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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I'd say no. Latin as a spoken native language died around the 4th century. The lines between Proto-Italian or Proto-Franco-Provincial and Latin are blurred, of course, but they were definitely closer to Old Italian and Old Provincial than they were Latin itself. As evidenced by the declaration of Nantes (?) I believe. Basically, by the 8th century the Romance languages had evolved enough that Latin couldn't be understood by the common man, and therefore the Church ordered that preaching would be conducted in the local vernacular
While most of your post is correct, it's absolutely ridiculous to say that Latin died in 300s. Maybe in fringe regions there began to be strange dialects at that time, but it wasn't until very far into late antiquity that Latin truly disappeared as a common language.
First a premise I think it is correct to say that, in the Middle Ages, the concept of Nationalism was pretty much nonexistent: the People was before Christians and then Romans and so above of them they had two figures: The Pope and The Emperor! This is particularly true in the Charlemagne's period maybe not in all period represented in CKII (one could argue that it is not in 1300).
During the Ancient Roman Empire nationalities (not probably Nations in our sense) existed with their tribal Kings for example the Gauls had their King but their nationality became totally absorbed by the Romans and that region become Latinized (oh well some differences should exist between a Roman in Narbonne and one in Rome so one could talk of Roman Gauls) on the other hand in Israel, at time called Galilee, there was a King of the Jews that the Romans recognized and puppetized, the same thing could be said with the Ptolemaic Egyptians (Greeks not Egyptians!) that had their Basileus under the Emperor and there was other Kings in Asia Minor "vassals" of the Emperor and the Greeks never become Romans (and indeed the Eastern Roman Empire having capital in Greek territory changed culture in the end...)
Then one could talk of the so called Barbarians, for sure, a German doesn't feel itself a Roman, probably neither after they become foederati!
To be honest are not only the Revolutionaries to have re-invented the concept of Nationality the Kings of France and England contributed to the process the first concentrating all the power on his hands and imposing only one culture in all his realm the one of Paris that he had the arrogance to call "Cosmopolitaine" (of the Cosmos, the world!) the second creating a separated church from Rome and declaring its Kingdom an Empire (separating with this act to the Holy Roman Empire, too!) at the end of this two processes France and England were effectively nations separated from "The Roman Empire" (or Res Publica Christiana if you want), the King of Spain slowly followed... and the Revolutions creating Republics simply exasperated a concept that already existed...
But as, already said, in the period in which we are talking the Western European considered themselves Romans so as Me was saying France, Italy, Spain and area of Britannia (the word "Welsh" means in Saxon "Latinezed Foreigners"!) were yet Latins, maybe not proper Roman but in already a culture changing process.
This is a possible, over simplified, cultures of Western Europe in 769:
Longobard (one time Germanic population but the pot has... melded already so now they are in the Latin Group) in Northern Italy
Roman in Rome, Latium, Ravenna and in central Italy
Longobard with Greek spots in the South
Sardinian in Sardinia and Corsica (totally different language from Latin! So they should be separated...) as the Basque are...
Frankish (Germanic) in France, Aquitania and Germania with the division of the Empire new cultures maybe via "melting pot" could arise (French, Occitan, Frisian, Germanic, Bavarian if you want)
Visigoth in Spain via melting pot their culture could change in Castillian, Galitian, Portoguese and Andalusian
Britons in the territory, that in future, shall be called England and Wales that is people of Celtic origins that spoke a Latin Language (with a "leggendary" King called Arthur?). Here, I'd add creating England as a Briton would be really wrong, well thanks Gods they have made so one could create the realm he likes
Irish and Picts in Ireland and Scotland
Norse in Scandinavia
The thing could change in the Old Gods bookmark for example in Italy:
Lombards in the North (no more Longobard but more "Italians")
Roman in Center Italy (the same of the other bookmark IMHO)
Naepolitans in the South (Longobard and Greek melting pot?)
