Edge of Empires: Why the Caucasus deserves the Next Overhaul

[Taran14]

Frisians nor Germanics didn't even exist 6000 years ago and Indo-Europeans hadn't expanded into Europe from the steppes yet but I get your point.

No, but technically neither did Estonians exist 6000 years ago. Just people (who may or may not have been speakers of Finno-Ugric languages, since the date of arrival of Finno-Ugric speakers in the area is uncertain) whose distant descendants would one day refer to themselves as Estonians. Which of course does not take away the fact that the Finno-Ugric population in present-day Estonia have lived in that area in an unbroken line for a remarkably long time (one of the longest continuous linguistic lines in Europe in fact). Especially remarkable if you consider the fact that most of the other Finno-Ugric populations in the area surrounding present-day Estonia have been assimilated into the Slavic populations that seized control of the area during the late classical and early middle ages. And I think we can indeed say that those bogs have played a big role in this survival.
On a sidenote, the best part of coming back to these forums after like 4 years or so has been seeing that good old es333 is still going strong with his Estonian threads and hasn't changed at all.

 

[AEWHistory]

There definitely should be a mechanic for smaller cultures to survive. Especially for cultures that historically have been very resilient and survived into the present day, such as the Armenians, Georgians, Basques, Frisians etc.

I wish I could give this 100x thumbs up. It is a weakness of the Paradox games. However, if I am being fair, this is hardly unique. Simulating the quixotical nature of what allowed small, disparate groups to survive in different regions is very hard and virtually all games that attempt this fail in one way or another. Paradox’s failures are only conspicuous because they are also so ambitious with the scope of their games, so I am forgiving personally. Still, nothing wrong with wanting to improve over time.

One mechanic that can be worked on is more accurately representing mountain defense. If you look at many of these—there are many medium to small Caucasian groups, as well as the Beta Israel in Ethiopia, and the Druze in the Middle East that come immediately to mind—what do they all have in common? They all survived by being in mountainous terrain. Conquering them was both very difficult (look at the USA in Afghanistan and hundreds of other examples to see how mountains make invasions a real bummer for the invader) and in many cases had little upside as well. After all, why pay a huge price to conquer territory that has little fertile land or other resources that you’d want?

If that can be mastered then many of these traditional historical examples can be recreated and/or other small groups can take hold and survive across the ages in the games. Perhaps that could be done with a DLC on mountain peeps?

 

[es333]

No, but technically neither did Estonians exist 6000 years ago. Just people (who may or may not have been speakers of Finno-Ugric languages, since the date of arrival of Finno-Ugric speakers in the area is uncertain) whose distant descendants would one day refer to themselves as Estonians. Which of course does not take away the fact that the Finno-Ugric population in present-day Estonia have lived in that area in an unbroken line for a remarkably long time (one of the longest continuous linguistic lines in Europe in fact). Especially remarkable if you consider the fact that most of the other Finno-Ugric populations in the area surrounding present-day Estonia have been assimilated into the Slavic populations that seized control of the area during the late classical and early middle ages. And I think we can indeed say that those bogs have played a big role in this survival.
On a sidenote, the best part of coming back to these forums after like 4 years or so has been seeing that good old es333 is still going strong with his Estonian threads and hasn't changed at all.

That's why I said 6000 years, further than that and we can't be certain that actual Finno-Ugric people were settled in Estonia and Northern-Europe. While 6000 years ago, the people to become Frisians and Germanics were still somewhere in the steppes, if purely talking about linguistics.

I'm just very observant of sticking to the facts and that is a quality most people dislike as most people don't like it if they'r corrected. But hey, if a few people learn something new then I feel good.

 

[Taran14]

That's why I said 6000 years, further than that and we can't be certain that actual Finno-Ugric people were settled in Estonia and Northern-Europe. While 6000 years ago, the people to become Frisians and Germanics were still somewhere in the steppes, if purely talking about linguistics.

I'm just very observant of sticking to the facts and that is a quality most people dislike as most people don't like it if they'r corrected. But hey, if a few people learn something new then I feel good.

Well, we can't be certain about when actual Finno-Ugric peoples settled in Estonia at all. It could have been 10,000 years ago, it could have been 6000 years ago but it could also have been 4000 years ago. Basically, all we can be sure about is that it was "very long ago" since linguistics is all we have to go on and linguistics is a very soft science.

 

[mahidevran]

Just to say, adding Alans and Armenians to the "Caucasian" culture group, as the OP says, would be far more unhistorical than it is now and would ruin the immersion completely. From my point of view, Byzantine groups suits IE-language speaking Armenians far better.

