Wales mistake

[unmerged(2810)]

The text.csv file for the EEP has a mistake in the description for Wales. It claims that the "Gaelic language" remained alive in Wales after its conquest. This is false. The Gaelic language did not remain alive in Wales because the Gaelic language was NEVER SPOKEN in Wales, except perhaps by visiting foreigners. The Welsh language is NOT GAELIC. It is Brythonic. Claiming that the Welsh language is Gaelic is essentially identical to claiming that the Swedish Language is Bavarian, that the Russian language is Polish, etc.

Yes, Welsh is CELTIC, but not all Celtic languages are Gaelic.

The major Gaelic languages:

Gaeilge (Irish)
Gaidhlige (Scottish)*
Gaelach (Manx)

The major Brythonic languages
Cymru (Welsh)
Pryddo (Breton/Brittanic)
Kernewek (Cornish)**


*Do not make the all too common mistake of conflating Scottish Gaelic with Scots. Scots, sometimes called "Lallans" is a language very closely related to English and it is the tongue of the "Lowland Scottish", who were never Gaelic in culture.

**The status of Cornish as a "living" or "dead" language depends upon who you ask. The last known native speaker of Cornish died at least a century ago. What is now taught as Cornish is a modern revival with no reference to living native speakers. Of course, Hebrew was only a liturgical language for many centuries before being reconstituted in the 20th century...

 

[The Andy-Man]

i always thought that scotland/wales irleand should be celtic myself

 

[chegitz guevara]

Why? The various Celts didn't get along, even during the Saxon invasion. Arthur was beating up on Picts, Caledonians, Scots, Irish, Bretons, as well as Saxons.

 

[unmerged(8523)]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why? The various Celts didn't get along, even during the Saxon invasion. Arthur was beating up on Picts, Caledonians, Scots, Irish, Bretons, as well as Saxons.

you missed the point; he's talking about game descriptions. 'gaelic' is what's currently and erroneously being used for all of them, but it doesn't apply to wales and brittany, which were 'brythonic'. so, a viable option is to change the culture tags to read 'celtic' (as it includes both the aforementioned subgroups) and amend the descriptions for each celtic country as needed. at this point in the game the infighting between celtic subgroups isn't an issue.

steph

 

[chegitz guevara]

Okay, I was being a little oblique. Rather than calling them all Celtic, call one group Gaelic the other group Brythonic. To do otherwise would be like merging Scandinavian with German.

 

[unmerged(10204)]

yo, this is my first post.

but why? unless theyre is a HUGE difference between gaelic and brythonic, they should just use celtic
cuz if they did that, then they might as well add the basque subculture to roussilon and bearn

 

[unmerged(2810)]

Actually, there is a distinct "Basque" culture in EU2 (or at least the EEP), regardless of correctness or not of its geographic distribution.


As for using "Celtic", at the very least it is less incorrect than using "Gaelic" to cover both "Gaelic" and "Brythonic".

Linguistically, the two groups are utterly distinct and mutually unintelligible. The questions to ask would be this:


If Ireland were to somehow conquer Wales, would there be cultural difficulties in ruling it?

Is it worth adding yet another culture group to the game setup?

If the answer to both of these is "yes", then create the "Brythonic" group. If "no" to either, then rename "Gaelic" to "Celtic" and be done with it.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Dogface
[BAs for using "Celtic", at the very least it is less incorrect than using "Gaelic" to cover both "Gaelic" and "Brythonic".

Linguistically, the two groups are utterly distinct and mutually unintelligible. The questions to ask would be this:


If Ireland were to somehow conquer Wales, would there be cultural difficulties in ruling it?

Is it worth adding yet another culture group to the game setup?

If the answer to both of these is "yes", then create the "Brythonic" group. If "no" to either, then rename "Gaelic" to "Celtic" and be done with it. [/B]

The questions you ask are precisely the right ones, & I would agree with you completely. Look at it another way: If Scotland conquers Ireland, would there be cultural differences? I think the history of Northern Ireland answers that one. I am fully supportive of dividing up Gaelic culture.

In EEP terms, however, there was a big discussion on this several months ago, & the consensus seemed to be that changing cultures opened up a whole can of worms, especially as cultures cannot be added, only renamed. Hence there are a limited number of cultures that could be realistically changed. It is too bad that a culture cannot be added, as that would solve this problem.

 

[unmerged(2618)]

And speaking of Celts...

what about Galician? (Spanish Galician as opposed to Polish Galician)

 

[unmerged(2810)]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck
Look at it another way: If Scotland conquers Ireland, would there be cultural differences? I think the history of Northern Ireland answers that one. I am fully supportive of dividing up Gaelic culture.

Just about the worst and most inapplicable analogy to be imagined. The situation in Northern Ireland was not a "Scottish vs. Irish" situation. The Gaels of Scotland were as Gaelic as the Gaels of Ireland. HOWEVER, the Scotsmen sent over in the Plantation weren't Gaelic! The Scotsmen of the Plantation, at least for the most part, were borderers or lallans. We keep forgetting that the image of Scotland as a "Gaelic country" was primarily a Gaelic invention. The Lordship of the Isles and much of the Highlands were Gaelic, but the Plantationers were chosen to not represent those parts of Scotland.

From 1419 to as late as 1700, one could make an excellent case that the Gaels of Scotland and those of Ireland were essentially the same people. It was the combined upheavals of the Civil War, the Covenanters, and the Hanoverian reaction against the '15 and the '45 that drove the wedge between the two cultures.

On the other hand, Welshmen and Irishmen have been considered mutually distinct back to the days of the Normans, and probably much earlier.

changing cultures opened up a whole can of worms, especially as cultures cannot be added, only renamed.

