Stone Henge doesn't deserve to be a Wonder and it's in the way of Salisbury Cathedral

[Evangeline]

This post will probably deleted due to being off-topic, but since you asked:
- The entire "karma" system makes zero sense. No Buddhist would ever try to get *more* karma, as a Buddhist you're trying to purify and get rid of your karma (which is binding you to an otherwise eternal cycle of suffering) to achieve liberation. If they renamed those points to "merit" it would make much more sense.
- Figures such as Yeshe Tsogyel and Padmasambhava and others, which are as sacred and revered as Jesus or Mary are in Christianity, figures you'd pray to every day, are featured as regular characters in the game with crappy stats, nasty personalities and you can marry, duel, imprison and torture them etc. This is the point I find offensive, they should simply remove these characters, it's very disrespectful.
- You're able to join a monastic society without giving up your title, lands and wives. That makes no sense. Yes, in Tibet, eventually a monastic system developed in which monks could own land and weild temporal power, but that was only in Tibet and only *after* the timeframe of the game.
- Bikshunis (which is simply another word for "fully ordained celibate nun") can be married while remaining nuns - makes zero sense.
- Lots of other little things, the ones above are the main issues.

 

[ChaosOnline]

This post will probably deleted due to being off-topic, but since you asked:
- The entire "karma" system makes zero sense. No Buddhist would ever try to get *more* karma, as a Buddhist you're trying to purify and get rid of your karma (which is binding you to an otherwise eternal cycle of suffering) to achieve liberation. If they renamed those points to "merit" it would make much more sense.
- Figures such as Yeshe Tsogyel and Padmasambhava and others, which are as sacred and revered as Jesus or Mary are in Christianity, figures you'd pray to every day, are featured as regular characters in the game with crappy stats, nasty personalities and you can marry, duel, imprison and torture them etc. This is the point I find offensive, they should simply remove these characters, it's very disrespectful.
- You're able to join a monastic society without giving up your title, lands and wives. That makes no sense. Yes, in Tibet, eventually a monastic system developed in which monks could own land and weild temporal power, but that was only in Tibet and only *after* the timeframe of the game.
- Bikshunis (which is simply another word for "fully ordained celibate nun") can be married while remaining nuns - makes zero sense.
- Lots of other little things, the ones above are the main issues.

Interesting. That is really disappointing. Especially about the disrespect to religious figures, that is pretty offensive. Thank you so much for sharing. I'm glad I know that now.

Maybe you should make a post or something on how the devs can improve CKII Buddhism. Who knows? Maybe they might read it and make those changes.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

I'm going to need to see a peer reviewed paper to prove that point here bud- and your lot started on the insults.

No, I don't think we did - and in any case you've escalated to outright name calling.

Anyway, I offered to pull up an archaeological report, if there is one, that supports yours claims. If Robin Melrose has evidence of continual use in his book then the source should be indicated in his bibliography or a footnote. Really, all I need is a year and the name of the person who published the report/led the dig and I should be able to find it. Mosting copies of at least the summary here would be covered under fair use, so that shouldn't be a problem.

I'm more than happy to do that, but you need to indicate where the primary evidence is, not ask me to buy a popular history book by someone who isn't an Archaeologist and then dig through it for the reference.

 

[BrokenSky]

Regardless of who started with it, can we stop with the angry arguing?

To be honest IMO the real problem here is the "one great work per province" rule. I think we can all agree that it's less historical than a restored stone-henge anyway, and I don't really see what the gameplay reason is, unless it's just to do with the difficulty of putting two great works on the UI.

 

[BuddyLove]

The point isn't weather Celts used henges in worship its that none of the archaeology of the largest, best preserved and most studied shows no evidence they did.

Except for the evidence of religious activity on Salisbury Hill and the Salisbury shaft with dating to the 1st century, and the other Shafter burial sites in the near vicinity.