Sicilian in Sicily (slightly different from Naepolitans via Arabic influence)
Sardinian in Sardinia and Corsica...
The Italian culture is, IMHO, a modern concept and so I see it as a possible melting pot culture of the ones listed above... for example if one become "Emperor of Italia" could try, as the Absolutist Kings of France did, to enforce "Tuscan" as the only one language of the State!
First a premise I think it is correct to say that, in the Middle Ages, the concept of Nationalism was pretty much nonexistent: the People was before Christians and then Romans and so above of them they had two figures: The Pope and The Emperor! This is particularly true in the Charlemagne's period maybe not in all period represented in CKII (one could argue that it is not in 1300).
During the Ancient Roman Empire nationalities (not probably Nations in our sense) existed with their tribal Kings for example the Gauls had their King but their nationality became totally absorbed by the Romans and that region become Latinized (oh well some differences should exist between a Roman in Narbonne and one in Rome so one could talk of Roman Gauls) on the other hand in Israel, at time called Galilee, there was a King of the Jews that the Romans recognized and puppetized, the same thing could be said with the Ptolemaic Egyptians (Greeks not Egyptians!) that had their Basileus under the Emperor and there was other Kings in Asia Minor "vassals" of the Emperor and the Greeks never become Romans (and indeed the Eastern Roman Empire having capital in Greek territory changed culture in the end...)
Then one could talk of the so called Barbarians, for sure, a German doesn't feel itself a Roman, probably neither after they become foederati!
To be honest are not only the Revolutionaries to have re-invented the concept of Nationality the Kings of France and England contributed to the process the first concentrating all the power on his hands and imposing only one culture in all his realm the one of Paris that he had the arrogance to call "Cosmopolitaine" (of the Cosmos, the world!) the second creating a separated church from Rome and declaring its Kingdom an Empire (separating with this act to the Holy Roman Empire, too!) at the end of this two processes France and England were effectively nations separated from "The Roman Empire" (or Res Publica Christiana if you want), the King of Spain slowly followed... and the Revolutions creating Republics simply exasperated a concept that already existed...
But as, already said, in the period in which we are talking the Western European considered themselves Romans so as Me was saying France, Italy, Spain and area of Britannia (the word "Welsh" means in Saxon "Latinezed Foreigners"!) were yet Latins, maybe not proper Roman but in already a culture changing process.
This is a possible, over simplified, cultures of Western Europe in 769:
Longobard (one time Germanic population but the pot has... melded already so now they are in the Latin Group) in Northern Italy
Roman in Rome, Latium, Ravenna and in central Italy
Longobard with Greek spots in the South
Sardinian in Sardinia and Corsica (totally different language from Latin! So they should be separated...) as the Basque are...
Frankish (Germanic) in France, Aquitania and Germania with the division of the Empire new cultures maybe via "melting pot" could arise (French, Occitan, Frisian, Germanic, Bavarian if you want)
Visigoth in Spain via melting pot their culture could change in Castillian, Galitian, Portoguese and Andalusian
Britons in the territory, that in future, shall be called England and Wales that is people of Celtic origins that spoke a Latin Language (with a "leggendary" King called Arthur?). Here, I'd add creating England as a Briton would be really wrong, well thanks Gods they have made so one could create the realm he likes
Irish and Picts in Ireland and Scotland
Norse in Scandinavia
The thing could change in the Old Gods bookmark for example in Italy:
Lombards in the North (no more Longobard but more "Italians")
Roman in Center Italy (the same of the other bookmark IMHO)
Naepolitans in the South (Longobard and Greek melting pot?)
Sicilian in Sicily (slightly different from Naepolitans via Arabic influence)
Sardinian in Sardinia and Corsica...
The Italian culture is, IMHO, a modern concept and so I see it as a possible melting pot culture of the ones listed above... for example if one become "Emperor of Italia" could try, as the Absolutist Kings of France did, to enforce "Tuscan" as the only one language of the State!
