Grand Culture Mod : (Cultures I'd like to see instated)

[Calgacus]

The Canary Islands: The Guanche are only one province and considering what we’re having to do to get cultural tags I'm sure we'll never see a seperate Guanche culture. As for the Guanche themselves, many historians say that Guanche was a Berber language from the little of the language they can find left.

The Guanche were the inhabitants of Tenerife, rather than all of the islands. Even if this language is related to Berber, at best it is only so in the way that Tocharian is related to Portuguese ... very vaguely. But they weren't Moslems and certainly were not under the control of any north african empire (i.e. never ruled by the Almohads)!

I assume when you mention Cumberland to be Brythonic as well you are referring to the Picts? While I agree with the hypothesis that they where Brythonic I'm unsure if they where a distinct people by 1066.

No, it is not a reference to the Picts. It is a reference to the Welsh of Cumbria brought under Scottish control in the 9th century, but not finally annexed until the 11th. A 12th century Scottish charter refers to Carlisle as Carduill ... close to a literal Cumbric meaning, and charters of Maelcoluim IV refer to <i>Walenses</i>. After the invasion of Edward I, the "laws of the Brets (Welsh) and Scots (Gaels)" are abolished. But in the 11th century, Cumberland and its neighbourhood produce some interesting names. One example is the Earl Cospatric, a British translation of the Scottish devotional form Gillapatraic. The sinificance is the late translation. I.e. it's a mixture of Welsh and Scottish culture indicating by-lingualism in the area. It's from the same way we know that the English armies of the Edwardian invasions enountered a by-lingual population in Falkirk (or had translators), since the town of Egglesbreth ("speckled church") is recorded in a Latin chronicle c. 1298 by "Fawe Kirke" ("speckled church").

Celtic stuff: First off we are splitting Breton from the other Brythonic languages because they had become by 1066, different then the other Brythonic peoples. They had been influenced by French but also because they had different names then the Cornish or Welsh.

They hadn't really. The Latin word "Brittones" is used for all. Welsh is a derisive word from Old English which simply means "foreigner" ... related directly to Swiss German "Welsch" (french swiss) and "Walloon" (low country french). Bretons are often called "Walenses" in insular charters too. All are related more broadly to Gaelic "Gal." Gerald of Wales tried to introduce the word "Cambrenses" for the Welsh in the 12th century (deriving from Welsh Cymry), because of the confusion.

As for Saxon being in Southern Scotland, I'm unsure, while I agree wwith what you're saying, we currently are using a very generic 'Scottish' tag to represent the Highland and the Lowlands which, although having things in common, where to different places and two different people inhabiting those areas. The different though was not exceptionally different later, not as much in 1066. Once again, there's probably people more knowledgeable on this subject then myself so I shall leave this to them but this is my opinion.

Well, "Highland" and "Lowland" are anachronisms in the CK period, not emerging as concepts until at least the late 14th century, but more probably not until the 16th century. East Lothian and Berwick weren't Scottish at all. Adam of Dryburgh refers to the area c. 1180 as the "Land of the English in the Kingdom of the Scots." Lothianic and proper English sources will speak about coming down from "Scotland into Lothian." One charter, issued by the King of the Scots, refers to “holding the whole land of Lothian and the Kingdom of Scotia.” In the early charters of David I, the characteristic address is “to all Scots and English resident throughout his realm, in both Scotland and Lothian.” Until the late middle ages, there are separate justiciarships for Scotland, Lothian and Galloway-Strathclyde. Scotland (Alba) and the Scots (Gaedheal) were distinct concepts, the former refering to the land north of the Forth and Clyde, the latter to the Gaelic speakers of Great Britain and the islands. Sometimes Gallovidians aren't Scots, Gall-Gaedheal ("foreign Scots") being the name they gave themselves, but often they were. The Lothianic English were never Scots. Up until the Wars of Independence, the King of the Scots had to do homage to the King of the English for the "Land of Lothian" (i.e. CK's Berwick and Lothian), and during the wars the population of that area were subject to blackmail and raiding by the Scottish "rebels" ... being treated as "English."

