The culture of Cornwall and Wales should be Celtic. There are still, even now, pro-independence people in both places.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Wales begins the game as Celtic, and changes to anglosaxon during the Welsh Act of Union.
Also, culture, at least in the AGCEEP, isn't solely about "culture" as the term is used in common English, nor solely about nationalism, something which didn't really develop in many places until the very end of the game's period.
Scotland, Ireland, and Wales all have Celtic culture, and to a certain degree all still have it to this day. However, England had different degrees of success in ruling each at varying points in time. England had little trouble ruling Wales during this period, and after 1707, the English-dominated parliament had little trouble ruling lowland Scotland. However, they had considerable trouble ruling Highland Scotland and Ireland, and this creates a problem for "Celtic" culture. If we give England Celtic culture (as England used to get in the Act of Union, if memory serves), they'll have little trouble ruling Ireland and the Highlands. If we don't, they'll have trouble ruling Lowland Scotland and Wales. The solution the AGCEEP uses is to use Anglosaxon culture not just to represent provinces where the people consider themselves anglo-saxon, but also Celtic provinces which did not put up a fight against rule from London.
Also, culture, at least in the AGCEEP, isn't solely about "culture" as the term is used in common English, nor solely about nationalism, something which didn't really develop in many places until the very end of the game's period.
Scotland, Ireland, and Wales all have Celtic culture, and to a certain degree all still have it to this day. However, England had different degrees of success in ruling each at varying points in time. England had little trouble ruling Wales during this period, and after 1707, the English-dominated parliament had little trouble ruling lowland Scotland. However, they had considerable trouble ruling Highland Scotland and Ireland, and this creates a problem for "Celtic" culture. If we give England Celtic culture (as England used to get in the Act of Union, if memory serves), they'll have little trouble ruling Ireland and the Highlands. If we don't, they'll have trouble ruling Lowland Scotland and Wales. The solution the AGCEEP uses is to use Anglosaxon culture not just to represent provinces where the people consider themselves anglo-saxon, but also Celtic provinces which did not put up a fight against rule from London.
I think the enforced equivalence of anglosaxon = easily ruled from London/ celtic = difficult to rule from London is inaccurate and distortionary.
For one thing, it pretends that it would be considerably easier to rule Ireland from Edinburgh than from London. It also pretends that Edinburgh had a considerably easier time ruling the Highlands before the Union than London did after the Union. Both I think are historically inaccurate.
The reason that London had little difficulty ruling the Scottish Lowlands after 1707 was not some cultural change in that area, but rather that the Lowlands had long been Anglosaxon, and that this was merely the first legitimate annexation of the area (the last attempt at annexation, under Edward I, was before the EUII period, and could better be modelled as a vassalisation under John Balliol, followed by a military occupation than as a true annexation).
In the case of Wales, I think it was its small size and wide land border with England that led to its being relatively easily ruled from London, rather than any closeness in the cultures. Although there was not much problem with rebellion in Wales, the necessity of allowing the existence of powerful English Marcher barons on the Welsh border, and building and manning large castles in Wales, in order to keep them pacified might argue a certain inefficiency resulting from the cultural differences between English and Welsh, which can be modelled by having Wales wrong-cultured for rule from England.
I personally think that the historic reality is best modelled by having Wales stay celtic at least until late in the game, having the Lowlands anglosaxon from the start (with the Highlands staying celtic at least until the Clearances), and giving Scotland only anglosaxon as its state culture. Yes, this makes it easier for London to rule the Lowlands prior to 1707 -- but as England never attempted either a peaceful nor a military acquisition of the Lowlands during the EUII period prior to this date, there can be no evidence that this would have presented particular difficulties. Did England have any trouble ruling the captured border town of Berwick?
For one thing, it pretends that it would be considerably easier to rule Ireland from Edinburgh than from London. It also pretends that Edinburgh had a considerably easier time ruling the Highlands before the Union than London did after the Union. Both I think are historically inaccurate.
The reason that London had little difficulty ruling the Scottish Lowlands after 1707 was not some cultural change in that area, but rather that the Lowlands had long been Anglosaxon, and that this was merely the first legitimate annexation of the area (the last attempt at annexation, under Edward I, was before the EUII period, and could better be modelled as a vassalisation under John Balliol, followed by a military occupation than as a true annexation).
In the case of Wales, I think it was its small size and wide land border with England that led to its being relatively easily ruled from London, rather than any closeness in the cultures. Although there was not much problem with rebellion in Wales, the necessity of allowing the existence of powerful English Marcher barons on the Welsh border, and building and manning large castles in Wales, in order to keep them pacified might argue a certain inefficiency resulting from the cultural differences between English and Welsh, which can be modelled by having Wales wrong-cultured for rule from England.