Respectfully disagree. Some points to consider:

• Much like the Goergians, Armenia's history is just as intertwined with the Persians as with the Greeks, and arguably more so due to greater geographical proximity and Persian dominance in the Armenian heartland. Armenian linguistic borrowings from Persian, Parthian, and Semitic languages outnumber those from Greek, which are primarily related to the domain of religion.
  
• Armenia and Georgia forged close ties during the Middle Ages in marriage, diplomacy, and warfare. King David IV (the Builder) liberated parts of Armenia after they were conquered by Seljuk invaders. Under Queen Tamar, such liberations continued, and the Georgian-Armenian Zakarids were given fiefs in the region under the kingdom of Georgia.
  
• The Bagratuni of Armenia and the Bagrationi of Georgia -- two prominent dynasties in the region -- share a common origin.
  
• One area in which Armenia is an outlier: Circassians, Alans, Nakh-Daghestanis, and Georgian highlanders share the same pre-Christian mythology. Although each cultural epos has unique variations, they are undeniably related. Armenians do, however, figure in the myths and folktales of the Caucasus.

With this in mind, an areal grouping of the greater Caucasus region makes more sense than a purely ethnolinguistic one.

Alans were wiped out in the real history just like they are being constantly wiped out in the game... So, we can say that it follow the historical accuracy on that here.

The kingdom of Alania was wiped out following Temür's invasion in the fourteenth century, but its people were not, as many retreated into the mountains and survived there. Their modern-day descendants are the Ossets, many of whom live in the Russian Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, a region once part of the historic kingdom. And even if their kingdom was obliterated, it was only done so after centuries of resistance and negotiation with their nomad neighbors, whether independently or as a client state.

But I would really like to see Circassians and at least one East Caucasian nation in game. I guess they can just add "Dagestani" culture like they did in EUIV, especially since it's the only region which was relevant during the middle ages, with kingdoms like Sarir being established by it's peoples. It would make the game in this region more difficult, just like it was IRL. And probably it would even help these nations to survive for a bit longer, since Alans' most dangerous foes are always the nomads which surround them from all sides.

I haven't played EUIV, so I didn't know another Paradox game had included a "Daghestani" group already. The name is probably the best choice to represent the eastern Caucasian peoples (if a tad anachronistic, but it wouldn't be the only one). And to miss out entirely on Sarir (enigmatic as it may be) and the Avar Khanate would be a shame.

 

[klopkr]

Here's a crazy idea: Give every culture a special bonus.

Cultures that were particularly hard to convert historically can have a 25% cultural conversion resistance rate. (Scottish?)
Special mountain cultures could have a special 50% conversion resistance rate but a -25% conversion rate. (Caucus cultures, Welsh, Basque)
Cultures that were particularly good at spreading could have a 25% bonus to cultural conversion rate. (Turkish)
Cultures with strong religious ties could have a 25% bonus resistance to religious conversion. (Coptic, Arabic, Greek)
Some cultures could have military bonuses (Nepali?)
Some already have bonuses like raiding coasts (Berber)

 

[alexxo97]

Here's a crazy idea: Give every culture a special bonus.

Cultures that were particularly hard to convert historically can have a 25% cultural conversion resistance rate. (Scottish?)
Special mountain cultures could have a special 50% conversion resistance rate but a -25% conversion rate. (Caucus cultures, Welsh, Basque)
Cultures that were particularly good at spreading could have a 25% bonus to cultural conversion rate. (Turkish)
Cultures with strong religious ties could have a 25% bonus resistance to religious conversion. (Coptic, Arabic, Greek)
Some cultures could have military bonuses (Nepali?)
Some already have bonuses like raiding coasts (Berber)

In general I agree with the idea of giving different cultures special bonuses. There are a lot of flavor decisions that could be added to cultures that are very similar to systems already in place just localized to make sense for the culture in question. This just makes the game a little more immersive when playing them.

It can get quite complicated though as some cultures fit many boxes while others fit few of them, This could create overpowered cultures. So if you are giving mountainous cultures bonus religiously and militarily then there should be disadvantages associated with being far from mountainous territory maybe with a 1 county distance buffer.

It could also be interesting if cultures could evolve, while it can be difficult to convert the general populace in say georgia or armenia it would make sense that foreign ruling dynasties that manage to take that territory get some form of adaptation culturally from their subjects. This should not extend to the top liege, only the local suzerain. Afterall the game spans almost 700 years at this point.

