Changing Cultures?

[Phystarstk]

I was just wondering if converting conquered or controlled provinces to different cultures would be possible in CK. Although it would be nearly impossible in the age of EU2, in CK it was quite possible. A few hundred years earlier (hey man, not much changed in a few hundred years) England became AngloSaxon, and Brittany became Brythonic Celtic. German culture spread, French culture was, basically, created, and the cultures of the East Roman Empire (I still contend that the use of Byzantine is derogatory, it was the Roman Empire until it was destroyed) were in flux. Look at Constantinople/Istanbul for the love of God.

 

[unmerged(8913)]

Originally posted by Phystarstk
I was just wondering if converting conquered or controlled provinces to different cultures would be possible in CK. Although it would be nearly impossible in the age of EU2, in CK it was quite possible. A few hundred years earlier (hey man, not much changed in a few hundred years) England became AngloSaxon, and Brittany became Brythonic Celtic. German culture spread, French culture was, basically, created, and the cultures of the East Roman Empire (I still contend that the use of Byzantine is derogatory, it was the Roman Empire until it was destroyed) were in flux. Look at Constantinople/Istanbul for the love of God.

I think it's been stated that cultures will change gradually in conquered lands - i.e., the longer you own a province, the higher % of people will be of your own culture.

 

[unmerged(17523)]

Re: Re: Changing Cultures?

Originally posted by Marcus Valerius
I think it's been stated that cultures will change gradually in conquered lands - i.e., the longer you own a province, the higher % of people will be of your own culture.

Wow, this would mean a vast improvement over eu2

 

[Phystarstk]

Its not an improvement over EU2, its just a change. In the age of EU2, culture change was rare and nearly impossible. The main attempt I can remember was the attempt by Austria to "Germanize/Austrize" all of its people into one culture. However this was a horrible failure, and it caused lots of resentment.

 

[unmerged(5605)]

Please note that while you can convert a province or group of provinces to a different culture, from what has been said if you have too many provinces of another culture your royal line may/will eventually change cultures.

 

[unmerged(8913)]

Originally posted by eschaton
Please note that while you can convert a province or group of provinces to a different culture, from what has been said if you have too many provinces of another culture your royal line may/will eventually change cultures.

Yes, that would be the drawback of expanding too fast. Then you get to face a lot of lovely revolts in your original provinces who are no longer the state culture.

My example of course was implying one conquered province of a different culture. Sorry for not being more specific.

 

[stibogis]

but wouldnt the culture that had the biggest prestige and was most known through the world be the culture of the rulers? I would be shocked if the byzantinez\roman empire went from greek to slavic or turquish! I think this should be settled through events, especially when it is the dynaty changeing its culture. and what about the alomads in spain, they diddnt change their culture to spanish did they? Maybee there should be such a thing as you can choose how to raise your son\daughters so that you can avoid them turning from your culture. so if you raise your son in the french culture the english scandinavian or greek it is expected that he belongs to that culture?

 

[unmerged(8913)]

Originally posted by stibogis
but wouldnt the culture that had the biggest prestige and was most known through the world be the culture of the rulers? I would be shocked if the byzantinez\roman empire went from greek to slavic or turquish! I think this should be settled through events, especially when it is the dynaty changeing its culture. and what about the alomads in spain, they diddnt change their culture to spanish did they? Maybee there should be such a thing as you can choose how to raise your son\daughters so that you can avoid them turning from your culture. so if you raise your son in the french culture the english scandinavian or greek it is expected that he belongs to that culture?

I can see how it would present a problem in game terms. However, there are examples of ruling dynasties changing their culture. The most obvious that comes to mind (though it is a few hundred years before the start of the game) would be the Eastern Roman Empire, gradually changing from Latin to Greek culture. The truth of the matter is, we don't really know exactly how this will be handled in game terms. There simply hasn't been enough information released as to the game mechanics yet.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Phystarstk
Its not an improvement over EU2, its just a change. In the age of EU2, culture change was rare and nearly impossible. The main attempt I can remember was the attempt by Austria to "Germanize/Austrize" all of its people into one culture. However this was a horrible failure, and it caused lots of resentment.

What in God's name are you talking about?

 

[unmerged(9622)]

Originally posted by Phystarstk
Its not an improvement over EU2, its just a change. In the age of EU2, culture change was rare and nearly impossible. The main attempt I can remember was the attempt by Austria to "Germanize/Austrize" all of its people into one culture. However this was a horrible failure, and it caused lots of resentment.

