Merging Celtic with British?

[Lamahorse]

There might have been a King of Leinster, Munster, Connacht and Ulster in name, but they hardly had any influence on their respective territories nor does the idea make much sense. It's like saying that the Queen of England rules India because she's de facto the Empress of India. Decision wise, Munster, Leinster etc make more sense as formable Kingdoms if there are 2/3 territories per kingdom. That would make more sense.

Provinces such as Mide, make no sense in the current form. The King of England only really had direct influence within the territories surrounding Dublin (the Pale). Outside, the Fitzgeralds of Kildare were a formidable power within Ireland in the 15th century. The Butlers of Ormonde, Earl of Desmond and other Anglo-Normans were powerful players within English politics. They supported pretenders to the English throne and they expanded their power bases independent of the English Crown.

There are quite a few 'Uncrowned Kings of Ireland' in history. It would be a nice addition if one could play as an Anglo-Norman Lord in Ireland just as it would be great if the Isle of Mann was a vassal of England.

(I'd also love to see the Jersey Islands in game considering they were a huge bone of contention between the English and the French for centuries.)

I'd also like to see a Great Britain formation that makes sense. Perhaps even a vassal PU, Lordship of Ireland.

 

[IHateThisCo]

Then maybe give the celts a minimum autonomy to represent the lack of control over the province. Until one of them actually unites Ireland, or reforms some other way.

 

[MetaAdInfinitum]

It's arguable. Look at the maps; as early as 800 and 900, there were clear understandings of the general alignment of tribes into various Kingships. Ulster, Connacht, Laigin and Munster are largest and most consistent. The legends of Ireland divide the Kingship between these 4 Kingdoms/Provinces and Mide where the High King resides; The Cattle Raid of Cooley even references this division. This is tradition and it suits the present foundation of Ireland. The power of these kings were not centralized at the beginning of the game, sure. But neither were the lords of France or even England. The Map design better suits later Europe and what the world would become by the second half of the grand campaign.

The kind of game play you're looking for definitely seems more suited to the CK way of doing things. EU is a map game where you're assuming control of a state, rather than a powerful family. States as atomic entities in 1450 is anachronistic, sure, but that's the premise of the game. One Irish OPM is about as good as any other. Having Hiberno-Norman (Accepted Culture Gaelic) vs. Gaelic (Accepted Culture Hiberno-Norman) just doesn't seem like that big a difference in the EU mechanics that it wouldn't be worth merging them.

So I guess my argument is; you're right that the 4 OPM plus English Meath isn't an accurate representation of Ireland, but it is fair abstraction for the purposes of the game of EU. EU isn't a political intrigue simulator (which CK arguably is), it's more grand strategy game. This assumes you're standing in the position of state. States as entities didn't exist back then so it's a necessary abstraction. Low Centralization as IHateThisCo cites is probably a fair way of representing this. Having Hiberno-Normans represented in Ideas/Events/Decisions would be pretty cool, I think. Maybe a decision/mission to help the 14 Tribes turn Galway into a CoT? Still, I think that's the best that one can do in the confines of EU as it operates. And while it's a little anachronistic in that sense, I don't mind because it's the spirit of EU and sometimes I'm not in the mood for CKII style patriarchal family power brokering (which would be far closer to the tone of any accurate Irish political simulator of that era).

That said, a mod that extended CKII into the Renaissance (and beyond even) would be fascinating. I'd love to see how players might adjust to the changes of modernization, the rise of the middle class (and bought nobility) and even the rise of anti-Monarchy ideologies. I suspect there are many reasons that this project wouldn't be feasible but I can dream.

 

[ghengilhar]

I think currently Welsh should be in the British group. Then, divide Scottish into Lowland and Highland Scots. Place Irish and Highland Scots in the Celtic group while Lowland Scots in the British group.

I think it's the best we can do at the moment. Oh and add one or two more provinces in Scotland. Bam, that's my solution

The thing is, anyone who remember the very first version of EU3 will tell you highlander and lowlander used to be a thing, hell even up to DW scottish was known as lowland_scottish in the text files.

