Polonization - Spread of Polish culture on Lithuanian and Ruthenian lands

[Castios]

In my opinion, spreading culture should be easier. In eu3 most provinces never change their culture for whole timeframe, thats what I experienced anyway. Culture is also not that important (as in game mechanism) so It woudn't change much except some personal satisfaction that we can spread our primary culture a bit faster. But that's in general, In this topic I just suggested a bit speed up for assimilation of Lithuanian and Ruthenian culture as it happened in history. Same modifier as on Tartar culture etc. (-90% meantime) would be perfect.

 

[justin6477]

In my opinion, spreading culture should be easier. In eu3 most provinces never change their culture for whole timeframe, thats what I experienced anyway. Culture is also not that important (as in game mechanism) so It woudn't change much except some personal satisfaction that we can spread our primary culture a bit faster. But that's in general, In this topic I just suggested a bit speed up for assimilation of Lithuanian and Ruthenian culture as it happened in history. Same modifier as on Tartar culture etc. (-90% meantime) would be perfect.

-90% is a bit much. Unless culture A is supposed to outright replace culture B (Prussian regarding Saxon and Pomeranian comes to mind, or English replacing Saxon in CK2), then the benefit should be no more than 25% faster. If you want more, feel free to use settlement policies.

 

[Castios]

Well, percentage doesn't matter really. All that matters to me it's ANYTHING that somehow refers to history, even like 25% percentage. Anything is better than nothing.

At least thats how I see Europa Universalis series, give us as much historical events as possible, but let us decide if we want use them, or not.

 

[1alexey]

When looking at a single province, it includes more than just cities.

One has to understand that rural population assimilates way, way, way slower than urban, due to way smaller iteraction.

Speaking of the specific case of the current Ukraine teritory, the (ruthenian)Ukrainian culture, untill the 19th century industrial revolution started, existed almost entirely in rural aerias, while towns and cities were dominated by Polish, Russian and Jewish.
Still the majority of population remained Ruthenian(Ukrainian).

In fact, from what i see on the map, Poland should basically not spread it`s culture in any of the ruthenian provinces at all. And should not change the religion.

For culture to really change, there should be a drastic population chage, like war or epidemy or massive migration.

 

[Castios]

Well, still. The result is same as cities are most important and have biggest influence of the country. Also I don't think cultural assimilation means that over 50% of population changes culture. At least Polonization it's classic example of cultural assimilation.

Polonization (or Polonisation) (Polish: polonizacja)[1] was the acquisition or imposition of elements of Polish culture, in particular, Polish language, as experienced in some historic periods by non-Polish populations of territories controlled or substantially influenced by Poland. As with other examples of cultural assimilation, it could either be voluntary or forced and is most visible in the case of territories, where the Polish language or culture were dominant, or their adoption could result in gaining of prestige or social status. Such was the case of the nobility of Ruthenia and Lithuania throughout the ages. To certain extent Polonization was also administratively promoted by the authorities, particularly in the period following the World War II.

 

[1alexey]

Well, still. The result is same as cities are most important and have biggest influence of the country. Also I don't think cultural assimilation means that over 50% of population changes culture. At least Polonization it's classic example of cultural assimilation.

Again, when we speak about the "cultural assimilation" as game mechanics, we speak about province as a whole changing it`s culture. That didn`t happen. While province changing from let`s say 5% polish to let`s say 15% polish is pretty hefty cultural assimilation, in game terms, it is irrelevant, and
in game terms, the poles usually end up with way more polish-cultured provinces than they did IRL, if you the NF->settlement policy.

Then, polonisation is not really special, if we look at other cases of Frace, Germany, Italy, Ottomans, and Russia, they had the same proces, of assimilating the local elite faster than local pesants.
It may be more politially charged(and thus mentioned more) due to Russian-Belorussia-Ukrainean-Polish rivalries, but that is about it, really.

Russia is kinda-sorta special in that it actually did move a lot of pesants arround, so their "assimilation" of tatars actually tries to model that proces, of very low-populated provinces getting relativly large influx of population from populus parts of the country.

 

[Castios]

Then, polonisation is not really special, if we look at other cases of Frace, Germany, Italy, Ottomans, and Russia, they had the same proces, of assimilating the local elite faster than local pesants.
It may be more politially charged due to Russian-Belorussia-Ukrainean-Polish rivalries, but that is about it, really.

Well, I was hoping that maybe EU4 take a closer look at cultures mechanism. That thing is much more complex that it is. Right now it's generalized. I totally agree that it happened it other areas as well and Polonization it's not an exception, would be nice to see some more interesting modifiers in other nations and importance of cultures also should increase. Right now people don't really pay attention on culture if they wanna conquer province etc. as they know it doesn't really mater or it's gonna be accepted culture soon. And in realiy culture was very important thingy, even more than teritorial claims (in longrun). Maybe it even should be replaced for whole cores system?