Then re-name the culture group to "Celtic". Would that be so difficult? It would be far less inaccurate.

Then again, is there really a need for a "Swiss" culture group? And what happened to that group that got left over from converging the "cambodian" and "khmer" cultures?


For that matter, Russians are as "Slavonic" as any number of southern Slavs, although the South Slav culture is distinct from the North Slav, but both are nevertheless "Slavonic".

Saying otherwise is like claiming that only the Italians speak a "Romance" language...

 

[unmerged(2810)]

Re: And speaking of Celts...

Originally posted by Jehangir
what about Galician? (Spanish Galician as opposed to Polish Galician)

By the EU2 era, a non-issue. Galician culture had been incorporated into the Iberian melange since the days of the Romans. Indeed, it is not even possible to determine what kind of Celtic language or languages the Galicians spoke. One can guess, but that is all. We have more solid examples of Etruscan than we have of Galician. The Galicians are as extinct by the EU2 era as are the Galatians.

The Welsh, Bretons and Hiberno-Scots, on the other hand, are still quite obviously around and kicking.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Dogface



Just about the worst and most inapplicable analogy to be imagined. The situation in Northern Ireland was not a "Scottish vs. Irish" situation. The Gaels of Scotland were as Gaelic as the Gaels of Ireland. HOWEVER, the Scotsmen sent over in the Plantation weren't Gaelic! The Scotsmen of the Plantation, at least for the most part, were borderers or lallans. We keep forgetting that the image of Scotland as a "Gaelic country" was primarily a Gaelic invention. The Lordship of the Isles and much of the Highlands were Gaelic, but the Plantationers were chosen to not represent those parts of Scotland.

From 1419 to as late as 1700, one could make an excellent case that the Gaels of Scotland and those of Ireland were essentially the same people. It was the combined upheavals of the Civil War, the Covenanters, and the Hanoverian reaction against the '15 and the '45 that drove the wedge between the two cultures.

You have a point. I should have been more precise when making the Scotland vs. Ireland analogy, with respect to the different types of Scots. Plus religion was also a factor beyond cultural ones.

Then re-name the culture group to "Celtic". Would that be so difficult? It would be far less inaccurate.

You won't get any argument from me about this suggestion. However, this sort of choice is not one I can just make on my own. All cultural issues appear to be on hold for the time being. Any changes would have to be submitted to Crook (since it is text.csv), & it would be up to him whether to make the change.

 

[unmerged(8523)]

just one hair to split

Originally posted by Dogface

Then re-name the culture group to "Celtic". Would that be so difficult? It would be far less inaccurate.

Then again, is there really a need for a "Swiss" culture group? And what happened to that group that got left over from converging the "cambodian" and "khmer" cultures?


For that matter, Russians are as "Slavonic" as any number of southern Slavs, although the South Slav culture is distinct from the North Slav, but both are nevertheless "Slavonic".

overall, an excellent post with points well planned and well taken; i'm only here to split hairs there is a separate thread floating around here somewhere about the justification of a distinct swiss culture, so we don't need to discuss that here. of course i agree with you on calling the entire group in question 'celtic'. yep, there are some obsolete culture tags leftover from EU I that are free to be used for those who don't agree with us. here's my main beef: since you said yourself (and i agree) that north slav culture was distinct from south slav, calling russians 'slavonic' is just as irresponsible as calling the welsh 'gaelic'. the term 'slavonic' as a moniker for the southern slavs derives from old church slavonic, which is the precursor of their languages, as opposed to old russian, which is a part of the distinct 'east slavic' branch of the slavic language family.

steph

 

[unmerged(2810)]

The Liturgical language of the Russians is Slavonic. The Liturgical Language of the Russian Orthodox Church today is the same Slavonic as is used in Serbia today.

I could point you to a few Bishops on the matter...

 

[unmerged(8523)]

Originally posted by Dogface
The Liturgical language of the Russians is Slavonic. The Liturgical Language of the Russian Orthodox Church today is the same Slavonic as is used in Serbia today.

I could point you to a few Bishops on the matter...

that doesn't affect my point at all; that the russian liturgical language is slavonic says nothing of their cultural or linguistic ties, just their historical ones. you said yourself that there was a difference between north and south slav culture; the russians, who speak an east slavic language and belong to the north slav culture are using a slavonic language that belongs to the south slavic language group in church... what's your point? all the slavs used this language in church, that's why it's called old church slavonic orthodox albanian and slavic citizens in the ottoman empire's middle ages took communion in greek - you know why? because the greek orthodox church didn't teach in any other language; should we call the albanians, bulgarians, and serbians greek because they used to speak greek in church?

i could point you to a few bishops on the matter...

steph

 

[unmerged(10210)]

In my opinion all the so called gaelic cultral groups in EU2 should be changed to Celtic, I'm not sure how hard this would be to do but hopefully it will be done by the next patch 1.06.

Also Wales capital should probably be Machynlleth or Harlech as Cardiff was just a village of perhaps a couple of hundred people up until the industrial revolution.

Lenius

 

[unmerged(8523)]

Originally posted by Lenius_Glyndwr
In my opinion all the so called gaelic cultral groups in EU2 should be changed to Celtic, I'm not sure how hard this would be to do but hopefully it will be done by the next patch 1.06.

Also Wales capital should probably be Machynlleth or Harlech as Cardiff was just a village of perhaps a couple of hundred people up until the industrial revolution.

Lenius

change the "culture_gaelic;gaelic" line in the text.csv document (in the 'config' folder) to "culture_gaelic;celtic" using a word processor; whatever you type after the semicolon is what's displayed in game.

thanks for the tip on wales' capital

steph