Latin Culture: Should be back history no longer

[Thorv]

I'll try to be brief because I don't want to derail the thread.

@mudcrabmerchant: It looks like you agree with me that linguistic differences are often a very good way to draw cultural boundaries, and that cultural identity depends on language to a considerable extent. But no-one claims that there must also be a “perfect match up” so I am not sure what you are complaining about. Regarding what you said about the Ugro-Finnic stuff, I don't dispute any of it, and don't see how it affects my point.

@classicist:
(1) I agree that criteria based on ethnicity are often troublesome.
(2) I don’t think the Ugro-Finnic example disproves anything. The two languages have diverged too much, and the similarity between them just isn’t good enough when it comes to comparing contemporary cultures (I believe that the similarity is so subtle that it takes an expertise that goes beyond the competence of most native speakers to see it—being a Finn yourself, perhaps you can confirm this). So it isn’t really a good counter-example. Clearly, assessment of linguistic similarities has to take into account the evolution of languages over time (which the OP did).
(3) Regarding your Finnish/Swedish example: no-one claims that language must be the one and only criterion. Obviously there can also be other criteria such as geographical proximity. However, I would say that linguistic similarity usually takes priority over other considerations. For example, all else being equal, who would you say is more culturally similar to you, a neighbour who speaks your language or one who doesn't? And even if my priority claim is wrong, the relevance of linguistic similarity still stands.

BOTTOM LINE:
There obviously is a strong correlation between culture and language. Good linguistic evidence (such as that provided by the OP) is nearly always relevant when arguing about cultural identity. The usual complaint, "but culture is not language", is a straw-man.

 

[Thure]

For example, all else being equal, who would you say is more culturally similar to you, a neighbour who speaks your language or one who doesn't? And even if my priority claim is wrong, the relevance of linguistic similarity still stands.

For me as someone from Hamburg... I think the Dutch or eventually Danes would culturally closer to me than Bavarians or Austrians. :laugh:

 

[ejnomad07]

I don't think based on what you said that the Sardinians should be Latin I think they should be Roman.

That's what I meant. The culture in game is technically called Roman. My mistake was on a work computer and goofed.

 

[Thorv]

For me as someone from Hamburg... I think the Dutch or eventually Danes would culturally closer to me than Bavarians or Austrians. :laugh:

But Austrians are not your neighbours, they aren't as geographically close to you as Danes are. Try to compare neighbours who live at roughly the same distance from you

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

I'll try to be brief because I don't want to derail the thread.

@mudcrabmerchant: It looks like you agree with me that linguistic differences are often a very good way to draw cultural boundaries, and that cultural identity depends on language to a considerable extent. But no-one claims that there must also be a “perfect match up” so I am not sure what you are complaining about. Regarding what you said about the Ugro-Finnic stuff, I don't dispute any of it, and don't see how it affects my point.

I think you need a better match-up than equating the unique culture of one island with all of classical-era Latin culture. Sardinia was always somewhat separated from the Roman mainstream, and despite linguistic conservatism, it's culture was arguably as distinct from classical-era Latins as were other Medieval Latin cultures. And in game terms, there would be issues with names for a common classical Latin-medieval Sardinian culture.

Unless Paradox decides to add in one-province cultures, abstracting Sardinian as part of Italian culture is, IMO, better than giving it the same culture as Augustus Caesar. Certainly medieval Sardinians had more in common with fellow medieval Latins than with BC Romans.

 

[ejnomad07]

I think you need a better match-up than equating the unique culture of one island with all of classical-era Latin culture. Sardinia was always somewhat separated from the Roman mainstream, and despite linguistic conservatism, it's culture was arguably as distinct from classical-era Latins as were other Medieval Latin cultures. And in game terms, there would be issues with names for a common classical Latin-medieval Sardinian culture.

Unless Paradox decides to add in one-province cultures, abstracting Sardinian as part of Italian culture is, IMO, better than giving it the same culture as Augustus Caesar. Certainly medieval Sardinians had more in common with fellow medieval Latins than with BC Romans.

It would be AD Romans not BC romans. The game doesn't even go into BC dates. and Corsica would also be included so it's not just one province. You're trying to equate it to pre-christian romans when in reality the game compares them to the later christianized Romans. Even the Eastern half was ruled by a Latin ruler until 565 and both islands were under their control and continued to be until the startdate. So if they had names like Justinian, Leo, Julian, or Constantine it wouldn't be out of place.