It changed in the 15th and 16th centuries when the imported, nativized English population of the Lothian and the burghs started to call their language "Scottis" and the former "Scottis" "Erse." But this ain't relevant to the CK period.

Hence, Lothian or at/and least Berwick should be English/Saxon, and that land part of England ... although ruled by the King of Scots.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Single province cultures are rather pointless, so if people of Canaries could be thought to be even remotely related to berbers, they could be pagan berbers.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

The point remains that geography seperates the Welsh and Bretons and they were also subject to a different set of cultural pressures. The Welsh were culturally under pressure from the English and the Bretons were under cultural pressure from the Normans (they were ruled by Normans afterall). At no point were the the Bretons and the Welsh really culturally more similar to one-another than the Irish were to the Scots for example.

They both considered themselves 'britons' but this didn't really mean that they were that similar culturally, the Bretons and Welsh did not feel in any way united and probably had push come to shove (ie Welsh invade Brittany or vice versa) wouldn't have considered them more their countrymen than they would the English. The Cornish are peculiar, it could be said that they would have looked to the Welsh as fellow 'Britons' but then again we have a gaelic tag to represent them free don't we. Call them 'Cornish', since when possible the modern term should be used I think. Cornish names should probably be partly anglicised Welsh names in order to reflect the cultural influence of the English, unless a whole library of seperate Cornish names can be found somewhere (as no doubt exists somewhere in cyberspace)

I support the status quo regarding the Pechenegs and Cumans. They should not be Turks as the modern term Turk (modern definitions should be used when possible) represents the heirs of the Seljuk turks that run around in Asia Minor (now disparagingly called 'Turkey').

The Pechenegs and the Cumans had little originally to do with each other (until the Pechnegs were conquered by the Cuman that is) and even less to do with the Seljuk turks (ie Turks by modern definitions), geographical isolation would have exacerbated cultural and linguistic differences. If we had the tags I'd love to see Khazars, Oghuz and such but the lack of tags doesn't justify the assimililation of Pechenegs and Cumans, the culture mod should be about adding cultures, not getting rid of them.

As for the English scots, it offers a dillema, if Lothian were made English, then the kings of Scotland would be likely to turn English within a few generations. Since wasn't it only 'south Lothian' that was english, I think Lothian should be Scottish but Berwick English, if only for gameplay reasons.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

The Guanche were the inhabitants of Tenerife, rather than all of the islands. Even if this language is related to Berber, at best it is only so in the way that Tocharian is related to Portuguese ... very vaguely. But they weren't Moslems and certainly were not under the control of any north african empire (i.e. never ruled by the Almohads)!

What I mean't is that Guanche is considered by most historians was a Berber language, such as the Zenati languages, Kabyle language, Atlas languages, Tuareg languages, Zenaga language etc.

No, it is not a reference to the Picts. It is a reference to the Welsh of Cumbria brought under Scottish control in the 9th century, but not finally annexed until the 11th. A 12th century Scottish charter refers to Carlisle as Carduill ... close to a literal Cumbric meaning, and charters of Maelcoluim IV refer to <i>Walenses</i>. After the invasion of Edward I, the "laws of the Brets (Welsh) and Scots (Gaels)" are abolished. But in the 11th century, Cumberland and its neighbourhood produce some interesting names. One example is the Earl Cospatric, a British translation of the Scottish devotional form Gillapatraic. The sinificance is the late translation. I.e. it's a mixture of Welsh and Scottish culture indicating by-lingualism in the area. It's from the same way we know that the English armies of the Edwardian invasions enountered a by-lingual population in Falkirk (or had translators), since the town of Egglesbreth ("speckled church") is recorded in a Latin chronicle c. 1298 by "Fawe Kirke" ("speckled church").

Very interesting, my knowledge of the areas North of Hadrian's Wall isn't too good, I'll look into that

They hadn't really. The Latin word "Brittones" is used for all. Welsh is a derisive word from Old English which simply means "foreigner" ... related directly to Swiss German "Welsch" (french swiss) and "Walloon" (low country french). Bretons are often called "Walenses" in insular charters too. All are related more broadly to Gaelic "Gal." Gerald of Wales tried to introduce the word "Cambrenses" for the Welsh in the 12th century (deriving from Welsh Cymry), because of the confusion.