I personally think that the historic reality is best modelled by having Wales stay celtic at least until late in the game, having the Lowlands anglosaxon from the start (with the Highlands staying celtic at least until the Clearances), and giving Scotland only anglosaxon as its state culture. Yes, this makes it easier for London to rule the Lowlands prior to 1707 -- but as England never attempted either a peaceful nor a military acquisition of the Lowlands during the EUII period prior to this date, there can be no evidence that this would have presented particular difficulties. Did England have any trouble ruling the captured border town of Berwick?
Let the provinces start celtic, and then through events be assimiltated. Or distinguish celtic and breton culure, and let England get breton culture (bad idea, too few provinces would get the culture).
As much as I hate to admit it; Lothian should start as Anglosaxon. England should not get a celtic culture.
Another way of doing it, is to split celtic into Brtythonic (Brittany, Wales, maybe Cornwall) and have Irish in Ireland and Scots in Scotland.
Ayeshteni
Another way of doing it, is to split celtic into Brtythonic (Brittany, Wales, maybe Cornwall) and have Irish in Ireland and Scots in Scotland.
Ayeshteni
I'm inclined to agree with Scotland starting as Anglosaxon in culture. Lothian and Strathclyde at the very least should start that way, and probably the Grampians too (depending on whether we're assuming that the Grampians represents the land and cities on the coast of the province, or the sparsely populated mountains between them).
It would have the added benefit fo stopping the Scottish player from gameishly going after Ireland, but on the other hand, it would mean that the player would be far more inclined to start gobbling up England...
It would have the added benefit fo stopping the Scottish player from gameishly going after Ireland, but on the other hand, it would mean that the player would be far more inclined to start gobbling up England...
Reveilled said:
that is the problem.
What about having the highlands as Celtic (to represent the Gaels) and have a seperate Scots culture.
That way the Scots in the lowlands still have a problem with the highlands (dont give Scotland Celtic culture) and they will not rampage in Ireland (diff. culture) or in England (not anglosaxon culture)
When the Act of Union occurs the English can have Scots culture (they will then only get problems in the Scottish highlands) or you can have Lothian change from scots to anglosaxon.
I prefer the former.
Ayeshteni
Reveilled said:
This proposal makes a lot of sense and is not too out of the question historically. After all, there were no insurmountable cultural problems following James VI/I's accession or the Act of Union, except in the Highlands. Its only the diehard Scottish nationalists out there who might take exception to the words "anglosaxon" and "Scotland" in the same sentence...
I'm in favour of Wales starting as Celtic and being changed by event, though it would be better if there was a 2-province Wales with an anglosaxon province in the south and a celtic province in the north (one for the new map, HC!
)
We're gonna give Scotland "Scottish" culture and "Gaelic" culture, Ireland, "Gaelic" culture, and we'll keep Wales and Brittany (and possibly Cornwall) as Celtic, at least. The arguments against the idea were plain rediculous (for example, just think about the current setup and think "Why should Scotland be able to rule Ireland as it does Scotland, when the only historical example of this was a scenario where Scotland was thrown out of Ireland by combined Anglo-Irish force within a couple years?", and we have 20+ cultures to throw around.
Errm.. Scots english is just one of many Anglic dialects, and to be honest I'd rather Scotland's primary culture was anglosaxon, which would be in the lowlands.
If we're going to have scots english as a seperate culture, why not have lallans, kentish, etc?
If we're going to have scots english as a seperate culture, why not have lallans, kentish, etc?
Having a separate Scots culture is on the one hand hardly justifiable, as pointed out by MKJ, and on the other hand I think it would be bad gameplay-wise to completely screw one of the most fun countries to play by reducing its state-culture area to two provinces. If Scotland is deprived of Gaelic, it's just fair to at least give it a meaningful possibility of expansion into England.
The arguments for and against were already stated long ago now in the British Isles and France thread. Having Scots culture is not "hardly justifiable". Most of the few who were against the idea essentially retained a conservative viewpoint regarding the manner and method by which cultures should be handed out in AGCEEP. I call it clinging onto a fear of a "domino effect" or whatever. The arguments against turned out not to be justified, on the simple and basic level of a regional historical analysis. The Scots rejected English rule before (and during, for example, Gloucester's invasion where he captured Edinburgh castle ended in nothing simply because they could not hope to control the Scots as they tried to with E. I), and could only accept English rule once the Crowns were united (Scots retained their own parliament, laws etc.), and even then, not entirely until the Act of Union in the 18th century (which is currently where we turn Strathclyde and Grampians 'celtic' culture into 'Anglosaxon').
