Culture issues with CK3

[SchwarzKatze]

When the Tarim Basin was originally added in Horse Lords in 2015, the Sogdians were the ones occupying the Saka/Khotanese territory. If you recall, at the time the provinces in the region were much bigger blobs too.

I was one of a few people to raise concerns about this at the time, and I remember this issue very well too because (and if you may allow me to toot my horn a bit) I recall in 2017 that I somehow provided the devs with the namelist for the Khotanese/Saka, which I had compiled for my own personal use.

They were later added with Jade Dragon in late 2017 and indirectly revealed with the 69th dev diary about the map changes with Tibet and Central Asia. By then I presume development of CK3 was fully under way.

huge digression but I think it's interesting seeing how CK2 developed over time in this regard. But either way the Saka/Khotanese definitely need to be back.

I must've misremembered then.

But every other cultures and religions from JD are in CK3 (Bodpa, Sumpa, Zhangzhung, Nepali, Tangut, Han) so leaving out the Saka doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Metz77]

I must've misremembered then.

But every other cultures and religions from JD are in CK3 (Bodpa, Sumpa, Zhangzhung, Nepali, Tangut, Han) so leaving out the Saka doesn't make a lot of sense.

It may be that those cultures were in JD because they'd already been added in CK3.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I must've misremembered then.

But every other cultures and religions from JD are in CK3 (Bodpa, Sumpa, Zhangzhung, Nepali, Tangut, Han) so leaving out the Saka doesn't make a lot of sense.

I don't blame you, I've played Crusader Kings 2 since the summer of 2012 and the map changed so much even ignoring the addition of India and Central Asia (much less the game itself).

Anyways you got a point - they even added new cultures to the region like the Shatuo and Kashmiri too, all welcome additions, so it is definitely baffling.

 

[Duarte]

I am not fond of the Butr/Branes distinction within the Berber group. The Butr/Branes is a rather inconsistent distinction made by Arab historians based on, to make it short, two criteria:
- the way of life, Butr Berbers being essentially nomads while Branes were settled Berbers.
- the fact that they rallied quickly or not the Arabs during the Arab conquest, Butr Berbers from Libya, the Aures (Eastern Algeria) and Miknassa (Central Morocco) being among the first Berber groups to convert to Islam and to join the Muslim army (especially during the conquest of Spain) while Branes only did it a bit later and converted gradually.

Berber themselves much preferred a tripartite/quadripartite distinction between Masmuda (mainly Morocco), Sanhaja (mainly Sahara and large part and current Algeria. Distinctive feature: women had higher social status and some Sanhaja groups were even matrilinear, like modern Tuaregs), Zenata (who were indeed mainly nomads, but some of them settled in Libya, Southern Tunisia, the Aures Mountains and later on in the Rif) and Huwwara, who were kin to the Zenata. Linguistics also attest that the Zenata/Sanhaja/Masmuda classification is more relevant, although not flawless.

to add to yuor point, in a way, it seems that the Butr/Branes destinction also represents a degree of pre-islamic culture, at the verry least it *must*, otherwise the adition of magrebi becomes somewhat nonsensical (if i'm understanding the terminology right) in this screenshot from 1066

 

[elvain]

I am not fond of the Butr/Branes distinction within the Berber group. The Butr/Branes is a rather inconsistent distinction made by Arab historians based on, to make it short, two criteria:
- the way of life, Butr Berbers being essentially nomads while Branes were settled Berbers.
- the fact that they rallied quickly or not the Arabs during the Arab conquest, Butr Berbers from Libya, the Aures (Eastern Algeria) and Miknassa (Central Morocco) being among the first Berber groups to convert to Islam and to join the Muslim army (especially during the conquest of Spain) while Branes only did it a bit later and converted gradually.

Berber themselves much preferred a tripartite/quadripartite distinction between Masmuda (mainly Morocco), Sanhaja (mainly Sahara and large part and current Algeria. Distinctive feature: women had higher social status and some Sanhaja groups were even matrilinear, like modern Tuaregs), Zenata (who were indeed mainly nomads, but some of them settled in Libya, Southern Tunisia, the Aures Mountains and later on in the Rif) and Huwwara, who were kin to the Zenata. Linguistics also attest that the Zenata/Sanhaja/Masmuda classification is more relevant, although not flawless.

