Sute]{h said:
yes i could agree with this.
but not entirely. there should be something like 'natural allegiance'. that is that some national province would rather be part of national kingdom instead of being under foreign opression.
GREAT idea for culture effects!
- Thread starter unmerged(53074)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
yes i could agree with this.
but not entirely. there should be something like 'natural allegiance'. that is that some national province would rather be part of national kingdom instead of being under foreign opression.
Excuse me, what do you mean under “national kingdom”? What “national state” was Burgundy or Lithuania? Or Bohemia? Or Aragon?..
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
I'm highly sceptical of the idea of a 'natural allegiance'. The whole 'Volksgeist' approach to national identity implies that every nation has their own unique 'spirit'. That seems very metaphysical IMHO. I fail to see how Danes (or any other nation) possess a unique inheirited natural community comperared to other nationalities. I know ideas of 'natural allegiance' often ties into a common religion, history and culture, but that simply fails to explain when and how such an allegiance is born.grabah said:
Personally I prefer to see the nation as an constructed idea, and a very powerful one. It has such a hold on peoples thoughts that it inspires them to offer up their lives freely. Once constructed it is continually reinforced by the people identifying with that nation. However nationalism at this level didn't appear until the birth of liberal ideology.
I do think that oppression provokes revolts regradsless of whether it is foreign or not.
Bohemia- czechs i supose?Herr Doctor said:
aragorn- catalonians & aragonese
i dont really understand what you are asking, becouse im not saying that non national kingdoms or multinational kingdoms or several kingdoms within one nation didn't exist or is not possible. all im saying that nations and feeling of belonging to a certan nation played a role in history.
what i mean is hungarian nobelman and peasants alike would rather live in kingdom of hungary ruled by hungarian king than in austro-hungary ruled by hapsburgs, and to acomplish that they will be more ready to start uprising against the monarch than german peasants in say tirol (opressed or not). same goes for czechs, croats and duch. such rebellions where pretty common in history of the period. (for instance zrinski frankopan conspiracy in 17th century when two bigest croatian noble families conspired to start a rebellion against hapsbourgs with sole purpose of reviving kingdom of croatia with one of them as king. they expected that once rebelion started with their own troops, that majority of croats will join them, not becouse they will promise smaller taxes but becouse they will promise national kingdom, and people like that). Austria/hapsbourg empire should probably be much stronger if it didnt had such diveristy of nations within itself.
Last edited:
Nations started to play a role by the end of the game. Until then nobles was the only ones who really cared. Of course there was resistance in certain areas that resemble nationalism or had a nationalistic tone. For instance the Danish resistance in Skåne against Sweden did have a nationalistic backdrop, however much of this resistance was born because the Swedes treated the Danes in Skåne very poorly (to the point of genocide). Of course when you treat people badly they will react, and if you treat people of a different nationality badly they will form a stronger community around that nationality.grabah said:
I disagree. The nobles might prefer one of their own as king, but the peasant I don't think really cared much about that. Of course a revolting nobles will cry nation in an attempt to gather local support, but for the most part the peasent care about their home and family not their nation.grabah said:
Well the nobles didn't revolt out of patriotism, they did so because they wanted the power that came with being a sovereign king. The people usually follow their local nobel, if he tells them to do something. The is kind of a leftover from the feudal society. And as I said above of course the revolting nobles will try to mobilise "free" support by claiming the existance of a nation. However... did the Croatian people join up?grabah said:
Most plays written on this rebellion is interestingly enough written in the 19th century and omits the fact that Zrinski brother did consider himself a hungarian. It seems that the rebellion has been used for constructing the idea of a nationalism reaching back longer than it properly existed. See: http://www.hciti.hr/en/arhive/theatre/sannik.html
The Habsburgs was the strongest state within this timeframe. Perhaps rivaled by France and England at the end. In the 19th century that will of course change namely because of the birth of nationalism. Note that nationalism here appears not it resently conquered territories, but in areas that have been part of Austria-Hungary for around 400 years.grabah said:
With non-Czech kings, starting from the 14th century (the Luxemburgs). And this in no way make “non-Czech” Karl VI a less “bohemian king” than the Přemyslids. Where is those mysterious “national complex” of the Bohemians?grabah said:
Where the monarchy (as in many other parts of Europe) have no strong connection to the local “culture”, and especially the “national values”…grabah said:
This is not the feeling of belonging to the “one nation” but being the subjects of the certain Crown with legitimate “God-appointed” suzerain, which makes those conflicts during the period, which could be definite now much as “nationalistic”, much more understandable: they were not fighting for the “natural rights” of the nations or protection “national interests” or anything else, but they were fighting for the right to be ruled by the legitimate monarch under the ties of legitimate Crown (Regnum).grabah said:
How many times the Hungarians rebelled against the Kings, which they ELECTED themselves prior to the Charles VI’s succession reforms?grabah said:
No, they will join them only because they would consider him a legitimate ruler in compare to the Turkish “heathen tyranny” (without a “divine mandate” naturally).grabah said:
Quite a bit of heat on this thread.
