New cultures you want to see?

[BrokenSky]

-Brythonic: Renaming "Welsh" to Briton/Bythonic could be nice.

Maybe have welsh as a melting pot similar to scots, with anglosaxon-brython?

Also agree with Krajzen that co-existence should be viable in some way, but maybe require certain gameplay decisions (maybe something like a tolerance/assimilation government thing - laws or something?, with high tolerance converting cultures slowly or not at all, but lowering culture penalties? and assimilation doing the reverse?)

 

[royal_gryf]

Some kind of cultural syncretism. Not just a 3 or even 4 tier system, but the option for wholly unrelated cultures to come together and semi-unite into a new or evolved type of world-view. The Turko-Persian-Arabic synthesis is a good example of this.

More granularity overall too. For this reason I'd prefer a 4 tier system over a 3 tier one. Even if many cultures, particularly European ones, might only benefit from a 3 tier system, others with vastly different lifestyles like Tuaregs vs Riffians are already far apart, and that's without even considering the difference between individual Tuareg tribes (sub cultures). So in this case it would be like Kel Ahaggar > Tuareg > Saharan Amazigh > Amazigh. For a place like England, an example might be Northumbrian > Anglo-saxon > West Germanic > Germanic.

But then there would also be hybrid cultures, preferably dynamic ones, like Midlander > English (Anglo-Norman) > West Germanic > Germanic, or
Arabo-Picard > Arabo-French > Gallo-Romance > Romance

At the same time, even with more granularity, different cultures shouldn't just automatically rebel, but they also shouldn't just openly accept syncretism either. At this point the mechanics would get too complex just for vanilla, but something simple like the amount of time a region has been independent or dependent, as well as autonomy, pastoral vs agricultural vs urbanized, and the above synthesis mechanics and prestige status would represent the cultures of the time extremely well.

This system could also create new cultures that didn't exist at first. A real life example of this would be Transylvanian Saxons (Franconians), being so separated and distant from their relatives they would just up as a new culture (Transylvanian Saxons).

Ok this is a little overboard but something simple with this in mind would be cool.

 

[Husein]

More emergent cultures. If Norsemen settle in Iberia or Anatolia it makes little sense for them to still be Norse or Danish 500 years later. If Pechenegs or Cumans settle in Poland there should be a new emergent culture from the mix. If Hungarians take Russia that too should be reflected. If Turks go to India and settle there then a new culture should be created etc. If Franks keep control of Western Europe there should be a uniting culture for all after a few centuries.

 

[TheDungen]

What is the issue with just building a couple of extra cultures to better represent the realities of the British Isles? We're getting a new game here, and that takes all of 30 minutes by one person. As far as I'm concerned, the British Isles are poorly represented particularly in terms of culture, but also with flags, government, and titles. We have a huge amount of information about the Witan, why not use it?
I agree with you on German, and Italian should be split up too. 8n fact, Angevin, Arpitan, Gascon should all be Seperate cultures too. Unified French culture didn't really happen until we'll out of CK2's time frame.

Because England is an unimportant backwater in this era. Also I would argue that french is a result of the hundred years war which is in this era if barely.

 

[TheDungen]

That may be so, but a different culture malus would encourage the Saxons to be a bit more rebellious, whereas them merely being a large vassal state (in CK2 at least!) does not.

Problem is if they are then those rebels will still chuck out the local ruling dynasties which is totally wrong.

 

[Ælfwine]

I would like to see a Geatish Culture in the earlier start dates, as well as a Brythonic culture for Strathclyde and the Isle of Man, as well as other regions of Britain that weren't fully conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, like Cornwall.

Also perhaps a Gallowglass or Norse-Gaelic culture.

 

[Andrzej I]

Problem is if they are then those rebels will still chuck out the local ruling dynasties which is totally wrong.

I was speaking more of the characters in place, such as the Billungs, whose Saxon culture would give them a malice with the Salian emperors. At least, it'd be my intent to see the local dynasties changed to Saxon as well.

 

[Allu]

So, another idea that appeals to me at least in the early start dates is a re-emergence culture melting pot if certain things are done.

The example that comes to my mind is if a Welsh or Cornish character once again shares a land border with the other they could do something to close the rift that developed over the 200 years they had been split. Language reforms etc.

 

[Metz77]

Because England is an unimportant backwater in this era.

