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

[Calgacus]

I don't think a merger wouldn't work . Just using Welsh and throwing in a few Alans and Hoels isn't gonig to work, you'll end up with Bretons named Siors or Madog or Welsh named Salomon or Geoffrey. You would NEVER find these names in either language. Brythonic names have never been used by Breton nobility ever.

I understand that. I'm just saying that were they to be merged, the Welsh would get priority.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

How is Low Frankish and Low Saxon scientific sounding? They were the Low Countries! It's not some scientific designation! That's what they called themselves!

I think the people in Saxony called themselves Saxons (f.e. emperor Otto the Great and his family were of the Saxon house not of the Lower Saxon house) certainly not Low Saxons. And since the Saxons in britain are named Anglish by you we could easily name them Saxons. The saxons could be merged with the Frisians.

The Frisians living in that area were not the Frisians of roman times the so called 'proto-frisians'. The proto-frisians left there homelands, mostly to Britain, the lands then were inhabited by the Saxons, Angles and Jutes. And started naming themselves Frisians. Alltough this would be 500 to 600 hunders years before 1066.

And the Low Frankish would have called themselves Frankish, Flemish, Luxemburgers, Brabanders or something like that. I guess the term lower and higher/upper come from the latin words Inferior and Superior used by the romans to differentiate provinces that were eiter closer (superior) or further (inferior) away from Rome, geographically.

Also the Low Countries weren't named the Low Countries in the middle ages. That is a more modern term. And the Low in low countries has nothing to do with the Low in Lower Saxons. Low in the Low countries means literally Low, low lying lands.

Flemish wouldn't be a good name for Low Frankish, Flemish is linked to the province/county of Flanders and Flemish is a dutch dialect. So giving people in Brabant, Loon, Luxemburg and Liege a culture named Flemish is wrong.

Low Frankish is the best option.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I understand that. I'm just saying that were they to be merged, the Welsh would get priority.

Ok, if it's just hypothetical thats ok, it's just that I don't think anybody has suggestion merging Breton with Welsh.

 

[Hallsten]

Aah, if orgot the magyars, no they deserve an own culture of course. I just think that the other fennougric languages could be merged if we run out of tags. Otherwise a western branch with finns, karelians and estonians and an eastern branch with mordvins and samoyeds would be good.

I thought so. you shouldn't forget the magyars though, I did that once...ouch...
The sami should have a culture of their own, but the rest of the western finns can very well be merged. Same thing with the eastern ones.

 

[Calgacus]

Anyways, German is not going to be broken up. May people, though, seem agreed that Dutch is too unhistorical. So, we have three options as far as I see:

1) Replacing Dutch with Frisian: Frisians can be justified because their language is classified outside the German system
2) Replacing the Dutch with Flemish: Flemish can be justified because they are listed separately from "Germans" in medieval sources (Frisians usually are).
3) Keeping Dutch

 

[Hallsten]

It sounds scientific to me. What names were actually used? (German, not English)

In the local languages Low Saxon and Low German is Nedersaksisch/Neddersassisch and Nedderdüütsch respectively.

I can't see what the problem is with scientific-sounding names? The most important thing is that the used names are correct, yes?

 

[Calgacus]

In the local languages Low Saxon and Low German is Nedersaksisch/Neddersassisch and Nedderdüüysch respectively.

I can't see what the problem is with scientific-sounding names? The most important thing is that the used names are correct, yes?

Well, as far as possible, I want the names to feel medieval.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

In the local languages Low Saxon and Low German is Nedersaksisch/Neddersassisch and Nedderdüüysch respectively.

I can't see what the problem is with scientific-sounding names? The most important thing is that the used names are correct, yes?

Like I said before in the middle ages the people there called themselves Saxons. Not low-saxons. Only when the duchy of Saxony moved to the Meissen area there becan a distinction between Upper and Lower Saxony.

Just name Low Saxons, Saxons and you don't have a so-called scientific name that is even historical.

 

[Calgacus]

Like I said before in the middle ages the people there called themselves Saxons. Not low-saxons. Only when the duchy of Saxony moved to the Meissen area there becan a distinction between Upper and Lower Saxony.

Just name Low Saxons, Saxons and you don't have a so-called scientific name that is even historical.

Saxon would be acceptable. But there are only two German tags, and it would be fairly unacceptable to many to have Saxon and German.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Anyways, German is not going to be broken up. May people, though, seem agreed that Dutch is too unhistorical. So, we have three options as far as I see:

1) Replacing Dutch with Frisian: Frisians can be justified because their language is classified outside the German system
2) Replacing the Dutch with Flemish: Flemish can be justified because they are listed separately from "Germans" in medieval sources (Frisians usually are).
3) Keeping Dutch

Giving all the provinces with dutch culture in 1066 Flemish culture is wrong. The people in Holland, West-Friesland, Frisia, Ost-Friesland, Gelre, Breda, Loon, Brabant Lieger weren't Flemish, people of Flanders were called Flemish. It would be the same as giving all the Gaelic cultures the name Welsh or all the Scandinavian the name Swedish.