Is it possible that there was religious activity on the same hill as stone henge and concentrated all over that region during the time when the Druid's were the dominant religious caste, but somehow it's not connected?

Yes, but it absolutely strains credulity.

 

[treb]

Except for the evidence of religious activity on Salisbury Hill and the Salisbury shaft with dating to the 1st century, and the other Shafter burial sites in the near vicinity.

Is it possible that there was religious activity on the same hill as stone henge and concentrated all over that region during the time when the Druid's were the dominant religious caste, but somehow it's not connected?

Yes, but it absolutely strains credulity.

and the papers ive read directly contradict that.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...e-remodelled/A118920A90FB7CCB2838CEEB10BE477D

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1419105/1/252-1529-1-PB.pdf

They show no evidence that the Celts druid or not directly interacted with the site. in fact there is more evidence of the Romans directly affecting the site than Celts

 

[Tomaster]

This post will probably deleted due to being off-topic, but since you asked:
- The entire "karma" system makes zero sense. No Buddhist would ever try to get *more* karma, as a Buddhist you're trying to purify and get rid of your karma (which is binding you to an otherwise eternal cycle of suffering) to achieve liberation. If they renamed those points to "merit" it would make much more sense.
- Figures such as Yeshe Tsogyel and Padmasambhava and others, which are as sacred and revered as Jesus or Mary are in Christianity, figures you'd pray to every day, are featured as regular characters in the game with crappy stats, nasty personalities and you can marry, duel, imprison and torture them etc. This is the point I find offensive, they should simply remove these characters, it's very disrespectful.
- You're able to join a monastic society without giving up your title, lands and wives. That makes no sense. Yes, in Tibet, eventually a monastic system developed in which monks could own land and weild temporal power, but that was only in Tibet and only *after* the timeframe of the game.
- Bikshunis (which is simply another word for "fully ordained celibate nun") can be married while remaining nuns - makes zero sense.
- Lots of other little things, the ones above are the main issues.

I second the other reply- you should make a post about this. Renaming karma to merit and the bikshuni thing should be relatively easy to implement. Probably the religious figures part too, considering what they did with Muhammad's portrait in history files

 

[BuddyLove]

and the papers ive read directly contradict that.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...e-remodelled/A118920A90FB7CCB2838CEEB10BE477D

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1419105/1/252-1529-1-PB.pdf

They show no evidence that the Celts druid or not directly interacted with the site. in fact there is more evidence of the Romans directly affecting the site than Celts

This is the same red herring you keep using-- no, the druids didn't build stone henge, no one is disputing that.

So a paper going through who did in the pre-historic phases is utterly irrelevant in relation to the historic time frame that's beyond the scope of the paper. . .

 

[treb]

This is the same red herring you keep using-- no, the druids didn't build stone henge, no one is disputing that.

So a paper going through who did in the pre-historic phases is utterly irrelevant in relation to the historic time frame that's beyond the scope of the paper. . .

Your missing my point the first article is a chronology of all the archaeology from the site there is nothing at all substantial from the Celtic period, there was more done on the site in the 100 years after the roman invasion than the previous 2000 years, IF THERE WERE CELTS WORSHIPING THERE THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT A TRACE LIKE THE ROMANS AND NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE WORSHIPERS DID.

 

[BuddyLove]

Your missing my point the first article is a chronology of all the archaeology from the site there is nothing at all substantial from the Celtic period, there was more done on the site in the 100 years after the roman invasion than the previous 2000 years, IF THERE WERE CELTS WORSHIPING THERE THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT A TRACE LIKE THE ROMANS AND NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE WORSHIPERS DID.

You realize the people who were the the 100 years after the Roman invasion were cells, right?

Starting to mix with the Roman populations as well, but celtic tribes persisted there until after the Roman occupation ended, and religion wise they remained celtic until Christianization?

Evidence of use in the 1st Century proves my point, not yours?

