Yes, I addressed a specific example that I knew well and could cite actual primary source material on. I'm sorry I didn't draw out a number of useless generalizations extracted from a secondary source.
- 1
Suggestions of a Byzantine mindset
- Thread starter constantinople!
- Start date
-
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.
As Gwyn mentioned in post #5, this is a fairly easy matter to code in the Clausewitz engine. Check out the Colony Ingame Name Change Mod in the EU3 modding forum, it's really easy and powerful.
You need only one event file per country that has "it's own" names for provinces, and in this file there is only *ONE* event. It is simple enough that anybody can edit it, or add more names to it. It can fire as often as necessary, so a province can change back and forth between Turk and Greek and the names would be changed each time. You can also, halfway through your campaign, add more province names to the event and right after you load the game it will apply those changes. Really easy, absolutely no problem at all to implement.
You can even implement exceptions for specific towns... i.e. stuff like "if condition A is true (f.ex. ruler is female), name it X, else name it Y."
As Gwyn mentioned in post #5, this is a fairly easy matter to code in the Clausewitz engine. Check out the Colony Ingame Name Change Mod in the EU3 modding forum, it's really easy and powerful.
You need only one event file per country that has "it's own" names for provinces, and in this file there is only *ONE* event. It is simple enough that anybody can edit it, or add more names to it. It can fire as often as necessary, so a province can change back and forth between Turk and Greek and the names would be changed each time. You can also, halfway through your campaign, add more province names to the event and right after you load the game it will apply those changes. Really easy, absolutely no problem at all to implement.
You can even implement exceptions for specific towns... i.e. stuff like "if condition A is true (f.ex. ruler is female), name it X, else name it Y."
sounds like a good solution ... then anyone who really want this can have that mod ... although it might have to be ported to ck2
lol.. Calanctus always starting something.. always with disregard to forum bb.
But in this arguement I somewhat agree with him. Culture matters. His example, not particularly.
It matters because even though people would not fight ethnic wars over it, it certainly influenced (even if only mildly) the cohesion of realms. This was the Crusader times after all.. and faith/religion is part of culture. Islamic rule and Christian rule differed somewhat.
Besides, it's like we forgot traits. If your ruler is a wise and benevolent ruler, the event MttH should be modeled in such a way that his difference in culture will probably not be felt in any of his provinces of a different culture. If he's a rash fool, then you'll be getting more friction and confrontations (that can lead to a faster rise to glory or sharper fall to ruin)
Definately. Culture will matter if vassals of a different culture think their leige is an idiot or obnoxious or tyrannical and ignoring their local laws and customs. If the ruler is a diplomatic, effiecent, strong leader who respects their laws and customs, they would likely see him as someone who can bring prosperity or at least maintain the status quo and his cultural differences won't weigh in on the matter.
Excuse me, my people never been English
. As far as I know Normand were a minority in England (the ruling one but still), while in Normandy they were, well the majority . I don't think invader identifying themselves as the invaded. I may be wrong but the Englishness of Norman king seems to be a more modern stuff as they spoke French and probably though themselves as Norman rather than any thing else (England didn't even have a proper flag, they used the flag of the house of Normandy).
Of course a same-culture ruler who decided the local customs were crap would be just as screwed.
The only possible impact of culture here is that a different culture ruler would presumably be more likely to see local customs as crap. But since he doesn't have to think that way you can't represent it by giving different-culture provinces higher Revolt Risk or something, you have to use events, or make the AI more likely to change laws to a certain set. And even that's tricky. To bring back our Kingdom of Portugal, Scotland, Ireland and Norway a Portuguese-cultured Prince brought up in Scotland is more likely to force his Portuguese subjects to act like Scots then vice versa.
You could do it in the limitations of the engine. But it's an awful lot of work, to respond to a criticism that's inevitable from modern players ("Why would Croats obey a Hungarian?"), but is totally removed from the reality of the Middle Ages.
As I said, you're almost better off scrapping culture completely.
Nick
.png){kind=avatar}
Interesting, and heated, exchange going on here. I would say that "culture" is important (especially for our purposes) when it has an effect on politics. Yes, politics (at least for me that is what CK2 boils down to). Culture is the line between us and them and those other guys over there. Which is what identity boils down to.
So to comment on two of the questions raised here: (1) regarding conquest situations (and drumming up CBs), culture (and its sometimes companion "civilization") is a way to express the right to dominate another group of human beings, nearly always backed up by force of arms. The Norman conquest of England follows this pattern, as does the later Angevin conquest of Ireland (backed by the English Pope Adrian, who was at serious odds with the Celtic Church). And as a conquered people, you should expect to be treated as second-class. (2) regarding religion, converts were often viewed with suspicion, as newcomers to the community often are.
