To Name the Steppe

[Konstantinos XV]

Creating a separate thread to stop derailing an adjacent one.

The subject is: a fitting name for the Steppe, which is now being called Tartaria. I'm being bugged by the following notions:

I could be wrong but wasnt every steppe nomad back at these times considered a Tatar?

Yeah, at least Westerners might well have called such an empire Tataria. It wouldn't be any less accurate than calling the ERE Byzantine.

Personally, I'm having hard time imagining the region addressed as Tartaria before the Mongols. (Which is now (with 867 start date) a late-late small part of the game.) Am I wrong and was it the case? Because otherwise it's grossly anachronistic.
(And yeah, I'm as opposed to "Byzantine" as I am to "Tartaria". So that argument doesn't stand with me. )

Of course discarding "Tartaria" means the need to come up with an alternative name. A concern expressed and discussed in the following posts:

Did you have another name in mind?

Re: Talq's question. I can't see many other reasonable arrangements except to make the Empire's name depend upon the kingdom-level primary title of the creating ruler. Hence, Empire of Khazaria/Cumania/Alania/Avaria/Bolgar/Turkia(or some such)/etc. Would that work?

At the moment, empire titles don't change depending on culture (which is why for eg you could have a norse pagan HRE). Its a solution that could apply in a number of cases (HRE & Wendish being obvious ones). That said it won't obliviate the need for a 'default' title if it falls into the hands of somebody of an 'unexpected' culture.

Personally, I'd argue for the name "The Steppe" for de jure map mode. Alternatively "Scythia" or "Khaganate".
Meanwhile the name for the political (independent realms) map mode empire, should it get created, can be set depending on the culture which created it (there's already a command doing just that for East Francia/Germany, for example).

 

[Nodscouterr]

It should be noted that the commands for East Francia/Germany, West Francia/France and Asturias/Leon is based on dynasty, not culture. And for that matter, ''Khaganate'' is a silly name for it. It'd be calling the HRE ''Empire'' or the Persian Empire ''Shahanshahdom''

 

[Konstantinos XV]

It should be noted that the commands for East Francia/Germany, West Francia/France and Asturias/Leon is based on dynasty, not culture.

I believe there's an event with command "set_name =". Nothing prevents us to set_name depending on culture, primary title or w/e the way I understand it.

And for that matter, ''Khaganate'' is a silly name for it. It'd be calling the HRE ''Empire'' or the Persian Empire ''Shahanshahdom''

Each word, however, has it's charge of authenticity. When you here of a medieval European empire - you think "Rome". When you hear the word "Shahanshahdom" - you immediately know it's Persia. Same with Khaganate.
Besides, if there was an obvious satisfactory choice, the thread wouldn't have existed.


EDIT: Also

Shouldn't be impossible to implement, afaik.
There's already various culture-related naming differences for various counties and duchies, afaik.
Although in vanilla, the highest level title it is applied to is king (Rus/Garðariki for example).
Its all in landed_titles.txt.
Should be easy to add more such things yourself.

 

[BurningEGO]

I dont really understand your problem with the name Tartaria.

Tartaria always existed (even before the huns), and everyone coming from that vast unknown area was always called Tartar. And there were countless tartar tribes.

Also, already posted this on the other thread, but here it goes again for those that havent seen it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartaria

 

[Konstantinos XV]

I dont really understand your problem with the name Tartaria. The Tartary always existed (even before the huns), and everyone coming from that vast unknown area was always called Tartar.

This is precisely my problem. I can't find any article supporting the notion that the name was used to designate the region before the Mongols arrived. Or that every nomad was called Tartar. (I'd rather expect "Hun" in Latin Europe, really.) And that wikipedia link does the notion no favors.
All I've found about "Tartaria Magna" is that it's a Renaissance-era concept. (The article is not in English though.)

 

[A-D.]

Actually i think the name, as well as all the other names are effectively modern words for what we would have called such hypothetical empires back in the day. The only empire that actually keeps its actual name is the Holy Roman Empire, because the byzantines didnt call themselves byzantine, its a modern-day invention to distinguish between various empires or states of empires. Its technically more accurate to call the HRE the Western Roman Empire and the ERE the Eastern Roman Empire (you know..ERE). But all the other empires are effectively made up, except Persia. But that was always the Persian Empire to us, can you actually think of anything where they'd have named them differently? What about Xerxes? Or Persians in general, did they call it the Persian Empire, or did others do that and then it just sort of stuck? The same goes for Tartaria, Arabian Empire, Britannia, Wendish Empire, Carpathia, Francia and Scandinavia. Oh and lets not forget Hispania.