 

[Aquamancer]

While y'all seem to be discussing a lot about giving certain cultures different bonuses to make the cultural assimilation of CK2 more accurate to real life, you seem to be ignoring the most obvious, glaring problem regarding culture-shifting in CK2: that the most common culture-shift events in-game are completely ahistorical, with little to no basis in real life. Historically, the majority population did not adopt the language and customs of their ruling class, especially in Western Europe, where the ruling class frequently did not even speak the same language as the locals. The only notable case where the nobles were able to cause widespread change in the local culture is England, and that was only because the Normans had established almost complete control over the country, with native Anglo-Saxons owning less than 8 per cent of the land: and even then, the process took centuries to complete.

I propose that instead of giving different cultures certain perks, the culture-switching mechanic could be overhauled in general. There's quite a lot of potential for various culture-switch mechanics derived from how the cultural layout of Eurasia changed during the Middle Ages, as culture switching was never as simple as "a ruler's good stewardship skill causes the locals to adopt ruler's culture".

Just to give one example, instead of simply having Pomeranian provinces switch to German when ruled by a German ruler, the Holy Roman Emperor could order an Ostsiedlung to populate the depopulated countryside of Pomerania with Germans, causing the provinces to flip to German and ending depopulation in a province. Of course, this would require an update to the depopulation mechanic in The Reaper's Due to make it last significantly longer: for example, Pomeranian Wends never recovered independently from the depopulation caused by Danish raids, the Wendish Crusades, and other military conflicts during the 12th century, allowing the Germans to settle significant swathes of land in Pomerania and assimilate local Pomeranians faster.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

I'm all on board with inhospitable terrain slowing culture conversion. Other things to stop the mass assimilation include drastically increasing the likelihood rulers go native and allowing vassals with the same culture as their liege to do so.

 

[mahidevran]

I propose that instead of giving different cultures certain perks, the culture-switching mechanic could be overhauled in general. There's quite a lot of potential for various culture-switch mechanics derived from how the cultural layout of Eurasia changed during the Middle Ages, as culture switching was never as simple as "a ruler's good stewardship skill causes the locals to adopt ruler's culture".

Just to give one example, instead of simply having Pomeranian provinces switch to German when ruled by a German ruler, the Holy Roman Emperor could order an Ostsiedlung to populate the depopulated countryside of Pomerania with Germans, causing the provinces to flip to German and ending depopulation in a province. Of course, this would require an update to the depopulation mechanic in The Reaper's Due to make it last significantly longer: for example, Pomeranian Wends never recovered independently from the depopulation caused by Danish raids, the Wendish Crusades, and other military conflicts during the 12th century, allowing the Germans to settle significant swathes of land in Pomerania and assimilate local Pomeranians faster.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here with some of the problems with the culture-conversion dynamic, and your scenario got me thinking about how the depopulation modifier could be utilized to this extent. In the current game, depopulation kicks in after a province is struck by an epidemic, but I don't believe it occurs after a period of prolonged warfare or destruction of holdings. What if warfare caused depopulation, with the degree of it predicated on battles in that territory and the destruction of holdings, which would make culture conversion more likely to occur in the aftermath of resettlement? Under such conditions, the baseline for conversion would be lower than the default is currently.

IIRC encouraging settlement is already an option (via council members?), but perhaps that can be reworked for those who like homogeneous empires and want to pursue that action.

 

[es333]

Well, we can't be certain about when actual Finno-Ugric peoples settled in Estonia at all. It could have been 10,000 years ago, it could have been 6000 years ago but it could also have been 4000 years ago. Basically, all we can be sure about is that it was "very long ago" since linguistics is all we have to go on and linguistics is a very soft science.

We have theories on which the absolute majority of historians/linguists/archaeologists agree on. The 6000 years ago is the theory that almost everyone agree on and it is taught in universities all over Europe. Of course less likely theories are also talked about but the majority doesn't support it, like the theory of Finno-Ugrians being the original Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Northern- and Eastern-Europe after the ice age. It is not very likely.

But I think this discussion is pointless as only one of us had to pass these subjects in university.

 

[Taran14]

But I think this discussion is pointless as only one of us had to pass these subjects in university.

Aw, that is a shame. You really should sign up for such courses then! I study archaeology and I can tell you it is massive fun. Linguistics are really fun too, I studied that before I started archaeology. You should give it a try if you can, since you seem to like the subject. Only drawback is how difficult it is to find a job in these fields.

 

[es333]

Aw, that is a shame. You really should sign up for such courses then! I study archaeology and I can tell you it is massive fun. Linguistics are really fun too, I studied that before I started archaeology. You should give it a try if you can, since you seem to like the subject. Only drawback is how difficult it is to find a job in these fields.

