• 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.
I mean it's possible i'm just not noticing it but i've scanned through my territory several times and haven't noticed any rogue baronies. I've attached my savegame to this post in case anyone wants to take a look. Sorry i'm not more help but I just don't really know what else to look for.
 

Attachments

  • Gallic_Empire.ck2
    5,9 MB · Views: 0
I mean it's possible i'm just not noticing it but i've scanned through my territory several times and haven't noticed any rogue baronies. I've attached my savegame to this post in case anyone wants to take a look. Sorry i'm not more help but I just don't really know what else to look for.

You're missing an independent temple in Geinum.
 
Well they wouldn't go to speaking a Celtic language and identifying as Britons, they'd start speaking Latin and identifying as Romans/Latins. Romano-British should be thought of as a broader geographical categorization of provincial Romans whose differences have become less stark as they adopt a common culture and interact more with each other as much as it represents Britons (and other insular Celtic cultures) that have assimilated into Roman culture.

Additionally, at the start date it's unlikely that the Anglo-Saxons really would have made up the majority of Maxima Caesariensis. Not only is their political and cultural extent exaggerated to some extent in the mod (particularly in the Essex area), but even firmly Anglo-Saxon controlled areas are likely to have significant Brythonic/Romano-British minorities (if not majorities) at this point in time, when the first Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Kent (to speak nothing of the even more recently forged kingdoms of Sussex and 'Anglia') was perhaps just one generation old. Of course as we proceed further into the 6th and definitely by the 7th century you have more of a point.
"Romano-British" culture in the mod, and historically, was not a Latin speaking one. The Britons never adopted Latin, and in the mod itself is not part of the imperial culture group. "Romano-British" culture was an urbanized Celtic culture, but people on the island still spoke Common Brittonic, and self identified as Britons. In the mod the Anglo-Saxons are both numerous enough, and culturally distinct enough that it just doesn't seem likely that they'd be absorbed into the Romano-British celtic culture which they join.
To add onto to this point, it's likely that the bulk of the "anglo-saxon" population as we understand it is likely just britons who assimilated into their conquerers culture as opposed to a full displacement by migrants from across the sea. Afterall its not like the Franks displaced the Romanised Gauls, and they live right next door, so why would the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons be any different? After all population wise its likely that they were less numerous than the urbanized Britons living in the south-east.

So it stands to reason that a Roman reconquest of the area would see many peoples transition into the greater Romano-Briton population, since many of the older generations likely were Romano-Britons in both tongue and blood. Plus the actually Anglo-Saxon populace would likely join their Romano-Briton neighbors as opposed to the Romano-Germanic group due to the fact that they're the group closest to them. I mean if Suebians of Spania were reconquered by Romans, what would make more sense; them turning into Romano-Hispanics or Romano-Germans? If all the various german groups turned Romano-German as opposed to whatever Roman culture predominates in the region, then the map would be splattered in Romano-Germanic provinces all over the damn place which would be silly since in the mod Romano-Germanic represents the Rhine based populace which likely have very little in common apart from a roman identity with the more far off german descended groups like vandals and suebians. So for me at least I like how things are set-up right now.
Them having ancestral ties to the Britons is wholly irrelevant unless you think the Celtic language, and identity is embedded in their genetic memory. Anglicized Britons didn't think of themselves as Brythonic, and wouldn't have held the customs of the Britons. Furthermore the Anglo-Saxon population in Southeast Britannia was not insignificant, and had a much larger genetic impact than any other Germanic migrators of the period. It's why their language and culture completely replaced the native one, rather than them being subsumed as the Franks and Goths were in their conquered territories. And the Suebi in Spain are not at all comparable to the Anglo-Saxons. There was something like 50,000 Suebi at absolute max in Spain, and they weren't all heavily concentrated in a single community. By contrast Anglo-Saxons makeup a huge share of the population, and have a large, continuous, cultural sphere separate from the Celts. Maybe they wouldn't be "Romano-Germanic" but some kind of "Anglo-Roman" or "Romano-Saxon" in Southeast britain is far more likely than the "Romano-British" culture of urbanized Celtic speaking Britons, especially given the historic Roman practice of using native aristocrats as their means of assimilating conquered peoples. The Romans would prop up Anglo-Saxon chiefs in Anglo-Saxon paguses, not Celtic ones, to be their clients and to promote the cooperation of their new subjects/citizens.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
"Romano-British" culture in the mod, and historically, was not a Latin speaking one. The Britons never adopted Latin, and in the mod itself is not part of the imperial culture group. "Romano-British" culture was an urbanized Celtic culture, but people on the island still spoke Common Brittonic, and self identified as Britons. In the mod the Anglo-Saxons are both numerous enough, and culturally distinct enough that it just doesn't seem likely that they'd be absorbed into the Romano-British celtic culture which they join.

The Romano-British were absolutely Latin-speaking; at best, you could say that only the cities and elite were Latin with the countryside remaining Celtic, but that is not really all that different from the situation in the more distant parts of Gaul at start save for the lower levels of urbanization. Placing Romano-British in the Celtic group rather than the Imperial one is a function of gameplay (and CK2's oversimplified culture system) and predicated on the notion that Romano-Britons in the mod are much more likely to interact with Britons and Cumbrians than Gallo-Romans, both of whom they should get along relatively well with.