Eh, what about Turks in Asia Minor in Greek provinces?

 

[Phystarstk]

I figured that would come up, but that was a rare exception. All I am saying is that changing cultures during the period EU2 covers was incredibly rare, but, during CK's time, it was more common.

-Also, I dont know if I agree with the whole idea of the leaders becoming the culture of newly conquered lands. I only agree with it if they lose their old core provinces. Byzantine only changed because Rome was no longer theirs. They had to get by with what they had. Same with the French Norman kings of England. They were quite French, but, when they lost their French lands, they instantly became English. Wierd huh . I think the culture of the monarchs should be more in their hands because, honestly, it truly was.

 

[unmerged(8913)]

Originally posted by Phystarstk
-Also, I dont know if I agree with the whole idea of the leaders becoming the culture of newly conquered lands. I only agree with it if they lose their old core provinces. Byzantine only changed because Rome was no longer theirs. They had to get by with what they had. Same with the French Norman kings of England. They were quite French, but, when they lost their French lands, they instantly became English. Wierd huh . I think the culture of the monarchs should be more in their hands because, honestly, it truly was.

Actually, I'd suggest this is more a result of having the majority of their lands being the non-state culture than losing the original core lands that were the state culture. Though, they had the majority of their lands as non-state culture precisely because they lost the other lands, but I submit that something similar would have happened even without losing all of the original core territories, just by having the majority of their provinces as a non-state culture.

 

[unmerged(17523)]

Originally posted by Phystarstk
I figured that would come up, but that was a rare exception. All I am saying is that changing cultures during the period EU2 covers was incredibly rare, but, during CK's time, it was more common.

You are probably right, a total change of culture is not verly likely. But with the current eu2 setup, shifts (also minor shifts, which could still be important) in a countries cultural make up is not possible and we are are talking about 400 years of possible development here.

And yes, sorry this indeed is the CK forum, so I'll shut up about eu2

 

[Spruce]

Originally posted by Phystarstk
Its not an improvement over EU2, its just a change. In the age of EU2, culture change was rare and nearly impossible. The main attempt I can remember was the attempt by Austria to "Germanize/Austrize" all of its people into one culture. However this was a horrible failure, and it caused lots of resentment.

In fact, you are wrong,

during the EU2 eras the French kings (there's a reason why their head went off) replaced Dutch culture by French in the conquered lands ... in most cases it's a matter of language... and that can be changed by time...especially when dominant cultures are in play. It was also a progressive slow transformation ... and thank god the lower clerics kept the local language alive...

some older people still speak Dutch in Northern France, but that will eventually die out...

and please do not hardcode what dominant cultures are... because that's the fate of fate ...

 

[Phystarstk]

Well if some still speak Dutch, then perhaps the culture shouldn't have changed at all. Sounds like the French equivalent to Wales (besides Brittany) where things stayed stable but cultures were actually different.
Despite this, I still defend my position. The idea of cultural change in areas in the era of EU2 is barely comparable to the era of Crusader Kings. I would love to see a French owned Germany turn French....

 

[Phystarstk]

If its the French Flanders/Crown Flanders/Nord that you refer to, then I'd say that the culture of the area never really changed.
"8. French Flanders
This region in the North of France, roughly speaking situated in the departement of Nord-Pas de Calais, became part of France by the Peace of the Pyrenees in1659, but originally belonged to Flanders. Until today, the regional language remains Vlaems, a Dutch dialect closely related to the dialects spoken in the South of the province of West-Vlaanderen. The city names, like Roubaix, Lille and Dunkerque--Robeke, Rijssel en Duinkerken in Dutch--still prove that this region used to be Flemish.

Since the annexation by France, an active policy of frenchification has been followed. In 1853, French became the language of education. In the last years, there has been a remarkable change though. There is new interest in Vlaems, and lots of language courses in Dutch are organized. The closer economical collaboration over the borders is responible for this, and as a consequence, it's already possible to use Dutch in some hospitals in French Flanders.

The Komitee voor Frans-Vlaanderen (Committee for French Flanders) has played a important role in this. It took initiatives like the reuse of the Flemish names of farms and villages. Since 1984, there is also a local branch of the well known Davidsfonds active in the region.

On short terms, French Flanders won't become part of Flanders again. In any case, it won't become part of the Belgian Kingdom. But on the long term, it would be wrong to consider the region to be lost for Flanders."

Just an interesting little thing about it. "Frenchification" was attempted, but I'd say it had as much effect as Austrian "Germanification".

