why is albania not included as culture?

[KuuushXD]

(this inside this parentheses was added after editing the post:
The first undisputed mention of Albanians in the historical record is attested in Byzantine source for the first time in 1079–1080, in a work titled History by Byzantine historian Michael Attaliates. He says that the Arbanitai are subjects of the duke of Dyrrachium.

you can find the full book here free: scribd(dot)com/document/359431134/Michael-Attaleiates-The-History-1034-to-1079 )

Albanians have without doubt existed and were part of the byzantines. While it is true that albanian coutries have not been formed during this time frame, CK3 ends at the year 1453 and at no point in the game will the albanian culture appear, which is increadibly insulting. The culture and the people have always been there and further down I have actual evidence that they were there prior to the game ending date. and also there were definitely counties and duchies (in regards to the game mechanics) with albanian lords during the timespan of the game.

BEAR WITH ME i linked historical documents made in western europe to claim my statements. i chose only stuff written outside of the balkans because the greeks are hellbent on claiming parts of our shared history as only theirs and us albanians do the same to a lesser degree.

first and foremost albanian (which was called arbereshë until the more recent history) culture existed in the balkan wihout doubt. the albanians were located in the middle of the split of the roman empire and thus albanians were split in catholics and orthodox albanians. Most albanians of the time had thus catholic and orthodox names. Also! a lot of albanian names have been greekified during the last 200 years, and many historical figures have thus been claimed by the greeks. when it comes to the christian names then the albanians would probably be named the same as the greeks.
we still to this day use names that the rest of the world sees as greek because they claimed them first and wont share them with us.
examples are: omer (homerus), tanos (thanos), Dhimiter, vasil, anastas etc etc. we use these because a lot of albanians are still orthodox and/or have orthodox ancestry.

one name used in the game as a greek name is (by origin) actually not even greek. It is the name Bardas. Many historical figures in the byzantine empire were named Bardas, wheter they were hellens or not cannot be proven however this name has no meaning in greek and is most likely derived from the illyrian name barhylis --> bard --> bardas. (the short version 'bard' is used by albanians still today) (it sure as hell is greek today though) I believe this also stands to prove that they lived together as byzantine citizens and shared names with each other/had similar names.

second our national hero Skenderbeg was born in 1405 and the game continues until 1453. he was not the first albanian to exist... at the time of his life there were many (well documented) albanian lords. The albanians were even the primary ethnicity in epirus and further south at that time, which is why skenderbeg, a born catholic, had one of his titles as King of Epirus. Epirus at this time was mostly orthodox but many of the lords and soldiers gathered under his banner. (the lords also converted to catholicism in support of Skenderbeg)

furthermore Skenderbeg has a quote that you can read in latin at the national museum in krujë where he adresses prince giovanni of taranto where he says "our ancestors were the epirotes from whence pyrrhus himself came forth". His father and his father before him were all lords who had lived in those lands for many hundreds of years. This quote is more easily accessible in the book named:

The 'Commentaries' of Pope Pius II (1458-1464) and the Crisis of the Fifteenth-Century Papacy (Toronto Italian Studies)

there is a section named: scanderbeg's letter to prince giovanni of taronto and the quote is quite famous so you dont need to buy the book to find it.
this also proves that the people, culture and language had existed in the very same place for a long time before the birth of skenderbeg. This meaning that the albanian culture was present very well hundreds of years before the 15th century.

lastly the word greek was for many hundred years synonymous with being orthodox. this means that every albanian that was orthodox were counted as greeks. if you look at consensuses from the ottoman empire you will see that in many places they have counted greek as a religion and then hellenic sepparately as a culture and in many towns there will be for example 100 000 hellens but 300 000 greeks. There are a lot of theese.
here is one: search Janina_Vilayet on wikipedia and scroll to the bottom. look at the statistics and the sources they came from.
(obs since last i checked someone has actually overwritten the work greek with orthodox but the sources are still applicable)

