Tinto Maps #12 - 26th of July 2024 - Germany

[Znikii]

That doesn't make them belong to the same culture group.

No it doesn't.
But it does beg the question, how rigid vs fluid cultural boundaries and culture groups should be.

Or with other words,.... maybe culture groups shouldn't (just) be vertical progression of cultures solely as languages grouped into language families. Then let's call them Language families/groups. Culture group should take into consideration more identity factors then just common linguistical heritage. As in more horizontal and non-exclusive.

 

[Chieron]

That doesn't make them belong to the same culture group.

Though, what could be done is to create a minor culture grouping of the German and Slavic cultures between Elbe and Vistula, in addition to their normal groups. Or give them some special opinion. There is cultural overlap in these areas, as in all transitional areas.
However, we really do not yet know enough, how this will play out anyway. Adding too many modifiers could break the feature.

 

[Znikii]

Seems relevant

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rpathia-and-the-balkans.1693751/post-30018359

Spoiler: Voltaire's Nightmare is obvious proof that Germania is just a sub-region of the glorious Balkan.

Two nice sources that might help solve the Balkan questions.

First is: On the origin of the cultural and national identity of Alpine Slovenes (Iglič, 2020). I like it because it uses old and new sources of different schools, so you can make up your own mind what to trust, without forcing you into single-minded interpretation of history. It's cool because in the beginning in goes deep into migration period supported by latest findings in linguistic, genetics, archaeological research and then add on older sources and theories. Might be a cool research question for a budding historians how older, biased historians, took and understood fragments of truth available to them and then extrapolate the story, supported by their ideology vis-a-vis what balanced contemporary science can offer on the same topic.

https://www.britishslovenesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/article.pdf

Excerpt that might shed some light on above Moldavian-Romanian-Slavic-Hungarian-Germanic- + (I guess woke people learened from the Balans how to approach identety questions hahahaha) debate about the original settlements in Carpathia....

Spoiler

''...The Alpine Slovenes (Fig. 4) were not a uniform tribe that migrated as one to the regions of the central
eastern and eastern Alps, the upper Sava River, and the Soča River; rather, they migrated in several
waves (Bezlaj, 1967; Bezlaj, 2003). Grafenauer believes that the first settlement wave took place in the
6th century (Grafenauer, 2000), proceeding first from the north (the western Slavic language group) and
later on from the east; a testament to this fact is supposedly the current Slovene language, which has
strong western Slavic roots (Bezlaj, 1967). It should be noted that the preserved Slovene Carinthian
dialects display many more typical western Slavic features than the Carniolan dialects, which represent
the basis for the modern Slovene language (Bezlaj, 1967).
In their new homeland, as recent genetic studies clearly show, the Alpine Slovenes at least partially
mixed with the indigenous people (Zupan et al., 2016; Delser et al., 2018). According to linguist Luka
Repanšek, without the above mentioned intermixing of peoples, the Celtic heritage in the toponomy of
the southeastern Alpine region could not have been preserved (Repanšek, 2016). An analysis of pre-
Slavic remnants in the names appearing in present-day Slovene territory has shown convincingly that
the old claims according to which the Alpine Slovenes (Fig. 4) migrated to a virtually unpopulated area
were baseless. In some mountainous regions, their harmonious coexistence with the indigenous
population lasted even half a millennium. In some settlements, archaeologists recently found traces of
uninterrupted continuity between antique and Slovene colonisation, which explains the fast cultural
development of Slovenes after they settled down in their new homeland. The Slovene language
preserved even some Romance and pre-Romance basic features, which cannot be found in any of the
neighbouring Romance languages (Bezlaj, 1967). Otto Kronsteiner, an Austrian Slavicist, therefore
believes that the Slovenes, and partially their present-day language, are a mixture of Slavic, Celtic, and
Romance (vulgar Latin) elements. As an interesting fact, it should also be noted that it is only with the
Slovenes, the Irish, and the Scots (Granda, 2008) that cases of a particular metabolic disease were
reported, while recent DNA analyses have shown a distinct percentage of Celtic genetic heritage in
Slovenes (bearing in mind that the Celts settled in present-day Slovene territory around 300 B.C.).
Furthermore, Bezlaj believed that the modern Slovene language includes many words of Illyrian
descent, while the Polish scientist Lech Leciejewicz (1988) indicated the presence of western Slavic
groups also in northern Russia (Fig. 4).
Most recent genetic studies (Zupan et al., 2013; Zupan et al., 2016; Delser et al., 2018; Mielnik-
Sikorska et al., 2013) also confirm that the present-day Slovenes are to a considerable extent the
descendents of indigenous peoples who lived in present-day Slovene territory and in the former Slovene
territories in present-day Austria, Hungary and Croatia (Fig. 1). This implies, similar to the situation in
many other Slavic regions in Europe (Kushniarevich et al., 2015), the cultural and linguistic assimilation
of indigenous populations by the arriving Slovene people as an important mechanism of the spread of
the Slovene (Slavic) language after the decline and later fall of the western part of the Roman Empire.
It therefore seems that Slovene and also Slavic expansions in general were to a large extent a linguistic
(Riasanovsky, 2005). The strong assimilation of indigenous peoples by the arriving smaller number of
incoming Slovene people might have been possible because of the highly egalitarian culture of the
arriving Slovene people, who among other things had no obligations to pay taxes (Pleterski. 2013),
which may have been very attractive to indigenous populations (called Vlachs by the Slovenes).
...''

