More Cultures?

[unmerged(31117)]

The Byzantines had horse archers too during the CK time period.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Is it really a good idea to merge Finns, Estonians and Ugric tribes in Russia to Ugric?
Okay it's easy, but isn't it a bit to easy?

I think there should be two kinds of Ugric people atleast, one around the Baltic Sea, and one scattered over Russia to the Ob (river), or the Ural mountains (and of course the Hungarians).
And something else, did all the Ugric peoples at this time (excluding Hungarians) have the same kind or similar names?

I don't think so...

And it's just stupid to merge the Scandinavian peoples. Here's some reasons:
They had cultural differences, even if the languages was similar to each other
They had (and have) clear name differences
It will get to easy to take over and control Scandinavia
Why get rid of historically correct cultures?
And then you will get two free culture tags with Norse, or Viking warriors

I can surely think of more, but you can see what I'm trying to say.

And I can agree to that it looks strange with Arab culture in Spain, so maybe you should have Moors in the game, but isn't there a better option. But then another problem shows up, the Abghazian culture has Turkish warrior.

But the "Ugric question" do need to get solved, I don't know how, but someway.

As I see it there should be either one culture or 100 in Scandinavia. People didn't consider themselves as danes, norwegians and swedes. These borders were political. People considered eachother as scanians, småländare, uppländare, jämtländare, själländare etc. The languages were not really develpoed yet either, sure a person in norway and a person in sweden spoke differently, but so did a person in Jämtland and a person in Bergen. There were many local dialects and a dialect in Sweden near the norwegian border had more in common with the dialect on the other side of the border than a dialect in Uppland. I háve checked the name in CK and most danish, norwegian and swedish names were used in whole Scandinavia not just in the area suggested in the game.

It is also there were many ugric tribes, in Finland, Estonia and Russia. It really doesn't matter if there are two or one ugric culture, but estonia should be ugric, not lettgallish!

 

[unmerged(7924)]

As I see it there should be either one culture or 100 in Scandinavia. People didn't consider themselves as danes, norwegians and swedes. These borders were political. People considered eachother as scanians, småländare, uppländare, jämtländare, själländare etc. The languages were not really develpoed yet either, sure a person in norway and a person in sweden spoke differently, but so did a person in Jämtland and a person in Bergen. There were many local dialects and a dialect in Sweden near the norwegian border had more in common with the dialect on the other side of the border than a dialect in Uppland. I háve checked the name in CK and most danish, norwegian and swedish names were used in whole Scandinavia not just in the area suggested in the game.

It is also there were many ugric tribes, in Finland, Estonia and Russia. It really doesn't matter if there are two or one ugric culture, but estonia should be ugric, not lettgallish!

People are still jämtlanders today, and those others. But they knew who they belonged to. Norway had in 1066 been united for over 200 years, that makes people realise those "outside" are not the same.

French, English, Norman, Italian's got plenty of the same names aswell, like Charles, Karl, or a differrent version of it, like Guillamme and William.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

If there was so many different cultures, then surely ruducing the number of cultures in Scandanavia and combining them is not a good idea. Really though those within a single political border tend to very quickly develop (largely imagined) similarities with oneanother, this is how the national ideal starts, that overshadow regional differences and eventually virtually eliminate them.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

If there's similar (or identical) names present in different cultures - and I would honestly be surprised if there wasn't - this is not an argument in itself for those cultures to be combined. The character names are defined by a moddable list, and this could be fixed by modifying that file, not necessarily by combining the cultures into one.

A lot of names, particularly in the Christian world at the time, were drawn from biblical or historical ources and thus bridged cultural gaps, with perhaps spellings or pronunciations being changed to fit the local language; this is how you wind up with Mary, Marie and Maria, for example.....

 

[unmerged(31117)]

Yes jewish names from biblical times tend to be found all over Europe and would have been found everywhere with the exception of pagan areas.

The point is that cultural identification is what should define culture in the game, all members of the same culture should have a common identity that seperates them from those they consider foreign, Sweden, Norway and Denmark had been around definately long enough for the people of those areas to consider themselves to be a distinct people. The fact that kings that united those areas tended to add their king titles together, ie king of Norway, Sweden and Denmark is significant as is the fact that every time those areas were united they tended to divide themselves up along those lines eventually proves that it was not just mere political reality.

