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

[Calgacus]

Obviously I don't agree. I posted the link about Croatian language which also refers to Serbian langauge and the connection. In any case as I pointed out so many times the similirity between Serbian and Croatian language is of fairly newer invention and the two languages started coming closer in 19th century as there was growing a political will of south slavic unity of Austro-Hungarian Empire against the Imperial rule. Before that there is no chance and especially no mention of anything similar of a unified Serbian and Croatian langauge....in fact all sources wheter it be Hungarian, Italian, Byznatine or Frankish clearly shows the two people as totally separate.

Yeah, I mean, you've got to be careful. The sources separate dozens of Slavic tribes, the Croats and Serbs amongst them. The article you posted had a very Croatian nationalist history, of the "new eastern european school" similar to what they're doing in the Ukraine. The author many times calls "Croatian" what is in fact just Slavonic, which should make us both suspicious. At any rate, ignoring all that, as I've tried to point out, I like to merge. The very fact that the two dialects could come together is simply enough by my standards. I read nothing to convince me of a coherent linguistic rather than religious or political frontier between Croats and Serbs.

I know what was the situation with Norsemen in those areas and I was thinking about it, but the simplest way was for me to just go with the flow and to accept the beta patch changes. Also I have the Eurastlas maps which shows 'Nowergians' for those areas so I just did it that way....however these seem as interesting proposals....I will most certainly think about them.
You can already notice that I partially aceppted your arguments about Lothian and I made Berwick Saxon, however I am still thinking how to solve the issue with Scottish core province of Lothian.....

Yeah, I did noticed, but being so obvious a change, I didn't realise it was at my suggestion. As for maps, they're about as useful as wikipedia, the standard of research going into them being usually low.

Actually those two provinces were in hands of Vogla Bulgars....and so if we presume Bulgars were Turkic tribe which they were by most sources(they are refered as one of the Kipchak tribe by Arab sources).

Hungarian pagans?! But there was no Hungarians there for almost 250-300 years there...the area was greatly colonized and people assimilated into Volga BUlgars and other Turkic tribes...mostly Kipchaks/Cumans.

Ok, but I think that we both understand that the presence of a military elite (indicated in CK by the nationality of the ruler), does not tell much about popular culture. Magyar peoples are still refered to in the region in the 13th century, by either islamic and/or rus'ian sources (can't remember atm). Also, I wish I could remember where I read about the embassy sent by the king of hungary to the area where they encountered their ancestral brothers. If you or anyone else know of this, do let me know.

My experience of studying linguistic changes has inclined me to be conservative about it's rate.

I actually made Thessaly Vlach but I changed my mind. There are multiple reasons:
1. We don't know how many Vlachs were there and were they majority
2. These Vlach never refered themselves as anything but Greeks...even today members of their community claim they are "Vlachophone Greeks".

In any case not to speculate too much I scrapped it.

Haha. Yes, we don't know about the Greeks either. I know Vlachs today do that (modern state-nationalism), I'd be surprised if they did it in the middle ages today. Ironically, 'til the 13th century, the Greeks called themselves "Romans."

Anyways, in relation to the province of Thessaly, although my instinct is that you were prolly right in the first place, you'd piss off Greek nationalists (i.e. Greeks) by doing it, so as in the case with the "Dutch," you'd prolly better leave them Greek.

I think Sicily is fair and should not be changed....

Well, I don't see what I can say to that.

Actually I was saying similar thing before, but I was convinced otherwise. In any case I still think that Saxon and English is a really unfair treatment to other cultures....others aren't even in the game while England has two tags!?!
France 3?! Etc...

Seems like you agree ...

In any case even if would decided to merge them the problem is that culture manages the names. Personally I really hope if they ever make EU2 that they will scrap this way of character naming and adopt a similar practice as in 'Knights of Honor' which has this solved out in the best way I saw and is definately a shining example how it should be done.

Indeedie. I'm starting to like my idea of Latin names more and more, rather than the often anachronistic native or vulgarized ones (i.e. many of the name forms simply do not exist in the period).

 

[Calgacus]

Excuse me? Only small part of present day Albania was part of Illyricum, the northern part. Illyria covered Croatia and Bosnia mainly and in fact people in those areas were refered as Illyrians uch before the theory about Albanians beign "direct descendants" even came to mind.

Didn't need the excuse me there

This is not really problematic. Obviously, the idea (held by Albanian nationalists today) is that Albanian declined in those areas in the face of the Slavic invasion, whilst expanding elsewhere (c/f Welsh in Britain, whilst into Brittany).