Nußberger Angelika; Wolfgang Stoppel (2001), Minderheitenschutz im östlichen Europa (Albanien) (see attached link)

scientific paper from köhln were they write that all orthodox cristians were considered greeks and all muslims were considered turks. It is in german but you can find it in page 8 at the end of the first paragraph of page 8.

conclusion: I highly recommend that, for historical accuracy, the albanian culture is added in dyrachion and epirus at least for the 1077 start option. A suggestion would even be to but them under the same sub culture. maybe under pelgasians or something i dont know what to call it. Our culture are however almost identical, or they were at least by that time. today there is a difference of religion and that albanians have kept their ancient traditions while greeks have not.

if you need a follow up message from me i can even prove with cultural traditions that some albanians still to this day follow old traditions mentioned in some ancient greek texts and even in the illiyad. there are also festive traditions in some albanian parts that are done in the same ways as mycenaeans did in and prior to the 13th century.
the one im talking about specifically survived in kosovo only due to the albanina communism destorying a lot of stuff in albania.

you can get a close understanding if you just google image search "wedding in kosovo village" and "head of sphinx mycene" which is a painted mycenaean female head. it was also used historically in greece as a wedding tradition. the myceaneans would paint their faces white and draw stars on the cheeks and chin. in a certain village in kosovo this is still done
both the greeks and us albanians believe we came from the stars which is why i said we could be in the same sub culture.

 

[KuuushXD]

what im suggesting is to add albanian culture as at the leastest as a byzantine culture but otherwise also as a separate culture for the northern albanian highlanders who were catholics. otherwise half our people would be excluded either way

 

[Matihood1]

Why is Albania not included? Because the earliest mentions of the Albanians are, to my knowledge, from the XII century. Way beyond either of the game's bookmarks. Your post is, sadly, nothing but speculations. You could argue to include the Albanian culture (if not already included) in the later bookmarks in CK2 but that game no longer receives new content.

 

[KuuushXD]

Why is Albania not included? Because the earliest mentions of the Albanians are, to my knowledge, from the XII century. Way beyond either of the game's bookmarks. Your post is, sadly, nothing but speculations. You could argue to include the Albanian culture (if not already included) in the later bookmarks in CK2 but that game no longer receives new content.

The first undisputed mention of Albanians in the historical record is attested in Byzantine source for the first time in 1079–1080, in a work titled History by Byzantine historian Michael Attaliates. He says that the Arbanitai are subjects of the duke of Dyrrachium.

you can find the full book here free: scribd(dot)com/document/359431134/Michael-Attaleiates-The-History-1034-to-1079

arbanitai is the way they used to say arbereshë in greek, today they say arvanite/arvanitika.

the date 1080 is the date Michael Attaliates died, 14 years after the starting year 1066 in the game...

also even if the first mention was the XII century the culture should very well be part of the game. there are many other cultures that pop up after 1066 that are not there in the start while the albanian culture undisputedly was present at the time.

 

[Matihood1]

The first undisputed mention of Albanians in the historical record is attested in Byzantine source for the first time in 1079–1080, in a work titled History by Byzantine historian Michael Attaliates. He says that the Arbanitai are subjects of the duke of Dyrrachium.

you can find the full book here free: scribd(dot)com/document/359431134/Michael-Attaleiates-The-History-1034-to-1079

arbanitai is the way they used to say arbereshë in greek, today they say arvanite/arvanitika.

the date 1080 is the date Michael Attaliates died, 14 years after the starting year 1066 in the game...

also even if the first mention was the XII century the culture should very well be part of the game. there are many other cultures that pop up after 1066 that are not there in the start while the albanian culture undisputedly was present at the time.

Well, if you put it that way... I guess it's all up to the devs to decide.

 

[InsidiousMage]

One reason why Albanian culture might not be included, and this is just pure speculation on my part, is that there wouldn't be any landed rulers with the culture. I believe most cultures in both starts also have landed rulers with that culture. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head that don't are Slovien and Magyar in 1066 but both of those cultures have landed rulers in 867. I can't remember if there are Dutch cultured rulers in 867 but I think there are. There are cultures that don't have any counties of that culture but are in the game because of historical characters in this or that title history, like the Roman emperors in the Byzantine title history who have Roman culture. Again, just speculation on my part but that seems like the obvious explanation to me.

