Is there a reason why some of the Byzantine cultures from CK2 didn't make it to CK3?

  • 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.
A bit late to the party but...

Firstly, please no Byzantine Heritage for the Goths if they even get added such as all sorts of cultures that were entirely unrelated having the Iberian Heritage.

Secondly, why do people only talk about Crimean Goths? In 867 start there were Goths in Asia Minor as well.

I mentioned it more than once but I'll mention it here as well, even as late as 820 we see them retaining their culture with a Metropolitan of Nicaea(an Iconoclast), Inger, obviously being someone of Germanic origin and definitely not a Varangian judging by the date, so a Goth.

This means Gothic culture has more than one county to be added at least in 867.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
A bit late to the party but...

Firstly, please no Byzantine Heritage for the Goths if they even get added such as all sorts of cultures that were entirely unrelated having the Iberian Heritage.
It gives them a high base acceptance and less likely to culture convert, along with impossible for greek to form a hybrid with it
Secondly, why do people only talk about Crimean Goths? In 867 start there were Goths in Asia Minor as well.
Because those are far more assimilated and gone by eu4 period whilst crimean goths still there
I mentioned it more than once but I'll mention it here as well, even as late as 820 we see them retaining their culture with a Metropolitan of Nicaea(an Iconoclast), Inger, obviously being someone of Germanic origin and definitely not a Varangian judging by the date, so a Goth.
Its 820, not that long until Michael III's norse wife
This means Gothic culture has more than one county to be added at least in 867.
They can already be put to more than 1 county
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Melkite/also called Romans(Ruman)

Melkite would be the easiest given they controlled a well sourced area and were both Douxs and Patriarchs of Byzantine Antioch with recorded names as the dominant and favored population behind Byzantine Syria.

And I have to say People who talk about splitting up Greek in Anatolia can’t even provide hard evidence to back up why it should be split and you won’t find any cause there is none yet discovered as of 2024. The peoples of Anatolia had been throughly Romanized aka Hellenized by the Roman state centuries before our first Start with the very last, the Isaurians, being smashed and have their centuries long autonomy destroyed by the Emperor Anastasius 350 years before 867.

A better argument imo is what areas should not be Roman Greek and that’s what I’m presenting by talking about people such as the Syrian Melkites and Jacobites.
Al-Biruni writes that the countries of the East called all Catholics and Orthodox Christians Melkites. Melkite comes from the Arabic name malik - king, that is, “Royal Christian.” Al-Biruni lived until 1048, before the official split of the Church into Catholics and Orthodox, which occurred in 1054.

In terms of numbers, the Melkites were the largest sect of Christians.
In second place in terms of numbers and territory were the Nestorian Christians.
In third place were the Miaphysites: Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia
 
Ngl, when I made my post I completely forgot about 867 lol.

The first source for both in the region is in the 900s as part of Bulgaria but I agree I have no problem with them being in there in the 800s as these are mountainous rural poor regions where sourcing would be scarce to begin with. Only hesitant in the fact the 800s is when the migratory Slavs are gonna be felt for the last time with many lingering tribes being reported in the same areas as the later reported Vlachs and Albanians.

And definitely disagree on the Melkites, their name itself means Royal, for their religious loyalty to the Byzantine Emperor as the Melkites are the Greek Orthodox Arabic Speaking Syrians who never converted to Islam despite assimilating Arabic cultural ways and maintained a unique etho-religious identity to this as Rum/Romans. Similar to the Copts.

But unlike the Copts, the Byzantine reconquered Cilicia, Antioch and the Syrian Coast where they endorsed the Melkites as the dominant group behind their power in the region and encouraged their colonization of reconquered Byzantine Lands. Melkites were treated as Romans by law in the empire making them first class citizens with rights they used to their advantage to leverage over the also Syrian Jacobites and Armenians who had also colonized the area at the Emperors request. No other time in history would the Melkites have this much political power and thus I cannot imagine not including them in a Byzantine dlc.

From 978-996 Agapios was the Melkite Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch

From 1052-1056 Petros III was the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch during the Great Schism and tried to mediate the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch.

In 1068 the Bilingual Melkite Petros Libellisios was Doux of Antioch and captured Manbij during the Syrian campaign of Romanos Diogenes.