You can put it that way, but to me it shows clearl connection between Albanian and Romanian(ie Thraco-Dacian) language.

The Romanian language isn't the Thraco-Dacian language I thought you were referring to. The Romanian language is a descendent of late imperial Vulgar Latin, and hence post-dates the Thracian and Illyrian languages.

Irrelevant since Albanians are not "direct descendants" of the supposed "illyrians".

This is circular, and it seems you may not understand what I mean by "Illyrian."

Not really comparable.

I guess you want me to guess why you think that?! That'd be hard, since you've already admitted that the language is largely unknown, and the first evidence of written Albanian does not come until the 1500s. Not really sure then why itd not be comparable, nor why this point would be of much weight.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Yeah, I mean, you've got to be careful. The sources separate dozens of Slavic tribes, the Croats and Serbs amongst them. The article you posted had a very Croatian nationalist history, of the "new eastern european school" similar to what they're doing in the Ukraine. The author many times calls "Croatian" what is in fact just Slavonic, which should make us both suspicious. At any rate, ignoring all that, as I've tried to point out, I like to merge. The very fact that the two dialects could come together is simply enough by my standards. I read nothing to convince me of a coherent linguistic rather than religious or political frontier between Croats and Serbs.

Excuse me? A "Croatian nationalist history"? You don't know what you are talking about...
The text is one of the most accurate and unbiased texts I ever read about the matter....it is clear on everything and is not leaning to any political side.
Again the two languages don't have nothing in common. Even today when they are brough so much close by the standardization of the 19th century they are separate as they have always been. There is no chance of them being one language.....if you follow such logic then Czech and Slovak are one language, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are one language, Ukranian and Russian are one language, etc, etc...we can go on. The thing is that Croatian and Serbian standard was far different from each other than it is today and we cannot talk about "dialects". There are languages that were more similar to each other than Serbian and Croatian ever were.

Ok, but I think that we both understand that the presence of a military elite (indicated in CK by the nationality of the ruler), does not tell much about popular culture. Magyar peoples are still refered to in the region in the 13th century, by either islamic and/or rus'ian sources (can't remember atm).

Arabian sources also mention Khazar Empire well in the 13th century, but we know for a fact they were long gone by that time.

Also, I wish I could remember where I read about the embassy sent by the

Seems like you agree ...

I agree, but what can I do....I alread tried to do that, but almost everyone opposed.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

This is not really problematic. Obviously, the idea (held by Albanian nationalists today) is that Albanian declined in those areas in the face of the Slavic invasion, whilst expanding elsewhere (c/f Welsh in Britain, whilst into Brittany).

Exactly...it's the idea of nationalists by which they are trying to justify their claims on some of the surrounding areas....most importantly part of Macedonia(FYROM), Greece and Serbia(Kosovo).

The Romanian language isn't the Thraco-Dacian language I thought you were referring to. The Romanian language is a descendent of late imperial Vulgar Latin, and hence post-dates the Thracian and Illyrian languages.

Romanians are descendants of the Thraco-Dacian tribes north of Danube and as such Romanian langauge has evolved from the language of Thraco-Dacian tribes.....the mentioned Latin Vulgaris. Need I mention again that the more probable "Illyrian" languages are Dalmatian and Istriot with which Albanian has absolutly no connection while it has connection to modern-day Romanian which developed from Latin spoken by Thraco-Dacian tribes.

Btw. this discussion about Albanians and their language has now grown into a huge off topic...we should get back on the subject.

 

[Calgacus]

Excuse me? A "Croatian nationalist history"? You don't know what you are talking about...
The text is one of the most accurate and unbiased texts I ever read about the matter....it is clear on everything and is not leaning to any political side.
Again the two languages don't have nothing in common. Even today when they are brough so much close by the standardization of the 19th century they are separate as they have always been. There is no chance of them being one language.....if you follow such logic then Czech and Slovak are one language, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are one language, Ukranian and Russian are one language, etc, etc...we can go on. The thing is that Croatian and Serbian standard was far different from each other than it is today and we cannot talk about "dialects". There are languages that were more similar to each other than Serbian and Croatian ever were.

In general, I don't like the word "language" when counterposed with "dialect." As one linguist famously said, "a language is just a dialect with a government and an army." National identifiers are rarely the same now as in the CK period. And, actually, you're predicting my views well. Swedish, Norwegian and Danish were not separate languages in the CK period, and Russian and Ukrainian certainly weren't. Linguistic continua (like the Romance, Germanic, Western and Southern Slavic) required political centres to create distincitve "languages" within them, most of which are pretty meaningless for the population at large until the emergence of the modern state.

