Should there be Roman culture on the map in the new DLC?

[Ciccillo Rre]

Thanks to this thread I've got an idea.

In order to represent the situation more accurately while not misleading those who believe that "Roman" means a gladium and a lorica segmentata, we could replace the inappropriate generic "Italians" in the 769 cultural map with a "Romanic" culture, with late Latin names. It would be a compromising simple choice of a name that should please everyone.

They would merge with the Lombards after, say, 800AD or 900AD (if they are revising the setup of 867 as well) thereby transforming into the Italian culture. Possibly, the Lombards should fall in the same cultural group as the "Romanic" and the "Italians", whether the Latin group is retained as one or not.

 

[.Me]

Yep. As Montanelli said,

It would be nice if there was a chance for this to happen if the Lombards still rule Italy in, say, 900 or 1000. Kind of like the English melting pot events.

exactly. XD
but do not forget one thing: In the Middle Ages the national identity did not exist, all Catholics, from England to Germany, from Italy to Spain, considered themselves Romans.
National identity and nationalism, then, is an invention of the Jacobins bourgeois and of the "Enlightenment thinkers"

I support the idea of ​​Ciccillo Re, I have this idea:
- First, the culture of the Lombards should not be called "Lombard" but "Langobard"
- Italy must be of roman culture, like france must be of gallic culture and hispania must be of iberian culture (all this culture in the latin group, obviosly).
all these cultures should be able to transform, respectively:
Arabic + Iberian = Andalusian
Visigothic + Iberian = Castillan, plus some events that can mimic the appearance of "portuguese" in portugal, catalan, in aragon etc ... Maybe depending on the titles of the characters who owns that culture.
Langobards + Roman = Italian
Germanic frankish + Latin Gallic = Frankish
All of these melting pot events must be accelerated compared to the events of the melting pot that already exist. At the arrival of the year 900 ad, all the "Roman" cultures should be gone. Unless the player does not want them to survive.
Another way would be to create the appearance of these cultures (Italia, castillan, latin frankish etc...) through event, with no melting pot. Simply arrived at a specific date, the cultures begin to disappear. Is perfectly possible to do it, I'm doing the mod that I've done such thing, basing it on the title which controls a specific culture.

Or another idea is to create a single Romanic culture, as rightly said Ciccillo, that functions in much the same way. ^^

(note: there are historical sources that tell of the existence of a celtic speaking community of Gauls in the region of Brabant, in the actual Belgium, still pagan. The sources, dating back to 780, tell of a Christian missionary who tried to evangelize them, the missionary was taken and thrown into a river. XD... Were reportedly converted to Christianity about twenty years later... Unfortunately I don't remeber where I read this, or if I heard this from a professor at my university.)

 

[DominusNovus]

The problem with that solution is that its still a little simplistic. For example, there still was nothing even resembling unified Italian culture during this time period. I'd say it should be divided up at least as much as in EU4, with Lombard, Umbrian, and Sicilian. Perhaps with an addition of Neapolitan and Venetian. And even maybe Italo-Roman to represent the vary late Roman culture around the end of the Empire.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

The problem with that solution is that its still a little simplistic. For example, there still was nothing even resembling unified Italian culture during this time period. I'd say it should be divided up at least as much as in EU4, with Lombard, Umbrian, and Sicilian. Perhaps with an addition of Neapolitan and Venetian. And even maybe Italo-Roman to represent the vary late Roman culture around the end of the Empire.

I agree, but I doubt that the devs will go that far into splitting the Italian culture. Recall that this is not EU4, and that culture has more gameplay effects (the culture of characters affects their reciprocal relations). Hence, a good compromise must be found.

 

[.Me]

The problem with that solution is that its still a little simplistic. For example, there still was nothing even resembling unified Italian culture during this time period. I'd say it should be divided up at least as much as in EU4, with Lombard, Umbrian, and Sicilian. Perhaps with an addition of Neapolitan and Venetian. And even maybe Italo-Roman to represent the vary late Roman culture around the end of the Empire.

The Eu4 division of italian "cultures" is simply Horrible.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Languages_spoken_in_Italy.svg

If you want to divide Italy into dialects, you should be divided it: or in three areas, namely "Northern", "Central" and "Median"; but remenber: Is a very arbitrary division, simply unreal and unhistorical... Exactly like in Eu4, where they have also calling these three cultures with wrong names (Lombard culture in Venice and Tuscany? WTF?), but they have done this for gameplay reason. Or you put here all the various dialects, like in the two map I've posted... Since it is impossible, and that the difference between "language" and "culture" is very large, and, and although there are large differences in language (often not mutually comprensile from one city to another) Culturally speaking, these differences are not so big, I am of the view that the paradox has made ​​the right choice in 'insert a monolithic Italian culture in the game.
I add: If we want to divide Italy into dialects, why not do it also with, for example, Germany, where there are very similar regional differences? O with France?

