They had a legitimate claim to call themselves Romans, yes.
Otherwise, you're saying it's illegitimate for Polish people to call themselves Polish up until world war 1.
- 3
-
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.
Otherwise, you're saying it's illegitimate for Polish people to call themselves Polish up until world war 1.
Very informative, thanks. This reminds me of how many Asian nations called or still call Greeks some version of "Ionians" because this is with whom Persians had most to do with before Alexander's conquests. And yet Arabs and Turks kept using "Rum" or similar.I didn't really read all of this because obviously I wasn't clear in the first post and you are confused about what I tried to explain. The Greeks started calling themselves Rhomaioi much later in history, centuries after being under Roman rule.
We call them Greek in English only because Latins called the Hellenes who settled in Italy (who were just one Hellenic tribe) "Graeci" (remnants of whom are today called "Griko" by Greeks.) But those were only one group of Hellenic people. There were also Aeolians, Dorians, Cypriots, Macedonians, Ionians, etc.
After the conquests of Alexander and later under the Byzantine Empire these various Hellenic ethnic groups started using Koine as it became lingua franca, which in time became the standard langauge and at some point various Hellenic people started calling themselves Roman.
While looking for sources I came up with the following which is an academic paper literally about what I am trying to explain:
Antique Names and Self-Identification: Hellenes, Graikoi, and Romaioi from Late Byzantium to the Greek Nation-State
It has long been established that Modern Greek popular culture perceived Hellenes as mythical people with supernatural powers who did not make part of the core of the Romaic identity. Recent studies confirm that the formation of an ethnic Romaicwww.academia.edu
The first chapter is not behind a paywall and it explains how "Graikoi" entered from western literature and how people almost never used it. Apparently until 17th century all "Greeks" called themselves "Romaioi" and from what I understand it was to denote their Orthodox Christian identity (as opposed to the 'heretic pagan' "Hellenic.") So thanks to this thread now I know why they started calling themselves Roman, it was part of the mandatory Christianization process.
- 2
I was going to give this example but then decided otherwise. In Turkish, we call Greek (person) "Yunan", which is derived from Ionian. It is the same kind of misnomer.
Btw, if I saw your earlier message it would have saved me a lot of research time
But at least I came up with that paper from which I learnt a lot.- 4
I don't think claim has anything to do with this. States or persons might have claims, peoples just have shared identities. And in this case that identity survived (while evolving) for almost 2 millennia, unlike in the west, replaced with Italian, French, Occitan etc. XX century Rhomanoi didn't have "better claim" to "romaness", whatever that might mean, than Italians, for example. What is important is that they believed and called themselves Romans in their language. The main difference is our popular idea of "romaness" with togas and gladiators would be different from theirs, shaped by 2000 years of simply living it and not calling out for a past long gone.
There is no nation today that is identical in language, customs etc. to the same nation a century prior. It doesn't mean that a modern Pole is any less Polish and a Pole living under partitions. I hope I made my point clear on this - self-identity is what's important here, not the adherence of the identity to some external scrutiny.
- 7
That's very interesting. Loan word from Persian maybe? It's fascinating how history from thousands of years ago leaves marks like that.I was going to give this example but then decided otherwise. In Turkish, we call Greek (person) "Yunan", which is derived from Ionian. It is the same kind of misnomer.
Btw, if I saw your earlier message it would have saved me a lot of research time
- 1
Rhomaioi is literally Roman in greek, so, yes. "And to expand further, the favourite argument of Byzibois, that of state continuity, consist in affirming that people, who they were and how they saw themselves is irrelevant." This is not true, this is not their favorite argument, not even a argument they have, they objectively accept and supports the changing of the names based on how the people view themselves in other regions, they will literally support changing Persia to Iran, but their real fight are with the term for byzantium first, because they are the most vocal.
- 5
- 1
Yes. Just looked it up. Apparently from Old Persian "yōnān," which is plural for Ionians.
