-
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.
Heh, ask the Hungarians about that. See what sort of answer you will get!
That's a minefield I'm not going to wander into again!And Iwannhs - no need to praise Demetrios Poliorketes - he may have besieged cities, hence his nickname, but the point of his nickname is that he only besieged cities, not conquered them!
Culture
This is how i view culture, with influence from my
gaming group.
Culture is a very complicated thing to define;
is it language? is it way of life for the peasants? for the aristocracy? for the towns?
similar lifestyle? familiar antecedents?
Actually, it is some part of all of these things,
and i would add 2 ideas;
1.Prejudice was and is a very powerfull driving force in creating a nation state.
2.Focus in game design is important. This is, as far as i am concerned, the best decision Paradox made with CK; limit the game to Europe and only allow the play of feudatories. If Demetrios will allow me to go OT, since i can't give an example on a game that does not exist yet, i will give you an example.
I would say that multiple cultures are not needed in 2 adjacent provinces in Siberia as it will make very little effect on the game and that area is not the focus of the game. On the other hand making Flanders and Holland the same culture the same (Dutch) in EU2 is a bad decision as far as i am concerned since that area is part of the focus of the game, and the decision will make a difference one way or another in the low countries.
Culture had to do with the movement of people and ideas from place to place. As the Catholic Church did not accept 'merchants' as a valid part of Catholic society till 1150 or so, and it took the Raubritters even longer before merchant caravans were left alone, there was very little movement in the dark ages and the early middle ages.
You have to realize that to a peasant in a western European village, the other side of that hill is mysterious. People coming over that hill? a disaster! They could bring disease! they could take or kill 1 or 2 of the young men! A primitive village was a very fragile arrangement; 2 less healthy men and they might not be able to harvest enough food to feed their people and pay their local lord and various bandits.
Population across Europe/Middle East from 500Ce till 1150Ce was virtually stagnant. The largest reason for this was the lack of trade (the movement of people and ideas being easily as important as the movement of goods). Without new farming ideas and the movement of grain 1 village could starve while a village 25 miles away throve.
So, to a person used to only people from his village, a couple of neighboring villages on the same lords land, and some of the town folk in the town that built up around the barons castle, everyone else was a foreigner, unclean, who did not know the proper way to live and respect the gods (pagan practices were common in Europe until the early 19th century in the countryside. No matter how 'Christian' an area was, old ideas of how to live, work, survive, in their world persisted).
Sometimes these ideas were put to use by the government, Han China being a good example. China would have the world believe that there is only 1, and never really was more than 1 culture in China.
Cantonese is a culture that was created by the rice culture of south China that were under the influence of the Han. But, that does not invalidate Cantonese as a seperate culture!
This brings up prejudice.
Again using China as an example, the Cantonese south was officially equal with the Han north... but if you wanted a high paying job all of the
exams were in Mandarin spoken language! oh, and none of the schools in the south would teach you Mandarin! you are just SOL.... And this lead to a low (and occasionaly high) level of unrest in the south for 2000 years.
Some people on this board have said 'well, i have not read about any rebellions, so the {insert country} must have been good at handeling them.' The problem with that is the majority of rebellions were never recorded in any kind of history book and many books that were written have been lost to the vagaries of time. Can you say anything absolute about a particular time and place 1000 years ago?
So, if the people are not revolting why should we give them a seperate culture? Because people who feel less than others in the same country will work less hard. It is a bit more complicated than that but that is a good start!
My feeling is that there was more differentation in culture in 900Ce and that slowly grew less especially with the baby renaissance and later the Renaissance. As trade and communication grew the differences became less and less till the mid 19th century when we created the 'Political Culture'.
A great example is Slavic Macedonia. That one is a hoot! it was populated by Bulgarian Slavs but controlled by the Ottomans until 1878. Bulgaria was created with this province but was then taken from Bulgaria when central European nations decided Bulgaria was to big with it, so they gave it back to the Ottomans. Serbia gained control of the region in 1913 and now the people have formed
'Macedonia' even though they are Bulgarian Slavs.
