Agceep: Venice

[Norrefeldt]

How does it make sense that the Venetians should be able to convert the Greeks en masse to Catholicism, tax them as though they were Italians, and never have to worry about how they felt about it?

According to the SOURCES presented here by Toio it makes as much sense as it does for OE to have Greek culture, and be able to convert them and tax them as though they are Turks.

Those Greeks just LOVE being ruled by Catholic Italians

I agree, apparently it was so.

Your arguments for Venice having Greek culture for gameplay reasons, when historical reasons won't suffice, doesn't make sense considering they shouldn't have it for gameplay reasons either.

I never wrote that. Read again.

 

[Twoflower]

Another question related to Venice's state cultures: is it really justified to give Slavonic culture to the Ottoman Empire, but not to Venice, Austria and Hungary, when the latter three beyond any doubt were much more agreeable rulers for Croats and Slovenes? What was the reason for removing Slavonic culture from Venice again, and what was the reason not to finally give it to Austria (at start just to Styria) and Hungary? Wouldn't it for the sake of gameplay, especially in MP, be better to give Slavonic to all five countries (OE, Venice, Hungary, Styria and Austria after inheriting Styria)?

 

[Norrefeldt]

IIRC one reason for Venice to lose Slavonic was that they shouldn't expand inland. But I agree, more countries should probably have Slavonic if OE has it.

 

[Twoflower]

IIRC one reason for Venice to lose Slavonic was that they shouldn't expand inland. But I agree, more countries should probably have Slavonic if OE has it.

The current situation has several negative effects:
- It is very ahistorical that Venice, the Hapsburgs and Hungary have a harder time ruling Slovenian and Croatian territories than the Ottomans
- Once the Ottomans have ahistorically converted Croatian and Slovenian territories, there is only a slim chance for these provinces to ever be converted back again
- Austria in fact had less problems in its Croatian and Slovenian possessions than in Hungary and Bohemia and therefore quite probably deserves the culture for these provinces more than Magyar, Slovak and Czech culture
- the culture setup provokes ahistorical and gamey behaviour; in a MP game, the smartest thing for Austrian and Ottoman players to do is, instead of fighting over the Balkans, to have an agreement that gives Austria all Magyar and Slovak and the Ottomans all Slavonic provinces; it also is no good for a Venetian player to have at least a certain incentive to cede all his Slavonic provinces to the OE in exchange for support in conquering Italy

There are three ways to improve this:
1. Split up Slavonic culture into Bulgarian, Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian and Slovene culture, and give the OE Bosnian and Bulgarian, Hungary Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian, Venice Croatian and Slovene and Styria Slovene (Austria should gain Slovene when inheriting Styria and Croatian when inheriting Hungary)
2. Implement MKJ's revolutionary new culture setup, so that Austria's "Slavonic" territories are Imperial, Venice's Venetian, Hungary's Hungarian and the OE's Roman/Byzantine
3. Give Slavonic culture to Venice, the OE, Hungary and Styria at start and let Austria gain it by the event that has it inherit Styria

The first two options are quite definitely more "realistic" and have a certain charm to them, however the last option will lead to less static gameplay. I'd be fine with all three.

 

[Yordlama]

I think that the arguement for letting the Venitians keeps greek culture is that, allthough this would be historically inacurate in itself, because the game mechanics are limited, Greek culture provides for Venice a larger historical truism, that being that it was an economically powerful state, and an important power in the region. Therefore I think it's more important to let Venice keep Greek culture for over-all historical accuracy within the game.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

There are three ways to improve this:
1. Split up Slavonic culture into Bulgarian, Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian and Slovene culture, and give the OE Bosnian and Bulgarian, Hungary Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian, Venice Croatian and Slovene and Styria Slovene (Austria should gain Slovene when inheriting Styria and Croatian when inheriting Hungary)

I would certainly support this, nationalist complaints be damned.

2. Implement MKJ's revolutionary new culture setup, so that Austria's "Slavonic" territories are Imperial, Venice's Venetian, Hungary's Hungarian and the OE's Roman/Byzantine

what

3. Give Slavonic culture to Venice, the OE, Hungary and Styria at start and let Austria gain it by the event that has it inherit Styria.

Nah.

 

[chegitz guevara]

The current situation has several negative effects:

There are three ways to improve this:
1. Split up Slavonic culture into Bulgarian, Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian and Slovene culture, and give the OE Bosnian and Bulgarian, Hungary Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian, Venice Croatian and Slovene and Styria Slovene (Austria should gain Slovene when inheriting Styria and Croatian when inheriting Hungary)

Too many cultures. Make it Slovene, Bulgar, and Jugoslav. This, however, would not solve the problem with Venice, as Jugoslav would still allow it to go inland (not that the current setup stops it from doing so).

 

[Mad King James]

I still prefer my Roman culture to any fakery involving everyone and his little brother getting Slavonic.