Over time, there was a shift, as "Europe" was viewed as a separate and more or less coherent entity and superior to the peoples of other parts of the world. But in terms of game play, as Nick suggested, the importance of culture should rest on the relations between the ruling family and their vassals. The notion that every ethnic group should have its own nation comes out the late eighteenth century, but does not come to fruition until rather late in the nineteenth. If you look at the great early modern seaborne empires, especially of Spain and Portugal, what you see is an often distant monarch ruling over a great diversity of peoples, all of whom are loyal to him most of the time and the basis of this loyalty is the protection of the privileges that each part of the empire held and each sector of each part. For a more modern example, look at the Austro-Hungarian Empire or perhaps closer to home for many here (we seem to lean towards English examples for some reason), look at the House of Windsor. They're Germans, for the most part. Going further back, why should the English accept a Dutch king, in William of Orange over a native-born Stuart? That might be too much of a digression, but I think that I am making my point clear: monarchy is all about maintaining the status quo. If a German can do it for England better than the Englishman that we've got, then so be it.
So to comment on two of the questions raised here: (1) regarding conquest situations (and drumming up CBs), culture (and its sometimes companion "civilization") is a way to express the right to dominate another group of human beings, nearly always backed up by force of arms. The Norman conquest of England follows this pattern, as does the later Angevin conquest of Ireland (backed by the English Pope Adrian, who was at serious odds with the Celtic Church). And as a conquered people, you should expect to be treated as second-class. (2) regarding religion, converts were often viewed with suspicion, as newcomers to the community often are.
Over time, there was a shift, as "Europe" was viewed as a separate and more or less coherent entity and superior to the peoples of other parts of the world. But in terms of game play, as Nick suggested, the importance of culture should rest on the relations between the ruling family and their vassals. The notion that every ethnic group should have its own nation comes out the late eighteenth century, but does not come to fruition until rather late in the nineteenth. If you look at the great early modern seaborne empires, especially of Spain and Portugal, what you see is an often distant monarch ruling over a great diversity of peoples, all of whom are loyal to him most of the time and the basis of this loyalty is the protection of the privileges that each part of the empire held and each sector of each part. For a more modern example, look at the Austro-Hungarian Empire or perhaps closer to home for many here (we seem to lean towards English examples for some reason), look at the House of Windsor. They're Germans, for the most part. Going further back, why should the English accept a Dutch king, in William of Orange over a native-born Stuart? That might be too much of a digression, but I think that I am making my point clear: monarchy is all about maintaining the status quo. If a German can do it for England better than the Englishman that we've got, then so be it.
By the way, Constantinople was fully aware of the existence of Scandinavia. There were several dealings between vikings and the empire. The later Norwegian king Harald Hardråde served in the Varangian guard and fought in Byzantine campaigns in Sicily and Bulgaria. It is not too far fetched that a Norwegian princess be offered in marriage a Byzantine noble at some point. A Norwegian princess was married to the Infante of Castile in the 1234. Note that the travel distance to Constantinople is not that much larger due to the inland rivers in Russia.
They may not have been fully aware of Iceland, of course, but that is sort of a special case. I also agree that declaring war across half the map (except in the case of crusades) should be less common than just having diplomatic dealings.
They may not have been fully aware of Iceland, of course, but that is sort of a special case. I also agree that declaring war across half the map (except in the case of crusades) should be less common than just having diplomatic dealings.
As far as I know Normand were a minority in England (the ruling one but still), while in Normandy they were, well the majority
My old buddy Simon de Montfort, from Montfort near Paris talked up a storm when he was Earl of Leicester about being English and a proper representative of the country. You mistake the evolution of Anglo-Norman identity as a simple identification with the Anglo-Saxons, they identified themselves as the barons of England, rather than the barons of France, and though French speaking until around the 14/15th century, they were holding themselves differently for some time before that.
Also, regarding your bizarre flag comment, England also had the cross of Saint George flag after the crusades, you could even stretch things and say that the White Dragon flag was a national flag, but I'm not really behind that assertion. Regardless, few other countries (if any) had 'proper' flags, France's flag was simply that of the Capetian family, Spanish flags followed those of their Royal houses, as did German flags.
Fair enough, so then all we need culture for is for naming selection/convention.
..and Roleplaying, Atmosphere and Flavour (including things like Culture-specific events). o_o
Last edited:
No, see, according to Nick B II, that would require "special programming time," a non-renewable resource. We need to reserve that for... I don't know what exactly, since apparently literally everything requires special programming time.
Which remindes me that I missed the 'Culture Map' in CK1. I hope there's a 'Culture Map' in CK2, in addition to the 'Religion Map'.