Modern nationalism created many 'cultures' of that sort which confuses many people who think that culture gap has been widening, not narrowing over the years.
So, my friends and i came up with a system of culture that we felt addressed these issues.
We feel that the game should either have more cultures, and have 'associated' culture groups, such as England having English or in CK Anglo-Saxon, and having a table that the game reads that says since the English have Anglo-Saxon
as their dominant culture then Langue d'oeil, Rhine German, Dutch, Flemish, and Scandinavian
(for example) could be associated cultures.
We felt associated cultures should face a +1 revolt risk, -1 manpower, and a -10% or -20% taxes. Cultures you are not associated with should draw a +2 revolt risk, no manpower or very little, and a -30%taxes. Many people seem to feel that Britain obviously became rich of India so why such a tax hit? well, what EU2 does not model is the garrisons required to maintai India at an immense cost. Virtually every colony of every European colony during the 19th Century lost the home country money, not made money. There were exceptions such as India which did bring in a profit.
The other thought we had would be to add lots of cultures and give each country a certain set.
Such as, the K. of France could have Langue d'Oeil as a primary culture and Catalan, Langue d'Oc, North Italian, Rhinlander, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon and Flemish as minor cultures.
I guess that would basically do the same thing as the first option, but the second option would allow more flexibility in set up.
That pretty much wraps it up; remember that perception of cultural difference was as important to both the nobility and the peasants as any actual difference. I would personally use 28 or 29 cultures for CK. And my friends and i consider this to be a very important point for the game.
Michael
This is how i view culture, with influence from my
gaming group.
Culture is a very complicated thing to define;
is it language? is it way of life for the peasants? for the aristocracy? for the towns?
similar lifestyle? familiar antecedents?
Actually, it is some part of all of these things,
and i would add 2 ideas;
1.Prejudice was and is a very powerfull driving force in creating a nation state.
2.Focus in game design is important. This is, as far as i am concerned, the best decision Paradox made with CK; limit the game to Europe and only allow the play of feudatories. If Demetrios will allow me to go OT, since i can't give an example on a game that does not exist yet, i will give you an example.
I would say that multiple cultures are not needed in 2 adjacent provinces in Siberia as it will make very little effect on the game and that area is not the focus of the game. On the other hand making Flanders and Holland the same culture the same (Dutch) in EU2 is a bad decision as far as i am concerned since that area is part of the focus of the game, and the decision will make a difference one way or another in the low countries.
Culture had to do with the movement of people and ideas from place to place. As the Catholic Church did not accept 'merchants' as a valid part of Catholic society till 1150 or so, and it took the Raubritters even longer before merchant caravans were left alone, there was very little movement in the dark ages and the early middle ages.
You have to realize that to a peasant in a western European village, the other side of that hill is mysterious. People coming over that hill? a disaster! They could bring disease! they could take or kill 1 or 2 of the young men! A primitive village was a very fragile arrangement; 2 less healthy men and they might not be able to harvest enough food to feed their people and pay their local lord and various bandits.
Population across Europe/Middle East from 500Ce till 1150Ce was virtually stagnant. The largest reason for this was the lack of trade (the movement of people and ideas being easily as important as the movement of goods). Without new farming ideas and the movement of grain 1 village could starve while a village 25 miles away throve.
So, to a person used to only people from his village, a couple of neighboring villages on the same lords land, and some of the town folk in the town that built up around the barons castle, everyone else was a foreigner, unclean, who did not know the proper way to live and respect the gods (pagan practices were common in Europe until the early 19th century in the countryside. No matter how 'Christian' an area was, old ideas of how to live, work, survive, in their world persisted).
Sometimes these ideas were put to use by the government, Han China being a good example. China would have the world believe that there is only 1, and never really was more than 1 culture in China.
Cantonese is a culture that was created by the rice culture of south China that were under the influence of the Han. But, that does not invalidate Cantonese as a seperate culture!
This brings up prejudice.
Again using China as an example, the Cantonese south was officially equal with the Han north... but if you wanted a high paying job all of the
exams were in Mandarin spoken language! oh, and none of the schools in the south would teach you Mandarin! you are just SOL.... And this lead to a low (and occasionaly high) level of unrest in the south for 2000 years.
