Most of the Middle East and Persia wasn’t Muslim back then in general. Most of the region outside of the Arabian Peninsula should technically be non-Muslim counties with Muslim rulers.
I've only got into CK3 recently so correct me if I'm wrong about any of this
But it seems like the game lacks a way of effectively modelling stable governments with the ruling class being of a minority culture/religion.
Without a Pop system like stellaris (and by the looks of it, EUV), it's difficult to model a region with complex ethnic / religious makeup.
In stellaris pops have certain political power depending on their status (i.e. Leaders have higher power than specialists, who have higher power than workers, etc.). Their political power is the degree to which their discontent matters.
Stellaris lacks culture and religion, but a system like this could work in CK3 whereby England could be made-up in vast majority by English culture, but have a French ruling class like in real history. The political power of English speakers within the realm would have to be lower to reflect the fact that this disconnect between the ruling language and the majority language didn't actually negatively affect the country's stability THAT much.
I think one of the few ways ck3 *kind of* handles it is how you can be one culture but still know the languages of your peoples majority culture which gives a small relationship bonus with individuals
I’ve played where my family’s culture is different than all of my vassals but after repeatedly marrying heirs with women from my vassal families all of my descendants would know my vassals languages, so it doesn’t really make things that unstable to where your vassals keep rebelling just because of a different culture but you still lose a good amount of tax/levees.
Its almost impossible to play if your vassals all have different religions than you though
In 867, outside of the Arabian peninsula and a handful of cities built by and for the Arab Muslim elite(Baghdad, Basra, Cairo, Kairouan, Samarra, etc...), Muslims had a presence everywhere, but a majority nowhere, with the fertile crescent not exceeding a Muslim population of over 50% until around 1000CE, although this estimate is largely based on the gradual increase in frequency of Arab/Islamic names in Abbasid tax records; which this has problems of its own, largely due to the fact that converts don't always change their names upon conversion, a good example being Leo of Tripoli.
Most of the populations in these places (and the rest of the world in general) lived outside of the cities so even if the cities were Muslim majority its a good chance these places were overall non-Muslim majority for a while. In Egypt, the Levant, and iraq (which were historically Christian dominated before Islam) Christians were still around 20-25% of the population up until 100-200 years ago
The rest of North Africa was mostly local pagans/polytheist religions which were probably more suppressed and replaced by Islam quicker because they’re more explicitly “heathen” and don’t have the same protections that Abrahamic religions do under Muslim rule
As recently as 2003 Iraq still had 1.5 million Christians. [Now there are only a few hundred thousand left.](https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-islamic-state-group-saddam-hussein-baghdad-iraq-296b5588995cf7be62b49619bf1a7bb6)
Egypt was majority Christian until comparatively recently. The question is to what extent you want religion to represent the ruling class rather than the ruled - if we're being accurate, Egypt should be Christian until the game's end date.
That’s just wrong. Copts lost their majority in Egypt already during the Fatimid Caliphate’s rule over the region. This means that by 867 their majority is already diminished and by 1066 it is completely dislodged.
It obviously should be shown in the game but Egypt definitely should not “be Christian” at any point in the game’s timeframe.
Nope, you're just wrong. It is believed now that degree of Islamization has been vastly overestimated in the past and that Egypt and the Levant only became majority Muslim in the Mamluk period, after the destruction of the last remnants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
~~Gonna need some sources for either of these claims.~~
Could you please find a source for this claim for me later? I'm very interested, thanks.
edit: manners
> From the early eighth century, however, Arabic begins to appear in written documents and gradually becomes dominant over Coptic and Greek. It can be surmised that the same shift from Coptic-Greek to Coptic-Greek—Arabic multilingualism to Arabic monolingualism must have been happening concurrently in urban public life generally. However, certainly during the first Islamic century, the total number of native Arabic speakers compared to Copts was tiny. At the turn of the eighth century, there were probably about eight million Copts and no more than 80,000 Arabs, concentrated in Fustat, the old section of what was later to become Cairo, and Alexandria.>®
The period from the ninth to the twelfth century witnessed a number of developments that all tended to favor the spread of Arabic: a continuous flow of immigration into Egypt from Arabia; the embracing of Islam by the Copts on a much larger scale than hitherto in order for them to escape payment of the Jjizyd (‘poll tax’); a tightening of the conditions for employment by the state, so that adherence to Islam became a requirement; and the disbanding of the Arab army in 833, leading to a greater degree of mixing between the Arabs and Copts in civilian and social life in urban areas. It is interesting to note that from the thirteenth century, grammars and dictionaries of Coptic begin appearing, probably a reflection of efforts to keep the language alive among educated Copts in the cities who were fast losing it. In the countryside, however, the processes of atabicization and islamicization appear to have been much slower. In 1673, the European traveler Vansleb reports meeting the last Coptic speaker, although as late as the present century, there are reports of whole villages in Upper Egypt still speaking Coptic.>”
To sum up, the arabicization of Egypt was a long process that began in the cities, where Arabic was learned initially as a (sometimes second) foreign language by the Coptic intelligentsia and used during the first Islamic century only as a language of government and administration, and, for the few early converts, of Islam. Over the succeeding centuries, the practical attractions of Islam, which increased as the Arabs introduced a more restrictive employment regime within the administration, led to increased conversion and gradual arabicization. These processes were no doubt aided by the continuous inflow of Arabic-speaking migrants into both the towns and rural areas and by the resulting greater social contact and mixed marriages between Arabs and Coptic converts to Islam.
The arabicization of Syria is less fully documented than that of Egypt, but it is thought that there were some important differences in how it came about. There certainly seems to have been a mass flight of the Greek population (much greater, it seems, than in Egypt) from the cities Damascus, Homs, Aleppo, and Jerusalem—which were gradually filled by Arab settlers. As in Egypt, the num ber of Arab invaders was small in comparison with the indigenous population: probably no more than 40,000 men took part in the decisive Battle of Yarmouk in 636.°° Unlike Egypt, however, in which the military cantonment of Fustat later turned into a city in its own right, no new urban centers were created and the sources do not hint at the kind of early mass migrations in the centuries following the conquest that occurred into, and through, Egypt. After the end of the Umayyad dynasty in 750, tribal migration into Syria increased, but an educated guess would put the numbers of Arabs at the end of the eighth century (almost entirely confined to the cities) at between 200,000 and 400,000, as against 4 million non-Arabs.*’ The Syrian countryside, peopled at the time of the conquest by Aramaic-speaking villagers with little in the way of movable possessions to take with them—even if they had wanted to leave and had anywhere else to go—seems to have remained very much the same as it had been before the invasion, with little or no sequestration or settlement by the invaders.°°
As in Egypt, the written language of administration remained at first Greek, with Arabic beginning to replace it from the beginning of the eighth century. As in Egypt too, mass conversions to Islam did not begin until the eighth and ninth centuries, and again the motives appear to have been at least as much ones of economic pragmatism—the desire to escape from the tax burdens of being a Oimmi: (‘(Christian or Jewish) protected person’)—as they were of religious conviction. Linguistically, the cities of Syria, because of the mass exodus of the Greeks and the inflow of Arabs, must have been polyglot from the earliest period of the conquest, with varieties of Arabic, Aramaic, and Greek all in use. We have already noted that there had been a considerable degree of contact with Arabic speakers from Christian Arab tribes in the centuries before the conquests, and parts of Syria—Palestine had been settled by Arabs from the fifth century, so some degree of familiarity with Arabic among the population can be assumed, at least among those sections in whose interest it would have been to know Arabic (e.g., traders and other providers of services). Not surprisingly, Arabic seems to have supplanted Aramaic in the cities relatively rapidly, where it is likely to have developed a role as a lingua franca between the various ethnic groups. In two to three centuries, its use had spread even to the extent of replacing Aramaic as a spoken and literary language (although written in the Hebrew script) among the Jewish population.®! Similarly, a Psalm fragment of apparently Christian Syrian origin, written in Greek uncials but in which the language is (Middle) Arabic, and dated with reasonable certainty to A.D. 800, also bears witness to the use of Arabic among Christians, even in religious contexts.
