Grand Culture Mod (Thread 2: Continuation of Finellach's)

[Semi-Lobster]

If there would be enough tags, I'd argue for separate Sámi, Permic, Samoyedic and Mordvin cultures at least.

Maybe in a 'Pagan Kings' mod

 

[Brian Bóruma]

5) Merging the Gaels

5) Very possible but we'd be left with a sprite that really couldn't be used anywhere else.

Both Cornish and Manx have been mentioned as possible Celtic additions. I'd like the idea of a separate Manx culture that had a lot of Norse names and some Gaelic names as well, that way the debating regarding Man could end. There were Gaels who made up the vast majority of the population, there were Norse who usually ruled with some exceptions, and a few Welshmen. For 300 years, it was Welsh. Then the Vikings landed. After Brian Boru kicked the Vikings out of Ireland in the early 11th century, many Norsemen (including rulers) on Man became Gaelicized, used "Mac[Father]" as their surnames and spoke Gaelic. In 1061, Leinster took over the island. Thus, Man is ruled by the Irish in 1066 and probably has a lot of Gaels, as well as some Norse in the court.

In 1187 it is Norse again, although Scotsmen ruled it briefly just before now and there are probably Gaels in the court, although Man is independent.

In 1337, it is English, but has only been so for four years. From 1265 to 1333 it kept changing hands (six times!) from Scottish to English and back, and England has been recognized as the rightful rulers of Man, but the Manxmen have refused to give up their local customs and are probably still majority Gaelic and Norse, albeit with Franco-English government.



Ultimately, while it's been argued that a separate Germanic Scottish (Lowland Scots) culture isn't necessary, a separate Germanic/Celtic hybrid Manx/Isles culture would be rather useful, even if limited in where it was applied. Albanian and Basque are here, so what the hell

As for Cornish, It's not completely necessary, but to suggest the Cornish who were more similar to Bretons than Welsh were just Welshmen is a bit of a stretch. To make them distinct is a better use of the tag than just saying "Keep a separate Scottish tag because we have nothing else to do with it."

As for Veld's rather long list of Scottish names, most of those are either identical or nearly identical to names already on the (bad) Irish list. Why not just go with the Gaelic option and make Man more historical than having ALL Norse or ALL Gaelic names? Man was never ethnically homogenous, nor should it be treated as such.



I'm not advocating one Gaelic culture because of Irish nationalism or anything. I'd be just as fine with having Irish removed and replaced, but I've read a lot of chronicles from the middle ages, and I find it hard to distinguish Scots from Irishmen. Probably because the Kingdom of Dal Riada, Scotland's precursor had lands on both sides of the Irish Sea and came from Ulster.

Anyway, anything is better than the way it is now, but the ideal situation would be to have one Gaelic culture for Ireland and Scotland and a separate culture for Man and other heavily Norse lands that also had Gaelic influence. These Norse weren't the same as people in Norway. They didn't have that option. They were forced by elements outside of their control to adapt.

Still, looking good. I'm liking what's been done as a whole so far, just not in Britain

 

[Mad King James]

Man having a gaelic culture and ruled by Norsemen will quite naturally create a mixture of the two names, no new culture is required.

 

[Brian Bóruma]

Man having a gaelic culture and ruled by Norsemen will quite naturally create a mixture of the two names, no new culture is required.

Well, I never said Manx was essential, but I do think that most courtiers in a Manx court would end up being Norse regardless of what the native culture is. Man and the Western Isles are less relevant than Cornwall, in my opinion. Cornwall is an integral part of England and yet Celtic at the same time, and to call them Welsh is to call Moravians Bohemian.

My idea for Britain would look like

Ultimately, it's not up for me to decide, but I do enjoy voicing my opinion on the subject as an Irish (Gaelic) casual speaker who can also understand most Scottish Gaelic and even some (albeit very little) Welsh.

