CK2 should not maintain the Paradoxian worldview

[unmerged(88626)]

Mostly people during the middle ages defined themselves as a part of their village or town. The 'foreigners' then became the people in neighbouring village/town. Relatively few people ever went very far from where they were born. And while they might identify themselves as French or Lyonnaise,(from Lyon) they were first and foremost members of their village/town. And yes, sometimes this could be tied to an allegiance towards a local Lord. To these people the concept of nationalism would've been very strange indeed. Of course there are examples of(usually nobles) who did feel a sense of belonging with the country of their birth, burningego gave one such. But there is no reason to believe that such feeling were widespread.

 

[Drachenfire]

I can't speak to a lot of what you've specifically cited because I don't study Welsh history in particular and I've not read Davies' works. However, I will point out that the Welsh would be more likely to count as an exceptional case because of the nature of their relationship in regards to the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes, and then the Normans.

However, ultimately I want to point out that there is a difference between ethnic identity and what actually constitutes nationalism, the idea of a single ethnic nation existing as an abstract but unifying entity. Ethnic identity was not at all unknown in this time period, after all, the Holy Roman Emperors were sometimes referred to by the title "Rex Teutonicorum" - King of the Germans. Medieval people very much recognized the existence of ethnic groups such as Saxons, Frisians, Flemings, etc.

The difference between ethnic identity and nationalism, however, is the belief that a given ethnic identity has a right to a single, unified and sovereign state, not merely that that ethnic group exists, or even that members of that group have certain rights that others do not. I am not trying to suggest that the Middle Ages consisted of people who merely saw themselves as vassals of one lord or another, and that there were no other differences.

The definition of nationalism is broad and depends on context for exact meaning. Moreover, we can agree that the belief that any one ethnic group is superior to any other is an extreme form of fanaticism, and is ugly in any context, old or new. While the etymology of the word nationalism is new, the sentiments of nationalism do have solid roots well before the modern era and is evident in law codes in many cultures.

An ethnic identity is an essential element of nationalism, and reflected in law codes and in literature, at least in the Welsh context.

I know you have not studied Welsh history or read John Davies. He is the premier modern Welsh historian, in my humble opinion. His concise History of Wales is necessary read for anyone wanting to understand that country west of the Sabrina River.

Mostly people during the middle ages defined themselves as a part of their village or town. The 'foreigners' then became the people in neighbouring village/town. Relatively few people ever went very far from where they were born. And while they might identify themselves as French or Lyonnaise,(from Lyon) they were first and foremost members of their village/town. And yes, sometimes this could be tied to an allegiance towards a local Lord. To these people the concept of nationalism would've been very strange indeed. Of course there are examples of(usually nobles) who did feel a sense of belonging with the country of their birth, burningego gave one such. But there is no reason to believe that such feeling were widespread.

It is true that in the most rudimentary context you are correct, "foreigners" were those who were not of your community and few people traveled more then a few miles outside of that community. However, at least by the 10th century in Welsh law and literature, foreigners are clearly defined as those ‘outside of Wales’, and as this is reflective in Welsh law and in Welsh literature, I would contend that sentiments of sharing a common nationality were indeed widespread.

I would be surprised if this were unique to the Welsh expierence. I refer to my earlier post.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

It is true that in the most rudimentary context you are correct, "foreigners" were those who were not of your community and few people traveled more then a few miles outside of that community. However, at least by the 10th century in Welsh law and literature, foreigners are clearly defined as those ‘outside of Wales’, and as this is reflective in Welsh law and in Welsh literature, I would contend that sentiments of sharing a common nationality were indeed widespread.

I would be surprised if this were unique to the Welsh expierence. I refer to my earlier post.

As a hungarian it is strange.

Everyone was a subject of the hungarian crown, but they had all different nationalities.

Common folk: hungairans, croatians, serbians, slovaks, rumanians, saxons, swabians, italians, etc.
The nobility was even more diverse, with added aragonese, byzantine, cuman, pecheneg, jász, french noble families.

No common language except for latin.



Either you were a subject of the hungarian king or not, nothing else mattered.

 

[Drachenfire]

As a hungarian it is strange.

Everyone was a subject of the hungarian crown, but they had all different nationalities.

Common folk: hungairans, croatians, serbians, slovaks, rumanians, saxons, swabians, italians, etc.
The nobility was even more diverse, with added aragonese, byzantine, cuman, pecheneg, jász, french noble families.

No common language except for latin.



Either you were a subject of the hungarian king or not, nothing else mattered.