- 1
If it was an endonym vs exonym rule I'd completely agree with having it but giving special treatment to one country and not bothering for the rest of the world is actually wild. I was hoping that this title would be less eurocentric at launch than EU4 was but this combined with the all countries have the same estates thing are pretty bad signs.
- 7
- 4
It's okay Romesisters. Localisation changes do not break Ironman. We have still won...
- 8
- 3
- 2
- 1
its not as simple as endonym vs exonym, some exonyms are not just a literal translation of their endonym, example:
Germany - its a exonym based on the literal translation of its endonym, Deutschland
Persia - its a exonym not based on the literal translation of the name of the country Irâ/Erã/Ērān, the correct exonym would be Iran in this scenario.
It's like calling Taiwan 'Formosa', the word for the region that Europeans had until the 20th century, the word Formosa has 0 relationship with the word Taiwan. The same goes to Byzantine Empire where there is no relation to the name "Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn/Rhōmanía", where the correct exonym based only on its translation would be Empire of the Romans/Roman Empire/Romania/Kingdom of the Romans.
Last edited:
- 6
Deutschland is the endonym though? Germany is an exonym based on "Germania" from the Romans
Persia is also literally an exonym (this time from the Greeks). Why would it be the endonym instead of Iran in any scenario?
And your last two examples actually support my argument imo? In exonym mode you have Formosa and Byzantine Empire and then in endonym mode, you have Taiwan and Roman Empire.
- 2
- 1
Deutschland is not a exonym yes, its the endonym because its how their own people name itself, Deutschland dont derivates from Germania, but, its a bit more complicated, the name Deutschland just lost his meaning(from what i know) and just become the correlection to Germania, the old word that deutschland come from doesnt have the same meaning anymore.
Oh sorry, the exonym its the non-native names, where endonym is the native names, so, Formosa(non-translation of the endonym) and Byzantine would be exonyms, and the endonyms would be Taiwan and Roman Empire/Empire of the Romans.
- 1
its just not accurate, its misleanding refforcing stereotypes, i would make everthing being at least only the exonym based on the literal translation of the endonyms
- 3
As I've said like three times in this thread already, how exactly do you plan on, then, solving the problem of polities having the same endonym (but are generally considered to be completely separate, and have nothing to do with one another in terms of organization)? Will you call both the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughals Hindustan? And regardless Hindustan is the Persian name - will you call both states just "India," then, since that is the commonly accepted English translation of the word?
And that creates even more problems, because it implies some kind of continuance between historical polities centered around the Indo-Gangetic plain and the modern state - even though neither empire controlled all of modern-day India, and very few administrative or military institutions have followed from those days. Still, I would like to see certain segments of the Indian population react to such a decision, lol.
Again, for the Byzantine/ERE thing, what's done is done. But generally the most commonly exonyms (in each localization) must be used, and ideally we will be given the choice to make a name change if desired.
- 5
- 1
Name it by the dynasty they are well knonw for, a great system is the one that CK2/3 uses for muslims and hindu realms use, by 1337 the ruling dynasty of Delhi would be the Tughlaq dynasty, just name it Tughlaq Sultanate/Tughlaq/Tughlaq dynasty, etc. But, either way, the Tughlaq dynasty and its people referred to themselves as being poeple from the Delhi Sultanate? and in the Mughal era, they referred to themselves by being citizesn of Hindustan? Delhi? etc? If these people referred to themselves as citizens of a kingdom with several different names, it would be easy to choose between one and the other if it conflicted with another.
If these people referred to themselves as citizens of a kingdom with several different names, it would be easy to choose between one and the other if it conflicted with another. This could even make tag formation decisions a little different, for example, if forming the Roman Empire with a state other than Byzantium it would be necessary for Byzantium not to exist as a parameter to form, in addition to the HRE also having been dissolved. If the states of the Tughlaq dynasty and the Mughals referred to themselves as Hindustan or Delhi Sultanate, it would be necessary for 1 of the 2 not to exist, it is quite simple in my opinion, obviously, if they really if the Mughals saw themselves as successors of the Delhi Sultanate. That would be respectful of their stories in my opinion.