I still laugh at the fact that they called me a Marxist ... XD
However, I agree with you completely, except for the split of Italian culture, as I have already explained, I think it would be wrong both for reasons of gameplay for a cultural issue itself, but we will see, at the end of the last word is always of the paradox
"n 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"
This is the quote I'm referring to and in it, yes you are wrong. I actually noticing you edited this quote as well. Originally it was even more nonsensical.
You keep coming back to the name nonsense about nationalism is not nation. Yeah no kidding but that doesn't negate national identity and different ethnic groups who were typically aligned with a particular geography. A nation doesn't have to involve a modern formal state, you're trying to correct yourself with semantics and it's not working. In it's most primitive form a nation is a group that shares a linguistic, cultural, clan, or ethnic background. Then you come back with some quip and then start saying this isn't the place for this discussion, meanwhile ignoring all the points we made.
In the beginning, maybe. But the Lombards quickly secured almost all of mainland Italy, before starting to squabble with the Byzantines about the lands which more or less would have later become the Papal States. Moreover yes, I did tell than in the last step Italy started losing pieces.
"n 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"
This is the quote I'm referring to and in it, yes you are wrong. I actually noticing you edited this quote as well. Originally it was even more nonsensical.
You keep coming back to the name nonsense about nationalism is not nation. Yeah no kidding but that doesn't negate national identity and different ethnic groups who were typically aligned with a particular geography. A nation doesn't have to involve a modern formal state, you're trying to correct yourself with semantics and it's not working. In it's most primitive form a nation is a group that shares a linguistic, cultural, clan, or ethnic background. Then you come back with some quip and then start saying this isn't the place for this discussion, meanwhile ignoring all the points we made.
We can continue our discussion via mp if you want
I've modified my message because my ability to speak in English is very poor, I correct my posts very frequently
PS: I refer only and exclusively to the Modern concept of national identity and nationalism (nationalism = cult of the state, read F.W.Nietzsche "The New Idol").
Read This:
1. 11: The New Idol
Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brothers: here there are states.
A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears to me, for now I will speak to you about the death of peoples.
State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."
It is a lie! It was creators who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.
Destroyers are they who lay snares for the many, and call it state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.
Where there are still peoples, the state is not understood, and is hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.
This sign I give to you: every people speaks its own language of good and evil, which its neighbor does not understand. It has created its own language of laws and customs.
But the state lies in all the tongues of good and evil; and whatever it says it lies; and whatever it has it has stolen.
Everything in it is false; it bites with stolen teeth, and bites often. It is false down to its bowels.
Confusion of tongues of good and evil; this sign I give you as the sign of the state. This sign points to the will to death! it points to the preachers of death!
All too many are born: for the superfluous the state was created!
See how it entices them to it, the all-too-many! How it swallows and chews and rechews them!
"On earth there is nothing greater than I: I am the governing hand of God." -- thus roars the monster. And not only the long-eared and short-sighted fall upon their knees!
Ah! even in your ears, you great souls, it whispers its gloomy lies! Ah! it finds out the rich hearts which willingly squander themselves!
Yes, it finds you too, you conquerors of the old God! You became weary of conflict, and now your weariness serves the new idol!
It would set up heroes and honorable ones around it, the new idol! Gladly it basks in the sunshine of good consciences, -- the cold monster!
It will give everything to you, if you worship it, the new idol: thus it buys the lustre of your virtue, and the glance of your proud eyes.
Through you it seeks to seduce the all-too-many! Yes, a hellish artifice has been created here, a death-horse jingling with the trappings of divine honors!
Yes, a dying for many has been created here, which glorifies itself as life: verily, a great service to all preachers of death!
The state, I call it, where all drink poison, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all -- is called "life."
Behold the superfluous! They steal the works of the creators and the treasures of the wise. Education, they call their theft -- and everything becomes sickness and trouble to them!