Regardless of whether or not another culture is added, Man should not be "Norse" in 1066. After Clontarf, Norsemen in Ireland and on Man had effectively "lost" their culture.

 

[Mad King James]

It doesn't really make sense to have one Gaelic culture and three Brythonic ones. We either divide Celtic into two (Gael, British) or four (Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Breton) with Cornish being part of Breton.

Personally I don't think four is neccisary, and I think Gael and British is fine.

 

[Mad King James]

Low Germanic culture division.

Geez no comments?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Portugese: If you ask a Spaniard, he would say that the Portugese language, even embryonic form, was still nodifferent from Castillian as any other dialect. A Portugese person would say that the development of Portugese from the 11th to 15th century was a critical time of emergence for the Portugese language and was different from Castillian.

Also Portugese culture was much more heavily influenced by arabic culture because unlike the other iberian nations for some time all of Portugal was under islamic rule and this naturally is reflected in them to differentiate them from Castillian.

The Sards would be a nice addition, Manx (Gall-Gaidheal)... really wouldn't cover much other then Man, Guanche? NO, that would mean we'd have to give ever Berber tribe their own culture, Moravian? Maybe, if we can find anything to use for it, Frisian, I guess that could work.

And what's wrong with giving Berber tribe their own culture?

 

[Brian Bóruma]

It doesn't really make sense to have one Gaelic culture and three Brythonic ones. We either divide Celtic into two (Gael, British) or four (Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Breton) with Cornish being part of Breton.

Personally I don't think four is neccisary, and I think Gael and British is fine.

There was no modern nationalism 1,000 years ago. Manxmen spoke "Gaelic". Scotsmen spoke "Gaelic". Irishmen spoke "Gaelic", and the languages were the same. To keep the languages (which is really what the cultures are) separate is just unnecessary nationalism. As much as I'd like to say that the Irish deserve 'our' own tag, it's not necessary.

To this day, Manx is "Gaelg", Scottish is "Gaidhlig", and Irish is "Gaelige", whereas Cornish is "Kernowak", Welsh is "Cymraeg", and Breton is "Brezhoneg". The former (Goidelic) languages are simply one language that split into 3 after long term separation, and in the latter (Brythonic) you have three languages that are already different by the middle ages.

While the Brythonic languages are "related", their separation is confusing. We KNOW that Manx and Scottish were originally Irish dialects. Irishmen colonized Man. The Irish Kingdom of Dal Riada in Northeastern Ulster spread into Western Scotland and eventually displaced the Brythonic speakers that were there and brought Gaelic to the entire land known now as Scotland. The Kings of Dal Riada CREATED "Scotland", and the most common theory is that these kings, the MacAlpins (which died out just before CK starts (with Shakespeare's beloved MacBeth, who died in 1057)) were a branch of the Royal O'Neill dynasty of Ireland.

"Scot" itself was a term that related to an Irish tribe. Modern Scotland was known in Latin as "Scotia Minor", as it was a former colony of Ireland, and Ireland was known as "Scotia Major". Irish King Brian MacCennetig (died in 1014) was styled "Imperator Scottorum", or Emperor of the Gaels.

This is similar to Brittany, which meant "Little Britain", as it was colonized by people from Britain, but many centuries before Scotland.

One can't honestly say the Cornish speak Welsh or Breton, while you can say the Gaels of Ireland, Scotland, and Man simply speak "Gaelic", which to this day they do, with no Hyphens or Prefixes attached. Simply "Gaelic.", at least, that's how it translates into English from their respective tongues



Oh, and I like your map.. At least, regarding Germanic countries. One huge German culture is ridiculous. At least two are needed.

 

[Brian Bóruma]

Also Portugese culture was much more heavily influenced by arabic culture because unlike the other iberian nations for some time all of Portugal was under islamic rule and this naturally is reflected in them to differentiate them from Castillian.
And what's wrong with giving Berber tribe their own culture?