I quite like the Roman Empire in any era, but I think byzantine is perfectly sufficient. Although I understand and respect that there are people who like exonyms, I'm not one of them.
1. The Empire we're discussing ceased to exist 500 years ago. I don't think that the term byzantium is derogatory, and I wouldn't care if it was. Vandal has negative connotations, but deserved or not I have no desire to see them called Wanđilaz in a paradox game.
2. On that note, paradox games are in English, with localizations made where a market is big enough to justify it. They are not in medieval greek, or frankish, or even old english. In English, Byzantium does not mean 'classical Rome' it refers to the state that existed after the west was lost. Seeing as they are the continuation of the eastern half of the Roman Empire, I think calling them eastern romans is fine, because that's exactly what they were, regardless of what they would have called themselves.
1. The Empire we're discussing ceased to exist 500 years ago. I don't think that the term byzantium is derogatory, and I wouldn't care if it was. Vandal has negative connotations, but deserved or not I have no desire to see them called Wanđilaz in a paradox game.
2. On that note, paradox games are in English, with localizations made where a market is big enough to justify it. They are not in medieval greek, or frankish, or even old english. In English, Byzantium does not mean 'classical Rome' it refers to the state that existed after the west was lost. Seeing as they are the continuation of the eastern half of the Roman Empire, I think calling them eastern romans is fine, because that's exactly what they were, regardless of what they would have called themselves.
- 17
- 4
- 3
My English is not good, sorry.
I don‘t like this feature, not because I don’t like the Byzantium being called Roman Empire or something, but for the feature is only for byz, it's unfair to other tags that are using exonym. Should there be more options for us to decide wether to use endonym or exonym to name those tags?
I don‘t like this feature, not because I don’t like the Byzantium being called Roman Empire or something, but for the feature is only for byz, it's unfair to other tags that are using exonym. Should there be more options for us to decide wether to use endonym or exonym to name those tags?
- 3
Similar options like this one from CK2 (i dont remember if CK3 has too) would be great and, after all they are a broad game rule, instead of changing for only one tag
- 6
Why? Does that not do the exact thing you said was "reinforcing misleading stereotypes?" I pointed out in another thread eight Indian Muslim polities from the EUIV period that did not refer to themselves by their dynasty. The Tughlaqs were overthrown by the Sayyids in 1414, but they still called themselves Hindustan, as did the Lodis who came after them. Even for the Mughals this will pose a problem - shall we call them merely Gurkani? Because that is what their house was, like Timur.
Even when considering Hindu states this does not make complete sense - after all, the Vijayanagara were ruled by the Sangamas, then the Saluvas, and so on - but they always called themselves Karnataka Samrajya (ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಾಮ್ರಾಜ್ಯ, 'Karnataka Empire'). In fact, Robert Sewell, who rediscovered the empire, chose Vijayangara because he did not want to inflame intercommunal tensions between the Kannada and Telugu peoples (whether the Sangamas were Telugu or Kannada remains a source of controversy). So what do we do in this case? Or that of the Maratha Empire/Confederacy, who were ruled by the Bhonsles but never referred to themselves as such?
This kind of idea works in CK, where the great kingdoms of the subcontinent did refer to themselves dynastically - Cholas, Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas, Palas, and so on. It does not in EU.
But they did not, as I said. They both referred to themselves as Hindustan, writing in Persian.
They did not. I do not know where you have gotten this misconception from. I specifically stated that the Mughals are not typically considered continuers of their predecessors - most Mughal institutions were developed during the reign of Akbar, many decades after the death of the last Sultan of Delhi at Panipat in 1526.
- 6
- 2
- 1