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
hehehe 8. century Central Europe was really multikulti globalised place of harmony and GoT lvl dynastic and realpolitik drama. Truly ahead of its time. With only true enemy in the form of invading pagan migrants threatening the common prosperity....

The Slovene Carantanian Princes Gorazd (749–751) and
Hotimir (752–769), both inaugurated on the Prince’s Stone (Fig. 2), were christened on the island of
Herrenchiemsee at the Bavarian Lake Chiemsee (Kos, 1985), where they lived in an Irish monastery
school, which was esteblished by the Burgundians Benedectinian order under patronage of Merovingians and Carolingians, with the mission to compete with the Italian conversion efforts run from the Patriarchate of Aquileia, located where south-eastern Alps meet north Adriatic, an ancient nexus of trade-routes; and ofc the Byzantine success along the major Black Sea rivers in the east. The Rush to Proselytize the Pagans. To Make Rome Great Again.

I guess, since not much have changed, we truly most love our common European tradition we enjoy for the last 1200 years or so....
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The second is a bit longer, but very fun read, a scientific monograph called in rough English translation: Rebels, fierce clerics and the devil's soldiers: images from European and Slovenian imaginaries of the 16th century (Vinkler, 2012). It focuses on Austro-Ottoman wars, western experience of the Balkans at the time and the Protestant movement in Slovene lands. Even if you don't feel like reading, it's still worthy to check it out since it has tons of wonderful pictures dating to 16. century.

https://www.sistory.si/cdn/publikacije/9001-10000/9071/UPORNIKI_hudi_farji_in_hudicevi_soldate.pdf

For a little taste, two quotes from letters describing the state of Catholic Church in duchies of Carniola and Styria:

Spoiler

''If your grace pleases, he will be able to enforce my orders with the help of the archduke Charles [II. of Austria], to whose fisc I committed all the fines of disobedient and obstinate clerics. And these fines will be from twenty to twenty-five thousand sequins [probably ducats or forints], because there is no priest or pastor who has not been ordered to do something about licentiousness, lewd behavior and fornication.'' by bishop Paolo Bisanti to the patriarch of Aquileia, Giovanni Grimani.

Again to patriarch Grimani, but this time from his vicar general Jacob Maracco: ''There is a nunnery in Styria with an income of several thousand forints(some say fifteen). In this monastery [of Dominican nuns Studenice, lower Styria] the abbess was very licentious, also a certain nun and two maidens.''

 

[Linbot#6018]

No it doesn't.
But it does beg the question, how rigid vs fluid cultural boundaries and culture groups should be.

Or with other words,.... maybe culture groups shouldn't (just) be vertical progression of cultures solely as languages grouped into language families. Then let's call them Language families/groups. Culture group should take into consideration more identity factors then just common linguistical heritage. As in more horizontal and non-exclusive.

But do you have any particular reason why this culture group should exist? You can't just say "cultural boundaries were fluid". Do you have any evidence that it existed or specific reason that it might have existed or process you need it to represent.

 

[Znikii]

But do you have any particular reason why this culture group should exist? You can't just say "cultural boundaries were fluid". Do you have any evidence that it existed or specific reason that it might have existed or process you need it to represent.