Okay then, I didn't major in archaeology but do you really think that the comb ceramic culture wasn't Finno-Ugric? But if you really think that Frisians have lived in the same place for 6000 years then it is very hard for me to take you seriously. Maybe a large part of the people are the same, but their culture and language was 100% definitely not Indo-European (especially Germanic) 6000 years ago, most likely not even 5000 years ago.

 

[klopkr]

@alexxo97 I totally agree but of course i figure balancing the cultures would be something that would just take some more thought and dev time to manage.

In some ways I'm thinking of it a bit like a small version of EU4's national ideas.

 

[Taran14]

Okay then, I didn't major in archaeology but do you really think that the comb ceramic culture wasn't Finno-Ugric? But if you really think that Frisians have lived in the same place for 6000 years then it is very hard for me to take you seriously. Maybe a large part of the people are the same, but their culture and language was 100% definitely not Indo-European (especially Germanic) 6000 years ago, most likely not even 5000 years ago.

No. I do not have sufficient evidence to say whether the people of the comb-ceramic culture spoke a Finno-Ugric language, a Siberian language, something else, whether they all spoke a single language or whether this material culture actually represents multiple linguistic groups. And no one has enough evidence to say that with certainty. All we can say is that based on the known historical distribution of Finno-Ugric languages and the known distribution of the Comb-ceramic culture, it is plausible that these people were or at least included Finno-Ugric speakers. But it is equally plausible that they spoke other languages that are known to have been spoken in the (massive) area where we find Comb-ceramic artifacts. We simply do not know. We just have too little evidence to draw up a satisfactory theory. Same goes for the stuff like the Corded-ware culture which we also find in Estonia. The arrival of the Corded-ware culture is often associated with the arrival of the Indo-European languages. Yet Estonia at this time was likely already inhabited by Finno-Ugric speakers. So what does it mean when we find this Corded-ware culture in an area we did not think was occupied by Indo-European speakers? We can guess, but we do not know.

And no, Frisians haven't lived in Frisia for 6000 years. I have would never claim such a ridiculous thing. The Frisians have lived in Frisia for less than 2000 years. At least, the people we call Frisians nowadays. The modern Frisians only settled in the area in late antiquity/early middle ages. There had been Frisians before that of course, the Frisii were a Germanic or possibly Celtic tribe in Roman times after which the area was named, but a series of big marine transgressions led to the almost complete abandonment of the area. Roman records indicate that the Frisii were resettled within the borders of the Roman Empire. A few centuries later, the now mostly empty lands are settled by Anglo-Saxons who absorb the small remnant population there. These Anglo-Saxon settlers are the Frisians that appear in medieval records.

 

[Palakus]

many retreated into the mountains and survived there. Their modern-day descendants are the Ossets, many of whom live in the Russian Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, a region once part of the historic kingdom.

True, but after Tamerlan's military campaign only a few of them survived, not many. Ossetians estimated less than 30,000 living people in 1830, 400 years after the massacre. Tamerlan didn't just destroy the kingdoms of North Caucasus, he intentionally massacred everyone he could get there.

This is why I don't find this thing so much disturbing in the game. It's an alternative history after all, and this sort of things happened a lot in the real history. In some runs some nations are lucky enough to survive, in other runs they are not.

Circassians, Alans, Nakh-Daghestanis, and Georgian highlanders share the same pre-Christian mythology.

Hm, you might be referring to the Nart saga thing, don't you? Well, as far as I know, neither Georgian nor Dagestani highlanders knew this thing, it is exclusive for North Caucasian inhabitants. Circassian and Alan/Ossetian versions are very similar, but Vainakh version has different heroes in the epos.

And also it is important that Narts are just a cultural heroes of North Caucasus. These peoples didn't share the gods - a major part of every religion.

 

[mahidevran]

anti-Temür bias intensifies

Hm, you might be referring to the Nart saga thing, don't you? Well, as far as I know, neither Georgian nor Dagestani highlanders knew this thing, it is exclusive for North Caucasian inhabitants. Circassian and Alan/Ossetian versions are very similar, but Vainakh version has different heroes in the epos.

And also it is important that Narts are just a cultural heroes of North Caucasus. These peoples didn't share the gods - a major part of every religion.

I should have specified elements of pre-Christian folktales, and yes, I know the Vainakh version of the epos are distinctly different. With regards to Georgia, they have the least overlap, and I was specifically thinking of Amirani, who is analogue to Pkharmat/Sosriqwe.

Nevertheless, I still think the Byzantine grouping is a terribly nonsensical idea -- not just for the Caucasus, but for the Assyrians and Copts as well.