• 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.
* CKII: Charlemagne Developer Diaries will be released weekly on Wednesdays from now on up to release! *

Welcome to the Charlemagne dev diaries - and above all, welcome to the 8th century!

I'm Tobias Bodlund, scripter on the Crusader Kings II team, and in this first installment of the dev diaries for CKII: Charlemagne I will be talking about the new 769 start date and how we've chosen to represent that historical period in the game.

We've added a bunch of new cultures to the game. A few of these could arguably have been present in The Old Gods already, but going back to 769 we felt we really needed to shake up the map to properly represent the changing cultural landscape of the Early Middle Ages.

sw_eur_cult.png

In Spain we have the Visigoths, and they are in the Iberian rather than the Germanic group, since the Gothic migrations are long since over and they have been living in the peninsula since the early 6th century. With time, Visigothic provinces are likely to eventually become Castilian, Catalan or Andalusian depending on location and which other religious and cultural influences they are subjected to. In northwestern Iberia we also still have the Suebi, an old Germanic people. They have their own culture shift events which may see the rise of Portuguese culture.

Looking north, we have the Franks. They are still Germanic but becoming more and more latinized. You will see them slowly turning into something we call "French"...

Other new cultures you will find are Saxons, Lombards, Picts and Somali. Also, there are no Russians yet, but instead various East Slavic peoples such as the Ilmenians, Severians and Volhynians.

We've revisited cultural dynamics in some other places as well. For example, the emergence of Norman culture is now somewhat more likely than before.

Regarding religion, the old Norse religion in the game is now referred to as Germanic. We decided to do this because with the earlier start date this religion exists well beyond Norse lands (specifically, the Saxons), and the old name also sometimes caused players to confuse it with Norse culture.

Moving further south, the Ibadi faith is now its own religion and no longer a Sunni heresy.

We've also added a new pagan religion, available only in the Charlemagne start. They are the followers of the sun-god Zun, which was historically the Zunbil dynasty in Afghanistan. They start out surrounded by Muslims and Buddhists, and this should provide an interesting and possibly quite difficult start, comparable to the Jewish starts.

And where are the Jews in 769, you ask now - you will find them in Semien in Ethiopia (sometimes referred to as Beta Israel).

religion_map_persia.png

Oh, speaking of the Norse, yes... with the new start date the Viking Age hasn't begun yet. This means that the Norse will initially not be able to launch Viking expeditions overseas. This will change the early game for them as they'll need to focus more on local affairs initially. Don't worry, though, a few decades in things will start happening for them and the continent will properly learn to fear the wrath of the Northmen.

Finally, let's look at some of the large empires in the 8th century:

In 769, the Byzantine Empire is embroiled in what historians call the "First Iconoclasm". This basically means that the emperor and patriarch (and most of the elite) follow the Iconoclast faith, where religious icons are condemned as idolatry much like in Islam. There is a choice for the emperor to either stick with Iconoclasm or renounce it (via a special decision).

Meanwhile, the Abbasids are the great blob of the 8th century. During this time, they historically ruled an area from the Indus in the east to the Maghreb in the west. Though "rule" is perhaps a misleading word in some cases. To reflect the fact that in reality they had limited control over many of their nominal vassals, we have made some of these areas independent in the game. But the Caliph still has plenty of de jure CBs and claims on those areas, so beware...

In Spain, Umayyad rule is fairly recently established, so you have an Arab Muslim dynasty ruling over mainly Visigothic Christian subjects.

europe_map.png

Then there is the Frankish Empire. After Pepin died, his sons Charlemagne and Carloman inherited a kind of joint kingship over the Franks, with each of them ruling directly over a portion of the kingdom. In the game, this means the two brothers each have a king title but also a claim on the other's title. With powerful neighbors such as the Lombards, the Umayyads and the pagan Saxons, things may get very interesting here.

As you can see, the world in 769 is quite different from later starts, with many period-defining events still to unfold. Things such as the Holy Roman Empire (yes, you can found it), Vikings, Normans and Russians are still unheard of. There aren't even that many Karlings yet (!).

The 8th century is a strange and wonderful place. We hope that you'll enjoy it.
 
But they made up a culture which didn't exist. The population was hispano-roman, they could have used that name

Then they would have to make Italian Italo-Roman and that's too much work.

I think only a couple of provinces should be Visigothic.
 
