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

[Lord Roivas]

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.

I'd have to disagree with this one quite a bit. There are quite big differences between North and South Italy. North has always been wealthier and there has always been animosity there. The languages had lots of noticeable differences up until the last 50 years or so.

 

[Jokolytic]

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.

Different way of life, different upbringing. Different dialect, food, drink, dance, song, activities, environment; the severity of all these aspects is subjective, but evident nonetheless.

And scroll down to the Lord's Prayer section to see how different the language can be just for Neapolitan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neapolitan_language

 

[LumberKing]

Different way of life, different upbringing. Different dialect, food, drink, dance, song, activities, environment; the severity of all these aspects is subjective, but evident nonetheless.

And scroll down to the Lord's Prayer section to see how different the language can be just for Neapolitan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neapolitan_language

Which brings us to this conclusion: they have different cultures.

 

[.Me]

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?

Nationalism =/= Nation.
Nationalism is only the exaltation of the state, and the state as it is understood today is an artificial creation. (not necessarily negative), and the state is no longer something that emanates from a specific people, created by the people, for the good of its people.
But... I believe that if we continue to talk about politics, they will close the topic. XD

 

[Jokolytic]

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 Marian reforms changed that and by the time Constantine the Great converted, I would say there was cultural shift influenced by Christianity's doctrines that changed the "Romans serving Romans in the name of the emperor vs. barbarians" thought to "Christian Romans serving Romans in the name of God vs. heathen barbarians".

 

[Vias]

They even have different languages, to an extent.

Italian regions have different languages. Nowadays Italian came from the cultural italian used in literature. But that doesn't mean the culture was different.

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

Sicilian it's a different language. It's a Romance language born before italian.

 

[Lord Roivas]

And yes "nationalism" in the modern sense did not exist back then, but you're arguing semantics here. There's a reason why today we have countries like France, England, Egypt, Syria and all these others places today. Especially when people were Kings of these particular regions that all happened to endure culturally, religiously, and linguistically into the modern day. To claim people who were born all throughout thought of themselves solely as identity less peasants, is simply not the case. Even tribal, clan, and linguistic groups are really just a proto versions of the "nation" no?

"Nationalism is only the exaltation of the state,"

People weren't worshipping a state just because. Typically it was always a very particular state, with a particular people, a particular history, a particular background, a particular language. See where I'm going here.

 

[LumberKing]

The Marian reforms changed that and by the time Constantine the Great converted, I would say there was cultural shift influenced by Christianity's doctrines that changed the "Romans serving Romans in the name of the emperor vs. barbarians" thought to "Christian Romans serving Romans in the name of God vs. heathen barbarians".

So nothing much changed then?

 

[Jokolytic]

And yes "nationalism" in the modern sense did not exist back then, but you're arguing semantics here. There's a reason why today we have countries like France, England, Egypt, Syria and all these others places today. Especially when people were Kings of these particular regions that all happened to endure culturally, religiously, and linguistically into the modern day. To claim people who were born all throughout thought of themselves solely as identity less peasants, is simply not the case. Even tribal, clan, and linguistic groups are really just a proto versions of the "nation" no?

I agree. It's kind of like saying computers didn't exist before the Mac II.

 

[Vias]

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

Obviously I know that, but that only by a minority of people, a preconception born only in this century because of immigration.

But Sicilians aren't real Italians.

I'm Sicilian, and I think you shouldn't talk rubbish.

 

[Colpo]

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

Assuming we're talking about culture as "the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively", I'd argue that the very acknowledgement of the existence of "French Burgundians" represents a cultural difference than "French Frenchmen" or "French Aquitanians", even insofar as they consider themselves a distinct subgroup of the "French Peoples".

Ultimately though, I'm inclined to agree. If there's no subsets for Germanic culture (Saxon, Bavarian, Gothic, Vandal, Burgundian), there should be no subset for Italian culture (Langobard/Lombard, Venetian, Sicilian, Median), or for French culture (Occitan, Frankish).

 

[.Me]

Different way of life, different upbringing. Different dialect, food, drink, dance, song, activities, environment; the severity of all these aspects is subjective, but evident nonetheless.

And scroll down to the Lord's Prayer section to see how different the language can be just for Neapolitan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neapolitan_language

All of these differences are also evident between a Bavarian and a Berliner.
I live in Italy, I know the Neapolitan dialect, and Naples is not so far away from Rome.
And I assure you that all these differences are not large enough to consider a Neapolitan culture different from, for example, the Sicilian.
There are differences even between towns and cities, how great must be the difference to consider a culture different from one another?
Not too far from here there is a city that has its traditional dishes (Segni), his dancing, his clothes, and even a nice tradition that evokes the rites of the ancient Latin, a kind of annual "wild boar hunting" in arena. The city nearest to it, has traditions diametrically opposed.

 

[LumberKing]

I'm Sicilian, and I think you shouldn't talk rubbish.

I think you should learn to take a joke and not let such trivial matters offend you.

 

[Lord Roivas]

Nationalism =/= Nation.
Nationalism is only the exaltation of the state, and the state as it is understood today is an artificial creation. (not necessarily negative), and the state is no longer something that emanates from a specific people, created by the people, for the good of its people.
But... I believe that if we continue to talk about politics, they will close the topic. XD

This sounds like the modern argument for massive immigration and how there are no real borders, yada yada.

 

[Vias]

I think you should learn to take a joke and not let such trivial matters offend you.

Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't get it.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

This is turning to a funny discussion. Three Italians (me, .Me and Vias, of which at least two from the south) who certainly have a better first-hand experience of the degree of cultural/linguistical differences within the peninsula, against two-three persons of uncertain nationality who absolutely want to remark that Sicilians are really different from Lombards, something that fits quite well with established stereotypes. Do you know what the Gallo-Italic of Sicily is?