Behold the superfluous! They are always sick; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour each other and cannot even digest themselves.
Behold the superfluous! They acquire wealth and become the poorer for it. They seek power, and the lever of power, much money -- these impotent ones!
See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus pull each other into the mud and the abyss.
They all strive for the throne: this is their madness -- as if happiness sat on the throne! Often filth sits on the throne. -- and often also the throne on filth.
Madmen they all seem to me, and clambering apes, and too eager. Foul smells their idol to me, the cold monster: foul they all smell to me, these idolaters.
My brothers, will you suffocate in the fumes of their maws and appetites! Better to break the windows and jump into the open air!
Escape from their foul stench! Escape from the idolatry of the superfluous!
Escape from their foul stench! Escape from the steam of these human sacrifices!
The earth is yet free for great souls. There are still many empty sites for the lonesome and the twosome, surrounded by the fragrance of tranquil seas.
A free life is yet possible for great souls. He who possesses little is that much less possessed: blessed be a little poverty!
There, where the state ends -- there only begins the man who is not superfluous: there begins the song of the necessary, the single and irreplaceable melody.
There, where the state ends -- look there, my brothers! Do you not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Overman?
Thus spoke Zarathustra.
There was none of that years ago, your vision of the world was completely unknown before the French Revolution, as the christian vision of the world was completely unknown before the christian "revolution", read the Politeia of Plato or Aristotle. Revolution is the weapon of subversion, during each revolution, the creative intelligence that is based on the past and on experience is replaced by the brute force of the destroyer, in the continuous cycle of creation and destruction of human society that leads the individual to move away cyclically more from himself and from the natural state of existence. And the result of every great revolution, of which the largest we are still living, and that is the "modernist" or "marxist" revolution, is the destruction, the death of the spirit, the end of cultures, peoples, honor and the end of states (In the true meaning of the term "State") and peoples.
Metternich was the first to expound the great mistake hidden behind the beautiful words of the bourgeois revolutionaries Jacobins, who came to replace the aristocracy with the bourgeoisie. As well as the Christian revolution has broken the continuity between "sacred" power and "secular" power, even though they tried to sew this in the time. As well as the marxism want to replace the bourgeoise whit another, most infimous (and ignorant, do not forget that the mass is ignorance) social class.
The key to your discourse is called Vision of the World, Weltaschauug, in blessed memory of Schopenauer.
Example: According to your modern view of the world, the Roman Empire was a theocracy. Because the head of religion was also the head of the state. But the word "secular" as distinct from "sacred" comes with Christianity, in the ancient time ALL was sacred, the real means of the word "Rex" in latin, (Celtic Rix) is "is the one who draws the celestial line and the terrestrial, through the scepter of good wishes, or those who track the right way."
And I hope that with these examples I have done the least to tell the difference between different visions of the world.
the problem of adapting the modern view of the world to what happened in ancient times, calling the old sense of social cohesion "Nationalism", is the same problem that leads historians still call the Eastern Roman Empire, "Byzantine ". And even in this case has to do with the Enlightenment historiography.
Modern nationalism is the fruit of the state, is the worship of the same, created by the state, is the exact opposite of what happened once, what characterizes a Frenchman like this? A Occitan as French? A Breton as French? What characterizes as a Sardinian as Italian? All these are nations, or are not nations? What characterizes them as such? What instead makes them different from each other? Instead what characterizes traditional society? Look at the Austro-Hungarian Empire, at the Ottoman Empire, what they have different from the modern nation-states? And here we speak with the world of Metternich.
I hope that my terrible English has made all this panegyric at least a minimum understandable. I'm helping myself with a translator. XD
Here, there is your political debate, and not left and right are allowed here, no dualism for me please.
First a premise I think it is correct to say that, in the Middle Ages, the concept of Nationalism was pretty much nonexistent: the People was before Christians and then Romans and so above of them they had two figures: The Pope and The Emperor! This is particularly true in the Charlemagne's period maybe not in all period represented in CKII (one could argue that it is not in 1300).