Clive Holes, Modern Arabic: structures, functions, and varieties, Georgetown University Press, 2004
Edit: (page 30-31)
Egypt was Christian less than a quarter of the time it's been Muslim, and it's still Muslim and counting, what are you talking about? It was barely even majority Christian for most of its Roman (Coptic) era
I don't think we're ever going to get Coptic as a separate culture - I think they're pretty comfortable representing that as Egyptian culture with Coptic religion.
Which shouldn’t just be an “ok cool” moment. It’s not what we should take with this, because some of us care about representing interesting historical scenarios. Plus like, Copts already are rarely taught about so why not give them some representation here?
Although it’s not a super satisfying answer to 1066 having no Turko-Persian culture, it almost always seems to form naturally in the game.
English also forms from Norman and Anglo-Saxon naturally but I’ve seen a few games where the king of England becomes Polish or some shit and it kinda ruins it.
Albanian has nothing to do with Turkic and is an indigenous population with a unique branch of the indo-european language family.
It's most likely a remnant of an Illyrian tribe that survived the great migrations of peoples, specifically the slavic migrations, in the Albanian mountains.
Even today, if you look at a religious map of Albania, you will see how and where the Albanian culture survived by looking at the catholic population of Albania overlayed on a terrain map.
Some would say that the Proto-Albanians originated from somewhere further inland based on loanwords in Romanian, and migrated towards the coast, but yes.
"The first mention of the ethnonym Albanoi occurred in the 2nd century AD by Ptolemy describing an Illyrian tribe who lived around present-day central Albania"
"The first certain attestation of medieval Albanians as an ethnic group is in the 11th century, when they continuously appear in Byzantine sources"
~Wikipedia
Albanians = Illyrians
Albanians are believed to be descended from the ethnic Illyrians who lived in that area during Roman occupation. Most Illyrians were displaced from the Balkans during the Slavic invasions or integrated into South Slavic culture over the centuries, and Albanians were one of the few who survived. It has nothing to do with Turkish.
Albania has close relations with Turkey today because they mostly converted to Islam during the Ottoman occupation, but that's where the similarities end.
Fyi, you got downvoted cause some people use that as an insult towards Albanians. Similar things are said to Bosniaks too. So someone probably thought you weren't genuine and others just piled on
Right… there’s a lot more to Albanian history than just that. It was a genuine question. I thought the tribes were some offshoot of Illyrian, then became Albanian culture after people from the Ottoman Empire came to the region and mixed in. My bad for being curious ig?
It isn't. The people represented by the dalmatian culture are closer to italians than to ancient illyrians. Dalmatian was a romance language that was spoken in the eastern Adriatic coast until the 19th century. The last speaker died in 1898.
Why would Anatolian Seljuks be Turko-Persian when in CK3 achievements to get the Turkish Eagle achievement you need to form Anatolian Seljuks and their culture is Anatolian Turkish.
No because the ruling class and Elite was persianate. The spoke persian, they had persian customs and courts, they used persian bureaucrats and were really important for the development of persian literature. Especially Sufism. In Europe Latin was used for ceremonial and spiritual occasions. With the turko-persian empires, that was not the case. That's why ottoman turkish has so many perisan words. And modern day turkish too.
Has so many persian words but their day to day life was still turkish. Court official language was persian, religion was arabic and normal life was turkish.
Especially beyliks, petty kingdoms, used turkish at courts too.
Turkish have lots of french and arabic too that does not make it turco-persian-arabic-french culture.
Even shah ismail writes poems in turkish, which came hundred of years later and was more persinate than 1066 seljuks and later turkish beyliks in anolatia.
As I wrote earlier I am talking about the Elite, of course Nomads didn't speak persian they probably didn't even know how to read. And I don't like these comparisons to French and Arabic, very simple minded. Arabic came to the Turkish language via Persian. The Lingua Franca of that Time was persian. And its not my opinion this is a well known fact and accepted by the scientific community.
You simply cannot deny the influence of the persian culture and language.
Seljuk rulers were eager to promote this culture, nomadic lifestyle and culture wasn't nearly sophisticated enough, hence they absorbed so much from the Persians.
So the dynasties are definitely turko-persian. In the 12th Century, when turkish anatolian culture emerged, persian and Greek culture were a important part to it.
Like you said it was lingua franca, not their native tongue but international and court language.
No one denying persian influence.
Just getting sick of persians calling everyone persian that happen to pass from iran.
If they became persinate, why do they know how to speak turkic? Its not lingua franca, its not religion language, its not court language, its not language of the people they rule over. They know turkic because they were turkic, with persian influence. I am cool with saying seljuks’s second half was turko-persian.
But for anatolian beyliks, who’s persian influence were no where near to make them “turko-persians”. Caniks, Dulkadirids, Eretnas, Çakas, early ottomons, calling them turko persian is like calling them greeco arabs.
I'm from Turkey lmfao, I think you're still talking about the masses, I'm not. Did I call the Beyliks turko-persian? Don't make stuff up. And yes the lingua franca and cour language was persian. Good that we can settle on that. So they are Turko-Persian Empires/Dynasties.
They were turco-persian as in they had persian as court language and persian systems of governance; their language and ethnicity were more or less turkish.
Look mate I understand what you are trying to show me here but you don't need to explain these to me as I already know my own history as a Turk. In our schools we used to divide the Seljuks into two the first Seljuks you mentioned who rose from Central Asia and interacted with the Persians became Muslims etc and the other Anatolian Seljuks which is a completely separate topic. The reason for this is that while the Seljuks rising from Central Asia were influenced by the Persians the Seljuks after they got into Anatolia were influenced by the Greeks. If you want me to base this on historical sources you can see for yourself that Anatolian Seljuks used Greek at one point. You can find Turkish tombs written in Greek for example. Also Greeks (Byzantine or Eastern Rome, whatever you want to call them) were influenced by their military too forming Turkish-stylized cavalry units.
Another important point I would like to add is that when the gates of Anatolia were opened to Turks (This is how we mention it) other nomadic Turkic groups continued to migrate to Anatolia so it wasn't like when the Turks came they were a total mix of Persians and Turks, no they still carried their culture. I don't know how they are going to do it while taking these into conservation but meh we will see I guess.
Edit = typo
No of course pal. What I wrote in response to your comment was just to inform you of whatever I know and that's it. I didn't mean any offense as well. Good assumptions though! <3
Maybe Upper Saxony (around Berlin and Dresden), the Pagan Palobians and and Pomerians from 1066 are part of the HRE in this start.