Those are modern day words for it because..quite frankly, either those empires didnt really exist, or we have little to go on what they were called or would have been called. Just calling it something different because the name comes from a later timeperiod? What if Tartaria was called "Land of large bosoms and dogshit" by the natives? What if the HRE was called "Land of Morons who fight alot"? Should we call them that just cause it would be their historical "name"?

 

[Wezqu]

It should be noted that the commands for East Francia/Germany, West Francia/France and Asturias/Leon is based on dynasty, not culture. And for that matter, ''Khaganate'' is a silly name for it. It'd be calling the HRE ''Empire'' or the Persian Empire ''Shahanshahdom''

Leon and Asturias are totally different titles in game which one you are is nothing to do with culture. There is a decision that you can take as Asturias to change to Kingdom of Leon but they are not the same title like East Francia/Germany and West Francia/France thats name changes depending of the holders dynasty.

 

[Teutonic_Thrash]

Personally I think Scythia would be most fitting in both the 867 and 1066 start dates. Perhaps Cumania in the 1066 start. These were the most used names (AFAIK) before the arrival of the Mongols.

 

[Konstantinos XV]

Actually i think the name, as well as all the other names are effectively modern words for what we would have called such hypothetical empires back in the day. The only empire that actually keeps its actual name is the Holy Roman Empire, because the byzantines didnt call themselves byzantine, its a modern-day invention to distinguish between various empires or states of empires. Its technically more accurate to call the HRE the Western Roman Empire and the ERE the Eastern Roman Empire (you know..ERE). But all the other empires are effectively made up, except Persia. But that was always the Persian Empire to us, can you actually think of anything where they'd have named them differently? What about Xerxes? Or Persians in general, did they call it the Persian Empire, or did others do that and then it just sort of stuck? The same goes for Tartaria, Arabian Empire, Britannia, Wendish Empire, Carpathia, Francia and Scandinavia. Oh and lets not forget Hispania.

Those are modern day words for it because..quite frankly, either those empires didnt really exist, or we have little to go on what they were called or would have been called. Just calling it something different because the name comes from a later timeperiod? What if Tartaria was called "Land of large bosoms and dogshit" by the natives? What if the HRE was called "Land of Morons who fight alot"? Should we call them that just cause it would be their historical "name"?

Well, at least names like Germania-Britannia-Hispania-Africa (or Scythia) have a thousand year old legitimacy. Whereas I'm all for renaming the Arabian, Wendish, Scandinavian etc empires.

I'd like the names to be either grounded in history or be relevant and justified by actual developments and context in the CK2 period (Francia, Rus'). And naturally, I don't expect Paradox to do anything about it. But I'd like to listen to opinions of other forumites. In this case on the subject of "Tartaria".

Speaking of which, considering that there're a lot of Tatars in Russia today, I google-translated Russian Tartaria wikipedia page. And it says the following in the very second sentence:

Tartaria (Latin Tartaria, fr. Tartarie, Eng. Tartary) - a common term used in Western literature and cartography in respect of vast areas of the Caspian Sea to the Pacific Ocean to the borders of China and India. The use of the term can be traced to the XIII and up to the XIX century

Once again associated with Mongol arrival. Similar hints can be found while reading about origins of the name "Tatar" in various "Tatars" articles.

In light of this I can't help but doubt BurningEGO's suggestion that every nomad was "Tatar" to Westerners since the Huns. :unsure:

 

[Boblof]

Once again associated with Mongol arrival. Similar hints can be found while reading about origins of the name "Tatar" in various "Tatars" articles.

In light of this I can't help but doubt BurningEGO's suggestion that every nomad was "Tatar" to Westerners since the Huns. :unsure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars

First written record of the name 'Tatar' appears on the Kul Tigin monument as Otuz Tatar Bodun ('Thirty Tatar' tribe). The name Tatar likely originated amongst the nomadic Tatar confederation in the north-eastern Gobi desert in the 5th century.[12] The name "Tatars" was used an alternative term for the Shiwei, a nomadic confederation to which these Tatar people belonged.
As various of these nomadic groups became part of Genghis Khan's army in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the invaders of Rus and the Pannonian Basin became known to Europeans as Tatars or Tartars (see Tatar yoke).[12] After the breakup of the Mongol Empire, the Tatars became especially identified with the western part of the empire, known as the Golden Horde.[12] The name "Tatar" became a name for populations of the former Golden Horde in Europe, such as those of the former Kazan, Crimean, Astrakhan, Qasim, and Siberian Khanates.