Anyway, from a gameplay perspective, I think culture penalties are a good part of the game, for reasons people have mentioned, and I think any quick and easy way to remove them kind of sucks in the long run. Like how you can magically turn a province of aztecs into good happy spaniards in EUII... anyway.
At the same time, I think it would be good (and more realistic) to have ways that these things can be changed. Not, generally, quickly though.
I'd like to see, perhaps as someone mentioned pie charts, with breakdown by culture and religion. And these could change, slowly, over time. There's immigration and emigration, as well as assimilation. If a kingdom maintains a good economy and high stability for many years, while its neighbors are wracked by war and inflation, those neighboring provinces could lose a few citizens each year, and they could be added to the more stable province. This might NOT be what the king wants, depending on the inhabitants of those provinces, of course, but there's very little he could really do about it, right? But at the same time, every year a few citizens assimilate (some to the ruling culture, and some to the majority local culture, when these are different,) and members of the rulers own culture immigrate as well, for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps province improvements could be created which affect these things in desirable ways. Building almost anything should result in a few immigrants from the state culture appearing to help organise/administer etc. Building churches might speed up the religious assimilation, and in some cases the cultural as well. That's how most of todays 'Greek' peoples ancestors became Greek, after all. Many were Turkish, or Slavic, or or Italian or even Anglo-Saxon (great story there, some of you may know it) and became converted to the Orthodox church, and through it the Greek language and eventually culture, to the point that if any of their descendents are reading this today I'll probably get flamed.
Well, there's my thoughts on it, hope someone finds it useful. Changes, yes. Slow ones, incremental ones, on some kind of percentage basis, never the sort of on/off one or the other culture we have in EUII. Modifiable by circumstances, including but not necessarily limited to neighbors, policies of the ruling party, economics, 'national' character if any of the state church...
Anyway, from a gameplay perspective, I think culture penalties are a good part of the game, for reasons people have mentioned, and I think any quick and easy way to remove them kind of sucks in the long run. Like how you can magically turn a province of aztecs into good happy spaniards in EUII... anyway.
At the same time, I think it would be good (and more realistic) to have ways that these things can be changed. Not, generally, quickly though.
I'd like to see, perhaps as someone mentioned pie charts, with breakdown by culture and religion. And these could change, slowly, over time. There's immigration and emigration, as well as assimilation. If a kingdom maintains a good economy and high stability for many years, while its neighbors are wracked by war and inflation, those neighboring provinces could lose a few citizens each year, and they could be added to the more stable province. This might NOT be what the king wants, depending on the inhabitants of those provinces, of course, but there's very little he could really do about it, right? But at the same time, every year a few citizens assimilate (some to the ruling culture, and some to the majority local culture, when these are different,) and members of the rulers own culture immigrate as well, for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps province improvements could be created which affect these things in desirable ways. Building almost anything should result in a few immigrants from the state culture appearing to help organise/administer etc. Building churches might speed up the religious assimilation, and in some cases the cultural as well. That's how most of todays 'Greek' peoples ancestors became Greek, after all. Many were Turkish, or Slavic, or or Italian or even Anglo-Saxon (great story there, some of you may know it) and became converted to the Orthodox church, and through it the Greek language and eventually culture, to the point that if any of their descendents are reading this today I'll probably get flamed.