Making a Bulgar, Serb, and Croat split would be the best, I'd say. Give Croat to Austria and Hungary, give Bulgar to the Ottomans, and don't give Serb to anyone (well other than Serbia, Bosnia and Zeta anyways)

Give Roman culture to the areas that were traditionally Eastern Roman Empire provinces and maintain that identity (Western Anatolia & Greece) and make a "Greek" culture (IE Greeks who prefer the Latins to the Ottomans or Empire) in Corfu, Crete, Rhodes, Ionian Islands, Puglia, etc)

 

[chegitz guevara]

The Serbs prospered under the Ottomans. Nor is Croat and Serbian culture different enough to justify division. Religion already makes the divide.

 

[Mad King James]

The Serbs prospered under the Ottomans. Nor is Croat and Serbian culture different enough to justify division. Religion already makes the divide.

Well give them and the Bulgars roman too then.

 

[Twoflower]

I still prefer my Roman culture to any fakery involving everyone and his little brother getting Slavonic.

Your proposed culture revolution definitely has its strongest sides on the Balkans, where it would help excluding nationalism from the culture setup and probably produce the most desirable in-game effects. Still I would not consider giving Slavonic to all five Balkan bigwigs (OE, Byzantium, Venice, Leopoldine Hapsburgs and Hungary) a "fakery"; just to a certain extent a simplification that might lead to more dynamism, and it has the additional advantage of not reducing the potential power of the OE in any way; the two other possibilites will make several of the OE's cores wrong culture for it and thus result in higher stab and tech costs for the OE. I'm not saying that this is necessarily wrong, just something that needs to be considered when changing anything about Slavonic culture.

Making a Bulgar, Serb, and Croat split would be the best, I'd say. Give Croat to Austria and Hungary, give Bulgar to the Ottomans, and don't give Serb to anyone (well other than Serbia, Bosnia and Zeta anyways)

And what to do about the Slovenian provinces (at least Krain/Carniola, arguably as well Istria)?
Serbocroat (Yugoslav is an anachronism in the EU2 period and has too much potential for controversy), Slovene and Bulgarian would be fine I guess. The Macedonian provinces that we are probably are going to have on the new map should be represented as Bulgarian I suppose?

 

[Norrefeldt]

I don't think Venice needs slavonic, even if it had some provinces with it. After all, they only held the coastal areas, and didn't hold much land deep into the more slavic culture. Sweden don't get German, even though it held German provinces without any problem.
The rest it OT here, but I think dividing Slavonic would be a mess. There were larger difference in many other cultural groups we have. If Austria and Styria gets Slavonic we also get the wanted conflict with OE.

 

[chegitz guevara]

The rest it OT here, but I think dividing Slavonic would be a mess. There were larger difference in many other cultural groups we have. If Austria and Styria gets Slavonic we also get the wanted conflict with OE.

I agree, but if the culture does get divided, I'd like it to be more rational.

Yugoslav is an anachronism in the EU2 period and has too much potential for controversy.

True, but they are South Slavs, and Serbocroatian tends to set off the nationalists too. Probably better to stick with Slavonic for the South Slavs if we split off Bulgarian and Slovenian.

 

[Twoflower]

If Austria and Styria gets Slavonic we also get the wanted conflict with OE.

I'd be fine with just giving Slavonic to Hungary, Styria and post-1463 Austria (which is not within the range of this thread) and remain neutral on the question of whether Venice should have it as well.

The rest it OT here, but I think dividing Slavonic would be a mess. There were larger difference in many other cultural groups we have.

Why would it be a mess? We have West Slavic divided into Czech, Slovak and Polish and East Slavic divided into Russian, Ruthenian and Ukrainian - a division of South Slavic into Slovenian, Bulgarian and "Serbo-Croatian" would be on exactly the same level. An argument on the base of consistency with the differences between other cultures could therefore be just as much used in favour of splitting Slavonic - and therefore I believe that we should leave this kind of arguments aside and focus on gameplay considerations, i.e. whether we think it is desirable for Austria to rule Bulgaria just as easily as Styria or for the Ottomans to make Carniola Sunni.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I'll reply in the proper thread, wherever that is. We shouldn't continue this discussion here.

 

[Toio]

Why do you persist in this assertian that Venetians are/were not Italian? The fact that the Venetian dialect is different from Italian isn't sufficient, as in those days, if you walked down the road twenty miles, the people spoke differently. Venetian archetecture, food, clothing, religion, etc. were all identical to those of Northern Italy. Just because Marchigianos are very different from Sicilians doesn't mean I'm not going to seriously claim Sicilians aren't Italian (though I will do so in jest).

Having a "quarter" isn't good enough for culture. If it is, then the Ottomans should get French, Italian, and English cultures. Culture should only be given if the culture was significant in the ruling of that empire or that empire was tolerent of that culture. Neither applies to Venice and the Greeks.

First Venetian archeture is a mixture of Byzantine and Gothic.

Next, Venetians are Italians now (2005) but not the years when EU2 is played in.

third language, see below:
Classification
Venetian descends from Latin, like all other Romance languages (including Italian and the other so-called Italian dialects). However, Venetian and Italian branch off from each other after Italo-Western; whereas Venetian and Spanish branch off after Gallo-Iberian, and Venetian and French don't branch off until after Gallo-Romance. Therefore Venetian is genetically closer to French and Spanish than to Italian.

