Denmark and German Culture.

[unmerged(49930)]

Ok I don't know anything about Danish History but now I am playing this game as Denmark and according the events I read, I cannot understand why they don't have German culture. The Oldenburg (German) Dynasty gets the throne in mid XV. century and holds on to it until the end of game. The King before that is Bavarian (Christopher), and the one before that ends up being the king of Pommerania. They are always ruled by Germans

... And what is AGCEEP's policy. I remember I have read somewhere that province culture represents the culture of the people of that province but the state culture represents the culture of the nobility. Like Duchy of Athens having "Italian" culture.

Why doesn't Denmark have German? It could have helped them act like the power they were.

 

[crash63]

AGCEEP HC isn't agree for the German culture and it's quite normal for me.

Denmark would be very strong with a possible easy (and ahistorical) expansion in Germany.

 

[Sute]{h]

The argument is that while Denmark had German kings they wasn't viewed as a German country (not part of the HRE). Thus they wouldn't be able to legitimately rule Germany. The one exception is Holstein which was ruled by the Danish king. However Holstein was ruled seperately from Denmark (officially at least) and as a part of the HRE. Thus the King of Denmark was both King of Denmark and Norway and Count of Slesvig and Holstein.

Unfortunately we are not always so critical when handing out cultures... Dutch for instance seems to be handed to everyone with a possession in that region (France, Spain and England can all get Dutch IIRC). Despite the fact that the reason for Dutch independence was unrest aimed at foreign leadership.

 

[Aladar]

As i remember denmark can now get german culture by event in vanilla. The event was added somewhere in 1.08 beta.

 

[almoravid]

Denmark often enough can do quite a good job conquering northern germany as it is. No need to reinforce this. England doesn't get german culture with their hannoveran dynasty either. Our goal is to keep german minors alive, and it wouldn't get us closer to our goal if we give germany's only strong, protestant neighbour german culture.

 

[Hrafn]

Criteria for assigning state cultures

The argument is that while Denmark had German kings they wasn't viewed as a German country (not part of the HRE). Thus they wouldn't be able to legitimately rule Germany.

The same argument could be made for the Teutonic and Livonian Orders. It could also conceivably be made of a wide variety of other 'non-native' state cultures (the Knights of St John getting italian and french for instance).

Is the criteria for deciding state cultures whether the monarch (and their immediate subordinates) understand and accept the culture sufficiently to rule it effectively, or whether the culture views the monarch and/or state as being 'one of them'? I would think that the former is the more significant determinant in the long term -- and it seems to be the more widely applied criteria.

I am not necessarily in favour of giving Denmark german culture on a game-balance basis (it tends to be too aggressive even as it is), but I think the historic underpinning of this decision needs to be better thought through. Was Denmark's failure to make headway into Germany because they were insufficently German, or because they were insufficiently strong or aggresive? If Denmark could be made less aggressive (particularly less likely to launch historically absurd attacks on Scotland, Dutch minors, and even small Mediteranean states -- I sometimes wonder if Denmark is under the delusion that it's the early Normans) I would probably be in favour of giving it german culture.

 

[Anazagar]

The same argument could be made for the Teutonic and Livonian Orders.

Not realy as they were seen as german countries as teh vast majority of knights were Germans

 

[Sute]{h]

Is the criteria for deciding state cultures whether the monarch (and their immediate subordinates) understand and accept the culture sufficiently to rule it effectively, or whether the culture views the monarch and/or state as being 'one of them'? I would think that the former is the more significant determinant in the long term -- and it seems to be the more widely applied criteria.

I'm clearly in the last camp. Because I can't se how a monarchs cultural background has ANY influence on his ability to rule a given territory. Most Danish kings was German, and quite a few didn't even speak Danish. Yet they managed to rule Denmark. Most likely because they were viewed as legitimate by the elite in Denmark.

I very much view province culture as the culture of the elite in a given province. Here I don't mean the nobles per default rather it is the culture of the people who are in control of the province. In one province it makes sense to use they nobles culture, in another it makes more sense to use the merchants or even the peasants.

