-
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.
Wends
One of the more funnyaspects of including wends is that they are a part of the Swedish Kingdom. The Swedish King is refered to as "the King of Swedes, Gots and Wends", The Swedes ("Svear")being around Stockholm area and north, the Gots (actually "Götar") in southern sweden and parts of danemark, and the wends ("vender") i prussia. These are the people behind the three crowns in the swedish insignina, and this was the official title for the swedish kings during the middleages.
One of the more funnyaspects of including wends is that they are a part of the Swedish Kingdom. The Swedish King is refered to as "the King of Swedes, Gots and Wends", The Swedes ("Svear")being around Stockholm area and north, the Gots (actually "Götar") in southern sweden and parts of danemark, and the wends ("vender") i prussia. These are the people behind the three crowns in the swedish insignina, and this was the official title for the swedish kings during the middleages.
Semi-Lobster said:
Yes but Polabian is name for a specific slavic tribe which lived only in Meckelnburg and Brandenburg. In Pomerania we had Pomeranians who were a separate slavic tribes and in Lausatia we had Sorbish people who were also separate and the only remaing tribe with about 30-60 thousand people remaining to this day.
Alexandre said:
Again - Vlach and Wallachian are the same thing.
Tzar Kalojan said:Finellach, I just saw your culture map
very well done
Thank you.
Quift said:
I think you got something wrong. Sweden never ruled Prussia nor over Prussia. Denmark ruled over Pomerania and parts of Mecklenburg where Wends did live. As did Sweden at later point.
Last edited:
Finellach said:
Repeating an error doesn't make it true. The Vlachs are Romance speaking peoples who inhabit various parts of the Balkans proper. A Wallachian is an inhabitant of the Wallachia, the south-eastern part of Romania. The Vlach languages (there are several different ones in different parts of the Balkans) are related to, but are distinct from Romanian.
Take a look at the various Romani* languages listed here: http://www.rosettaproject.org/live/...result?searchtype=countries&searchkey=Romania
If you want more details on Romanian and the various Vlach languages, you can look at the following:
Romanian: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=RUM
Aromanian: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=RUP
Istro-Romanian: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=RUO
Meglenetic: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=RUQ
Vlach is inappropriate in naming the culture because:
1) It refers to speakers of the non-Romanian East Latin languages, while the provinces that will get the designated culture will exclusively be the ones populated by the Romanian-speakers.
2) The population that will be designated by the term refered to themselves as Roman(ian) during the time period in question
3) Mirroring the name used in EUII, eliminates unnecessary confusion.
Alexandre
Alexandre said:
Vlach and Wallachian are the same thing. The province of Wallachia got itself a name by the Vlachs or Wlachs(Wallachs). All latin-speaking people were regarded as Wlachs, but in this case it refers to Vlachs of Wallachia or ancestors of modern day Romanians. All other Vlach populations such as Aromanians and other were too small and were under heavy assimilation and are not worthy to be represented on the map.
I know very well what are the various Vlach or Wallachian languages, but I don't know what are you trying to say because you don't make a sense.
Eh? It refers to Vlachs, people who lived in Wallachia and gave a name to the province. What do you think how did Wallachia got its name? Lottery?
Romanian is modern day term thus you are incorrect.
Greeks refered to themselves as Romans yet it doesn't make it right, doesn't it?
Again -
1.Vlach is abosolutly appropriate for this time period
2. Vlach or Wallachian are the same thing
Finellach said:
The same way that Wales, Valais and Wallonia got their names -- from the Germanic root word for foreigner. Etymologically, Wallachia means "land of the foreigners", hardly the name that the locals would use to describe themselves
Thus, once again, you are wrong. Wallachia always refered to itself as Tara Româneasca, litterally "the Roman(ian) land" and Moldavia was often refered to as "the other Roman(ian) land" (though Moldavia was also used. For a modern comparison, I'd point to how interchangable US and America (at least in the US) are.)
Shrug. There was no break in state continuity from Augustus till the sack of Constantinople. It would surprise me if they hadn't refered to themselves as Romans.
No it isn't. The appropriate word for the East Latin population north of the Danube at this time is Romanian, as exemplified by the name of Tara Româneasca.
No, they aren't. Vlach refers to the speakers of the East Latin dialects in the Balkans proper (e.g., the mountains south of the Danube). Romanian refers to the speakers of the East Latin dialect in the Caprathians (e.g., Romania and Moldova). The Slavic invasions just before the CK time period effectively split the East Latins into two groups, so what you're doing is exactly the same as saying that the Breton are Welsh. Sure, they are related, but they *are not* the same, and renaming the Bretons Welsh because "there was a kingdom of Wales" is just as inacurate as what you're trying to do here.
[This isn't a flame] Instead of just posting an undocumented rebutal like your last one, may I suggest that you check a couple of sources. It doesn't have to be any huge research project. Look at a couple of entries in a decent encyclopedia, do a couple of google searches or something like that. I have no doubt that doing some minimal research will show you that you were mistaken since the two terms are used to refer to different populations.
