I asked about this back in 2014 when rajas of Indian came out https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/gypsies.750663/
Would you consider a gypsy culture group to be a bad idea?
- Thread starter Eldath
- 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.
A few observations.
First off, it is my understanding that the term "gypsy" is seen by the Romani people themselves as a pejorative term, so should therefor be avoided. I am more than happy to have historical accuracy wherever possible, but in the interests of the game and in social harmony this term should not be used. It is the same reason we already avoid the most slanderous or insulting of terms for Jews, Muslims, and various cultures and culture groups in the game. The Muslims probably had some pretty rich names for the Byzantine Greeks but for our purposes the worst we will ever get is "May you be sown up alive in the belly of a camel . . ."
Now for some REAL cultural and religious slander check out this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks
Second, the Romani people are one of many itinerant cultures in Europe. The best research indicates that they originated in India and migrated slowly through Persia and Anatolia to the Balkans form whence they spread out through Europe mostly after the end of the CK2 timeline. There are and most certainly were many other groups that either arose indigenously (eg the Quinqui, Irish Travellers etc) or migrated into the area (eg Nenets). It might be possible to include them all but for our purposes the Romani simply stand out as the most well known of an entire class of people that inhabit our area and era of interest (ie itinerants), so could and should act as a stand in for them all. Let's face it, I know next to nothing about the Yenish people so I wouldn't know here to start making up their culture group details !
Third, I agree that the Romani were never and probably never did have any chance of being the dominant culture in an area. In a sense it's sort of the nature of their culture - it is my understanding that the Romani culture is a form of sub-culture that adapted much of its lingo and many or its features to the area they inhabited - the Romani of Spain say are very different to the Romani of Scotland.
That being said, in line with much else with CK2 I wouldn't think it too far out of line to invite a learned Romani elder into your court to tutor your kids only to have them adopt their ways, leading to the first Romani kingdom on the map. Because of their origins though I don't think that many other cultures would be very happy with this state of affairs, there is an option in the culture files to set the opinion bonus or malus between various groups so a flat across the board -30 or whatever with everyone not of the same "itinerant" culture group would probably be appropriate.
Last and to really round out the culture maybe they should come with one or two bonuses to go with that big flat general opinion malus, say the ability to invite ANY Romani no matter how far away to your court, the ability to get free spies/increased plot power/army movement info on various neighboring realms. Being considered a boorish sub-culture has its advantages if you have scullions and tinkers in nearly every court on the map !
All in all I reckon they would be a great addition to play, no different and way less ahistorical then creating and running say a Quechua, Assyrian or revised Roman empire.
First off, it is my understanding that the term "gypsy" is seen by the Romani people themselves as a pejorative term, so should therefor be avoided. I am more than happy to have historical accuracy wherever possible, but in the interests of the game and in social harmony this term should not be used. It is the same reason we already avoid the most slanderous or insulting of terms for Jews, Muslims, and various cultures and culture groups in the game. The Muslims probably had some pretty rich names for the Byzantine Greeks but for our purposes the worst we will ever get is "May you be sown up alive in the belly of a camel . . ."
Now for some REAL cultural and religious slander check out this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks
Second, the Romani people are one of many itinerant cultures in Europe. The best research indicates that they originated in India and migrated slowly through Persia and Anatolia to the Balkans form whence they spread out through Europe mostly after the end of the CK2 timeline. There are and most certainly were many other groups that either arose indigenously (eg the Quinqui, Irish Travellers etc) or migrated into the area (eg Nenets). It might be possible to include them all but for our purposes the Romani simply stand out as the most well known of an entire class of people that inhabit our area and era of interest (ie itinerants), so could and should act as a stand in for them all. Let's face it, I know next to nothing about the Yenish people so I wouldn't know here to start making up their culture group details !
Third, I agree that the Romani were never and probably never did have any chance of being the dominant culture in an area. In a sense it's sort of the nature of their culture - it is my understanding that the Romani culture is a form of sub-culture that adapted much of its lingo and many or its features to the area they inhabited - the Romani of Spain say are very different to the Romani of Scotland.