Them having ancestral ties to the Britons is wholly irrelevant unless you think the Celtic language, and identity is embedded in their genetic memory. Anglicized Britons didn't think of themselves as Brythonic, and wouldn't have held the customs of the Britons. Furthermore the Anglo-Saxon population in Southeast Britannia was not insignificant, and had a much larger genetic impact than any other Germanic migrators of the period. It's why their language and culture completely replaced the native one, rather than them being subsumed as the Franks and Goths were in their conquered territories. And the Suebi in Spain are not at all comparable to the Anglo-Saxons. There was something like 50,000 Suebi at absolute max in Spain, and they weren't all heavily concentrated in a single community. By contrast Anglo-Saxons makeup a huge share of the population, and have a large, continuous, cultural sphere separate from the Celts. Maybe they wouldn't be "Romano-Germanic" but some kind of "Anglo-Roman" or "Romano-Saxon" in Southeast britain is far more likely than the "Romano-British" culture of urbanized Celtic speaking Britons, especially given the historic Roman practice of using native aristocrats as their means of assimilating conquered peoples. The Romans would prop up Anglo-Saxon chiefs in Anglo-Saxon paguses, not Celtic ones, to be their clients and to promote the cooperation of their new subjects/citizens.

Certainly the higher relative population had an impact probably but the most important factor is more likely to have been the greater collapse of Roman society and infrastructure in Britain, never having been as highly developed to begin with and one of the most vulnerable provinces to raids and attacks, and so Latin lost its prestige to Old English and its speakers assimilated into it (rather than the opposite as in the continent, where Roman culture and administration was much more resilient and formed the basis of the "barbarian" kingdoms). Needless to say, in the event of a Roman reconquest this would not be the case and the assimilation would certainly be going in a different direction. Assuming a reconquest sometime in the 5th or 6th centuries there would still likely have been considerable geographical and familial intermixing between Anglo-Saxons and the Brittonic/Romano-British continuum that would likely resolve itself into a single re-Romanized culture, at least in the lowlands - likely not quite the same as the old Romano-British culture, but similar enough for our purposes.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
not sure if i/other ask this question before or you give the answer be for, will anlgo scotland will be it own kingdom or will it part of northumbria? also when will England will be expanded again?
 
not sure if i/other ask this question before or you give the answer be for, will anlgo scotland will be it own kingdom or will it part of northumbria? also when will England will be expanded again?

It will at least partly be a new kingdom, just like Wales. I'm not sure what you mean by when "England will be expanded again"?
 
Hello! For some reason I cannot form the kingdom of Niwestraland, and I assume it has to do something with the creation conditions. The last condition doesn't seem right, to say the least. Any way to fix that?View attachment 588765

Hmm I see, we'll look into that. The condition requires you to control 10 de jure counties in Niwestraland; it appears to work properly, it just isn't localized correctly.
 
This mod desperately needs its own subforum.

Not really. If it had a bunch of submods and stuff then sure. But its a rather compact mod and its already stickied, so its fine. Back when subforums were first being handed out, this mod declined the opportunity because there wasn't a need for it. That hasn't really changed since then.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Any plans for this mod to be transferred over to CK3.

We're definitely thinking about it but we definitely can't make any firm decisions until it's been released and we can take a closer look at how it works and what mechanics it supports.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Not a bug per se, but annoying nonetheless.
As emperor of the Franks, cannot change succession law of the kingdom that I hold because it does not have the right centralization law.
1592711087133.png

Of course, since it is a secondary title it only has crown laws. Centralization is a realm law.
1592711131202.png

Potential improvement: make it so that the top liege title must have "Centralized" or "Highly Centralized" as otherwise the only thing my brother will inherit is the empire and Paris itself, the kingdom and two other counties going to my sons.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
hey i was just wondering how historically accurate the names and the names of the provinces of the saxons are? i'm from the emsland region myself and would like to know if they were taken from books or other sources! :)
 
Not a bug per se, but annoying nonetheless.
As emperor of the Franks, cannot change succession law of the kingdom that I hold because it does not have the right centralization law.
View attachment 592527
Of course, since it is a secondary title it only has crown laws. Centralization is a realm law.View attachment 592528
Potential improvement: make it so that the top liege title must have "Centralized" or "Highly Centralized" as otherwise the only thing my brother will inherit is the empire and Paris itself, the kingdom and two other counties going to my sons.

Ah I see, since they're not crown laws they don't exist on non-primary kingdom/empire titles. We'll get a fix for that then.

hey i was just wondering how historically accurate the names and the names of the provinces of the saxons are? i'm from the emsland region myself and would like to know if they were taken from books or other sources! :)

Generally speaking, the provinces in Germania correspond to the old Germanic gaus (with the usual merging of particularly small gaus and splitting up large ones) as they were recorded in the Carolignian era (the first point in time where we have any real details about the administrative structure), which are probably based at least partly on the Saxon tribes as they were before the conquest. The province names are usually based on those, though sometimes we use the names of major settlements or occasionally a geographical description, as in vanilla. Generally speaking you'll rarely recognize these names without closer inspection - even if you've heard of these places before - as we always try to get the most historically authentic name (i.e. taking the names as they were first recorded in the 8th/9th/10th century, or attempting a etymological reconstruction of what it might have been called in Old Saxon/Old Frankish/etc.

If you're talking about sources then as far as I know we usually use various Internet articles and maps, I don't think we really use that many books, especially not for place names.