 

[Grubnessul]

And in realiy culture was very important thingy, even more than teritorial claims (in longrun). Maybe it even should be replaced for whole cores system?

Not until the 19th century. Before, you could easily be Emperor of Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Slaves, etc. And nobody would raise a eyebrow.

 

[Eh up me duck]

I wouldn't be so sure. What language does everyone in Ireland speak?

In Ireland, Ulster was planted and became(mostly) Scottish, Dublin/Meath/The Pale for most of the period was in the English "culture group", but Irish, while the rest of the Ireland over the game switched from Irish (Celtic group) to Irish (English group).

As I see it, modern Irish culture shares a similar link to English culture as Lowland scots. Both have unique identities, but both were ultimately assimilated. By the end of the EU period Ireland had little seperatism, and the 1798 rebellion attracted little support. Other events spurred the growth of Nationalism.

Most Indians speak English, guess they assimilated pretty well too, huh?

IIRC Ulster was only a majority Scots after the Republic broke away and Scots from the rest of the country fled there. You really can't compare Ireland to Scotland.

 

[Frax]

Does russia have any events speeding up the progress in eu 3? last time i played it went really fast to spread the culture east.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

But then you'd get stupid stuff like Kiev becoming Polish.

I had polish kiev once. Rly. It was pretty awesome.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

Again, when we speak about the "cultural assimilation" as game mechanics, we speak about province as a whole changing it`s culture. That didn`t happen. While province changing from let`s say 5% polish to let`s say 15% polish is pretty hefty cultural assimilation, in game terms, it is irrelevant, and
in game terms, the poles usually end up with way more polish-cultured provinces than they did IRL, if you the NF->settlement policy.

Then, polonisation is not really special, if we look at other cases of Frace, Germany, Italy, Ottomans, and Russia, they had the same proces, of assimilating the local elite faster than local pesants.
It may be more politially charged(and thus mentioned more) due to Russian-Belorussia-Ukrainean-Polish rivalries, but that is about it, really.

Russia is kinda-sorta special in that it actually did move a lot of pesants arround, so their "assimilation" of tatars actually tries to model that proces, of very low-populated provinces getting relativly large influx of population from populus parts of the country.

Well if we would have "Nobles Culture", and "Peasants Culture", instead of one culture this would solve the problem. Peasants Culture, should of course be able to change in time, but it should be lot harder than nobles culture, as it influence lot more people.

But in such situation, we should have like in every saxon provine, lausitian sorb or veleti culture as peasants culture. Some cultures, should be less resistant to culture assimilation(Lithanian, Belarussian), and some more(Rus, Polish). Imo there should be something called : "Culture strength". It should influence culture spread AND its reistance against being assimilated.

Things that should influece the "Culture strength" should be :
Religion(having religion other than their owner should increase culture strength, if they are other culture group, aspecialy if there is no country in this culture group)
Number of countries with such culture(more divided mean they have less cultural identity with a nation). If there is no country with same culture, and no country within the culture group, means they are subjugated culture. If there is country in culture group, it mean they are subjugated, but supported by the country within culture group. Unitary country owning all provinces in the culture group, should increase their strength, and country owning whole cultures in culture group, should increase this strength even more.
National Ideas of those countries, and their tech.
Time - in the meaning all those factors should change the culture strength with time - as some culture being dominant, may change, if they are long time enslaved, or former slaves might become a strong culture after ages of independence.

Also colonial cultures should be in one culture group, if there will be any colonial revolutions. Reason, is that even while they might all come from other countries, they keep same pace - they revolted from colonial powers, and became totaly new nations, with totaly new identity. I would say that USA is great example. While all people their have their roots in other countries, and sometimes even say "I am english/scot/german/french/pole/etc.", they also say "I am American"

EDIT: Also, all should start with some culture strenght level as there was already some cultures stronger than the others. (IE polish was one of the strong cultures, while German, Lithuanian, Tatar, etc. were not so strong - germans were not strong because they were divided - and because they still helt some big slav population in saxony. Tatars were nomads, and so they were like indians in americas, but just little stronger ones. Lithuanian country was a new country, and they were pagans before, so they were seen as inferior culture and so the most of lithuanian nobility who turned polish thought. Along the other strong cultures, i would point French(Unitarian country, and the fights against the english increased their patriotism), English(which is why they dominated scots and irish - again united country), Spanish, maybe chinesse and japanese). Republican countries IMO should increase the culture strenght, aspecialy if they unite whole culture, while having inferior goverment(depotic monarchy, and native govs) should decrease it greatly.

 

[Eh up me duck]

Does russia have any events speeding up the progress in eu 3? last time i played it went really fast to spread the culture east.

Pretty sure Tartar switches to Russian fairly quickly after they've been converted.

 

[LYNCHY]

Most Indians speak English, guess they assimilated pretty well too, huh?

IIRC Ulster was only a majority Scots after the Republic broke away and Scots from the rest of the country fled there. You really can't compare Ireland to Scotland.