That being said, in line with much else with CK2 I wouldn't think it too far out of line to invite a learned Romani elder into your court to tutor your kids only to have them adopt their ways, leading to the first Romani kingdom on the map. Because of their origins though I don't think that many other cultures would be very happy with this state of affairs, there is an option in the culture files to set the opinion bonus or malus between various groups so a flat across the board -30 or whatever with everyone not of the same "itinerant" culture group would probably be appropriate.
Last and to really round out the culture maybe they should come with one or two bonuses to go with that big flat general opinion malus, say the ability to invite ANY Romani no matter how far away to your court, the ability to get free spies/increased plot power/army movement info on various neighboring realms. Being considered a boorish sub-culture has its advantages if you have scullions and tinkers in nearly every court on the map !
All in all I reckon they would be a great addition to play, no different and way less ahistorical then creating and running say a Quechua, Assyrian or revised Roman empire.
If they were implemented in a way similar to the Jewish cultures I really wouldn't mind. Though there would have to be a point to it all in my eyes, since I'm not a fan of just adding things for the sake of adding things (looking at you Crimean Goths...)
What an implementation of the Romani could help provide to the game is a higher focus on minority populations, like the Jewish and Romani cultures would be in the Europe presented in the game, within realms and within counties.
I think it'd be nice to add minority cultures to counties, like maybe as a sort of modifer, that then provide unique bonuses, maluses and events.
Anybody have an idea what kind of events the presence of Romani could provide though that wouldn't be considered insensitive by modern standards? I mean with the Jewish cultures there's the good and capable advisor they can provide and they can be useful for money lending and if you adopt the culture you can eventually re-create the Kingdom of David.
What events/bonuses would the Romani provide?
I mean I could think of them providing "Wise Women" councilors, perhaps, or brides/concubines or maybe something to do with the Quest of Immortality event chain and other super-natural events, but I'm worried that this might already be insensitive.
What an implementation of the Romani could help provide to the game is a higher focus on minority populations, like the Jewish and Romani cultures would be in the Europe presented in the game, within realms and within counties.
I think it'd be nice to add minority cultures to counties, like maybe as a sort of modifer, that then provide unique bonuses, maluses and events.
Anybody have an idea what kind of events the presence of Romani could provide though that wouldn't be considered insensitive by modern standards? I mean with the Jewish cultures there's the good and capable advisor they can provide and they can be useful for money lending and if you adopt the culture you can eventually re-create the Kingdom of David.
What events/bonuses would the Romani provide?
I mean I could think of them providing "Wise Women" councilors, perhaps, or brides/concubines or maybe something to do with the Quest of Immortality event chain and other super-natural events, but I'm worried that this might already be insensitive.
If you mean Samuel HaNagid that is very isolated and he “ruled” in Andalusia as an intelligent councillor exerting influence over actual rulers, not as a landowner himself.
There are other examples of jewish advisors, but yes he is the most famous example. And I never said he was a landowner, I said that the jews wielded influence, and they did, the gypsies never did, there is not a single example of a gypsy holding a position at court. Romani provinces and courtiers just doesn't make sense, them being mentioned in events might.
Well neither did the Crimean Goths, their wasn’t a single Goth land owner in Ck2s time and arguably a minority in the provinces they inhabited.
Also is their a agreed upon name for the Roma/Romani?
This.
FWIW I have always used Romani and the Wikipedia seems to agree - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people
I am sure that various Romani would be happy to use Roma, Romany or some other local variant instead but this seems to be the most widely accepted standard.
The Crimean goths were however very localized and yes they may have not been majority in the province where they are present but they are majority in an area smaller than that province. Also Crimean Gothic pirates were the scourge of the black sea in this era.
I agree they were localized but what’s the source for them being pirates? The Byzantines and Khazars had a firm hand on the Goths.
Last edited:
The problem with that is that the Romani never had any influence anywhere, they usually sticked to themselves historically and only migrated for religious freedom. Basically they were nomads living inside already established countries unlike other types of nomads.
Also, we already have a Punjabi/Rajasthani culture in Ck2 through Rajas of India, so outside of mods I highly doubt the developers will spend time to create a new culture.
Also, we already have a Punjabi/Rajasthani culture in Ck2 through Rajas of India, so outside of mods I highly doubt the developers will spend time to create a new culture.