Really? I've read that Portuguese is the "purest" of the modern Latinate languages, even closer than Italian to the old Latin.

 

[Hallsten]

Geez no comments?

I have one small comment: Why one norse and one scandinavian culture? "Norse" and "scandinavian" are synonymous words and the cultural and linguistic differences between norwegians, danes and swedes were nonexistant during this time. A cultural split shouldn't occur until well into the 1400's or early 1500's.

 

[Brian Bóruma]

I have one small comment: Why one norse and one scandinavian culture? "Norse" and "scandinavian" are synonymous words and the cultural and linguistic differences between norwegians, danes and swedes were nonexistant during this time. A cultural split shouldn't occur until well into the 1400's or early 1500's.

Well, Old Norse was already split into two different dialects in the early 900s. I don't know if this qualifies it for two languages or not.

See: Here (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Red: West Old Norse (Essentially Norwegian)
Orange: East Old Norse (Essentially Swedish and Danish)

I'm not educated enough on the subject to form an opinion, but I guess two languages is better than 3.

 

[Hallsten]

Well, Old Norse was already split into two different dialects in the early 900s. I don't know if this qualifies it for two languages or not.

See: Here (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Red: West Old Norse (Essentially Norwegian)
Orange: East Old Norse (Essentially Swedish and Danish)

I'm not educated enough on the subject to form an opinion, but I guess two languages is better than 3.

Nice map!

Dialects, yes, but not languages. If the two-language separation remains I think it should at least be renamed to "east norse" and "west norse".

Due to the fact that most of the surviving texts are from Medieval Icelandic, the de facto standard version of the language is its dialect Old West Norse, i.e. Old Icelandic and Old Norwegian. Sometimes, Old Norse is even defined as Old Icelandic and Old Norwegian.

However, there was also an Old East Norse dialect which was very similar and was spoken in Denmark and Sweden and their settlements. Moreover, there was no clear geographical separation between the two dialects. Old East Norse traits were found in eastern Norway and Old West Norse traits were found in western Sweden. In addition, there was also an Old Gutnish dialect, sometimes included in Old East Norse due to it being the least known dialect.

source

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Really? I've read that Portuguese is the "purest" of the modern Latinate languages, even closer than Italian to the old Latin.

That may be, but that doesn't exclude any foriegn influences and language is not the only thing that measures a culture, else we'd be naming these all languages, not cultures.

 

[Mad King James]

Breton, Cornish, Welsh and Cumbrian(extinct) aren't so much seperate languages as mutually (some more than others) intelligable dialects (as much as Irish and Scottish Gaelic are anyways) and a Welshman who knows Welsh can somewhat carefully converse with a Breton who knows Breton, though each would have some odd loan words from English or French for things, but no more than a lowland Scotsman has different words for things than a Londoner.

Cornish and Breton were the same language until the 15th century (Breton WAS Cornish, Cornish colonists in the 5th century) so if Cornish and Welsh are pretty much the same, we're really all better off making all of them British.

One thing to consider is perhaps Pictish. Pictish was completely incomprehensible to other Celtic speakers, though it was apparently a Celtic language of some sort. Might be a bit late for Pictish though...

 

[Mad King James]

Nice map!

Dialects, yes, but not languages. If the two-language separation remains I think it should at least be renamed to "east norse" and "west norse".



source

While this is true, when you consider that "Norse" in this case includes Norn, Icelandic and Faeroese, then as a whole it is a rather different thing from "Scandinavian" which in this case also includes Anglian & Jutish.

 

[Hallsten]

While this is true, when you consider that "Norse" in this case includes Norn, Icelandic and Faeroese, then as a whole it is a rather different thing from "Scandinavian" which in this case also includes Anglian & Jutish.