Ulster is not, in anyway mostly scottish at all, there are a very small minority of people claiming to be 'Ulster-Scots' which is British creating their own culture to give them some kind of identity compared to the local Irish and the English/Scotts back in britian, they are no different than say, Canadians living in America

Edit: woppsie, used the wrong quote, this guy is helping my point but my point still stands

 

[Phelan]

I'm not a historic sociologist, but it seem to me, that the majority of people in the timeframe of EU3, at least until 1700 had no idea about 'who' they are. Mostly the might have answered they are from this or that village. I suppose they often couldn't say in which part of the world they lived in. Ask a russian peasant about his ruler. He might have heard his/her name. But I don't know how much cultural identity the people shared in this times. Maybe even the neighboring village were strange foreigners for some of them. For big cities this might be totaly different.

I really don't know. Just wondering.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

I'm not a historic sociologist, but it seem to me, that the majority of people in the timeframe of EU3, at least until 1700 had no idea about 'who' they are. Mostly the might have answered they are from this or that village. I suppose they often couldn't say in which part of the world they lived in. Ask a russian peasant about his ruler. He might have heard his/her name. But I don't know how much cultural identity the people shared in this times. Maybe even the neighboring village were strange foreigners for some of them. For big cities this might be totaly different.

I really don't know. Just wondering.

Yeah, until late 1700s cultural identity/nationalism didn't really matter. Religion was more important factor differentiating various groups.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

In russia certainly it was so phelan. But as long as they spoke same language, they were seen as part of same community - unless they said otherwise. But russia is sparely populated and is not good example about this realy. If we would like to talk about it we should speak about the popoulous europe, and countries like france and england, or even poland. More to the edges of continents, more people had any idea who they realy are. IE china, india, europe. Far in siberia - is not realy important. All depended on both education, and what did the father told his son, and mother told her daughter.

Yeah, until late 1700s cultural identity/nationalism didn't really matter. Religion was more important factor differentiating various groups.

I do not fully agree, there are some examples when this is not realy true. Example holland - they of course did had other religion, but they revolted not only because they were other religion. They revolted because they wanted their own country.

But as this example might be not enough, i will give a better one. Eleven years war. This revolt against teutons, was not because of religion. It was about supression, which made prussian cities revolt and want to be polish - because polish were experiencing more freedom than teuton subjects - and had strong national identity.

Another example is french identity during end of hundred years war. Many of peasants and nobles fought for the cause, because they started to feel themselves french. Not because of the religion again.

 

[Castios]

Yeah, until late 1700s cultural identity/nationalism didn't really matter. Religion was more important factor differentiating various groups.

I don't know about peasants, maybe. But nobles definately had strong cultural identity. At least in Poland.

If thats really true that peasants didn't really identity themselves with their nation - it makes pointless that whole idea of culture based on population - it should be based only on nobles then - 1% of population in most european nations and 10-12% in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As they were "ruling" along with the King and they were fighting on wars etc. Anyway this would make "Polonization" much more important.

In russia certainly it was so phelan. But as long as they spoke same language, they were seen as part of same community - unless they said otherwise.

Thats also true.

 

[Grubnessul]

I do not fully agree, there are some examples when this is not realy true. Example holland - they of course did had other religion, but they revolted not only because they were other religion. They revolted because they wanted their own country.

Actually, no. It was a tax revolt wrapped in a fluffy crust of religious struggle. After renouncing the king of Spain, the Dutch actually offered the crown to England and to France and to some other monarchs. As they declined, the Dutch went on with the Staten General as power (combined with the military might of the Van Oranjes. My history teacher described it as a body, being able to function (to everyone's surprise) without a head.

 

[1alexey]

Not until the 19th century. Before, you could easily be Emperor of Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Slaves, etc. And nobody would raise a eyebrow.

I'm not a historic sociologist, but it seem to me, that the majority of people in the timeframe of EU3, at least until 1700 had no idea about 'who' they are. Mostly the might have answered they are from this or that village. I suppose they often couldn't say in which part of the world they lived in. Ask a russian peasant about his ruler. He might have heard his/her name. But I don't know how much cultural identity the people shared in this times. Maybe even the neighboring village were strange foreigners for some of them. For big cities this might be totaly different.

I really don't know. Just wondering.

Yeah, until late 1700s cultural identity/nationalism didn't really matter. Religion was more important factor differentiating various groups.

That is simply not true. Culture did metter a lot, in case the state did not tolerate the culture, and various cultures had to live in single place(cities namely).

The fact that it didn`t metter much for pesants(which were the majority of population) comes from the fact that their iteraction with the state was minimal and rulers didn`t care about pesant`s language all that much as long as they payed taxes&fees, same for peasants, as long as rullers did have reasonable demands.

The 19 century nationalism didn`t appear out of blue, just the urbanisation and technology increased the amount&importance of communication.

While not as strong as in 19century, culture did had impact, which EU3 kinda-sorta models ok, as existing but not absolutely essential.