Well this mentions them a bit earlier but they were active long after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy#Europe
It's not but the goths should be given raiding and seafaring like other pirating peoples like the berber tibes.
I don't get the religious freedom thing, the romani as far as I know have the local religion, but it's not the first time I have seen them described as pagans. I am reminded of the 1930s hunchback of notre dame movie which makes the story about racism but still portrays the "gypsies" as self confessed heathens. Which for the era the story takes place in is incorrect.
Last edited:
Theirs no mention of them post 300 AD plus they had no influence on medieval society if they still existed. Infact yeah I don’t believe they included Crimean Goths, and who would they even raid? The Goths were a minority in Cherson allowed minor autonomy overseen by a Strategos from Constantinople and later lords of Trebizond. They should not have raiding cause they didn’t even have ships. Until Goths include something other then Crimean Goths I think raiding makes no sense.
But yeah Paradox opened a can of worms by including the Crimean Goths. What’s stoping Slovaks from being in the game?
Not diminishing Slovaks, but Crimean Goths kinda survived well into XX century as a group. Even local Greeks were present there a lot, before they were resettled by Russian Empire (after conquest of Crimea) west to Mariupol town in Donbas, Ukraine. So it is putting an old group its own spot, whereas case of Slovaks and others is more about cultural processes appearances, like in case of Visigothic becoming Portuguese and co and others.
That's the point though.
They are not needed as a formidable Horse, like Mongols, but instead as a landless nomadic titular group, with peculiar events similar to Jews which are associated with them, to add more flavour to entertainment, carousing and some more fun in general. It is a thing of Intrigue, Diplomacy, Seduction and Mysticism, in a healthy dose, that can make general events of such kind better.
Yes as a minority group that used Greek names, spoke Greek as a second language and was always ruled by the Byzantines or a Greek. And in half the game only inhabit one county that could easily be Greek.
I’m not against the Goths though I’m against them inhabiting the should be Greek majority counties of Cherson but it’s like if their in why not Slovaks, Romani, Circassians, Heck maybe even Pontics.
Infact where’s my Circassians.
I Support Romani being like Jews though ingame, or unique in others ways.
I actually really like the idea of a gypsy culture in the game. The problem of the name is not really a problem at all. The word "gypsy" itself doesn't really mean anything unless you are an Anglophone. In the Balkans they have always been called "Tzigani". Just avoid any local terms and go with the internationally accepted one which would be Roma or Rroma.
I also like the idea of them being able to set themselves free and become rules. It would make a really interesting fantasy scenario. However researching names for dinasties would be quite a trial. But it can still be done.
I also think they should have their own cultural group. Gypsies are heavily integrated in the societies and they almost always follow the religions and speak the language of the majority. Thus it would be impossible to put them into and existing group and we should try to avoid another "South Slav Vlachs" problem. With a bit of research you could easily make a cultural group for gypsies especially since they do have their own language that kind of unites them.
As for events, gypsies could easily be a part of anything that means enterntainment and intrigue. Basically every time you organize a fest, insead of the generic jester you could introduce a gypsy that leads to chain event ending in love or murder. Also, gypsies have very strong beliefs related to magive (fortune-telling, palm reading etc.) so if you follow a mysticism path they could lead you in interesting places. You could try to get a gypsie assistant or mentor and if they manage to convert you into their belief systems you could even try to start a cult.
Also, they could be used for internal intrigue. You could create a minor title like "court spy" just for gypsies. They could help you keep an eye on you vasals while your spymaster take care of the more international problems.
Localisation would be very problematic though and I agree with the Jew system of not giving them any county but giving them the ability to rule one. You can't really localize the gypsies anywhere because they were way more nomadic then than they are now. You have Gypsies living from Spain to the Balkans and everywhere inbetween.
I also like the idea of them being able to set themselves free and become rules. It would make a really interesting fantasy scenario. However researching names for dinasties would be quite a trial. But it can still be done.
I also think they should have their own cultural group. Gypsies are heavily integrated in the societies and they almost always follow the religions and speak the language of the majority. Thus it would be impossible to put them into and existing group and we should try to avoid another "South Slav Vlachs" problem. With a bit of research you could easily make a cultural group for gypsies especially since they do have their own language that kind of unites them.