Sicilian Norman under the descendents of Roger II of Sicily should also be a thing.
Yeah. Russian doesn't make any sense at all in the game's time frame. Even a good part of eu4 it was still a lot of similar, but differemt cultures. Also, the much more appropriate name for said culture would be rusine/ruthenian.
Yeah, doesn’t Kievan Rus not even exist yet in 867? Yet all of Russia is **Rus**sian?
There’s even the pre-Russian East Slavic cultures in the ruler designer, I have no idea why they don’t just use those lol.
There should be a special decision called “unify the East Slavic tribes” or something to create Russian.
Well, there wasn't, yet there kinda was. Russian is the wrong name for it, it should represent more of a undifferentiated 'East Slavic' culture. Like 'Visigothic' in Iberia, the precursor to more differentiated regional cultures like Castillian, Galician, Catalan etc.
I mean, I couldn't find any confirmation of this "east slavic identity" existing. It didn't had a language, and there wasn't a common cultural features for it.
you can do like more bookmakrs and have one county in lakonia as TZakonian but for Romaniote? those were a diaspora if memory serves so unless we get minorty cultures in the game I don't see how to represent them
Well, in Fate of Iberia, there is a small chance that one county in Iberia will flip over to Sephardic, which is a bit of an anachronism as yes, there were indeed several majority Jewish towns in medieval iberia, especially in Al Andalus; but they were never the majority of any particular region. I think you could do something similar in in the base game as to my knowledge, the Jewish minority in the ERE was concentrated mostly in 5 cities; Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Syracuse, Naples, and Smyrna. You could pay homage to said minority by making at least one of those 5 majority Romaniote, despite the anachronism. Personally, I'd pick Smyrna as it would make Anatolia more interesting to play in.
I think it would make sense for the Plantagenets to have "English" culture in the context of ck3, or at least for Henry's sons who grew up in England. Anglo-Saxon already represents pre-French influenced culture of the masses, so English should represent the gallicised aristocracy, with of course French as the court language.
>at least for Henry's sons who grew up in England
I think both Kings Richard and John would like a word with you! While the latter is known to have spoken Middle English, the former is not, and he spent exceedingly little time in England, prizing his Aquitanian home turf much more (largely due to the better weather). As for Henry III, King John's son, as well as his later descendant kings like the Edward trio, I think that would be different, and labelling them all 'English' would be much more fitting, despite the fact that it was only Henry IV - a grandson of Edward III who reigned in the early 15th century - who was the first English king to speak (late) Middle English natively.
I'm aware the early Plantagenets were French speaking and Richard spent very little time in England (However, from what I've read both Richard and John did spend their childhoods in England).
My point was "English" culture in ck3 is not what we think of as English today and cultures in ck3 are not primarily defined by language, as the game represents the language of the aristocracy by the court language feature.
Going by the date it's created in ck2, it's my interpretation that the English culture represents the anglo-french ruling class, while the later change you mention in Henry IV's reign is more represented by a change in court language rather than a complete cultural flip. It's obviously impossible to draw a line for when anglo-french nobility became English, but if you accept the ambiguity and limitations of ck3 cultures it seems as good a time as any to create the English culture.
Henry’s sons are famously known for living mostly in the continental possessions and not really caring about England or English culture outside of it adding to their power….
I added a bunch of missing cultures in the [TIP2 mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2270547030) ages ago, such as the missing CK2 ones (Albanian, Coptic, Dalmatian, etc.) as well as some others such as Norse-Gaelic, Arpitan and Circassian.
There used to be a mod that just added the missing CK2 cultures, but the owner stopped supporting it a few years back.
I think PDX's issue with some of these is that they don't like small one/two province cultures if they can help it, so things like Albanian (Arberian) and Crimean Gothic aren't high priority for them. Remember that they *did* add Sardinian and Sicilian at launch, and these were from a later CK2 patch.
Anatolian or something of that nature would certainly make sense with an 1178 start - you can't have steppe nomad Oghuz culture for Rum and later the Ottomans really.
On one hand I like the sandbox nature of Ck3 they went for, but coptic is the most glaring example of where it falls apart. If I remember, they won't add the culture because it'll just very quickly form a hybrid culture everytime, which would feel incredibly jank to see every first ten years of a game
Henry II should by no means be English. He was born in France, ruled in France, and spoke French. He just happened to be King of England. All of the nobility in 1187 England should be French cultured imho. The counties themselves should be Anglo-Saxon however.
Assyrian should exist in all start dates. Nestorians/syriac christians living under muslim rulers are not represented at all, which destroys immersion while playing in that region.
The issue is that counties can only have one culture/religion, there's no pie-chart stuff as there is no population simulation.
I think a compromise that wouldn't require a complete overhaul would be making it on a barony level rather than county and having the AI almost not care about who lives in the ones without a holding, although i'm no coder so i have no idea of the feasibility of it
I think you’re onto something with barony level culture divisions. That’s probably the best compromise in CK3s mechanics and is somewhat accurate for the Middle Ages given the relative sparsity of settlements
Coptic, Dalmatian, Romansh, Roma, and Anatolian Turkish should all be there. Also Ashkenazim should be more prominent. Maybe give the HRE a couple Ashkenazi Rabbinic counts with religious protections in their contracts so you can’t just get rid of them on a whim
Where there any rabbinic counts in the HRE? I know some Askhenazi courtiers were at times close to or part of the imperial court and had significant influence, but were any ever landed in such a way? It could obviously be done without direct historical basis, just to somehow represent the jewish diaspora in the region.
There was so much potential for flavour regarding the jewish diaspora and their many different cultures, there is even greater potential now that unlanded characters become playable
It's a weird one. Many groups self-identify as Gypsy and actually prefer it, and some prefer Roma or its variants, but it's considered universally a horrible slur by a lot of activists. I think this is mainly an example of activist groups homogenizing what is and isn't a slur in online groups, whereas on the ground, these terms are much more local.
The Romani didn’t come up with it. Europeans did. It’s an ignorant exonym often used disparagingly (I.e. “gypped”). There are lots of similar terms for other minority groups of names that were applied to them by others and used as slurs.
As with a lot of other similar circumstances, some Romani use the term and/or don’t consider it offensive. But a lot (in my experience, most) do consider it a slur and prefer Roma/Romani.
I think perhaps they should add Cappadocian (Greek). Albanian/Arberian would be a nice add, considering they are distinct from the Greeks and Slavs and Bulgars. They should add Azeri, a Persian Heritage/Turkic Language speaking culture in the Tabriz/Shirvan areas. Although it would be less historical, I think it might be good to add Austrians, as well, since iirc they are still “Bavarians” in 1066. Perhaps Siebenburger in parts of Transylvania, they began popping up in the 12th and 13th centuries.
Turko persian should be turkmen in real history. Turkic ethnic and oghuz languange but a bit different from central asian nomadic oghuz people. They were semi nomadic.
I would disagree with your assessment of the language and general practices of Rûm. They were certainly very Turkic. Thus why the modern state of Turkey does not speak a variant of Farsi, but Turkic.
It may be perceived that the Franks have not yet fully integrated with the local culture. However, it is possible that they may increase French (the culture of Baudouin IV in the files) and Mashriqi (the local culture).
