Culture issues with CK3

[ArVass]

Its the same problem with Frankish and Visigothic.

Do you call the culture of the area after its conquerers who are only the top class or do you use the majority population?

French, Spanish and Italian are all spoken there, but Germanic only sorta influenced it.

Make them two cultures, duh

 

[Pbhuh]

Make them two cultures, duh

And then what?

You make half the rulers Germanic things and other half romance?

What about 870's. Where mostly the Germanic language was no longer spoken.

Are the people still Frankish if they dont speak Frankish but French? Or does that happen later? And how much later? When the last Karling no longer ruled France?

It's something that has to be dealt with and it would be nice if it applied to all similar situation Romance Cultures.

 

[fredrikslicer]

The primary nations arise later in norse.

Not sure what you mean by this.


If you mean that that´s what happened in ck2 then all I have to say is that it wasn´t very well handled in ck2


If you mean the kingdoms then the christian institution of "Kingdom" would certainly arise a bit later but that has nothing to do with the cultures.

If by nation you mean cultures that would be very strange because Swedes and Geats earliest mentions are from the 1st and 2nd century respectivley. Scandinavians were not and are not a singluar culture

But they should perhaps distinguish between east and west norse.

So Norweigan in one boat and the rest in the other then? Because that´s how the division betwen west and east looks like. And Guets would have to be one their own if we want to be specific (I also belive PDX has been rather opposed to the cultural split by linguistics)

 

[LDonahue]

Its the same problem with Frankish and Visigothic.

Do you call the culture of the area after its conquerers who are only the top class or do you use the majority population?

I’d argue that the situation with the Lombards is a lot different than the Visigoths if only for the fact that the political entities that gave rise to each name is long gone in one instance and alive and well in another. In the dissertation Pavia’s Twin: Power and Identity in Early Medieval Benevento (570-899 CE), the subject of what defines an identity in the first place during that era is discussed. One of the topics it touches on is the effect of political dynamics on identity among the general population. The only real culture we know of in that area during that time is that of the Lombards and given the political salience of that culture it would not be too far-fetched to infer that a majority of the population would identify with it.

Ultimately, though, I believe the problem lies more in the fundamentals of Crusader Kings mechanics. Sure, there may have been many more identities and cultures living under the southern Lombards, but we lack any kind of sufficient documentation even if there were. What would we call them? Where were they concentrated? We know that Bulgarian immigrants were accepted onto Lombard land; were they the majority in the area in which they settled? Did they even retain their Bulgarian identity? In the grand scheme of adapting historical unknowns to a medium that requires they be known, I believe that identifying the people with their political residence is the most effective and accurate solution that keeps in line with the requirements of the medium. I only believe such for this specific instance as I do realize there is an issue with “Visigothic” culture dominating Spain. I might try and look into that, too.

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

No Anglo-Saxon split for launch

Ah yes, because the current situation with Anglo-Saxons in the isles and just-Saxons on the continent makes perfect sense /s

 

[Farfour]

Ah yes, because the current situation with Anglo-Saxons in the isles and just-Saxons on the continent makes perfect sense /s

Are you proposing they become a single culture?

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

Are you proposing they become a single culture?

On the contrary, I'm wondering why can't Anglo-Saxons be split when separate Saxons are already present.

 

[ArVass]

On the contrary, I'm wondering why can't Anglo-Saxons be split when separate Saxons are already present.

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't Angles, Jutes and Saxons basically "homogenise" by the time of the 867 start, basically starting to have one cultural identity?

 

[CrabHelmet]

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't Angles, Jutes and Saxons basically "homogenise" by the time of the 867 start, basically starting to have one cultural identity?

A little bit after - really it was the reaction to the Viking incursions that forced the Anglians and Saxons into a closer union. In 867 it's not a completed process.

 

[Rubidium]

A little bit after - really it was the reaction to the Viking incursions that forced the Anglians and Saxons into a closer union. In 867 it's not a completed process.

I'd argue the old Angle/Saxon/Jute/(probably Frisian) division was already irrelevant by 867 and was in many ways a retroactive construction anyway (like most tribal groupings, the exact ethnic identity was fairly fluid, and you see e.g., Mercians referring to themselves as Saxons and what not fairly frequently despite Bede's explicit depiction of Mercia as an Angle kingdom).

To the extent that there was a division, it was more along state lines by this point: there was definitely a Mercian identity as distinct from West Saxons and probably distinct Northumbrian and East Anglian identities too (although the records there are less clear because the Vikings pretty much burned everything, especially in East Anglia). But I don't think that really deserves a separate ethnic identity distinct from the normal de jure system (especially as from screenshots it looks like they may have Wessex and possibly Mercia as a de jure kingdom in 867).

You definitely see hints of a unified Anglo-Saxon identity by the time of Bede (730s) with his "Ecclesiastical History of the English People" (my emphasis) explicitly conceiving of the Anglo-Saxon peoples as a unified nation. You can argue to what extent he was depicting a commonly held belief in the 730s vs. advocating for the creation of one (and there is a great deal of historiographical debate on this point), but Bede was enormously influential in both England and the continent over the succeeding century and a half.

 

[CrabHelmet]

I'd argue the old Angle/Saxon/Jute/(probably Frisian) division was already irrelevant by 867 and was in many ways a retroactive construction anyway (like most tribal groupings, the exact ethnic identity was fairly fluid, and you see e.g., Mercians referring to themselves as Saxons and what not fairly frequently Bede's explicit depiction of Mercia as an Angle kingdom).

To the extent that there was a division, it was more along state lines by this point: there was definitely a Mercian identity as distinct from West Saxons and probably distinct Northumbrian and East Anglian identities too (although the records there are less clear because the Vikings pretty much burned everything, especially in East Anglia). But I don't think that really deserves a separate ethnic identity distinct from the normal de jure system (especially as from screenshots it looks like they may have Wessex and possibly Mercia as a de jure kingdom in 867).

You definitely see hints of a unified Anglo-Saxon identity by the time of Bede (730s) with his "Ecclesiastical History of the English People" (my emphasis) explicitly conceiving of the Anglo-Saxon peoples as a unified nation. You can argue to what extent he was depicting a commonly held belief in the 730s vs. advocating for the creation of one (and there is a great deal of historiographical debate on this point), but Bede was enormously influential in both England and the continent over the succeeding century and a half.

yes, I agree with most of this. What I would pick up is that: ethnic lines falling along state lines probably is sufficient for cultural splits in some areas and contexts - after all, almost all the actual gameplay effects of culture in CK2 and so presumably in CK3 relate to how peoples react to polities. Frankish cultures are less accepted in Normaund courts, Saxon cultires are more resistant to Frankish rule, even though there was a conception of the French people and German people which drew in both groups. This is clearly why "culture" and "culture group" exist - to indicate sub-identities that still might be subsumed beneath a larger one.

Anglo-Saxon is tricky because "Anglisc-ness" has not completely subsumed other loyalties and identities by 867. However, the process is certainly fairly far along and would complete arguably only a few more decades after the 867 start. You then have to question whether it is worth the bother of splitting them up.

 

[Pbhuh]

yes, I agree with most of this. What I would pick up is that: ethnic lines falling along state lines probably is sufficient for cultural splits in some areas and contexts - after all, almost all the actual gameplay effects of culture in CK2 and so presumably in CK3 relate to how peoples react to polities. Frankish cultures are less accepted in Normaund courts, Saxon cultires are more resistant to Frankish rule, even though there was a conception of the French people and German people which drew in both groups. This is clearly why "culture" and "culture group" exist - to indicate sub-identities that still might be subsumed beneath a larger one.

Anglo-Saxon is tricky because "Anglisc-ness" has not completely subsumed other loyalties and identities by 867. However, the process is certainly fairly far along and would complete arguably only a few more decades after the 867 start. You then have to question whether it is worth the bother of splitting them up.

The point to splitting the anglo-saxon identity I think is primarily the fact that there was a difference between the heptarchy's different kingdoms and the fact that this division also weakens Anglo Saxons somewhat, perhaps making it harder for one of them to quickly take over all of them.

Northumbria, Wessex, East Anglia and Mercia were all pretty important and had influence over the other minor ones, so I'd say splitting Anglo Saxon up between them wouldn't be bad.

 

[CrabHelmet]

The point to splitting the anglo-saxon identity I think is primarily the fact that there was a difference between the heptarchy's different kingdoms and the fact that this division also weakens Anglo Saxons somewhat, perhaps making it harder for one of them to quickly take over all of them.

Northumbria, Wessex, East Anglia and Mercia were all pretty important and had influence over the other minor ones, so I'd say splitting Anglo Saxon up between them wouldn't be bad.

Ultimately, though, after 867, they were all pulled together fairly quickly. Admittedly, this was because the bits that weren't got Viking'd, but as a simplification for gameplay, I can see just making them all a single culture and calling it a day.

If you did split them up, you'd need to then write a melting-pot event which should have fully completed by about 50 years after game-start. Writing 5 or 6 distinct cultures (Mercian, East Anglian, Northumbrian, Wessexian, Kentish, and Anglish) with all the associated name-lists, retinues, unique cultural innovations, and so on, and a whole melting-pot event for Anglish which needs to fire reliably and have a reliable effect without leaving weird e.g. Kentish isolates floating around like CK2's sometimes to do, all for such a short period of gameplay is a big ask when you can just have "Anglish", one and done.

 

[Pbhuh]

Ultimately, though, after 867, they were all pulled together fairly quickly. Admittedly, this was because the bits that weren't got Viking'd, but as a simplification for gameplay, I can see just making them all a single culture and calling it a day.

It would take another 50 years for Mercia and East Anglia being conquered by Wessex and Northumbria until 954. Thats quite a decent amount of time, then comes the question of how fast the culture would shift, and generally speaking even today the North is distinct, with Yorkshire thanks to the Vikings also being distinct from the rest of Northumbria. Later on the Northern part, Lothian, would become part of Scottish Lowlands and would be the basis for the Scots language.

This is also why I feel Scottish has no place in Crusader Kings and should just be Northumbrian.

 

[CrabHelmet]

It would take another 50 years for Mercia and East Anglia being conquered by Wessex and Northumbria until 954. Thats quite a decent amount of time, then comes the question of how fast the culture would shift, and generally speaking even today the North is distinct, with Yorkshire thanks to the Vikings also being distinct from the rest of Northumbria. Later on the Northern part, Lothian, would become part of Scottish Lowlands and would be the basis for the Scots language.

This is also why I feel Scottish has no place in Crusader Kings and should just be Northumbrian.

Yeah, there's arguments on both sides, but as I also pointed out in the post you've quoted (I edited to flesh it out slightly) it's a lot of work for not a huge amount of gain timewise. It also introduces other problems: if we break up Anglisc so aggressively, then it looks a bit odd when 4-5 very slight regional variations are made separate cultures in England, but not in the rest of the world. Then suddenly every single culture in the game has to be broken into 7-8 regional variations in order to be consistent. I'm not convinced that's necessarily good for gameplay or worth the frankly enormous amount of work associated with that.

Anglisc + Norman = English
Anglisc + Albannaich = Scottish

Both cultural shifts happened around the same time and you could reuse a lot of the same material, no Northumbrian necessarily needed.

 

[Atridij]

867 Bosnians...

My problem is that Bosnians are way too wide spread at 867 start, they should be present only around Vrhbosna, Zahumlje, Usora and Soli. Donji Kraji and Tropolje were Croat dominated, while Podrinje and Travunia to greater extent should be Serbian culture. But Italo-Dalmatians, Slovenians, Albanians and pockets of Vlachs, (with unassimilated Sklavians and Antes) are much needed addition to the culture map in western Balkans to represent that period of history. But considering that there are mega cultural blobs in North Africa, France, Iberia, Middle East and Russia I recognize there are more pressing matters than nitpicking.

 

[Farfour]

What I would pick up is that: ethnic lines falling along state lines probably is sufficient for cultural splits in some areas and contexts - after all, almost all the actual gameplay effects of culture in CK2 and so presumably in CK3 relate to how peoples react to polities. Frankish cultures are less accepted in Normaund courts, Saxon cultires are more resistant to Frankish rule, even though there was a conception of the French people and German people which drew in both groups. This is clearly why "culture" and "culture group" exist - to indicate sub-identities that still might be subsumed beneath a larger one.

Seconded. This should be the primary reasoning for splitting current cultures in CK or those of more recently unified polites (cough, Germany).

Although it does beg the question, should culture groups be based in linguistic relation (say English and German both being West Germanic) or cultural relation? A question to which I'm already leaning towards the second option to. Even CK2 seems to agree with it organizing German, Saxon, Dutch, and Frisian (Frankish as well?) into "Central Germanic".

If you did split them up, you'd need to then write a melting-pot event which should have fully completed by about 50 years after game-start. Writing 5 or 6 distinct cultures (Mercian, East Anglian, Northumbrian, Wessexian, Kentish, and Anglish) with all the associated name-lists, retinues, unique cultural innovations, and so on, and a whole melting-pot event for Anglish which needs to fire reliably and have a reliable effect without leaving weird e.g. Kentish isolates floating around like CK2's sometimes to do, all for such a short period of gameplay is a big ask when you can just have "Anglish", one and done.

Personally I would add an event for "[formerly independent Anglo-Saxon realm] accepts [culture of realm that has integrated realm] domination" that completely supplants the previous culture wherever it exists within a unified England.

 

[Farfour]

This is also why I feel Scottish has no place in Crusader Kings and should just be Northumbrian.

Anglisc + Albannaich = Scottish

*Scots.

Ironically not related to the more prevalent Scottish Gaelic or, Scottish, and not to be confused with Scottish English, the Scottish dialects of English.

 

[Pbhuh]

*Scots.

Ironically not related to the more prevalent Scottish Gaelic or, Scottish, and not to be confused with Scottish English, the Scottish dialects of English.

Scottish, a collective people.

Scots is merely the germanic derived language. Scottish is generally the culture of the people in scotland.

 

[CrabHelmet]

*Scots.

Ironically not related to the more prevalent Scottish Gaelic or, Scottish, and not to be confused with Scottish English, the Scottish dialects of English.

Unless we are actually using contemporary endonyms, Scottish is how the people identifiably culturally descended from that group call themselves. Scots is usually reserved for the dialect.