During the Ancient Roman Empire nationalities (not probably Nations in our sense) existed with their tribal Kings for example the Gauls had their King but their nationality became totally absorbed by the Romans and that region become Latinized (oh well some differences should exist between a Roman in Narbonne and one in Rome so one could talk of Roman Gauls) on the other hand in Israel, at time called Galilee, there was a King of the Jews that the Romans recognized and puppetized, the same thing could be said with the Ptolemaic Egyptians (Greeks not Egyptians!) that had their Basileus under the Emperor and there was other Kings in Asia Minor "vassals" of the Emperor and the Greeks never become Romans (and indeed the Eastern Roman Empire having capital in Greek territory changed culture in the end...)
Then one could talk of the so called Barbarians, for sure, a German doesn't feel itself a Roman, probably neither after they become foederati!
To be honest are not only the Revolutionaries to have re-invented the concept of Nationality the Kings of France and England contributed to the process the first concentrating all the power on his hands and imposing only one culture in all his realm the one of Paris that he had the arrogance to call "Cosmopolitaine" (of the Cosmos, the world!) the second creating a separated church from Rome and declaring its Kingdom an Empire (separating with this act to the Holy Roman Empire, too!) at the end of this two processes France and England were effectively nations separated from "The Roman Empire" (or Res Publica Christiana if you want), the King of Spain slowly followed... and the Revolutions creating Republics simply exasperated a concept that already existed...
But as, already said, in the period in which we are talking the Western European considered themselves Romans so as Me was saying France, Italy, Spain and area of Britannia (the word "Welsh" means in Saxon "Latinezed Foreigners"!) were yet Latins, maybe not proper Roman but in already a culture changing process.
This is a possible, over simplified, cultures of Western Europe in 769:
Longobard (one time Germanic population but the pot has... melded already so now they are in the Latin Group) in Northern Italy
Roman in Rome, Latium, Ravenna and in central Italy
Longobard with Greek spots in the South
Sardinian in Sardinia and Corsica (totally different language from Latin! So they should be separated...) as the Basque are...
Frankish (Germanic) in France, Aquitania and Germania with the division of the Empire new cultures maybe via "melting pot" could arise (French, Occitan, Frisian, Germanic, Bavarian if you want)
Visigoth in Spain via melting pot their culture could change in Castillian, Galitian, Portoguese and Andalusian
Britons in the territory, that in future, shall be called England and Wales that is people of Celtic origins that spoke a Latin Language (with a "leggendary" King called Arthur?). Here, I'd add creating England as a Briton would be really wrong, well thanks Gods they have made so one could create the realm he likes
Irish and Picts in Ireland and Scotland
Norse in Scandinavia
The thing could change in the Old Gods bookmark for example in Italy:
Lombards in the North (no more Longobard but more "Italians")
Roman in Center Italy (the same of the other bookmark IMHO)
Naepolitans in the South (Longobard and Greek melting pot?)
Sicilian in Sicily (slightly different from Naepolitans via Arabic influence)
Sardinian in Sardinia and Corsica...
The Italian culture is, IMHO, a modern concept and so I see it as a possible melting pot culture of the ones listed above... for example if one become "Emperor of Italia" could try, as the Absolutist Kings of France did, to enforce "Tuscan" as the only one language of the State!
I agree with this post completely except for two things: the separate Sardinian culture (I'm not sure that they really still spoke a pre-indoeuropean language in the VIII century; also it is hard to convince the devs to include a culture just for two-three provinces, as in the case for instance of the Cornish) as well as with the split of the Italian culture in later start dates; this I do not want for gameplay reasons primarily.
Also, it would be awesome to have a unified "Briton" culture that eventually splits up into the Welsh and the Breton one, similarly as the Norse.
Frankish (latin) and french refers to two different things.