During most of the CK timespan the difference between East- and West Norse was very slight and probably of the same magnitude as the regional dialects within the present Nordic languages.
I don't know what your source on Anglian being a Norse language is, but AFAIK it's regarded as West Germanic, not North Germanic.
Regarding Norn, Icelandic, Faeroese, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and Jutish (actually a Danish dialect) they belong to the same, very small language-group and were mutually understandable to a much higher degree than today and I can't find any reason to divide them in either of the 1066- or 1187 scenarios.
A split between Eastern- and Western Norse could be considered int the 1337 scenario, though.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Geez no comments?

It is a good setup. Wouldn't it be better to rename Polish to western slavic? Or another more generic term (Polic ) ? Since it now includes slavic people who weren't Polish

Also since you have in England now Anglian, why not name low saxon into saxon. I know Low Saxon is the named used to describe this language/culture group, but it sounds to scientific/modern. People in those days would refer to them as Saxons and not as Low Saxon I pressume

Same goes for Low Frankish, alltough I wouldn't know a better name for it.
Salian ? Ripuarian ? Those two weren't really cultures but names of Frankish tribes.

 

[Quift]

Scandinavians and Normans

Inhabitants of normandy were still in the 1970s genetically Norwegians, scientific study showed that over 90% of the inhabitants of La Manche, Haute Normandie, Calvados and Cotentin were of clear Norwergian descent. This Survey was concluded to determine if their origin were Norwegian or as presumably thougt, danish. So as Frankish as they might have appeared, they were definitly quite distinct. Thus they would deserve their own tag.

Scandinavians were culturally separeted from the 800s, mainly due to very different inputs due to travel, trading patterns and pillaging.

The three main cultural groups are Svear, who dominated most of sweden, and were quite infuenced by their voyages eastwards (founded kievan Rus..) and the danes and norwegians going westwards. Cultural division between the more agricultural Danes (denmark is rarher flat) and the more seagoing norwegians/norse were distinct enough. But all names of cultural groups in Scaninavia are rater fuzzy due to the lack of good historic sources. If we have danes, svear(swedes, according to Tacitus "Svioni"), and norwegians, we could add götar (Goths)(västergörland, östergörland, småland, öland, and skåne/scania, halland, finnveden, dal). The unification of Svear/Swedes and Götar/Goths was quite rescent at that time and Goths maintained a separate cultural identity almost to modern age. Perhaps by removing Dutch?

Point is, Scandinavia had at the very least five different cultural groups. Swedes, Danes, Norse/Norwegian, Finns and Lappish. By the way there should maybe be a Lappish prescence more southwards in sweden. Most inland provinces north of Bergslagen could be possible. Nearly impossible to find any valid sources though.

Merging Scandinavians could do as well, but as a result having Swedish culture on Iceland would be weird. Better then to divide by west and east norse, But not with those names. And both Scandinavian and Norse are terrible names. Norse means Norwegian, and Scandinavia comes from Scania/Skåne. Latin name, derives from Skåne to Scandinavian Peninsula. Wich excludes the danes. Best Cultural name would probaly be Nordic. Wich feels a tad to generic...

 

[yourworstnightm]

Merge norse and scandinavian, no need for a separate setup, too close anyway. And the cultures of Scandinavia were much alike. Split polish and wendish, or rename the culture to westslavic, slavs west of Poland was not poles even though they spoke related languages. The english- welsh- scottish- irish- breton splitup in Britain that was discussed before still seem to be the best one (scottish would be kind of a hybrid culture though).

Low Frankish just sound stupid, what about flemish culture? This low and high things might be correct but sound really stupid and might cinfuse people.
(Somehow the cultural map seems even more messier now, why do I get the feeling we'll never agree on anything and this mod will never be completed)

 

[Hallsten]

I can't understand why living in a flat country and going west would make you different from someone living in a forested country and going east.
The initial difference between Danish, Norwegian and Swedish language and tradition arose from the degree of Germanification during the late middle ages and Scandinavian reneissance.

Also, the reason behind splitting Swedish into Svear and Götar completely eludes me.