Alexandre
Swedish Wends
Well, they were never technically part of sweden. But the swedish king (Swedish early medieaval history is a bit blury) aquiered a claim by marriage on the title by marriage. Wasn't able to enforce it, but did, very much like in the game, carry the claim in his title for v_e_r_y long...
As I said, it was part of the kingdom of sweden title, not actual lands. Whereas Finland was the opposite. Question of de jure contra de facto...
Well, they were never technically part of sweden. But the swedish king (Swedish early medieaval history is a bit blury) aquiered a claim by marriage on the title by marriage. Wasn't able to enforce it, but did, very much like in the game, carry the claim in his title for v_e_r_y long...
As I said, it was part of the kingdom of sweden title, not actual lands. Whereas Finland was the opposite. Question of de jure contra de facto...
Indeed. The king of Denmark claimed the titles "King of the Goths" and "King of the Wends" as well, dating back from the Danish conquest of Gotland in 1361 and the campaign against Rügen in the late 12th century, respectively.Quift said:
Maybe this is doesn't have anything to do with any of the other things you're discussing right now, (because I haven't really been active in this thread resently). But I need help with this:
Can you change the culture converting when you convert from Crusader Kings to Europa Universalis II. When you change the culture tags, it gets really weird after the conversion, with peoples in the wrong place and so on.
So can you change this?
Make them change to another culture.
I've been searching in the db files (the CK ones), and didn't find anything.
And I realized, you maybe will need a Ukrainian culture, because it's kind of inaccurate to call them all Russians. Even if they were, and are very similar to each other, they had differences.
Can you change the culture converting when you convert from Crusader Kings to Europa Universalis II. When you change the culture tags, it gets really weird after the conversion, with peoples in the wrong place and so on.
So can you change this?
Make them change to another culture.
I've been searching in the db files (the CK ones), and didn't find anything.
And I realized, you maybe will need a Ukrainian culture, because it's kind of inaccurate to call them all Russians. Even if they were, and are very similar to each other, they had differences.
In the middle ages, many people effectively had two identities, a political identity and a cultural one. Over time the cultural identities and the political one gradually coelesced into a single national culture.
For instance a Byzatine citizen might be both a Greek and a Roman at the same time, a dual identity or a Bulgarian and a Roman or a Serb and a Roman and so on. Cultural identity tended to be based upon common cultural and historical "ethnic" identity and political identity upon political situation and loyalty to princes, dynasties and in some cases independant cities (ie Venice).
For instance a Byzatine citizen might be both a Greek and a Roman at the same time, a dual identity or a Bulgarian and a Roman or a Serb and a Roman and so on. Cultural identity tended to be based upon common cultural and historical "ethnic" identity and political identity upon political situation and loyalty to princes, dynasties and in some cases independant cities (ie Venice).
King of Skåne said:
No we can't do that. Sorry. You must keep everything as in vanilla setup to make conversion to EU2 correct.
No we won't need it because as you can see on the culture map culture in "Russia" is actually a 'Rus' culture. So the culture will simply be renamed to 'Rus'. Besides the terms like Ukranian, Belorussian, Russian-Muscovite, etc all came after the CK time frame.
Alexandre said:
Inccorrect. Wlach is a term for latin speaking romanized oriented populations. We all know that Celts were pretty much romanized by the arrivial of Germanic tribes so they sometimes refered to Celts as Wlachs(Vlachs).
Again....I don't care how they refered to themselves. Greeks called themselves Romans yet we all know they were Greeks.
Exactly, so there you go.
I don't agree as pointed out several times now. I don't know what are you trying to achieve with repeating the same things when it's clear and I emphasized that I find this incorrect.
Again you are wrong. Don't know where you get this disinformation but this is not correct. All Latin speaking people were called Vlach(Wlachs/Wallachians including Italians) not just "for those south of Danube". But the common practice was that Wlachs lived in Wallachia(hence the name) and you can see it on all historical maps.
I know very well my sources. I suggest if you have anything else to tell me to do so via private messagging to spare this thread another mindless flame. Thank you.
P.S. btw. you can always change Wlach/Wallachian into Romanian for your own need once I get my mod online, but it will never be acceppted by me in my "official" version....you must know this.
Finellach said:
Just one final comment: Your failure to provide any sources, while I have linked to several, shows on whose side the scholarship is. Of course, your mod isn't going to be peer-reviewed by historians or linguists, and you have the right to redefine words, but IMHO mods are stronger when they try to remain accurate.
And, FWIW, I don't think that either one of us flamed the other.
Alexandre
I think all this debate is wonderful.... and can not wait to download the updates. It is debate that will ensure a foundation in history while we take our dynasties to fantastic reaches!
Alexander, is there a way we might get an update on all the cultures that are to be coded and deleted? I am courious to know if you have decided to retain a seperate Breton culture (compelate with Breton names) and a seperate Welsh culture as well.
Thanx!