There never was ONE Christianity, in it's early stages Christianity had a lot of local variations, all claiming to be the right and only way of worshiping Christ. All of the Ecumenical Councils were called to deal with the different ways of worshiping and were mostly ineffectual. As someone else mentioned, by 726 there was direct competition between the Pope in Rome and the Patriarchs in the east. In effect, the split was already well on its way and the way it's done in game is a better reflection of the historical situation than one united Christianity. Besides, it also makes for a better game play.

I wouldn't lump all Patriarchs in the East together, Rome was on fairly (relative) good terms with other fellow old patriarchates like Antioch and Alexandria. The relationship between the Papacy and the younger patriarchate and (new) imperial favourite Constantinople wasn't too good though.
 
Then they would have to make Italian Italo-Roman and that's too much work.

I think only a couple of provinces should be Visigothic.
Yes, not making up stuff as they go is surely hard and tiresome :p
I doubt they were a majority anywhere.
 
You people keep pushing the date of the "split" farther and farther back. I remember when you just dubious on 867. This is ridiculous.

THE GREAT SCHISM HAPENED WHEN JEEZUS DIED ON DA CROSS GAIZ I SWEAR

Nah, It happened before that, lol~
 
He want the culture to be renamed. He's probably right and I share the same feeling for another romance culture... If you know what I mean... :p
Like... all of them? :rolleyes:
Germanic people were never a majority, with the exception of northern France (which is doubtful nonetheless)
 
I wouldn't lump all Patriarchs in the East together, Rome was on fairly (relative) good terms with other fellow old patriarchates like Antioch and Alexandria. The relationship between the Papacy and the younger patriarchate and (new) imperial favourite Constantinople wasn't too good though.

depends of the period... . They were in good terms when they condemned nestorians and myaphisite in the chalcedoine council

Like... all of them? :rolleyes:
Germanic people were never a majority, with the exception of northern France (which is doubtful nonetheless)

Good point ;).

They weren't but the romance people in northern france were culturally Franks tough they kept their language. So a germanic northern france isn't that a-historical if we remain in pure cultural grounds. :)
 
You know what keeps occurring to me? Pictish names. Specifically, female Pictish names- there are a few male names recorded, but AFAIK nowhere in any source is there a single female Pictish name recorded. I guess you could try reconstructing them from Irish or Welsh or Old Celtic but seriously Paradox, how are you filling out that name list?
 
You people keep pushing the date of the "split" farther and farther back. I remember when you just dubious on 867. This is ridiculous.

THE GREAT SCHISM HAPENED WHEN JEEZUS DIED ON DA CROSS GAIZ I SWEAR

For one, I was always pro split in 867 and after further reading I also see the split being all but official in 769. I agree that the official date of the Great Schism is 1054 but Christianity only diverged after the death of Christ. Patriarchs put in their own views on doctrine and many different doctrines sprouted. After Constantine accepted Christianity and then Theodosius making it the official religion of the Empire, every one in power tried to unite it under one creed but were mostly ineffective.

Competition between the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) and the other Patriarchs can be seen as early as the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451.
 
depends of the period... . They were in good terms when they condemned nestorians and myaphisite in the chalcedoine council



Good point ;).

They weren't but the romance people in northern france were culturally Franks tough they kept their language. So a germanic northern france isn't that a-historical if we remain in pure cultural grounds. :)
The problem with northern France is that it had a big frank population since the IV century.
IIRC, frankish graveyards that date from the late III century/early IV century have been discovered there. I would need to check my sources anyway.
 
What about the Frisians? They should also be added in as a culture...
Definetly yes. They were a "mayor" player in the Netherlands, Germany and Dennmark during this time. And they were a serious nuisance for the frankish kings.
 
He want the culture to be renamed. He's probably right and I share the same feeling for another romance culture... If you know what I mean... :p

nah that solves a current issue. ;):p

On that note, apart from the whole naming issue ;), but IMHO having Occitan as a culture, but in the same culture group, (again) IMHO isn't too bad for the medieval situation. OTOH that probably wouldn't do justice to the relationship between Occitan and Catalan, having those two in separate culture groups, probably isn't ideal either.
Maybe some of these border situations should get a modifier, which will make them treat each other, like when they were in the same culture group, so in this case Occitan (Latin) and Catalan (Iberian).

Also why is German separated from the other Western Germanic Cultures in a separate :)confused:) culture group?
 