I've read recently that the Bulgers were not actually Slavic in origin but Turkic, descendants of pagan Turks that descended into the area in late antiquity, who subjegated the slavs that already lived there, becoming the ruling class. Over time the two elements coalesced together into a Slav/Turk hybrid that was noneotherless distinct from the pure slavs further west.

The Serbians were hellenised long before the era of the game, introducing the Cyrillic alphabet (named after Cyrillis it's inventor) which was a modified form of the Greek alphabet, changed to suit the Slav tongue(s?). They went on to develop their own distinct culture that was neither truly greek or very close to the original slavs.

The Croatians were probably the closest linguisticly and culturally to the original slav migrants in the time of the game, due to the remoteness of most of Croatia from foreign influences, yes the Croatians did I think use the latin alphabet by the era of the game (the one I'm writing with at the moment), but otherwise had little in common with the semi-hellanized Serbs and the Turkic Bulgers.

The Albanians I know little about except their is a province to the west of Georgia that is called Albania, probably their original place of origin but whether they got to modern Albania through invasion or were (more likely) moved there by some paranoid Byzantine Emporer I do not know. But the fact they would emerge, briefly I must admit from the shadow of centuries of greek domination, means that an Albanian cultural identity must have existed.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Yes jewish names from biblical times tend to be found all over Europe and would have been found everywhere with the exception of pagan areas.

You can hardly call them jewish.

I've read recently that the Bulgers were not actually Slavic in origin but Turkic, descendants of pagan Turks that descended into the area in late antiquity, who subjegated the slavs that already lived there, becoming the ruling class. Over time the two elements coalesced together into a Slav/Turk hybrid that was noneotherless distinct from the pure slavs further west.

Thats outdated theory. More recent and the ones considered more correct are the one of Hunnic origin and Palmyrian origin. In any case original Bulgars were definately not Slavs.

The Serbians were hellenised long before the era of the game, introducing the Cyrillic alphabet (named after Cyrillis it's inventor) which was a modified form of the Greek alphabet, changed to suit the Slav tongue(s?). They went on to develop their own distinct culture that was neither truly greek or very close to the original slavs.

Serbs were not Hellenized.

The Croatians were probably the closest linguisticly and culturally to the original slav migrants in the time of the game, due to the remoteness of most of Croatia from foreign influences, yes the Croatians did I think use the latin alphabet by the era of the game (the one I'm writing with at the moment), but otherwise had little in common with the semi-hellanized Serbs and the Turkic Bulgers.

Actually linguistically and culturally closest to original Slavs are Bulgarians and Macedonians(Macedon Slavs). Croats were also tri-literal but glagolithic script was dominant, but they also wrote in special type of Cyrillic also known as 'Bosnacica', Western Cyrillic or Croatian Cyrillic. Latin was used mainly in communication with Latin and Latinized populations.
Like Bulgars original Croats also weren't originally Slavs but most probably Sarmatians(Iranians). Autochtonous populations(Illyrians) also had very important factor as many of them were assimilated into Croats.

The Albanians I know little about except their is a province to the west of Georgia that is called Albania, probably their original place of origin but whether they got to modern Albania through invasion or were (more likely) moved there by some paranoid Byzantine Emporer I do not know. But the fact they would emerge, briefly I must admit from the shadow of centuries of greek domination, means that an Albanian cultural identity must have existed.

Albanian in Caucaus and modern Albanian except the name don't have nothing in common. Albanian is latin-internationl name for the country meaning 'land of the mountains'. Albanians as I already pointed out are autochtonous populations descendent from the originl Epirotans. If there was not for Ottoman Turks and the fact they introduced Islam they would probably be incorporated into Greek and Serbian nation....similar as the Bosnian Muslims would probably be part of Croatian nation.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

:rofl:

The Albanians are (most likely) the remnants of the Illyrians tribe of the time of the ancient Greeks. The name 'Albania' comes from Arber tribe, or Arbereshë, and later Albanoi, that lived near Durrës. The present-day city of Durrës evolved from a Greek colony known as Epidamnos, which was founded at the end of the seventh century B.C. Another famous Greek colony, Apollonia, arose between Durrës and the port city of Vlorë.