Country cultures are defined by a given country's ability to archieve legitimacy over the provinces that possess the given culture. Can the country in question legitimate their rule over most of the provinces possessing the culture. Or in another way of putting it will the elite of a given culture work with or against that country. And I have little doubt that for the german elite to support a given country's possessions in Germany, the country should at the very least be part of the Holy Roman Empire. Which Denmark most certainly wasn't (with the exception of Holstein).

 

[Toio]

And I have little doubt that for the german elite to support a given country's possessions in Germany, the country should at the very least be part of the Holy Roman Empire. Which Denmark most certainly wasn't (with the exception of Holstein).

But I recall that of the 5 german tribes that settled in England , 1, the Angels were from Holstein, are you saying that holstein is danish??

or are you saying that Holstein is part of Denmark ,but also part of the HRE as well as having the german tongue. :wacko:

 

[Sute]{h]

But I recall that of the 5 german tribes that settled in England , 1, the Angels were from Holstein, are you saying that holstein is danish??

or are you saying that Holstein is part of Denmark ,but also part of the HRE as well as having the german tongue. :wacko:

The last. Holstein was ruled by the same king as Denmark, but wasn't a part of the Danish Crown. It was part of the Holy Roman Empire instead. Actually the wars between Prussia and Denmark in the 19th century was caused (officially at least) by Denmark trying to make Holstein a part of the Danish State.

Also the King actually had different powers in Denmark and Holstein. For instance when he wanted to participate in the 30 year war the Danish rigsråd vetoed his decision to go to war. However the King then declared war as Count of Holstein, and the rigsråd had to accept that Denmark got involved because they didn't want to lose Holstein.

 

[Damocles]

IMO, Austria shouldn't have any culture but German as well.

 

[Svantevid]

Why do you think so?

 

[Norrefeldt]

I'm clearly in the last camp. Because I can't se how a monarchs cultural background has ANY influence on his ability to rule a given territory. Most Danish kings was German, and quite a few didn't even speak Danish. Yet they managed to rule Denmark. Most likely because they were viewed as legitimate by the elite in Denmark.

I very much view province culture as the culture of the elite in a given province. Here I don't mean the nobles per default rather it is the culture of the people who are in control of the province. In one province it makes sense to use they nobles culture, in another it makes more sense to use the merchants or even the peasants.

Country cultures are defined by a given country's ability to archieve legitimacy over the provinces that possess the given culture. Can the country in question legitimate their rule over most of the provinces possessing the culture. Or in another way of putting it will the elite of a given culture work with or against that country. And I have little doubt that for the german elite to support a given country's possessions in Germany, the country should at the very least be part of the Holy Roman Empire. Which Denmark most certainly wasn't (with the exception of Holstein).

I agree. Sweden and Norway also had German kings in the 15th century, and later as well. The last Swedish king in the game is French.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Denmark often enough can do quite a good job conquering northern germany as it is. No need to reinforce this. England doesn't get german culture with their hannoveran dynasty either. Our goal is to keep german minors alive, and it wouldn't get us closer to our goal if we give germany's only strong, protestant neighbour german culture.

Why? That is a lot of effort to keep minor countries on life support when the bulk of them already have one foot in the grave so to speak. The King of Denmark was not only a German by ethnicity but a Prince of the HRE to boot!

Also it would be totally wrong for England not to get German culture during the game while the Hanoverians are on the throne. The first couple of Kings spoke English either not at all or with such thick German accents that they could hardly be understood... and then there is the small problem of them still being Electors of Hanover!

If you want to keep some of the minors around without going through the kind of game balance gymnastics that creates other issues, there is always jacking up the BB for forced annexations and making the various AI's allergic to collecting BB points. Or set the games default setting to forced annexations "off". The only reason that some of the minors survived as long as they did was for fear of being seen as a jerk when you knocked them over and took their lunch money. Well, that and the HEI could undo all that conquest action if they chose to since all princes derived whatever "sovereignty" they had from the Emperor, the emperor could take it away as they did on an occasion. Not that it would save minors in the rest of the world, but it would keep the German ones around a bit longer.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

The same argument could be made for the Teutonic and Livonian Orders. It could also conceivably be made of a wide variety of other 'non-native' state cultures (the Knights of St John getting italian and french for instance).