Taken, Italy is a place of many different dialects which I would better call languages (as I wrote); my nickname, label and location are all jokes about the last Bourbon king of the Two Sicilies, written in Neapolitan (I'm not from Naples myself). However, until the process of modern nation-state building took on extreme forms in France, such distinctions were arguably no smaller than those you could witness in a certain Romance country beyond the Alps. This does not mean that Italians today do not share a common sense of nationality. Venice fighting for independence? That is laughable, it's just an ideological mask to achieve a more lenient treatment for fiscal evaders.

Anyway, I wonder what this discussion is useful for relative to the original topic. Did shared national identities exist among segments of the original Romance populations exist in the VIII century? Probably not, as .Me said, they were all Romans, citizens of the Res Publica Christiana. Do we want to represent more or less accurately in the game some ethno-geographical differences, in order to reflect modern views of "cultures", and possibly allow in-game interaction with Germanic cultures such as the Frankish and the Lombard ones in order for the cultural map to take a more modern shape during the course of the game? Probably yes.

I would suggest to get back on topic.

 

[Vias]

This is turning to a funny discussion. Three Italians (me, .Me and Vias, of which at least two from the south) who certainly have a better first-hand experience of the degree of cultural/linguistical differences within the peninsula, against two-three persons of uncertain nationality who absolutely want to remark that Sicilians are really different from Lombards, something that fits quite well with established stereotypes.

Taken, Italy is a place of many different dialects which I would better call languages (as I wrote), but until the process of modern nation-state building took on extreme forms in France, such distinctions were arguably no smaller than those you could witness in a certain Romance country beyond the Alps. This does not mean that Italians today do not share a common sense of nationality. Venice fighting for independence? That is laughable, it's just an ideological mask to achieve a more lenient treatment for fiscal evaders.

Anyway, I wonder what this discussion is useful for relative to the original topic. Did shared national identities exist among segments of the original Romance populations exist in the VIII century? Probably not, as .Me said, they were all Romans, citizens of the Res Publica Christiana. Do we want to represent more or less accurately in the game some ethno-geographical differences, in order to reflect modern views of "cultures", and possibly allow in-game interaction with Germanic cultures such as the Frankish and the Lombard ones in order for the cultural map to take a more modern shape during in the course of the game? Probably yes.

I would suggest to get back on topic.

I totally agree with you.

 

[LumberKing]

Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't get it.

Don't worry about it. It's the internet, it's impossible to tell a person's emotion by looking at texts. I'm sorry too if I was being insensitive.

 

[.Me]

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.



But Sicilians aren't real Italians.

If I remember correctly: Before the Constitutio Antoniniana (212 a.d.) Only a Roman citizen, and therefore an italic, or a man of italic descent, could become "roman citizen". Only the senate, trough senatus consultum or constitutio, the emperor himself, or a magistrate of high political status could give to a man the roman citizenship. Before the Constitutio Antoniniana , you can obtain only the latin citizenship if you are a peregrino (peregrino = stranger). The ius latii, or "latin right" or the latin citizenship, was the the most widespread form of citizenship in the empire, and was the form of citizenship granted to the "Peoples of the provinces". In the roman Colonies outside Italy, only a small part of the population (colonii, means: LAT: colonii; ITA: coloni Eng: Colonizers), had roman citizenship. And the biggest cities of the western part of the empire, was colonies. Colony = A city founded by a roman legion, ruled by roman peoples. This does not detract nothing from the universality of the Romanitas. But this is the fact.

This sounds like the modern argument for massive immigration and how there are no real borders, yada yada.

WTF?

This is turning to a funny discussion. Three Italians (me, .Me and Vias, of which at least two from the south) who certainly have a better first-hand experience of the degree of cultural/linguistical differences within the peninsula, against two-three persons of uncertain nationality who absolutely want to remark that Sicilians are really different from Lombards, something that fits quite well with established stereotypes. Do you know what the Gallo-Italic of Sicily is?

Taken, Italy is a place of many different dialects which I would better call languages (as I wrote); my nickname, label and location are all jokes about the last Bourbon king of the Two Sicilies, written in Neapolitan (I'm not from Naples myself). However, until the process of modern nation-state building took on extreme forms in France, such distinctions were arguably no smaller than those you could witness in a certain Romance country beyond the Alps. This does not mean that Italians today do not share a common sense of nationality. Venice fighting for independence? That is laughable, it's just an ideological mask to achieve a more lenient treatment for fiscal evaders.

Anyway, I wonder what this discussion is useful for relative to the original topic. Did shared national identities exist among segments of the original Romance populations exist in the VIII century? Probably not, as .Me said, they were all Romans, citizens of the Res Publica Christiana. Do we want to represent more or less accurately in the game some ethno-geographical differences, in order to reflect modern views of "cultures", and possibly allow in-game interaction with Germanic cultures such as the Frankish and the Lombard ones in order for the cultural map to take a more modern shape during the course of the game? Probably yes.

I would suggest to get back on topic.

holy words.

 

[Lord Roivas]

If I remember correctly: Before the Constitutio Antoniniana (212 a.d.) Only a Roman citizen, and therefore an italic, or a man of italic descent, could become "roman citizen".

You're trying to turn this discussion to something it wasn't. You're proving us correct just by saying a person of Italic descent. It shows there were "nations", clans or groups that did have an identity. Jok and I were commenting on your comment that there was no such thing until the modern era, and that everyone from England, France, Spain, Italy and everywhere else who was Catholic called themselves Romans and had no identity really. Which you're wrong, plain and simple.