Christianity came to the Illyrian-populated lands in the first century A.D. Saint Paul wrote that he preached in the Roman province of Illyricum, and legend holds that he visited Durrës. When the Roman Empire was divided into eastern and western halves in A.D. 395, the lands that now make up Albania were administered by the Eastern Empire but were ecclesiastically dependent on Rome. In A.D. 732, however, a Byzantine emperor, Leo the Isaurian, subordinated the area to the patriarchate of Constantinople. For centuries thereafter, the Albanian lands became an arena for the ecclesiastical struggle between Rome and Constantinople. Most Albanians living in the mountainous north became Roman Catholic, while in the southern and central regions, the majority became Orthodox.

The fall of the Roman Empire and the age of great migrations brought radical changes to the Balkan Peninsula and the Illyrian people. Barbarian tribesmen overran many rich Roman cities, destroying the existing social and economic order and leaving the great Roman aqueducts, coliseums, temples, and roads in ruins. The Illyrians gradually disappeared as a distinct people from the Balkans, replaced by the Bulgars, Serbs, Croats, and Albanians. In the late Middle Ages, new waves of invaders swept over the Albanian-populated lands. Thanks to their protective mountains, close-knit tribal society, and sheer pertinacity, however, the Albanian people developed their distinctive identity and language.

In the fourth century, barbarian tribes began to prey upon the Roman Empire, and the fortunes of the Illyrian-populated lands sagged. The Germanic Goths and Asiatic Huns were the first to arrive, invading in mid-century; the Avars attacked in A.D. 570; and the Slavic Serbs and Croats overran Illyrian-populated areas in the early seventh century. About fifty years later, the Bulgars conquered much of the Balkan Peninsula and extended their domain to the lowlands of what is now central Albania. Many Illyrians fled from coastal areas to the mountains, exchanging a sedentary peasant existence for the itinerant life of the herdsman. Other Illyrians intermarried with the conquerors and eventually assimilated. In general, the invaders destroyed or weakened Roman and Byzantine cultural centers in the lands that would become Albania.

Again during the late medieval period, invaders ravaged the Illyrian-inhabited regions of the Balkans. Norman, Venetian, and Byzantine fleets attacked by sea. Bulgar, Serb, and Byzantine forces came overland and held the region in their grip for years. Clashes between rival clans and intrusions by the Serbs produced hardship that triggered an exodus from the region southward into Greece, including Thessaly, the Peloponnese, and the Aegean Islands. The invaders assimilated much of the Illyrian population, but the Illyrians living in lands that comprise modern-day Albania and parts of Yugoslavia (see Glossary) and Greece were never completely absorbed or even controlled.

The first historical mention of Albania and the Albanians as such appears in an account of the resistance by a Byzantine emperor, Alexius I Comnenus, to an offensive by the Vatican-backed Normans from southern Italy into the Albanian-populated lands in 1081.

The Serbs occupied parts of northern and eastern Albania toward the end of the twelfth century. In 1204, after Western crusaders sacked Constantinople, Venice won nominal control over Albania and the Epirus region of northern Greece and took possession of Durrës. A prince from the overthrown Byzantine ruling family, Michael Comnenus, made alliances with Albanian chiefs and drove the Venetians from lands that now make up southern Albania and northern Greece, and in 1204 he set up an independent principality, the Despotate of Epirus, with Janina (now Ioannina in northwest Greece) as its capital. In 1272 the king of Naples, Charles I of Anjou, occupied Durrës and formed an Albanian kingdom that would last for a century. Internal power struggles further weakened the Byzantine Empire in the fourteenth century, enabling the Serbs' most powerful medieval ruler, Stefan Dusan, to establish a short-lived empire that included all of Albania except Durrës.

The province of Albania in Azerbaijan is simply what the Romans called the region after they annexed it.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

:rofl:

The Albanians are (most likely) the remnants of the Illyrians tribe of the time of the ancient Greeks. The name 'Albania' comes from Arber tribe, or Arbereshë, and later Albanoi, that lived near Durrës.