Although French and Venetian are mutually intelligibile only to a small degree (mostly due to major changes in French pronunciation over time), Spanish and Venetian are mutually comprehensible to some extent — certainly more so than Spanish and Italian.

Geographic Distribution
Venetian is spoken in the Italian regions of Veneto and Friuli-Venezia Giulia and in both Slovenian and Croatian Istria.

The language enjoyed substantial prestige in the days of the Venetian Republic



AND if you can read Italian , then see if u can read Venetian, below:
’Sto manuàl gramaticałe qua no ’l xe mìa stà fato par spiegar na variante soła (soło el

veronéxe, soło el venesian, soło el feltrin-belunéxe, soło el trevixan o soło el vèneto zsentrałe

cioè vixentin-padovan-połexan) ma par dar na descrizsion del vèneto. Dopo, sóto łe

spiegazsion, vien mése anca de łe note co łe caratarìstiche speciałi de łe varianti pi grose.

Xe ciaro che no l’è mìa un lavóro parfeto fin ’ntei detaji pi cei e de seguro se podarà

zxontarghe calcosa, ma quel che xe inportante l’è che el scopo del MGX de ła Łéngua Vèneta el

xe quel de dar na vixion de tuta £a £éngua e parlar de łe so règołe fondamentałi metendo in

ciaro łe struture comuni che gh’è sóto łe diversità de pronunzsia: qûełe règołe che łe ne fa dir

che el venesian el xe vèneto come el belumat, anca se fra de łuri i è ben difarenti; qûełe règołe

che fra noaltri Vèneti podémo capirse anca se vegnémo da parte diverse e gavémo parlade un

fià diverse mentre i “foresti” (cioè qûii che i vien da fora, déto senzsa cativeria) i fa fadiga

capirne.

Da ùltimo, in fondo al libro xe stà riservà un capìtolo particołar par un studio, curto, sul

dialetto veneto dell’italiano che ’l vien parlà dai toxati e ’nte łe zsità, in modo da far védar łe

diversità pi grose che ’sto qua el ga rispeto a ła łéngua vèneta.

Enough said on this.

 

[Toio]

Interested in Greek affairs in the Medieval and Renaissance period.!

http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf2/W03.PDF

Site above for Venetian relations with Greeks and OE in the Morea and other mainland Greek areas.

Military, religious and Government issues dealt with as well as OE issues in regards to "how Janissaries would butcher Sultans" when they did not get the man they wanted etc.

Site deals with good and bad issues for all nations in renaiissance Greece.

To get the full version, change the W03.PDF to W01.PDF and then 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Total pages , Aprrox 300 written in English.

Makes interesting reading.

 

[|AXiN|]

Just had a quick breeze over that article:

It notes that the Greeks were roughly equally treated, then notes that they were probably worse treated by the Venetians, then notes in a footnote that it was usual for Greeks, Albanians, Jews and Gypsies to not be allowed to live in the city.

Also, the author uses Turk and Ottoman interchangably, which suggests that his knowledge of the Ottoman Empire in this period is cursory at best.

This document seems to have been written to talk up the city, and to try to prove that Greeks were well treated under the Venetians. I'm not inclined to take it at face value.

 

[Toio]

Just had a quick breeze over that article:

It notes that the Greeks were roughly equally treated, then notes that they were probably worse treated by the Venetians, then notes in a footnote that it was usual for Greeks, Albanians, Jews and Gypsies to not be allowed to live in the city.

Also, the author uses Turk and Ottoman interchangably, which suggests that his knowledge of the Ottoman Empire in this period is cursory at best.

This document seems to have been written to talk up the city, and to try to prove that Greeks were well treated under the Venetians. I'm not inclined to take it at face value.

You need to read the full 9 articles.

This has nothing to do with Crete or Corfu or the other islands, its only about mainland Greece.

Corfu was under Venice for 600 years, Crete 450 , Cyprus 80 , parts of Morea 250 etc etc. Logically the people all must of lived in harmory.

Did you read that the Greeks were very upset that the Venetian concluded a peace with the OE in 1480's . The greeks wnted to continue the battle to drive all the turks out.

What you are ultumitaly saying is that whatever data I present it will never be good enough to convince you.
In a sense, what YOU want goes regardless. Be it fabricated or not.


I have not seen anything presented that says otherwise.

I have not fabricated the data.

I basically think that your aim is that you cannot get the OE working correctly so your intention to to make all OE neighbours ultra weak so that you will achieve your goals.

What next, Crimea, Hungary, Austria ????

I can tell you why the OE does not get big (always) in EU2. Just ask

 

[unmerged(12680)]

You need to read the full 9 articles.

This has nothing to do with Crete or Corfu or the other islands, its only about mainland Greece.

Corfu was under Venice for 600 years, Crete 450 , Cyprus 80 , parts of Morea 250 etc etc. Logically the people all must of lived in harmory.

Corfu, 411 years (1386 - 1797). (I have too much spare time.)

And obviously:

I can tell you why the OE does not get big (always) in EU2. Just ask

Why?