*nod* The Welsh were themselves divided into four principalities and crowns. Following the Norman invasions of Wales between 1067-1100ad these Welsh princes were, on occasion, wily nily vassals of the Angevin Empire- a collection of realms and nationalities ruled by the Plantagenet dynasty from Anjou. It is true that some nationalities across Europe were vassals of rival crowns and conflicting sovereignties. One could speculate that the more divided or isolated these ethnic groups were could aid or dilute any sentiments of shared nationality.

 

[unmerged(111652)]

I was merely commenting on BurningEGO's comment about nations giving out nationality to any immigrant who may come along. I was calling that reactionary.

And I agree. Did it come off as something else? My wording isn't always the best om mondays evenings, so I apologize any misunderstanding

 

[BurningEGO]

I mean, most medieval kingdoms had a complete lack of ethnic homogeneity- medieval France didn't speak one single language, they spoke Breton, Langue d'Oc (or Occitan) Catalonian, Norman. Similarly, Spain. There was no Spain - there was Castile, Leon, Cordoba, Valencia, Toledo, all of which were just kingdoms and duchies which made up an area called "Iberia."

What you are saying might be true but you are only pointing out massive Kingdoms... Which, obviously, had a lot of people with diferent customs and languages inside.

Still, that does not mean nationalism did not exist... Russia got quite a "few" minorities inside their borders today, as do many other countries... If you are going to say that nationalism inside these countries do not exist, because they got countless people with diferent languages inside their borders or whatsoever, you are completely wrong.

Using a "complete lack of ethnic homogeneity" to justify "nationalism" is a rather bad excuse in my opinion.

Reactionary anti-immigrant sentiments

This isnt reactionary, and much less an anti-immigrant sentiment, but it is true that nowadays immigrants are given nationality out of thin air. Most dont even know how to speak the language properly, dont know anything about history (not even who the hell was the first King in the country they live at), never shed a single drop of blood for the country and never contributed in any way to the economy (most immigrants are actually a burden to the economy) by paying taxes for their entire life, so why should they have the same rights as the ones who were born inside their own country and whose ancestors contributed to the progress of the nation at stake?

 

[unmerged(88626)]

What you are saying might be true but you are only pointing out massive Kingdoms... Which, obviously, had a lot of people with diferent customs and languages inside.

Still, that does not mean nationalism did not exist... Russia got quite a "few" minorities inside their borders today, as do many other countries... If you are going to say that nationalism inside these countries do not exist, because they got countless people with diferent languages inside their borders or whatsoever, you are completely wrong.

Using a "complete lack of ethnic homogeneity" to justify "nationalism" is a rather bad excuse in my opinion.

This isnt reactionary, and much less an anti-immigrant sentiment, but it is true that nowadays immigrants are given nationality out of thin air. Most dont even know how to speak the language properly, dont know anything about history (not even who the hell was the first King in the country they live at), never shed a single drop of blood for the country and never contributed in any way to the economy (most immigrants are actually a burden to the economy) by paying taxes for their entire life, so why should they have the same rights as the ones who were born inside their own country and whose ancestors contributed to the progress of the nation at stake?

How many people have shed blood for their countries today, either literally or metaphorically?
What does it matter if someone's ancestors contributed to the progress of their nation? Should it be that simply because my great grandfather helped to create the swedish industry, I have more right to Swedish citizenship than a person who's parents moved here only 20 years before he was born? Even if I am lazy and he is hardworking?

Of course there are reasons to block out some of the immigration, especially the people who aren't going to be a productive part of society and have immigrated for economic reasons alone.
The concept that a hardworking immigrant is granted the same rights as a hardworking ethnically swedish person has does seem to make sense to me at least.

Yes, some of the newcomers aren't hardworking and don't contribute to the economy, these are a minority in all Western European nations that which I have studied however. The problem isn't that immigrantion 'is generally bad' but rather that most countries policies on immigration are lacking. That is true in Sweden as well as(from what I understand) in Portugal. There seems to be no good reason to end immigration completely or even to stop giving out citizenships to immigrants. For an example of a working immigration policy, check out Spain. It's not perfect but the immigration has given that country a large boost.

As for knowing who your first king was, I don't know who the first swedish king was and I'm really interested in history. You'd probably have to search for quite a while to find a Swede that can tell you the answer to that question without googling it. History class at school was really a little bit of European history but mainly World history. If you wanted to know Swedish history you had to find it out on your own. The simple fact is that as nations develop, the history taught in school tends to be less focused on it's own country and more on the rest of the world.

What you are saying might be true but you are only pointing out massive Kingdoms... Which, obviously, had a lot of people with diferent customs and languages inside.