Arabian sources also mention Khazar Empire well in the 13th century, but we know for a fact they were long gone by that time.

I agree that sources must be treated with care, although I will point out that we only have evidence that the Khazar state was destroyed, not their dialect or ethnic identity.

 

[Calgacus]

Exactly...it's the idea of nationalists by which they are trying to justify their claims on some of the surrounding areas....most importantly part of Macedonia(FYROM), Greece and Serbia(Kosovo).

Sadly, that is often the way of it in modern eastern Europe. Of course, that does not mean the "history" is grossly inaccurate.

Romanians are descendants of the Thraco-Dacian tribes north of Danube and as such Romanian langauge has evolved from the language of Thraco-Dacian tribes.....the mentioned Latin Vulgaris. Need I mention again that the more probable "Illyrian" languages are Dalmatian and Istriot with which Albanian has absolutly no connection while it has connection to modern-day Romanian which developed from Latin spoken by Thraco-Dacian tribes.

Let's get this clear, Romanian is descended from Latin, and in terms of grammar and vocab, is as related to ancient Dacian as French is to Gaulish. Similarly, if I understand what you mean by "Istriot" and "Dalmatian," they are often called "dialects of" Italian. Both were introduced centuries after "Illyrian" or "Albanian."

Btw. this discussion about Albanians and their language has now grown into a huge off topic...we should get back on the subject.

If you want ... I'm not fussed.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

And, actually, you're predicting my views well. Swedish, Norwegian and Danish were not separate languages in the CK period, and Russian and Ukrainian certainly weren't.

The thing is that I am saying if you are going to say that Serbian and Croatian are one language even today then Danish, Swedish and Norwegian are the same as well. Ukranian and Russian are the same language, Macedonian and Bulgarian are the same, Slovak and Czech are the same, etc...
The thing is that while Swedes, Danes and Norwegians spoke the same language Croats and Serbs did not....the thing is that the process has been reverse in these cases....while Scandinvaians sought to differentiate their languages from one another Serbs and Croats took the opposite route trying to unite their languages....although it never happened...and how could one unite two languages that existed separately for almost 700 years and more....

I agree that sources must be treated with care, although I will point out that we only have evidence that the Khazar state was destroyed, not their dialect or ethnic identity.

All other more closer sources reported Khazars either fleeing or being assimilated into other people....mainly Kipchaks.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Sadly, that is often the way of it in modern eastern Europe. Of course, that does not mean the "history" is grossly inaccurate.

It's not the way of "modern eastern europe" but it is the way of unfinished business. After the WW2 West Europe tried to fix these things and mainly succeeded while Eastern Europe was pushed into some hybrid and hibernation and now all the same problems are emerging.

Let's get this clear, Romanian is descended from Latin, and in terms of grammar and vocab, is as related to ancient Dacian as French is to Gaulish.

Romanian is descedend from Latin spoken by Thraco-Dacian tribes that are now modern-day Romanains. That is what I am saying.

Similarly, if I understand what you mean by "Istriot" and "Dalmatian," they are often called "dialects of" Italian.

They are in no case "dialects of Italian". These are separate language that do belong in the same group with the modern-day Italian, but dialects of it they are not.

Both were introduced centuries after "Illyrian" or "Albanian."

We don't even know if there was a unified "illyrian" langauge, about Albanian I would disagree since Albanian is a mish-mash of Slavic, Latin and Greek.

If you want ... I'm not fussed.

We went too much into off topic...

 

[Calgacus]

The thing is that I am saying if you are going to say that Serbian and Croatian are one language even today then Danish, Swedish and Norwegian are the same as well. Ukranian and Russian are the same language, Macedonian and Bulgarian are the same, Slovak and Czech are the same, etc...
The thing is that while Swedes, Danes and Norwegians spoke the same language Croats and Serbs did not....the thing is that the process has been reverse in these cases....while Scandinvaians sought to differentiate their languages from one another Serbs and Croats took the opposite route trying to unite their languages....although it never happened...and how could one unite two languages that existed separately for almost 700 years and more....

Point understood long ago. Genuinely separate languages, though, cannot by their nature ever be brought together. At least, I can think of no example. While Gascon was "standerdized" into modern French, Basque and Breton cannot because they are genuinely separate. Now, in the context of your map, your separation of them is perfectly acceptable ... I just wouldn't do it.

All other more closer sources reported Khazars either fleeing or being assimilated into other people....mainly Kipchaks.

I doubt they go into much detail, not that it'd be reliable if they did.