Well, yes, you're right but my point has already made by GoblinCookie.

Well, "Highland" and "Lowland" are anachronisms in the CK period, not emerging as concepts until at least the late 14th century, but more probably not until the 16th century.

Well I was reffering to the areas, rather then the concept and in the rest of your paragraph you also differentiate the two regions.

East Lothian and Berwick weren't Scottish at all. Adam of Dryburgh refers to the area c. 1180 as the "Land of the English in the Kingdom of the Scots." Lothianic and proper English sources will speak about coming down from "Scotland into Lothian." One charter, issued by the King of the Scots, refers to “holding the whole land of Lothian and the Kingdom of Scotia.” In the early charters of David I, the characteristic address is “to all Scots and English resident throughout his realm, in both Scotland and Lothian.” Until the late middle ages, there are separate justiciarships for Scotland, Lothian and Galloway-Strathclyde. Scotland (Alba) and the Scots (Gaedheal) were distinct concepts, the former refering to the land north of the Forth and Clyde, the latter to the Gaelic speakers of Great Britain and the islands. Sometimes Gallovidians aren't Scots, Gall-Gaedheal ("foreign Scots") being the name they gave themselves, but often they were. The Lothianic English were never Scots. Up until the Wars of Independence, the King of the Scots had to do homage to the King of the English for the "Land of Lothian" (i.e. CK's Berwick and Lothian), and during the wars the population of that area were subject to blackmail and raiding by the Scottish "rebels" ... being treated as "English."

It changed in the 15th and 16th centuries when the imported, nativized English population of the Lothian and the burghs started to call their language "Scottis" and the former "Scottis" "Erse." But this ain't relevant to the CK period.

Hence, Lothian or at/and least Berwick should be English/Saxon, and that land part of England ... although ruled by the King of Scots.

I agree with you on this but GoblinCookie is right, it might be an issue to make Lothian Saxon, but I think if game testing proves otherwise (afterall 15% isn't that much unless you choose to marry a Saxon woman, then it's 30%). Also it would be a good thing to point out that while England's Saxons would be turning English, the Saxons of Scotland, would not

 

[Earl Uhtred]

From the name-list I take CK's 'Scottish' tag to represent a culture that didn't exist in 1066, though probably necessary for game purposes. It's an umbrella that includes local English and British elements, so Lothian and Berwick can remain Scottish just as parts west don't need to be made Welsh. Galloway, Caithness, Cumberland and the Isles can remain Norse because they represent an autonomous cultural system with elite support.

I agree with those who believe Welsh / Cornish should not be lumped in with Breton both from a naming and historical perspective.

Hate to reopen old wounds, especially since the project master seems dead set against for no reason I can understand, but there is no way Welsh culture should extend to Devon let alone Somerset.

Here's a challenge - find me ONE Brittonic-named landowner in Domesday Book from Somerset or Dorset. Christ, I would be surprised if Devon had any either west or east.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

I'd just like to say I am happy with the Southern Slav tag. I'm not convinced that splitting Croats and Serbs from Bulgarians (and Macedonians?) is a priority when Vlachs, Albanians, Berbers, Bretons, Syrians, Canareans, Sardinians, Copts and Kurds are absent.

We have Vlachs, Berbers, Kurds and Bretons being added. Syrians were alread reduced to rubbles and were no where near being a majority in any province in CK map. "Canareans"...well I don't know what that is...Copts are a religious sect not a nation....and if we make a separate Sardinian tag then we really need to make a separate Sicilian, Napolitan, Tuscan, Lombard.....and the list has no end.

Certainly, splitting Serbs from Croats is just silly; the only difference between the two being religion.

Actually the difference was not only the religion and is still isnt' to this very day. I already wrote before in this thread on this subject and I suggest you read it before going on ranting about something you don't have a clue...

Although I don't know much about Western Slavic languages, I do know that Polish and Czech were once labelled as "common languages" (for political reasons admittedly), and so separating Bohemian and "Slovak" at this stage smacks of anachronism.

