Scenario setup changes

[Ayeshteni]

In lots of places, for instance, here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4332330&postcount=188
A thread you've already posted on.

Quite. But I cannot see much in the way of norman/frankish/english names in that list. Are you suggesting that that list is acceptable for the later lords and nobles?

This is a CK thing. The distinction between Saxon and English was invented by CK. If you wanna make your changes accurately, then a Scottish melting pot event turning Saxon into English should be used just as it is in England. But to have Lothian and Berwick as "Scottish", but Scotland-proper not is just silly. The makers totally messed Scottish culture up when they were doing it. Rendering Scottish culture accurately simply means having this Scottish melting pot.

yes its a mess. There is a distinction between Saxon and English in the CK context. 'English' has a high degree of Norman influence and is distinct from Saxon.

I am sorry you can't be bothered to post your proposal in a consice and easy to access post. I am sorry I haven't downloaded the GCM (which I have no intention of using - and am just getting a white screen and a hanging progress bar when I try to do so), or reading the 1370 odd posts to find your Scottish proposal and/or list.

Your statement that having 'Scottish' in the lowlands is silly when the rest of Scotland is Gaelic (i.e. not) has some merit. But as you say we have a mess. I would hesitate to define the lords and nobles as 'English' also.

I am just trying to find a way to make the Scottish problem less jarring (as you are), I am posting my proposals (which are, and should be commented on). Please do the same. An argument of 'I have already done so and can't be bothered to do it again isn't particularily helpful.

We have two proposals.

1) The 'compromise' posted by me and supported by Brian Boruma.
2) Your proposal. Scottish for Scots Gaels and other cultures for later lords and nobles.

What cultures for those lords. To my knowledge you haven't said who has what particular culture (if its in the GCM, I don't have it). And as had been mentioned various names on those cultures lists do not suit Scotland.

The 'compromise'. The Irish and Scots Gaelic lists are very similar and grudgingly can be combined. But what of the 'Scottish' culture? You yourself have stated elsewher that it is a mix of several cultures. Why can that list not represent that fact. Scotland retains its Gaelic bedrock and the Lowlanders have there lords, nobles and definitive culture set.

Otherwise you have

Scottish Gaelic as a seperate entity (close to the Irish, but with slight differences in spelling and a slightly different emphasis on Irish/Scottish principle names) and the later lords and nobles who have English/Frankish/Norman lists whos names are not entirely suitable to Scotland.

Ayeshteni

 

[Ayeshteni]

I will not have Scotland lose both cultures to be merged and dilute in BOTH areas.

Ayeshteni

 

[Calgacus]

Quite. But I cannot see much in the way of norman/frankish/english names in that list. Are you suggesting that that list is acceptable for the later lords and nobles?





yes its a mess. There is a distinction between Saxon and English in the CK context. 'English' has a high degree of Norman influence and is distinct from Saxon.

I am sorry you can't be bothered to post your proposal in a consice and easy to access post. I am sorry I haven't downloaded the GCM (which I have no intention of using - and am just getting a white screen and a hanging progress bar when I try to do so), or reading the 1370 odd posts to find your Scottish proposal and/or list.

Your statement that having 'Scottish' in the lowlands is silly when the rest of Scotland is Gaelic (i.e. not) has some merit. But as you say we have a mess. I would hesitate to define the lords and nobles as 'English' also.

I am just trying to find a way to make the Scottish problem less jarring (as you are), I am posting my proposals (which are, and should be commented on). Please do the same. An argument of 'I have already done so and can't be bothered to do it again isn't particularily helpful.

We have two proposals.

1) The 'compromise' posted by me and supported by Brian Boruma.
2) Your proposal. Scottish for Scots Gaels and other cultures for later lords and nobles.

What cultures for those lords. To my knowledge you haven't said who has what particular culture (if its in the GCM, I don't have it). And as had been mentioned various names on those cultures lists do not suit Scotland.

The 'compromise'. The Irish and Scots Gaelic lists are very similar and grudgingly can be combined. But what of the 'Scottish' culture? You yourself have stated elsewher that it is a mix of several cultures. Why can that list not represent that fact. Scotland retains its Gaelic bedrock and the Lowlanders have there lords, nobles and definitive culture set.