His relative some time in the mid 1000s, John Libellisios who was a judge in Constantinople and later secretary of the Emperor.
The Epi tou kanikeliou

In 1066, the Great Arab Christian Physician from Bagdad Ibn Butlan was a monk in Antioch.

Nikephoros Mosaraph commander of a Tagma in Anatolikon who was originally a Syrian Muslim from around Antioch before converting to Greek Orthodox during the 2nd half of the 1000s. Also had 3 relatives in imperial service.

This is not accounting the writers and Historians who translated Greek and Arabic works into vice versa. Melkites also included Levantine and Egyptian Greek Orthodox but the main body to this day is the Syrians however the Empire invited all them like the Egyptian Writer Yahya of Antioch who settled in Antioch.
Well, the pro-Orthodox (Chalcedonites or Melkites - the ancestors of Catholics and Orthodox) had 5 patriarchates under Justinian: Constantinople, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch.
Under Al-Biruni in the 10th-11th century, the Nestorians in Syria outnumbered the Miaphysites (Jacobites) and Melkites.

The so-called heretics did not distort the true teachings of Christ in the least. They arose simultaneously with the pro-Orthodox, who were called Melkites, probably after Constantine, who accepted them into the state level of the Roman Empire. Before Constantine's adoption of pro-orthodox teachings, they were probably called something other than Melkites. Therefore, the Melkites are not the true teachings of Christ, but just one of the sects of Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Ngl, when I made my post I completely forgot about 867 lol.

The first source for both in the region is in the 900s as part of Bulgaria but I agree I have no problem with them being in there in the 800s as these are mountainous rural poor regions where sourcing would be scarce to begin with. Only hesitant in the fact the 800s is when the migratory Slavs are gonna be felt for the last time with many lingering tribes being reported in the same areas as the later reported Vlachs and Albanians.

And definitely disagree on the Melkites, their name itself means Royal, for their religious loyalty to the Byzantine Emperor as the Melkites are the Greek Orthodox Arabic Speaking Syrians who never converted to Islam despite assimilating Arabic cultural ways and maintained a unique etho-religious identity to this as Rum/Romans. Similar to the Copts.

But unlike the Copts, the Byzantine reconquered Cilicia, Antioch and the Syrian Coast where they endorsed the Melkites as the dominant group behind their power in the region and encouraged their colonization of reconquered Byzantine Lands. Melkites were treated as Romans by law in the empire making them first class citizens with rights they used to their advantage to leverage over the also Syrian Jacobites and Armenians who had also colonized the area at the Emperors request. No other time in history would the Melkites have this much political power and thus I cannot imagine not including them in a Byzantine dlc.

From 978-996 Agapios was the Melkite Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch

From 1052-1056 Petros III was the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch during the Great Schism and tried to mediate the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch.

In 1068 the Bilingual Melkite Petros Libellisios was Doux of Antioch and captured Manbij during the Syrian campaign of Romanos Diogenes.

His relative some time in the mid 1000s, John Libellisios who was a judge in Constantinople and later secretary of the Emperor.
The Epi tou kanikeliou

In 1066, the Great Arab Christian Physician from Bagdad Ibn Butlan was a monk in Antioch.

Nikephoros Mosaraph commander of a Tagma in Anatolikon who was originally a Syrian Muslim from around Antioch before converting to Greek Orthodox during the 2nd half of the 1000s. Also had 3 relatives in imperial service.

This is not accounting the writers and Historians who translated Greek and Arabic works into vice versa. Melkites also included Levantine and Egyptian Greek Orthodox but the main body to this day is the Syrians however the Empire invited all them like the Egyptian Writer Yahya of Antioch who settled in Antioch.
The conquest of Egypt and Syria by the Arabs occurred with the connivance of Christians of sects other than the Melkites, who were persecuted in the Empire. Under the rule of the Arabs, Christians of other sects lived much better and they enriched the Arab culture, or rather, they created the Arab culture and even their temples and passed on religious traditions, for example, the posture during prayer. God helped the true original Christians of Palestine and Syria. And Islam at first was not much different from Christianity.

