Map showing Portrait DLC Packs
- Thread starter sreckom92
- 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.
Normans will have English portraits while Anglo-Saxons and the French will stay with vanilla. Which is rather impractical...
1. Normans were ethnically far more similar to the French than the Anglo-Saxons were to the French.
2. Anglo-Saxons were unique melting pot of the Angles, the Britons, the Jutes, the Romano-Britons and the Saxons Hence they embodied elements from the Celts, the Germans and the Latins.
3. In every start date Anglo-Saxons have been melting longer than the Normans.
4. Frequent Anglo-French marriages would have secure their similarity.
Essentially it had made far more sense to give the English portraits to the Anglo-Saxons instead of Normans.
1. Normans were ethnically far more similar to the French than the Anglo-Saxons were to the French.
2. Anglo-Saxons were unique melting pot of the Angles, the Britons, the Jutes, the Romano-Britons and the Saxons Hence they embodied elements from the Celts, the Germans and the Latins.
3. In every start date Anglo-Saxons have been melting longer than the Normans.
4. Frequent Anglo-French marriages would have secure their similarity.
Essentially it had made far more sense to give the English portraits to the Anglo-Saxons instead of Normans.
I think the Arabs and Berbers need to be different. The Egyptians and Levantine as well possibly.
I may not know enough about population records, but weren't Assyrians still a majority population in Iraq and Syria during the early medieval period? Ive always wondered about that... And why they arn't in the game
I apologize for my ignorance, but here's a possibly dumb question. With the default faces, we can see a wide variety of hair, chins, beards, etc. Do the content packs include an equally wide variety, or are they just the four seen in the teaser?
I intend on buying Sons of Abraham and Monks and Mystics on the 7th, along with all of the content packs just for flavor and want to be ready.
I intend on buying Sons of Abraham and Monks and Mystics on the 7th, along with all of the content packs just for flavor and want to be ready.
It's mostly just because the groups using westernslavicgfx don't fit the "generic medieval nobleman" stereotype as well as the French.
Hopefully we'd get not one but two more DLCs after M&M and we could cover both them and either Frenchmen or Arabs/Bedouins.
Yes they all need to be different, or well, egyptian and levantine could maybee use the same, because they have a very similar situation. Afroasiatic (semitic) in their origins and then ruled over by persia, egypt, greeks and rome for a thousand years. And remember these are the people who founded Carthage (phonetician, modern Lebanon). They may speak arab today but to call them arabs is simply not correct. These are the peoples of the western cradles of civilisation.
And yes levantine could easily be broken up into more groups. I would say levvantine (Syrian, Assyrian, Pheonician/Lebanese, and Palestinian) and mesopotamian (though the kingdom of mesopotamia should probably be broken up into two).
Maybe but on the other hand are we suggesting we leave the arguably most important culture of medieval Europe with the low quality faces?
Yeah normans should really share with the french once they get updated.
Last edited:
I fear that the issue is that (Anglo-)Saxons have unique early clothing and helmets, which would need to be fitted to the new portraits, and that is extra work the devs apparently can't seem to afford at the moment.
Besides the fact, that French isn't in any way the most important culture of medieval europe (I think we can't say which was, it really depends on point of view.) In my opinion frenchmen don't need new faces, just remake of vanilla ones, because they just suit them well, arabs and slavs on the other hand are in desperate need of new faces, it's a little unfair to leave arabs with one face pack, while europeans get a lot of them.
Missed the word arguably did we? It means one could argue that they are. And yeah the argument can certainly be made, they basically pulled european civilisation back from the chaos left in the fall of Rome. They spawned both England (well English England through the normans) and Germany (which was a breakaway kingdom from the Karling empire before Otto made it into the holy roman empire), and through these others in turn (the nordics got christianity and the very concept of feudalism from the Germans who in turn got it from the french) the normans conquered all of the british isles eventually, while they adopted a language closer to that of the anglo saxons their society was very french in it's structure). Adventuring Frankish knights were a big part of the reconquista. The moors ans Saracens referred to all west europeans as franks.They are an incredibly important influence on west european culture, second only to that of Rome. Feudalism is pretty much any society modelled on the protection scheme that the franks had with the formerly roman provinces in what would become France.
I'm not french nor even a big fan but their position in European history cannot be denied, especially their early contributions. So yeah arguably the most important culture. Not the only one that it could be argued for of course.
I would love to see arabs getting new face packs. As for Slavs and French I would have rated them both above English getting one.
Indeed it seems like I missed the "arguably", accept my apology. Btw. I have one little question: Franks were germans or french? I'd swear I literally saw a german comment few days ago that said franks were german and they're responsible for creating europe, and now you say they're french. The funny thing is that when I tried to find anything confirming one or another theory I haven't found anything, every single author in my country writes like the franks are some died-out ancestors of europeans.
The Franks were a Germanic tribe that settled in what was then Gaul. Over time, the Franks adopted the local Gallo-Roman culture, with some infusion of their own. Eventually they ditched Frankish and spoke the dialect of Latin around Paris, which became French.
This map is for the 1066 start, and there is no English culture yet.
