What is 'Culture'?

[FranzVonG]

As a Frankish count, I get a hit to relations with my Occitane duke? Really?

The occitans never really loved the french (nor we do now). There's plenty of records of Occitans during the Middle-Age looking down on the frankish as uncultured brutes. So, while the idea of nation was still far in the future, there was a certain "tribalism" as said by others in this thread

 

[unmerged(67329)]

This would only hold true if cultures weren't derived from nations. I've yet to see convincing evidence they're based on anything but.

Well since this is about science i think you should accept the task of proving your assumption instead of claiming it is true until others disprove it.

Anyway it seems to me the thread got a little bit derailed. You are spending time trying to explain away examples that disprove a point i am not even sure you originally wanted to make.

It is indeed interesting to see what form and extent cultural differences took at the time and how fast the knowledgable people here are able to produce examples of that.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

You're underestimating the propensity for multilingualism. In the West today, the typical situation is to be born with one 'mother tongue', usually the language of your community, and then go off to school and take two years of French at sixteen or whatever. This would not have been the case in the Middle Ages. A child would not have been raised by his mother but by tutors and servants, who would have begun drilling Latin and at least a few other languages into the child from infancy. The child would be equally comfortable in any language he was schooled in, and the languages chosen to be taught to the Prince of Leon would not have differed much from those chosen for the Prince of Sweden.

In human societies, past, present, and future - multilingualism is the norm, not the exception. We're very atypical in the West (doubly so in Anglophone nations), and it's easy to anachronistically view the past through that lens.

Sorry man but that is ridiculous. People did not speak more than one language unless they lived in a border area. The #1 thing that was drilled into nobles was how to wield a weapon, they started learning that before they turned 8 years old. Then came riding, running, etiquette and religion. For religion you often learned Latin but not even all kings could speak that.
There's a funny anecdote about how one of the Otto emperors (a smart one) met the French king in Italy, and rather than speaking French (which Otto knew as well as a bunch of other languages) he spoke to him in Latin. Because the French king knew neither Latin nor any other languages, and Otto wanted to intimidate the man before they would go over to state business.

I'd be surprised if the princes of Sweden learned anything besides a few words of Latin, Sweden was a backwater that was barely Christian in 1066. I guess a prince could go abroad to serve as a mercenary or Varangian guardsman but what use would he possibly have of foreign languages back home? No Swede ruled any foreign lands.

Human societies in general don't spend effort on things they don't need. You claim multilingualism was the norm but what makes you think so? Just go back in time 300 years, before nationalism, find a book from the time and see if the characters are described as multilingual. Don Quijotte isn't exactly full of multilingual characters. Grimmelsheim's Simplicissimus definitely isn't, the main character stumbles through the 30years war and foreign lands without understanding much. Prejudices about "Welsch" people (=any romance speaker) are rampant.

Of course you'd try to learn a language if it was useful and if you had the mental capacity to do so, but unless you live in a cultural border area where people with whom you must interact speak another language, what's the point. Life is hard and full of struggles, why continue learning a language after you pick up the 30-40 words you need to do business and find the local whorehouse?

 

[Hyzhenhok]

I have native-level, accent-less fluency in multiple languages. It has nothing to do with medieval romanticism. I was brought up bilingually. It's not uncommon. Children pick up languages effortlessly, which is why tutors were well paid to come and teach young Princes and Princesses various languages of high culture. To quote Charles V, "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to Women, French to Men, and German to my Horse." I don't think he spoke broken fifth-grade French to Men, nor would he have exactly contented himself with reciting a few guidebook phrases in Italian at his women.