Is the criteria for deciding state cultures whether the monarch (and their immediate subordinates) understand and accept the culture sufficiently to rule it effectively, or whether the culture views the monarch and/or state as being 'one of them'? I would think that the former is the more significant determinant in the long term -- and it seems to be the more widely applied criteria.

I am not necessarily in favour of giving Denmark german culture on a game-balance basis (it tends to be too aggressive even as it is), but I think the historic underpinning of this decision needs to be better thought through. Was Denmark's failure to make headway into Germany because they were insufficently German, or because they were insufficiently strong or aggresive? If Denmark could be made less aggressive (particularly less likely to launch historically absurd attacks on Scotland, Dutch minors, and even small Mediteranean states -- I sometimes wonder if Denmark is under the delusion that it's the early Normans) I would probably be in favour of giving it german culture.

I think most of that problem is because DAN is being played by a machine in regards to the absurd attacks... and they are not the only ones. I can not get over the number of times I have seen nations with the same Monarch fighting wars against each other! The one that comes to mind is the most recent bloodbath between George I of Scotland and George I of England that was started because England declared war upon George the whatever of Hannover....

 

[unmerged(49930)]

I cannot image the Italian peninsula, or France as it is in AGCEEP, ruled by the "Duke of Athens" Not likely anyway, but I guess he would have lost his culture if he had the power

Joking You suggest that the crown has its own culture and it is not possible to rule Germany with ease by the "King of Denmark" title; even though the king's previous title was "Count of Oldenburg". Your approach probably represents better how the game was intended to deal with such cases, however, for example events like below may not fit that view. There may be other situations to be revised... Adding cores therefore removing nationalism, many dynastic inheritance events may have the same problem.

#Erik inherits Pomerania #1#
event = {
        id = 159047
        random = no
        country = DAN
        name = "Erik inherits Pomerania"
        desc = "Even though Erik managed to have Bogislaw made his rightful heir Bogislaw died before Erik. According to the laws of succession Erik was to inherit Pomerania."
        style = 1

        #Triggered by the Pomeranian event: Bogislaw dies before Erik

        action_a ={
                name = "Pomeranian is a part of Danmark"
                command = { type = inherit which = POM }
                command = { type = badboy value = 2 }
                command = { type = addcore which = 302 } #Hinterpommern
                command = { type = relation which = LAT value = -25 }
                command = { type = relation which = HAB value = -50 }
                command = { type = relation which = BRA value = -75 }
                command = { type = relation which = SLZ value = -75 }
        }
}

edit: This meant to be a reply for Sutekh's argument.

 

[Sute]{h]

First of that event is only triggered as the result of a B-option. Hence it is somewhat fantasy but not unrealistic. Secondly I'm not saying that the Danish king is unable to hold a claim on German lands or even rule them. Rather he did so as a Count in the Holy Roman Empire NOT as King of Denmark. Finally the debate on when a given country should gain cores is of course related to the culture debat but not entirely. Cores is much more connected to local support (as opposed to culture wide) and the acceptence in the international society of states of a legitimate claim to the area. That isn't per default the same as the claim is being supported by the cultural elite.

However I'm currently toying with the idea of keeping Holstein a Danish vassal instead of a part of Denmark. But such a solution is far from unproblematic. First of it could lead to a king fighting himself, secondly the Danish player would have far less control over Holstein than the King of Denmark actually had. And it is troublesome of prevent Holstein from cancelling the vassalization and Denmark from diploannexing Holstein. But it seems to me that if Sweden and Norway retains their independance under the Kalmar Union so should Holstein later.

 

[Sleepyhead]

IMO, Austria shouldn't have any culture but German as well.

Gamebalance plays a huge part as well. Austria needs those cultures to be able to better fight the Ottoman Empire, Venice, Poland and France.
Denmark has only 1 major enemy and that's Sweden.
Plus the fact that German is one of the most (if not the most) powerful cultures in EU2.

Also the German provinces are rich and Denmark didn't hold more than two(?) German provinces* during this whole timeframe IIRC.

Denmark doesn't suffer much technology wise with a few German provinces, Austria however suffers greatly without Magyar, Czech and the other cultures.

*EU2 provinces.