance language". again like most of albanian history prior to the 11th century we don't know for sure

 

[sreckom92]

Modern-day Albania roughly corresponds to Byzantine Theme of Dyrrhachium.
I assume the coastal and metropolitan settlements were initially dominated by Greeks and later by Slavs. Albanians would have occupied inland parts of the Theme.
If there's a reasoning for not showing Albanian culture on the map, I assume that would be the reason.

Don't hold me to this, as I'm merely speculating.
I would like to have this culture on the map.

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

If most of the theories are that they are descendants of Illyrians, maybe just have Illyrians in 867 start date who can become Albanians in the following ages? And in 1066 just Albanians.

 

[sreckom92]

I have advocated for addition of minorities in CK2.
Whether by a simple province modifier, or as a more advanced feature.
Certain provinces would have few minority groups and they will all spawn random courtiers from those cultures.
There would be a chance for that minority to become a dominant culture in the province.
When you convert culture of a province, that culture doesn't simply disappear, but becomes a minority.

Regarding Albanians, even if they were a minority group in certain provinces, they could still be represented. They would have a chance to rise up and dominate those provinces.

 

[treb]

If most of the theories are that they are descendants of Illyrians, maybe just have Illyrians in 867 start date who can become Albanians in the following ages? And in 1066 just Albanians.

No, All linguists can agree on is its an Indo-European language, and probably the sole surviving member of the Paleobalkan branch which in of itself is a group poorly attested languages from over 2000 years ago.