Otherwise you have

Scottish Gaelic as a seperate entity (close to the Irish, but with slight differences in spelling and a slightly different emphasis on Irish/Scottish principle names) and the later lords and nobles who have English/Frankish/Norman lists whos names are not entirely suitable to Scotland.

Ayeshteni

The English list is not unsuitable Scoto-English culture. If you're talking about the lords 1187 scenario, well, there are only three of them, the King and the Stewart Duke of Strathclyde, both of whom were French in culture; no, the French naming list isn't going to accurately give names for his successors, but neither does the French list do that for the English rulers in the same scenario (nor most of the French rulers) - and the problem there is that CK names are determined by culture, not by precedent or dynasty, the most accurate ways of doing it. For 1337, again, most of the lords are Gaelic, perhaps including the young David II, perhaps not. In this scenario, perhaps all the rulers of the Scottish lowlands, except those of Fife and Mar, should be English; it's not accurate, but would faciliate the accurate growth of English culture in the following century as Gaelic was displaced in areas like Buchan (real Buchan, not CK province), Aberdeenshire, Angus, Fife and Nithsdale.

 

[Calgacus]

I will not have Scotland lose both cultures to be merged and dilute in BOTH areas.

Ayeshteni

Well, you're the one pushing for the merging of Gaelic culture. Suggesting that the least Scottish part of Scotland get itself renamed "Scottish" in 1066 is just ridiculous though.

 

[Ayeshteni]

There are always going to be problems whichever one is chosen, yes?

So, OK.

Post your proposal. I just want to see the Scotland area improved from what it currently is (of that we can both agree). So I agree. Post your proposal and lets get it in there.

The only reason reason I put the compromise up in the first place is because you hadn't commented at that point and even after you had, you hadnt posted a counter-proposal. No wonder Phoenix didn't know what was happening with the Scots set-up.

Ayeshteni

 

[Earl Uhtred]

BTW, don't buy into the myth that Saxons and Angles were different; this is a myth invented by Bede in order to make the Northumbrians the special English. All British Germans initially called themselves Saxons, and Angli was the word for the British Germans invented by Pope Gregory the Great.

Ah big yaws? Bede is not the only source for this. East Engle and various flavours Mide Engle feature in the Tribal Hidage. I appreciate Bede's division between Angle and Saxon may be simplistic but it contains a grain of truth.

 

[Calgacus]

There are always going to be problems whichever one is chosen, yes?

So, OK.

Post your proposal. I just want to see the Scotland area improved from what it currently is (of that we can both agree). So I agree. Post your proposal and lets get it in there.

The only reason reason I put the compromise up in the first place is because you hadn't commented at that point and even after you had, you hadnt posted a counter-proposal. No wonder Phoenix didn't know what was happening with the Scots set-up.

Ayeshteni

My proposal, as I think I already said, is that laid out in the GCM, as per here: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4250112&postcount=1

As for dealing with the lords themselves, exactly as per above. The rulers of Berwick (i.e. Dunbar) being English, although it's important that the 1066 Galloway situation is fixed, as per here:http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=211689

In the GCM, we scrapped Saxon culture. You ain't gonna do that here, so I'd suggest a melting pot events which does it. For the non-Gaelic lords in 1187, leave the Fleming ruler of Moray Dutch, get rid of the anachronistic Comyn in Buchan (the real ruler was Fergus), and make Stewart DUke of Strathclyde and the King either French or Norman. For 1337, make all the "lowland lords" except those of Mar and Fife (and perhaps Carrick too), but including the king, English.

Perhaps to sooth nationalist anxiety, rename "English" as "Anglian" or "Anglic".

 

[Brian Bóruma]

Well, you're the one pushing for the merging of Gaelic culture. Suggesting that the least Scottish part of Scotland get itself renamed "Scottish" in 1066 is just ridiculous though.

Hence why I called it Lallans or Northumbrian.

 

[Calgacus]

Ah big yaws? Bede is not the only source for this. East Engle and various flavours Mide Engle feature in the Tribal Hidage. I appreciate Bede's division between Angle and Saxon may be simplistic but it contains a grain of truth.

Erm ... not sure. I don't know how we date the Tribal Hidage; you also have to remember that the rulers of these places were trying to make the nature of their kingship conform with continental models, by naming themselves after well-established continental gentes; whereas, in reality, England became English because of immigration of people from the northern Germanic continuum, probably shaped by the needs of the Roman army, and thus it is unlikely that there is anything to the idea that the British Germans continued in Britain ethnic divisions they possessed in Germany.