Polish and Czech having common languages? Well obviously...both are Slavic and more Western Slavic...:rofl:
Regarding on Slovaks yes they did use the same literary language, but the the thing is that Slovaks and Czech certainyl didn't consider themselves as same nation and they had their own separate nation-states and their own separate national awarness.

In fact, they should get rid of some of the anachronisms currently in the game, like Portuguese/Castillian, Irish/Scottish (the only purpose being served in the naming patterns) and maybe even Dutch (well, Flemish should be there at least).

I think you need to get one fact into your head...although this game starts in 1066 the game spans until 15th century....so we can't just lump different nations together and I would especially urge you to read all my posts prior to this and also to look for some information on the net before you rant about something you don't know nothing about.

I would rise again my offer for a Kipchak culture in the north and Turk in the south. afcourse if a tag can be spared . and I think someone should start keeping track on the tags count them and start redistributing them, so we will know what is available and possible.

Again....Kipchak are Cumans, as I said Cumans, Pechenegs, Seljuks, Ottomans, Oghuz, Khazars....they were all Turkish tribes....some were not so lucky and are now gone....some succeeded to form their own modern-day nations, such as Seljuks, Ottomans, Turkomans, etc...

In any case some people make a fundamental mistake and that is the fact they confuse themselves and apply to medieval "nations" the meaning of ethnicity as it is understood today....thats is totally wrong.

@Earl I respect your opinion, but as you know I disagree with you.

 

[Calgacus]

We have Vlachs, Berbers, Kurds and Bretons being added. Syrians were alread reduced to rubbles and were no where near being a majority in any province in CK map. "Canareans"...well I don't know what that is...Copts are a religious sect not a nation....and if we make a separate Sardinian tag then we really need to make a separate Sicilian, Napolitan, Tuscan, Lombard.....and the list has no end.

SARDINIA: Not really. Obviously you don't have a clue about the history and language of the island.

COPTS: lol ... what you on?! :rofl: Who's been telling you that nonsense? Coptic is a language.

SYRIANS: I wouldn't mind you backing that up.

Actually the difference was not only the religion and is still isnt' to this very day. I already wrote before in this thread on this subject and I suggest you read it before going on ranting about something you don't have a clue...

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. Yes, religion has carried some other distinctive features with it (like script), but it is the same language.

Polish and Czech having common languages? Well obviously...both are Slavic and more Western Slavic...:rofl:
Regarding on Slovaks yes they did use the same literary language, but the the thing is that Slovaks and Czech certainyl didn't consider themselves as same nation and they had their own separate nation-states and their own separate national awarness.

Ach ... same ole same ole ... anachronistic nationalism. Could say the same for Londoners and Northumbrians, Gascons and Poitevins, Picards and Normans, Swabians and Saxons.

I think you need to get one fact into your head...although this game starts in 1066 the game spans until 15th century....so we can't just lump different nations together and I would especially urge you to read all my posts prior to this and also to look for some information on the net before you rant about something you don't know nothing about.

Yikes. I know the span of the game thank you very much, and I certainly don't need you telling me to "read up" on things coz I disagree. Dude ... you're hilarious :rofl:

 

[Calgacus]

Well I was reffering to the areas, rather then the concept and in the rest of your paragraph you also differentiate the two regions.

You've just gotta be careful about using the terms "highland" and "lowland" in Scottish history, since it implies a rigid geographical and linguistic frontier pertaining to the period 1700-1900; this division is still used in Scotland today, and unfortunately is backdated in the history books more often than it should be. It's a pretty meaningless division otherwise.

 

[Calgacus]

They both considered themselves 'britons' but this didn't really mean that they were that similar culturally, the Bretons and Welsh did not feel in any way united and probably had push come to shove (ie Welsh invade Brittany or vice versa) wouldn't have considered them more their countrymen than they would the English.

Given the popularity of (the production) Arthurian and other pan-Brythonic myths and commen nomenclature in the CK period, I'd seriously suggest that to be untrue.

The Cornish are peculiar, it could be said that they would have looked to the Welsh as fellow 'Britons' but then again we have a gaelic tag to represent them free don't we.