There was a "Realm Map" which didn't work that well. Hope there will be a similar political map as in Victoria II.
What about making the characters and interactions between them as interesting and meaningful as possible to really capture the feel of the era? You know the stuff that is actually important?
I don't see how excluding an already existant feature = more effort in realistic interactions between people (which culture is a part of anyway..). You might as well say "Leaving portraits as stickfigures would mean a much more developed Battle System!" - I'm pretty sure Danevang wouldn't be programmin' no fights if that was the case. For me "Culture", no matter if it's trivial, is important. What about all the Traits that don't do a whole lot? They still define the character. It doesn't matter if something doesn't have a big impact on gameplay, it can still have a huge impact on how the Gamer plays. I know games where Religion, for example, doesn't do a damn thing, but I'll still quite often pursue policies in favour or in opposition to particular faiths (and I'm an Atheist, so not particularly emotionally invested in any of 'em
).If those 'useless' flavour religions were not there it would not be the same to roleplay it. Having something tangible on the screen makes all the difference, even if it's just a word that can change. In Brytenwalda (M&B: Warband Mod) there's Brythonic/Angles/Saxon/Jute people etc, but as far as I see it doesn't have much impact on your character (could very plausibly be wrong there), but it's still awesome to go for a One-Eyed old Ásatrú Jute man namned Grimnir and lead a band of true Einherjar! No matter if any of those change any gameplay.
Last edited:
3. I agree with you and I find it annoying when people tell me I don't know history very well if i call the byzantines Romans (happened in the EUIII forums not long ago) but most people know them as the Byzantines and the game can be modded to change the name quite easily.
5. Agree
6. Again I agree 100% it should be relatively easy to code and should just be done with places that are known to have been called different things by different races/cultures/whatever.
7. I agree with that 100% in a game set in this era, especially one called Crusader Kings I think this should be done. It makes alot of sense.
8. I really like that idea but I don't know how easy it would be to implement.
9. Constantinople was the greatest city in the world and that should be reflected.
10. The idea of a that 3rd option is nice. Each of the 3 deceions could have different pros and cons.
12. Are you sure about Edessa?
13. Without a doubt. Should be a must imo.
14. Would be nice but I imagine woudl take a while to code for something not that important.
15. Agreed something should happen, mecca was very important. A special message of soem kind would be nice also.
16. If russia was the only place they can attack then they should.
17. Agreed, shoudl be easily implemented.
18. I like that idea except I don't think it should affect how rebellious people are.
20. I agree about Naxos
22. Agreed
5. Agree
6. Again I agree 100% it should be relatively easy to code and should just be done with places that are known to have been called different things by different races/cultures/whatever.
7. I agree with that 100% in a game set in this era, especially one called Crusader Kings I think this should be done. It makes alot of sense.
8. I really like that idea but I don't know how easy it would be to implement.
9. Constantinople was the greatest city in the world and that should be reflected.
10. The idea of a that 3rd option is nice. Each of the 3 deceions could have different pros and cons.
12. Are you sure about Edessa?
13. Without a doubt. Should be a must imo.
14. Would be nice but I imagine woudl take a while to code for something not that important.
15. Agreed something should happen, mecca was very important. A special message of soem kind would be nice also.
16. If russia was the only place they can attack then they should.
17. Agreed, shoudl be easily implemented.
18. I like that idea except I don't think it should affect how rebellious people are.
20. I agree about Naxos
22. Agreed
Please tell me how culture and ethnicity didn't matter in medieval times?
Your example was a) fictional b) your argument showed that ethnicity wouldn't matter in that particular scenario but it didn't prove it didn't matter at all, what your example is really saying is people would rebel against a king who governed badly from far away, that is common sense. Your argument isn't valid. Of coure ethnicity is irrelevant here but that dosn't prove it didn't matter at all. Do you see what I mean?
Please cite a couple of historical examples (with a link if possible) from between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and 1350ish, that show how culture and ethnicity were irrelevant to medieval politics and people.
Also why do you think that it dosn't need representing in the game, do you not think even if it didn't impact politics directly it did have an effect, in my humble opinion that is quite narrow minded.
You might have just been using that as an example to illustrate what you mean but I'd still like to know what brought you to that conclusion.
I don't mean any disrespect, I would genuinly like to disccus this. Thanks.
That's why I've been pretty careful to say "almost better off getting rid of it."
BTW, what possible culture-specific event are you thinking of? Melting pots? There weren't any others in CK1, probably because cultures change so much IRL. An event that makes perfect sense for the Bretons in 1066 is just not likely to make sense for then in 1453.
Nick