Cultures

[Orm]

Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Finland was a complete other matter. See, Denmark was the enemy of old - since the age of Beowulf at least - and the inhabitants of Skåne were of course Danish.

That is a popular misconception. The inhabitants of Skåne have always been "skåningar" with a language that was as different from danish as it was from swedish. That is not so any longer though...
And the ones in Skåne that had the biggest reason to resent swedish 'oppression' were the nobility that suddenly found itself under an immensly more powerful state which left them with fewer rights. I'd say that the common peasant was better off under swedish rule (apart from the military service) than under danish.

The part of the 'oppression' I find most annoying is the cultural part. Skåne became a cultural backwater under swedish rule, after having been a driving force in Danish cultural life.

 

[unmerged(5459)]

Mongols in China and Persia and the GOlden Horde were peacefully assimilated. But then again, they were a minority in said countries.

 

[Styrbiorn]

That is a popular misconception. The inhabitants of Skåne have always been "skåningar" with a language that was as different from danish as it was from swedish. That is not so any longer though...

There is hard to talk about "different languages" per see, as around 600 there were only one language in Scandinavia - the split had just begun when the Viking Age started two centuries later. However I can't say (can anyone?!) that the people of Skåne considered themselves Danish or not around 600-700 AD.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by carioca


How about the Cajuns, Texans, Mormons, and Inuts

Cajuns - I talked about the French in Louisiana - too small to survive.

Texans - who are you talking about? The Spanish never colonized the area heavily.

Mormons - not a separate culture, rather a separate religion.

Inuts - native / pagan culture.

BarristerBoy

 

[Alexandre]

Originally posted by Skullcrusher
Actually the real problem that I see with this is that you can only change religion and culture in colonies below 700. It dosn't really make sense that you can't change these if you send colonists above that number. For example: say Sweden captures Kola from Russia. Kola's population is 1000 at the time. If Sweden decides to send 1100 colonists to Kola shouldn't the religion and culture change since they are now the dominant population? Other than that I can live with no cultural changes in the game. other than historical or if someone comes up with a reasonable slider option that makes sense.
Cheers

In a previous thread (http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26964&highlight=culture), I suggested that there should be a small chance at assimilating a province bordering one with your state culture, and a small chance at gaining a new state culture.

Feel free to add suggestions.

Alexandre

 

[Alexandre]

Originally posted by Attila the Hun


Anyhow, my point is that there should indeed be some kind of mechanism worked out that should allow us players, for gaining other cultures. This could be somehow linked to the DP settings, and to the fact whether You own those particular provinces for a sufficiently long period or not. On the other hand, You should also be able to lose same of the cultures You have previously acquired.

My 2 cents

I agree 100% -- which probably terrifies you even more than me.

Alexandre

 

[unmerged(8451)]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy


Cajuns - I talked about the French in Louisiana - too small to survive.

Texans - who are you talking about? The Spanish never colonized the area heavily.

Mormons - not a separate culture, rather a separate religion.

Inuts - native / pagan culture.

BarristerBoy

I think the Cajun culture is still prospering actually.

 

[unmerged(8451)]

Originally posted by Alexandre


In a previous thread (http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26964&highlight=culture), I suggested that there should be a small chance at assimilating a province bordering one with your state culture, and a small chance at gaining a new state culture.

Feel free to add suggestions.

Alexandre

The chance should be very very very small, otherwise the effects would be too great.

 

[Orm]

Originally posted by Styrbiorn



There is hard to talk about "different languages" per see, as around 600 there were only one language in Scandinavia - the split had just begun when the Viking Age started two centuries later. However I can't say (can anyone?!) that the people of Skåne considered themselves Danish or not around 600-700 AD.

I don't think they did. Skåne is a rather big region compared to the rest of Denmark, so even if there was some sort of political union I'd say that "skåningar" considered themselves just that, or maybe even that is to go too far, I think they probably were even more local-minded than that, they were "göingar", "österleningar" and so on... even though people from the northern part of Sweden don't think so, there is a lot of difference between dialects and people of different parts of Skåne.

Interestingly, on the news today, I saw that archaeologists working at Uppåkra south of Lund in Skåne had presented theories that Uppåkra during the iron age has been the centre of a 'tribal union' that probably included western Skåne and Själland. So maybe the cradle of Denmark lies just a few kilometers south of Lund.
It makes some sense since Lund (that replaced Uppåkra) was an extremely important city in early Denmark, with royal mint and bishops seat.

 

[Styrbiorn]

I don't think they did. Skåne is a rather big region compared to the rest of Denmark, so even if there was some sort of political union I'd say that "skåningar" considered themselves just that, or maybe even that is to go too far, I think they probably were even more local-minded than that, they were "göingar", "österleningar" and so on... even though people from the northern part of Sweden don't think so, there is a lot of difference between dialects and people of different parts of Skåne.

Well, I do agree with you, though I must admit my first thought was that you were some kind of Scanian freedom fighter ( no offence). Fördomar, fördomar...

And about Northernes don't think there are different dialects, well I guess its a both way thing (I doubt you can mention the main dialects of jämtlandska (jamska) ). However, I'm an exception , I only meant there were no bigger difference between the dialects spoken by someone from Hedeby, Trondheim, Göinge, Reykyavík or Birka around 900.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by Blonde
well for every quebec that the brits failed to assimilate there is an acadia where the brits practically ethnically clensed the french and brought in the brit colonists, or louisiana and the former spanish colonies of the USA lost alot of their spanishness and became american. I know i know, florida texas and california have alot of hispanics, but thats more a result of recent immigration. The hispanics that were there when the americans took over that territory are pretty assimilated into american culture.