First of all, I will prefer to use spelling and naming used in respected academic sources such as Historical dictionary of the Berbers or Encyclopedia of Islam, hence I will use Baranis instead of Branes (which is how mainly Morrocans - not always perfectly familiar with English transcription rules - spell the Baranis).

There are several problems with division of Berbers.
As you said, probably the firsct choice really would be the 3-fold division into Masmuda, Sanhaja and Zanata. This division, although historically accurate, does have numerous flaws:
- there are too many groups which remain outside this division. The Kutama, the Hawwara, the Lawata (and quite a few other) large and important groups are related to some of the major confederations, but weren't really neither Sanhaja nor Zanata, nor Masmuda.
- there's a problem of differences - both a) between the groups and b) within the groups themselves.
b) In terms of lifestyle the Sanhaja of Ifrikiya were totally different people than the Sanhaja from the Sahara, AKA the Veiled Sanhaja, the tribes of Lamtuna, Guddala, Massufa, who led the Almoravid movement. While the first ones were sedentary population, the other were nomads par excellence, with very different cultural features - like the position of women, clothing etc. - which weren't common among the Sanhaja from Ifrikiya.
a) Despite deep anomisities and ofen hatred between the Sanhaja and Zanata, as well as Masmuda, if we look at cultural signs such as naming conventions, we can see that the tribes, clans and dynasties for which he have historical records, we can see that they weren't different. In the 10-11th century we can see that there was a wave of newly popular names among various Berber dynasties, but we can also see that the same names were popular both among Zanata tribes as well as among the Sanhajas, while other tribes from all groups prefered to use different naming patterns - this all worked across the Masmuda/Sanhaja/Zanata tribal confederations.
- the other cultural signs important for this game, such as cultural customs, legal and other traditions or military traditions and preferences were all different for various tribes, but very often didn't respect the Masmuda/Sanhaja/Zanata confederation split
- furthemore even the blood feuds and animosities did not always follow the confederational split, as there were cases of Sanhaja tribes allying with some Zanatas against other Sanhajas, Sanhaja families or clans joining Masmuda tribes and vice versa

Still, when I did a setup for SWMH map/cultural mod for Historical Immersion Project, I used the Masmuda/Sanhaja/Zanata division and expanded it a bit. Separated the desert Sanhaja into artificial Tagelmust (The veiled ones) culture, added anachronistic Touarages (because they are too cool and popular to be ignored), and we added the Guanche. Still this left us with having Zanata ahistorically in western Egypt, we had to merge the other big groups with these (I didn't want to create "Other Berbers" group for them) and still it didn't ideally model the situation and the groups tended to eliminate each other way too often instead of living next to each other.

So in accord with my suggestion to deal with the desert people (the Qabila DLC suggestion in my signature), I later prefered some simpler division, which would still fit the concept, respect the different patterns in lifestyle as well as waging war, which are the features which are essential in Crusader kings. And the 2 fold division into nomads and sedentaries was ideal. Then when the CK2 team started reworking the Maghreb and I was asked to help them with sources, I suggested the 2, respectively 3 possibilities (Butr/Baranis or Sanhaja/Masmuda/Zanata or Sanhaja/Masmuda/Zanata/Guanche/Touareg/Tagelmust/?Others) and after some discussion, the choice was made to have Butr/Baranis.. but it was too late to do everything necessary, so they remained as just one culture.... and the division was implemented later, for CK3.

It has its flaws too, I admit, but considering that cultures are primarily a tool for gameplay and considering how they worked in CK2, this seemed like a better solution. And with the way how cultures work in CK3 I think it is even better, although still not ideal.

to add to yuor point, in a way, it seems that the Butr/Branes destinction also represents a degree of pre-islamic culture, at the verry least it *must*, otherwise the adition of magrebi becomes somewhat nonsensical (if i'm understanding the terminology right) in this screenshot from 1066

View attachment 579873

The Maghrebi group obviously would be the long-demanded "melting-pot-culture" to represent Arabs or other non-Berber Arabized people living in the Maghreb who - although not being always Arabs - spoke and behave as Arab aristocracy/rulers, but were mixing with Berbers. People were asking for this group to be included and separated from Berbers for years - here they seem to represent the starting Arabization of Maghreb by the Hilali invasion.