 

[Matihood1]

One reason why Albanian culture might not be included, and this is just pure speculation on my part, is that there wouldn't be any landed rulers with the culture. I believe most cultures in both starts also have landed rulers with that culture. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head that don't are Slovien and Magyar in 1066 but both of those cultures have landed rulers in 867. I can't remember if there are Dutch cultured rulers in 867 but I think there are. There are cultures that don't have any counties of that culture but are in the game because of historical characters in this or that title history, like the Roman emperors in the Byzantine title history who have Roman culture. Again, just speculation on my part but that seems like the obvious explanation to me.

I mean, I don't know if that argument is all that valid. Are there any Assyrian rulers in either bookmark?

 

[InsidiousMage]

I mean, I don't know if that argument is all that valid. Are there any Assyrian rulers in either bookmark?

True, and like I said pure speculation on my part, but I would guess it is also a lot better attested to in the sources. Like, the OP says that Albanians are first mentioned in 1080 but then doesn't really go into detail about what that means. This is further complicated by the fact that a county's culture is all or nothing so even if there are Albanians they might not constitute a majority of the population in any county and therefore, by the game's logic, shouldn't be a culture in the 1066 start date. I'd also wonder if that's why Assyrian culture is still in the game. Like, maybe isn't enough evidence for those counties to be part of a different culture group so they are Assyrian since nothing else fits, or something along those lines. The fact that Assyrians don't get the Cataphract innovation either really makes its feel more like a place holder than anything else, to me anyway.

 

[KuuushXD]

OP says that Albanians are first mentioned in 1080 but then doesn't really go into detail about what that means.

I literally say that in the book written by Michael Attaleiates, who was a Byzantine Greek chronicler and historian, active in Constantinople, wrote in his book "Historia" or in it's english title "the history" that the Arbanitai are subjects of the duke of Dyrrachium. This is undisputed historical fact accepted by historians all over the world.

He also speaks of albanians further north of dyrrachium who in the year 1043 took part in a revolt against the Byzantine Empire, which i believe are the catholic albanians whom i mentioned in the original post. this is however disputed as many historians agree that they are albanian while some other historians believe these could have Normans from Sicily and should not preemptively be concluded as albanians.

I would not write things that are not undisputed. I still believe that those parts above dyrrachium were culturaly albanian and would want them to also be added into the culture of their region but while it would or would not be accurate it is almost impossible to find data on where and who was albanian at the time. Therefore i only wrote about the UNDISPUTED albanians who were the subjects of the duke of dyrrachium.

in other words: Dyrrachium should culturally be Byzantine-Albanian instead of Byzantine-Greek regardless of what the duke were. Dukes and Duchesses were given land oftentimes far away from their birthtowns/villages in order to have one of their own in control.
i am certain that if you were able to find each and every county vassal i dyrrachium at that time you would find that many were albanians loyal to the byzantine empire.

As i also went into in the original post: when the lords took up arms to fight for Skenderbeg they were no duchy sized rulers. Skenderbeg on the other hand became a duchy sized ruler with many lords as his vassals. these lords did not appear out of thin air, some of them were probably the direct descendants of the county lords from the subjects mention in historia.

I also never suggested that any duke would be turned into albanian as i would find it very hard to believe that the byzantine greeks would simply not just put a greek figure in power, also because it can not be argued for wheter any duke of dyrrachium were albanian or not since orthodox albanians and greeks have the same names. (i also mention this in the OP) there is a possibility that the duke may have been albanian but the chances are heavily against that and i would not suggest that they were at that particular time at history.