The reason why this was taken out was two fold. One, to allow Scotland to form Great Britain on their own. Two, the tax base was just too low and Scotland quickly got it's ass handed to it or worse, the highlands would rebel and join Ulster!

I think the next expansion should possibly look at the province set up for UK, Ireland and France. Most of these provinces have hardly been touched since EU3, one of the provinces (Ayrshire) still has a typo carried over from the EU3 text files!

 

[quinntan2222]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rge-celtic-with-british.863905/#post-19497047
Wiz already addressed this. We'll probably get more provinces in Ireland and a Highland Scottish culture while Welsh will be moved to the British group.

 

[MetaAdInfinitum]

Thanks for the link!

I'm still really disappointed by the Breton->French move but this is some consolation.

The reason why this was taken out was two fold. One, to allow Scotland to form Great Britain on their own. Two, the tax base was just too low and Scotland quickly got it's ass handed to it or worse, the highlands would rebel and join Ulster!

I figured this was the case, even if I do feel it is a bit of injustice. Though honestly, I think it could be represented fine by just making all of Scotland into members of the Celtic cultural group and allowing a British Culture emerge there by event to make conquering England easier or to ease assimilation by the English. The south was definitely culturally mixed but so were Nantes and Dublin which (until recently in EU) have been Celtic.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

The problem would be better solved through some kind of appropriate change to how accepted cultures work a bit, not the destruction of the celtic culture group, The scottish were rowdy, so were the welsh, although not as often and the irish often joined scottish rebellions or vice versa. I would like to see you telling members of those local national parties to these regions that they are part of the british culture group. The trouble with this suggestion is that Celtic is too different to English, The genetics are different, the language is different and the culture is still different, even today where they have become a hybrid culture half based on local customs, half on Britishness.

 

[Bas Agus Buaidh]

Have to admit, I haven't read the whole thread, therefore I don't know if this has been suggested.

I think Scottish, Irish, Welsh and Breton should start the game as Celtic, with English on its own. Then, if someone forms great Britain, all cultures under majority control of that nation should then be switched from Celtic to British, but only as minor culture (yellow, not sure if that even exists anymore). If, however, Britain is formed as part of a personal union, both cultures become accepted cultures. Other Celtic cultures remain as minor. This would simulate the reality whereby the Scottish king became the king of England, and a new nation was eventuallly formed, through the majority acceptance of both nations. However, it is possible that historically England and a fully formed Ireland may have done the same, or indeed Scotland and Ireland.

The fact that Scotland is so weak, is something I should really make a post about in suggestions...

 

[quinntan2222]

Have to admit, I haven't read the whole thread, therefore I don't know if this has been suggested.

Scotland wasn't really Celtic though, other than the Highland clans who didn't have the majority of the power. Makes more sense to have Lowlander and Highlander. I agree that Scotland could use a bit of buff though.

 

[Bas Agus Buaidh]

Scotland wasn't really Celtic though, other than the Highland clans who didn't have the majority of the power. Makes more sense to have Lowlander and Highlander. I agree that Scotland could use a bit of buff though.

I'm not sure I agree. I'm no history expert, and I'd gladly submit to an expert opinion, but I would contend that the majority population of Scotland at the time was both Celtic and Gaelic speaking.

 

[MetaAdInfinitum]

Scotland wasn't really Celtic though, other than the Highland clans who didn't have the majority of the power. Makes more sense to have Lowlander and Highlander. I agree that Scotland could use a bit of buff though.

That's unclear to me, especially at game start. Scotland was a heavily mixed nation in its courts, but the Kings and nobles knew Gaelic. English and Normans were a presence, so calling it Celtic is a stretch too at game start. However, calling it British is just as dicey if not more so. The great majority of Scotland spoke Gaelic at game start; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic#/media/File:Gaelic1400Loch.png. The only shift is that Lothian (which happens to house the capital) spoke mostly English and Norman French.

I mean, I could give the same argument that the game begins with England under Norman speaking nobles to put them into the French group.