What is interesting is that all Celts call the English Saxons, not English, and that in Germany, Saxon was a collective name for most northern Germans, including those from Angeln; it was Gregory who called all the English Angli, whether Kentish folk or Deirans, and Bede was the one who enthusiastically and predictably made the Northumbrians Angli.

 

[Calgacus]

Hence why I called it Lallans or Northumbrian.

I don't know what Earl Uhtred would think of that; if you had Northumbrian, you'd have to scrap English culture and have Southumbrian. Lallans suggests the language was spoken in most of the Lowlands and that it had been nativized. Now I don't deny it had been nativized by 1600, but not in CK period.

 

[Ayeshteni]

My proposal, as I think I already said, is that laid out in the GCM, as per here: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4250112&postcount=1

As for dealing with the lords themselves, exactly as per above. The rulers of Berwick (i.e. Dunbar) being English, although it's important that the 1066 Galloway situation is fixed, as per here:http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=211689

In the GCM, we scrapped Saxon culture. You ain't gonna do that here, so I'd suggest a melting pot events which does it. For the non-Gaelic lords in 1187, leave the Fleming ruler of Moray Dutch, get rid of the anachronistic Comyn in Buchan (the real ruler was Fergus), and make Stewart DUke of Strathclyde and the King either French or Norman. For 1337, make all the "lowland lords" except those of Mar and Fife (and perhaps Carrick too), but including the king, English.

OK. I expect The Phoenix, Byakhiam or whoever will be compiling this will require the necessary changes to be done. So provide name-list (or link) and the IDs of all name and/or culture changed individuals (and provinces) and we are set to go.

Perhaps to sooth nationalist anxiety, rename "English" as "Anglian" or "Anglic".

I don't think that is necessary.

Ayeshteni

 

[Calgacus]

OK. I expect The Phoenix, Byakhiam or whoever will be compiling this will require the necessary changes to be done. So provide name-list (or link) and the IDs of all name and/or culture changed individuals (and provinces) and we are set to go.



I don't think that is necessary.

Ayeshteni

That'll be no problem, although you might have to wait a day or so. Do you actually thing it will be a valuable use of my time? I wasted a lot of time before trying to persuade the powers-that-be that the current situation was messed up, wrong and inaccurate, but they always turned a blind eye (probably because of the undisclosed objections of King). I'd kinda like to hear what Byakhiam has to say ...

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Erm ... not sure. I don't know how we date the Tribal Hidage...

All things considered I'd say the late seventh / early eighth century, Mercia or a satellite, and that it's a window into Anglo-Saxon political development that would otherwise be out of sight. It definitely postdates Gregory, but it's the first indication we get of what the midland kinglets might have called themselves. I don't believe the papacy had the power to influence dynastic naming along ideological lines at that date.

I've often wondered why the natives of the British Isles called the interlopers some variant of 'Saxon' while most of the continentals plus ultimately the English themselves went with 'Angle'. I even discussed it with my supervisor who jokingly suggested it might be onomatopoeic, Saxon sounding a lot more hostile than Angle. I know it's frivolous but it's still the best explanation I've heard.

 

[Ayeshteni]

That'll be no problem, although you might have to wait a day or so. Do you actually thing it will be a valuable use of my time? I wasted a lot of time before trying to persuade the powers-that-be that the current situation was messed up, wrong and inaccurate, but they always turned a blind eye (probably because of the undisclosed objections of King). I'd kinda like to hear what Byakhiam has to say ...

well Byakhiam has already stated that Scottish should have its own Gaelic list, as I recall (it may even be in this thread... or was it the culture change one? - its in one of those two).

The Phoenix was wanting a census. There's a reason for that.

Yes King has made objections. If I have to get him drunk when I see him next (on Saturday) to make him not speak up, I will :rofl:

And last of all. 'If no asky, no getty.' The reason it was black-balled before (excluding King's objections) was about the virulent arguments it caused.

However, most of us agree that changes to the Scots setup have to be made (and I do say that objectively) and I think that it can.

It is more likely to be accepted if all the necessary particulars (name/culture changes, ids noted (in fact making the necessary changes and posting them) etc) are all done and posted.

And a level of concensus has been reached of course.

So no, it is not a waste of time or effort.

Ayeshteni

 

[Drachenfire]

Additional Courtiers needed in county of Dyfed in 1066

New dynasty name: Llanbadarn in the county of Dyfed
Historic persons for this dynasty and reason for inclusion:

Sulien Llanbadarn (b.c. 1030) Sulien is a Welsh varient for Julian, and Llanbadarn is his place of origion. He wrote many sagas, and eventually became Bishop of St. Davids in Dyfed in 1073.

Rhygyfarch Llanbadarn (b.c. 1046) was Sulien's son. Historically he is also known as Ricemarch. He was the author of The Life of St. David, as well as being an accomplished Latin stylaist.

Ieuan Llanbadarn (b.c. 1048) also Sulien's son. He was a most skilful calligrapher and copyiest of the works of Augistine of Hippo.

These persons should be added to the court of Dyfed, and a monistary and church should be added to the county of Dyfed to represent this center of Welsh Christianity.



Additional courtiers needed in the county of Glamorgan 1066

New dynasty name: Llancarfan in the county of Glamorgan
Historic persons of this dynasty and the reason for inclusion:

Herewald Llancarfan: (b.c. 1020) Bishop of Glamorgan from 1056 to his death in 1104. He trained many learned men and brought a sense of stability to Glamorgan, which was beset by Norman marcher lords looking to carve out territory for themselves.

Lifris Llancarfan (b.c. 1037) Herewald's son and author of the "Life of St. Cadog"

Steffan Llancarfan (b.c. 1040) Also Herewald's son and author of the "Life of St. Teilo"

It is important these leading Church leaders be represented as courtiers in the county of Glamorgan.



Also, the Meriadoc dynasty in Glamoram should be renamed Afen (pronounced Aven), as that was their principal seat in the Glamorgan Uplands. In the 14th century, the decendents, reduced to mere barons, would adopt the more Anglo-Norman sounding de Avene.

Source: John Davies, "History of Wales" 1990, 1993. Penguin Books. Page 99

I really do not know how to 'create' these dynasty and characters in the fashon Phonix needs, maybe someone could create them and post them here, so as I might be able to offer them for the next beta?

 

[Brian Bóruma]

So no, it is not a waste of time or effort.

Except for Option A supporters. "B" sure is easier, it's just ugly. Very ugly.

 

[Ayeshteni]

Except for Option A supporters. "B" sure is easier, it's just ugly. Very ugly.

no matter which option you take, its putting a square peg through a round hole.

I do like option A it must be said, but alas I am not good enough to come up with a suitable Scottish list for the later nobles and lords (i.e. the 'Scottish' list).

My fear with option A is that people (and I beleive/fear The Phoenix is one) will want to get rid of the Scottish culture completely (by merging Scots into Irish (Gaelic) and just using English/Frankish for later lords). Combining the worst elements of both options would make me scream, and as I say I couldn't come up with a good list for the Scots in option A (I so wish I could).

Also by banging our heads together we also run the risk of achieving nothing. Which is also bad.

Ayeshteni

 

[unmerged(23474)]

no matter which option you take, its putting a square peg through a round hole.

I do like option A it must be said, but alas I am not good enough to come up with a suitable Scottish list for the later nobles and lords (i.e. the 'Scottish' list).

My fear with option A is that people (and I beleive/fear The Phoenix is one) will want to get rid of the Scottish culture completely (by merging Scots into Irish (Gaelic) and just using English/Frankish for later lords). Combining the worst elements of both options would make me scream, and as I say I couldn't come up with a good list for the Scots in option A (I so wish I could).

Also by banging our heads together we also run the risk of achieving nothing. Which is also bad.

Ayeshteni

People want to get rid of Norman, too. That doesn't make it logical at all. Don't listen to Calgacus. He's just being a zealous nationalist. He supports a culture for two provinces in Sardinia, but not Scots. Boru for president.

 

[Calgacus]

People want to get rid of Norman, too. That doesn't make it logical at all. Don't listen to Calgacus. He's just being a zealous nationalist. He supports a culture for two provinces in Sardinia, but not Scots. Boru for president.

Yeah, thanks. What, am I a Sardinian nationalist? Or am I a Scottish nationlist for arguing against having a Scots culture, for supporting in principle the merger of Scottish and Irish? Either way, people with your inclinations are gonna give me crap.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Lets keep it friendly, or Byakhiam might decide that nothing will change about the cultural setup.