For one, I was always pro split in 867 and after further reading I also see the split being all but official in 769. I agree that the official date of the Great Schism is 1054 but Christianity only diverged after the death of Christ. Patriarchs put in their own views on doctrine and many different doctrines sprouted. After Constantine accepted Christianity and then Theodosius making it the official religion of the Empire, every one in power tried to unite it under one creed but were mostly ineffective.

Competition between the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) and the other Patriarchs can be seen as early as the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451.

You greatly underestimate the sense of Christian unity. Christendom as a medieval concept was even seen as a shared Catholic-Orthodox brotherhood, even in the worst of times. Any petty minor differences that did exist were cast off. You also greatly overestimate the fracturing of heresies.
 
nah that solves a current issue. ;):p

On that note, apart from the whole naming issue ;), but IMHO having Occitan as a culture, but in the same culture group, (again) IMHO isn't too bad for the medieval situation. OTOH that probably wouldn't do justice to the relationship between Occitan and Catalan, having those two in separate culture groups, probably isn't ideal either.
Maybe some of these border situations should get a modifier, which will make them treat each other, like when they were in the same culture group, so in this case Occitan (Latin) and Catalan (Iberian).

Also why is German separated from the other Western Germanic Cultures in a separate :)confused:) culture group?
I would create a big "romance" culture group, with several smaller subgroups. Occitan and french were close, even spanish is nowdays close to french and italian.

German did not even exist yet :p But yeah, the ancient "dutch" was a "low german" dialect, similar to the bavarian and the austrian. Even scandinavian languages had a big low german influx (and they shared a common germanic ancestor)
 
nah that solves a current issue. ;):p

On that note, apart from the whole naming issue ;), but IMHO having Occitan as a culture, but in the same culture group, (again) IMHO isn't too bad for the medieval situation. OTOH that probably wouldn't do justice to the relationship between Occitan and Catalan, having those two in separate culture groups, probably isn't ideal either.
Maybe some of these border situations should get a modifier, which will make them treat each other, like when they were in the same culture group, so in this case Occitan (Latin) and Catalan (Iberian).

Also why is German separated from the other Western Germanic Cultures in a separate :)confused:) culture group?

German is in the same culture groups with Frankish and Lombards (haha). As to why they aren't with dutch and Anglo-Saxons don't ask me. ;)

I would create a big "romance" culture group, with several smaller subgroups. Occitan and french were close, even spanish is nowdays close to french and italian.

German did not even exist yet :p But yeah, the ancient "dutch" was a "low german" dialect, similar to the bavarian and the austrian. Even scandinavian languages had a big low german influx (and they shared a common germanic ancestor)

Iberians cannot into latin cultural group. :p
 
You people keep pushing the date of the "split" farther and farther back. I remember when you just dubious on 867. This is ridiculous.

THE GREAT SCHISM HAPENED WHEN JEEZUS DIED ON DA CROSS GAIZ I SWEAR

Since ToG great many people mention various events that brought to schism, including the Pope becoming independent from Byzantium.
Either way, politically the two Churches have been split, even if religiously there was still a lot of common ground. The Patriarch and the Pope already competed for conversion, followers of Latin and Greek rites existed, etc.
What is more, a unified Church would bring nothing worth to the gameplay (unless PI completely overhauls the whole religious gameplay which they did not bother to do even in the religious expansion SoA) and it could create ridiculous scenarios later on once the schism happened.

Unified Chaldeconian Christianity is something for CK3, not CK2. The current mechanics are just not suitable for it and we all know that PI won't make such major changes for a mere DLC.
 
(...)

Competition between the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) and the other Patriarchs can be seen as early as the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451.

Again the other Patriarchs weren't that united either. In some of the disputes between Constantinople and Rome, Antioch and Alexandria sided with the latter.
 
Which is funny, because spanish is one of the closest languages to classic latin :p Italian and french are "later latins" with a heavier german influx, until the rennaissance, when they started using more classic words.
(yet, french and spanish share about 90% of the vocabulary with french and 93% with italian, the problem with the french is the horrendous phonetic system)
 
Again the other Patriarchs weren't that united either. In some of the disputes between Constantinople and Rome, Antioch and Alexandria sided with the latter.

I agree but, I still think the way the game splits Christianity represents history better than if the whole of Christianity was under a single Orthodox church.