Have any specific culture group in mind, or are you asking just in general?
Why can't I say "cultural boundaries were fluid"? Have you heard of process such as cultural dissemination/transmission/exchange of ideas, technologies, religions. Of things like assimilation and integration? The fact that natural world (weather, soil, vegetation, seasons, natural deposits,....) in our common environment shapes similar cultural practices, which gives to the emergence of such culture groups as Alpine CG, Mediterranean CG, Nomadic-Pastoral GP? Or how some strong believes in certain ideas as meritocracy, divine right or moral responsibility to act can shape it's own CG distinct? How similar economic background and opportunities creates CG centered around certain professions..... be it militaristic society of ancient sparta, medieval guild in urban settlements or proletarian unions of 19. century?
Or the fact that you can me a member of sever groups at once.... for example a German banker in medieval Innsbruck was a member of German language CG, Alpine CG and urban Banker/Trader guild CG....? Because German, Italian and Slovene peasant all living somewhere in eastern Alps , all serving the same feudal overlord had more in common with each other, then they had with the german peasant living in franconia, italian peasents from Sicily or Slovene one from Pannonian basin? Or how sometimes foreign ruling aristocracy adobt the local culture and other times vice-verca?
Because the previous mention German banker from Innsbruck is of mixed greeko-jewish heritage, still practising the religion, while speaking hebrew only as a second language? All he did is to drop jewish spelling of his surname and adobt the german spelling. The fact that he had more in common with Venetian patrician living next door that can trace his linieage back to the imperial rome, and less with the local born and bread German blacksmith living down the street?

Or do you have specific reason and example why CG should be rigid and exclusive?

 

[Inzano]

Have any specific culture group in mind, or are you asking just in general?
Why can't I say "cultural boundaries were fluid"? Have you heard of process such as cultural dissemination/transmission/exchange of ideas, technologies, religions. Of things like assimilation and integration? The fact that natural world (weather, soil, vegetation, seasons, natural deposits,....) in our common environment shapes similar cultural practices, which gives to the emergence of such culture groups as Alpine CG, Mediterranean CG, Nomadic-Pastoral GP? Or how some strong believes in certain ideas as meritocracy, divine right or moral responsibility to act can shape it's own CG distinct? How similar economic background and opportunities creates CG centered around certain professions..... be it militaristic society of ancient sparta, medieval guild in urban settlements or proletarian unions of 19. century?
Or the fact that you can me a member of sever groups at once.... for example a German banker in medieval Innsbruck was a member of German language CG, Alpine CG and urban Banker/Trader guild CG....? Because German, Italian and Slovene peasant all living somewhere in eastern Alps , all serving the same feudal overlord had more in common with each other, then they had with the german peasant living in franconia, italian peasents from Sicily or Slovene one from Pannonian basin? Or how sometimes foreign ruling aristocracy adobt the local culture and other times vice-verca?
Because the previous mention German banker from Innsbruck is of mixed greeko-jewish heritage, still practising the religion, while speaking hebrew only as a second language? All he did is to drop jewish spelling of his surname and adobt the german spelling. The fact that he had more in common with Venetian patrician living next door that can trace his linieage back to the imperial rome, and less with the local born and bread German blacksmith living down the street?

Or do you have specific reason and example why CG should be rigid and exclusive?

I have already mentioned this opinion in the Balkans and Carpathians thread, that I think there should be two types of cultural groups, one should be a national group of cultures (such as German, South Slavic, Hungarian, Romance, etc.) and the other a regional group, which share other aspects of culture besides language and identity, such as architecture, lifestyle, food, etc. So I think quite a few people are of the same opinion, especially since the developers mentioned in the Iberian thread that Maltese culture will be in both the Italian and Maghrebi cultural groups. Andalusian culture will even be in three.

 

[Obi325]

I have already mentioned this opinion in the Balkans and Carpathians thread, that I think there should be two types of cultural groups, one should be a national group of cultures (such as German, South Slavic, Hungarian, Romance, etc.) and the other a regional group, which share other aspects of culture besides language and identity, such as architecture, lifestyle, food, etc. So I think quite a few people are of the same opinion, especially since the developers mentioned in the Iberian thread that Maltese culture will be in both the Italian and Maghrebi cultural groups. Andalusian culture will even be in three.

We sorta have this: you have culture for architecture, lifestyle, music, art, everyday life and language families for languages and identity.

 

[JSU]

I came here when I remembered that Liechtenstein wouldnt be added to the game. I was sad enough when I found out thered be no san marino. PLEASE add atleast Liechtenstein, I would rather you enlarge it than not add it at all

 

[Wolfgang Schmidt]

I'm still not sure about Frisian Freedom as a single tag. The Swiss cantons are provided as separate tags and are united by the IO mechanics. Why can't Frisia be done the same way? Or is that too much detail?

You can reduce the number of tags from about 20+ to this:

I will also provide a screenshot from the modification (This is not Voltaire's Nightmare, I don't remember the name, sorry) and Frisia is quite well presented divided.