In 1066, scholastic and grammarian teaching methods have not even been implemented yet. We are talking about nobility in general, not just the sons of kings.Your example, Charles V, is and exceptional case; not every noble in the medieval era was the heir to extremely expansive, multi-cultural holdings (not to mention he comes after CK2). I seriously doubt every child of every count and baron in France and the Holy Roman Empire were so well schooled in languages. I will go out on a limb and guess that language instruction was a little more daunting a task then than it is in today's globalized world. Not every Hungarian count had a bevvy of French, Italian, German, Polish, Czech, Greek etc. tutors in their closet to train their kids in. And why would they need to be fluent in those languages? Surely translators would be available should they ever need to communicate in those languages.

Secondly, I said CK2 culture = nations. And I had a problem with that. You're criticising me for saying something I myself am arguing against.

But you're wrong. They are not nations. They are cultures (and languages). "Nation" doesn't really become relevant in Europe until the 17th century.

 

[Umkharss]

t's difficult to grasp just how novel the notion of 'nationality' and nation-baseed 'culture' really is. In the Middle Ages, if you were a noble, your mother may have come from Poland and spoke French, your father from Scotland and spoke Norwegian and Italian, and you were being reared in Avignon by an Occitan Bishop until you were old enough to assume your title as King of Croatia. How, or why, would you define your 'culture' under these circumstances? There was absolutely no national allegiance or patriotism as we understand it - the concept of 'countries' won't even come into existence for hundreds of years.

That's precisely why a medieval-era game wrapped around the notion of dynasty and not nation or culture is so relevant.

A poem of Walther von der Vogelweide (A famouse german minnesänger) says lot abput Germans in this time:

I wouldn't have thought I'd ever read some Vogelweide here. Always a pleasure.

That said, many cultural/national definitions predate by far their actual political use. But they still are very flexible through time. Germanity has long been established, thanks to Antique Roman chronicles by any means. And so has been the conscience of Italy. But, for example, the notion of " French " varied much from the 12th to the 15th century.

To this extent, we could discuss the Roman name for hours.

The occitans never really loved the french (nor we do now). There's plenty of records of Occitans during the Middle-Age looking down on the frankish as uncultured brutes. So, while the idea of nation was still far in the future, there was a certain "tribalism" as said by others in this thread

I think the "Occitans"-not-loving-the-French nowadays might represent up to 3 very political individuals, at most. There's never been any southern conscience, except among poets for literary purposes (southern medieval poetry and modern neo-classical poetry [Mistral, essentially]).
I'm reading the Song of the Albigensian Crusade in the original medieval languedocian right now, and it was much more feudal and nuanced than one could think.

 

[Rakonas]

Amongst the nobility of West-Central Europe, I think cultural differences, if any, were negligible.

This is where you're honestly just wrong. This is the core of your argument, and it's a misconception. People have cited various pieces of information to the contrary.

 

[ghengilhar]

In CKI there where "Melting Pot" events (Saxon into English, Gaelic into Scots etc) does anyone know if CKII has anything similar?

 

[unmerged(169164)]

As I mentioned earlier, a Frankish count getting a negative "foreigner" relation modifier with an Occitane duke is silly.

Why is it silly?

There was a cultural rift between "frankish" and occitans, which led to misunderstandings and impossibility to get along.

"Frankish" culturally considered that a given word was to be respected no matter the circumstances while occitans considered that a change in circumstances would allow a reassessment of the word.

Frankish: you do not respect your word, you betray.
Occitans: you do not respect your word, you might have betrayed.

 

[unmerged(169164)]

A child would not have been raised by his mother but by tutors and servants, who would have begun drilling Latin and at least a few other languages into the child from infancy.

Considering the violence of the days, the perpetual fight over land and titles, leading to political assassinations, the high rate of children mortality, I am not sure that every noble was that concerned by exposing his children to multiple people from various origins in order to expose children to various cultures.

 

[Tiresais]

Speaking more than one language wasn't that common - the first group of Norman Kings only spoke French and it was the language of the state (and in the process change the English Language forever), but not the people - there would have been more than a couple local dialects across England still in existance, not to mention how many there would have been in France (Breton (Celtic), Occitan, Provencal off the top of my head) to give a meaning to the word "culture" for both nobility and population.