Scotland will be getting more provinces, and it simply makes no sense for Scotland to be able to obtain the kind of manpower, tax, etc. from the Highlands at gamestart. It's essentially the same for ENG with Wales at gamestart. There should be no difference on that level between the two.
Scotland will be getting more provinces, and it simply makes no sense for Scotland to be able to obtain the kind of manpower, tax, etc. from the Highlands at gamestart. It's essentially the same for ENG with Wales at gamestart. There should be no difference on that level between the two.
ENG shoudn't be able to hold SCO as it does, say, Kent, until the Crowns are united[/quote]Mad King James said:
Because there's no historical indication that ENG should be penalized for holding those provinces, while ther IS indication that ENG should be penalized for holding SCO prematurely.
ribbon22 said:
This is, I think, a concatenation of two questions:
1) Whether the union of the crowns indicated some underlying cultural shift, or was merely the first attempt at a diplomatic annexation that hadn't had a cultural impediment (beyond one to their control of Northumberland) for the entirety of the EUII period. I would argue the latter.
2) Whether there is a cultural divide between the anglosaxons of Southern England and those of Northern England (and Southern Scotland). I am ambivalent on this question, though emphatic that:
(i) the Scottish Lowlands and Northumberland should have the same culture; and
(ii) the Scottish Lowlands and Highlands should have different culture (where the Grampians sit is a subject for debate).
If there is a tripartite 'south anglosaxon'/'north anglosaxon'/'celtic' split, I would suggest that England by default get south anglo (occasionally get north anglo and almost never get celtic), Scotland should by default get north anglo (rarely get celtic and almost never get south anglo).
ribbon22 said:
They ARE penalized, they don't have a core.
People really NEED to start separating the gameplay effects of cores, religion, and culture. Culture does not equate to "ease of rule". That is what CORES are for! Culture is CULTURE, and lowland scots is exactly the same culture as northern England.
The FACTS are that England and lowland Scotland are the same culture, but england has no POLITICAL legitimacy in Scotland. This is what cores are for, and I really wish people would stop mixing up core effects with culture effects.
I do believe that scots people should be no harder to integrate culturally than Kentishmen or Midlanders, but should of course resist that integration because they have no political legitimacy, ie no core.
Same culture, no core.
Mad King James said:
I agree whole-heartedly with Mad King James on all these points (with the possible exception of leaving open the possibility, that others raised in a previous threads, of a North/South English culture split - but it's not an issue I feel strongly about myself).
Hrafn said:
I'm sorry Hrafn, but there's no historical justification for a north/south English culture split. The only such cultural split between the two areas, in post celtic times anyway, was between the Danelaw lands of the north and east and Anglosaxon lands of the south and west. Though there was a distinct Scandinavian flavour in the north and east for some time it had certainly disappeared by 1419. True enough, the north was more likely to rebel and was more influenced by its powerful lords than the king, but this is more due to distance from London and general lack of interest from the crown than for any cultural reasons.
There was more difference between the cultures of lowland Scotland and northern England than there was between northern and southern England. In my mind, however, through language and many shared customs, the whole area is culturally just 'anglosaxon'. Let's keep it simple!
On a related point (on giving Scotland a chance to expand into England), the Scots did briefly control large chunks of the north on several occasions in the middle ages, most notably in the 1140s where David I tried to develop Carlisle as a southern capital for his Scottish state. There was also the eternal problem of Berwick (not properly settled until the 1500s). Is this enough to justify a core on Northumberland province? It might result in a few more wars between the English and the Scots....... just an idea, and probably more suited to debate in the British Isles thread.
Mad King James said:
According to the 1.08 Culture FAQ:
- has a -30% on tax income from that province
- has reduced recruitment potential (number of armies you can build there).
- has a +1 modifier to the revolt risk (+2 when at war).
- is much harder and costlier to religiously convert
- supplies reduced manpower
England would have all of these problems ruling Scotland prematurely. There was no level of revolt that decreased proportionately with time during E. I's invasion and occupation (i.e. nothing that relates to the core penalties). The revoltrisk increased with time.
Typical!
I get tired of reading of people not well educated in UK culture and history that Wales and Cornwall should be independent. In my considerable experience...