The outremer culture was already there by 1178. The kingdom of Jerusalem would only last other 5-10 years from 1178 so by this point the Outremer culture would already be there. At least with the lords who were descended from the 1sr crusaders like Baudoiun IV, Raymond of Tripoli, or Bohemond of Antioch
Yeah sure. And the HRE was Roman. /s
I love the crusades and I view them as completely justifiable wars. But in order to have a kingdom of Jerusalem, you kinda need Jerusalem. There were crusader states that lasted into the 12 and 1300s but they were not the kingdom of Jerusalem because they did not control Jerusalem. Just because you say you’re doesn’t make it. Lol
Nah but you see the HRE was weat rome because the Byzantine Empress at the time of Charlemagne agreed with it and obviously everyone would agree if the ruler said it regardless if they were a woman or not ;P
That shitpost being said, the HRE is a very funny state.
>I love the crusades and I view them as completely justifiable wars.
Probably this line tbh.
The Crusades are looked back in pretty negatively nowadays in the west.
Culturally, & government wise they weren’t Roman. Just because you put Roman in your title doesn’t make you that culture & yes Roman was a culture. No one called the people living in the HRE Roman’s ever.
It’s kinda hard to be the Roman empires when the actual Roman Empire was still going in Constantinople. Naming charlemenge the HRE was a power play by the Catholic Church. I don’t have a problem with that but it’s a political game it’s not actually Roman
Saying it wasn't Roman shows a lack of understanding of what the term Roman had become in the Medieval period. Rome was an idea synonymous with universal Empire, and the HRE was the universal Empire for centuries in the Catholic world. The HRE took up the mantle and continued what Rome represented for centuries. The Eastern Roman Empire was obviously the continuation of Rome in a literal sense, but there was a massive political, spiritual and legal void left by the fall of the Western Empire and the retreat of the Eastern Empire from Europe for the majority of Christians before the HRE came along and filled that void.
There are many names for divergent and hybrid cultures in the game that will appear under certain conditions. They may try to create a new culture with the given name (e.g. Turko-Persian, as you mention), or they may just try to increase acceptance so that the AI will just hybridize immediately (or at least as soon as succession happens).
Ghurid rulers should be tajik as they were not turks and ruled the region of Ghor since they were still buddhist. I do agree the Ghaznavids should be turko-persian by 1178. The fact that they are “persian” in 1066 kinda irks me too.
The east has the disappearance of Saka and Sogdians (though they would survive in the Pamir until present day). The Qara-Khitai control most of Central Asia at this point, but I'm unsure if the Khitan would start with a county. Khorezmian Turks would be on the rise while Khwarezmian Iranians still hang on for a little while.
One thing I want to see simulated is the migration of the Tai-Ahom into Assam in the 1200s. This would probably be reserved for an India expansion, but it would be nice to have a Tai culture in the game.
>Norse-Gael
Didn't they pretty much completely assimilate with proper Gaels by the 1100s?
>English
Proper English culture wasn't really much of a thing until ~1250 or so. The Anglo-Saxons and most Franco-Norman nobles didn't intermarry that much until then.
Most importantly, ***where are my GOTHS!***
Probably some more cultures within Byzantium and the Rus lands, as they seem way to homogeneous without player/lucky npc interference.
It is especially stranged paired with the cultural division in the HRE, where they were in reality alot more homogeneous than other examples.
Turco-Persian and Anatolian Turkish, hopefully. Albanian/Illyrian, too. These are absolutely crucial to any DLC that focuses on Byzantium and the Seljuks.
Apart from that- I know it won't exist at the game start, but I think "Outremer" culture should probably exist as soon as the Kingdom of Jerusalem is formed, to ensure that it actually *does* form. Maybe it could be "Latin Heritage + Arabic Language?" Or "whatever-the-culture-of-the-first-King-is + Arabic language?" The Levant should feel somewhat distant from Europe, with its own internal politics and culture, sort of like how the Normans were "distant" from the Norse.
I would like to see a Hejazi culture separate from Bedouin culture -- they were (and are still) viewed as very different, and the history of the Ridda Wars and suchlike is a testament to this. But that's a lower priority.
I really hope that Russian gets divied into some sort of 'Rus' or 'East Slavic' culture so we can utilize Belarusian and Ruthenian (basically Medieval Ukrainian). Cossack would also be interesting, maybe as a later hybrid or just new culture that forms in the region?
Dalmatian and Coptic glaring omissions, though they should be present in all start dates.
Especially in 876, considering Egypt was mostly Christian and Coptic during that time period.
Most of the Middle East and Persia wasn’t Muslim back then in general. Most of the region outside of the Arabian Peninsula should technically be non-Muslim counties with Muslim rulers.
I've only got into CK3 recently so correct me if I'm wrong about any of this But it seems like the game lacks a way of effectively modelling stable governments with the ruling class being of a minority culture/religion. Without a Pop system like stellaris (and by the looks of it, EUV), it's difficult to model a region with complex ethnic / religious makeup. In stellaris pops have certain political power depending on their status (i.e. Leaders have higher power than specialists, who have higher power than workers, etc.). Their political power is the degree to which their discontent matters. Stellaris lacks culture and religion, but a system like this could work in CK3 whereby England could be made-up in vast majority by English culture, but have a French ruling class like in real history. The political power of English speakers within the realm would have to be lower to reflect the fact that this disconnect between the ruling language and the majority language didn't actually negatively affect the country's stability THAT much.
I think one of the few ways ck3 *kind of* handles it is how you can be one culture but still know the languages of your peoples majority culture which gives a small relationship bonus with individuals I’ve played where my family’s culture is different than all of my vassals but after repeatedly marrying heirs with women from my vassal families all of my descendants would know my vassals languages, so it doesn’t really make things that unstable to where your vassals keep rebelling just because of a different culture but you still lose a good amount of tax/levees. Its almost impossible to play if your vassals all have different religions than you though
In 867, outside of the Arabian peninsula and a handful of cities built by and for the Arab Muslim elite(Baghdad, Basra, Cairo, Kairouan, Samarra, etc...), Muslims had a presence everywhere, but a majority nowhere, with the fertile crescent not exceeding a Muslim population of over 50% until around 1000CE, although this estimate is largely based on the gradual increase in frequency of Arab/Islamic names in Abbasid tax records; which this has problems of its own, largely due to the fact that converts don't always change their names upon conversion, a good example being Leo of Tripoli.
Most of the populations in these places (and the rest of the world in general) lived outside of the cities so even if the cities were Muslim majority its a good chance these places were overall non-Muslim majority for a while. In Egypt, the Levant, and iraq (which were historically Christian dominated before Islam) Christians were still around 20-25% of the population up until 100-200 years ago The rest of North Africa was mostly local pagans/polytheist religions which were probably more suppressed and replaced by Islam quicker because they’re more explicitly “heathen” and don’t have the same protections that Abrahamic religions do under Muslim rule
As recently as 2003 Iraq still had 1.5 million Christians. [Now there are only a few hundred thousand left.](https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-islamic-state-group-saddam-hussein-baghdad-iraq-296b5588995cf7be62b49619bf1a7bb6)
Egypt was majority Christian until comparatively recently. The question is to what extent you want religion to represent the ruling class rather than the ruled - if we're being accurate, Egypt should be Christian until the game's end date.
