Merging Celtic with British?

[Bas Agus Buaidh]

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.

Perhaps I did misread, and I hope I didn't come across as belligerent. I just wanted to know your reasoning for grouping Scots with English historically. I apologise if I replied in such a way as to make you feel I was trying to start an argument. I sincerely wasn't. As your point was a devil's advocate position in terms of why Paradox would do so, clearly the issue is with the game itself.

I feel, personally, that culture is too static. As I have prevously stated, I think 'British' should be a creatable culture (group). Whether Highland and Lowland Scots are differentiated (as I feel they should be) or not, I think as a whole, they shouldn't be grouped with English, especially in 1444.

 

[quinntan2222]

What about Anglo-Saxon for the culture group? That's the group both the English and Lowland Scots are derived from. Though British doesn't really seem bad to me, the whole island is Great Britain. The name Britain isn't an English invention, it's origins are Greek named after a tribe supposedly living there and Britannia was the name of the Roman province that encompassed England but it referred to the whole island as well.

 

[MetaAdInfinitum]

Briton at the time was used mainly by and for the Welsh, who were supposedly descended from that tribe (more or less). So calling English and Scots British but not Welsh or Corns is rather ironic.

That said, as above, I think British is inoffensive as a term. Out of place early in the campaign, sure, but a relatively politically neutral way to group Lowland Scots and English which is hard to do.

As to grouping;

Well, I imagine if the Lowland Scots had a cultural group, it would likely share a cultural group with the English due to linguistic similarities (Gaelic- Highland, Irish, British- Lowland, English). The lowlanders certainly didn't think of themselves as English but shared more similarities with the English to the south and were less inclined to rebellion than their Gaelic speaking countrymen. Also inclined to conflict with their Gaelic countrymen.

I'd rather see it all as a single "Scottish" Culture for the sake of their survivability against English.

Looking at it from a game play angle, my intuition is that a "Celtic-Scottish" Culture might be best;

1. A unified cultured Scotland has a chance of defending against the English.
2. Lowlands more likely to rebel against English rule, which doesn't seem implausible at all. Where currently, it's an accepted Culture about as likely to rebel as Picards from the French.
3. The possibility to reform into a specific "British- Lowlands" Culture after forming Great Britain and/or PUing England with other territories becoming "Celtic-Highlands" doesn't seem too difficult to write as an event. The event doesn't have to portray this as a new Culture, so much as a deepened national divide due to new distance from the Highland Lords.

The latter could lead to fun events where your former Hebridean Isles opt to try to flee away to Ireland or just break free once you undergo the shift, which would make sense.

 

[quinntan2222]

French, Flemish and particularly English became the main language of Scottish burghs, most of which were located in the south and east, an area to which Anglian settlers had already brought a form of Old English. In the later part of the twelfth century, the writer Adam of Dryburgh described lowland Lothian as "the Land of the English in the Kingdom of the Scots".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic#The_Eclipse_of_Gaelic_in_Scotland

Lowlanders were already getting lumped in with the English by the twelfth century. By the late middle ages, Scots, called English at the time, was the dominant language of the kingdom with all governmental records being written in Scots since the reign of James I, the father of the king at the start of the game. James IV c. 1488-1513 was the last king to even speak Gaelic. Gaelic culture was definitely on the way out in Scotland in 1444. The Gaelic culture also started to be known as Irish rather than Scottish since the English speaking Lowlanders usurped the Scottish identity.

It would be cool though if highlander is added though to add a special decision for Scotland to embrace their Gaelic roots though since it was at the tail end of a large cultural shift, letting it culture shift to highlander for free or a reduced cost and maybe giving alternative ideas. If not, perhaps adding the Western Isles as a vassal, since the vassal did revolt in 1420s and there was an attempted revolt during the War of the Roses.

 

[Bas Agus Buaidh]

Consider this:

Lothian, Ayrshire, Fife and Aberdeen are 'Lowland Scots'. Highland and Western Isles are 'Highland Scots', with poor tax and production, but high manpower (for gameyness, not reality). The main Scottish culture is lowland, but highland is an accepted culture. Lowland is part of the wider 'Brittanic' group, of which English is the main culture. Highland is part of the Celtic group.

If the English conquer (which should be significantly harder than it is), they should have high autonomy in the lowland provinces, and very high unrest/seperatism in the highland provinces. Should there be a vassalship, or indeed a personal union (Scotlands! ), those specific provinces should become the main cultures in a new group called 'British'.

However, as I've mentioned before, the 'British' culture group is created as and when Great Britain itself is created. The highland Scots should likely remain rebellious.

 

[Bas Agus Buaidh]

It would be cool though if highlander is added though to add a special decision for Scotland to embrace their Gaelic roots though since it was at the tail end of a large cultural shift, letting it culture shift to highlander for free or a reduced cost and maybe giving alternative ideas. If not, perhaps adding the Western Isles as a vassal, since the vassal did revolt in 1420s and there was an attempted revolt during the War of the Roses.

Perhaps, as I mentioned, Lothian, Ayrshire, Fife and Aberdeen could start as Lowland. There could then be a random events:

Who do you love:

Extended yer boabie:
Tax Mod +5%
Royal Marriage with England

**** yer England:
Manpower +5%
England dislike -50

 

[quinntan2222]

But why add special mechanics to separate the Lowlanders from the English? They're both derived from the same people, the Anglo-saxons, speak the same language, English, and both historically went Protestant while the Highlands and Ireland stayed more Catholic. The Dutch obviously wouldn't consider themselves Rhenish but they're both in the same group due to shared language and culture. I don't really see why it would be different for the Lowlanders and English.

