Historicity - Culture group "east asian"

[Trin Tragula]

Just for the record,as an example-India has never had an Aryan/Dravidian division. Someone with an overactive imagination and bucketloads of creativity set about creating this myth that has been the cause for so much turmoil in recent times. The vast majority of all Indians share a common genetic origin and are part of the same 'culture' group,with the only differences being geographic/linguistic in nature.

In game culture groups aren't only about ethnicity or language though (but they can of course be part of it). Otherwise you'd have one giant germanic northern european group in Europe.
The indian culture groups does help to promote an historical outcome. The early modern india certainly had a southern and northern sphere of action so to speak.
That said the indian setup in eu3 is ofcourse laughable in general. But the culture group I can atleast see the idea behind

 

[The Valkyrier]

If you really don't like it you can just edit the cultures file

Sorry, but I have an interest in history, so that won't do
In my opinion the oversimplification (that is needed, this is a game after all) scales badly in east Asia. As someone has already pointed out the EU games focus primarily on Europe, so many things in Asia aren't developed as much as their European counterparts. A commonly mentioned example of this is Japan being a unified state throughout the whole game without any signs of civil war.

If you want to break up a culture group you should say reasons why the chinese are a different group than the koreans and the Japanese. They are all distinct cultures, but to anyone who has studied them (like me) they are obviously in the same culture group.

My reason for thinking they should be changed is by comparing to the diversity of India, which from my knowledge, although only as a layman of history, is that Hindustani Punjabs and Keralan Malayalams aren't any more different than Chinese and Japanese, and that they should also be separated.

Latin is hardly the standard language in Germany at the time though, while Japanese is the primary language in Japan at the time.

All the kings, dukes, clergymen and government officials of medieval Europe could write in Latin... Regular people couldn't write at all in either Europe or Japan, so the argument doesn't really work.

 

[lee1026]

The game does not take place in medieval Europe though. Latin is no longer the common language even amongst the well educate in 1800.

 

[I am.]

They had the same WRITTEN language, Japan did not have a very different written language until after WWII. (Yes, there are minor difference, but the German culture group have far more variation when it comes to language)

I studied Japanese...
They use 3 alphabets - Kanji, Hiragana and Katakana... And they use all of them in the same sentence :wacko:
while they did import the Kanji from the Chinese, they definitely do not have the same written language...
Even the Chinese letters (if you can still call them that) differ from the letters China has... If one symbol is something in China, it does not mean that it means the same in Japanese...
And to say they had the same written language would mean placing most of Europe in one culture group as they all have latin alphabet...
When talking about language, Is Morroco the same culture group as Iraq? apart from religion and language, they are worlds apart IMHO

 

[Trin Tragula]

When talking about language, Is Morroco the same culture group as Iraq? apart from religion and language, they are worlds apart IMHO

While I would agree (but argue that marroco is actually closer to iraq than japan to china) it should be noted that I'm pretty sure that iraq and marroco are both in the same culture group in the game

 

[The Valkyrier]

The game does not take place in medieval Europe though. Latin is no longer the common language even amongst the well educate in 1800.

Then why do you think Japan should remain in the same group as China and Korea? The game doesn't take place in medieval Japan either. I don't disagree that Japan was in some ways influenced by China, but if you look at things commonly associated with culture, such as architecture, cuisine, arts, non-religious spirituality and tradition etc., during the majority of the game period it is in my opinion quite clear that Japan is very different from China, and more so than for example the Indian culture groups.
Language is only a minor part of culture, and written language is so unimportant I would ignore it if I were to make a cultural map of the period, since only nobility and clergy could write anyway.

When talking about language, Is Morroco the same culture group as Iraq? apart from religion and language, they are worlds apart IMHO

Yes they are in the same culture group. Morrocco is "Maghreb arabic" and Iraq is "al Iraqiya arabic"

 

[Trin Tragula]

As a point of reflection:
The current setup will make revolting Chinese provinces defect to Japan. Revolting Japanese provinces can revolt to korea or China, etc. With paradox stock dynasty lists the Japanese imperial dynasty could rise to the Chinese throne, not by dynastic ties, but as a local noble family. Does this seem realistic to you?

During this era there was quite free movement within the islamic world in general and the arabic parts of it in particular. They used the same laws, customs, etc to a large degree. If you studied law in marroco you would be qualified to be a judge in all of the arabic world (you cold indeed even be a judge in even more remote places such as Indonesia). While not ideal, I have some understanding for the arabic culture group as they did have a lot in common (though it probably shouldn't contain turkish if it wasn't so nice from a gameplay perspective to fit that into there). More so than the Chinese and Japanese.
Also arabic, while it has many dialects is a language that was understood in most of the muslim world (if not then persian was prefered). This is certainly not the case with Japanese and Chinese.