They are peculiar mostly because, unlike the Welsh and to a lesser extent the Bretons, their culture is not well documented.

BTW, Gaelic does not mean "Celtic." Only Irish, Scottish and Manx can be "gaelic."

Cornish names should probably be partly anglicised Welsh names in order to reflect the cultural influence of the English, unless a whole library of seperate Cornish names can be found somewhere (as no doubt exists somewhere in cyberspace)

Yes, I'd prolly agree here. The Cornish never developed a distinctive elite culture.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

I didn't mean that the Cornish should be 'Gealic' only that the Gealic tag be recamed to Cornish and applied to Cornwall, not that they should be called Cornish.

Ultimately it should be remembered that all that is required for a culture to split is geographical isolation from other members of that culture. It could be anything, oceans, mountains, seas, deserts, vast tracks of forest, whatever divides two cultures phsically will ultimately divide them culturally.

When two groups are seperated from one another, a gradual process often taking centuries takes place, minute differences in ways of speaking between the members of both groups become 'accents'. Eventually accents become so pronounced (this will happen quicker if their is a lack of standardised spelling and grammer), that the two cultures were they to meet would be illegable to one another, and can then be called either dialects of languages depending entirely on the political aspirations and status of the two groups.

Sure Bretons and Welsh may have called themselves Britons, but the point remains that I doubt that a 'Welsh' Briton and a Breton 'Briton' could have immediatly understood oneanother had they met. The cultures and languages of different areas of the same landmasses appeared to have differed wildly among the Celtic peoples, what does this say for cultural unity across seas?

The Dutch and the Germans are classed as different cultures, there is probably less culturally between Dutch and German than between the Bretons and the Welsh for instance. They had been isolated, except by sea for centuries from oneanother, they had not been a single cultural group for centuries (or millenia?). There is no justification for making them into one cultural group, it's like the case of the South Slavs really.

The Turkic groups are rathar similar to this, look (in CK) at the difference between 'Turkish' names and Cuman and Pecheneg names, the rift is vast. Therefore from deduction of the alienness of the two cultures names, what does this say for their languages?

The Turks in CK should be the Turks that are closest culturally to modern Turks, the Seljuk branch of Turkdom. As for the Cuman/Pechenegs their names are, while similer than to the Turks, different from one another. If we have a certain number of tags, why not keep the cultures that were probably the furthest apart (Cuman/Pechenegs) rather than combine them so we'd have even less cultures which we don't really want to see. The Ugric/Finnish thing is unfortunate and I don't really appreciate that, but then I guess that having Bolger Culture is important. If say Paradox made one more tag then I'd want to see them put back into the game definately.

Point- If you made the Canary Islands Pagan Berber, might they 'come into contact' with Islam a lot quicker than they did historicly.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Well it seems like someone is wanting to start the discussion about which culture should be in all over again


I myself don't find it a good idea to remove cultures that are already in the game and who are playable. So Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Portugese and Dutch should definitely stay in.

Those guys from the Canaries, Copts, Syrians, Kurds and Berbers are not playable (at least not from the start of any scenario) and since we have only a limited amount of tags there is really no big need to have them in the game.

Adding Sardinian culture would mean adding a 2 province culture which wouldn't ad much to the game I believe.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Bunch of stuff about Brythonic langauges and the concept of 'culture'

Cornish names wheren't that different from Welsh names, I've compared the two and in most cases, they where the same. We're already using the tag in question for Breton anyways and we'red depeseratly short of tags, so muvh so in fact we've had to merge a few just to an extra one or two.

The Dutch and the Germans are classed as different cultures, there is probably less culturally between Dutch and German than between the Bretons and the Welsh for instance.

Actually we talked about that the difference between 'Dutch' and German was minimal until the 16th century and the idea to merge it with German has been thrown around alot but we decided against it because it would probably anger a lot of Dutch players and there would be less chance that Paradox would adopt this as the new cultural layout when completed.

The Turkic groups are rathar similar to this, look (in CK) at the difference between 'Turkish' names and Cuman and Pecheneg names, the rift is vast. Therefore from deduction of the alienness of the two cultures names, what does this say for their languages? The Turks in CK should be the Turks that are closest culturally to modern Turks, the Seljuk branch of Turkdom. As for the Cuman/Pechenegs their names are, while similer than to the Turks, different from one another. If we have a certain number of tags, why not keep the cultures that were probably the furthest apart (Cuman/Pechenegs) rather than combine them so we'd have even less cultures which we don't really want to see.

By sentiments exactly but considering our lack of tags we may have to merge Cuman, Bolgar and Pecheneg but rest assured that I will fight tooth and nail against only having one Turkic culture

The Ugric/Finnish thing is unfortunate and I don't really appreciate that, but then I guess that having Bolger Culture is important. If say Paradox made one more tag then I'd want to see them put back into the game definately.

I REALLY, REALLY wanted to have a lot of different Uralic cultures and originally when we where first making the map we did and historically we should have more but we've run out of tags pretty much, so that is why we have a big blue blob on the map. Ideally we would have Finnish, Lappish, Samoyed, and Mordvin cultures but we can't do that because we've run out off tags.

Point- If you made the Canary Islands Pagan Berber, might they 'come into contact' with Islam a lot quicker than they did historicly.

Actually the AI tends to leave them alone. So that's about right.

Calgacus does have a point though, I'm still not a big fan of a seperate Moravian/Slovak culture, it does seem anachronistic. Perhaps it's my inability to remember important things sometimes but can you tell me the difference again?

As for Sardinian culture, I admit it was difference, I 've done a lot of research into Sardianian history but having a while new culture just for two provinces seems a bit much and considering the Pisand And Genoes influence I'd much rather make them 'Italian' then Greek.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

@Earl I respect your opinion, but as you know I disagree with you.

I know you disagree, I still have no idea why.

Seriously, even if Dumnonian speech did live on into the CK period in Devon and Somerset they don't remotely meet your own criteria - the rules you've used, or claimed to use, everywhere else on the map. The aristocracy didn't speak it, the gentry didn't speak it, law, the towns and the church didn't recognise it, its speakers had no political power and Cornish didn't even exist as a written language till the twelfth century.

All signs point to the Saxons ruling most of Somerset and Dorset without interruption from the mid-seventh century, settling the Exe valley by 700 and the fleshy parts of Devon by 750. They were on the Tamar no later than the 840s and the last king of Cornwall died in the 910s.

If 300 years isn't long-established presence I don't know what is. Now I'm prepared to allow for the survival of Dumnonian communities in parts of Devon rising to a solid majority across most of Cornwall which may justify giving Cornwall Welsh culture if only as a memento but it's for you to provide evidence any sort of Brittonic-speaking nobility even existed in Devon. Somerset? Forget it.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

I thought that provincial culture was the culture of the common people, not the nobles? Is there really much demand for a gaelic troop type culture anywhere else. On the Kurds/Pechenegs thing, I thought we were using the <none> tag for the Kurds weren't we. How many tags do we actually need. We shouldn't remove the Pechenegs, mostly beacause of the turkish pagan tribes they were the ones least under the influence. Getting rid of the Pechenegs just beacause you don't have the tags for all the tribes to have seperate cultures is a bit of a shame. It may beacause the Cumans are my favourite pagan grouping and I watch their clashes with the Hungarians with great interest and take great care to convert them to the true faith if I'm playing the Byzantines.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Wasn't the only free celtic type culture ("celtic") being assigned as the culture of Brittanyans? Or are you planning to remove "scottish" to be able to add "cornish"?

 

[unmerged(31117)]

Wait a minute, there is no free gaelic culture tag? Must be a case of memory corruption caused by long absence from this thread. I'm sorry? In which case make the Cornish Welsh.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

All signs point to the Saxons ruling most of Somerset and Dorset without interruption from the mid-seventh century, settling the Exe valley by 700 and the fleshy parts of Devon by 750. They were on the Tamar no later than the 840s and the last king of Cornwall died in the 910s.

Rulling is the essential, the fact Saxons ruled it from 300 years doesn't mean the population assimilated. You'll have to do better than that...
In any case you should know that I already decided to remove Welsh culture from Somerset.