 

[Taran14]

When you hear the word "Shahanshahdom" - you immediately know it's Persia

No, I think: 'Who invented such a stupid name? It sounds almost as ridiculous as Welf Welf or Badshah (I don't want to be the bad Shah!:rofl'
On topic: Scythia would be a good name I think.

 

[unmerged(571875)]

i edited the name so if it is controled by non mongols it is called The Steppes,but i might change it so if the ruler is cuman it will be called cuman horde and so on.

 

[Isaios]

While calling it Tartaria Magna MIGHT be a later construction than the 800's, it's an acceptable "default" name to me (though I'd rather combine it and Rus in one )

The different cultures of the area could then just set their own title names with the "cuman = Cumania" command in landed_titles.txt You can after all list as many cultures and culture groups as you want.

I'd like to have Siberia available for the Mongols though.

 

[Jaywebbs]

Creating a separate thread to stop derailing an adjacent one.

The subject is: a fitting name for the Steppe, which is now being called Tartaria. I'm being bugged by the following notions:



Personally, I'm having hard time imagining the region addressed as Tartaria before the Mongols. (Which is now (with 867 start date) a late-late small part of the game.) Am I wrong and was it the case?

Yes, you are, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartary . It was used until the 12th century Mongols didn't arrive historically until late 13th century.

 

[Isaios]

Yes, you are, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartary . It was used until the 12th century Mongols didn't arrive historically until late 13th century.

We've all seen that article by now, the problem is the dearth of verifiable sourcing. (One book from modernity is hardly sufficient)

 

[Jaywebbs]

We've all seen that article by now, the problem is the dearth of verifiable sourcing. (One book from modernity is hardly sufficient)

Probably should have read more, my bad. I'll show myself out.

 

[Konstantinos XV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars

First written record of the name 'Tatar' appears on the Kul Tigin monument as Otuz Tatar Bodun ('Thirty Tatar' tribe). The name Tatar likely originated amongst the nomadic Tatar confederation in the north-eastern Gobi desert in the 5th century.[12] The name "Tatars" was used an alternative term for the Shiwei, a nomadic confederation to which these Tatar people belonged.

The point of this paragraph is that the word "tatar" as ethnonym appeared in VI-VIIIcc. It has nothing to do with Europeans or for that matter anyone in the map of CK2 addressing Cumans as Tatars. Instead - they were Chinese neighbours at those times.

I think I've found an article to put it to rest: more google.translate.

Relevant quote being:

In Western Europe, the "Tatars" are mentioned at the First Council of Lyons (1245). Since then and up to the XVIII century., And sometimes even later, Western Europeans are collectively called all Asian nomadic and semi-nomadic Turkic and Mongolian peoples 'Tatars' ( Lat. Tartari, fr. Tartares).

No, I think: 'Who invented such a stupid name? It sounds almost as ridiculous as Welf Welf or Badshah (I don't want to be the bad Shah!:rofl'

Speaking of which. How would Norse king of kings sound? Konukonung?

 

[classicist]

We've all seen that article by now, the problem is the dearth of verifiable sourcing. (One book from modernity is hardly sufficient)

To the point. The article 'Tatars' which Boblof quoted above - the article itself is not incredibly well sourced either, mind - at least would tend to affirm that the ethnonym itself, with origins in the Orkhon Valley, was only introduced to the Western mental geography during the Mongol invasions.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Konstantinos XV, and rightly so. Good thing too that we now have a defined, proper first attestation within an original source. The Acta of the Concilium Lugdunense have been digitized, I believe.

 

[Konstantinos XV]

Yes, you are, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartary . It was used until the 12th century Mongols didn't arrive historically until late 13th century.

I must be blind. But please quote me the passage that mentions people in CK2 map using the word "Tatars" as "nomads from the Steppe" before 12th century in that article.
I understand "from Middle Ages" as "from 13th century".

 

[Jaywebbs]

The point of this paragraph is that the word "tatar" as ethnonym appeared in VI-VIIIcc. It has nothing to do with Europeans or for that matter anyone in the map of CK2 addressing Cumans as Tatars. Instead - they were Chinese neighbours at those times.

I think I've found an article to put it to rest: more google.translate.


Relevant quote being:



Speaking of which. How would Norse king of kings sound? Konukonung?

That Google Translation is horrible... btw.