Probably better to have the cultural name. I was not for especially but thought that the titular title was better than a decision for this since long dead kingdom. If the kingdom needs to have dejure provinces a titular kingdom is not a good idea.
When the World Stopped Making Sense [ A 480 Migrational Period Mod]
- Thread starter Enlil
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
Probably better to have the cultural name. I was not for especially but thought that the titular title was better than a decision for this since long dead kingdom. If the kingdom needs to have dejure provinces a titular kingdom is not a good idea.
Northern Afghanistan that is, as there are a lot of regions (satrapies) in Persia
Any kingdom can be chosen to have the "right" cultural title, Afghanistan is just one possibility. But adding anything more than that, really, for a long-dead Kingdom with that can only exist in the strangest of circumstances, is sort of a waste.
This makes me wonder one thing, does tags have an impact on performance in CK2 (as in EU4) or it is more the character and courts who matter in terms of performance?
Not that I'm sure that this since long time dead kingdom is needed anyway, just asking.
Not that I'm sure that this since long time dead kingdom is needed anyway, just asking.
To be honest, I am not sure. I would think that it would essentially be "both" but since # Characters >>>> # Titles it wouldn't really matter.
Okay, what about the Republic of Massalia? Since the Greeks in that area are still dominant as a culture, it would only be natural for them to experience some form sepratism, especially when ruled by Visigoths and Ostrogoths. It would be a titular duchy only available to Independent Massalians that controls Massalia (or perhaps all the Massalian-cultured provinces?). Perhaps even should have the ability to go king-level and become the Venice of the West. How about this?
I cannot find anything to say anything other than Latinesque culture was dominate in that region. The city had also been severely sacked in 739 by Charles Martel in retribution for rejecting his appointed governor.
Interesting reading.
Yes they are, they might be a little Romanized but they indeed are the dominant culture. Its not Visigothic or Burgundian or Romano-Gallic, but Massalian
No it's not. All sources are in Latin, and the names we have (of bishops, notably) are Latin names. Marseilles is a Gallic city, not a Greek one.
And why do you think all sources are in Latin? It was under Roman controll for over 500 years. It was annexed in the War between Ceasar and Pompei. Before that it was a Greek colony. And considering all the years under Roman Rule it should be Greko-Roman or something like that. After that long it is only plausible that their sources are in Latin.
Öh, NO. Massalia was founded in 600 BC by Greek Colonists from Asia Minor. It was never conquered by anyone until Caesar incorporated it in 49 BC.
That is why we have Massalian as a seperate culture in the mod.
(Fun fact: The Legions used to conquer Massalia were the same ones the idiot Varus lost in the Teutoburg Forest)
Where are you guys seeing anything that actually says it is Greco anything? Yes, it was founded as a Greek settlement, that doesn't mean nearly 1000 years later it was still Greek. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking for some shred of evidence other than "it was founded by the Greeks."
What are you talking about? Even after the fall of the Empire, it kept used Latin. It was thus a romance city, just like the rest of Gaul. Telling me it was conquered by Caesar adds nothing to the discussion, I was well aware of this fact.
So every city were a Greek set foot should have a distinct city? By the fall of the Empire, Massilia had lost her particularities and was a regular city of southern Gaul, much like Arles. 500 after the end of the siege - and the autonomy and the Greek organization of the polis -, in an environment far from the Greek world, the city simply lost her Greek character. It would be an historical mistake to give Marseilles a culture of her own.
Actually they had their own cultur: a mixture of Phoenician and Greek. And over the years it was probably influenced by Gallic and Roman people. It wasnt Greek by that Time but to say it was pure Gallic or Latin is wrong
I can´t find anything about them being actually Romanized anywhere (and yes, I´ve looked beyond Wikipedia) and think about it, the Romans controlled Greece even longer and it was never Romanized
No, it was not just another city in southern Gaul. It was an important center for Christianity and it even prospered more trade-wise after the Romans than it ever had done under Imperial rule. It prospered all the way until the sack of Charles Martel.
The sources we have are in Latin, the graves are in Latin, the persons' names are Latin names, what else do you want? Why would it somehow have kept a distinct identity for five centuries?
That makes no sense when we're talking about the 5th century. The Phoenician legend might mean much to the people of Marseilles now, but the real cultural influences were gone very early.
I wrote 'much like Arles' which was the economic capital of the region by then.
That makes no sense when we're talking about the 5th century. The Phoenician legend might mean much to the people of Marseilles now, but the real cultural influences were gone very early.
I wrote 'much like Arles' which was the economic capital of the region by then.
So earlier cultural influence doesnt matter at all? The Normans influenced England over 950 years ago and its still part of their culture. Unlike CK2 cultural assimilation does not happen in 100 years (if not forced by outside powers). It takes many centuries before all parts of a culture are completly gone.
Another point: Because they used Latin doesnt mean they were Romans or Gauls. Thats the same as to say: "Im an Englishmen because i speak English". It simply isnt true. Latin was the dominant speech at that time so everyone used it because it was easier to trade, have your writtings read by more people and so on.
- Status