Frankish is an ethnic group of romance speaking people north of loire wich french was originially a dialect of their language (langue d'oil) before becoming their main language and later the one of all France (the language of the king as they said). We call them Franks because that's how they call themselves considering themselves to be rightfully or not the descendent of the old Franks .
French originally refers to the subject of the king of france including non-frankish such as occitan, norman, and sometimes breton. The clear demonstration is in the title weared by the king: "King of the Franks, the Burgunds, The Wisigoths, the Norman etc". AGOT style.
It became after the french revolution the name of the citizen of france.
So I object that the evolution of the 769 Frankish should give a northen loire French only culture. That's not what french is.
While most of your post is correct, it's absolutely ridiculous to say that Latin died in 300s. Maybe in fringe regions there began to be strange dialects at that time, but it wasn't until very far into late antiquity that Latin truly disappeared as a common language.
Yes, sorry. I meant late 5th century. Even then, I doubt that speakers of what would be considered "proper" Latin had been the majority in places like Italy and Spain for decades, if not centuries, due to factors like slaves, non-Latins, etc. I mean I've heard tell that Spanish, Catalan, and the Italian languages were mutually intelligible until sometime in the 12th century, yet they're still different cultures. I think at that time the hope of "Rome" coming back the way it was was more of less forgotten, and more regional and religious affiliation had taken place
Also written by a monk, so it's entirely possible that he wrote in the language he was schooled in, rather than his native dialect. Plus, even today Italian is the closest (okay, it's Corsican is the closest but not by much) to Latin of the Latin descendants to Classical and Vulgare
Yes, sorry. I meant late 5th century. Even then, I doubt that speakers of what would be considered "proper" Latin had been the majority in places like Italy and Spain for decades, if not centuries, due to factors like slaves, non-Latins, etc. I mean I've heard tell that Spanish, Catalan, and the Italian languages were mutually intelligible until sometime in the 12th century, yet they're still different cultures. I think at that time the hope of "Rome" coming back the way it was was more of less forgotten, and more regional and religious affiliation had taken place
Also written by a monk, so it's entirely possible that he wrote in the language he was schooled in, rather than his native dialect. Plus, even today Italian is the closest (okay, it's Corsican is the closest but not by much) to Latin of the Latin descendants to Classical and Vulgare
But what is "proper" Latin? Even at the height of the Empire, the Roman society was diglottic. "Classical" Latin (what people learn at school and read in classical texts) was already a formal register of a language that was very much reconstructed and taught at the "grammar schools", which ordinary people did not really use for ordinary talk. Vulgar Latin has always been evolving, and unfortunately has never been formalized.
Things did not really change much after the fall of the Empire. "Classical" Latin was still used as before by the secular and spiritual authorities alike, and the Vulgar speech kept evolving with regional and dialectal differences. It was only the change in the political environment which favored the formalization of the local "languages", and eventually their use by the authorities.
I really do not see this need to set sharp boundaries which never existed.
I agree with this post completely except for two things: the separate Sardinian culture (I'm not sure that they really still spoke a pre-indoeuropean language in the VIII century; also it is hard to convince the devs to include a culture just for two-three provinces, as in the case for instance of the Cornish) as well as with the split of the Italian culture in later start dates; this I do not want for gameplay reasons primarily.
For historicity sake Sardinian should be separated, it is arguably if it is part of the Italian language group... for sure it is internationally recognized as a language and not a dialect! If they have added a 2 province culture as Basque why not Sardinian?
IMHO all so called Italian dialects are / were indeed "languages"...
But the Italian culture does not exists de facto until the "Risorgimento"! Maybe it is for the fact that we were divided in smaller and smaller states while the Franks / French had an absolutist State that imposes a only one language from the XVI century but IMHO this is a fact...
I see this as an enrichment not as negative thing.
Frankish (latin) and french refers to two different things.