You can either have this setup
1. Flemish culture
Brugge, Gent, Ypres, Boulogne, Guines, Artois

2. Frisian culture
Zeeland, Holland, West-Friesland, Frisia, Ost-Friesland, Oldenburg

3. German culture
Sticht, Gelre, Breda, Brabant, Liege, Luxemburg

If there aren't enough tags you can give the Frisian culture provinces the German culture.

 

[Hallsten]

Well, as far as possible, I want the names to feel medieval.

I understand that, but I think that your point of view is a bit wrong.
If you asked e.g. a medieval Scandinavian where he/she was from you'd most likely get a response in the magnitude of a hundred or county. They didn't know that they were Svear or Götar or Low Saxons and they probably didn't care either.
The world of the medieval man was a very small one and the cultural denominations wherein we place them are usually much later in origin.

 

[Hallsten]

Like I said before in the middle ages the people there called themselves Saxons. Not low-saxons. Only when the duchy of Saxony moved to the Meissen area there becan a distinction between Upper and Lower Saxony.

Just name Low Saxons, Saxons and you don't have a so-called scientific name that is even historical.

Saxon sounds good.
*checks*
Seems that the Upper Saxon duchy was formed after the CK timeframe, so Saxon is really good...

Still, why not "Low German"? It would solve the problem of calling non-saxons in the area saxons.

 

[Calgacus]

Giving all the provinces with dutch culture in 1066 Flemish culture is wrong. .

Was never going to do that.

You can either have this setup
1. Flemish culture
Brugge, Gent, Ypres, Boulogne, Guines, Artois

2. Frisian culture
Zeeland, Holland, West-Friesland, Frisia, Ost-Friesland, Oldenburg

3. German culture
Sticht, Gelre, Breda, Brabant, Liege, Luxemburg

If there aren't enough tags you can give the Frisian culture provinces the German culture.

Can you suggest provinces for 1187, and 1337 please?

 

[Calgacus]

I understand that, but I think that your point of view is a bit wrong.
If you asked e.g. a medieval Scandinavian where he/she was from you'd most likely get a response in the magnitude of a hundred or county. They didn't know that they were Svear or Götar or Low Saxons and they probably didn't care either.
The world of the medieval man was a very small one and the cultural denominations wherein we place them are usually much later in origin.

That wouldn't be the test. The more important test would be what their ethnic affiliation would be to outsiders.

 

[Hallsten]

That wouldn't be the test. The more important test would be what their ethnic affiliation would be to outsiders.

You mean how big a fine you'd have to pay for killing a person?
The fine was higher for closely related people than distantly related ones, so we could decide that when the fine sinks below a certain threshold we have a new culture...

 

[Quift]

Moneybags!

You mean how big a fine you'd have to pay for killing a person?
The fine was higher for closely related people than distantly related ones, so we could decide that when the fine sinks below a certain threshold we have a new culture...

My point exactly! So now we only have to determine what someone from a certain culture is worth. Dead that is...

Lets start with these for practice:

Flemish
Danish (free according to swedish law)
Gaelic
Polish (everyone knows poles are cheap)
Jewish
Arab
Kosovoalbanian

So excited about this new system I can't help myself...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Was never going to do that.



Can you suggest provinces for 1187, and 1337 please?

Sure, but will have to look it up first.

And I forgot Hainaut which could have either Flemish or Frankish. Flemish be the best solution.

I also forgot the following suggestion which brings with it the least work plus it sounds medieaval and that just renaming Dutch culture to Diets or Dietsch culture.

The name Dietsch or Diets in modern spelling has a negative sound now, mostly in Belgium, since it was and is used by Flemish nationalists to have a claim on certain lands.

 

[Kujy]

Polish (everyone knows poles are cheap)

grrrrrrr

 

[Mad King James]

Saxon sounds good.
*checks*
Seems that the Upper Saxon duchy was formed after the CK timeframe, so Saxon is really good...

Still, why not "Low German"? It would solve the problem of calling non-saxons in the area saxons.

If you have Low Frankish (or just Frankish and rename the current Frankish culture French) the only other Low Germans ARE the Saxons.

So ok, remove the "Low" from both of the names, rename the culture of northern France to French, and we have a much more accurate setup.

Low and High german were completely different languages, and having high German names for Saxons and Franks is bizarre.

Also why are you so worried about German culture tags? Where else are you going to use them except in Germany? If you merge Frisian and Saxon you don't even need to use 3, just 2.

I don't understand why you have convinced yourself I'm wrong despite all the contrary evidence.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

If you have Low Frankish (or just Frankish or Fleming) the only other Low Germans ARE the Saxons.

The people in the low countries were called Low German (Neder Duits) to, but most of us (I am dutch so I call myself us ) were not called Saxon, only in what is the county of Ost-Friesland in CK people from the low countries could be named (low-)Saxon (mostly the regions of Drenthe and Twente in modern the Netherlands).

EDIT

Low and High german were completely different languages, and having high German names for Saxons and Franks is bizarre.

Can you give us a list of low and high german names.

EDIT AGAIN

Also why are you so worried about German culture tags? Where else are you going to use them except in Germany? If you merge Frisian and Saxon you don't even need to use 3, just 2.

Alltough not completely historical acurate I wouldn't object it. As I said before the forfathers of the Frisians were Saxons, Angles and Jutes.