This thread is totally derailling. Just an overview of the worst misconceptions I saw in it:
Yes, why not.
And we could also replace the British culture group by some Insular Celtic group.
I didn't know of this charte aux Normands. However, you should make a little more extensive researches before speaking about such a thing.
French Ancien Régime, as a continuation of mediaeval feudal society, didn't have any constitution: it was only a collection of local and provincial customary laws and traditions. There were several Parliaments, and the laws weren't the same for everybody in the realm -- the three estates being the most know representation of this fact.
Just taking a very simple example: a member of clergy or a student in la Sorbonne could not be judged by a regular court, but only by a clerical court. Exactly the same as a Norman with the Charte aux Normands.
So I don't see anything of real signifiance for EU4 period in this document, save that it looked like a billion other documents for towns, provinces or even villages everywhere in France.
And that's all more true due to the fact that French kings regularly mentionned this text in the privileges given to most locations in France, but totally forgot to apply it, as was most often the case.
I know of one, at least: gameplay.
I feel here some extensive reading of Eugen Weber fantasies.
Did you guy ever thought to read Peter McPhee, The Politics of Rural Life. Political Mobilization in the French Countryside 1846-1852, Clarendon Press, 1992?
Just a very fast translation of the historian Nadine Vivier's review of this book by McPhee (here for the original French) -- but a lot more are findable in French and English.
This work calls into question some preconceptions, beginning with the most naive one: a picture of conservative and ignorant peasants, foreign to politics, recently taken up by Eugen Weber and that Peter McPhee refutes definitively because it is a product of anthropological models abandoned long ago because it makes use of far too limited sources (accounts by prominent and urban citizens) without any criticism. Peter McPhee, on the other hand, devotes himself to a very deep and judicious criticism of the sources.
So, please: if you want to speak about French culture(s) history, please read historical works. I may suggest some articles to you if you want to look further into the issue, if you read any French. But I'm sure there are also good ones in English.
Salut Loup
Quite unusual, but I totally disagree on what you said. Une fois n'est pas coutume...
To be frank, I don't think that Wiz, Johan, Besuchov, Trin or Sara are historians, but it's clear they have extensive knowledge on the subject, and if the ''Cosmopolitain issue'' has not been fixed so far that's not for a lack of knowledge, curiosity or time.
They have to mould history into a fun gameplay, yes. But seeing them as people uninterested in history would be entirely false.
Just as an example: (Sol)Sara's thesis project on Video Game when at the University, which shows her interest in both games and history: http://www.sarawendel.se/#category2
And another one I just thought of: a part of Trin Tragula's readings he used when making Northern and Western African events, that he very kindkly shared with me when we discussed the French improved translation for these events: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/cultur...ca-from-the-twelfth-to-the-sixteenth-century/
To tell the truth, I think these guys are driven by curiosity as well as common sense: there's only to give them proofs or samples for them to start thinking how to implement some more things in their games. In that, they're not different from the spirit that drive every serious historian, save that they apply it to historical games instead of history books and papers.
Yes, why not.
And we could also replace the British culture group by some Insular Celtic group.
I didn't know of this charte aux Normands. However, you should make a little more extensive researches before speaking about such a thing.
French Ancien Régime, as a continuation of mediaeval feudal society, didn't have any constitution: it was only a collection of local and provincial customary laws and traditions. There were several Parliaments, and the laws weren't the same for everybody in the realm -- the three estates being the most know representation of this fact.
Just taking a very simple example: a member of clergy or a student in la Sorbonne could not be judged by a regular court, but only by a clerical court. Exactly the same as a Norman with the Charte aux Normands.
So I don't see anything of real signifiance for EU4 period in this document, save that it looked like a billion other documents for towns, provinces or even villages everywhere in France.
And that's all more true due to the fact that French kings regularly mentionned this text in the privileges given to most locations in France, but totally forgot to apply it, as was most often the case.
I know of one, at least: gameplay.
I feel here some extensive reading of Eugen Weber fantasies.
Did you guy ever thought to read Peter McPhee, The Politics of Rural Life. Political Mobilization in the French Countryside 1846-1852, Clarendon Press, 1992?
Just a very fast translation of the historian Nadine Vivier's review of this book by McPhee (here for the original French) -- but a lot more are findable in French and English.
This work calls into question some preconceptions, beginning with the most naive one: a picture of conservative and ignorant peasants, foreign to politics, recently taken up by Eugen Weber and that Peter McPhee refutes definitively because it is a product of anthropological models abandoned long ago because it makes use of far too limited sources (accounts by prominent and urban citizens) without any criticism. Peter McPhee, on the other hand, devotes himself to a very deep and judicious criticism of the sources.
So, please: if you want to speak about French culture(s) history, please read historical works. I may suggest some articles to you if you want to look further into the issue, if you read any French. But I'm sure there are also good ones in English.
Salut Loup
Quite unusual, but I totally disagree on what you said. Une fois n'est pas coutume...
To be frank, I don't think that Wiz, Johan, Besuchov, Trin or Sara are historians, but it's clear they have extensive knowledge on the subject, and if the ''Cosmopolitain issue'' has not been fixed so far that's not for a lack of knowledge, curiosity or time.
They have to mould history into a fun gameplay, yes. But seeing them as people uninterested in history would be entirely false.
Just as an example: (Sol)Sara's thesis project on Video Game when at the University, which shows her interest in both games and history: http://www.sarawendel.se/#category2
And another one I just thought of: a part of Trin Tragula's readings he used when making Northern and Western African events, that he very kindkly shared with me when we discussed the French improved translation for these events: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/cultur...ca-from-the-twelfth-to-the-sixteenth-century/
To tell the truth, I think these guys are driven by curiosity as well as common sense: there's only to give them proofs or samples for them to start thinking how to implement some more things in their games. In that, they're not different from the spirit that drive every serious historian, save that they apply it to historical games instead of history books and papers.
- 1
