The Big Basque Blunder: A Discussion on Culture Grouping

[Straigthtsilver]

To preface this, I think the culture system in EUIV is a sadly underdeveloped facet of the game that could really use some extra love in future updates. The issue I want to bring up in this thread, however, is far simpler to solve in the upcoming 1.5 patch.

When I first got EUIV, I was expecting the Basque culture to be included along with the other Iberian cultures in the same "Iberian" group. After all, they had been grouped with the Castilians, Catalans, and Portuguese in both CK2 and Vic2, so my expectations had some precedent to them. When I saw that the Basques had their own culture group (of which they are the only member) and are NOT an accepted culture even for Spain, I was left very confused.

Now, in this scenario I see many similarities between the Basques and Hungarians. Both cultures are very ethnically distinct in terms of language and genealogy in comparison to their neighbors. I can practically hear the previous kerfuffles of "But the Magyars are Uralic! Why aren't they in a unique culture group?" However, EUIV has the Hungarians placed in the 'West Slavic' group while the Basques have to contend with complete cultural isolation.

Paradox's logic behind this is that it is not worthwhile to make a whole new ethnic group just for the Magyars, and they shared many similarities with their Slavic neighbors in terms of culture and common rulers. Yet why isn't this same logic applied to the Basques?

While the Basques spoke and still do speak their own language, they were very close culturally to their Iberian neighbors. There existed no deep animosity between Basques and the Iberians in the EUIV period, which the 'Not Accepted' modifier seems to represent. Furthermore, for the vast majority of the EUIV era the Basques lived under the rule of either the Spanish or French crowns.

The situation grows even more confusing when one looks at the Basques' "cultural unions." The Basques can form both Spain and France. However, they are not an accepted culture in either if another country forms them because of their cultural grouping! While this is realistic in the case of France (the Gascon culture is basically Francophone Basques), it is absurd in the case of Spain.

Looking back at the Basque's history under Spain, one can see many examples where the Basques were actually better off than the Castilians themselves! The Fueros system gave the Basques nearly-unprecedented autonomy for the EUIV era. They had their own legal codes which the Spanish King was sworn to uphold, they had legal protection from torture, were exempt from conscription, and had their own local parliaments.

This, I believe, fully qualifies the Basques for being 'Accepted' in Spain under EUIV's definition. Since Spain operates as a cultural union, I think this provides even greater impetus for scrapping the 'Basque' culture group and fully integrating them into the 'Iberian' group.

 

[Straigthtsilver]

I hate bumping threads, but seriously? Not even a single thought on this?

 

[Dakilla TM]

I see what you mean. Hungarian culture is placed along with West Slavic so it'll have an easier time expanding to neighboring cultures. The same goes for Turkish as well. In reality, Turkish is part of the Altaic group, so in EU4 it should be grouped with Tartars, Mongols, Uzbeks, etc. But for the sake of gameplay, like Hungary, Turkish gets placed together with Arabic cultures and North Africa cultures so it'll have an easier time when expanding.

I agree that Basque should be grouped together with the Iberian group, for the sake of gameplay.

 

[Xara]

The Basques can form both Spain and France.

That right there might be why they're in their own group.

 

[Straigthtsilver]

That right there might be why they're in their own group.

I personally don't understand why the Basques can form France. The Basques had a large impact on Spain, so it makes sense that they can form it, but the same isn't particularly true of France. The Gascon culture I think is good enough to represent the Latinized Basque population in France.

 

[frolix42]

You make a lot of good points about how cultures are treated in the game.

In the game we're stuck with a binary (or trinary with yellow acceptance), make Basque unaccepted culture and acknowledge the difference between theirs and Iberian and Gascogne, or make then just another Iberian culture. It's probably not as accurate as a system where you could for example have Basque be 40.3% accepted in Spain and 14.9% accepted in France, but much simpler for players to understand.

Looking back at the Basque's history under Spain, one can see many examples where the Basques were actually better off than the Castilians themselves! The Fueros system gave the Basques nearly-unprecedented autonomy for the EUIV era. They had their own legal codes which the Spanish King was sworn to uphold, they had legal protection from torture, were exempt from conscription, and had their own local parliaments.