A "Nation" is defined as a group of people with a shared common culture, language, and typically religion. Culture, depending on how you define it, is either a more stringent or more broad term than Nation. Cultures across Europe were certainly not uniform, not even among the highest class. There were two divisions - most important was societal rank, second was culture, but you also have to bear in mind that the Church would have been the most learned and usually the best travelled - just look at the long-line of popes to assure yourself of this.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Sorry man but that is ridiculous. People did not speak more than one language unless they lived in a border area. The #1 thing that was drilled into nobles was how to wield a weapon, they started learning that before they turned 8 years old. Then came riding, running, etiquette and religion. For religion you often learned Latin but not even all kings could speak that.
There's a funny anecdote about how one of the Otto emperors (a smart one) met the French king in Italy, and rather than speaking French (which Otto knew as well as a bunch of other languages) he spoke to him in Latin. Because the French king knew neither Latin nor any other languages, and Otto wanted to intimidate the man before they would go over to state business.

I'd be surprised if the princes of Sweden learned anything besides a few words of Latin, Sweden was a backwater that was barely Christian in 1066. I guess a prince could go abroad to serve as a mercenary or Varangian guardsman but what use would he possibly have of foreign languages back home? No Swede ruled any foreign lands.

Sorry man, but this is ridiculous.

You can take an example of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 14th-15th centuries (is this enough Eastern European and "backward yesterday's pagan" country for you?). Both Jogaila (later King of Poland) and Vytautas were fluent in Lithuanian, Ruthenian, Polish and Latin. There are documented evidence about the Council of Luck in 1429 that the lords who visited it (except mentioned Jogaila and Vytautas also emperor Sigismund, Danish king Erik of Pomerania, Grand Master of the Livonian Order, almost all the electors of Holy Roman Empire and many other lords form Eastern and Central Europe) spoke to each other without any translators in Latin and German. Even more: when Vytautas wished to address his relative Jogaila in secret talks he used their native Lithuanian as kind of "crypto language" because none could understand it except them.

Even earlier there are lot of evidences that during the 14th century the delegations form the Teutons and the Livonians found that the "barbarian" pagan Lithuanian ducal court was fluent in both their German and Latin languages. You can check for more details in nice article about such direct contacts and their linguistic aspect: Rowell, S.C. A pagan's word: Lithuanian diplomatic procedure 1200-1385, Journal of Medieval History, vol. 18 (1992), namely pages 145-159.

Several Lithuanian princes such as Kestutis' son Butautas (Christian name "Heinrich") or the latter's son Vaidutis (Johann), or Lithuanian noble Survila (Thomas) were baptised in 1365 and in 1366 settled in the court of emperor Charles IV in Prague. Butautas-Heinrich was granted a formal imperial title of "herzog von Litauen" and the lands in Bohemia. Check: Rowell, S.C. Unexpected Contacts: Lithuanians at Western Courts, c. 1316-c. 1400 // The English Historical Review, vol. 111, No. 442 (Jun., 1996), pp. 557-577.
Later Butautas travelled in the retinue of the emperor to Rome, mentioned many times in important ceremonial events that took place in 1369-1377. His nobleman Survila made a carrier in the Teutonic Order and in 1370 received lands in Trinkheim (Brandenburg), travelled a lot in Europe, visiting even London. Are you seriously thinking that they were communicating with the emperors, dukes, clergy by gestures or something?

And really please be a bit less categorical when we are discussing history.

 

[FranzVonG]

There's never been any southern conscience

Even after one crusade, the dragonnades and the vergunha, the language is still spoken and flag still flying.
And the "3" very political individuals were more than 20.000 just at the last march (but I suppose that this kind of news is still censored in France)...