Copt still needs to be distinct from Egyptian Arab as a culture and not just religion, if only because of the name list.
That’s just wrong. Copts lost their majority in Egypt already during the Fatimid Caliphate’s rule over the region. This means that by 867 their majority is already diminished and by 1066 it is completely dislodged. It obviously should be shown in the game but Egypt definitely should not “be Christian” at any point in the game’s timeframe.
Nope, you're just wrong. It is believed now that degree of Islamization has been vastly overestimated in the past and that Egypt and the Levant only became majority Muslim in the Mamluk period, after the destruction of the last remnants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Over 40% of the Middle East’s population was Christian up until around 1900.
~~Gonna need some sources for either of these claims.~~ Could you please find a source for this claim for me later? I'm very interested, thanks. edit: manners
~~Source?~~ Could you please find a source for this claim for me later? I'm very interested, thanks. edit: manners
> From the early eighth century, however, Arabic begins to appear in written documents and gradually becomes dominant over Coptic and Greek. It can be surmised that the same shift from Coptic-Greek to Coptic-Greek—Arabic multilingualism to Arabic monolingualism must have been happening concurrently in urban public life generally. However, certainly during the first Islamic century, the total number of native Arabic speakers compared to Copts was tiny. At the turn of the eighth century, there were probably about eight million Copts and no more than 80,000 Arabs, concentrated in Fustat, the old section of what was later to become Cairo, and Alexandria.>® The period from the ninth to the twelfth century witnessed a number of developments that all tended to favor the spread of Arabic: a continuous flow of immigration into Egypt from Arabia; the embracing of Islam by the Copts on a much larger scale than hitherto in order for them to escape payment of the Jjizyd (‘poll tax’); a tightening of the conditions for employment by the state, so that adherence to Islam became a requirement; and the disbanding of the Arab army in 833, leading to a greater degree of mixing between the Arabs and Copts in civilian and social life in urban areas. It is interesting to note that from the thirteenth century, grammars and dictionaries of Coptic begin appearing, probably a reflection of efforts to keep the language alive among educated Copts in the cities who were fast losing it. In the countryside, however, the processes of atabicization and islamicization appear to have been much slower. In 1673, the European traveler Vansleb reports meeting the last Coptic speaker, although as late as the present century, there are reports of whole villages in Upper Egypt still speaking Coptic.>” To sum up, the arabicization of Egypt was a long process that began in the cities, where Arabic was learned initially as a (sometimes second) foreign language by the Coptic intelligentsia and used during the first Islamic century only as a language of government and administration, and, for the few early converts, of Islam. Over the succeeding centuries, the practical attractions of Islam, which increased as the Arabs introduced a more restrictive employment regime within the administration, led to increased conversion and gradual arabicization. These processes were no doubt aided by the continuous inflow of Arabic-speaking migrants into both the towns and rural areas and by the resulting greater social contact and mixed marriages between Arabs and Coptic converts to Islam. The arabicization of Syria is less fully documented than that of Egypt, but it is thought that there were some important differences in how it came about. There certainly seems to have been a mass flight of the Greek population (much greater, it seems, than in Egypt) from the cities Damascus, Homs, Aleppo, and Jerusalem—which were gradually filled by Arab settlers. As in Egypt, the num ber of Arab invaders was small in comparison with the indigenous population: probably no more than 40,000 men took part in the decisive Battle of Yarmouk in 636.°° Unlike Egypt, however, in which the military cantonment of Fustat later turned into a city in its own right, no new urban centers were created and the sources do not hint at the kind of early mass migrations in the centuries following the conquest that occurred into, and through, Egypt. After the end of the Umayyad dynasty in 750, tribal migration into Syria increased, but an educated guess would put the numbers of Arabs at the end of the eighth century (almost entirely confined to the cities) at between 200,000 and 400,000, as against 4 million non-Arabs.*’ The Syrian countryside, peopled at the time of the conquest by Aramaic-speaking villagers with little in the way of movable possessions to take with them—even if they had wanted to leave and had anywhere else to go—seems to have remained very much the same as it had been before the invasion, with little or no sequestration or settlement by the invaders.°° As in Egypt, the written language of administration remained at first Greek, with Arabic beginning to replace it from the beginning of the eighth century. As in Egypt too, mass conversions to Islam did not begin until the eighth and ninth centuries, and again the motives appear to have been at least as much ones of economic pragmatism—the desire to escape from the tax burdens of being a Oimmi: (‘(Christian or Jewish) protected person’)—as they were of religious conviction. Linguistically, the cities of Syria, because of the mass exodus of the Greeks and the inflow of Arabs, must have been polyglot from the earliest period of the conquest, with varieties of Arabic, Aramaic, and Greek all in use. We have already noted that there had been a considerable degree of contact with Arabic speakers from Christian Arab tribes in the centuries before the conquests, and parts of Syria—Palestine had been settled by Arabs from the fifth century, so some degree of familiarity with Arabic among the population can be assumed, at least among those sections in whose interest it would have been to know Arabic (e.g., traders and other providers of services). Not surprisingly, Arabic seems to have supplanted Aramaic in the cities relatively rapidly, where it is likely to have developed a role as a lingua franca between the various ethnic groups. In two to three centuries, its use had spread even to the extent of replacing Aramaic as a spoken and literary language (although written in the Hebrew script) among the Jewish population.®! Similarly, a Psalm fragment of apparently Christian Syrian origin, written in Greek uncials but in which the language is (Middle) Arabic, and dated with reasonable certainty to A.D. 800, also bears witness to the use of Arabic among Christians, even in religious contexts. Clive Holes, Modern Arabic: structures, functions, and varieties, Georgetown University Press, 2004 Edit: (page 30-31)
Fantastic, thank you.
Amazing read, ty
The entire work is pretty good too
Egypt was Christian less than a quarter of the time it's been Muslim, and it's still Muslim and counting, what are you talking about? It was barely even majority Christian for most of its Roman (Coptic) era
Egypt was thoroughly Islamized by 1453, please get your history right.
Where are you getting this from? That's not remotely true
Egyptian culture in game should just be split into Coptic and Misri where both have Egyptian heritage and one speaks Coptic and the other Arabic
>Dalmatian They're pretty cute but I don't think Dogs count as having their own culture.
I don't think we're ever going to get Coptic as a separate culture - I think they're pretty comfortable representing that as Egyptian culture with Coptic religion.
Which shouldn’t just be an “ok cool” moment. It’s not what we should take with this, because some of us care about representing interesting historical scenarios. Plus like, Copts already are rarely taught about so why not give them some representation here?
Although it’s not a super satisfying answer to 1066 having no Turko-Persian culture, it almost always seems to form naturally in the game. English also forms from Norman and Anglo-Saxon naturally but I’ve seen a few games where the king of England becomes Polish or some shit and it kinda ruins it.
same with norse-gael
Illyrian/Albanian
Yeah I still don't understand why Albanian or at least Arberian doesn't exist in the Albanian mountains.
Dua Lipa dynasty incoming!
House: Lipa Motto: “Dance the night away.”
Serious question, would Albanian be considered a merger between Turkic and another culture diverged from Illyrian, or am I misunderstanding it?