Some people on this board have said 'well, i have not read about any rebellions, so the {insert country} must have been good at handeling them.' The problem with that is the majority of rebellions were never recorded in any kind of history book and many books that were written have been lost to the vagaries of time. Can you say anything absolute about a particular time and place 1000 years ago?
So, if the people are not revolting why should we give them a seperate culture? Because people who feel less than others in the same country will work less hard. It is a bit more complicated than that but that is a good start!
My feeling is that there was more differentation in culture in 900Ce and that slowly grew less especially with the baby renaissance and later the Renaissance. As trade and communication grew the differences became less and less till the mid 19th century when we created the 'Political Culture'.
A great example is Slavic Macedonia. That one is a hoot! it was populated by Bulgarian Slavs but controlled by the Ottomans until 1878. Bulgaria was created with this province but was then taken from Bulgaria when central European nations decided Bulgaria was to big with it, so they gave it back to the Ottomans. Serbia gained control of the region in 1913 and now the people have formed
'Macedonia' even though they are Bulgarian Slavs.
Modern nationalism created many 'cultures' of that sort which confuses many people who think that culture gap has been widening, not narrowing over the years.
So, my friends and i came up with a system of culture that we felt addressed these issues.
We feel that the game should either have more cultures, and have 'associated' culture groups, such as England having English or in CK Anglo-Saxon, and having a table that the game reads that says since the English have Anglo-Saxon
as their dominant culture then Langue d'oeil, Rhine German, Dutch, Flemish, and Scandinavian
(for example) could be associated cultures.
We felt associated cultures should face a +1 revolt risk, -1 manpower, and a -10% or -20% taxes. Cultures you are not associated with should draw a +2 revolt risk, no manpower or very little, and a -30%taxes. Many people seem to feel that Britain obviously became rich of India so why such a tax hit? well, what EU2 does not model is the garrisons required to maintai India at an immense cost. Virtually every colony of every European colony during the 19th Century lost the home country money, not made money. There were exceptions such as India which did bring in a profit.
The other thought we had would be to add lots of cultures and give each country a certain set.
Such as, the K. of France could have Langue d'Oeil as a primary culture and Catalan, Langue d'Oc, North Italian, Rhinlander, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon and Flemish as minor cultures.
I guess that would basically do the same thing as the first option, but the second option would allow more flexibility in set up.
That pretty much wraps it up; remember that perception of cultural difference was as important to both the nobility and the peasants as any actual difference. I would personally use 28 or 29 cultures for CK. And my friends and i consider this to be a very important point for the game.
Michael
Thanks for the well thought out post Lycortas.
The factor I think you may be missing however is that CK is not in the least the era of nation-states. Peasants did not think of themselves as English, or French, or whatever. As you rightly pointed out, they were only concerned about their one little village. So where their overlord came from, whether itwas the neighboring village or from across the sea, made no real difference in their lives.
The factor I think you may be missing however is that CK is not in the least the era of nation-states. Peasants did not think of themselves as English, or French, or whatever. As you rightly pointed out, they were only concerned about their one little village. So where their overlord came from, whether itwas the neighboring village or from across the sea, made no real difference in their lives.
DemetriosHe was one of the greatest generals of Alexander the Great, and one of the significant epigons. I think that he ruled part of the empire after Alexander's death, Kassandros got to rule Macedonia (Kassandros is the founder of Thessalonike as well) but i think if i remember correctly that Demetrios Poliorketes was the ruler of Thrace.
Originally posted by iwannhs
He was one of the greatest generals of Alexander the Great, and one of the significant epigons. I think that he ruled part of the empire after Alexander's death, Kassandros got to rule Macedonia (Kassandros is the founder of Thessalonike as well) but i think if i remember correctly that Demetrios Poliorketes was the ruler of Thrace.