The vast majority of Welsh do not want to leave the UK. In fact, from my own experience there is as much opposition between S. Wales and N. Wales. There is a language difference, like the same between Swedish and Norwegian between North and South (forgetting the sub-dialect of central Wales). The other problem, is that who ever is shouts loudest gets heard, the vast majority of Wales do not like the extreme nationalism calling for secession - for many this would be insane, as Wales very much relies on money for London for there economy. Many Welsh I have spoke to hate 'Welshies' (as the derogatory know as) more than the English.
Cornwall is even more silly because it does not have a seperate culture and its language is constructed as it was extinct by the early 18th century. There is much differences in opinion from various Cornwallians (?) about how to speak there 'language'. (I think there is three invented conflicting dialects.) I think there is only a few thousand Cornish speakers in the world. They have as must justification as my own family has to demanding Northumbrian independence and recreation of 'Lallans dialect' and then imposing a 'foreign language' on the masses.
I have to be honest that much of opinion is gleamed from living in Wales and having Welsh graffiti and a few crazy hicks drunkingly shout in Welsh. I have spoken to them many times and their arguments do not stand up to any reason.
To be truly historical, Wales should have its culture changed to Anglo-saxon after years of rule by England. Southern Scotland should have anglo-saxon culture and the government should probably have two cultures of Anglo-saxon and have Gaelic/Celtic after years of rule; or the northern Scotland become Anglo-saxon in say 1600 but remain Catholic. Cornwall should remain Anglo-saxon
p.s. there are further 'nationalists' in the UK, like Yorkshire; and Devon and Somerset who there is a few (i mean a few) demanding that they join Cornwall in independence - but this is pushing the boat out too far in my opinion.
I get tired of reading of people not well educated in UK culture and history that Wales and Cornwall should be independent. In my considerable experience...
The vast majority of Welsh do not want to leave the UK. In fact, from my own experience there is as much opposition between S. Wales and N. Wales. There is a language difference, like the same between Swedish and Norwegian between North and South (forgetting the sub-dialect of central Wales). The other problem, is that who ever is shouts loudest gets heard, the vast majority of Wales do not like the extreme nationalism calling for secession - for many this would be insane, as Wales very much relies on money for London for there economy. Many Welsh I have spoke to hate 'Welshies' (as the derogatory know as) more than the English.
Cornwall is even more silly because it does not have a seperate culture and its language is constructed as it was extinct by the early 18th century. There is much differences in opinion from various Cornwallians (?) about how to speak there 'language'. (I think there is three invented conflicting dialects.) I think there is only a few thousand Cornish speakers in the world. They have as must justification as my own family has to demanding Northumbrian independence and recreation of 'Lallans dialect' and then imposing a 'foreign language' on the masses.
I have to be honest that much of opinion is gleamed from living in Wales and having Welsh graffiti and a few crazy hicks drunkingly shout in Welsh. I have spoken to them many times and their arguments do not stand up to any reason.
To be truly historical, Wales should have its culture changed to Anglo-saxon after years of rule by England. Southern Scotland should have anglo-saxon culture and the government should probably have two cultures of Anglo-saxon and have Gaelic/Celtic after years of rule; or the northern Scotland become Anglo-saxon in say 1600 but remain Catholic. Cornwall should remain Anglo-saxon
p.s. there are further 'nationalists' in the UK, like Yorkshire; and Devon and Somerset who there is a few (i mean a few) demanding that they join Cornwall in independence - but this is pushing the boat out too far in my opinion.
Who's calling for Welsh and Cornwall independence in this forumgone2004 said:
Sounds to me like a straw man argument...
We're not going to touch the Welsh situation. It's very adequate as it is. If you'd played our mod as ENG (or even read through the posts in this very thread) you'd have known that Wales is a seperate culture at gamestart, but that it is converted to Anglosaxon with the Welsh Act of Union.
Despite your vast RL experience constituting a couple or more decades of our time, Cornwall was raised as potential culture change because (besides the language and culture roots there) EU2 timeframe-historically it had a nasty habit of being relatively unruly and at times downright ungovernable, particularly within the first 100 years of gameplay. Bearing in mind that the province Cornwall also constitutes Devon, which can be lumped into Cornwall's troublesome ways hand in hand. In EU2, the effects of culture penalties were designed for provinces which were relatively ungovernable, where support for the Crown was very weak due to the "independent" attitude of the people and nobles there. Furthermore, Cornwall had distinct rights and priviledges in terms of taxation (e.g., it had its own exchequer), which were encroached upon during the Tudor dynasty. People are simply failing to see that Cornwall was vastly different then than it is now. It was Duchy, a palitinate, modelled in much the same fashion as Wales. We should not treat the two differently. The Prayer Book rebellion should be the dying throws of the Cornish culture (i.e. we could change the culture to anglosaxon at that point).