Wasn't the only free celtic type culture ("celtic") being assigned as the culture of Brittanyans? Or are you planning to remove "scottish" to be able to add "cornish"?

No one is planning anything....everything stays as it was presented on my maps with slight updates such as the merging of Cuman and Pecheneg with Turkish tag.

SARDINIA: Not really. Obviously you don't have a clue about the history and language of the island.

Yes really...and please do not patronize me.
As I said if we make separate Sardinian culture then we need to make a separate Corsican culture and then we can also go on and separate Italian in dozens of other cultures, German in dozen more etc, etc...

COPTS: lol ... what you on?! :rofl: Who's been telling you that nonsense? Coptic is a language.

Copts were by 1066 already minimalized to rubbles....however if you can provide me with FACTS where Copts were present(which provinces) and with their names I would gladly add it....as we have one more free tag left.

SYRIANS: I wouldn't mind you backing that up.

Actually you are the one who needs to back up your claims with facts, not me.

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. Yes, religion has carried some other distinctive features with it (like script), but it is the same language.

It's not the same language and never was. Again read my previous posts on the subject.

Ach ... same ole same ole ... anachronistic nationalism. Could say the same for Londoners and Northumbrians, Gascons and Poitevins, Picards and Normans, Swabians and Saxons.

Idiotic comparisons.

Yikes. I know the span of the game thank you very much, and I certainly don't need you telling me to "read up" on things coz I disagree. Dude ... you're hilarious :rofl:

Obviously you don't know the span of the game...and I certainly do need to tell you to read up because it is obvious you didn't read this whole thread.
And finally if I am hillarious then what are you doing here? No one is forcing you to use my mod....you are free to make your own....we'll see how successful would that be... :rofl:

 

[unmerged(27913)]

The Turkic groups are rathar similar to this, look (in CK) at the difference between 'Turkish' names and Cuman and Pecheneg names, the rift is vast. Therefore from deduction of the alienness of the two cultures names, what does this say for their languages?

What difference is that? :rofl:
Pechenegs and Cumans all have pure Turkish names...the only thing is that devs thought that adding a bit diversity so they added a some names to one culture tag and some to the other two, etc....

The Turks in CK should be the Turks that are closest culturally to modern Turks, the Seljuk branch of Turkdom.

Seljuks were not that much different than Cumans, Pechenegs, Turkomans, Khazars, etc...so what you are saying has not sense.

As for the Cuman/Pechenegs their names are, while similer than to the Turks, different from one another.

They are not different....those are all typical Turkish names that could have been applied to any Turkish tag. Actually most names are in fact identical...

Point- If you made the Canary Islands Pagan Berber, might they 'come into contact' with Islam a lot quicker than they did historicly.

Canary islands will get conquered anyay....I am not the one who put Canaries into the game...

Anyway as I said no one is forcing you people to like my mod, but this is MY MOD ultimately...not anyone's else's. If you people can do it better than by all means do it....
I mean I did tried my best as much as I could to try to make it as good as it could be....but the lack of tags is really something I can't go against.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

No one is planning anything....everything stays as it was presented on my maps with slight updates such as the merging of Cuman and Pecheneg with Turkish tag.

To be fair, I didn't really assume you were trying to do something like that, just pointing out to the pro-cornish lobby the realities of life.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Rulling is the essential, the fact Saxons ruled it from 300 years doesn't mean the population assimilated. You'll have to do better than that...

For the hundredth time I know fine well rulership doesn't automatically lead to assimilation but there are good grounds to believe the ruling classes of the West Country assimilated long before the game's start date. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that contradicts what I've claimed here, not here and not in the course of three years' study at Cambridge. I am defending a commonly accepted view and it's for you and those who hold your view, not me, to prove your point - just like you would hold me to account if I claimed the culture of north Germany should be Akkadian.

In any case you should know that I already decided to remove Welsh culture from Somerset.

Not according to the last map you posted.

And finally if I am hillarious then what are you doing here? No one is forcing you to use my mod....you are free to make your own....we'll see how successful would that be... :rofl:

If you intend for this mod to get wide approval, you would do well not to brush off constructive input this way.