 

[cpteveros]

Just popping in here to say if your going to go with language, keep in mind most medieval scholars and rulers spoke Latin; should they also be Roman cultured?

Sardinia and Corsica were never really Romanized, is what I've always understood. They speak (and I assume spoke) a Latin that was influenced by the native languages and that of Berbers and Carthaginians and Italians and Greeks and what have you. The language of Rome when it fell =/= Sardinia and Corsica in 879. It just isn't the same.

I always thought culture was more than just language, it was the traditions and values of the person's background more so than how they talked to other people. If you look at the decision to switch cultures, it isn't, "My liege's culture is greater than mine, I am going to now speak Greek" but rather, "My liege's culture is greater than mine, I am going to become Greek." It isn't so much a difference of languages as it is a difference of values and traditions.

At the very least, that's how I see it.

 

[ejnomad07]

Just popping in here to say if your going to go with language, keep in mind most medieval scholars and rulers spoke Latin; should they also be Roman cultured?

Sardinia and Corsica were never really Romanized, is what I've always understood. They speak (and I assume spoke) a Latin that was influenced by the native languages and that of Berbers and Carthaginians and Italians and Greeks and what have you. The language of Rome when it fell =/= Sardinia and Corsica in 879. It just isn't the same.

I always thought culture was more than just language, it was the traditions and values of the person's background more so than how they talked to other people. If you look at the decision to switch cultures, it isn't, "My liege's culture is greater than mine, I am going to now speak Greek" but rather, "My liege's culture is greater than mine, I am going to become Greek." It isn't so much a difference of languages as it is a difference of values and traditions.

At the very least, that's how I see it.

The rulers of the day may have spoken Latin, but it wasn't their first language and that's a very important difference. That's also not the Latin of the people which is the more important Latin as that's what all the Romance languages are broken off from and what represents province culture.

I already covered values and traditions so that's not my fight. Errr re-fight?

 

[Thure]

The rulers of the day may have spoken Latin, but it wasn't their first language and that's a very important difference. That's also not the Latin of the people which is the more important Latin as that's what all the Romance languages are broken off from and what represents province culture.

I already covered values and traditions so that's not my fight. Errr re-fight?

Again my question: Di the Sardinian use the same names (not form of writing of the names) than romans? Did they call there people Aemilian? Gallienus? Britannicus? Numerian? This are the names from the Roman list. Did they use this names? Because this would be the names they would use, if you give them the Roman culture.

If I look at the names of the Giudici... No! They called Ittocorre, Comita, Elena, Orzocco, Torbeno, Andreotto. Some names are Roman, of course like Costantino or Giovanni. But the roman names in the files would be absolutly wrong for Sicillian characters.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Again my question: Di the Sardinian use the same names (not form of writing of the names) than romans? Did they call there people Aemilian? Gallienus? Britannicus? Numerian? This are the names from the Roman list. Did they use this names? Because this would be the names they would use, if you give them the Roman culture.

If I look at the names of the Giudici... No! They called Ittocorre, Comita, Elena, Orzocco, Torbeno, Andreotto. Some names are Roman, of course like Costantino or Giovanni. But the roman names in the files would be absolutly wrong for Sicillian characters.

Those names of the Giudici are Italianized variants, though that's not difficult to do even with such a divergent Romance language as Sardinian.

@ejnomad

Pagan emperors ARE lumped into the Roman culture, and if the history files stretched back just a few more decades, Augustus and Caeser would be represented with the same culture. It's a blanket culture that's meant for history files, that represents people who identified first and foremost as Roman, and existed as part of a distinct culture that died with the fall of the Western Empire.

It's late and I'm not sure if I'm making a coherent, unified argument here, but... blah. I'm right, dammit.

 

[Thure]

Those names of the Giudici are Italianized variants, though that's not difficult to do even with such a divergent Romance language as Sardinian.

As I said... I didn't speak about the spelling *sigh* I just can't found the Sardinian spelling.

My point is about the names! Not about the spelling of the names. And the use complettly different names than they are in the Roman culture. They wouldn't give there children old roman names like Aegripus etc.

 

[ejnomad07]

and existed as part of a distinct culture that died with the fall of the Western Empire.

It's late and I'm not sure if I'm making a coherent, unified argument here, but... blah. I'm right, dammit.

Go to bed then and rethink your argument. The minute you said that your argument became silly. Even the Eastern Half deserves more credit than what you're giving it. Heraclius, Tiberius, Phocas, Valentinian, Arcadius. Great names for the Roman list that come from the Eastern Roman Empire. Their culture didn't split until much after the fall of the western half.