To me this is a historical example of how the Basques were not an accepted culture in Spain. That is to have exceptional laws and different crown authority than the rest of Spain.

I will say that it is far too easy to change the culture of provinces in the game. For example I always culture change Viscaya and Navarra ASAP as Spain. I culture change Labourd as France. It is virtually unimaginable for a cultural identity being wiped out in a single lifetime, which in this game is a viable strategy when dealing with minor unaccepted cultures like Basque, Welsh or Finnish. The closest thing I can think to this happening in history is the Mongol annihilation of the Cuman or the atrocities committed during the World Wars against the Armenians or the Jews. Not to mention how it's done peacefully by spending diplomatic points. I'm destroying their culture, language and customs while they don't fight back.

Smaller and isolated cultures are at a disadvantage with regard to expansion, which makes them challenging to play as.

 

[Zander]

Personally I rather enjoy the distinction the Basques receive.

But it is true that "culture" in EU can't make up its mind about what it really means. Is it chiefly focused on language? (In which case making Basques distinct really is accurate.) Or on the history of the groups in the medieval period? (When Navarra was quite close to the rest of Spain.) Or on modern attitudes? (In which case again having them separate might be most accurate.)

As to why Navarra can form France, I imagine this is a nod to Henry IV.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

I personally don't understand why the Basques can form France. The Basques had a large impact on Spain, so it makes sense that they can form it, but the same isn't particularly true of France. The Gascon culture I think is good enough to represent the Latinized Basque population in France.

The kingdom of Navarra ruled over the area where basques lived. Their king became the king of France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_three_henrys

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

It would be nice if there were better methods of dealing with cultures than the extremely simplified and somewhat tragic system in place now. It is much more feasible to simply wipe out the minor cultures from your empire due to the horrible malus to tax rate and manpower. After all, since it is tied to base tax comparative to your entire empire, they will simply never be accepted. I would rather there be a decision I can take to accept the cultures for a hefty diplo point sum, instead of erasing them from existence.

 

[Straigthtsilver]

The kingdom of Navarra ruled over the area where basques lived. Their king became the king of France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_three_henrys

I'm familiar with that history. The difference is that Henry was not linked to his 'Basqueness' to any particular degree (unsurprising, considering it was the middle of the Wars of Religion), nor did the Basques play much role during his reign in France.

 

[Magean]

AFAIK, the rulers of Navarra didn't speak Basque. Henry's mother spoke an Occitan tongue (Béarnese I guess).

 

[ConjurerDragon]

I'm familiar with that history. The difference is that Henry was not linked to his 'Basqueness' to any particular degree (unsurprising, considering it was the middle of the Wars of Religion), nor did the Basques play much role during his reign in France.

They became part of France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Navarre
The southern half of Navarre was annexed by Spain, the northern part by France.

 

[Rey]

It's a given point that culture is a badly managed topic in the EU games. Just some more odd examples: Corsica, Sardinia, Tuscany and Venice are all of Lombard culture, Naples is Sicilian, Slovenes and Slovaks don't exist, Scottish is British but Welsh isn't, Tuareg is not in the same culture group as Berber*, etc, etc.

"The Tuareg (also spelled Twareg or Touareg; endonym Imuhagh) are a Berber people".

 

[aitaituo]

To me this is a historical example of how the Basques were not an accepted culture in Spain. That is to have exceptional laws and different crown authority than the rest of Spain.

Indeed and I think the lowered taxes, manpower, and increased revolt risk from being an unaccepted culture reflect that satisfactorally. The Basques have never really accepted a place in a pan-Iberian identity and the Spanish have alternated between attempted assimilation and extra autonomy.

 

[Incompetent]

The Basque country is a tricky one, as it's not clear whether they would fit better into France, Spain or neither. It doesn't matter much either way though, as the chance of a major power having Basque primary culture is virtually nil, and France and Spain aren't going to care that much about such a small area.

The real odd one out for me is Lithuania - it's the only large country to have its primary culture in such a weak culture group. I don't understand why it was felt necessary to isolate the Baltic cultures when Hungarian gets to hang out in the 'West Slavic' group.

At the other end, the 'Germanic' culture group is too big and makes life too easy for a Germanic-cultured empire, especially a cultural union like Germany or the HRE. At a minimum I would break off the Dutch/Flemish into their own group.

 

[Kyoumen]

I assume the main reason is cool factor, as well as the fact that the Basques are ethnically distinct from everyone else in Europe.

 

[Hakairyu]

I assume the main reason is cool factor, as well as the fact that the Basques are ethnically distinct from everyone else in Europe.

Except, so are the Hungarians. The closest they have in Europe is the Uralic group (Finnish, Sami, Estonian, the guys in Perm). They are much closer ethnically to Uralic or Altaic then freaking West Slavic.

I see what you mean. Hungarian culture is placed along with West Slavic so it'll have an easier time expanding to neighboring cultures. The same goes for Turkish as well. In reality, Turkish is part of the Altaic group, so in EU4 it should be grouped with Tartars, Mongols, Uzbeks, etc. But for the sake of gameplay, like Hungary, Turkish gets placed together with Arabic cultures and North Africa cultures so it'll have an easier time when expanding.

It's not quite that, I believe the argument made there was that it wasn't based on genetic backtracing but rather on culture. Which seems to work for Hungary in this era, though I am not quite sure and apologize if any Hungarians are gonna get offended. This also makes it logical that the Ottoman Turks weren't placed in with the steppe nomads in Central Asia, though I would argue that placing them in the Persian/Iranian culture group would make far more sense than the Arabic one. The only reason the OE ever managed to hold on to however little of the Arabs they did manage to was that they were the Caliphate. Which also explains how they lost all that land as their position as a world power weakened. Historically, the Turkish and especially the court elite were far more influenced by the Persians than the Arabs, especially considering the Seljuks (who are the precursor to the Ottomans, the Ottomans started out as the equivalent of a duchy in northwestern Anatolia after the Anatolian extension of the Seljuks collapsed) ruled that place for a few centuries. And something to keep in mind about steppe hordes, be they Mongolian and Turkish, is that they practically absorbed the culture and the governmental system of wherever they conquered and added it to their own culture and ruling system, instead of assimilating or being assimilated. The Mongolians into Chinese, the Mughals into Indian, the Seljuks into Persian and then the Ottomans into Roman/Greek, etc.

At any rate, I do believe the arguments provided for the placement of Turkish and Hungarian into the culture groups they were placed in also make it much more logical for Basque to be in the Iberian group.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Making Basque's part of the Iberian culture group, and therefore part of Spain's cultural union, would prevent them from always being wiped out under Spanish control.

That in and of itself is as strong as most reasons Paradox gives for breaking the norm of linguistically unmotivated culture groupings.

 

[Rey]

Except, so are the Hungarians. The closest they have in Europe is the Uralic group (Finnish, Sami, Estonian, the guys in Perm). They are much closer ethnically to Uralic or Altaic then freaking West Slavic.

It's not quite that, I believe the argument made there was that it wasn't based on genetic backtracing but rather on culture. Which seems to work for Hungary in this era, though I am not quite sure and apologize if any Hungarians are gonna get offended.

Not only genetically, also the Hungarian language is Uralic, not Slavic. What is 'culture' then?

 

[Hakairyu]

Not only genetically, also the Hungarian language is Uralic, not Slavic. What is 'culture' then?

The way you build your houses, the way people talk to each other, art, how everyday life goes, social structure and hierarchy... It's not just language is what I'm getting at. I mean; aren't Chinese, Korean and Japanese in the same group? They are all from different language families, save perhaps certain arguments made for Korean and Japanese. India only has 4 groups in the game, pretty sure there is a bunch of different languages from more than 4 groups there as well. What about Armenian, Greek and Georgian being in the same group? Where do you even put Armenian and Georgian in the first place, and if your answer is "together" why is Greek there? Greek is somewhere in European part of the Indo-European tree in its own Hellenic branch, Armenian... nobody knows, probably somewhere in the Indo-Aryan part of that same tree, and Georgian is Caucasian.

EDIT: And by Chinese I mean Han, Cantonese and Manchu.