This is ludicrously far from the truth. Anglo-Saxon England was a major cultural center of medieval Europe, and post-Conquest they were still a going concern.

 

[Andrzej I]

Because England is an unimportant backwater in this era.

This is ludicrously far from the truth. Anglo-Saxon England was a major cultural center of medieval Europe, and post-Conquest they were still a going concern.

It depends upon which start we'd be talking about. 867 England was a bit of a backwater, but starting with Æthelstan and onwards, England became of more and more importance.

 

[Metz77]

It depends upon which start we'd be talking about. 867 England was a bit of a backwater, but starting with Æthelstan and onwards, England became of more and more importance.

It's still far from accurate to say it was unimportant. Some incredibly important and influential bishops and saints were Anglo-Saxons from before the unification period — for example, St. Boniface and the Venerable Bede.

 

[Andrzej I]

It's still far from accurate to say it was unimportant. Some incredibly important and influential bishops and saints were Anglo-Saxons from before the unification period — for example, St. Boniface and the Venerable Bede.

From a religious point of view, certainly. Politically, though, the petty kingdoms of England were not of that much importance. It only came with Æthelstan that England, as a unified kingdom, began to play on Europe's stage.

 

[Pied-Noir]

It only came with Æthelstan that England, as a unified kingdom, began to play on Europe's stage.

I agree with this, but boy did he do a good job in that regard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æthelstan#Legacy

 

[Andrzej I]

I agree with this, but boy did he do a good job in that regard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æthelstan#Legacy

Absolutely. He's one of my favorite kings for a reason

 

[ogarrr]

Because England is an unimportant backwater in this era. Also I would argue that french is a result of the hundred years war which is in this era if barely.

That argument would be false, the French was as a result of the Anglo-Norman nobility. There's no argument really, the English nobility did not speak English until the hundred years war when a true English nationality took form. Sure this came about as a result of claiming to be the true French Royal family, and thus more French than the French, but it really cemented the English nobility and Common folk as believing that they were one people. Hence why Jean de Ghent became John of Gaunt and taught his son Henri de Bolingbroke to speak English rather than French. Edward the Black Prince (who used his powers as a minor backwater Prince to ravage France and outfight them) did no such thing and Richard II thus spoke French.

I agree with this, but boy did he do a good job in that regard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æthelstan#Legacy

Except its not true. Alfred's daughter married the count of Flanders, Edwards daughter married Otto the bloody first. Aethelwulf married a Carolingian princess, offa was almost on a par with Charlemagne and was viewed as such until he made a stupid marriage proposal.

The idea that England was a backwater has been categorically dismissed by modern historians. Sure Richard (who was occitan rather than English) saw it as a means to levy taxes for his warmongering, but prior to the Conquest it was one of the richest lands in Europe which we know from the coinage which didn't undergo debasement until Henry I, who dealt with that by castrating the perpetrators.

The idea that it was just some economic backwater is little more than Norman propaganda and misrule writ large. Just look at how Edward I dominated the British Isles (and kept hold of Gascony) , Edward III claimed the French throne and trounced the French (which you could obsiouspy do as a backwater) , and Henry V claimed half of France.

 

[vandevere]

Actually, I would like to see the possibility of hybrid cultures. You know how in CK2, we would find outrageous invasions, the Italians in Asia, England in Russia, and France in Spain. To say nothing of the Ummayads being virtually everywhere,,,

The the Cultures spend long enough in a certain place, then their culture would take root there, but not completely obliterate the native culture.

Spain, as we know it today, is a perfect example. The Castillian and Aragonese Cultures melded with very definite hints of Arabic Culture.

Ideally, I would love to see that happen everywhere. Don't know if CK3's AI would be up to that, though...

 

[Pied-Noir]

@Metz77

You're oversimplifying for effect.

Otto's marriage to Eadgyth of Wessex was arranged by Æthelstan, her eldest brother. He also arranged marriages to the king of the Isles, the brother of the king of Arles, the king of West Francia, the duke of the Franks, etc. Æthelstan was the one who subdued Scotland and the Welsh and Cumbric princes. At his height he was overlord of all Britain and even minted coins proclaiming himself an emperor - he was by far the most prestigious and powerful English king until the Angevins. Alfred the Great is extremely important in English history and the only English king to be called the Great, but his achievements are better viewed as part of the historical process and the evolvement of England as a nation - he was never that powerful during his lifetime, and the country he helped construct was always only ever a whisker away from collapsing.

It really isn't much of a stretch to describe England as a relative backwater until Æthelstan's reign - sure, previous Saxon kings had initiated occasional continental marriages, but it wasn't what underpinned their foreign policy and it didn't have much success. There's a reason England was once described as a 'Danish playground' before 1066 and the direct influence of English kings was severely limited, and particularly when compared with Frankish and German monarchs. During Æthelstan's reign this wasn't the case, and he appears to have been genuinely impressive to his contemporaries.

Revisionism is all well and good, and we always learn from new discoveries made by historians, but I've never subscribed to the idea of 'well now X has been discovered, Y was always a lie' - that's rarely the case, and there are good reasons why certain assumptions have always been held throughout history. The fact is that from the death of Æthelstan (after which the Vikings retook York) until the Conquest, England basically was a backwater, and it's only during the Confessor's reign that it begins to centralise and consolidate - remember that the country is only one generation removed from violent usurpation, and in 1066 you have yet another Viking invasion, and the Danes made a final bid for the English crown in the 1070s.

 

[Metz77]

@Metz77

Psst... that was @ogarrr, we have the same avatar.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Psst... that was @ogarrr, we have the same avatar.

"You all look the same to me!"

I'm not an (avatar) racist!

Ty.

 

[ogarrr]

You're oversimplifying for effect.

Otto's marriage to Eadgyth of Wessex was arranged by Æthelstan, her eldest brother. He also arranged marriages to the king of the Isles, the brother of the king of Arles, the king of West Francia, the duke of the Franks, etc. Æthelstan was the one who subdued Scotland and the Welsh and Cumbric princes. At his height he was overlord of all Britain and even minted coins proclaiming himself an emperor - he was by far the most prestigious and powerful English king until the Angevins. Alfred the Great is extremely important in English history and the only English king to be called the Great, but his achievements are better viewed as part of the historical process and the evolvement of England as a nation - he was never that powerful during his lifetime, and the country he helped construct was always only ever a whisker away from collapsing.

The point I was making there was the fact that the statement "It only came with Æthelstan that England, as a unified kingdom, began to play on Europe's stage." is untrue. The kings of Kent married into the Merovingian dynasty, Charlemagne's personal historian was a Northumbrian and Offa had regular correspondence with the great king. Sure Æthelstan was remarkable in his influence over both England and across the channel (Louis Outremer, Alan II of Brittany, Haakon the Good etc), but Saxon kings certainly 'play on Europe's stage', it's not their fault that Æthelstan was better at it!

It really isn't much of a stretch to describe England as a relative backwater until Æthelstan's reign - sure, previous Saxon kings had initiated occasional continental marriages, but it wasn't what underpinned their foreign policy and it didn't have much success. There's a reason England was once described as a 'Danish playground' before 1066 and the direct influence of English kings was severely limited, and particularly when compared with Frankish and German monarchs. During Æthelstan's reign this wasn't the case, and he appears to have been genuinely impressive to his contemporaries.

Revisionism is all well and good, and we always learn from new discoveries made by historians, but I've never subscribed to the idea of 'well now X has been discovered, Y was always a lie' - that's rarely the case, and there are good reasons why certain assumptions have always been held throughout history. The fact is that from the death of Æthelstan (after which the Vikings retook York) until the Conquest, England basically was a backwater, and it's only during the Confessor's reign that it begins to centralise and consolidate - remember that the country is only one generation removed from violent usurpation, and in 1066 you have yet another Viking invasion, and the Danes made a final bid for the English crown in the 1070s.

Offa's Mercian kingdom was certainly anything but a backwater, and some would say that he more than anyone set the stage for a unified Anglo-Saxon kingdom. We know from coinage that England was an incredibly rich Kingdom until Æthelred unræd, when his corruption led to debasement (fixed by the Danes, and later good old Edward). England was in fact far from a Danish playground from Æthelstan up to Æthelred, when the Saxons repeatedly smashed invaders and ran roughshod over the Scots and Welsh. Until William did his whole Harrying thing, the north of England was one of the cultural capitals of Europe and one of the richest parts of England due to Scandinavian, Frisian, German, Scottish etc trade.

Mostly though, it was the description of England as a completely insignificant backwater that drew my ire as that is categorically untrue. And whilst degrees of backwater can be debated and argued, the insignificance should be thrown out wholeheartedly.