It is quite possible that the Arabs, having conquered Constantinople, will retain the Patriarch of Constantinople, or having conquered Rome, they will retain the power of the Pope.
But I do not allow the Orthodox, having conquered Baghdad, to retain the power of the Catholicos of Nestorians and the power of the caliph. It's impossible.
That is, Muslims are tolerant, but Orthodox and Catholics are not.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
On this note, I really wish we had a game option for "Historical Divergent/Hybrid Cultures Only." For those who appreciate Norse-Gael but not Maghrebi-Greek-Norse-Rajput-Tangut.
Tbh I would be happy if the game just simply let me rename the culture, but for some reason it was decided that it could not be changed. I usually just load an earlier save before the culture has formed, change character and form it again with a better name.
 
CK2's history was ported before either Holy Fury or Iron Century IIRC
Correct, so not everything carried over. :) We've taken some bits'n'pieces since but not everything.
That makes sense, but seeing as they added a few of the Holy Fury cultures anyway (Slovien, Carantanian), why not go back and add the rest? Seems like the perfect time. It would also be extremely little work since they already have complete name lists from CK2.
Not really my fight but as I understand it, some of the cultures added in Holy Fury were added by popular request as a lust hurrah for CK2 rather than because the team necessarily agreed with implementing them.

Arberian's been discussed to death by the culture folks over here. I'm afraid I mostly zone out of those discussions so I can't really give you a good update on why, but we were still a firm "no" on them at the moment.

Dalmatian we'll likely do whenever we get around to republics, but probably not before, as it's otherwise liable to just get melted out of existence immediately.
Goths aren't numerous enough to be represented in Crimea. There were more greeks in the relevant seats of power there like in the city. Plus it's so few counties (like two) and it doesn't merit it.
One, even.
I hope they don't make the mistake of labelling the entirety of Anatolia as Greek. Historically speaking only the coastal fringes of Anatolia were ethnically Greek, descendants of Ionian Greeks (who themselves are completely different from the Greeks in Hellas). I hope to see more of a distinction there including Anatolian cultures.

I also want to see less rebellions popping up and instead those with a claim should utilize the new mechanics that are going to be introduced to obtain the Byzantine throne without having to go on a 200 year civil war.
Discussed in great detail over here and ultimately we went largely with "Greek" as the over-culture for Rome. I was on the side that did think we could stand to break it up somewhat but was out-argued and out-sourced on how meaningful the differences'd even be, and ultimately I think they were probably correct.

Byzantine civil war balancing is on-going and detailed. Trying to find the sweet spot between Byzantine shenaniganery and it just being completely ahistoric or too unfun.
Its not a mistake to call them all greek, theres been a millenia of assimilation and hellenisation to occur
One of many things brought up!
I really do hope they bring back the Coptic culture (and adjust Egyptian as being a hybrid between Coptic and Arabic)
This one is sort languishing in Design Hell, one cell over from combat reworks, one level deeper than dynamic de jure partitioning. The idea is, as I understand it, to have a unified Egyptian base and then your affiliation within that is determined by whether you're Coptic or Islamic, but it's not all that it could be since the namelists don't really divide that neatly.

As far as I'm aware, it's a perpetual-maybe. Not something we don't necessarily want to at least look at, but something that rarely been a priority so it keeps getting shuffled off into the backlog.
My take: I don't see the downsides to having cultures that are limited at game start to just a few (or even a singular) county. But the culture does need to be mechanically distinct, otherwise there's zero point. Changing just one or two things might not be enough to justify.
In order:
  1. They get easily vapourised by diff-culture lieges (which they also disproportionately start with), so it generally ends up being a cosmetic change to a particular start date rather than meaningful mechanical representation.
  2. The title presently doesn't really provide any benefits, or even capacity for, running multi-cultural realms, which means that balkanising an area's cultures will induce civil war, reduce technological progress, and generally make whatever realm is most affected disproportionately weak compared to any non-broken up blobs in neighbouring realms. We're not strictly opposed to that but it can affect game balance and knowingly inducing strife should be done deliberately and with caution.
  3. These days, as mentioned, making them mechanically distinct is something we prefer to aim for and that may well pose a content requirement, depending on what they're surrounded by vs. what we have already and what might make them distinct.
... which is not to say any of these are necessarily deal-breakers, you're perfectly entitled to think we're over-cautious on stuff, and we do make exceptions (though a general rule of those, like Mossi or Cornish, is that they shouldn't be used to justify further exceptions) when we feel it's necessary, but that's the logic as I see it.
Also note this is one area where mods 100% shine.
Certainly, they let people go exactly for personal preference and that's awesome in a way we can't match, since vanilla has to be somewhat for everyone.
The game is so fast and loose with its timeline already that I don't think having Arberian and Aromanian in the 867 Balkans setup would be ahistorical. Bosnian is already on the map, after all.
Bosnian's in the title because I wanted them pre-release but didn't have the time to set up a proper emergence event for them. I've regretted it increasingly since: the hope is that we'll eventually remove them from the base map and have them appear rather than add more stuff like that.
Bosnian makes sense considering the bosnian curch.
Mmmm, much as I wish I could agree, you can make a compelling argument for the emergence of the church much earlier than the emergence of the culture. They really should be a mishmash of Croatians and Serbs in 1066, let alone 867.
the Dalmatians being a hybrid culture is weird I'll give you that, tough admittedly they can also appear as a divergent culture wich is better than most.