As for events, gypsies could easily be a part of anything that means enterntainment and intrigue. Basically every time you organize a fest, insead of the generic jester you could introduce a gypsy that leads to chain event ending in love or murder. Also, gypsies have very strong beliefs related to magive (fortune-telling, palm reading etc.) so if you follow a mysticism path they could lead you in interesting places. You could try to get a gypsie assistant or mentor and if they manage to convert you into their belief systems you could even try to start a cult.
Also, they could be used for internal intrigue. You could create a minor title like "court spy" just for gypsies. They could help you keep an eye on you vasals while your spymaster take care of the more international problems.
Localisation would be very problematic though and I agree with the Jew system of not giving them any county but giving them the ability to rule one. You can't really localize the gypsies anywhere because they were way more nomadic then than they are now. You have Gypsies living from Spain to the Balkans and everywhere inbetween.
If the romani had any such marketable competence they would not have been the worst punching bag in history.
Yeah it's sort of strange that there are circassians in Eu4 but not in ck2 and alans in ck2 but not in eu4 (they might be ossetians in eu4 though). For a while I assumed they are two names for the same people but then I looked it up and they weren't even related.
Here I disagree with you, have them as an alterative option for who the locals blame for the plague and they're as represented as there is any need for.
Its the english counterpart to the Z word for them, or tz word in your case, and it means untouchable. Which is why gypsies can't be a culture in ck2, because if they are influential they wouldn't be untouchables any more and thus not gypsies. The very word denotes their status as outcasts.
And if there are to be singular romani characters showing up as part of event chains then I would represent them with a character modifier romani instead of a culture.
Last edited:
I think that most of the issues around them involve their lifestyle, not their competence.
As the song in game says, they could make you "trade a whole kingdom for a horse", which despite being a stereotype is a particular example of how cunning they could be.
As for punching bags - the competence they have shown on many occasions didn't stop any stereotypes against Jews or them becoming a punching bag. Same can be said about others who were unfortunate to become punching bags of history.
Lastly, it is just miserable to focus on the miserable part of their history, especially if they are offered to be introduced in a rather nice manner.
Actually you are making a small mistake here. The word "Tzigan" is presumed to come from a Greek sect of people that was willingly practicing izolationism, thus becoming untouchable by the rest of the people. Just like the word "Gypsie" is presumed to be a derivation of the word Egyptian because some people believed Gypsies came from Egypt. Again these are all speculations and nobody really knows where words like "gypsie" or "tzigan" come from. However there is little to link the word "tzigan" to the word "pariah" which is what I assume you were thinking about. The words simply aren't conected and thus don't carry the same negative connotation.
Also, you seem to be under the impression that the whole gypsie culture revolves around the assumed meaning of their name. That's simply not true. Gypsies have a very real culture independent of their social status or the term you use to name them. They have wedding traditions, funeral traditions, their own social organization. Gypsies are organized in clans, ruled by an "elder" type figure called a "bulibasha". The bulibasha is the head of his famili and the clan and has some very real functions as he is the one who tries to settle disputes inside the clan or with other clans. Gypsies also have kings and emperors (nominal of course) who are respected as nobility.
So, saying that the gypsie culture is tied only to their social status and that their culture would disappear or change if their social status would grow, is simply wrong.
One more thing. Gypsies don't actually get offended if you call them "tzigan". They use this term themselves and some are very proud of the term because they decend from famous craftman or musician families that have been called "tzigan" since forever. Sure, some do get "offended" but those usually try to gain some advantage using the race card. But those are very few and far from representing the majority.
Except that is exactly what they have been treated as through out history.
No that's all Romani but there are several groups beyond the romani who have been considered gypsies or the z word, the uniting ting about them is their status as social outcasts. And don't know how things are where you live but if you call a romani in sweden the z word you'll get your nose broken. we had a store in my town called the tobacco z-word and they got sued by the romani community.
The jews have done reasonably well despite being treated consistently badly. The romani haven't.
The trade a whole kingdom for a horse is not meant as a compliment it's meant that they can't be trusted in buisness.
And no one is saying the jews haven't been treated badly just that the gypsies have been treated worse.
Last edited: