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
Originally posted by The Captain
Shouldn't Persia be called the Safavids?
Click to expand...

Well, we typically don't name nations by their dynasties, so I'd give it a no. Also, the Safavids weren't the only dynasty of Persia so it be a misnomer once we got to the Zand and Qajar Persia time period. (I know there are some cases where we have, i.e. Timurid Empire but as a general rule, we haven't if we have a better name. You aren't advocating for the Habsburgs are you?)
 
Originally posted by Garbon
Well, we typically don't name nations by their dynasties, so I'd give it a no. Also, the Safavids weren't the only dynasty of Persia so it be a misnomer once we got to the Zand and Qajar Persia time period. (I know there are some cases where we have, i.e. Timurid Empire but as a general rule, we haven't if we have a better name. You aren't advocating for the Habsburgs are you?)
Click to expand...

Weren't the Ottomans a dynasty? We name their empire the Ottoman Empire, so what's the difference?
 
Originally posted by The Captain
Weren't the Ottomans a dynasty? We name their empire the Ottoman Empire, so what's the difference?
Click to expand...

Once again, I said that there are exceptions but as a general rule we don't (I suppose I should have put e.g. and not i.e.). What better recognizable name should we call the Ottomans? The Ottoman Empire is a pretty well known name so changing it would only add confusion.
 
IIRC Mughal and Moghul (or Mogul) are just different transcriptions of the same name. Mughal is AFAIK the closest of the three.
 
I support traditionally accepted English names for states and where possible local names for cities and provinces (Hanover the state, Hannover the city and province).
 
Originally posted by The Captain
Weren't the Ottomans a dynasty? We name their empire the Ottoman Empire, so what's the difference?
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, the Ottomans ruled their empire throughout the entire time=period that the game covers. Second of all, I'm pretty sure that the name of their clan was also Ottoman or Uthman or something similar, so it's no exactly the same thing.

But, I could be wrong...
 
Originally posted by Jinnai
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.
Click to expand...

If I have can speak to the chapter, I supports this proposal, which seems to be most interesting and grants a better immersion in the game.

Cipango for Japan, Cathay for China ?
 
Originally posted by Arilou
IIRC Mughal and Moghul (or Mogul) are just different transcriptions of the same name. Mughal is AFAIK the closest of the three.
Click to expand...

I think it's actually just the most commonly used.

"Greek Empire" might actually be alright by me, although it would have to be distinct from "Greece".

That said I'have to disagree with Jinnai. I think we should use the most common modern description of the state at hand. And yes, I do think we should go with "Japan".
 
Well, in "The People of the Prophet" the author claims that Mughal is the closest (mostly because the most common in swedish is "Mogul" or "Empire of the Grand Mogul")
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
That said I'have to disagree with Jinnai. I think we should use the most common modern description of the state at hand. And yes, I do think we should go with "Japan".
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with this. Isn't this really another case where 'if its not broken why bother messing with it' should apply? Seems really a non-issue. ;)
 
Originally posted by The Captain
Were the Byzantines really an empire in this time?
Click to expand...

They had an emperor, that usually validates being called an empire. Also, they should be named Roman Empire imho, for that is simply what they were. There is a direct line between them and the 'old' Roman empire.
 
Much too confusing. Pretty much any modern English language source will use the term "Byzantine Empire".
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Much too confusing. Pretty much any modern English language source will use the term "Byzantine Empire".
Click to expand...

But that's anachronistic. No one called it that while it excisted. Not the people, not the government and not its enemies. The lands that had belonged to the empire were 'Romanian' lands. That's were the Rum Seldjuks (sp?) got their name from. No one even called the city Byzantium. It was Constantinopel, Polis, or the 'New Rom'. The 'Byzantine' empire is an invention of later ages. To perceive the Roman and the Byzantine empires as two seperate entities is factually incorrect. The Roman empire was officially reunited in 480, after the death of Julius Nepos, the last West-Roman emperor.

After all, we now call 'Peking' Bejing again, too.
 
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...

Of course, the Greeks have never called themselves Greeks. From the Roman conquest till well into the 19th century, they called themselves Romans. Starting in the 19th century, they've been calling themselves Hellenes.

Greek is a corruption of the Latin word for music teacher since that is what most Greek slaves did in the early Republic. Can I start a PC "But the word "Greek" is offensive" campaign? :D

Alexandre
 
Originally posted by Jinnai


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.
Click to expand...

I agree on the "flavour" issue. I don't mind having countries that bear archaic names. I would also take a look at what the natives called themselves. If it transliterates into something that makes sense to the rest of us, then fine, let's use it. But, I'm certain that not even 1% of the people on this board (a rather elite group, btw) know what Albanians call Albania. So, in that case, let's stick to something that the rest of us have a chance of understanding.

Alexandre
 
Also, they should be named Roman Empire imho, for that is simply what they were. There is a direct line between them and the 'old' Roman empire.
Click to expand...
But not what they are called *today*.
I agree Alfihar it's anachronistic, but it will be possible to understand. I'm for always modern English (including Japan). Think of all the nations and what they might have called themselves... and the endless discussions. Actually, I would even prefer modern Dutch or any other silly language (not meaning Dutch is silly ;)) than some old long-forgotten name for that African state with two clicks and a sneeze in it.
 
I have been thinking the Mamelukes ought to just be re-named Egypt. While Egypt isn't really the proper historical name for them, it makes a good deal more sense as a name considering having an Egyptian revolter called Mamelukes doesn't make much sense at all.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back