Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Name of nations

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
unmerged(9167)

unmerged(9167)

Imperator Universalis
May 4, 2002
1.339
0
Visit site
I am just wondering, what is policy of the merger on the name of nations? I am also curious as to what is the names of all those nations?

I don't that I am being clear so, I shall use an example. Roman Empire is called that in AGC but it is called Byzantium in EEP (Which I disagreed with. After all, Byzantium is the name of city before the finding of Constantinople. Romans never called themselves Byzantines but Romans. Nor they called their nation, Byzantium but as Rome. More ofthen they just call it Empire if want to be short but they also used Rome.) Or should Austria be known as Austria or is Oestrreich better? And on so. Perhaps this thread could be used to debate on what to call those countries in the merger?
 
Byzantium was changed to Byzantine Empire in EEP 1.4.1. That is how it is known as to modern people, to distinguish it from the Roman Empire, used for something else.
I can see no other way than use the modern, preferably English, name for states, otherwise it will be very confusing for most users without good knowlegde of languages and a history degree. And if you use Oesterrich shouldn't you use the greek name of Byzantium/Byzantine Empire/Roman Empire?
 
Originally posted by Mad King James
They called themselves an empire...
Click to expand...

I guess we can either hand out names based on what they called themselves, or what we call them today. Either way I think we should apply the method of naming universally. I personally prefer the first way.... naming nations on what they called themselves.

It's a pet peeve of mine that the Aztecs aren't called the Mexica or the Incas aren't called "Tahuantinsuyo". I know it confuses people at first, but it's a learning experience. I've learned much from playing the game, and would like it to not be dumbed down, if you know what I mean...
 
Originally posted by The Captain
I guess we can either hand out names based on what they called themselves, or what we call them today. Either way I think we should apply the method of naming universally. I personally prefer the first way.... naming nations on what they called themselves.

It's a pet peeve of mine that the Aztecs aren't called the Mexica or the Incas aren't called "Tahuantinsuyo". I know it confuses people at first, but it's a learning experience. I've learned much from playing the game, and would like it to not be dumbed down, if you know what I mean...
Click to expand...

Calling the Aztec Empire "Mexica" would not necessarily be more correct; the Mexica were only one of three people that formed the Empire.
Nevertheless, it might be a good idea to let the Aztec Empire and the late-game Mexican revolter use the same tag.
 
Originally posted by Twoflower
Calling the Aztec Empire "Mexica" would not necessarily be more correct; the Mexica were only one of three people that formed the Empire.
Nevertheless, it might be a good idea to let the Aztec Empire and the late-game Mexican revolter use the same tag.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We need every tag we can spare, especially with all the tags we will need thanks to MKJ. :p
 
Originally posted by The Captain
Exactly. We need every tag we can spare, especially with all the tags we will need thanks to MKJ. :p
Click to expand...
However do we call it "Mexica" or "Mexico"?:D
 
I actually advocate Aztec, as the Mexica were the people, however they didn't refer to their empire as the Mexica, merely themselves.

We don't call Byzantium 'Greek' after all ;)
 
I think we'll make a mess for ourselves in starting to use the local names. What would be the right transcription to English in some cases, where the latin alphabet were not used? And anyhow, the word we come up with willmost probably be totally incomprehensible for a local at the time, so what is the point? Making it hard to understand and getting many new discussions?
To show what I mean:
How was this word Mexico pronounced by that people? It used to be written Mejico before the reform when x and j became the same sound in latinamerican Spanish. That is close to German ch, as in Achtung, and very far from English x. So we end up with a English word anyhow.

EDIT:spelling
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Mad King James
I actually advocate Aztec, as the Mexica were the people, however they didn't refer to their empire as the Mexica, merely themselves.

We don't call Byzantium 'Greek' after all ;)
Click to expand...

Hey, didn't you just say a united Ireland is anachronistic? :p The term Aztec is anachronistic, because it was coined in the 1800's by an archaeologist from the word "Aztlan", the land were the Mexica (according to legend) originated. Mexica may not be the best name (maybe if I look I can find something better), but it is more accurate than Aztec.

Also, if you want to share the tag, there is no better term than Mexica to apply to both Mexico and the Aztecs....
 
Originally posted by mnorrefeldt
I think we'll make a mess for ourselves in starting to use the local names. What would be the right transcription to English in some cases, where the latin alphabet very not used? And anyhow, the word we come up with willmost probably be totally incomprehensible for a local at the time, so what is the point? Making it hard to understand and getting many new discussions?
To show what I mean:
How was this word Mexico pronounced by that people? It used to be written Mejico before the reform when x and j became the same sound in latinamerican Spanish. That is close to German ch, as in Achtung, and very far from English x. So we end up with a English word anyhow.
Click to expand...
For the record, I dislike using "local names" (whích, as you rightly said, is even a very questionable term), as well. In many cases, determining that local name is pretty hard to do (would anybody claim to know how the Iroquois, Mali, Brunei or the Uzbekhs called themselves?) or might end up in endless nationalistic or PC debates e.g. on whether to call Bohemia "Böhmen" or "echy", Navarra "Navarra", "Navarre" or "Naffarhoa" etc.). What would you use as determining factor? Probably not the name used by the populace - considering that most of the populace cannot be expected to be that much into heraldry and would therefore use pretty "inappropriate" names - do you think that e.g. the inhabitants of Brandenburg immediately called their country "Prussia" after the acquisition of the royal crown? The names used by the rulers could lead to very weird things, too - like Frederick the Great's Prussia being called "Royaume de Prussie".
We can avoid a lot of useless arguments and confusion by just sticking with English names.
 
Perhaps if someone wanted to put the work into it, there could be a config option for 2 sets of nation names. 1 based on current english, and 1 based on what the natives called themselves.

I remember a mod that had native names... I liked that, but it hasn't been updates since patch 1.03 or something.
 
Originally posted by The Captain
Perhaps if someone wanted to put the work into it, there could be a config option for 2 sets of nation names. 1 based on current english, and 1 based on what the natives called themselves.

I remember a mod that had native names... I liked that, but it hasn't been updates since patch 1.03 or something.
Click to expand...

Again, I think using "what the natives called themselves" is heavily anachronistic and just cries out for hordes of controversies. Do you, for example, wanna use a Prussian (the Baltic language, I mean) name for the Teutonic Order? Have fun searching for it :D
 
Originally posted by The Captain
Perhaps if someone wanted to put the work into it, there could be a config option for 2 sets of nation names. 1 based on current english, and 1 based on what the natives called themselves.
Click to expand...

Damn, this is going to be one big ass config, with all the options you propose.
 
I say we all give em DUTCH names :D


more seriously, I think we'd best call them as we call them today when refering to those nations.
 
Originally posted by ForzaA
I say we all give em DUTCH names :D


more seriously, I think we'd best call them as we call them today when refering to those nations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree.
And that INCLUDES calling "Nippon" "Japan".

Otherwise I demand that Sweden be changed to Sverige!
 
I say we just make up completely unrelated generic names.

Seriously using truly (romanized versions) of the original names of some countries like China could be "Ch'n". That's the true version although the more common one is "Chin".

There are other nations that have several names also...Mughul empire, which paradox aslo for some reason used the abreviation (MOG) to refer to their other name, Moghul Empire.

IMO though we should go by what Europeans (since this is EU2) knew them by at the time the game takes place. So FE Iran would be known as Persia.

Either that or leave it as it is in the GC and decide on new ones on a case-by-case basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back