• 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.
 
Wasn't the start of the viking age in response to Norse traders being treated unfairly compared to Christian traders? Does the flavor text reflect this at all?

Nobody really knows for sure, but this theory is most likely not correct, IMHO.
 
These chances look very good to me. I'm glad they will re-do the cultures for the Charlemange-DLC. "Dutch" e.g. really wouldn't fit this era ( honestly it did not even fit in the time of "Old Gods" ). I would like it if they would also take out "German" as a culture. Apperantly we already got "Saxon" now. They could split the rest of "German" e.g. into "bavarian" and "alemannic". "German" would then come into existence by mixing two of these three cultures. Similar to the process with which you get "English" out of "Anglo-Saxon"

I 100% agree with this.
 
What about the Frisians? They should also be added in as a culture...

They did say on page 4 that "Franks in Frisia will indeed become Dutch instead." Sure, Frisian might sound better but would you need second melting pot for later date to make them Dutch?

2- And why the Zuns and no other pagans? It looks like "lol we gotta make a new fun religion to play, players love challenge". Come on. There are plenty of things to do before making a one or two province religion. We are not even well documented about them!

Well, those "two provinces" (three actually) correspond in size to modern day Portugal and by all accounts, their realm could withstand Muslim aggression until 870 plus it offers possibility to play Pagan faith in relatively interesting place, rather than fairly backward northern pagans. They probably even start as feudal instead of tribal, like most northern pagans are bound to be.

Sure, the game could have "Alanism" for Alanian pagans and whatnot but they are already a Pagan territory in form of Tengri. And what is important to note here that Zun has no special mechanics. By all assumptions, it's a carbon copy of current defensive pagans with different fluff text. So they get attrition while unreformed, defensive bonus like Suomenusko/Romuva/Slavic and when reforming, holy order and a "guy in a funny hat who gives me right to ditch my wife".

But just to be clear. EVERY PAGAN FAITH, EXCEPT NORSE NEEDS SOME NEW FLAVOR!
 
Last edited:
Civilisation? :confused::p More like the Belgian problem in a nutshell... Besides they stayed Germanic not German. Also I agree converting to Roman Christianity was a brilliant stroke. That in turn greatly helped
As for civilisation you're really selling the Franks short; in fact you're basically confirming a Flemish bias against French/Francophones (they look down upon our (Flemish* & Dutch (descending from (Germanic) Franks) culture.
I assume you meant different and not superior? :mellow:

(*= Flemish and Dutch aren't that separate, IMHO it's probably better to say Flemish and 'Netherlandic' are Dutch subcultures. )

It's a joke not meant to be taken seriously and I was not talking about the modern civilisation.

Why I would think Frankish culture is inferior ? Obviously French civilisation was born from the Frankish one (and rome). Saying Franks are inferior mean French are too. (To Roma)

Tough They were certainly fascinated by Rome and converting to roman christianity basically meant gaul would never cease to speak a latin language as a big part of the "roman" state and roman culture was accepted by the Franks (You could say Franks "threw" a part of their germanic heritage ;) :p ).
And thus latin education never ceased and was not seen as inferior by the Franks quite the opposite (ask Charlie :p).

So yeah I think the Frankish break up on languages was inevitable because of this and their own open culture.

As for flemish bias. I never thought one minute that Flemish was inferior to the French culture. Of course French culture is superior to any other culture no bias against a particular one. :p

I kid I kid no really I never felt like this about any culture. I am a multi-cultural lover even if I like to brag about French culture. :p
 
Last edited:
Isn't this represented by them having their own Patriach?
Sure we have our own patriarch and so do the bulgarians and serbs but that doesnt mean were not orthodox,its all political.My point is that back then there were political differences sure but not so many differences in the belief itself other than cultural traditions and interpretation.
 
The mechanics and systems as they are implemented are not able to replicate the reality of the Abbasids without compromise. The difference is that in theory, the French autonomous vassals acknowledged the king's authority. Norman independence in the 1066 start is a prime example of where the autonomous vassal model breaks down. The usurpers of the Caliphate's authority were just like Normandy in this start. In game terms they were de facto independent and it is best that they are portrayed this way.

Uh ? Maybe you don't know but the Southern Vassals of France (occitan) were literarly independent but in name. The king could not even dream of "rasing" levies or anything except if they felt generous and I am not even talking about any kind of "autorithy" . I fail to see how it's any different for the caliphate

Normandy wasn't more independent after the english conquest than before tough ? It's just because the game cannot handle multi-vassality that it goes independent. In reality the King of France was the liege of the King of England (through the dukedom of Normandy). And for the matter had more "autorithy" there than say the county (duchy in game) of Toulouse.



Edit: Another way of thinking of this issue - In both the Norman/French 1066 situation and the Abbasid 769 and 867 situation, the local dynasties were progressing from autonomous dynasties to separatist dynasties. In the 769 start your original position is more valid (as already acknowledged) but by 867 these various dynasties should be independent without a doubt. In fact, I believe that the 867 Abbasid realm should be fractured even more than it is.

Exactly! Flanders being a de jure part of the HRE influences the ai
to expand in that direction. If we were to make Italy de jure of the HRE (Which, strictly speaking it should be) then we'd see the HRE conquering the entire Italian peninsula. So making it a separate de jure is indeed a huge nerf.