Again my question: Di the Sardinian use the same names (not form of writing of the names) than romans? Did they call there people Aemilian? Gallienus? Britannicus? Numerian? This are the names from the Roman list. Did they use this names? Because this would be the names they would use, if you give them the Roman culture.

If I look at the names of the Giudici... No! They called Ittocorre, Comita, Elena, Orzocco, Torbeno, Andreotto. Some names are Roman, of course like Costantino or Giovanni. But the roman names in the files would be absolutly wrong for Sicillian characters.

The listed names of the KNOWN Giudici are 100's of years later. That a silly point. In fact, you're whole point is rather silly if you're only rejection is because some file doesn't have the right names. It's not even a used file! Update it with some more modern Christian Roman names and your point is moot.

 

[classicist]

@classicist:
(1) I agree that criteria based on ethnicity are often troublesome.

They are, and they have been studied with good justification in the past 50 or so years. What I'm going to argue below is mostly based on
- Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (1983, rev. ed. 2006).
- Geneviève Zubrzycki, "National culture, national identiy, and the culture(s) of the nation", in Handbook of Cultural Sociology (ed. Hall, Grindstaff & Lo, 2010), 514-25.
- Eric Hobsbawm, "Language, Culture, and National Identity", in Social Research 63 (1996), 1065-80.

Excellent works, all. Check them out if you have time.

(2) I don’t think the Ugro-Finnic example disproves anything. The two languages have diverged too much, and the similarity between them just isn’t good enough when it comes to comparing contemporary cultures (I believe that the similarity is so subtle that it takes an expertise that goes beyond the competence of most native speakers to see it—being a Finn yourself, perhaps you can confirm this). So it isn’t really a good counter-example. Clearly, assessment of linguistic similarities has to take into account the evolution of languages over time (which the OP did).

You are quite correct about the extent of differences between Finnic and Ugric languages (e.g. for most speakers of Finnish and Hungarian, respectively, the linguistic relation would not become apparent, as you rightly pointed out). But it seems you favour the view that the closer the linguistic affinity of two languages, the closer the cultures of their speakers? That would require a much more elemental link between the two that I am willing to recognize (or indeed many researchers to the subject are willing to recognize.) Besides, while linguistic evolution changes languages (mostly through phonological changes), surely this does not necessitate a culture to change at the same time? The reasons and principles for linguistic and cultural change are wholly different and not comensurate, though certainly there are also elements (such as geographical isolation) which can affect both. Yet even in this Sardinian case we see that the relative geographical isolation did not seem to have preserved a nuraghic culture + the language "originally" associated with that culture, nor a Romance language + Romanized culture, but a Romance language with a strongly local and rather characteristic folk culture.

(3) Regarding your Finnish/Swedish example: no-one claims that language must be the one and only criterion. Obviously there can also be other criteria such as geographical proximity. However, I would say that linguistic similarity usually takes priority over other considerations. For example, all else being equal, who would you say is more culturally similar to you, a neighbour who speaks your language or one who doesn't? And even if my priority claim is wrong, the relevance of linguistic similarity still stands.

Indeed, language cannot be the only criterion. Otherwise we would run into problems trying to explain the cultural similarities between French-speaking and Flemish-speaking Belgians, and Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking Finns. And many other cases besides. Also, your suggested model - though it may be quite apt in the context of Sprachbund - could not very well account for dialect continuums, am I correct? I mean, should we see the incremental small dialectal changes in, say the whole sequence of Romance oc/si-languages from Aragon to Apennines, to also introduce traceable, concurrent changes in the culture? In the medieval context, at any rate, I would argue that the cultural distance between the elite and the humble classes was far greater than the cultural distance between peasant populations separated by far greater distances. It is a mirage of the national states that the whole population of the "state" should profess one culture and speak one language.

BOTTOM LINE:
There obviously is a strong correlation between culture and language. Good linguistic evidence (such as that provided by the OP) is nearly always relevant when arguing about cultural identity. The usual complaint, "but culture is not language", is a straw-man.

As a bottom line, indeed, I'd like to pont out that there is a strong correlation between culture and language in our modern nation states. That should not be projected back to the medieval period, not to mention other chronological or socio-historical contexts. Processes of linguistic adoption have never necessitated a "complete acculturation"; nowadays we often tend to think of acculturation as a one-way street with no possibilities for open-ended developments. This is, of course, quite erroneous. Likewise, acculturation can most certainly happen without language switch - for instance, there was at no point any danger of Japanese being replaced by English during the Meiji Modernization, though the cultural paradigm switch was vast indeed.

Hm, I may have forgotten something from this response, but have to dash now. Well, let's see where these points will take the discussion.

 

[ejnomad07]

Thure and Mudcrab, since this has been able to maintain an air of civility (thank you) let me try and attack your reservations from another angle may I?

So prior to the start date the E.R.E. has been in control of the area for roughly 300 years, and the Empire won't write them off as lost provinces until around the year 952. This by historical definition and even by gameplay mechanics would mean during the ToG start that these provinces should be de jure Byzantine Empire and not a part of Italy. And are telling me you would still defend the idea of lumping these cultures in with the rest of the mainland even when they aren't in practice even in the same Kingdoms or Empires? I'd like to point out mainland Italy in 1303 certainly wouldn't.

 

[Thure]

The listed names of the KNOWN Giudici are 100's of years later. That a silly point. In fact, you're whole point is rather silly if you're only rejection is because some file doesn't have the right names. It's not even a used file! Update it with some more modern Christian Roman names and your point is moot.

One of the points of cultures are the names. Roman means Roman names. Yes we could make them for both cultures... But why should Roman characters call there people Torbenus?

Thure and Mudcrab, since this has been able to maintain an air of civility (thank you) let me try and attack your reservations from another angle may I?

So prior to the start date the E.R.E. has been in control of the area for roughly 300 years, and the Empire won't write them off as lost provinces until around the year 952. This by historical definition and even by gameplay mechanics would mean during the ToG start that these provinces should be de jure Byzantine Empire and not a part of Italy. And are telling me you would still defend the idea of lumping these cultures in with the rest of the mainland even when they aren't in practice even in the same Kingdoms or Empires? I'd like to point out mainland Italy in 1303 certainly wouldn't.

In my map mode I make a own culture for Corsican/Sardinian culture. So you see my opinion on this. Yes they are worth a own culture and shouldn't be part of Italian or Roman culture. And South Italy should be Lombardic at the game start and part of de jure Byzanz. And I make a own Kingdom of Sardinia-Corsica.

But I can understand why paradox wouldn't add a own culture for 1 or 2 provinces. And I think Italian is (because of the names) closer than Roman. The Sardinians wouldn't use all this antique Roman names.

 

[DominusNovus]

Go to bed then and rethink your argument. The minute you said that your argument became silly. Even the Eastern Half deserves more credit than what you're giving it. Heraclius, Tiberius, Phocas, Valentinian, Arcadius. Great names for the Roman list that come from the Eastern Roman Empire. Their culture didn't split until much after the fall of the western half.

Might I point out that several of those Emperors came from the west? Valentinian was from Croatia, Arcadius was from Spain (as was his brother Honorius, and his father, Theodosius).

 

[ejnomad07]

One of the points of cultures are the names. Roman means Roman names. Yes we could make them for both cultures... But why should Roman characters call there people Torbenus?

They shouldn't, but that's a bad example as that's not a post evolved name, but actually a name attributed to pre-BC natives to the island even during the Western Roman times. In short you cheated as there is going to be regional exceptions in Roman conquered areas. :laugh: I for one think it's fairly logical for a Lord in the area to name their kids after stronger Latin rulers. Certainly more sense than the Italian list of names. If it makes you so anxious the more questionable names could be easily tied to if the Roman Empire has been united and exists or not.

 

[Leo_Castelli]

@classicist great post!

As an italian I'm enjoying this whole thread a lot!
Now, I would really like to tell a sardinian that at one point in history his whole culture (whatever this means, it's just a game approximation) was "latin"... Maybe not!

 

[hylander25k]

Minor quibble: it's actually the Roman culture in the game. Latin is a culture group that includes French amongst other things.

To be fair, that's not a minor quibble, it's quite large. The western Christians referred to almost all westerners as Latinate, with maybe the exception of Scandinavians, who were Varangiani. Latin culture is the seed from which all Romance cultures were synthesized from.

Latin was the Language used in all of Latium, which happened to be the region around Rome. Roman culture, in specific, stemming solely from Rome, was the culture that was promulgated across the Empire.

 

[cpteveros]

there is going to be regional exceptions in Roman conquered areas.

I think you say it right there. Sardinia and Corsica could very well have been regional exceptions in Roman conquered areas, so why should they be shown in 879 with names of a culture that was never, ever, fully present in that place? Especially one that had been dead for quite some time.