 

[lee1026]

Then why do you think Japan should remain in the same group as China and Korea? The game doesn't take place in medieval Japan either. I don't disagree that Japan was in some ways influenced by China, but if you look at things commonly associated with culture, such as architecture, cuisine, arts, non-religious spirituality and tradition etc., during the majority of the game period it is in my opinion quite clear that Japan is very different from China, and more so than for example the Indian culture groups.
Language is only a minor part of culture, and written language is so unimportant I would ignore it if I were to make a cultural map of the period, since only nobility and clergy could write anyway.

As I have noted before, Japanese writing is almost identical to its Chinese counterpart all the way up to Meiji, and to a lesser extent, WWII. Both of these things happened after the end of the game timeframe. Having identical written language implies that they also share tons of linguistic features, like grammar.

As for all of the other things that you named, southern China is actually closer to Japan in all of those respect then it is to northern China. (For example, diet in the north is wheat based, as opposed to the south and Japan, which is both rice based)

While I don't know enough about India to comment, China and Japan are far closer in this era then Milan and Venice, or Swiss and Prussia, or Dutch and Prussia. Notice all of them are in the same culture group.

The current setup will make revolting Chinese provinces defect to Japan. Revolting Japanese provinces can revolt to korea or China, etc. With paradox stock dynasty lists the Japanese imperial dynasty could rise to the Chinese throne, not by dynastic ties, but as a local noble family. Does this seem realistic to you?

That is because the entire dynasties thing is fubar. There are no chance of a nobleman raising to the Ming throne. Ever. If he did, it wouldn't be called Ming anymore.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Rather it's because the tags weren't updated to fit the dynasty feature.
I made sure eastern countries got intradynastic pretender rebels rather than random ones (and that they would virtually never lack a legitimate heir) in my game but the real problem you mention above is that the tag really should be "China" or something similar now that dynasties are separated from nation tags.

 

[zChan]

Lee and I aren't saying that Japanese culture was 100% same as in China. That's nonsense. However it is understandable that its grouped together as Chinese cultural group during EUIII's period. If it was, say HOI, I would certainly have objections. China was the middle kingdom that Japan aspired and tried to imitate prior to the Restoration.
The Meiji government did it's best to break with the past (Chinese), and to create a distinct "Japanese" nationality in the western model.

On Confucian thought, The Neo variant introduced during the Song era, had a major influence. 朱子学 (shushigaku) was the dominant ideology of the Tokugawa Shogunate.

 

[The Valkyrier]

Lee and I aren't saying that Japanese culture was 100% same as in China. That's nonsense. However it is understandable that its grouped together as Chinese cultural group during EUIII's period. If it was, say HOI, I would certainly have objections. China was the middle kingdom that Japan aspired and tried to imitate prior to the Restoration.
The Meiji government did it's best to break with the past (Chinese), and to create a distinct "Japanese" nationality in the western model.

On Confucian thought, The Neo variant introduced during the Song era, had a major influence. 朱子学 (shushigaku) was the dominant ideology of the Tokugawa Shogunate.

A will to imitate is in my opinion not sufficient for them to be in the same group. In such a case Sweden should be German culture after the break up of the Kalmar Union.

 

[BritNavFan]

The game does not take place in medieval Europe though. Latin is no longer the common language even amongst the well educate in 1800.

Actually, yes it was (one of them). That's one of the reasons the names given to species in the Linnaean system are in Latin and Greek, not English or French. English schoolboys were still being taught Greek and Latin into the 20th Century. And 1800 is hardly the midpoint of the game.

In game terms, culture groups are the basis of blobs. As such, culture groups should correspond to historically long-lived states. China qualifies, as does Japan. China + Korea, Korea + Japan, or China + Korea + Japan do not. Similarly India should be split into several culture groups, as there was never a long-lived, peaceful, unified Indian state during this period (whereas there were certainly peaceful unified Japanese and Chinese states). The Rajputs would qualify as a culture group, as would the Marathas, simply on the basis of the rebelliousness of their areas. The Dravidian area should certainly be a different culture group from the north. Etc.

The only reason that Japan, Korea and China are in the same culture group to begin with is that the vagueness of the culture group gets broader the more primitive the people at Paradox deem your culture to have been. That's why you get totally silly culture groups such as "African".

As an aside, going back to the comments in the first post about Africa, the colonization of Africa in the EU period is a fantasy: with the exception of the Kongo, some of the Swahili ports, and the Cape, Europeans did not colonize Africa in real life until late in the Victoria period (or for a brief part of the HOI period in the case of Ethiopia).

 

[zChan]

A will to imitate is in my opinion not sufficient for them to be in the same group. In such a case Sweden should be German culture after the break up of the Kalmar Union.

This isn't just a century long thing facination, its been going on for over a millennia. If the underlining thought, religion, law is Chinese based, then its sufficient to say it belongs into the Chinese cultural sphere.

 

[zChan]

Actually, yes it was (one of them). That's one of the reasons the names given to species in the Linnaean system are in Latin and Greek, not English or French. English schoolboys were still being taught Greek and Latin into the 20th Century. And 1800 is hardly the midpoint of the game.

In game terms, culture groups are the basis of blobs. As such, culture groups should correspond to historically long-lived states. China qualifies, as does Japan. China + Korea, Korea + Japan, or China + Korea + Japan do not. Similarly India should be split into several culture groups, as there was never a long-lived, peaceful, unified Indian state during this period (whereas there were certainly peaceful unified Japanese and Chinese states). The Rajputs would qualify as a culture group, as would the Marathas, simply on the basis of the rebelliousness of their areas. The Dravidian area should certainly be a different culture group from the north. Etc.

The only reason that Japan, Korea and China are in the same culture group to begin with is that the vagueness of the culture group gets broader the more primitive the people at Paradox deem your culture to have been. That's why you get totally silly culture groups such as "African".

As an aside, going back to the comments in the first post about Africa, the colonization of Africa in the EU period is a fantasy: with the exception of the Kongo, some of the Swahili ports, and the Cape, Europeans did not colonize Africa in real life until late in the Victoria period (or for a brief part of the HOI period in the case of Ethiopia).

Hmm, in Game terms maybe so.
But it upsets me as a Japanese and as a history fan for 15th century Japan to consider not belong in Chinese culture and having a shinto as state religion.

 

[lee1026]

Actually, yes it was (one of them). That's one of the reasons the names given to species in the Linnaean system are in Latin and Greek, not English or French. English schoolboys were still being taught Greek and Latin into the 20th Century. And 1800 is hardly the midpoint of the game.

Point is, English is far more common in England then Latin is in that time period. Would you agree with that?

In game terms, culture groups are the basis of blobs. As such, culture groups should correspond to historically long-lived states. China qualifies, as does Japan. China + Korea, Korea + Japan, or China + Korea + Japan do not.

The Dutch and the Austrians are part of the German culture group. That does not correspond to a long lived state. And of course, Brittany is not in the French group, despite being part of France, which is a long lived state.

 

[Saben]

I don't understand this constant need to divide up cultures. If anything I think EU3 have to many considering nationalism realy didn't become much of a factor untill the 18th century towards the end of the game. Loyalty was for most countries not based on culture but on religon and economic factors. If your lord looked roughly the same, worshiped the same god and didn't whip you to often all was fine.

Would a 16th century Swedish peasant even care his lord was german? Nope, he would care if the taxes were to high or the church decided the lord was a heathen.

Also, China as a concept is realy old, they constantly point out they are the oldest continuing country (despite Egypt ).

Considering the current way things work in the game however, I have to agree Japan should have their own group.

I would still like to see a system where you start with fewer groups and slowly move them to separate ones as the game progresses and national identity becomes more of a factor (and some countries could start with a national identity since the concept was not unknown, just unusual in 1399).

 

[The Valkyrier]

As an aside, going back to the comments in the first post about Africa, the colonization of Africa in the EU period is a fantasy: with the exception of the Kongo, some of the Swahili ports, and the Cape, Europeans did not colonize Africa in real life until late in the Victoria period (or for a brief part of the HOI period in the case of Ethiopia).

I'm sorry I should have been clearer, what I meant was that in the game, 99% of the time Africa will dissapear under european colonialism. In the game (and in history) there are no african nations centralized and organized enough to attempt to create an empire. That's why I understand paradox just bunching africa together, because it's just wasted time to put effort into researching africa. When it comes to Asia this certainly isn't the case.

This isn't just a century long thing facination, its been going on for over a millennia. If the underlining thought, religion, law is Chinese based, then its sufficient to say it belongs into the Chinese cultural sphere.

Scandinavia and Sweden in perticular was influenced by Germany, mainly Hansetic, people for at least 500 years. The Swedish nationalists at the end of the Kalmar Union instituted laws to limit German influence in courts, church, trade and even state bussiness. At that point basically every educated person in Sweden, and to a significant but somewhat less degree in Denmark and Norway as well. My point is that even though new ideas spread from Korea and China it didn't become a dominant factor, mostly due to Japans geographical isolation and later due to political isolationism (from the late 16th century onward). So, yeah, cultures influence each other, but as I've written before there is no reason Japan and China should be in the same culture group when India and Scandinavia/Germany isn't. For at least half the game's duration Japanese rulers tried to resist foreign influence, and to a great success as well, and before that only small parts of their culture was influenced by China. Ideas spread form the mainland, but there weren't a lot of other directions they could come from, where there?
Cultural groups are in my mind a representation of very closely related cultures, and the reason I started a thread on this is because Im no expert on east asian culture. So far no one has been able to change my mind.

 

[zChan]

I'm sorry I should have been clearer, what I meant was that in the game, 99% of the time Africa will dissapear under european colonialism. In the game (and in history) there are no african nations centralized and organized enough to attempt to create an empire. That's why I understand paradox just bunching africa together, because it's just wasted time to put effort into researching africa. When it comes to Asia this certainly isn't the case.


Scandinavia and Sweden in perticular was influenced by Germany, mainly Hansetic, people for at least 500 years. The Swedish nationalists at the end of the Kalmar Union instituted laws to limit German influence in courts, church, trade and even state bussiness. At that point basically every educated person in Sweden, and to a significant but somewhat less degree in Denmark and Norway as well. My point is that even though new ideas spread from Korea and China it didn't become a dominant factor, mostly due to Japans geographical isolation and later due to political isolationism (from the late 16th century onward). So, yeah, cultures influence each other, but as I've written before there is no reason Japan and China should be in the same culture group when India and Scandinavia/Germany isn't. For at least half the game's duration Japanese rulers tried to resist foreign influence, and to a great success as well, and before that only small parts of their culture was influenced by China. Ideas spread form the mainland, but there weren't a lot of other directions they could come from, where there?
Cultural groups are in my mind a representation of very closely related cultures, and the reason I started a thread on this is because Im no expert on east asian culture. So far no one has been able to change my mind.

In game terms, having a distinct culture group may be better and more inline with the situation of "19th century Nationalism" based Europe. But I don't think its historical at all. To me, a cultural group is where the underlining "thought base" is the same, ie:Sinosphere. Other then the Mito school and Ise Shinto, I don't think there is any major thought that has developed independently from Chinese influence in Japan before the restoration. Even those are the other side of the coin, conscious aware of its influence and actively rejecting it.

 

[unmerged(150720)]

You may find it strange, but Asians doesn't. Korea, China and Japan have each cultures that are very close related. Trust me, i mail with a Taiwanese guy i know from business.

Also why should German and Scandinavian culture be related? Yes we were influenced by Germany, but our culture doesn't look German. Schnitzel isn't a national eat here in Denmark.

 

[BritNavFan]

I'm sorry I should have been clearer, what I meant was that in the game, 99% of the time Africa will dissapear under european colonialism. In the game (and in history) there are no african nations centralized and organized enough to attempt to create an empire. That's why I understand paradox just bunching africa together, because it's just wasted time to put effort into researching africa.

When it comes to the game, you're quite correct. However, when you actually do the research, it turns out that there were many African states and some of them were empires at the start of the game (Mali) or created empires during the time period of the game (Songhai, Ashanti, Sennar). Ethiopia was a nation throughout this period.

The Paradox map of Africa is quite misleading. Consider the two provinces of Gold Coast and "Kumasi" - where Ashanti is a one-province minor in game. These two provinces represent roughly the country of modern Ghana, which (if you check a real-world atlas) is roughly the same area as England + Scotland. If it's just two provinces it's easy enough to colonize. If it were represented accurately, you begin to see how the Ashanti could conquer several neighbouring states in a series of wars extending over a century, while leaving room for European ports on the coast and still having considerable space between themselves and states to the north.

@lee1026: according to Macchiavelli, Brittany was in the French group. I'd go with Machiavelli over Paradox. And you'd be surprised at how common knowledge of Latin was in England. I'm not sure how it would compare with literacy in China or Japan, but every educated Englishman had been taught some Latin.