No, Lysimachos ruled Thrace. Demetrios was originally co-king with his father Antigonos Monophthalmos in Asia Minor (he got his nickname during this period for beseiging Rhodes for an extended period, but not capturing it - the Rhodians built the Colossus in celebration of their victory) . After thsir armies were defeated and his father killed at Ipsos in 301 BC, Demetrios escaped with the fleet, eventually conquering and ruling Macedonia for a short period before being driven out. He eventually was captured by Seleukos I, who kept him prioner while he drank himself to death. Demetrios' son Antigonos II eventually recapured Macedonia and his descendents ruled there until the Romans came.
However, I do think we are getting just a bit off-topic now
so let's drop the subject...
ok, i must have been monophalmos myself when reading about Demetrios to overlook so much
In the CK period, Romanian. The switch to Old Church Slavonic was taken in response to the Turkish invasions in the 1500's. It also required new church decorations since the peasantry no longer understood the services.
I'm not quite sure that I understand your question about the Slavs, so feel free to reask. The Slavic invasions had nothing to do with the adoption of Old Church Slavonic, since the Slavs were pagans. Christianity was maintained by the Latin population, but, like in Ireland, was cut off from Rome and Constantinople. The Slavs settled in the plains and the Delta. The planes (Moldavian, Wallachian, and Transylvanian were mixed population as we can see through the artifacts. The Delta seems to have been purely Slavic, and wasn't yet reassimilated.
Alexandre
Yes.
Nope, Romania has its own patriarch. It's fairly recent (certainly compared to the Bulgarians) but offhand, I can't remember when.
[/B][/QUOTE] and used Slavonic rite well before the CK time period, from 9th century onwards. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, they weren't even Orthodox yet. There was a lot of manuvering between Rome and Constantinople throughout the CK period, although by the 1200's I don't think that there was much questions where it was going to end up.
Alexandre
Very nice post Lycortas2, but the only problem is: Sergie said the game will have 11 cultures, and that number is final, because of the artwork and codeing involved. Some we must make do with only 11. Also this thread was about culture name, and its kinda got off culture names somewhere in the 11 pages.
My two cents on Culture Names:
1. Germanic : K. of Franks, England, West Germany
2. Viking Rus, Russia, Ukraine etc.
3. Slavic : Slavic countries
4. Islamic : North Africa, Southern Spain, Asia Minor "parts of " Persia, Arabia
5. Nomadic
6. Latin - Romain : Italy, Adriatic coast of Balkans, The Provence, Lombardy
7. Greako Romain : Byzantines and sub countries
8. Gaelic/Celtic : Ireland, Wales
9. Baltic?, Poland, Estonia, Baltic States, Eastern Germany
10. Forest Pagens?
11. Scandinavian Pagans, insead of Samoed
My two cents on Culture Names:
1. Germanic : K. of Franks, England, West Germany
2. Viking Rus, Russia, Ukraine etc.
3. Slavic : Slavic countries
4. Islamic : North Africa, Southern Spain, Asia Minor "parts of " Persia, Arabia
5. Nomadic
6. Latin - Romain : Italy, Adriatic coast of Balkans, The Provence, Lombardy
7. Greako Romain : Byzantines and sub countries
8. Gaelic/Celtic : Ireland, Wales
9. Baltic?, Poland, Estonia, Baltic States, Eastern Germany
10. Forest Pagens?
11. Scandinavian Pagans, insead of Samoed
Graeko-Roman is a nice choise for the byzantine culture (although it reminds one of wresting). It is far better however than 'Levantine' which has very bad undertones especially post 1204 (franco-levantine)
@Lycortas.
Let me say that Europe population was by no means stagnant in the 600-1100 era. It actually rose by 70%, which, though not impressive by today standarts, is clearly higher than 28% decline during previous 4 centuries. Also, trade of good had not much to do with population growth, though trade of ideas had.
All this is of not big importance, though.
I think that low culture(peasants, etc) was much more diversified, while high culture(nobility, etc) was much more unified.
Ok, that's for nitpicking. Now, about the point of your post-which i think is having more 'gradual' culture system, and more cultures in general.
In fact, i suppose most of people here would find it very good. Actually, it was proposed in this thread more than once(gradual culture), moreover, Sergei told that they considered it and "put it on hold" due to some obscure problems.
And to having more cultures. Well, it's just the question of scope. You would want more, but tell me why is it so important?
Let me say that Europe population was by no means stagnant in the 600-1100 era. It actually rose by 70%, which, though not impressive by today standarts, is clearly higher than 28% decline during previous 4 centuries. Also, trade of good had not much to do with population growth, though trade of ideas had.
All this is of not big importance, though.
I think that low culture(peasants, etc) was much more diversified, while high culture(nobility, etc) was much more unified.
Ok, that's for nitpicking. Now, about the point of your post-which i think is having more 'gradual' culture system, and more cultures in general.
In fact, i suppose most of people here would find it very good. Actually, it was proposed in this thread more than once(gradual culture), moreover, Sergei told that they considered it and "put it on hold" due to some obscure problems.
And to having more cultures. Well, it's just the question of scope. You would want more, but tell me why is it so important?
Sigh. Of course i meant when, not where they migrated
(funny how you speak of invasion and reassimilation, and i of migrations)But keep in mind that culture equates way of life here. So, the question to ask is if former-Dacia peasant or noble lived similairly to Galician one, or Greek or Anatolian one.
Well there's nothing wrong with criticizing the choice of 11 cultures - it just isn't as likely our suggestions will be picked up.
As a general rule, I don't like hyphenated names. They just sound awkward. Exactly in what way are "Viking Rus" not Slavs?
As well I tent not to like "Islamic" - what if you can convert, and you wind up with Christian Islamic people?
if the viking-rus are the Varyagi then they arent slav, they are scandinavian. I am not sure that thats what the "viking-rus" is about though.
Ummm, the fact that Rurik dynasty was prolly descended from Vikings doesn't change culture of Rus at all. It was Slavic, all the way.
Btw, i'm not sure about culture effect on manpower. It seems more appropiate to modern era, but in CK... i don't think so.
Btw, i'm not sure about culture effect on manpower. It seems more appropiate to modern era, but in CK... i don't think so.
i agree, the Varyagi (who even went as south as Constantinople and at a time 14.000 of them were the imperial guard) according to tradition were the first kings of russia. The population probably was slavic entirely, but viking-rus only brought the Varyagi in mind
Germanic or Teutonic. It shouldn't include French areas.
Either West Slavic or just Slavic. It should also include Moravia, Slovakia, the former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and maybe Romania. It shouldn't include provinces populated by Magyars.
Either Rus or East Slavic.
It should include approximately all of Kievan Rus, so any areas populated by Russians, Belorussians, Ukranians/Ruthenians, and also Baltic Slavs and maybe Galicia and Volhynia.
Latin would be a good name. It should include all of France and also Iberia apart from Granada.
Scandinavian is fine. It should also include Norway.
Byzantine or Romaioi (although the latter might just confuse people).
Some territories outside of the Byzantine Empire might have to take this culture by default.
Saracen is a very poor choice and Muslim is out because cultural names need to be distinguished from religious. Arabic excludes Persia and the Berbers, but might work better than any other possibility.
Celtic is fine. Aside from Ireland, this would include Scotland, Wales, and Brittany.
Nomadic is fine, although maybe Steppe?
Should 'Pagan' be included in the time since these peoples might convert? They're all either Baltic or Finnic peoples, so Balto-Finnic or Baltic/Finnic, although clumsy, might be preferable. This category should include the Finns, themselves, obviously.
Here there's the same problem with possible conversions.
Dark Knight, some questions.
1) Where should Hungary be.
2)Why do you think France should be all Latin?
3)I suppose the territories outside Byzantium you spoke of were Georgia and Caucas in general?
4)Why Saracen is bad choice?
1) Where should Hungary be.
2)Why do you think France should be all Latin?
3)I suppose the territories outside Byzantium you spoke of were Georgia and Caucas in general?
4)Why Saracen is bad choice?
Where would you put the Magyars then?
[EDIT: outposted by DarthMaur by a matter of seconds!]
[EDIT: outposted by DarthMaur by a matter of seconds!]