Separating English and Scottish culturally will also make it more difficult for Scotland to hold onto any land it gets from England which can help balance the power a bit.

I could maybe see England getting events that spawn rebels in lowlander and highlander cultured provinces if they conquer Scotland rather than PU it.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Splitting Celtic back off would make more sense historically, you still today have a general resentment towards a feeling of English overlordship, All 4 of the Celtic nations have actually taken part in numerous uprisings and unruliness against the English, later British rule. A couple of people have argued that there is no real cultural difference these days but that certainly isnt true, these places all cling onto their celtic roots with a lot of force. Their histories have run quite tangentially to England, most of which are fairly cut off from the centralised government traditionally lead from somewhere in the south east of England. Even while being part of Great Britain, these nations tended to act much differently to the way England has.

Realistically they need to change how accepted cultures work a little bit but on a more easily acheivable level they should split england into Northern and Southern English because they are very different cultures in themselves, then build back the Celtic nations of Wales Cornwall Scotland and Ireland. Then depending on how that works out add some kind of event a little bit like The English Melting Pot event from CK2, but instead of changing culture, it should specifically give more cultural acceptance to Celtic nations.

Here are some major examples why they shouldnt merge Celtic and British, let alone actual cultural differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_Rebellion_of_1497
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_uprisings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_risings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Scottish_Independence (not in timeframe)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyndŵr_Rising (again not in timeline but very relevent to early timeline)

 

[Hodge_Hodgson]

On a side note credit to the people on this forum, I'm friends with a number of Irish, Welsh and Scots and a sizeable minority of discussions on British history turn heated in short order! A await the arrival of a nationalist troll

 

[RyanX]

If there's an achievement for forming GB as Ireland, it stands to reason GB should also be an Irish cultural union. Though technically they were different cultures, it could boost the AI's will to conquer Ireland or Wales/Cornwall if released.

 

[Wizzington]

Welsh could be merged with British, but Irish wouldn't make much sense, so depends on whether we can also expand Irish culture and/or add a Gaelic highlands culture.

 

[User29]

Welsh could be merged with British, but Irish wouldn't make much sense, so depends on whether we can also expand Irish culture and/or add a Gaelic highlands culture.

I think with all the Irish revolt events it wouldn't matter much if they were in the group, really they never revolt outside of those events anyway after they're cored.

 

[Daema]

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

Just about sums up this thread. Moving Basque into Spanish and Breton into French were mistakes IMO. It's inaccurate, and a case of 'the cure is worse than the disease'. For Breton, there's a decent argument to be made that it became 'French' over the time period, but there's no excuse for Basque. Besides, the effects of a culture not being accepted aren't significant enough to warrant fudging up the culture groups. I'd rather see those cultures disappear and head-canon it as losing their native language than fudging history to cover flawed game mechanics.

EU3's culture flipping was much more accurate: random, but with an increased chance if you sent a colonist. That would work even better now that colonists aren't simply a resource to be spent. Bring that back and you've solved the first half of the problem.

Second, split up the culture groups into single cultures, and make 'culture group' an attribute that can be changed in (very) specific circumstances, such as whether you annexed the culture by force or diplomacy, length of time controlling the entire culture, and 'physical' proximity. Maybe limit it even further than that, since it only actually happened to a handful of cultures.

The problem of disappearing cultures is caused by the flawed on-demand culture conversion mechanic and static culture groups, i.e. simplification. More simplification is the wrong answer.

 

[Lamahorse]

Ireland was England's back door. It too until Tudor times for England to fully subjugate Ireland.

The Fitzgeralds of Kildare and Butlers of Desmond should be added into Ireland. The Duke of Kildare at the game start was nicknamed the Uncrowned King of Ireland.

 

[kieran93]

Perhaps a better name for the culture group would be 'Insular'? That way it removes reference to 'Britain' 'British' etc which really seems to irritate Celtic romantic nationalists.

 

[talilu]

Ireland definitely needs MUCH more provinces to represent the situation back then, 5 provinces just aren't enough. If Beyond the Pale mod did the most accurate representation of Ireland, then seems like Ireland is missing some 15 minors and 2 cultures...

 

[Lamahorse]

The Norman Lords of Ireland at this point were the descendants of the Normans that settled in Wales.

More correctly, any Pale province would be Old English culture. They might have spoke some form of Middle English but in their carry on; they were very irish.

 

[Mudcrab]

Along with a province overhaul to the british isles.

Well said. For example, Devon is as English as fish and chips or George Formby but is included in Cornwall province in-game. Check out the origins of the Devon flag to see the acrimonious origins of it. Discolosure: I'm a Devon native who lives a (long) stone's throw away from the Cornish villains across the river Tamar. "The South West" would look better as a compromise if these two provinces aren't to be separated (and they should be).

Also: Welsh, my arse. *rolleyes*

 

[Daema]

Perhaps a better name for the culture group would be 'Insular'? That way it removes reference to 'Britain' 'British' etc which really seems to irritate Celtic romantic nationalists.

It's not the name that's the problem, it's the fact that it would be wrong. The Lowland Scots and the English (as 'nations'/cultures, not genetically) are Germanic cultures with Germanic languages. If you were going to do anything with the 'Celtic' group it should be to split it into Gaelic (Irish, Highland Scottish and Manx) and Brittonic (Welsh, Breton, Cornish).

 

[Mudcrab]

... Brittonic (Welsh, Breton, Cornish).

Yes yes and yes. o7