The Aromanians being a a hybridaization of Vlach(which in game literally represent all remanent Balkan Latinate cultures) makes a fair bit of sense, the issue arries from the distribution of Vlach culture in the Balkans, there is simply no way for the aromanian culture to emerge in an organic way to even remotly match the IRL one.

Also you joke but that's how norman culture works in ck3, it can emerge from norse culture and pretty much any french culture including betron, it dosen't even have to be in normandy it's seld, only the general north of france.
It really should be able to emerge most anywhere (albeit not Breton). "Norman" doesn't come from them settling in the north of France, it comes from them being "Northmen": if they'd settled any other coast there's a decent chance it would've been the same name. I've got a polish task somewhere for letting this happen to any French-speaking coastal duchy, but it's pretty ancient.
 
  • 22
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The idea is, as I understand it, to have a unified Egyptian base and then your affiliation within that is determined by whether you're Coptic or Islamic, but it's not all that it could be since the namelists don't really divide that neatly.

Would it be possible to separate the name lists of a culture by religion? I would love a system were a culture can have names that appear for Muslims, names for Christians, agnostic names that appear regardless of religion.

Ideally I would even love a category of names that normally don't appear, except when a character is named after an ancestor of a different culture. This would allow for correct translations in those instances. You could even take it one step further and make instances like this appear in hybrid cultures. That would be a disproportionate amount of work I suppose, but one can dream of such a modular system.
 
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Correct, so not everything carried over. :) We've taken some bits'n'pieces since but not everything.

Not really my fight but as I understand it, some of the cultures added in Holy Fury were added by popular request as a lust hurrah for CK2 rather than because the team necessarily agreed with implementing them.

Arberian's been discussed to death by the culture folks over here. I'm afraid I mostly zone out of those discussions so I can't really give you a good update on why, but we were still a firm "no" on them at the moment.

Dalmatian we'll likely do whenever we get around to republics, but probably not before, as it's otherwise liable to just get melted out of existence immediately.

One, even.

Discussed in great detail over here and ultimately we went largely with "Greek" as the over-culture for Rome. I was on the side that did think we could stand to break it up somewhat but was out-argued and out-sourced on how meaningful the differences'd even be, and ultimately I think they were probably correct.

Byzantine civil war balancing is on-going and detailed. Trying to find the sweet spot between Byzantine shenaniganery and it just being completely ahistoric or too unfun.

One of many things brought up!

This one is sort languishing in Design Hell, one cell over from combat reworks, one level deeper than dynamic de jure partitioning. The idea is, as I understand it, to have a unified Egyptian base and then your affiliation within that is determined by whether you're Coptic or Islamic, but it's not all that it could be since the namelists don't really divide that neatly.

As far as I'm aware, it's a perpetual-maybe. Not something we don't necessarily want to at least look at, but something that rarely been a priority so it keeps getting shuffled off into the backlog.