 

[treb]

You realize the people who were the the 100 years after the Roman invasion were cells, right?

Starting to mix with the Roman populations as well, but celtic tribes persisted there until after the Roman occupation ended, and religion wise they remained celtic until Christianization?

Evidence of use in the 1st Century proves my point, not yours?

So in 100 years the celts suddenly became large scale engineers who had the money influence and manpower to effect the site especially when we know-after the roman withdrawal the local Celts basically reverted to their pre roman way of life?

 

[jwalche]

So in 100 years the celts suddenly became large scale engineers who had the money influence and manpower to effect the site especially when we know-after the roman withdrawal the local Celts basically reverted to their pre roman way of life?

Celtic culture was systemically destroyed by Romans through and after a couple of rebellions. Heard of Boudica? Romans chased after them to the end of known world and not much officially had survived when the Romans eventually left. It might explain lack of historical evidence of their pagan practice.

However, it doesn't make sense that they had converted to Christianity uniformly and instantly at the time but without enough records to prove it either, or they decided to become Atheists during that 4~500 years. Well, even Romans converted to Christianity 300 years later. It doesn't seem like surviving Celtics all practiced Roman paganism either, while being chased and crushed down.

Dominating local religion became Pagans within 100 years after Romans left partly thanks to keep coming Scandinavians, which has enough historical evidence. It is not too far stretch to imagine that the old Celtic religion had survived during the occupation, largely disorganized and in secret, and eventually mixed with new Pagan beliefs that came with Vikings, so that Stonehenge does have some spiritual and emotional connection with Paganism on the land at the time of this game's starting date, in year 769.

It's not like Germanic Paganism was reformed with an central authority and an uniform theory. It adopted local religion and customs while being spread out. Coincidentally or naturally, historians believe that pre-Roman Celtic Paganism was just as violent and aggressive as Germanic.

One should not write a peer reviewed thesis on evidence-lacking imaginative ideas such as this. But creative media products such as historical novels and games certainly can.

As much as modern believers think that each religion started and existed as a unique idea, often a new religion was mixed with the old ones practiced locally. If not the theory, at least it adopted local customs. If you thought Roman Paganism was so far distinct from Christianity because you have only heard Jupiter and Venus, read about Mithra. Regardless of who copied who, a sect of Roman Paganism, or a cult, had very similar ideas and stories to what was on Bible before it adopted Christianity. For customs, even Pope announced that Jesus was not born on 12/25, which was, among with many other important Christian events, maybe coincidentally, on the same dates with older Pagan feast dates that predate birth of Jesus.

Some historical articles explained that Celtic paganism adopted many ideas and practices of Roman paganism during early Roman occupation, and eventually ideas from Christianity after 300 CE. Early Christianity did have many Pagan like ideas. Heard about boy Jesus using spells to blind a local bully? It was quite a shock when I read it. Some have ideas shockingly similar to Buddhism, which predates Christ by 500 years so is not that strange. The book has been existing.

It and hundreds of other gospels have survived today thanks to all the monks spending all their lives copying old books, but were not chosen by the First Council of Nicaea, but many were even more popular at the time and caused many lives perish under interrogation. One might even argue that the First Council of Nicaea was the reformation that other Pagans did not get.

So what is Celtic Paganism? With long Roman control and without an official religious head, one thing it does not have is a uniformly agreed beliefs and theories. But they were still spiritual people, and those different practices does have significant ideas. So did Celtic Paganism died on the first century and they fully converted three times, to Roman Paganism, Christianity, and Germanic Paganism until Christianity came back? Or "Celtic Paganism" as a collection of various Pagan practices in the region, often adopting new foreign ideas, survived from Stonehenge until Christianity became really dominant during middle ages, and in a very small secretive sects to even later times?

Again, I think this is enough to write creative novels and video games about, connecting Stonehenge to early middle age Paganism.