Relying on Court languages doesn't make sense strictly; French and German were commonly used in Russian courts but I'd hardly say they were French with Russian as an accepted Culture. In absense of that, I'd go with how the courts identified themselves; which (at game start) would be closer to the Irish (with whom Bruce had only recently attempted to merge into Greater Scotia) and further from the English (Whom, until the Stuarts, were bitter enemies).

Edit: @Bas Agus Buaidh: Nice username. I am only learning Gaelic but I am curious about the origin of your user name. I can guess at the exact translation, but "Death and Victory" sounds odd without context. Could you PM me the story there?

 

[Bas Agus Buaidh]

I think language is an indicator as to what the culture of a specific province is, though I think it's secondary to the issue in this regard. Assuming all current Scottish territory is Scottish territory in 1444, the Scottish culture was far more akin to the traditional Celtic, than that of this artificial 'British'. As we all know, British did not exist until 1707.

The issue, is that there needs to be more fluidity in culture, and I believe this is an issue across the (EU4) planet.

As I previously suggested, I believe that Scottish should be included in the Celtic group. I think English should have their own group...Anglo-Saxon. I also feel that British should be a creatable group of cultures based on cores, and also (importantly) autonomy, at the time of creation of Great Britain.

Also, it really bugs me that colonies are the culture of whichever the dominant culture is within the UK. I think the colonies should be a seperate culture, 'British'. In the same way that if Spain creates colonies, they are 'Spanish', not Castilian.

 

[quinntan2222]

I'm not sure I agree. I'm no history expert, and I'd gladly submit to an expert opinion, but I would contend that the majority population of Scotland at the time was both Celtic and Gaelic speaking.

Here's a quote from a contemporary text outlining the differences in culture and language of the Lowlanders and Highlanders. The Lowlanders were the dominant culture in Scotland until the Victorian age when Highland culture became appropriated and all of Scotland wanted to be associated with the Celtic "noble savage" ideal.

The character of the Scots however varies according to the difference in language. For they have two languages, namely the Scottish language (lingua Scotica) and the Teutonic language (lingua Theutonica). The people who speak the Teutonic language occupy the coastal and lowland regions, while those who speak the Scottish language live in the mountainous regions and outer isles. The coastal people (maritima gens) are docile and civilised, trustworthy, long-suffering and courteous, decent in their dress, polite and peaceable, devout in their worship, but always ready to resist injuries threatened by their enemies. The island or mountain people (insulana sive montana gens) however are fierce and untameable, uncouth andunpleasant, much given to theft, fond of doing nothing, but their minds are quick to learn, and cunning. They are strikingly handsome in appearance, but their clothing is unsightly. They are always hostile and savage not only towards the people and language of England, but also towards their fellow Scots (proprie nacioni) because of the difference in language. They are however loyal and obedient to the king and kingdom, and they are easily made to submit to the laws, if rule is exerted over them.

In regards to the map, the thing is that the yellow section contained the majority of the population. It's not perfect, but here's a map of the current population density of Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demog...sity_map_in_Scotland_from_the_2011_census.png All the major cities, i.e. Edinburgh, Glassglow, Aberdeen, Dundee, etc. lie in the Lowlander area.

 

[Bas Agus Buaidh]

Here's a quote from a contemporary text outlining the differences in culture and language of the Lowlanders and Highlanders. The Lowlanders were the dominant culture in Scotland until the Victorian age when Highland culture became appropriated and all of Scotland wanted to be associated with the Celtic "noble savage" ideal.



In regards to the map, the thing is that the yellow section contained the majority of the population. It's not perfect, but here's a map of the current population density of Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demog...sity_map_in_Scotland_from_the_2011_census.png All the major cities, i.e. Edinburgh, Glassglow, Aberdeen, Dundee, etc. lie in the Lowlander area.

Your quote indeed highlights the change in culture over this period in all but the highlands and islands. Indeed, I would accept that there may have been an Anglisisation of the lowland Scots, and indeed a modernisation. However, it doesn't represnt a change in culture towards Britishness, as no such thing existed.

Perhaps then, there should be two Scottish cultures, Lowland and Highland. Lowland could become part of British should it be created (but never part of the same group as English before that), and Highland which remains Celtic like the Irish.