 

[KuuushXD]

to short it down: The subjects of the duke of Dyrrachium were arbanitai.

meaning: the culture in dyrrachium was albanian. it does not say that 1 county was albanian, nor does it say that 1 subject was albanian. it says the subjects of dyrrachium were albanian and in the most literal sense that would mean the entire duchy. this may not be the cause, most likely was the majority of dyrrachium albanian and then some greeks in dyrrachium and some albanians outside of dyrrachium.

the quote ir regarded undisputed historical fact which historians from all over the world agree upon.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I literally say that in the book written by Michael Attaleiates, who was a Byzantine Greek chronicler and historian, active in Constantinople, wrote in his book "Historia" or in it's english title "the history" that the Arbanitai are subjects of the duke of Dyrrachium. This is undisputed historical fact accepted by historians all over the world.

So one, the search function doesn't work on the document you provide so you should probably quote the specific section in particular. Two, I'm not disputing that the fact that there were Albanians in Dyrrachium in 1066. What I'm curious about is this...

it says the subjects of dyrrachium were albanian and in the most literal sense that would mean the entire duchy. this may not be the cause, most likely was the majority of dyrrachium albanian and then some greeks in dyrrachium and some albanians outside of dyrrachium.

So one, ancient authors are not the best at ethnography so taking a single reference* from a single source is not definitive. Which, two, goes into a point I make later in my previous post - the culture system in CK3 is all or nothing so if the Albanians were not the majority culture of the counties in Dyrrachium then they wouldn't be in the game. Again, not disputing the fact that there are Albanians in Dyrrachium, but, again, one source with one reference is not definitive proof that they were the majority culture of that area. Again, not disputing whether or not they were there but you don't provide solid evidence that they were the majority culture at the time in 1066.

Now, whether or not Albania culture appear along similar lines like Sicilian culture does in the 867 start date is another matter entirely.

*wiki says that Attaleiates mentions the word "Arbanitai" once.

 

[KuuushXD]

So one, the search function doesn't work on the document you provide so you should probably quote the specific section in particular. Two, I'm not disputing that the fact that there were Albanians in Dyrrachium in 1066. What I'm curious about is this...


So one, ancient authors are not the best at ethnography so taking a single reference* from a single source is not definitive. Which, two, goes into a point I make later in my previous post - the culture system in CK3 is all or nothing so if the Albanians were not the majority culture of the counties in Dyrrachium then they wouldn't be in the game. Again, not disputing the fact that there are Albanians in Dyrrachium, but, again, one source with one reference is not definitive proof that they were the majority culture of that area. Again, not disputing whether or not they were there but you don't provide solid evidence that they were the majority culture at the time in 1066.

Now, whether or not Albania culture appear along similar lines like Sicilian culture does in the 867 start date is another matter entirely.

*wiki says that Attaleiates mentions the word "Arbanitai" once.

that is understandable. It becomes a question of how you interpret the information. I interpret it as the whole of dyrrachium in the same ways as i would interpret "i am eating a hamburger" as eating the entire hamburger instead of only half. i believe that there should definetely be albanian culture in dyrrachium at this time, if Paradox reads this and agrees to put it in only 1 county or in half of dyrrachium then that is their decision. They may interpret it differently. HOWEVER! not putting them in when they unarguably were present is incredibly insulting from a historical perspective. they did not even make albanian culture possible to spawn after some time which some other culture do out of nowhere.

 

[KuuushXD]

you don't provide solid evidence that they were the majority culture at the time in 1066.

I would like to add that i am having trouble finding evidence that the majority of dyrrachium was greek. i believe that what you are saying is akin to: since there is no solid evidence that the majority was albanian the majority could only have been greek.

which is counterintuitive to your argument. If there is argument that the majority of dyrrachium was greek at that time then fine. i have so far not found anything. however applying common sense there would be more argument towards them being albanian due to the fact that just a couple hundred years later they were in fact majority albanian not only in dyrrachium but also most of epirus and even albanians as far down as in morea.