 

[BuddyLove]

So in 100 years the celts suddenly became large scale engineers who had the money influence and manpower to effect the site especially when we know-after the roman withdrawal the local Celts basically reverted to their pre roman way of life?

No one ever said anything about affecting the site?

You've essentially conceded my point- it doesn't matter who used it in the 1st Century AD- someone did, which proves that it wasn't utterly meaningless to anyone but "cave men".

I have no idea what you are trying to get at here- who said anything about large scale engineers?

I've talked about shaft burials in the region and the hill Stonehenge sits on being a burial mount.

Stop building straw men and putting words in my mouth.


As for Boudica- she killed some 70K Roman's then either died of disease or suicide-- wasn't exactly " eradicated" by the Romans. She also wasn't a peasant leader revolting against tyrannical Roman rule- her husband was a vassal king.

 

[jwalche]

As for Boudica- she killed some 70K Roman's then either died of disease or suicide-- wasn't exactly " eradicated" by the Romans. She also wasn't a peasant leader revolting against tyrannical Roman rule- her husband was a vassal king.

Now who's putting words on who's mouth?

Here is the actual paragraph I wrote right above;

Celtic culture was systemically destroyed by Romans through and after a couple of rebellions. Heard of Boudica? Romans chased after them to the end of known world and not much officially had survived when the Romans eventually left. It might explain lack of historical evidence of their pagan practice.

Boudica was a leader of Celtic revolt against Occupying Romans, so successful that after it failed for whatever reasons, became an alerting cause for Romans to try to hunt down and "eradicate" Celtic religion and culture for centuries.

How do you get an idea that I even implied that Romans eradicated Boudica instead of Celtic Paganism. The issue was the Romans did not stop with Boudica's death. And where does a "peasant leader" even comes from?

Until the start of Renaissance, I believe, "Tyranny" was a breach of a feudal contract by a liege to his vassals. I do it all the time in Ck2 and get nicknames like "Vile Spider" often for imprisoning and executing all my vassals. But peasants were not exactly equal human and could not be a party of any contract to break.

Nobody whom I would loose 10 piety to execute cares when I follow up my tyranny by pillaging all the castles, temples, and cities to ground, probably causing millions of people to become refugees and end up dead by horrible starvation and disease, because all the holdings where their homes existed were my properties. Tyranny could not be a valid cause for a "Peasant Revolt" by definition.

 

[insoman]

I dont care about that Cathedral but Stonehenge is indeed a stupid thing, not deserve to be side with Hagia Sophia or pyramid

 

[Prince Ire]

Salisbury Cathedral doesn't exist in most start dates though?

I find it hard to justify choosing something that only comes into existence more than three quarters of the way through the game, and 150ish years after the canonical (1066) start date over something that is relevant for all start dates.

Neither do the Dominicans, but those exist in all start dates.

 

[treb]

No one ever said anything about affecting the site?

You've essentially conceded my point- it doesn't matter who used it in the 1st Century AD- someone did, which proves that it wasn't utterly meaningless to anyone but "cave men".

I have no idea what you are trying to get at here- who said anything about large scale engineers?

I've talked about shaft burials in the region and the hill Stonehenge sits on being a burial mount.

Stop building straw men and putting words in my mouth.


As for Boudica- she killed some 70K Roman's then either died of disease or suicide-- wasn't exactly " eradicated" by the Romans. She also wasn't a peasant leader revolting against tyrannical Roman rule- her husband was a vassal king.

I haven't conceded any point my point is it had nothing to do with Celtic polytheism and was nothing more than an an oddity in in the timeframe of ck2.