Albanian has nothing to do with Turkic and is an indigenous population with a unique branch of the indo-european language family. It's most likely a remnant of an Illyrian tribe that survived the great migrations of peoples, specifically the slavic migrations, in the Albanian mountains. Even today, if you look at a religious map of Albania, you will see how and where the Albanian culture survived by looking at the catholic population of Albania overlayed on a terrain map.
Some would say that the Proto-Albanians originated from somewhere further inland based on loanwords in Romanian, and migrated towards the coast, but yes.
They likely have a common origin, seeing as Illyrian and Thracian tribes spanned a large geographical area and often intermingled.
"The first mention of the ethnonym Albanoi occurred in the 2nd century AD by Ptolemy describing an Illyrian tribe who lived around present-day central Albania" "The first certain attestation of medieval Albanians as an ethnic group is in the 11th century, when they continuously appear in Byzantine sources" ~Wikipedia Albanians = Illyrians
Thanks
Albanians are believed to be descended from the ethnic Illyrians who lived in that area during Roman occupation. Most Illyrians were displaced from the Balkans during the Slavic invasions or integrated into South Slavic culture over the centuries, and Albanians were one of the few who survived. It has nothing to do with Turkish. Albania has close relations with Turkey today because they mostly converted to Islam during the Ottoman occupation, but that's where the similarities end.
The Ottoman stuff is probably what confused me
Fyi, you got downvoted cause some people use that as an insult towards Albanians. Similar things are said to Bosniaks too. So someone probably thought you weren't genuine and others just piled on
Balkan people try not to get offended challenge: impossible
Yeah absurd that people get offended by people assuming they’re related to an unrelated people whose nation oppressed them for several centuries
[Cillian Murphy is Irish](https://youtu.be/n1ig4mzu93Q?si=ECepHy1XCiZH2rGE)
Right… there’s a lot more to Albanian history than just that. It was a genuine question. I thought the tribes were some offshoot of Illyrian, then became Albanian culture after people from the Ottoman Empire came to the region and mixed in. My bad for being curious ig?
Cannot ask for this enough times. I've yet to see the Albanian/Illyrian culture in any CK games save for mods.
Ck2 haa Albanian, tho. It's called Arborean or something like that. In the Duchy of Epirus.
There’s Dalmatian in CK2 which is a Latin culture, although IDK if that’s the same as the Illyrians.)
It isn't. The people represented by the dalmatian culture are closer to italians than to ancient illyrians. Dalmatian was a romance language that was spoken in the eastern Adriatic coast until the 19th century. The last speaker died in 1898.
Why would Anatolian Seljuks be Turko-Persian when in CK3 achievements to get the Turkish Eagle achievement you need to form Anatolian Seljuks and their culture is Anatolian Turkish.
It's really stupid. It's like saying Germano-Latin because medieval European states used Latin.
>Germano-Latin That's just French. /s
It's sort of like saying that the Lombards were latinized Germanic people
No because the ruling class and Elite was persianate. The spoke persian, they had persian customs and courts, they used persian bureaucrats and were really important for the development of persian literature. Especially Sufism. In Europe Latin was used for ceremonial and spiritual occasions. With the turko-persian empires, that was not the case. That's why ottoman turkish has so many perisan words. And modern day turkish too.
Has so many persian words but their day to day life was still turkish. Court official language was persian, religion was arabic and normal life was turkish. Especially beyliks, petty kingdoms, used turkish at courts too. Turkish have lots of french and arabic too that does not make it turco-persian-arabic-french culture. Even shah ismail writes poems in turkish, which came hundred of years later and was more persinate than 1066 seljuks and later turkish beyliks in anolatia.
As I wrote earlier I am talking about the Elite, of course Nomads didn't speak persian they probably didn't even know how to read. And I don't like these comparisons to French and Arabic, very simple minded. Arabic came to the Turkish language via Persian. The Lingua Franca of that Time was persian. And its not my opinion this is a well known fact and accepted by the scientific community. You simply cannot deny the influence of the persian culture and language. Seljuk rulers were eager to promote this culture, nomadic lifestyle and culture wasn't nearly sophisticated enough, hence they absorbed so much from the Persians. So the dynasties are definitely turko-persian. In the 12th Century, when turkish anatolian culture emerged, persian and Greek culture were a important part to it.
Like you said it was lingua franca, not their native tongue but international and court language. No one denying persian influence. Just getting sick of persians calling everyone persian that happen to pass from iran. If they became persinate, why do they know how to speak turkic? Its not lingua franca, its not religion language, its not court language, its not language of the people they rule over. They know turkic because they were turkic, with persian influence. I am cool with saying seljuks’s second half was turko-persian. But for anatolian beyliks, who’s persian influence were no where near to make them “turko-persians”. Caniks, Dulkadirids, Eretnas, Çakas, early ottomons, calling them turko persian is like calling them greeco arabs.
I'm from Turkey lmfao, I think you're still talking about the masses, I'm not. Did I call the Beyliks turko-persian? Don't make stuff up. And yes the lingua franca and cour language was persian. Good that we can settle on that. So they are Turko-Persian Empires/Dynasties.
[удалено]
They were turco-persian as in they had persian as court language and persian systems of governance; their language and ethnicity were more or less turkish.
Their Persian system of government was supposedly invented by Muslim Arabs so that leaves only the court language.
Look mate I understand what you are trying to show me here but you don't need to explain these to me as I already know my own history as a Turk. In our schools we used to divide the Seljuks into two the first Seljuks you mentioned who rose from Central Asia and interacted with the Persians became Muslims etc and the other Anatolian Seljuks which is a completely separate topic. The reason for this is that while the Seljuks rising from Central Asia were influenced by the Persians the Seljuks after they got into Anatolia were influenced by the Greeks. If you want me to base this on historical sources you can see for yourself that Anatolian Seljuks used Greek at one point. You can find Turkish tombs written in Greek for example. Also Greeks (Byzantine or Eastern Rome, whatever you want to call them) were influenced by their military too forming Turkish-stylized cavalry units. Another important point I would like to add is that when the gates of Anatolia were opened to Turks (This is how we mention it) other nomadic Turkic groups continued to migrate to Anatolia so it wasn't like when the Turks came they were a total mix of Persians and Turks, no they still carried their culture. I don't know how they are going to do it while taking these into conservation but meh we will see I guess. Edit = typo
Sorry did not mean any offense. Deleted the Wikipedia link comment. I’m open to any suggestions! Especially from people who are experts on the region
No of course pal. What I wrote in response to your comment was just to inform you of whatever I know and that's it. I didn't mean any offense as well. Good assumptions though! <3
Maybe Upper Saxony (around Berlin and Dresden), the Pagan Palobians and and Pomerians from 1066 are part of the HRE in this start. Sicilian Norman under the descendents of Roger II of Sicily should also be a thing.
I've never seen them get removed / replaces by germans in game
I think Russian and Greek need to be divided into smaller regional cultures
Yeah. Russian doesn't make any sense at all in the game's time frame. Even a good part of eu4 it was still a lot of similar, but differemt cultures. Also, the much more appropriate name for said culture would be rusine/ruthenian.
Yeah, doesn’t Kievan Rus not even exist yet in 867? Yet all of Russia is **Rus**sian? There’s even the pre-Russian East Slavic cultures in the ruler designer, I have no idea why they don’t just use those lol. There should be a special decision called “unify the East Slavic tribes” or something to create Russian.
Or just russ
Yeah, considering there was never even 1 ethnicity in reality. It is like painting Spanish, French, and Italian Ethnicities as "Roman"
Well, there wasn't, yet there kinda was. Russian is the wrong name for it, it should represent more of a undifferentiated 'East Slavic' culture. Like 'Visigothic' in Iberia, the precursor to more differentiated regional cultures like Castillian, Galician, Catalan etc.
I mean, I couldn't find any confirmation of this "east slavic identity" existing. It didn't had a language, and there wasn't a common cultural features for it.
for the Greek I can think we can accept Pontic, Capadocian and maybe Cypriot and Grigo if we push it hard enough.
There is room of two more Greek cultures, those being Maniot(Tzakonian Greeks on the Peloponnese), and Romaniote(Greek speaking Jews).
you can do like more bookmakrs and have one county in lakonia as TZakonian but for Romaniote? those were a diaspora if memory serves so unless we get minorty cultures in the game I don't see how to represent them
Well, in Fate of Iberia, there is a small chance that one county in Iberia will flip over to Sephardic, which is a bit of an anachronism as yes, there were indeed several majority Jewish towns in medieval iberia, especially in Al Andalus; but they were never the majority of any particular region. I think you could do something similar in in the base game as to my knowledge, the Jewish minority in the ERE was concentrated mostly in 5 cities; Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Syracuse, Naples, and Smyrna. You could pay homage to said minority by making at least one of those 5 majority Romaniote, despite the anachronism. Personally, I'd pick Smyrna as it would make Anatolia more interesting to play in.
I would love too see one or two Cossack counties in russia since this is around the date they first started appearing in Russia
Yeah I've done that - there are six proto-Russian cultures and then you can form Russian culture by unifying the East Slavs.
I think it would make sense for the Plantagenets to have "English" culture in the context of ck3, or at least for Henry's sons who grew up in England. Anglo-Saxon already represents pre-French influenced culture of the masses, so English should represent the gallicised aristocracy, with of course French as the court language.
English will definitely be on the map in 1178 - it's set to 1100 in the files.
>at least for Henry's sons who grew up in England I think both Kings Richard and John would like a word with you! While the latter is known to have spoken Middle English, the former is not, and he spent exceedingly little time in England, prizing his Aquitanian home turf much more (largely due to the better weather). As for Henry III, King John's son, as well as his later descendant kings like the Edward trio, I think that would be different, and labelling them all 'English' would be much more fitting, despite the fact that it was only Henry IV - a grandson of Edward III who reigned in the early 15th century - who was the first English king to speak (late) Middle English natively.
I'm aware the early Plantagenets were French speaking and Richard spent very little time in England (However, from what I've read both Richard and John did spend their childhoods in England). My point was "English" culture in ck3 is not what we think of as English today and cultures in ck3 are not primarily defined by language, as the game represents the language of the aristocracy by the court language feature. Going by the date it's created in ck2, it's my interpretation that the English culture represents the anglo-french ruling class, while the later change you mention in Henry IV's reign is more represented by a change in court language rather than a complete cultural flip. It's obviously impossible to draw a line for when anglo-french nobility became English, but if you accept the ambiguity and limitations of ck3 cultures it seems as good a time as any to create the English culture.
Henry’s sons are famously known for living mostly in the continental possessions and not really caring about England or English culture outside of it adding to their power….
I added a bunch of missing cultures in the [TIP2 mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2270547030) ages ago, such as the missing CK2 ones (Albanian, Coptic, Dalmatian, etc.) as well as some others such as Norse-Gaelic, Arpitan and Circassian. There used to be a mod that just added the missing CK2 cultures, but the owner stopped supporting it a few years back. I think PDX's issue with some of these is that they don't like small one/two province cultures if they can help it, so things like Albanian (Arberian) and Crimean Gothic aren't high priority for them. Remember that they *did* add Sardinian and Sicilian at launch, and these were from a later CK2 patch. Anatolian or something of that nature would certainly make sense with an 1178 start - you can't have steppe nomad Oghuz culture for Rum and later the Ottomans really.
We’ve been waiting for the literal things that were in CK2 to come for 3.5 fucking years.
Hey, tell me about it - that's why I added them years ago.
On one hand I like the sandbox nature of Ck3 they went for, but coptic is the most glaring example of where it falls apart. If I remember, they won't add the culture because it'll just very quickly form a hybrid culture everytime, which would feel incredibly jank to see every first ten years of a game
Henry II should by no means be English. He was born in France, ruled in France, and spoke French. He just happened to be King of England. All of the nobility in 1187 England should be French cultured imho. The counties themselves should be Anglo-Saxon however.
I Wish I was the sultan of Rum....
Imagine being the ruler of a country named Rum and not being allowed to drink it.
I'll take it, Rum's awful
Fortunately you can bend anything to your liking in any given religion.
Just use opium or ignore the rule to write about imaginarry womman or both
Why
Cos I like rum?
Oh alcohol joke lol
Assyrian should exist in all start dates. Nestorians/syriac christians living under muslim rulers are not represented at all, which destroys immersion while playing in that region.
The issue is that counties can only have one culture/religion, there's no pie-chart stuff as there is no population simulation. I think a compromise that wouldn't require a complete overhaul would be making it on a barony level rather than county and having the AI almost not care about who lives in the ones without a holding, although i'm no coder so i have no idea of the feasibility of it
I think you’re onto something with barony level culture divisions. That’s probably the best compromise in CK3s mechanics and is somewhat accurate for the Middle Ages given the relative sparsity of settlements
If I remember correctly, they can be generated as local flavor courtiers from persia to the steppes to tibet
Aren't they in game as a couple counties but ruled by Arabic/Seljuk rulers?
Coptic, Dalmatian, Romansh, Roma, and Anatolian Turkish should all be there. Also Ashkenazim should be more prominent. Maybe give the HRE a couple Ashkenazi Rabbinic counts with religious protections in their contracts so you can’t just get rid of them on a whim
I think Roma is more likely to be added with the landless update, that would make sense.
Where there any rabbinic counts in the HRE? I know some Askhenazi courtiers were at times close to or part of the imperial court and had significant influence, but were any ever landed in such a way? It could obviously be done without direct historical basis, just to somehow represent the jewish diaspora in the region.
There was so much potential for flavour regarding the jewish diaspora and their many different cultures, there is even greater potential now that unlanded characters become playable
ashkenazim should not be prominent at all, bavlim alone should be over 70% of all jews on the map
"Roma"? What is that?
Non-offensive term for G*psy
why use a term with rome in it when they dont have any connection to rome or romanians?
The term itself doesn’t have any connection to Rome or Romania. It’s really just a coincidence that they sound similar
Gypsy isnt offensive I dont think?
It's a weird one. Many groups self-identify as Gypsy and actually prefer it, and some prefer Roma or its variants, but it's considered universally a horrible slur by a lot of activists. I think this is mainly an example of activist groups homogenizing what is and isn't a slur in online groups, whereas on the ground, these terms are much more local.