In order:
  1. They get easily vapourised by diff-culture lieges (which they also disproportionately start with), so it generally ends up being a cosmetic change to a particular start date rather than meaningful mechanical representation.
  2. The title presently doesn't really provide any benefits, or even capacity for, running multi-cultural realms, which means that balkanising an area's cultures will induce civil war, reduce technological progress, and generally make whatever realm is most affected disproportionately weak compared to any non-broken up blobs in neighbouring realms. We're not strictly opposed to that but it can affect game balance and knowingly inducing strife should be done deliberately and with caution.
  3. These days, as mentioned, making them mechanically distinct is something we prefer to aim for and that may well pose a content requirement, depending on what they're surrounded by vs. what we have already and what might make them distinct.
... which is not to say any of these are necessarily deal-breakers, you're perfectly entitled to think we're over-cautious on stuff, and we do make exceptions (though a general rule of those, like Mossi or Cornish, is that they shouldn't be used to justify further exceptions) when we feel it's necessary, but that's the logic as I see it.

Certainly, they let people go exactly for personal preference and that's awesome in a way we can't match, since vanilla has to be somewhat for everyone.

Bosnian's in the title because I wanted them pre-release but didn't have the time to set up a proper emergence event for them. I've regretted it increasingly since: the hope is that we'll eventually remove them from the base map and have them appear rather than add more stuff like that.

Mmmm, much as I wish I could agree, you can make a compelling argument for the emergence of the church much earlier than the emergence of the culture. They really should be a mishmash of Croatians and Serbs in 1066, let alone 867.

It really should be able to emerge most anywhere (albeit not Breton). "Norman" doesn't come from them settling in the north of France, it comes from them being "Northmen": if they'd settled any other coast there's a decent chance it would've been the same name. I've got a polish task somewhere for letting this happen to any French-speaking coastal duchy, but it's pretty ancient.
If Copts and Egyptian muslims are seen as the same culture, then I'm afraid that we'll have to make Egyptians speak Coptic language in 867 and 1066 start date.
 
The conquest of Egypt and Syria by the Arabs occurred with the connivance of Christians of sects other than the Melkites, who were persecuted in the Empire. Under the rule of the Arabs, Christians of other sects lived much better and they enriched the Arab culture, or rather, they created the Arab culture and even their temples and passed on religious traditions, for example, the posture during prayer. God helped the true original Christians of Palestine and Syria. And Islam at first was not much different from Christianity.

It is quite possible that the Arabs, having conquered Constantinople, will retain the Patriarch of Constantinople, or having conquered Rome, they will retain the power of the Pope.
But I do not allow the Orthodox, having conquered Baghdad, to retain the power of the Catholicos of Nestorians and the power of the caliph. It's impossible.
That is, Muslims are tolerant, but Orthodox and Catholics are not.
I think you need to read history. There is plenty of evidence from the very beginning of Islam of the intolerance.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Would it be possible to separate the name lists of a culture by religion? I would love a system were a culture can have names that appear for Muslims, names for Christians, agnostic names that appear regardless of religion.

Ideally I would even love a category of names that normally don't appear, except when a character is named after an ancestor of a different culture. This would allow for correct translations in those instances. You could even take it one step further and make instances like this appear in hybrid cultures. That would be a disproportionate amount of work I suppose, but one can dream of such a modular system.
Ck3 is meant to have this already, but many cultures also have preset names for certain religions as a way of showing religious influence on an area even prior to official conversion, like Seljuk having a son called Michael
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The conquest of Egypt and Syria by the Arabs occurred with the connivance of Christians of sects other than the Melkites, who were persecuted in the Empire. Under the rule of the Arabs, Christians of other sects lived much better and they enriched the Arab culture, or rather, they created the Arab culture and even their temples
Because muslims converted christian temples into islamic mosques
and passed on religious traditions, for example, the posture during prayer. God helped the true original Christians of Palestine and Syria. And Islam at first was not much different from Christianity.
Rejection of the trinity and the divinity of Christ is a big difference. The demand of circumcision also differs from Christianity as that sign of the Old Covenant was no longer needed, as a New one had been made
It is quite possible that the Arabs, having conquered Constantinople, will retain the Patriarch of Constantinople, or having conquered Rome, they will retain the power of the Pope.
But I do not allow the Orthodox, having conquered Baghdad, to retain the power of the Catholicos of Nestorians and the power of the caliph. It's impossible.
That is, Muslims are tolerant, but Orthodox and Catholics are not.
Having the religious head as a puppet is useful, both for increasing taxes and helping stop rebellions. The orthodox had some tolerance of the armenians, just like the muslims, if all external threats were done with, they might have done away with the Nestorian Catholicos
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Not really my fight but as I understand it, some of the cultures added in Holy Fury were added by popular request as a lust hurrah for CK2 rather than because the team necessarily agreed with implementing them.