Shaft burials nearby mean nothing in the context of Stonehenge unless a direct link can be made, the numerous neolithic cremations and bronze age barrows at Stonehenge itself show clear and direct association with Stonehenge itself. That isn't something we can automatically assume for any site nearby especially ones that postdate the last evidence of any activity at the site for nearly a millennia, We can say for certain the Romans had some interest in the site because there are large amounts of roman coins and evidence they were building near or on the site and even robbing stones. But for the previous centuries before there is nothing like this, the actual archaeology of Stonehenge itself shows this. We see no Celtic votive offerings, no ritual sacrifices, no Celtic style burials at the site itself, and of what we know of Celtic religions beliefs Stonehenge wouldn't fit, Celtic polytheism was animistic, and nature focused we have mentions of them worshiping in groves and we have found votive offerings at bogs along with human sacrificial victims and if the Druids or Celts were ever there worshiping at the site why did they leave absolutely no trace? When even the Saxons buried a beheaded body there, and the few medieval tourists that did come to gawk at it left there trace with the odd dropped personal effect.

There is no evidence directly linking the Celts to Stonehenge. Your basing your argument off the assumption that because there are burial sites nearby They must have something to do with it. When without any direct evidence I can just as easily say the hills were sacred to some local God and that's why they were buried there but that is as baseless as assuming it had something to do with Stonehenge.

The archaeology Of Stonehenge itself does not support the hypothesis of it being a site of spiritual significance to the Celts, whereas we have direct evidence of bogs holding Spiritual significance to the Celts. The evidence points to the Celts beliefs being more tied to natural landmarks like forests and bogs than to pre-existing megalithic monuments.

 

[Prince Ire]

This post will probably deleted due to being off-topic, but since you asked:
- The entire "karma" system makes zero sense. No Buddhist would ever try to get *more* karma, as a Buddhist you're trying to purify and get rid of your karma (which is binding you to an otherwise eternal cycle of suffering) to achieve liberation. If they renamed those points to "merit" it would make much more sense.
- Figures such as Yeshe Tsogyel and Padmasambhava and others, which are as sacred and revered as Jesus or Mary are in Christianity, figures you'd pray to every day, are featured as regular characters in the game with crappy stats, nasty personalities and you can marry, duel, imprison and torture them etc. This is the point I find offensive, they should simply remove these characters, it's very disrespectful.
- You're able to join a monastic society without giving up your title, lands and wives. That makes no sense. Yes, in Tibet, eventually a monastic system developed in which monks could own land and weild temporal power, but that was only in Tibet and only *after* the timeframe of the game.
- Bikshunis (which is simply another word for "fully ordained celibate nun") can be married while remaining nuns - makes zero sense.
- Lots of other little things, the ones above are the main issues.

Yeah, the representation of monasticism in game is terrible, both Christian and Buddhist. For the rest, you should probably post this kind of stuff more often, its the first time I'm hearing about it.

And yeah, Paradox is bad at being respectful to religious figures. I'm reminded of the awful seduction branch of the St. Joan of Arc event tree.

 

[jwalche]

And yeah, Paradox is bad at being respectful to religious figures.

But it treats them all equally bad and also show minimum respect to all of them. I haven't seen any religion getting undue respect (although Germanic does get favoritism), or undue disrespect (no mutant two headed cows named Brahmin)

Trying to be respectful to religious figures just doesn't sound right with a historical game full of dark humors. And if you start give a break to one figure, where would it end?

 

[treb]

But it treats them all equally bad and also show minimum respect to all of them. I haven't seen any religion getting undue respect (although Germanic does get favoritism), or undue disrespect (no mutant two headed cows named Brahmin)

Trying to be respectful to religious figures just doesn't sound right with a historical game full of dark humors. And if you start give a break to one figure, where would it end?

the Germanic favoritism is because behind roman restorations as >H >R >E and Greeks larping as Romans, muh STRONK PAGAN VIKINGR is the most popular alt history (Zoroastrian Persia does not count. Persia isnt real it is just a jobber to make whatever new empire existence wants to introduce look strong by taking over. That and I refuse to acknowledge the existence of any state that has worshiped or used any furry symbol or iconography in any way, Egypt only exists after the Romans colonize the empty Nile delta.)