I doubt this theory very much because:
1. it was invented by nationalistis
2. has no basis in facts

Albanians are more likely of Thracian origin. This can be observed in the fact that they share many words with Romanians. They also have many Slavic words which is not strange since most of Albania was re-colonized by Slavs as whole Macedonia down to Thessaly. Until 19th century there was no unified Albanian ethnicity but rahter two distinct populations - Tosks and Ghegs. And among them smaller clans and families. Genetic research also confirmed that Albanians are of highly mixed origin confirming what I already stated above. So again - Albanians are descendants of the old Epirotans(Greeks and Latins) with Slavic and Germano-Keltic influx.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I doubt this theory very much because:
1. it was invented by nationalistis
2. has no basis in facts

Albanians are more likely of Thracian origin. This can be observed in the fact that they share many words with Romanians. They also have many Slavic words which is not strange since most of Albania was re-colonized by Slavs as whole Macedonia down to Thessaly. Until 19th century there was no unified Albanian ethnicity but rahter two distinct populations - Tosks and Ghegs. And among them smaller clans and families. Genetic research also confirmed that Albanians are of highly mixed origin confirming what I already stated above. So again - Albanians are descendants of the old Epirotans(Greeks and Latins) with Slavic and Germano-Keltic influx.

Well I'm not going to disagree with you because frankly, you're right. I guess I got too focused on the historical identity (and genetically, one of the minor contributors) of the contemporary Albanian. Sorry about that.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

The only European people that come from a more or less pure lineage according to geneticists are the Icelandics, most nations are populated by people from a wide array of back grounds.

It is probably actually very probable that the descendants of the Illyrians became the Albanians beacause every Albanian probably has an Illyrian ancester somewhere in their past. Therefore it's not just 'nationalist fantasy', there are families in Britain that have been traced back to the time of the Roman conquest of Celtic Britain, in normal, the Illyrian ancestry theory is probably quite likely, though it's also probably accurate to say that other cultures have migrated and married into that ancestry in what appears to be the normal manner of populations.

That they were mentioned as early as 1081 definately justifies their inclusion into the game, as at that time they would have been part of the Byzantine empire and wouldn't have had real political independance, that they were mentioned despite this means they must have been one of the various distinct peoples under Byzantine/Roman rule.

The Serbs had developed a culture that was based upon a mixture of Slavic and Greek elements, that is why I called them semi-hellenized, but they were a distinct culture.

The Bulgers were a tribe of whatever origin (they probably wouldn't have asked themselves whether they were Turks, Huns or whatever) that subjegated the Slavs under their rule setting themselves up as the ruling class until they were eventually subjegated in turn by Byzantium, but definately deserve a distinct culture.

On Finnelach's point on the names, they were jewish in origin beacause they come from the bible and the bible is more or less completely about jews and their history aswell as Jesus and his disciples who were jews also. They were jewish names before they were eventually adopted by the non-jewish christians.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I haven't the chance to read this entire thread but has it been mentioned that there's a hard coded amount of cultures and you can change skin tones and such? Or at least that's my experience...

I'd like to see a proper Mordvin culture personally, the Mordvinic peoples are done very poorly in Crusader Kings, making them Lithuanians makes so little sense it boggles the mind as to what Paradox was thinking putting them there, and they're too different to be lumped in with the closest peoples in the gam, the Fins, Ugric Baltics and Sami.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

The only European people that come from a more or less pure lineage according to geneticists are the Icelandics, most nations are populated by people from a wide array of back grounds.

Doubtful really...

It is probably actually very probable that the descendants of the Illyrians became the Albanians beacause every Albanian probably has an Illyrian ancester somewhere in their past. Therefore it's not just 'nationalist fantasy', there are families in Britain that have been traced back to the time of the Roman conquest of Celtic Britain, in normal, the Illyrian ancestry theory is probably quite likely, though it's also probably accurate to say that other cultures have migrated and married into that ancestry in what appears to be the normal manner of populations.

Actually it is nationalist fantasy. Few facts:
1. Illyrians were not one people, but simply a name for all the people's that lived on the area from Macedonia and Northern Albanian up to Veneto region.
2. Illyrians were heavily hellenized and then romanized so the theory of Albanian language as a remnant of Illyrian is falsification
3. Illyrians or Illyrian people lived mostly in the west of modern Albania and were assimilated by Croats and other South Slavic nations. We can say that Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins are more "Illyrian" than Albanians are ever going to be.

That they were mentioned as early as 1081 definately justifies their inclusion into the game, as at that time they would have been part of the Byzantine empire and wouldn't have had real political independance, that they were mentioned despite this means they must have been one of the various distinct peoples under Byzantine/Roman rule.

Your point? I mean what are you on?

The Serbs had developed a culture that was based upon a mixture of Slavic and Greek elements, that is why I called them semi-hellenized, but they were a distinct culture.

If you consider Cyrillic alphabet hellenic then you are wrong.