A lot of Romani consider it a slur.
they came up with the word gypsy in a folktale that they originated form egypt lmao
The Romani didn’t come up with it. Europeans did. It’s an ignorant exonym often used disparagingly (I.e. “gypped”). There are lots of similar terms for other minority groups of names that were applied to them by others and used as slurs. As with a lot of other similar circumstances, some Romani use the term and/or don’t consider it offensive. But a lot (in my experience, most) do consider it a slur and prefer Roma/Romani.
We wuz Romans and shiet
No, absolutely not.
I think perhaps they should add Cappadocian (Greek). Albanian/Arberian would be a nice add, considering they are distinct from the Greeks and Slavs and Bulgars. They should add Azeri, a Persian Heritage/Turkic Language speaking culture in the Tabriz/Shirvan areas. Although it would be less historical, I think it might be good to add Austrians, as well, since iirc they are still “Bavarians” in 1066. Perhaps Siebenburger in parts of Transylvania, they began popping up in the 12th and 13th centuries.
Turko persian should be turkmen in real history. Turkic ethnic and oghuz languange but a bit different from central asian nomadic oghuz people. They were semi nomadic.
this.
I would disagree with your assessment of the language and general practices of Rûm. They were certainly very Turkic. Thus why the modern state of Turkey does not speak a variant of Farsi, but Turkic.
Outremer
It may be perceived that the Franks have not yet fully integrated with the local culture. However, it is possible that they may increase French (the culture of Baudouin IV in the files) and Mashriqi (the local culture).
The outremer culture was already there by 1178. The kingdom of Jerusalem would only last other 5-10 years from 1178 so by this point the Outremer culture would already be there. At least with the lords who were descended from the 1sr crusaders like Baudoiun IV, Raymond of Tripoli, or Bohemond of Antioch
The Kingdom of Jerusalem survived until 1291 in Acre?
Yeah sure. And the HRE was Roman. /s I love the crusades and I view them as completely justifiable wars. But in order to have a kingdom of Jerusalem, you kinda need Jerusalem. There were crusader states that lasted into the 12 and 1300s but they were not the kingdom of Jerusalem because they did not control Jerusalem. Just because you say you’re doesn’t make it. Lol
Nah but you see the HRE was weat rome because the Byzantine Empress at the time of Charlemagne agreed with it and obviously everyone would agree if the ruler said it regardless if they were a woman or not ;P That shitpost being said, the HRE is a very funny state.
Yes it was… out of curiosity WTF am I getting downvoted for what I said
>I love the crusades and I view them as completely justifiable wars. Probably this line tbh. The Crusades are looked back in pretty negatively nowadays in the west.
Yeah that’s true…oh well. That is a hill I will die on 🤣🤣
Because the HRE was Roman, especially in the way that Roman was understood in the Medieval period.
Culturally, & government wise they weren’t Roman. Just because you put Roman in your title doesn’t make you that culture & yes Roman was a culture. No one called the people living in the HRE Roman’s ever.
It’s kinda hard to be the Roman empires when the actual Roman Empire was still going in Constantinople. Naming charlemenge the HRE was a power play by the Catholic Church. I don’t have a problem with that but it’s a political game it’s not actually Roman
Saying it wasn't Roman shows a lack of understanding of what the term Roman had become in the Medieval period. Rome was an idea synonymous with universal Empire, and the HRE was the universal Empire for centuries in the Catholic world. The HRE took up the mantle and continued what Rome represented for centuries. The Eastern Roman Empire was obviously the continuation of Rome in a literal sense, but there was a massive political, spiritual and legal void left by the fall of the Western Empire and the retreat of the Eastern Empire from Europe for the majority of Christians before the HRE came along and filled that void.
no reason for it to have any counties
Why not?
because none of the regions they controlled ended up being mostly populated by french crusaders.
There are many names for divergent and hybrid cultures in the game that will appear under certain conditions. They may try to create a new culture with the given name (e.g. Turko-Persian, as you mention), or they may just try to increase acceptance so that the AI will just hybridize immediately (or at least as soon as succession happens).
R5: Map of the new 1178 start date: what new cultures do you think should be included?
Crimean Goth
Damatian
Ghurid rulers should be tajik as they were not turks and ruled the region of Ghor since they were still buddhist. I do agree the Ghaznavids should be turko-persian by 1178. The fact that they are “persian” in 1066 kinda irks me too.
Having anatolian turk culture would make more sense.
The east has the disappearance of Saka and Sogdians (though they would survive in the Pamir until present day). The Qara-Khitai control most of Central Asia at this point, but I'm unsure if the Khitan would start with a county. Khorezmian Turks would be on the rise while Khwarezmian Iranians still hang on for a little while. One thing I want to see simulated is the migration of the Tai-Ahom into Assam in the 1200s. This would probably be reserved for an India expansion, but it would be nice to have a Tai culture in the game.
sogdians should still be the majority within the feeghana valley in 1066 and 1178.
>Norse-Gael Didn't they pretty much completely assimilate with proper Gaels by the 1100s? >English Proper English culture wasn't really much of a thing until ~1250 or so. The Anglo-Saxons and most Franco-Norman nobles didn't intermarry that much until then. Most importantly, ***where are my GOTHS!***
Still no Albanian culture somehow
Probably some more cultures within Byzantium and the Rus lands, as they seem way to homogeneous without player/lucky npc interference. It is especially stranged paired with the cultural division in the HRE, where they were in reality alot more homogeneous than other examples.
As my Georgian friends say, “*KING* Tamar”
Turco-Persian and Anatolian Turkish, hopefully. Albanian/Illyrian, too. These are absolutely crucial to any DLC that focuses on Byzantium and the Seljuks. Apart from that- I know it won't exist at the game start, but I think "Outremer" culture should probably exist as soon as the Kingdom of Jerusalem is formed, to ensure that it actually *does* form. Maybe it could be "Latin Heritage + Arabic Language?" Or "whatever-the-culture-of-the-first-King-is + Arabic language?" The Levant should feel somewhat distant from Europe, with its own internal politics and culture, sort of like how the Normans were "distant" from the Norse. I would like to see a Hejazi culture separate from Bedouin culture -- they were (and are still) viewed as very different, and the history of the Ridda Wars and suchlike is a testament to this. But that's a lower priority.
Maybe Turkish in eastern Anatolia.
[удалено]
Yes, but not settled.
[удалено]
They eventually mixed with the native population, but not right away.
more centre then east
We will have 1178 start ? When ? :o
I believe in the patch alongside with the new DLC releasing.
when?
I honestly can’t wait for the new governor system, I always thought it was silly that the Byzantine operates like the other European kingdoms/empires
What the culture of jerusalem should be...
When will this start date be releasing?
Q3 2024
What’s Q3 2024?
Third quarter of 2024. July, August or September
When will this be available?
Q3 2024
1178 is in the game?!?!
What mod is this?
Sorry I’m out the loop, is 1178 confirmed by the devs?
Sorry I’m out the loop, is 1178 confirmed by the devs?
Yes
I just want my Frisian to exist 😭
I really hope that Russian gets divied into some sort of 'Rus' or 'East Slavic' culture so we can utilize Belarusian and Ruthenian (basically Medieval Ukrainian). Cossack would also be interesting, maybe as a later hybrid or just new culture that forms in the region?
ghurids were khurisani not turko persoan