Frankish is an ethnic group of romance speaking people north of loire wich french was originially a dialect of their language (langue d'oil) before becoming their main language and later the one of all France (the language of the king as they said). We call them Franks because that's how they call themselves considering themselves to be rightfully or not the descendent of the old Franks .
French originally refers to the subject of the king of france including non-frankish such as occitan, norman, and sometimes breton. The clear demonstration is in the title weared by the king: "King of the Franks, the Burgunds, The Wisigoths, the Norman etc". AGOT style.
It became after the french revolution the name of the citizen of france.
So I object that the evolution of the 769 Frankish should give a northen loire French only culture. That's not what french is.
In 769 Frankish were a Germanic tribe... We need both cultures. Latin Frankish and Germanic Frankish. And for Latin Frankish French would the best term.
For historicity sake Sardinian should be separated, it is arguably if it is part of the Italian language group... for sure it is internationally recognized as a language and not a dialect! If they have added a 2 province culture as Basque why not Sardinian?
IMHO all so called Italian dialects are / were indeed "languages"...
But the Italian culture does not exists de facto until the "Risorgimento"! Maybe it is for the fact that we were divided in smaller and smaller states while the Franks / French had an absolutist State that imposes a only one language from the XVI century but IMHO this is a fact...
I see this as an enrichment not as negative thing.
I agree with you, but your previous message implied that you wanted Sardinians to represent the pre-indoeuropean culture and language ("totally different from Latin" ... "as the Basque are"). Yet if you referred to the Romance Sardinian culture/language, I do not think that its inclusion in the game is necessary if the "Roman" or "Romanic" culture is present on the map in 769.
Also, the Basque culture has more than two provinces both in 867 and in 1066.
Frankish (latin) and french refers to two different things.
Frankish is an ethnic group of romance speaking people north of loire wich french was originially a dialect of their language (langue d'oil) before becoming their main language and later the one of all France (the language of the king as they said). We call them Franks because that's how they call themselves considering themselves to be rightfully or not the descendent of the old Franks .
French originally refers to the subject of the king of france including non-frankish such as occitan, norman, and sometimes breton. The clear demonstration is in the title weared by the king: "King of the Franks, the Burgunds, The Wisigoths, the Norman etc". AGOT style.
It became after the french revolution the name of the citizen of france.
So I object that the evolution of the 769 Frankish should give a northen loire French only culture. That's not what french is.
1. Since early Merovingian kings, the "Frank" word lose it's ethnic meaning and rather designed all free men who where subject to the king of the Franks. Hence there was no more distinctions between Gallic, Romans and ethnic Franks and all constituted the same people. They were either free men (hence Franks) or not-free (which may include many different status: colons, lites, serves, slaves).
2. Salian Franks, who settled with Clovis in Belgica Secunda and founded there the kingdom of Neustria were quite assimilated by the Romano-Gallic populations there while influencing them and adopted Romance language. Yes. But Ripuarian Franks from whom realm the kingdom of Austrasia was build, did kept their Germanic language.
3. Charlemagne was the first king in Europe since the collapse of the Roman Empire to become king of two peoples and to style himself as such (king of the Franks and of the Lombard). As far as I know, there is no king who styled himself as King of the Franks, the Burgundian, the Visigoth, the Normans, &c.
I agree with this post completely except for two things: the separate Sardinian culture (I'm not sure that they really still spoke a pre-indoeuropean language in the VIII century; also it is hard to convince the devs to include a culture just for two-three provinces, as in the case for instance of the Cornish) as well as with the split of the Italian culture in later start dates; this I do not want for gameplay reasons primarily.
I think it is too early for Sardinian or Old Corsican/Corsican, it was a very conservative change in language so I believe just making it Roman Culture would work.
Frankish is an ethnic group of romance speaking people north of loire wich french was originially a dialect of their language (langue d'oil) before becoming their main language and later the one of all France (the language of the king as they said). We call them Franks because that's how they call themselves considering themselves to be rightfully or not the descendent of the old Franks .