 

[Butterworth]

To make this thread well useful for developers, I add my post at my own thread to this topic.

This is what I was talking about. Again, boundaries of Kurdish culture is wrong. Areas encircled by red must be distributed among Armenians and Levantines/Any correct Arabian culture. Also, area encircled by blue must be include some Levantines/Any correct Arabian culture.

Spoiler: MAP FROM CK III

This thing was also an issue at CK II. At for given years, Kurdish culture is not dominant culture at some of the given regions. Even at today's Turkey, some of the modern cities which are in given CK II regions have Turkish majority, Aintab, Melitene, Koloneea, Erzurum, Theodosiopolis. On the other hand Tabriz wasn't a Kurdish majority city. It was a city of Persians and Turcomans.

Spoiler: MAPS FROM CK II

View attachment 579917

View attachment 579918

View attachment 579919

View attachment 579920

 

[Farfour]

This is what I was talking about. Again, boundaries of Kurdish culture is wrong. Areas encircled by red must be distributed among Armenians and Levantines/Any correct Arabian culture. Also, area encircled by blue must be include some Levantines/Any correct Arabian culture.

Spoiler: MAP FROM CK III

View attachment 579930

This thing was also an issue at CK II. At for given years, Kurdish culture is not dominant culture at some of the given regions. Even at today's Turkey, some of the modern cities which are in given CK II regions have Turkish majority, Aintab, Melitene, Koloneea, Erzurum, Theodosiopolis. On the other hand Tabriz wasn't a Kurdish majority city. It was a city of Persians and Turcomans.

Spoiler: MAPS FROM CK II

View attachment 579917

View attachment 579918

View attachment 579919

View attachment 579920

View attachment 579921

View attachment 579922

View attachment 579923


View attachment 579924

View attachment 579925

View attachment 579926
View attachment 579927

View attachment 579928

View attachment 579929

Wait, they removed Assyrian?

 

[Butterworth]

Wait, they removed Assyrian?

I guess so and also there is no Yazidis/Ezidis.

 

[Farfour]

I guess so and also there is no Yazidis/Ezidis.

BRUH SOUND EFFECT ONE

 

[cybrxkhan]

Wait, they removed Assyrian?

Seems like it - another culture added later in CK2's life cycle that didn't make the cut

I guess so and also there is no Yazidis/Ezidis.

BRUH SOUND EFFECT ONE

Yazidis have been confirmed, according to a Reddit thread listing all the confirmed religions from a couple weeks ago. Per that thread, though, we don't know which religion group Yazidi is in.

 

[Vias]

To make this thread well useful for developers, I add my post at my own thread to this topic.

There's really bit too much Hungarians in 1066 Hungary, totally displacing Rusyns in Zakarpatia and much of the Slovaks.

Prof. Aleksey L. Petrov made a map based on a 1773 official lexicon. Of course much early modern migration happened, but it is mapping the aforementioned autochtonous nationalities well enough.

Zoomable.
Textual description and notes.

Does anyone have a good screenshot of the 867 culture map in Asia?

I just noticed this, and I am absolutely ashamed I did not notice this beforehand given my interest in the Silk Road and that my history degree partly focused on it, but in the 867 and 1066 start dates the southern Tarim Basin should be Khotanese/Saka, not Sogdian. The Kingdom of Khotan had just been defeated a mere few decades before, and the main language there was Khotanese/Saka, not Sogdian. I ask about the 867 map because I want to see if Khotanese/Saka exists in that start date.

Anyways, if it does not, then I propose that Khotanese/Saka be added as a culture to the southern and Western parts of the Tarim Basin. Linguistically, culturally, and politically, they were distinct from the nearby Sogdians, who spoke a different East Iranian language. The Kingdom of Khotan was one of the more powerful Tarim Basin states along the Silk Road, and played an important role in the spread and development of Buddhist religion and culture.

Crusader Kings 2 actually had this issue too when Central Asia was first added into the game, and it was only rectified with the addition of the Saka culture later on. Though I prefer the culture to be called Khotanese, to emphasize the importance of the Kingdom of Khotan, I understand why the devs of CK2 chose Saka, as it encompasses both the Khotanese and Tumshuqese dialects of Saka.