Should I paint England anyway, and put a special disclaimer below, or just paint Normandy?
Should I paint England anyway, and put a special disclaimer below, or just paint Normandy?
The concept that the Franks are "German" is an anachronistic and German-nationalist fantasy.
The Franks were a Germanic (not German) people that made up part of the melting pot that is the French identity.
Except, that is not the whole story. The Franks were a Germanic tribe, who emerged as a tribal confederation in western Germany (Rhineland & Franconia), the southern parts of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and parts of northern France (Austrasia) and they ended up conquering most of Gaul (Neustria, then Burgundy and later Aquitaine too). Those Franks, who stayed in their Germanic homelands, kept their Germanic language, whereas the Franks, who settled in the parts of Gaul dominated by Gallo-Romans gradually adopted the local Gallo-Roman dialects of Latin (like how Anglo-Normans eventually adopted English).
The Franks are thus amongst the ancestors of French, Germans, Belgians, Dutch and Luxembourgians.
The Franks are thus amongst the ancestors of French, Germans, Belgians, Dutch and Luxembourgians.
They're both, they spoke German at first but then gradually became more romanized. But post Charlamagne you must think of them as french because though he himself never learned to speak good latin he did make latin (that is vulgar latin as it was spoken in france at the time, proto french) the official language of his empire.
One could say that they are neither and both high german and french are heirs to the frankish, who were themselves a result of a melting pot between gaulish romans and german mercenaries who more or less took over when Rome collapsed.
After Charlamagne sought to latinize his empire that went over well in west francia where most frankish already spoke latin, but less so in east francia where basically no one did, and probably contributed to Heinrich der Vogler declaring independence from the frankish empire later. creating the split of the frankish into modern germans and french.
That said even that is an oversimplification because there really is no truly united German identity until almost a thousand years later during the rise of national romanticism. Prior to unification (the whole Bismarck deal in the 19th century) there were many regional languages almost as diverse as dutch.
Yes and no, they were certainly the best definition for German there was at one point. They ruled pretty much all Germans, remember the slavs had pushed up to the Elbe, if there were german tribes beyond that they were assimilated into them. Any cultural divisions you want to put on the Germans you must accept that those existed inside the franks too.
They were never a united people. They like the germans up until unification were many peoples. And both Germans and French are a result of the melting pot between the Frankish and galloromans. The galloromans whoever had a greater sense of united cultural identity so when the frankish in west francia became french they also became one people. While the franks who left with east francia never united like that.
Well explained.
On a side not this stuff here is why Ck2 is inadequate to represent the early starts, there needs to be some sort culture mechanic. Hence why I say there should be a migration era game.
Last edited:
As CK2 now spans 7 centuries, perhaps that could be the archetype for at least 2 future games. One spanning 0 A.D. - 769 (or possibly 814 with an allowance to convert to CK2 at any time between those dates) and covering everything from:
-The end of the Roman Republic-Rise of the Empire,
-Fall of the Arsacids-Rise of the Sassanids,
-Beginnings of and spread of Christianity,
-Manicheanism at its heyday,
-The cults of Mithra,
-The height of Rome under Trajan,
-The Tetrarchy,
-The Great Migrations of everything from the last Gauls, Germanics (and all variety of Goths), Huns and Atilla, Avars, and anything else not mentioned;
-The conversion of Contantine,
-Rome adopting Christianity (or maybe Manicheanism or Mithraism) as official religions,
-The split of Rome into Eastern and Western halves,
-Alaric's sack of Rome
-The fall of the Western Roman Empire (dynamic, not rail-roaded of course),
-The Rise of the Franks, Merovech-Clovis, and Syagrius' last stand for Roman Gaul (or player victory?)
-Justinian's reconquest wars, and the first plague
-The Byzantine-Sassanid wars, and near its end,
-The Rise of Islam, conquests of Arabia, Sassanid Mesopotamia & Persia, the Levant, North Africa, and eventually Al-Andalus (maybe Aquitaine too if Martel fails?)
-The beginnings of Slavic migration,
-The fall of the Merovingians & Peppin The Short's rise to power and death.
The mechanics needed for such a game have obviously been discussed to death, as has the idea, but surely having a very dynamic map structure, with proper abilities for populations to travel, war, raid, and eventually settle would be necessary. I could still see the possibility of playing dynasties, but most of the time you would either be unlanded or at most a mercenary captain/elected governor until you could become a Rex/Imperator/Basileus/Shahanshah/Khan/Caliph etc.
Apologies for inadvertently derailing the thread, but to get back on topic, I have to say the portrait-dlc map is actually a really great thing to have, and it reminded me of the weirdness of the old Mediterranean portraits resulting in Italians now using the Iberian (?) portraits.
Last edited:
I would say 330-1081, from contantine moving the roman capital to constantinople until the battle of Manzikert. Prior to that should be handled by rome/antiquity game and later by Crusader kings which should be extended forward until the start of the reformation or until the end of the reign of charles V. That said the start date for EU does not need to change, overlap is fine. There should be some overlap with the Rome game too. And maybee between migration era game and crusader kings (though that it more doubtful considering how badly Ck2 handled cultures and migrations).