All the Langues d'Oil are referred to as Old French, in the same way as there is Old German and Old Dutch too, all of which basically are groupings of dialect groups.
In 769 they, whether they actually made up the majority of the population (as in northern modern day Belgium, southern part of the Netherlands, the Rhineland, Franconia etc.) or were the elite would certainly still be regarded as Frankish.
Eventually as Frankish developed into Old Dutch, Old German and Old French, that gradually wasn't the case anymore and that certainly wasn't how they viewed the other.
French originally refers to the subject of the king of france including non-frankish such as occitan, norman, and sometimes breton. The clear demonstration is in the title weared by the king: "King of the Franks, the Burgunds, The Wisigoths, the Norman etc". AGOT style.
It became after the french revolution the name of the citizen of france.
Titulature wasn't everything though, the Saxon Ottonian dynasty also still used the style king of the Franks (a heritage from East Francia). In West Francia, which evolved into France the style only changed from king of the Franks to king of France in 1190 (IIRC).
Not in 769, but by the time of 'the oaths of Strasbourg' in 842 it would be a good starting point to split the Franks into French by melting pot with the local Romance population north of the Loire, German and Dutch.
1: you have Italic. It's a blanket term for the variety of mostly homogeneous dialects of vulgar Latin, none of them firmly established or well set yet.
2: there is mostly Langobardian nobility in the kingdom of Italy (which, I hope, will be called Longobardia or Lombardia if the owner is Langobardian).
3: Charlie will probably set his sight on the region, but if he doesn't, Italic under Langobardians will melting-potize into Lombardian around the year 900-1000.
4: if, instead, Charlie does his thing, Italic will become Italian around the same period. Might become Sicilian if in the Kingdom of Sicily and ruled by Greeks/Normans/Arabs? Probably.
In 769 Frankish were a Germanic tribe... We need both cultures. Latin Frankish and Germanic Frankish. And for Latin Frankish French would the best term.
Like Captain Frakas correctly stated the term frankish lost it's ethnical meaning at least one century before charlemagne and could refer to the noble of old frankish descent as well as the romance burgher in Neustria or the low german in modern belgium (proto-dutch) and even the high german in rheinland (franconian).
3. Charlemagne was the first king in Europe since the collapse of the Roman Empire to become king of two peoples and to style himself as such (king of the Franks and of the Lombard). As far as I know, there is no king who styled himself as King of the Franks, the Burgundian, the Visigoth, the Normans, &c.
I was thinking after Charlemagne, I have a hard finding the exact source where I found this .
But I at found that at least some of the kings of franks added in their title king of the Aquitaines as shown here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_ducs_d'Aquitaine (french only) after the integration of the kingdom of Aquitaine in the Kingdom of France.
So for me it confirms that the occitans were not considered franks like the their northen cousins as for the other ones i guess that it's not a big stretch that it could have been used too but I keep looking for evidence.
2. Salian Franks, who settled with Clovis in Belgica Secunda and founded there the kingdom of Neustria were quite assimilated by the Romano-Gallic populations there while influencing them and adopted Romance language. Yes. But Ripuarian Franks from whom realm the kingdom of Austrasia was build, did kept their Germanic language.
(...)
No, that happened to a part of the Salian Franks, but not all the Salian Franks. Some of them retained their native language and quite possibly also mixed with the local populations (which probably were mixed Germanic and Celtic), but here the population spoke (some might have adopted) (Germanic) Frankish. Granted this is in the area the Salian Franks settled as foederati and nearby areas. By which I mean the now Dutch speaking parts of Belgium, France (used to be a bit bigger*) and the southern part of the Netherlands. (*= eventually the Romance Germanic language border was quite stable from the middle ages until the 19th century).
Most of these part also belonged to Austrasia, but they were settled by the Salian Franks.
.png){kind=avatar}