What do you guys think about splitting the Greek culture into a western (European) "Greek" or "Hellene" culture, and an eastern (Anatolian) call it "Romaic" culture? Anatolia was for long the heartland of the Byzantine Empire and, while Medieval Greek was the lingua franca and the native language along the coasts, the hinterland really was a patchwork of many sub-cultures (Isaurian, Pisidian, etc.).

Would that not necessitate Pontic as well? As a culture of Trebizond and the Black sea outposts.

I'm not sure what boundaries the Anatolian culture should have, or if the ancient cultures should be used as a base for a different culture. There probably was some difference.

Pontic Greek should be a drift culture in Trebizond if it gets cut off from Byzantium. What about different Kartvelian groups in Pontos, like the Laz? If I remember correctly, Trebizond was largely a Lazic port.

In an unrelated note: where the hell is is Khitan culture in the 1066 map? they where still around if memory serves, even if no longer in mongolia proper?

Are you sure it shouldn't be Tocharian in 867 and Uyghur in 1066?

I think Greek should be split into Pontic (in historical Pontus), Cappadocian (inland Anatolia), and Demotic (Peninsular Greece, the Islands, Ionia, around Constantinople, and Cyprus, basically Classical Greece except Pontus).

Additionally, I also think they should rename the Byzantine culture group to "Romaioi".

EDIT: No clue why this is still being downvoted. There were glaring cultural differences between speakers of Hellenic languages since the time of Ancient Greece.

Also I wouldn't go so far as to calling it a slur, but Ostyak is an outdated exonym (ie. not what the natives called themselves) for Khanty, within the CK3 map.

I just want to add that "Occitan" is a relatively recent word, the appropriate ethnonym that was used during the middle ages by both catalans and occitans was "lemosin". As in many Romance languages, it was named after the most prominent region speaking that language ; in this case, Lemosin (modern Limousin).
Occitan refers to Lemosin spoken in France (but not in Catalunya), and often it even refers to occitan as a dialect different from catalan.

Btw the northern limits of that language and culture are hard to define, because there are no clear borders (instead there was a dialect continuum. Which doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a distinct Lemosin culture, but there would probably be people saying that it's the wrong place. But they will probably not be completely right, as it is very hard to have a definitive answer to that question. In reality, the extent of the Lemosin culture northwards depended a lot of the contemporary glory and fame of rulers. It would be tempting to use the borders from the golden age of the "langue d'oc", (11th - 13th centuries), but I'm not certain it would be a good idea.

th

Thank you guys, adding in the OP!

By the way, yesterday Dev Diary was about Culture Map, so I'll it in OP post, and try to write down some of the devs responses to people suggestion. I want to thanks EldarPanic for linking this thread in the post!

 

[Hospodar]

To quote my post from another thread:

If anything, Romanians should be a distinct culture from (Balkan) Vlachs. There should be a Vlach culture in the Byzantine group (+/- an Albanian/'Arberian' one as was the case of CK2) and a Romanian/'Rumanian' culture which would be a melting pot between Vlach and Bulgarian and in the South Slavic culture group. Besides the North Danubian Vlach provinces, maybe a province in or around Thessaly could be changed to Vlach culture given the history of Great ('Thessalian') Wallachia.

 

[Vias]

To quote my post from another thread:

Done I had linked already a thread by SoKraTes1 about Vlach culture too.

 

[Hospodar]

Done I had linked already a thread by SoKraTes1 about Vlach culture too.

On a different note, I'm guessing that Szekely culture hasn't been added, so I'd have an idea for that as well. Were it to be implemented, it could be done by either event or by decision for a march vassal of the Kingdom of Hungary if he is of Hungarian culture and his primary title has existed for some time, with the text talking about how life on the frontiers has made the people and/or the character culturally drift apart from the rest of the Hungarians.

 

[Farfour]

On a different note, I'm guessing that Szekely culture hasn't been added, so I'd have an idea for that as well. Were it to be implemented, it could be done by either event or by decision for a march vassal of the Kingdom of Hungary if he is of Hungarian culture and his primary title has existed for some time, with the text talking about how life on the frontiers has made the people and/or the character culturally drift apart from the rest of the Hungarians.

I'd add separation from the main cluster of Hungarian as a requirement to form it.

 

[Slime99]

I think Munda people should be present in the highlands of Orissa.

 

[LlywelynMawr]

There shouldn't be any Khitan on the present map. Those areas were subjugated by the Great Liao, but Khitan nomads mostly roamed in the areas East of what you see on the map.

There were no Khitans in significant numbers west of the garrison town of Kedun, which was somewhere along the Orkhon River if memory serves correctly. In any case, the province culture would better represent the Mongol nomads there - as Kedun was just a garrison.

 

[Superanouar]

First of all, I will prefer to use spelling and naming used in respected academic sources such as Historical dictionary of the Berbers or Encyclopedia of Islam, hence I will use Baranis instead of Branes (which is how mainly Morrocans - not always perfectly familiar with English transcription rules - spell the Baranis).

There are several problems with division of Berbers.
As you said, probably the firsct choice really would be the 3-fold division into Masmuda, Sanhaja and Zanata. This division, although historically accurate, does have numerous flaws:
- there are too many groups which remain outside this division. The Kutama, the Hawwara, the Lawata (and quite a few other) large and important groups are related to some of the major confederations, but weren't really neither Sanhaja nor Zanata, nor Masmuda.
- there's a problem of differences - both a) between the groups and b) within the groups themselves.
b) In terms of lifestyle the Sanhaja of Ifrikiya were totally different people than the Sanhaja from the Sahara, AKA the Veiled Sanhaja, the tribes of Lamtuna, Guddala, Massufa, who led the Almoravid movement. While the first ones were sedentary population, the other were nomads par excellence, with very different cultural features - like the position of women, clothing etc. - which weren't common among the Sanhaja from Ifrikiya.
a) Despite deep anomisities and ofen hatred between the Sanhaja and Zanata, as well as Masmuda, if we look at cultural signs such as naming conventions, we can see that the tribes, clans and dynasties for which he have historical records, we can see that they weren't different. In the 10-11th century we can see that there was a wave of newly popular names among various Berber dynasties, but we can also see that the same names were popular both among Zanata tribes as well as among the Sanhajas, while other tribes from all groups prefered to use different naming patterns - this all worked across the Masmuda/Sanhaja/Zanata tribal confederations.

Still, when I did a setup for SWMH map/cultural mod for Historical Immersion Project, I used the Masmuda/Sanhaja/Zanata division and expanded it a bit. Separated the desert Sanhaja into artificial Tagelmust (The veiled ones) culture, added anachronistic Touarages (because they are too cool and popular to be ignored), and we added the Guanche. Still this left us with having Zanata ahistorically in western Egypt, we had to merge the other big groups with these (I didn't want to create "Other Berbers" group for them) and still it didn't ideally model the situation and the groups tended to eliminate each other way too often instead of living next to each other.

So in accord with my suggestion to deal with the desert people (the Qabila DLC suggestion in my signature), I later prefered some simpler division, which would still fit the concept, respect the different patterns in lifestyle as well as waging war, which are the features which are essential in Crusader kings. And the 2 fold division into nomads and sedentaries was ideal. Then when the CK2 team started reworking the Maghreb and I was asked to help them with sources, I suggested the 2, respectively 3 possibilities (Butr/Baranis or Sanhaja/Masmuda/Zanata or Sanhaja/Masmuda/Zanata/Guanche/Touareg/Tagelmust/?Others) and after some discussion, the choice was made to have Butr/Baranis.. but it was too late to do everything necessary, so they remained as just one culture.... and the division was implemented later, for CK3.

It has its flaws too, I admit, but considering that cultures are primarily a tool for gameplay and considering how they worked in CK2, this seemed like a better solution. And with the way how cultures work in CK3 I think it is even better, although still not ideal.


The Maghrebi group obviously would be the long-demanded "melting-pot-culture" to represent Arabs or other non-Berber Arabized people living in the Maghreb who - although not being always Arabs - spoke and behave as Arab aristocracy/rulers, but were mixing with Berbers. People were asking for this group to be included and separated from Berbers for years - here they seem to represent the starting Arabization of Maghreb by the Hilali invasion.