Actually, even today there is a strong French influence in many regions of Louisiana, and in Northern New Mexico and southern Colorado, the attempts by the dominant culture to assimilate the 500 year old Indio-Spanish population are still meeting with significant resistance in many pockets...

Sure, they're more American than a native of Mexico would be, but at the same time, they are neither American nor Mexican... they are Old Spanish! I've been living among them for a looooooong time and believe me when I tell you that this segment of American culture comes straight from the Spaniards and their earliest interactions with the Indians of northern New Mexico....

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by Captain Krunch


If you mean that no wars are fought, then yes most assimilations are peaceful. But what I was refering to if a low level war that goes on behind the scenes that isnt really apparent to outside countries. In Wales, children were forbidden to speak Welsh and instead were taught English. And now today almost everyone in Wales speaks English instead of Welsh.

This sort of cultural suppression doesn't exist in Wales today, and as a result some cultural traits are reappearing.

Ireland is another good example. At the time Ireland gained independence, very few people spoke the native language of Gaelic. but then Gaelic was made the official language of the country, and was taught in schools to children. And since then it has a made a comeback big time, although English is still probably more common... though I don't know much about it really.

Actually, English is still the "common language" in most of Ireland, and Gaelic is spoken to varying degrees by the Irish. Certainly in one of the Gaeltacht (or Gaelic Cultural) regions of Ireland, you'll expect to hear quite a bit of Gaelic, and you will see the tendency to list local signs in English or English and Gaelic shift towards more signs that are just in Gaelic, but these regions are relatively small compared to the rest of the island.

 

[Orm]

Originally posted by Styrbiorn



Well, I do agree with you, though I must admit my first thought was that you were some kind of Scanian freedom fighter ( no offence). Fördomar, fördomar...

Could have been...
Can't really see a good reason for independance though. I kind of like Sweden. (I like Denmark too, and living in Malmö I can get as much as I want of both )

And about Northernes don't think there are different dialects, well I guess its a both way thing (I doubt you can mention the main dialects of jämtlandska (jamska) ). However, I'm an exception , I only meant there were no bigger difference between the dialects spoken by someone from Hedeby, Trondheim, Göinge, Reykyavík or Birka around 900.

Who can say for certain? The written sources are sparse to say the least. Besides, the scandinavian language wasn't just dropped like a thick blanket over Scandinavia at a certain time. There must have been some migration of the language (not necessarily of the people though) during which some development towards dialects would be unavoidable.

 

[Styrbiorn]

Can't really see a good reason for independance though. I kind of like Sweden. (I like Denmark too, and living in Malmö I can get as much as I want of both )

That situation is _very_ similar to the situation up here, the vicinity to Norway, the cultural and historical bonds to Norway and of course the liberation movement that want either some form or indeoendence or even unification with Norway. Personally, I kind of like Sweden too though, but if I had a flag pole, their would be a blue-white-green tricolor with an ancient coat of arms in the middle instead of a blue one with a yellow cross .

 

[unmerged(5394)]

Originally posted by Alexandre


I agree 100% -- which probably terrifies you even more than me.

Alexandre

I do not see why it should terrify me at all, EUII is a game You know.

 

[unmerged(7160)]

Originally posted by Heliumgod


Actually, even today there is a strong French influence in many regions of Louisiana, and in Northern New Mexico and southern Colorado, the attempts by the dominant culture to assimilate the 500 year old Indio-Spanish population are still meeting with significant resistance in many pockets...

Sure, they're more American than a native of Mexico would be, but at the same time, they are neither American nor Mexican... they are Old Spanish! I've been living among them for a looooooong time and believe me when I tell you that this segment of American culture comes straight from the Spaniards and their earliest interactions with the Indians of northern New Mexico....

This is soooo true. I lived in Santa Fe {Americas oldest capitol BTW} for 5 years and they are very much spanish culture to this day. But America is a country based on freedom of religion and for those that were here before it became a nation it never really IMO tried to change their culture other than teach English. Now if America had tried to change this they may have been successful or they may not have. In my opinion there could be a slider for this in the game that would increase chance of "Assimilation" while also significantly increasing revolt risks in those provences. On the other side of the slider {tolarance} you could maybe put in slightly higher local manpower from the provence and slightly higher production benafits. Anyway it probably won't happen in this version but might be a useful idea for a future game.
Cheers

 

[Styrbiorn]

Santa Fe {Americas oldest capitol BTW}

Do you mean capitol or capital?

 

[unmerged(7160)]

Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Do you mean capitol or capital?

Ha Ha, so I can't spell. There are worse faults a person can have.

 

[Styrbiorn]

LOL

 

[maekh]

Originally posted by Styrbiorn


That situation is _very_ similar to the situation up here, the vicinity to Norway, the cultural and historical bonds to Norway and of course the liberation movement that want either some form or indeoendence or even unification with Norway. Personally, I kind of like Sweden too though, but if I had a flag pole, their would be a blue-white-green tricolor with an ancient coat of arms in the middle instead of a blue one with a yellow cross .

Have you heard that silly hroup of people on Öland who wants to make Öland a country. "We on Öland make millions from tourism every year and everything goes to Stockholm". Well if they had their own country, they wouldn't have any tourism How supporters do they have? 20?