Alexander, is there a way we might get an update on all the cultures that are to be coded and deleted? I am courious to know if you have decided to retain a seperate Breton culture (compelate with Breton names) and a seperate Welsh culture as well.
Thanx!
A seperate Breton culture would have messed up the tech spread and make Brittany lag behind the rest of Gaul so we use a seperate Breton culture. It's more of a game mechanics problem then any real linguistic or cultural difference
My understanding was that the consensus was in favor of a seperate Breton culture, using the free Celtic tag.... despite any implications that might have on game play, it's historically justified, *and* Brittany is already represented as a seperate culture from France in EU2...
Alexandre , I couldn't quite understand what is the difference between Vlachs and Wallachians. I personally think they are one and the same.
off-topic:
Finellach , when is your mod coming out ?
off-topic:
Finellach , when is your mod coming out ?
Yakman said:
No you can't!
Flemish aren't french and they don't speak french.
(just making sure everyone knows this)
Tzar Kalojan said:
A more western analogy would be calling all Spaniards "Venetian". Sure, the Italian spoken in Venice is closely related to Spanish, but they aren't the same language, nor the same people. The difference, of course, is that in CK one would represent both Italian and Spanish cultures so there'd actually be a province whose inhabitants are called Venetians with Venetian culture. In contrast, the Vlachs are/were a minority in the provinces that they inhabited, so Vlach culture will exclusively be used in non-Vlach provinces.
To about the same extent as Italians and Spaniards or the Breton and Welsh or Russiand and Polish are one and the same.
Alexandre
ROMANIANS are not slavs
I firmly oppose the ideea of the "south slavic" culture...in my oppinion the south slavs should be considered as serbs and bosnian...I think they should not be confused with the bulgarians OR teh Romanian...I need to mention the very importatnt fact that the romanians are not of slavic origin...they emerged out of a combinations of dacians(which are part of the thracian branch of indo-europeens) and the romans, who conguered Dacia in 101-102 and 106-107, under Emperor Trajan...The romans remained theree for about 150, when Emperor Aurelius sounded the retreat... after that the land was plagued by the barbarians invaders...it is true that some slav cultures tried to estblish states on romanian land but they were absorbed by the natives...it is so that the romanian branch came into beeing...BUT they are not slaves or south slaves...they speak a romance language (as Fench, Italian, Spanish, Portugese)... in fact the first words in romanian are considered to be "torna, torna, frate" which sounds pretty latin (it means come back, come back, brother ---> english is so germanico ) So PLEASEE make the necesarry arragements so romanians appere as a group --- thei areas of influnce are TUrnu, Severin, Tirgoviste, Birlad, Belogrod, Olvia, Peerchen, Torchi, Maramoros, Sekeycsfold, Feher, Bihar, Temes --- these are relly romenian provinces, they were settled by romanian chiefs but they were slowly conqered bi the hungarians under the huns...I need to mention the fact that the hungarians conveted to christanity in 1000, under king Stephan and after the great Schism in 1054 thay tured Catholic, the Romanians , however, were Orthodox, so the Hungarians didi not allow them to practice their religion, although they made out OVER 85% of the popolation... so I also think thet these provinces shpuld be considered ORTHODOX and not catholic or pagan (during the Cumans) P.S. The Vlach are not pagan and they are not cuman --- They are Orthodox and tey are ROMANIAN
I firmly oppose the ideea of the "south slavic" culture...in my oppinion the south slavs should be considered as serbs and bosnian...I think they should not be confused with the bulgarians OR teh Romanian...I need to mention the very importatnt fact that the romanians are not of slavic origin...they emerged out of a combinations of dacians(which are part of the thracian branch of indo-europeens) and the romans, who conguered Dacia in 101-102 and 106-107, under Emperor Trajan...The romans remained theree for about 150, when Emperor Aurelius sounded the retreat... after that the land was plagued by the barbarians invaders...it is true that some slav cultures tried to estblish states on romanian land but they were absorbed by the natives...it is so that the romanian branch came into beeing...BUT they are not slaves or south slaves...they speak a romance language (as Fench, Italian, Spanish, Portugese)... in fact the first words in romanian are considered to be "torna, torna, frate" which sounds pretty latin (it means come back, come back, brother ---> english is so germanic
o ) So PLEASEE make the necesarry arragements so romanians appere as a group --- thei areas of influnce are TUrnu, Severin, Tirgoviste, Birlad, Belogrod, Olvia, Peerchen, Torchi, Maramoros, Sekeycsfold, Feher, Bihar, Temes --- these are relly romenian provinces, they were settled by romanian chiefs but they were slowly conqered bi the hungarians under the huns...I need to mention the fact that the hungarians conveted to christanity in 1000, under king Stephan and after the great Schism in 1054 thay tured Catholic, the Romanians , however, were Orthodox, so the Hungarians didi not allow them to practice their religion, although they made out OVER 85% of the popolation... so I also think thet these provinces shpuld be considered ORTHODOX and not catholic or pagan (during the Cumans) P.S. The Vlach are not pagan and they are not cuman --- They are Orthodox and tey are ROMANIAN