I am glad to see that the choice of this Barānis/Buṭr distinction was carefully considered. The fact that almost all Berber tribes fall into one of these two categories is indeed convenient (except Guanches obviously), while it would have been difficult to classify some groups/tribes as Zenata/Masmuda/Sanhaja. However, in order to simplify, we could have introduced Zenata/Masmuda/Sanhaja (there is serious evidence that Kutama were closely related to Sanhaja)/Eastern (including Huwwara, Luwata and Siwis)/Guanches. Tuaregs are for the most part the remnants of the old Sanhaja macro-group in the Central Sahara area (they often call themselves Kel Tagelmust, "those who wear the Tagelmust blue veil", and their matrilinear organisation reminds us of the special social status that women enjoyed within the Lamtuna/Almoravid clan, women being unveiled while men wore the blue Tagelmust). However, I agree that desert Sanhaja and Ifriqiya Sanhaja were very different lifestyle-wise. I did not know about that naming patterns thing so thank you. But that whole Buṭr/Barānis story is no big deal. I am looking forward to playing as a Barānis nonetheless, and I bet cultures will be easily moddable anyway.

 

[elvain]

• Arabia should be divided in "North" (Adnanites) and "South" Arabians (South Semetic/South Arabian/Soqotri/Qahtanite)

the bedouin culture in the whole of Arabian peninsula/Middle east doesn't make sense, maybe in the desert areas but as "dark-mysterio" suggested in his topic,
the Qahtanite could represent the "southern Arabian"

Qahtanite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and the Adnanites the "Northern Arabian"

Adnanites - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

glad to see:
No Omani Culture in Arabia (could add South Semetic/South Arabian/Soqotri culture too)

I tried to address these things in the thread posted by @dark-mysterio but I'd like to ping the post also here.
While I understand that people may want some more diversity in Arabia, I don't think it is very necessary and I also don't think it would be good for gameplay... although, as you can see in my answer below, I think that having Omani culture could be nice, but not necessary:

Baranis/Butr (Berber culture divided) but what about the bedouin one (northern Arabian "Adnanite"/southern Arabian "qahtani" divide ?) ?

hello everyone in this video (which i find in this thread (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/new-ck3-pictures-from-steam-rockpapershotgun-and-gamewatcher.1390086/page-2) we can see starting at 2:18 than the Berbers culture was...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[elvain]

I am glad to see that the choice of this Barānis/Buṭr distinction was carefully considered. The fact that almost all Berber tribes fall into one of these two categories is indeed convenient (except Guanches obviously), while it would have been difficult to classify some groups/tribes as Zenata/Masmuda/Sanhaja. However, in order to simplify, we could have introduced Zenata/Masmuda/Sanhaja (there is serious evidence that Kutama were closely related to Sanhaja)/Eastern (including Huwwara, Luwata and Siwis)/Guanches. Tuaregs are for the most part the remnants of the old Sanhaja macro-group in the Central Sahara area (they often call themselves Kel Tagelmust, "those who wear the Tagelmust blue veil", and their matrilinear organisation reminds us of the special social status that women enjoyed within the Lamtuna/Almoravid clan, women being unveiled while men wore the blue Tagelmust). However, I agree that desert Sanhaja and Ifriqiya Sanhaja were very different lifestyle-wise. I did not know about that naming patterns thing so thank you. But that whole Buṭr/Barānis story is no big deal. I am looking forward to playing as a Barānis nonetheless, and I bet cultures will be easily moddable anyway.

Thanks for your insight.
I agree that almost all Berber tribes and groups could somebow be incorporated into this division, I'm just not very sure if it would serve the goal well.
But yes, I have been considering various variants of a good setup for Berbers for at least 6 years now and I can't say which one is ultimately better for this kind of game. I don't think either is wrong, despite seing big flaws in both... and that's why I'm glad I don't need to decide on that

To be honest, I don't think either of the divisions would work really well unles there is a system to simulate the dynamics of these tribes, their mutial feuds, alliances, clans spliting from tribes to create new ones, to form large tribal confederations and to see these confederations disappear... I keep dreaming