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

The Eu4 division of italian "cultures" is simply Horrible.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Languages_spoken_in_Italy.svg

If you want to divide Italy into dialects, you should be divided it: or in three areas, namely "Northern", "Central" and "Median"; but remenber: Is a very arbitrary division, simply unreal and unhistorical... Exactly like in Eu4, where they have also calling these three cultures with wrong names (Lombard culture in Venice and Tuscany? WTF?), but they have done this for gameplay reason. Or you put here all the various dialects, like in the two map I've posted... Since it is impossible, and that the difference between "language" and "culture" is very large, and, and although there are large differences in language (often not mutually comprensile from one city to another) Culturally speaking, these differences are not so big, I am of the view that the paradox has made ​​the right choice in 'insert a monolithic Italian culture in the game.
I add: If we want to divide Italy into dialects, why not do it also with, for example, Germany, where there are very similar regional differences? O with France?

I praise this post.

 

[Vias]

The Eu4 division of italian "cultures" is simply Horrible.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Languages_spoken_in_Italy.svg

Wait, the Eu4 division of italian cultures it's not horrible, it has historical basis.

In the Middle Age French called "Lombard" all the Italians from northen Italy, Tuscany included, and for them "lombard" was a synonymous of usurer.

Anyway, that was only the French point of view, 'cause historically there never was such a division in italian culture, especially in Middle Age and Renaissance.

 

[Jokolytic]

In the Middle Ages the national identity did not exist, all Catholics, from England to Germany, from Italy to Spain, considered themselves Romans.
National identity and nationalism, then, is an invention of the Jacobins bourgeois and of the "Enlightenment thinkers"

That is so untrue it's almost offensive. It's near leftist propaganda. Please stop spewing such vitrolic garbage you would see only on Marxist Monthly magazine. Although the French Revolution indirectly spawned national populism, nationalism has existed since at least Roman times. Even in the days where the Roman worshiped Augustus instead of Christ, the empire was about the "Senate and PEOPLE of Rome".

 

[Jokolytic]

there never was such a division in italian culture, especially in Middle Age and Renaissance.

Except there was and is even to this day. A Venetian, Umbrian, and Sicilian are all different in a multitude of aspects. In fact they often hate each other. It's unrealistic to think otherwise.

 

[.Me]

That is so untrue it's almost offensive. It's near leftist propaganda. Please stop spewing such vitrolic garbage you would see only on Marxist Monthly magazine. Although the French Revolution indirectly spawned national populism, nationalism has existed since at least Roman times. Even in the days where the Roman worshiped Augustus instead of Christ, the empire was about the "Senate and PEOPLE of Rome".

... Lol, no, please, really, I am the furthest thing from Marxism that exists on the face of the earth, I'm a traditionalist.
But nationalism is something very different from the traditional sense of identity that existed before Christianity, which was based on membership of a community, to a "tribe" united by ties of blood, seen as a natural extension of the family.
But we do not enter into political discourse, although I'd like to talk about it, in any case, the average medieval peasant had no sense of nationality, and I assure you that it is not propaganda of any kind. He was simply a "Christian" part of "Res Publica Christiana," which in the mentality of the time was headed by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Being born in England or in France, made ​​little difference, if not ethnically. The sense of "nation" did not exist. The Scots did not die for "Scotland", but for the "Scottish people" that was headed to his king, above which there was the Pope and the Emperor.

 

[LumberKing]

Except there was and is even to this day. A Venetian, Umbrian, and Sicilian are all different in a multitude of aspects. In fact they often hate each other. It's unrealistic to think otherwise.

They even have different languages, to an extent.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

Even in the days where the Roman worshiped Augustus instead of Christ, the empire was about the "Senate and PEOPLE of Rome".

Ancient tribal identities =/= modern national identities.

The world "populus" in Latin meant both "people" and "poplar" (the tree) although the two meanings took different genders - masculine for "people", feminine for "poplar". The etymology of "populus" is unclear; while some link it to the Proto-Germanic *folkom (hence "folk"), which would establish an Indo-European common origin for both words, others think that "populus" comes from an Etruscan word for the tree - quite diffused in central Italy; hence by metaphor the word started to denote the "ethnos of Rome" in the sense of "genealogic tree of related families".

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

... Lol, no, please, really, I am the furthest thing from Marxism that exists on the face of the earth, I'm a traditionalist.
But nationalism is something very different from the traditional sense of identity that existed before Christianity, which was based on membership of a community, to a "tribe" united by ties of blood, seen as a natural extension of the family.
But we do not enter into political discourse, although I'd like to talk about it, in any case, the average medieval peasant had no sense of nationality, and I assure you that it is not propaganda of any kind. He was simply a "Christian" part of "Res Publica Christiana," which in the mentality of the time was headed by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Being born in England or in France, made ​​little difference, if not ethnically. The sense of "nation" did not exist. The Scots did not die for "Scotland", but for the "Scottish people" that was headed to his king, above which there was the Pope and the Emperor.

I am a Marxist but this is the true thing.

 

[Jokolytic]

... Lol, no, please, really, I am the furthest thing from Marxism that exists on the face of the earth, I'm a traditionalist.
But nationalism is something very different from the traditional sense of identity that existed before Christianity, which was based on membership of a community, to a "tribe" united by ties of blood, seen as a natural extension of the family.
But we do not enter into political discourse, although I'd like to talk about it, in any case, the average medieval peasant had no sense of nationality, and I assure you that it is not propaganda of any kind. He was simply a "Christian" part of "Res Publica Christiana," which in the mentality of the time was headed by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Being born in England or in France, made ​​little difference, if not ethnically. The sense of "nation" did not exist. The Scots did not die for "Scotland", but for the "Scottish people" that was headed to his king, above which there was the Pope and the Emperor.

Ahh, I see. But does a nation not represent the people? At least in populist philosophy. If we're including republics here, then I see your argument. However, let's say the French monarchy was revived. Wouldn't a soldier be fighting for both king and people, as they did in earlier times?

 

[Lord Roivas]

They even have different languages, to an extent.

This was very evident a 100 years ago. Today it has kinda become more blurred. Sicilian was quite different from the modern mainstream Italian.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

In fact they often hate each other.

Certainly this is the case for football rivalries and for who has the best regional dishes.

P.S. I am italian and this is a half joke.

 

[.Me]

Except there was and is even to this day. A Venetian, Umbrian, and Sicilian are all different in a multitude of aspects. In fact they often hate each other. It's unrealistic to think otherwise.

Could you explain what are the major cultural[URL] differences between these various people of Italy?
I remind you that the French of Burgundy hate the French of Paris, for example.

 

[Vias]

Except there was and is even to this day. A Venetian, Umbrian, and Sicilian are all different in a multitude of aspects. In fact they often hate each other. It's unrealistic to think otherwise.

No, wait, what are you saiyng?
I invite you to study italian culture in the Middle Age and Renaissance, and the figures of Petrarca and Boccacio. Seriously, study a bit more about italian culture and history if you want to say something about that.

Also, I'm italian, and the hatred you talk about doesn't exist. And never existed. There is and there was rivalry between the italian regions, but it's not so different respect what happens and what happened between the various region in France, for example.

 

[Jokolytic]

No, wait, what are you saiyng?
I invite you to study italian culture in the Middle Age and Renaissance, and the figures of Petrarca and Boccacio. Seriously, study a bit more about italian culture and history if you want to say something about that.

Also, I'm italian, and the hatred you talk about doesn't exist. And never existed. There is and there was rivalry between the italian regions, but it's not so different respect what happens and what happened between the various region in France, for example.

Have you ever heard of what North Italians call Sicilians? Oh my, the comments of skin color is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[LumberKing]

Ahh, I see. But does a nation not represent the people? At least in populist philosophy. If we're including republics here, then I see your argument. However, let's say the French monarchy was revived. Wouldn't a soldier be fighting for both king and people, as they did in earlier times?

I think we should distinguish between nationalism as we know and love today as the result of the renaissance to culturalism (for a lack of a better word) which existed during the good ol' days. For example, during the antiquity, Romans were considered Romans not by blood, but by citizenship which was awarded based on military service (correct me if I'm wrong). The rest of the world were barbarians. There are similarities to nationalism in that nationalism probably derived it from this, but there are differences in that it is not a matter of nation-state per se, but more on par with culture superiority. Jump forward to the medieval period, and as noted above this Roman sense of cultural superiority was adopted by these... I don't know, barbarian pretenders? It was a matter of how they lived, though the English monarch would take ages to adopt their local language, and the way they did things were like the best in the world. End of rant.

Have you ever heard of what North Italians call Sicilians? Oh my, the comments of skin color is just the tip of the iceberg.

But Sicilians aren't real Italians.