Well, there's my thoughts on it, hope someone finds it useful. Changes, yes. Slow ones, incremental ones, on some kind of percentage basis, never the sort of on/off one or the other culture we have in EUII. Modifiable by circumstances, including but not necessarily limited to neighbors, policies of the ruling party, economics, 'national' character if any of the state church...
Last edited:
The only way to change a culture is violence and stll this doesnt mean that you will always succeed unless you kill em all. Im eating olives and enjoy the same things my ansestors enjoyed 5.000 years ago and there was a crapload of occupiers that passed from here .
About hundling cultures into the game you can attach the tax loss to the government style and innovativeness or anything else but simply you can NOT turn french into german and visa versa
About hundling cultures into the game you can attach the tax loss to the government style and innovativeness or anything else but simply you can NOT turn french into german and visa versa
Revolution I would guess. Not many countries if any had anything resembling 1 million nobles. I don't quite understand your question.molobo said:
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had "over a million or so" nobles...Sute]{h said:
I just wanted to know if you know history.
And another note :
Was Kraków or Galicia part of Austria-Hungary for 400 years ? Either math or history is needed
Last edited:
Now now... lets play nice here.molobo said:I just wanted to know if you know history.
And another note :
Was Kraków or Galicia part of Austria-Hungary for 400 years ? Either math or history is needed
I admit I don't have an exact knowlegde on the number of nobles in Europe of the top of my head. I'm amazed by the fact that Poland had over a million nobles. The armies that they could assemble would be nearly the size of modern day armies then. Very scary. How the heck did anyone beat them?
As for Krakow to the best of my knowledge Krakow wasn't a part of Austria-Hungary by 1800. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Now you totally missed my point. Which was that in EU2 nationalism is only active for 20 years after conquest. In reality nationalism doesn't per default appear after a conquest. In some cases nationalism and seperatism can appear in parts of a state that have been in possession for hundreds of years.
Oh... and in general I do know my history. However that would be history from a social science point of view. I don't know every historical happening in Europe, but I do know which significies important changes in how society was structured.
And what if they are associating themselves with absolutely another culture and “nation” from the rest of population?molobo said:
It’s a fact. The nobles in PL were more than 10% of the populationSute]{h said:Now now... lets play nice here.
I admit I don't have an exact knowlegde on the number of nobles in Europe of the top of my head. I'm amazed by the fact that Poland had over a million nobles. The armies that they could assemble would be nearly the size of modern day armies then. Very scary. How the heck did anyone beat them?
Well... A lot of the szlachta were only 'nobles' in the sense that they had the right to call themselves that. They were no richer than your average peasant.
http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm
This link should solve all questions about the importance of "national" culture in the pre modern era....
no need to thank me....
This link should solve all questions about the importance of "national" culture in the pre modern era....
no need to thank me....
Quite informative and serious for a web site. Guess that would place me somewhere between the perennialists and the postmodernists. Properly leaning towards postmodernism.
But they had political rights and awarness of being of higher value then average peasant as well as belonging...well...to a nation
Sute]{h said:
So you are an ethno-symbolist...
I would regard myslef as a modernist...
In the sense that words that we use for different nationalities today have very different meanings in the premodern setting...
i.e Greek used to refere to Othodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire... not "ethnic" greeks... Arab meant desert nomad not Arabic speaker... as so on.....
These terms are not simply "built on" but are radically reinvented in the modern world...