But I don't want to turn this thread in politics, sorry for the OT

 

[Umkharss]

Speaking more than one language was common among certain specific populations : church/university educated individuals (second or third sons or noble families), since Latin was very much alive among scholars and administrations, upper nobles and intellectuals of any sort. Nobles of lower ranks (although nobility was a very flexible concept for a good part of the Middle Ages) often had some kind of education (the anonymous writer of the Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum is a good example).
On top of formal education came environment and origins. Richard the Lionheart is as good an example as any.

 

[Herr Doctor]

But you're wrong. They are not nations. They are cultures (and languages). "Nation" doesn't really become relevant in Europe until the 17th century.

I think you completely misunderstood Hexagon1. As far as I got it he wanted to say that in CK2 culture=nationality and this is really wrong.
Was not like nobleman from France shared much more in common with the nobleman from Iberia or Germany than with their "native" peasants? In position, in social status and in social culture, in knighthood traditions (granted, this is a bit later concept but developed right during CK2 time), in possible matrimonial unions?..

 

[Firenz]

Lots of hate (or heated debated) going on around here.

I don't pretend to have any wide ranging knowledge of medieval social history. However, I think that some of the arguments that are being discussed are questions of interpretation.

My understanding of it is that we have no solid idea about how generalised multi lingualism was. The examples that Herr Doctor gives seem to all be rather high up the social ladder and one has to except the bias of history to record the important people who would be more likely to be multilingual.

Culture has been used like this in many of Paradox's games (including having Occitan and Frankish (even Breton I think... or was that a mod) and I never remember it having this much touble.


EDIT: I think we also should not forget that as far as the scenarios being discussed in game are concerned they all take place in the Early Middle Ages (or maybe Middle Middle Ages). There were social changes over the 400 years that the game will cover and having people using examples from 1400 and later possibly muddies the water. Things weren't static and you can't use examples from Scotland to prove things for Iberia, Italy, Scandinavia or Russia in the same way as you cannot use examples from 1450 as direct analogies for how things were in the 11th century. Things just tend to get flattened out when they're at a distance.

 

[Nuril]

I think you completely misunderstood Hexagon1. As far as I got it he wanted to say that in CK2 culture=nationality and this is really wrong.
Was not like nobleman from France shared much more in common with the nobleman from Iberia or Germany than with their "native" peasants? In position, in social status and in social culture, in knighthood traditions (granted, this is a bit later concept but developed right during CK2 time), in possible matrimonial unions?..

And you're misunderstanding him. He's saying Hexagon is wrong in his original presumption of what CK2 is trying to represent with it (and thus all his conclusions stem from a faulty premise).

Also, so what? If they're closer to a nobleman in Germany than their own peasantry then surely the peasantry is even MORE distant from German nobility than the distant local nobility. In no way does that argument work. It doesn't even address anything if it were true, since the characters you get the tiny relationship hit with aren't peasantry and they don't use the same modifiers for poor interactions with foreign peasantry.

 

[unmerged(67329)]

Was not like nobleman from France shared much more in common with the nobleman from Iberia or Germany than with their "native" peasants? In position, in social status and in social culture, in knighthood traditions (granted, this is a bit later concept but developed right during CK2 time), in possible matrimonial unions?..

I dont understand this argument. The question to solve is whether the nobleman in Iberia had more in common with another nobleman from Iberia than with a nobleman from Germany. Peasants have nothing to do with that, i think ?

 

[Herr Doctor]

Also, so what? If they're closer to a nobleman in Germany than their own peasantry then surely the peasantry is even MORE distant from German nobility than the distant local nobility. In no way does that argument work.

Defiantly. Because there are absolutely different types of identities. The Christian noblemen, knights were considered miles christianum, warriors of the Res publica christiana ("Europe"), shared much in common in social culture and social identity. While the identity of the lower classes developed mostly in isolated local regional levels from their villages to the towns and provinces - their dialects, material culture, habits differed even from village to village sometime.