Such is the greatness of medieval history ... the sources free the imagination.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Point understood long ago. Genuinely separate languages, though, cannot by their nature ever be brought together. At least, I can think of no example. While Gascon was "standerdized" into modern French, Basque and Breton cannot because they are genuinely separate. Now, in the context of your map, your separation of them is perfectly acceptable ... I just wouldn't do it.

Well the problem is in your mind....you just chose that they should be one language and so I can't do nothing to change your mind. I on the other hand follow the next logic....if we can have separate Danish, Swedish and Norwegian langauges/culture then we can certainly(by far more justified) separate Croatian and Serbian or separate Moravian/Slovak and Bohemian/Czech.

If I would go on to make a more general map with cultures such as Norse, Latin, etc. then I'd have nothing against a unified Slavonic tag for South Slavs and beyond. The problem is in the fact that these tag influence the naming of characters so I just cannot aceppt that a Croatian King be named Georgii or Jovan or that Serbian or Bulgarian King be name Hrvoje or Vlasii and other ridiculous combinations...

 

[Calgacus]

It's not the way of "modern eastern europe" but it is the way of unfinished business. After the WW2 West Europe tried to fix these things and mainly succeeded while Eastern Europe was pushed into some hybrid and hibernation and now all the same problems are emerging.

Was gonna make a similar point, but thought it too OT.

They are in no case "dialects of Italian". These are separate language that do belong in the same group with the modern-day Italian, but dialects of it they are not.

You should have learned by now that I'd agree with that.

Romanian is descedend from Latin spoken by Thraco-Dacian tribes that are now modern-day Romanains. That is what I am saying.

We don't even know if there was a unified "illyrian" langauge, about Albanian I would disagree since Albanian is a mish-mash of Slavic, Latin and Greek.

Well, we don't have much to disagree over then. I think only in terms of language groups, dialects and elite versions of them. Illyrian could never have one language, unless it shared one elite culture, of which we have no evidence. The point is in relation to Albanian as a member of the "Illyrian" language group. "Illyrian" or "Thracian" though, it's neither knowable, important, nor relevant either to this discussion or the thread.

 

[Calgacus]

Well the problem is in your mind....you just chose that they should be one language and so I can't do nothing to change your mind. I on the other hand follow the next logic....if we can have separate Danish, Swedish and Norwegian langauges/culture then we can certainly(by far more justified) separate Croatian and Serbian or separate Moravian/Slovak and Bohemian/Czech.

Well, that's not quite what I've done. The key for me is breaking down a quite sensible linguistic continuum, in favor of an artificial division meaningful only in the central province of each division ... doing this in the context of number/culture ratios in the game. It's a reasonably subjective judgment call. The makers are Scandinavian, so of course they'd make that division. If they were Balkan, there'd prolly be Macedonian and Bosnian cultures too.

The problem is in the fact that these tag influence the naming of characters so I just cannot aceppt that a Croatian King be named Georgii or Jovan or that Serbian or Bulgarian King be name Hrvoje or Vlasii and other ridiculous combinations...

That's a good point. Neither am I too impressed at the King Gilberts or King Adams of Anglo-Norman England, nor the King Raouls of France.

 

[unmerged(23126)]

Just thought I'd pass by and say that the the merging of Pecheneg and Cuman in favor of Coptic is great. I don't find merging Cuman and Turkish would be reasonable though, seeing as they were probably considerably more different than Slovaks/Czechs or Scandinavians were from each other and they're getting individual tags. I would however support dropping the English tag in favor of a Sardinian one...

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Map looks great. I hope that you will be soon able to complete this mod.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Good to see this is remaining fairly civil guys

As for Coptic names, the ones I provided are only Nubian ones, for Coptic ones they tend to favour saints currently (to differentiate them from their Egyptian Muslim countrymen) but then again, what could be more timeless then saints ?

Male:Youssef
Male:Nabil
Male:Hani
Male:Fadi
Maleeter
Maleierre
Male:Boutros
Male:George
Male:Girgis
Male:John
Male:Yuhanna
Male:Mina
Male:Beshoi
Male:Kirollos
Male:Nadim
Male:Habib
Female:Mariam
Female:Mary
Female:Marie (well we are a bit short on female names)
Female:Irene
Female:Malak
Female:Habiba
Female:Hana
Female:Farah
Female:Marwa
Female:Nada
Female:Salma
Female:Nona
Female:Shadia
Female:Sania
Female:Omniya
Female:Amany
Female:Amira
Female:Hanan
Female:Fathia
Female:Fateheya
Female:Fayza

I'd say mix around the Nubian male names in my previous link since 'Coptic' is supposed to represent Copts and Nubians

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Norwegians in the British Isles - a decision for which I was partly responsible (see sig). While I agree Norse was a true minority language everywhere but the extreme north in 1066, giving the Isles, Galloway and Dublin Norwegian culture was a decent representation of the Irish Sea network and the peculiar situation there.