Huh ? And that's a good thing ?? HRE expanding in Italia kinda makes sense but in Flanders ? and that's a huge nerf ? How do you describe removing vassals for gameplay reason then ?
 
So renaming Dutch to Frisians but otherwise changing nothing would work? = Dutch turns to Frisian, culture group stays West Germanic and retinue stays as Goedendag Militia?

NO! Dutch are NOT Frisians. And they didn't turn into Frisians. Frisians are a own group with own language and own culture. Dutch and Frisians should exist at the same time.

Frisians exist the whole time at the North Sea coast with a own language. Dutch was a language splitted from Frankish. Old Lower Frankish.
 
Last edited:
NO! Dutch are NOT Frisians. And they didn't turn into Frisians. Frisians are a own group with own language and own culture. Dutch and Frisians should exist at the same time.

Frisians exist the whole time at the North Sea coast with a own language. Dutch was a language splitted from Frankish. Old Lower Frankish.

My guess is that what the dev meant by frisia is k_netherlands that will probably be renamed.

So Frankish culture in frisia becomes dutch. No problem is my eyes.
 
My guess is that what the dev meant by frisia is k_netherlands that will probably be renamed.

So Frankish culture in frisia becomes dutch. No problem is my eyes.

That's okay. But that wasn't the topic. ;) We asked for a Frisian culture. Not Dutch renamed into Frisian (which would be strange and wrong).
 
I get the feeling that they're going to get a lot of Scottish Gaelic names....Which is fair, as that's probably the closest thing to Pictish that can be found.

I'm not sure it was any closer to Gaelic than Welsh, tbh:

Pictish -- Welsh -- Gaelic

Onuist -- Ungust - Oengus
Wrguist - Gwrwst - Fergus
Wen ---- Owain -- Eogan(an)
Bridei --- Brydw -- Brude
Naiton -- Neithon - Nechtan

I'd probably go for Welsh before Gaelic anyway, just to differentiate it from Scottish culture.
 
IIRC, phersu could also be a loan from greek (or it might have been the other way around, being etruscan a language from Asia Minor that influenced ionic greek, I have never liked this theory). Etruscan had several greek loans and their later culture was almost hellenic.

I'm sorry if I was unclear: I intended to point out exactly that the word phersu is suggested to have been a loan from Greek. Such a loan, incidentally, is more likely to have come from Greek to Etruscan, not from Etruscan to Greek, since πρόσωπον has a meaningful sense as a Greek compound word: πρός 'at, towards' and ὤψ 'eye'.
 
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...

Instead of doing that could'nt you actually add a suzerainty mechanic or tributary vassal mechanic in which they are bound to a suzerain but an independent realm? Perhaps instead of adding snow...
 
Last edited:
Will there be some ancestor(s) of Rurik living somewhere in Scandinavia?
 
Will there be some ancestor(s) of Rurik living somewhere in Scandinavia?

Possibly, though some people have theorised that the Hroerekr ruling in Holland is actually Rurik too - and that he was expelled from there before 867. The suggestion is that he fled to Novgorod and took up rule there, and that having him appear twice is a confusion of historical accounts coming from two distinct cultures. That would make him part of the Hilditon (spelling?) family ruling in Skane (amongst other places, I believe) in 867 which, I believe, does have ancestry going back to 769.

Quote from Wikipedia that reflects what little I can remember of the story:
The only Hrörek described in Western chronicles was Rorik of Dorestad, a konung from the royal Scylding house of Haithabu. Since the 19th century, there have been attempts to identify him with the Viking prince Rurik of Russian chronicles.[4]

Roerik of Dorestad was born about 810/820 to Ali Anulo, 9th King of Haithabu. Frankish chroniclers mention that he received lands in Friesland from the Emperor Louis I. This was not enough for him, and he started to plunder neighbouring lands: he took Dorestad in 850, captured Haithabu in 857, and looted Bremen in 859. The Emperor was enraged and stripped him of all his possessions in 860. After that Roerik disappears from the Western sources for a considerable period of time. At that very moment, in 862, the Russian Rurik arrives in the Eastern Baltic, builds the fortress of Ladoga, and later moves to Novgorod.

Roerik of Dorestad reappeared in Frankish chronicles in 870, when his Friesland demesne was returned to him by Charles the Bald; in 882 he is already mentioned as dead. The Russian chronicle places the death of Rurik of Novgorod at 879. According to Western sources, the ruler of Friesland was converted to Christianity by the Franks. This may have parallels with the Christianization of the Rus', as reported by Patriarch Photius in 867.
 
Possibly, though some people have theorised that the Hroerekr ruling in Holland is actually Rurik too - and that he was expelled from there before 867. The suggestion is that he fled to Novgorod and took up rule there, and that having him appear twice is a confusion of historical accounts coming from two distinct cultures. That would make him part of the Hilditon (spelling?) family ruling in Skane (amongst other places, I believe) in 867 which, I believe, does have ancestry going back to 769.

Quote from Wikipedia that reflects what little I can remember of the story:

BUt ingame both Ruriks are different I think. :)