The nobles shared kind of "universal" identity (at certain limits) as they were part of the formal and informal European feudal hierarchy from the emperor to the lower knights. The peasants were in fact "locals". Now the system of CK2 portraits this other way: the "culture" (you can name it anyway: ethnicity, identity, tradition) of the province (=peasants and townsmen) is the same as the culture of nobles (=game characters).

 

[N Katsyev]

I'm not sure I'd ever play-down ethnocentrism. We're a species that likes to split into different teams and any potential division line will do us just fine, hell even if there wasn't one, we'll invent one. I think the modifier is good, it doesn't make foreign areas impossible to govern but it does serve as a good abstraction for people justifying wronging you because you're "different".

 

[Hyzhenhok]

I think you completely misunderstood Hexagon1. As far as I got it he wanted to say that in CK2 culture=nationality and this is really wrong.
Was not like nobleman from France shared much more in common with the nobleman from Iberia or Germany than with their "native" peasants? In position, in social status and in social culture, in knighthood traditions (granted, this is a bit later concept but developed right during CK2 time), in possible matrimonial unions?..

Claiming that CK2's "culture" = nationality is absurd, as has already been repeated ad nauseum in this thread. It is an abstraction to represent the occasional historical conflicts that occurred between cultural lines. I know it's easy to click the culture map mode and freak out at seeing how Europe has been carved up into "nations," but culture just isn't a very important aspect of the game. This is making a mountain of a molehill. A -2.5% to interpersonal relationships is not a big deal.

Sorry man, but this is ridiculous.

You can take an example of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 14th-15th centuries (is this enough Eastern European and "backward yesterday's pagan" country for you?). Both Jogaila (later King of Poland) and Vytautas were fluent in Lithuanian, Ruthenian, Polish and Latin. There are documented evidence about the Council of Luck in 1429 that the lords who visited it (except mentioned Jogaila and Vytautas also emperor Sigismund, Danish king Erik of Pomerania, Grand Master of the Livonian Order, almost all the electors of Holy Roman Empire and many other lords form Eastern and Central Europe) spoke to each other without any translators in Latin and German. Even more: when Vytautas wished to address his relative Jogaila in secret talks he used their native Lithuanian as kind of "crypto language" because none could understand it except them.

Even earlier there are lot of evidences that during the 14th century the delegations form the Teutons and the Livonians found that the "barbarian" pagan Lithuanian ducal court was fluent in both their German and Latin languages. You can check for more details in nice article about such direct contacts and their linguistic aspect: Rowell, S.C. A pagan's word: Lithuanian diplomatic procedure 1200-1385, Journal of Medieval History, vol. 18 (1992), namely pages 145-159.

Several Lithuanian princes such as Kestutis' son Butautas (Christian name "Heinrich") or the latter's son Vaidutis (Johann), or Lithuanian noble Survila (Thomas) were baptised in 1365 and in 1366 settled in the court of emperor Charles IV in Prague. Butautas-Heinrich was granted a formal imperial title of "herzog von Litauen" and the lands in Bohemia. Check: Rowell, S.C. Unexpected Contacts: Lithuanians at Western Courts, c. 1316-c. 1400 // The English Historical Review, vol. 111, No. 442 (Jun., 1996), pp. 557-577.
Later Butautas travelled in the retinue of the emperor to Rome, mentioned many times in important ceremonial events that took place in 1369-1377. His nobleman Survila made a carrier in the Teutonic Order and in 1370 received lands in Trinkheim (Brandenburg), travelled a lot in Europe, visiting even London. Are you seriously thinking that they were communicating with the emperors, dukes, clergy by gestures or something?

And really please be a bit less categorical when we are discussing history.

You should pay more attention to the conversation before throwing around your specialty knowledge. German and Latin being used as lingua franca in Central Europe, especially by kings and higher level nobility, towards the latter end of the period is hardly surprising. That is not quite the same as claiming no medieval nobles had any cultural biases against one another and always had native-language proficiency of each others' languages.