 

[Pbhuh]

I'm still not sure about Frisian Freedom as a single tag. The Swiss cantons are provided as separate tags and are united by the IO mechanics. Why can't Frisia be done the same way? Or is that too much detail?
View attachment 1230113
You can reduce the number of tags from about 20+ to this:
View attachment 1230115
I will also provide a screenshot from the modification (This is not Voltaire's Nightmare, I don't remember the name, sorry) and Frisia is quite well presented divided.
View attachment 1230116

The problem is that it's a far more complicated region which people today still know little of with regards to governance and representation. At best each municipality was lead by an elected individual who served as both judge and mayor.

Disputes were settled otherwise in the gathering of upstalbeam.

While we know the names of regional entities it's not known how they operated separately from eachother except how they came to form later municipalities from earlier grietenijen.

Even the map you linked (which is a fan made project) doesn't account for the fact that entities like Westergo and Oostergo may not have been Administrative units anymore.

During the period of the Brunonen the areas in modern Friesland such as Westergo and Oostergo would be ruled by them. But already in 1200 during the frisian freedom there are reports of grietenijen of wymbrits and franeker. There are reports of chieftains who started acting as local nobility.

Given that there was an overarching gathering at upstalbeam near aurich. I think that having it as one entity is fine as long as it has very little control. Basically a Parliament as shown in the latest dev diary.

Also might be worth it to post this in the Low countries thread.

 

[Wolfgang Schmidt]

The problem is that it's a far more complicated region which people today still know little of with regards to governance and representation. At best each municipality was lead by an elected individual who served as both judge and mayor.

Disputes were settled otherwise in the gathering of upstalbeam.

While we know the names of regional entities it's not known how they operated separately from eachother except how they came to form later municipalities from earlier grietenijen.

Even the map you linked (which is a fan made project) doesn't account for the fact that entities like Westergo and Oostergo may not have been Administrative units anymore.

During the period of the Brunonen the areas in modern Friesland such as Westergo and Oostergo would be ruled by them. But already in 1200 during the frisian freedom there are reports of grietenijen of wymbrits and franeker. There are reports of chieftains who started acting as local nobility.

Given that there was an overarching gathering at upstalbeam near aurich. I think that having it as one entity is fine as long as it has very little control. Basically a Parliament as shown in the latest dev diary.

Also might be worth it to post this in the Low countries thread.

Perhaps, I just couldn't get the thought out of my head about the events of the Great Frisian War of 1413-1422.What about the feud between the Brok and Abden clans? Schiringers, Onsta and others?

 

[Pbhuh]

Perhaps, I just couldn't get the thought out of my head about the events of the Great Frisian War of 1413-1422.What about the feud between the Brok and Abden clans? Schiringers, Onsta and others?
View attachment 1230161

In essence its part of a greater civil war and the failure of the authority for the upstalbeam which would previously have dealt with the conflict. There was a growing consolidation of power with families who ruled from stone houses that can be considered castles, where previously authority was held by elected judges.

The great Frisian war makes for a great event ingame as a local civil war/ nobles seizing power in the peasant Republic

 

[BeyondExpectation]

making Moravian a separate culture is sensible

Why? I've never seen any indication they were mutually unintelligible dialects in 1337.

 

[Chieron]

Why? I've never seen any indication they were mutually unintelligible dialects in 1337.

So what? That is not the only criterion, see the other German tags speaking the same dialect.
There might be different customs or other cultural differences and an identification with the region Moravia rather than the rest of Bohemia.

That said, I'm not an expert on the region, just pointing out that the dialect/language is not the only criterion that should be used.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

That is not the only criterion, see the other German tags speaking the same dialect.

Do you mean other German cultures?

Vast swathes of the map follow dialectical lines very closely. If there are other criteria, they're ones that have no impact a huge portion of the time.

I spent ages searching for it but couldn't find it, but having read every post in this threat there was a point where someone questioned why Moravian was a separate culture and got provided a Wikipedia link that made no mention of any date remotely close to EU5's start.

 

[Chieron]

Do you mean other German cultures?

yes, that was a typo.

Vast swathes of the map follow dialectical lines very closely. If there are other criteria, they're ones that have no impact a huge portion of the time.

Because one of the attributes of cultures are dialects, all language/dialect borders are also always cultural borders due to the way this is structured. There are many cultures using the same dialect as their neighbor, though. Hence some cultural borders do not follow dialect borders.

I spent ages searching for it but couldn't find it, but having read every post in this threat there was a point where someone questioned why Moravian was a separate culture and got provided a Wikipedia link that made no mention of any date remotely close to EU5's start.