Arberian's been discussed to death by the culture folks over here. I'm afraid I mostly zone out of those discussions so I can't really give you a good update on why, but we were still a firm "no" on them at the moment.

Dalmatian we'll likely do whenever we get around to republics, but probably not before, as it's otherwise liable to just get melted out of existence immediately.

A Wokeg reply, in my thread? I feel like I've been promoted to Seneschal :D. Hopefully no one starts plotting against me.

Thank you for the insights in any case. I'm glad these conversations are happening on the back end.

The only comment I'd like to make is that roleplaying the imperial rise of a Latin-speaking Dalmatian or Aromanian admin vassal would be so, so much fun, and a much more harmless historical fantasy than Hellenic paganism. I really hope that you guys will reconsider adding some Romance cultures to the Balkans with Roads to Power.

In order:
  1. They get easily vapourised by diff-culture lieges (which they also disproportionately start with), so it generally ends up being a cosmetic change to a particular start date rather than meaningful mechanical representation.
  2. The title presently doesn't really provide any benefits, or even capacity for, running multi-cultural realms, which means that balkanising an area's cultures will induce civil war, reduce technological progress, and generally make whatever realm is most affected disproportionately weak compared to any non-broken up blobs in neighbouring realms. We're not strictly opposed to that but it can affect game balance and knowingly inducing strife should be done deliberately and with caution.
  3. These days, as mentioned, making them mechanically distinct is something we prefer to aim for and that may well pose a content requirement, depending on what they're surrounded by vs. what we have already and what might make them distinct.
... which is not to say any of these are necessarily deal-breakers, you're perfectly entitled to think we're over-cautious on stuff, and we do make exceptions (though a general rule of those, like Mossi or Cornish, is that they shouldn't be used to justify further exceptions) when we feel it's necessary, but that's the logic as I see it.

All this said, I do have a few questions about the team's philosophy toward new cultures.
  1. You mentioned that the addition of cultures to a region can increase strife; isn't this a useful tool for balancing certain blobby realms? Not to say that the current patch's Byzantines are guilty of this, but given that the IRL Byzantine Empire was culturally cosmopolitan (to both its benefit and its detriment), the current setup feels primed for revision.
  2. Since landless adventurers will soon be roaming the map, can we expect that the team might be inclined to incorporate additional off-map or minority cultures? I'm thinking about how the Jewish cultures are currently represented - most do not have any home provinces, but their courtiers can pop up at random. This might be an ideal middle ground between those who want to see a culture included and those who feel its presence isn't justified.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
This is an amusing and CK-appropriate typo!
lust hurrah
:p :D

And this is playing with fire! You know I bookmarked this for the next time I click on a Playable Republics thread! :D
whenever we get around to republics
Want to change that to “if ever?” I will delete that bookmark. :) I quite understand that dev hopes for future content aren’t promises, and I wouldn’t want to mislead others as to what you really meant by this.
 
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
Because muslims converted christian temples into islamic mosques

Rejection of the trinity and the divinity of Christ is a big difference. The demand of circumcision also differs from Christianity as that sign of the Old Covenant was no longer needed, as a New one had been made

Having the religious head as a puppet is useful, both for increasing taxes and helping stop rebellions. The orthodox had some tolerance of the armenians, just like the muslims, if all external threats were done with, they might have done away with the Nestorian Catholicos
I would also like to add the differences between the non orthodox Christian of formerly ER lands, Arians, and Muslims on the nature of Christ. The conquered Christians believed Jesus only had a divine nature, which is at odds with Islam. Arians believe Jesus became the son of God, also at odds with Islam. The difference between these Christian groups was not as great as what Islam teaches about Jesus and His nature.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It gives them a high base acceptance and less likely to culture convert, along with impossible for greek to form a hybrid with it
And why should it be disallowed from hybridizing? Goths in Asia Minor have hybridized. "But they kept on like that for this many hundred years" is really not a good argument, the history changes the moment you start the game. There can be steps taken so AI won't hybridize that much and wasn't there already a decision that discouraged them from forming non-historical hybrids? Base acceptance can also be handled in other ways.