 

[ErmineClad]

Re: Re: Changing Cultures?

Originally posted by Marcus Valerius
I think it's been stated that cultures will change gradually in conquered lands - i.e., the longer you own a province, the higher % of people will be of your own culture.

While I agree that culture change is not a bad idea, I don't care for the snap your fingers your of a different culture approach.
It seems to me that there should be a gradual process directly linked to the children of the dynasty.

I think the more provinces of a specific culture you possess, the more likely it is one of your children will be of that culture. But I think there should also be the occassional event that changes the head of household or a member of your family. You should also be able to steer and influence children by way of education in my opinion just as any good parent would.

But the family dynamic brings up the most interesting idea - in my opinion - that if the mother of the child is of a different culture, then there is an increased chance of her children matching her own culture. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I'm sure it happened in history plenty.

The problem with using history as a guide for this sorta thing is that the game can't really match very well small generational changes that occur in history. So in order to attempt to match history you would have to have each member of the family with his/her own specified culture, and the possibility of them being born a specific culture based on various factors especially the make up of the lands the family rules, and also through the parental guidance of the child.

my two cents...
~EC~

 

[Phystarstk]

I think a lot of it should be the players decision. If you decide to let your children be raised in other cultural provinces then they will be that culture. Maybe, in order to balance it, you can only raise them in your cultures or cultures of the child's mother. That would also be more realistic since children were always one or the other.

 

[unmerged(8913)]

I think what we have to remember he is, we don't really know how this will be handled in the game, so everything that's posted here regarding the specifics of cultural change is really little more than speculation....

 

[Spruce]

Originally posted by Phystarstk
If its the French Flanders/Crown Flanders/Nord that you refer to, then I'd say that the culture of the area never really changed.
"8. French Flanders
This region in the North of France, roughly speaking situated in the departement of Nord-Pas de Calais, became part of France by the Peace of the Pyrenees in1659, but originally belonged to Flanders. Until today, the regional language remains Vlaems, a Dutch dialect closely related to the dialects spoken in the South of the province of West-Vlaanderen. The city names, like Roubaix, Lille and Dunkerque--Robeke, Rijssel en Duinkerken in Dutch--still prove that this region used to be Flemish.

Since the annexation by France, an active policy of frenchification has been followed. In 1853, French became the language of education. In the last years, there has been a remarkable change though. There is new interest in Vlaems, and lots of language courses in Dutch are organized. The closer economical collaboration over the borders is responible for this, and as a consequence, it's already possible to use Dutch in some hospitals in French Flanders.

The Komitee voor Frans-Vlaanderen (Committee for French Flanders) has played a important role in this. It took initiatives like the reuse of the Flemish names of farms and villages. Since 1984, there is also a local branch of the well known Davidsfonds active in the region.

On short terms, French Flanders won't become part of Flanders again. In any case, it won't become part of the Belgian Kingdom. But on the long term, it would be wrong to consider the region to be lost for Flanders."

Just an interesting little thing about it. "Frenchification" was attempted, but I'd say it had as much effect as Austrian "Germanification".

I think the general picture is somewhat romantisised - original I'm west flemisch (born Izegem) and my last name has its equivalent in French...

I once saw a documentary about French Flanders, only old folks speek the Flemisch, in fact it's something very similar like the west-flemisch spoken by the west flemisch in Flandern.

Youngsters and immigrants have no tendency to speak Flemisch ... the Frenchification is based on " a dominant culture devoring a smaller one by eliminating the bases of a culture (like education in that language, church, socialising, etc.).

The only thing that has opposed the Frenchification is that Flanders - these days - is doing economical better compared to the north of France and that's always better... but when the goverment does not support this (like the French) there is a gradual loss of the culture.

Like "Fryslan" in the Netherlands is actively supported by local goverment, it's thriving...

Lots of French speaking people in Belgium once were Flemisch, this tendency of Frenchification is the best example - together with the more dreadfull Ottoman principle of the Jannisars (abducted Greek children converting them to the Islam) and the exponent example of Nazi and Communist beasts that broke lots of local cultures by shipping them around up to Siberia...

It seems culture change has different levels and is of all days =

1 - natural process, what is the dominant culture by nature,
2 - forced, by conquest and elimination of base structures,
3 - enforced, prohibit the native language,
4 - take over, convert people like Ottomans did - for me the Christian baptising paradigma is not here - that didn't break cultures!
5 - destroying cultures - deport them (Nazi and Communist),