 

[KuuushXD]

*wiki says that Attaleiates mentions the word "Arbanitai" once.

the others i mentioned were called albanoi and not arbanitai. albanoi are also pressumed to be albanians by most historians (but as i said it is disputed because all it takes is 1 historian to claim otherwise when there is not enough documents to give solid proof)

 

[InsidiousMage]

I would like to add that i am having trouble finding evidence that the majority of dyrrachium was greek. i believe that what you are saying is akin to: since there is no solid evidence that the majority was albanian the majority could only have been greek.

which is counterintuitive to your argument. If there is argument that the majority of dyrrachium was greek at that time then fine. i have so far not found anything. however applying common sense there would be more argument towards them being albanian due to the fact that just a couple hundred years later they were in fact majority albanian not only in dyrrachium but also most of epirus and even albanians as far down as in morea.

I doubt there is any solid evidence one way or the other about the demographics of Dyrrachium during the period and I would image that the devs went with Greek culture for gameplay reasons* or, and I would image that this is also highly likely, its just a carry over from the earlier games in the series.

*The Greek dukes would probably covert any non-Greek counties to Greek culture since their liege is also Greek, which is generally what the AI does in those situations. This also is just a problem with cultures in general right now.

 

[KuuushXD]

I doubt there is any solid evidence one way or the other about the demographics of Dyrrachium during the period and I would image that the devs went with Greek culture for gameplay reasons* or, and I would image that this is also highly likely, its just a carry over from the earlier games in the series.

*The Greek dukes would probably covert any non-Greek counties to Greek culture since their liege is also Greek, which is generally what the AI does in those situations. This also is just a problem with cultures in general right now.

yeah i also think that it would be very troublesome from a gameplay point of view.

however there are 5 byzantine cultures in the game as well (byzantine: armenian, alan, assyrian, georgian and greek).

Counties will have lowered popular opinion with their direct Liege if they belongs to a different culture and especially culture group. Characters can avoid this by granting the county title to a vassal of the same culture group as the target county.

from the ck3 wiki on culture.
So if the duke is greek but the county vassals are not then there would not be an issue. which is probably how it was in real life.

there would however be trouble on his own land. he cannot grant everything to his vassals and own nothing so it would be troubling indeed. it would have to need a special mechanic for only that culture to be compatible with greek culture and then immersion would kind of be broken in the game if the rule only applies to them.

nonetheless there needs to be some kind of inclusion. in the upcoming dlc now in february you could obviously just create whatever culture you want (im creating albania first thing on release date ) but that not the point.

 

[Byzantium2000]

Why is Albania not included? Because the earliest mentions of the Albanians are, to my knowledge, from the XII century. Way beyond either of the game's bookmarks. Your post is, sadly, nothing but speculations. You could argue to include the Albanian culture (if not already included) in the later bookmarks in CK2 but that game no longer receives new content.

Bruh CK2 has Albanian in 936 and above.

 

[Matihood1]

Bruh CK2 has Albanian in 936 and above.

Does it? Interesting. I've just checked the wiki and they apparently called in Arberian in CK2. Seems fitting enough.

The fact that Assyrians don't get the Cataphract innovation either really makes its feel more like a place holder than anything else, to me anyway.

I mean, that could be a whole separate suggestion. I think Assyrians in CK2 have access to the cataphract retinue so I don't see why they wouldn't have them in CK3.

 

[boorkie]

Why is Albania not included? Because the earliest mentions of the Albanians are, to my knowledge, from the XII century. Way beyond either of the game's bookmarks. Your post is, sadly, nothing but speculations. You could argue to include the Albanian culture (if not already included) in the later bookmarks in CK2 but that game no longer receives new content.

and yet again Bosnian culture is included so not fitting the CK3 timeframe cannot be the only reason for excluding Albanian

 

[Matihood1]

and yet again Bosnian culture is included so not fitting the CK3 timeframe cannot be the only reason for excluding Albanian

Yea, the Bosnian culture is... a thing that currently exists in the game, but this is not a thread to discuss that topic. Besides, I've already been convinced that it's okay to put the Albanian culture into the game.