Because those are far more assimilated and gone by eu4 period whilst crimean goths still there
But we are talking about CK3 and it's start dates here, not asking for them to be added in EU4.



Its 820, not that long until Michael III's norse wife
Long before the first Varangians mentioned which was in early 840s if I recall. 20 decades is too long a time in this case because this guy is a member of the clergy and he possibly died in 825, so may have been old as well. So his Germanic name is most likely not due to being a Norse. Also do we even know Eudokia was Norse? As far as I know her father Inger is only thought to be a Varangian due to his name and there is no certainty.

They can already be put to more than 1 county
Goths can, Crimean Goths can't.
 
One, even.
Crimean Goths, yes Goths as a whole no. Goths still exist in Asia Minor at this time. There are also Gepids in Pannonia and Balkans in 9th century.


Gepids still existed in 9th century, living in Sirmia and Slavonia along Danube and Drava and they may also have kept on existing in Transylvania.


According to the source below, "Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum" which was written in 870s also mentions Gepids inhabiting Pannonia at the time.


There were also Franks, Bavarians etc who fled to Pannonia.


In order:
  1. They get easily vapourised by diff-culture lieges (which they also disproportionately start with), so it generally ends up being a cosmetic change to a particular start date rather than meaningful mechanical representation.
  2. The title presently doesn't really provide any benefits, or even capacity for, running multi-cultural realms, which means that balkanising an area's cultures will induce civil war, reduce technological progress, and generally make whatever realm is most affected disproportionately weak compared to any non-broken up blobs in neighbouring realms. We're not strictly opposed to that but it can affect game balance and knowingly inducing strife should be done deliberately and with caution.
I think instead of discarding minor cultures entirely, cultures should be more resistant to conversion in general but for more stability should not revolt every 5 years just because their liege's culture has branched off from their own 10 years ago. A handful of cultures being more prone to revolt is ok but many kingdoms/empires ruled over a mosaic of cultures for hundreds of years without having "greco-norse tengri pagan" popular revolt every so often.

I think having a variety of cultures should also have an added benefit on men-at-arms diversity. Men-at-arms should not be limited to your own culture and in fact, having X culture shouldn't be a guarantee to fill your slots with men-at-arms of that culture. Recruitable men-at-arms should be tied to the culture of counties within your realm and number of men-at-arms you can recruit from your own culture should be very limited (depending on tier, say 1 for count and duke, 2 for king, 3 for emperor) unless you also hold lands of your own culture and price should be adjusted as well. Say if you are a Norse duke with 2 counties, both of them French, you should only be able to use one slot for Norse men-at-arms and at an increased price of say %125 since you don't hold any Norse counties and you should be allowed to use 2 slots for French men-at-arms at an increased cost of say, %120. If you have a count vassal of that culture the price increase should then be lowered to %110, still higher than normal but lower to represent people being ruled by their own culture at some level. Numbers are just there for giving the example.

Byzantine Empire can be given an added benefit of recruiting these men-at-arms at their normal price with this being added to one of the existing cultural traditions and a seperate cultural tradition that can be reformed into any other culture allowing something similar can be added, allowing to recruit at normal price and perhaps also some slot benefits as well, say each county allows 2 mercenaries of that culture instead of 1 and a slight increase to total number of slots available.


Edit oh missed this:

Mmmm, much as I wish I could agree, you can make a compelling argument for the emergence of the church much earlier than the emergence of the culture. They really should be a mishmash of Croatians and Serbs in 1066, let alone 867.

Not exactly on Bosnian but must point out that in 867 it isn't Serbs and Croats aren't the only Slavs living there.

Michael of Zahumjle, for example belonged to Litziki, Lendians.


Also Slavs as a whole shouldn't be that branched out in 867 yet we even have Russians at that start.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think you need to read history. There is plenty of evidence from the very beginning of Islam of the intolerance.
I think he was trying to say that Islam has institutionalised religious pluralism which is a factual statement, despite certain instances of perceived intolerance. This level tolerance is why persecuted groups such as the Jews flourished under Muslim regimes and not so much under the Christians (especially catholic central Europe).

This institutional pluralism is enshrined first in the Quran, second in Islamic jurisprudence via precedence of the Covenant of Umar.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions: