I know. However what if Friesland taken early by the German state (Münster, Oldenburg, Bremen etc)? Also this is very incorrect through historical/linguistic point of view: I see more reason to make Dutch (Low Franconian) German, but Frisian?
-
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.
It was more of a gamist decision not to have one-province-cultures. And having Frisian start dutch would make them easy taxpayers for Holland what they should not be.
To prevent other german states to rule them without problems we have the global_provincespecific events 338227 and 338228 with revolts and
338490 to change provinceculture to dutch starting 1585.
I think the situation in Gelre is fine given that area was Low Saxon. But it's really difficult to be categorical in this matter. After all, Frisian is genealogically closer to Low German and English than Dutch and Low German is genealogically closer to Frisian, Dutch and English than High German. One must either draw the line somewhere or risk ending up with multitudes of one-province cultures.
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but I'm strongly against having a separate Austrian culture, at least in 1420-1820 period. In this period, Austria as a region was just one more german-speaking region, not taht much culturally different from other german-speaking catholic regions. I don't think Austrian culture in this period was that much different from let's say Badenian culture than Badenian culture was from Hessian culture.
If anything, the cultural split was more among the catholic-protestant and north-south lines.
Thus I'm against Austrian culture, but I could easily see a "south german" and "north german" cultures if you need a cultural division for Germany.
If anything, the cultural split was more among the catholic-protestant and north-south lines.
Thus I'm against Austrian culture, but I could easily see a "south german" and "north german" cultures if you need a cultural division for Germany.
Last edited:
It would be bavarian culture and I have been using it for over a year, as well as saxon, franconian, suevian and Rhenish. The austrians would get all rights to all cultures while other nations have less rights, like my danes and swedes ( depending on time period ) would gain suevian ( north german).
It all depends on how you perceive the game. I use cultures to change the manpower, tax and availability of nation in become too huge too quickly. I do not think there is a right or wrong way
As an example , I have corsican and only give it to Genoa, it so, other Italian cannot hold it for a long time.
Then again I do change my defines file for revolts, % of non-culture and religions.
Change missionaries to 1, so 1 is the max
Change merchants to 3, so 3 is max
Its surprising how much the game changes
Well, in my view having Bavarian separate from badenian etc is a bit too much. We should remember that in this period German rulers often inherited domains and posessions on pretty much the other side of the HRE than their original domain, but didnt seem to have any cultural problems governing it (and certainly not any problems that would require a tax penalty in-game).
Example" From 1614, Brandenburg owned the county of Mark (modern Dortmund) and Cleves and they didn't have any national or cultural struggles there. The main issue in the HRE was religion, the only "cultural aliens" were the Czech and Dutch lands.
So while I may accept south german/north german cultural split, I do not see any further german particularism historically-plausible in this era. If we assign individual regions in the HRE their own cultures, then as a result we would have to divide polish culture into "Greater Polish", "Lesser Polish" and "Masovian". We would ahve to divide English into "South English" and "Geordie". French would need to be divided to Provencean, Occitan, Aquitan ec.
All in all, I'd say this would not make too much sense. EU2 cultures should be used in cases of significant cultural differences - different traditions, different language etc. So while I may support dividing Celtic into Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Breton (different traditions, difference in language, no common political tradition), Or Danish/Norwegian/Swedish (different languages, separate political traditions) I wouldn't go as far as to divide Italian, French, German or Polish culture into subdivisions.
Example" From 1614, Brandenburg owned the county of Mark (modern Dortmund) and Cleves and they didn't have any national or cultural struggles there. The main issue in the HRE was religion, the only "cultural aliens" were the Czech and Dutch lands.
So while I may accept south german/north german cultural split, I do not see any further german particularism historically-plausible in this era. If we assign individual regions in the HRE their own cultures, then as a result we would have to divide polish culture into "Greater Polish", "Lesser Polish" and "Masovian". We would ahve to divide English into "South English" and "Geordie". French would need to be divided to Provencean, Occitan, Aquitan ec.
All in all, I'd say this would not make too much sense. EU2 cultures should be used in cases of significant cultural differences - different traditions, different language etc. So while I may support dividing Celtic into Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Breton (different traditions, difference in language, no common political tradition), Or Danish/Norwegian/Swedish (different languages, separate political traditions) I wouldn't go as far as to divide Italian, French, German or Polish culture into subdivisions.
The liguistic isobar of the germans is in the north dividing it from central and southern germans. As you are aware the austrians first appeared in history in 998AD and where originally from Bavaria, Baden spoke bavarian, as well as wirtenberg. Tyrol spoke rhaetian or what its called later romansch.
But , in our game, the problem is that historircally the reichstag was a council of german princes and they got paid to supply troops to austria or hesse or palathine etc etc, the reichstag could force an austrian ( HRE) stoppage in wars, by removing monies and troops, like its war in 1508 against Venice, in 3 months venice took 6 major towns , reichstag stopped supply and HRE sued for peace. We cannot replicate this kind of hold that the reichstag had on HRE and other princes who had thoughts of grandure.
All we can do is create a system of cultures and when the WHITE BLOB ( Austria) gets to big, we could remove some german cultures ( if we had any). This is how I foresee the game
I will not push for it and I basically do not care even if we have 1 culture called european. My fight has achieved what we have, I will not argue further implentations, someone else can do that.
I agree with you but I wouldn't even include the Dutch as cultural aliens, considering such examples as Luxembourg, Jülich-Geldern and Hainaut-Bavaria-Straubing. As such, the Dutch, as a people distinguishable from the rest of the German dialect continuum, were created by the Pragmatic Sanction, the Eighty Years' War and ultimately the Peace of Westphalia.
I'm against such holistic system-changing measures being used solely for the benefit of solving an issue with one single country (Austria), no matter how big the country is. Single-province german cultures would not only affect all the german states, they would severly affect the entire "Unification of Germany" event tree.
In essence, I think the solutions of the "Unification of Germany" event tree are sound - a unified germany (including Austria or not) gets high decentralization and tax penalties to its provinces. Going 1 province cultures would just make it unhistorically hard for staes like Saxony, Brandenburg, Bavaria etc. As I said: if enough people vote for it, I may throw my supprt behind a "south german vs north german" two culture solution. But I remain firmly against 4 or more german cultures - if that is supposed to be the medicine for the "White Blob plague", then the cure is more damaging than the disease its supposed to cure.
True, I was mostly thinking about the 7 provinces and their separate political tradition in combination with linguistic and nationalist issues.
Is it not better then to change the %s of non culture and also the %s of loss of manpower of not having a culture ? ( change in defines file)
In Germany at the time in question, you had a northern german people who initially always came from the nordic/finnish countries , it was called Old Prussian ( proven in the DNA ), an old saxon language used by the dutch. A franconian/rhenish language in the western country of germany and lastly the southern germany which some call high German but is in fact truly was only Bavarian. The alpine "germans" used purely some bavarian and romansch .
The questions are - introduce more cultures OR change defines file numbers OR remove any nation that has more than 1 or 2 cultures. I find it entirely unsatifactory as it is at present
Proof of where people came from ................you following me, !! LOL
Old prussian was around from 1100 to 1780 , from meclenburg through to memel on our map
Which is irrelevant to cultural concerns. People can have similar dna and different cultures.
Which is irrelevant to cultural concerns. People can have similar dna and different cultures.
I agree. Cultures in EU2 can IMHO represent both material or linguistic differences, or at most local political traditions and common identity. But not DNA or the issue of common ancestors.
In-game examples: In the early 15th century Mongols and Tatars were all descended from Ghenghis Khan's subjects and likely had little to none genetic differences. However, the isolation of Tatars from their original homeland in central asia made european tatars develop a very distinct culture and a different language than the mongols who remained in central mongolia. Thus in 1419 in-game we have separate tatar and mongol cultures, despite these peoples being mostly uniform when it comes to their genetic heritage.
Different example: Castillian and Catalan culture. Catalans have a very similar genetic heritage to northern castillians. However by the 17th century, the Spanish subjects of the king had a huge variety of genetic backgrounds - former dutch nobles who remained faithfull to the prince of Alba, new world hidalgos of purely native descent, people of Iberian arab or Iberian jewish descent.
However, even though the hidalgo from Burgos would be much closely related to a hidalgo from Barcelona than to a hidalgo from Mexico or Granada, he would share his culture with them and not with the hidalgo from Barcelona.
Which is irrelevant to cultural concerns. People can have similar dna and different cultures.
A similar example I saw on TV was the DNA comparison that proofed that the turkish speaking turks in Turkey are no ethnic turks but closer related to greeks than to their turkish / turkoman relatives in Asia ^^
Which is irrelevant to cultural concerns. People can have similar dna and different cultures.
True, but i said bout DNA as a plus, but not a requirement. But facts are that people from our MEC to prussia came from nordic and finnish lands. Except as I found today , the Aestii ( estonians ) as noted by tacticus where celtic people originally from west of denmark - but thats another story.
The baltic culture as I already supplied you previously was in force at the period in our game. should we have a north german culture so even historical DAn and SWE when taking these lands do not have an issue
" l. The Latvians,* Curonians, Lithuanians and Old Prussians are called Balts; Jatvingians are included as one of the tribes of the Prussians. References: Būga Liet. k. žod., LXXVIflž:, KSn., 78ff. and Gerullis, Bezzenberger - Festschrift, 44f×. Nesselmann in his book, Die Sprache der alten Preussen
The Western Baltic dialect that later gave rise to the Sudovian, Galindian, Pomesanian, and various Prussian languages is one of the dialects of the Early-Western Baltic Area. The Coastal West Balts emerged as yet another dialect (Curonian language) of the Peripheral Early-West Baltic Area,
The core four cases of West-Baltic (Prussian, Sudovian, & Galindian) declension exhibit archaic features uniting West Baltic with Germanic .
last line ...west-baltic uniting it with german
Last edited:
http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/galindai.htm
This website you are *partially* quoting from talks about particular Proto-Indo-European features found in West Baltic that were also retained in German and Greek. It has nothing to do with West Baltic being Germanic, which is obviously not the case.
The sentence you quoted reads this way:
You omitted the Greek part and gave an entirely different interpretation to what the author had to say.
This website you are *partially* quoting from talks about particular Proto-Indo-European features found in West Baltic that were also retained in German and Greek. It has nothing to do with West Baltic being Germanic, which is obviously not the case.
The sentence you quoted reads this way:
You omitted the Greek part and gave an entirely different interpretation to what the author had to say.
I left that out to indicate that it can be tied to german - the greek would have confused people. Its not as if I did not supply the link before. And I did know you had it and a lot of members....whats your issue ,
I could have supplied this as well indicating the Pommerains as baltic people - Do we have them as Baltic or the erred GERMAN
the Western Balts should include the Sudovians ( Яцьвягі ), Galindians, Pomesanians, and various Prussians, and also the Curonians
If you insist, POM and STT as baltic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_culture_in_Pomerania
Last edited:
In another forum, a discussion was held on changing czech to bohemian.
Now I have 3 options ,
1 - Change all czech lands to bohemian ( representing the germans ) and over time/events change provinces to czech.
HUN and HAB will also get Bohemian culture ( again until loosing it later)
2- Split sudetan, erz and bohemia into Bohemian
ostmarch and moravia to remain czech
Idea is the SAC always wanted sudetan for its minerals, a claim for SAC
HUN from Corvinus claimed czech lands so, a core for him on ostmarch and Moravia.
3 - same as number 2, but add Silesia for Czech , if over time it did not become polish , then it converts to german. If poland rule it it will become polish.
At the time of Fred.the.great it was a highly sought after prize due to its richness and it was germanized (prussianized if there is a word) , by the junkers system.
What it will bring to the game...a less powerful ROM and BOH , which will help the hussites and Poland
Now I have 3 options ,
1 - Change all czech lands to bohemian ( representing the germans ) and over time/events change provinces to czech.
HUN and HAB will also get Bohemian culture ( again until loosing it later)
2- Split sudetan, erz and bohemia into Bohemian
ostmarch and moravia to remain czech
Idea is the SAC always wanted sudetan for its minerals, a claim for SAC
HUN from Corvinus claimed czech lands so, a core for him on ostmarch and Moravia.
3 - same as number 2, but add Silesia for Czech , if over time it did not become polish , then it converts to german. If poland rule it it will become polish.
At the time of Fred.the.great it was a highly sought after prize due to its richness and it was germanized (prussianized if there is a word) , by the junkers system.
What it will bring to the game...a less powerful ROM and BOH , which will help the hussites and Poland
I think adding Bohemian is a bad option unless as was suggested all provinces within Bohemia become Bohemian. Both Bohemian and Hungarian are national terms that serve to negate the various cultures within a said state.