The Bulgers were a tribe of whatever origin (they probably wouldn't have asked themselves whether they were Turks, Huns or whatever) that subjegated the Slavs under their rule setting themselves up as the ruling class until they were eventually subjegated in turn by Byzantium, but definately deserve a distinct culture.

Again no one said Bulgarians don't deserve a distinct culture. I mean I was the one advocating for separation of South Slavic cultures remember.

On Finnelach's point on the names, they were jewish in origin beacause they come from the bible and the bible is more or less completely about jews and their history aswell as Jesus and his disciples who were jews also. They were jewish names before they were eventually adopted by the non-jewish christians.

75% of Christian names don't have nothing to do with Jews.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

For the Icelanders, immigration basically stopped in the 8th to 9th century and are/were almost exclusively of Norwegian stock except for the local Danish govenor, and Danish merchants after the union of Denmark and Norway. Icelanders are very good at being able to trace their ancestry for centuries because of the excellent documentation and records of such thing and the rather rich literary tradition of the island.

 

[Joohoo]

It took me like 15-20 min to read the first page so I jumped here and my proposal is to divide Swedish culture into Svear and Götar as they were in this era

PS. Sorry if it has already be mentioned. o

About South slavic culture, they were all yugoslavs which means south slavic so what is the deal?
North slavs = Rus, Poles, etc.
South slavs = Bosnian, Serb, Croatian etc.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

The Hellenic, Cyrillic thing is quite interesting. I was originally invented by a bi-lingual greek called Cyrillis (what a claim to fame, to have an alphabet named after you) at the request of the slavs who wanted an alphabet that would be in line with the Slavic tongue, this is according to the Oxford History of Byzantium at any rate.

I agree with on the Albanians, I was not suggesting that they were culturally Illyrian any more than anyone's culture today has much in common with that of antiquity, just that the bloodlines of much of the population would probably go back to the inhabitants of that area in ancient times.

Somewhere along the line everyone has an ancester that lived in ancient most of the supposed mass movements and displacements of people have been proved to be more cultural than demographic, a process of elite-replacement, ie the replacement of old aristocrats with new ones from foreign lands, the base population ie peasant population of such areas is fairly stable and does not seem to move about much regardless of changes in leadership, dominant culture, religion and political boundries.

I don't quite understand the quote about christian names not having anything to with jews though, if they came from the bible then they must have been jewish/hebrew/Isrealite/Judean or whatever orginally.

 

[Joohoo]

I agree with on the Albanians, I was not suggesting that they were culturally Illyrian any more than anyone's culture today has much in common with that of antiquity, just that the bloodlines of much of the population would probably go back to the inhabitants of that area in ancient times.

What I've heard is that the Albanians or mostly the Kosova-Albanians use that "heritage" to show their autonomy against Serbia and it is nothing wrong but you should not take it to literally, which you perhaps did not.

 

[yourworstnightm]

It took me like 15-20 min to read the first page so I jumped here and my proposal is to divide Swedish culture into Svear and Götar as they were in this era

And why not divide the danish culture in danes and jutes when we're on the way, or divide the finnish culture in finns, tavasts and karelians! I'm sure most people get my point, there were more than three cultures in Scandinavia, but still they were all enough like each other to only make borders poltical, not cultural. In this case the german and italian cultures should also be further more split up, and so the should the russian culture be.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

About South slavic culture, they were all yugoslavs which means south slavic so what is the deal?

The deal is that there was no such thing as "South Slavic" culture. This is just a name for a group of people and their languages. Similarily as North Germanic, West Germanic, etc...
There was distinct difference between Croatian, Serbian and Bulgarian names, culture, languages, customs, etc, etc...

 

[unmerged(31117)]

South Slavic (Yugoslav) was more or less invented by Yugoslavia anyway in the 20th century in order to instill some kind of unity among the disperate peoples that left by their own devices would have carved "yugoslavia" up among themselves. The term was never used in the period, the Byzantine's refered to them either as slavs (the collective of all the slavic peoples under their control) or by their individual ethnic groups, the terms they themselves used.

Yugoslavicness did not exist until perhaps the later half of the 19th century at the earliest. The Slavs were not in any way unified except in their collective political position as part of first Byzantium, then the Ottoman Empire and lastly "Yugoslavia".
All unity among the Slavs was imposed by foreigners, left to their own devices they always seem to devide themselves into more or less the same nations, whether it is in the middle ages or the modern world.