Ideally we'd use 'Norse' culture for the insular Norse - Anglo-Danes, Islesmen, Galwegians and Ostmen - with its own insularised name list. But I understand if there is no support for setting aside precious tags for yet another British Isles culture.

Then why not make culture in half of England Norman? After all the aristocracy was Norman....as you can see to claim such a thing is paradoxal.

When I said the elite, I meant the class that produces the elite not necessarily the elite itself - the gentry, maybe towns and the church too.

Incidentally, that class was still almost everywhere Saxon until the dispossessions of 1069-72.

Actually quite the opposite.
...
How about arious encyclopedic sites on the net.
...
I was reering to the incident when Cornish speakers rebelled against increasing discrimination of their language and forcing of English....however they were defeated and Cornish soon after that died out.

Yet again a total failure to name names or link links. If you don't want to discuss this just say so.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

The makers are Scandinavian, so of course they'd make that division. If they were Balkan, there'd prolly be Macedonian and Bosnian cultures too.

No they would not. The thing is that Macedonians and "Bosnian" separate cultures did not existed. Macedonians were indistuinguishable from Bulgarians(in fact center of Bulgarian Church was in Ochrid - present day Macedonia) and Bosnians(I take it you mean Bosnian Muslim) were indistuinguishable from Croats....there are various sources even Turkish describing Bosnians as a "Croat tribe"...

Norwegians in the British Isles - a decision for which I was partly responsible (see sig). While I agree Norse was a true minority language everywhere but the extreme north in 1066, giving the Isles, Galloway and Dublin Norwegian culture was a decent representation of the Irish Sea network and the peculiar situation there.

Ideally we'd use 'Norse' culture for the insular Norse - Anglo-Danes, Islesmen, Galwegians and Ostmen - with its own insularised name list. But I understand if there is no support for setting aside precious tags for yet another British Isles culture.

I'd wanted to do that, but people opposed and besides we don't have any free tag no more....besides I think Norwegian tag works fine for this matter.

Yet again a total failure to name names or link links. If you don't want to discuss this just say so.

I don't need to post the links when the events are so well known.
I mean there were more than half of dozen uprisings between 14th and 16th century that were based in Cornwall(as in Duchy not modern-day county). And yes they were Celtic...

Btw. thank you Semi-Lobster....

 

[Calgacus]

No they would not. The thing is that Macedonians and "Bosnian" separate cultures did not existed. Macedonians were indistuinguishable from Bulgarians(in fact center of Bulgarian Church was in Ochrid - present day Macedonia) and Bosnians(I take it you mean Bosnian Muslim) were indistuinguishable from Croats....there are various sources even Turkish describing Bosnians as a "Croat tribe"...

Haha ... I wish I shared your confidence Finellach. You think ignorance of these things makes me believe that? Nah ... it's just the dynamics of historical perspective.

 

[Calgacus]

Norwegians in the British Isles - a decision for which I was partly responsible (see sig). While I agree Norse was a true minority language everywhere but the extreme north in 1066, giving the Isles, Galloway and Dublin Norwegian culture was a decent representation of the Irish Sea network and the peculiar situation there.

Yeah, I understand that ... but it is also a misrepresentation of the cultures that were actually there. Much better in my opinion to have Norwegian elites ruling ... I genuinely don't understand why that option is so unattractive.

 

[Calgacus]

Yet again a total failure to name names or link links. If you don't want to discuss this just say so.

I am somewhat inclined, perhaps surprisingly, to agree with Finnelach here ... at least for that part of the west country facing Wales. The tendency in English historiography, is to exaggerate the decline of Celtic languages and overplay the rise of English (look at the derisory notes in the Penguin ed. of Asser). My judgment is that Devon was predominantly Cornish speaking in 1066.

Now, I don't know what evidence it's using, but the author of this website says that:

"Devon's Celtic language did not die out in the seventh century but persisted until the middle ages. It is reported that it was still spoken in the South Hams in the reign of King Edward the First (fourteenth century) and other records suggest it was possibly spoken in parts of Devon as late as the sixteenth century."

http://groups.msn.com/DevonsCelticLanguage/

I do know that in the 17th century, it was still spoken around the the modern northern part of the Cornwall-Devon border (cornish side).

All this inclines me, very much, to agree at least partially with Finnelach here.