As said, not an expert on the region. It might very well be that Moravia would be better represented by the Czech culture. But the fact that they speak similar dialects is not the only criterion to use here.Non-intelligibility as a criterion for distinction goes too far anyway (dialects of the same language are intelligible after all).

Gameplaywise, having the strong Bohemian kingdom cover 3-4 Slavic cultures + German minorities feels like a good way to keep them in check and represent separatist tendencies. Due to the way the cultures are represented, some anachronisms are likely, simply to have the culture present at later stages.

 

[Inzano]

Do you mean other German cultures?

Vast swathes of the map follow dialectical lines very closely. If there are other criteria, they're ones that have no impact a huge portion of the time.

I spent ages searching for it but couldn't find it, but having read every post in this threat there was a point where someone questioned why Moravian was a separate culture and got provided a Wikipedia link that made no mention of any date remotely close to EU5's start.

Link only mentons this:

"Bretislaus I, Duke of Bohemia, in solving the succession question in his will (he had five sons) decided to completely reorganize Moravia, so that it should be governed by the younger sons of the royal family. It was still considered one country, but from an objective standpoint it was weakened, and Moravia could not lead to the formation of the medieval "nation" as quickly as in Bohemia. The way leading to the differentiation of the Moravians from the Czechs was caused by political and economic changes of the late 12th and early 13th century. Czech historical tradition was grown in Moravia during the Middle Ages, for example Czech Chronicles was reread and distributed."

But that's it. Both cultures will have the same dialect in the game, but in fact, Bohemia and Moravia could be treated as their own regional identities, because they were politically separate for more than 200 years before the 14th century. I don't know if the separation of Moravian and Bohemian culture represents such an unhistorical or historical fact that it would completely change the course of the game, as it would in our timeline, it just offers more opportunities.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Link only mentons this:

"Bretislaus I, Duke of Bohemia, in solving the succession question in his will (he had five sons) decided to completely reorganize Moravia, so that it should be governed by the younger sons of the royal family. It was still considered one country, but from an objective standpoint it was weakened, and Moravia could not lead to the formation of the medieval "nation" as quickly as in Bohemia. The way leading to the differentiation of the Moravians from the Czechs was caused by political and economic changes of the late 12th and early 13th century. Czech historical tradition was grown in Moravia during the Middle Ages, for example Czech Chronicles was reread and distributed."

But that's it. Both cultures will have the same dialect in the game, but in fact, Bohemia and Moravia could be treated as their own regional identities, because they were politically separate for more than 200 years before the 14th century. I don't know if the separation of Moravian and Bohemian culture represents such an unhistorical or historical fact that it would completely change the course of the game, as it would in our timeline, it just offers more opportunities.

I'm pretty sure that's not the link I was referring to.

In any case, it's not a good reference; an unsourced paragraph on Wikipedia.

 

[WaseK]

1. Bohemia and Moravia would be ruled under a PU by Charles, with Moravia still being a subject of Bohemia.
2. I just mentioned a few posts above a new type, 'fiefdom'; we have around a dozen different types, but this is not the place to talk more in-depth about them, but a future Tinto Talks.

So if a king gives land (a duchy - vassal) to his young son to get some practice on ruling and later the king dies, this duchy becomes a personal union with the main old-king's land? Means effectively changing a vassal country into PU overtime? Will PU "consume" diplomatic capacity then?

 

[Inzano]

I'm pretty sure that's not the link I was referring to.

In any case, it's not a good reference; an unsourced paragraph on Wikipedia.

Here it says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravians#Moravians_within_the_Czech_lands

But yea there is no information about the source.

For example, among us Slovenians, from historical sources, I know that regional identities dominated at that time, if I had asked the Slovenians at that time what they were, they would have said they are Carniolian, Styrian, Carinthian, Gorizian, Triestian and Istrian. They knew that they were Slovenians (Trubar in the mid-16th century addressed them as "Dear Slovenes"), but regional identity was more important. The division is best confirmed by the records of prayers, in which the dialects that emerged in the 14th and 15th centuries are mentioned. But in this case, because the Slovenes are few in number and live in multiple areas with other nations, the developers will probably not divide them into several cultures. Considering that the Moravians and Bohemians were administratively and politically divided for several generations and that even both areas had their own political entities in the Middle Ages, in addition to the general dominance of regional identities in the HRE, we can easily say that the Moravian culture is justified. But for developers among the Moravians and Bohemians, this division is not so difficult, because the population is larger and each culture has its own area, compared to Slovenian culture.