 

[MetaAdInfinitum]

My contention is that you could say the same about the Irish; the Pale was home to several of the largest cities and those in the West had a strong and well ingrained Norman Aristocracy. Further, cities were not as large then as now; much of the power even as late as the Napoleonic era rested in the hands of landed aristocracy who fought bitterly to keep it from the Burghers. The wide distribution of Gaelic speaks to the influence of the language over Scotland at the time, even if many Lords were Norman themselves they would likely know and speak Gaelic with their tenants, even if French (later English) was the language of their courts.

In terms of Rebellion risk; I'd say the Irish were more likely to identify with Scots and Scots (including Lowlanders) were inclined to resist English rule up and until the peaceful Union of States and even then maintained a reputation for rebelliousness.

 

[Macsen]

This again... at a time when Paradox is adding new cultures to the game e.g. Germany and Italy it could be considered perverse to remove the cultural identities in Ynys Prydein (Britain in English). The Welsh are not the same culture as the English now or in the past, yes after an extremely prolonged period of living and dying with each other we have many similarities but to represent both in the same cultural group in 1444 would be a gross distortion of history.

Wales had had a series of uprisings in living memory of the games start and effective independence for years something which was never represented in previous games 1400 start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owain_Glyndŵr

I get that game mechanics often come before realism, and how England plays is important to Paradox because so many people play them but this is a dreadful idea, historically inaccurate and would probably even make playing as England more bland. I hope this thread and ones like it aren't due to English nationalism but English nationalists want to turn everything "British" at the moment, the revision of history is usually a place to start.

A more accurate/interesting solution would be along these lines:

Brythonic/Briton: Welsh/Cornish/Breton
Gaelic: Irish/Highland Scots
Anglo (or Anglo Saxon/British): English/Lowland Scots/American (United Statesian)

And give Scotland and British Empire national decisions to make certain cultures not within their culture group accepted.

i.e. Scotland - Highland Scots.
British Empire - Cornish/Welsh/Highland Scots.

 

[Bas Agus Buaidh]

I think we all agree the current system is inadequate. Whatever the starting cultures, I still believe that 'British' shouldn't exist until Great Britain is formed. The cultures therein at the time are determined organically.

 

[MetaAdInfinitum]

Brythonic/Briton: Welsh/Cornish/Breton
Gaelic: Irish/Highland Scots
Anglo (or Anglo Saxon/British): English/Lowland Scots/American (United Statesian)

I could not agree more; I'd argue that Gaelic and Briton Cultures could fit under the wider "Celtic Banner" since it is a small cultural group as it is and I like playing Ireland-Brittany games. Certainly the two are distinct, but I think we could do for a boost and I think there could be some case made for wider Celtic solidarity having had a place in historic resistance to English rule.

I think we all agree the current system is inadequate. Whatever the starting cultures, I still believe that 'British' shouldn't exist until Great Britain is formed. The cultures therein at the time are determined organically.

I'd agree, but I can kind of understand the appeal of calling Lowland Scots "British" in place of "Anglo" and/or "Saxon".

 

[Bas Agus Buaidh]

I'd agree, but I can kind of understand the appeal of calling Lowland Scots "British" in place of "Anglo" and/or "Saxon".

I'd be interested to hear your justification for that. The Scottish population to this day, do not identify with the English [1]. Whether they had become Anglicised (read Westernised), is pertinent, yet not a reason for including Scottish in a British culture that shouldn't exist.

 

[MetaAdInfinitum]

I think you might have misread me or I was unclear; I meant that I can understand why Paradox would prefer to have Scots placed in the "British" cultural group rather than ne named "Anglo" or "Anglo Saxon" that Macsen recommended, even if the term "British" is doesn't make sense prior to Great Britain's formation.

It is difficult to think of an umbrella term for English and Lowland Scots cultures that is both common and doesn't threaten to lump Lowlanders in as a subculture of English. I think "British" does an okay job at this and thus I understand why Paradox uses it for the Scots-English-American Cultural group.