Still, that does not mean nationalism did not exist... Russia got quite a "few" minorities inside their borders today, as do many other countries... If you are going to say that nationalism inside these countries do not exist, because they got countless people with diferent languages inside their borders or whatsoever, you are completely wrong.

About languages and nationalism, there are few examples of parts of countries that do not speak the same language as the capital but are still strongly nationalist. The many minorities within Russias borders usually feel a lot less strongly for Russia than ethnical Russians do.

In spain there's Catalonia which has it's own language(Catalan) and which has a population that feels less strongly 'Spanish' than the general populace does. Many Catalans still wish to have more autonomy and they define themselves as different from 'regular spaniards'. For example they recently banned bullfighting to demonstrate that they didn't agree with the current consensus in Spain.
Catalunya has been a part of Spain for more than 500 years.

It doesn't really matter that much what holds true for today though since back then there doesn't seem to have existed much nationalism, same language or not. The fact that different languages came to be spoken in what was supposedly single cultures is more like an effect of the regionalism that existed back then. Villages relatively close to eachother had much less interaction then than they had after the renaissance for example.

While some 'nationalism' seems to have existed among poorer people in the Rome towards the Roman Empire, there really doesn't seem to be any corresponding one during most of the middle ages. Outside of the royal family and a few nobles that is.

Using a "complete lack of ethnic homogeneity" to justify "nationalism" is a rather bad excuse in my opinion.

Some Ethnic homogeneity seems to be kind of a prerequisite for nationalism though. It's harder to feel a belonging with people who you don't really know much about and who speak kind of 'weird'(there were different accents even within Portugal). When you see people from the village a few kilometres away as about as foreign as the people over in France(from a portugese point of view) you're not going to be very nationalistic.



Sorry everyone about the long post!

 

[wobbit]

I think this has been raised before, but the problem with refering to "nationalism" in the middle ages is that the word carries a lot of baggage with it from the last couple of centuries. It's part of the whole "imposing modern consructs on the medieval world" taboo. On top of this, a lot of modern nations did not exist in the early middle ages, at least not in the form we know them today. BurningEGO's Portugal didn't exist as a kingdom at the start of the game for example. Germany and France had drastically different boundaries. England was ruled by a Frenchman/Viking. And Italy? Don't get me started on Italy. If you go back a bit further, things get even less recognisable- take a look at some maps of the late Carolingian world or Europe just after 888.

Ethnic identity is something that certainly did exist though, it's just that this often did not correspond to modern or contemporary national boundaries. In most cases it was overuled by other concens: relations with the king, religion and personal bonds spring to mind, but I'm sure there were others. On top of that, I think it was much harder to mobilise this concept as a unifying factor in the middle ages than it was in the 19/20th century. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I can think of examples that used ethnic identity to back rebellions or wars across most of the period and most of Europe, just that it didn't happen as often and was not as key a factor as it would be later.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Please stay on topic, modern immigation in relation to nationalism has nothing to do with this game.

 

[Robocommie]

What you are saying might be true but you are only pointing out massive Kingdoms... Which, obviously, had a lot of people with diferent customs and languages inside.

Still, that does not mean nationalism did not exist... Russia got quite a "few" minorities inside their borders today, as do many other countries... If you are going to say that nationalism inside these countries do not exist, because they got countless people with diferent languages inside their borders or whatsoever, you are completely wrong.

Using a "complete lack of ethnic homogeneity" to justify "nationalism" is a rather bad excuse in my opinion.

No, you're not understanding. For one thing, I didn't say there was no nationalism in the Middle Ages because there was no ethnic homogeneity, I said there was no nationalism because nationalism didn't come into existence until several centuries after the end of the medieval period - nationalism is more commonly associated with the French Revolution or the period of the German and Italian unifications. And you can't compare modern Russia with medieval governments, because things have changed, there have been dramatic developments in political science over the 800 years since the 13th century.

Listen, you can insist that nationalism existed, but it just didn't. It's an anachronism to say it did. Nationalism is only relevant as an ideology in the context of the existence of "nation-states" which didn't exist in the medieval period. There were no states, just hierarchies of landowners who owed allegiance to one another, and that's no more a state than a bunch of Somali or Afghani warlords constitute a state. States require governing institutions, like treasuries, judiciaries, standing armies - these things began to develop by the end of the Middle Ages but part of what signifies the end of the medieval period and the beginning of what is generally known as the early modern period was the existence of states as opposed to feudal contracts.

http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist3.xml;chunk.id=dv3-42

 

[Robocommie]

And I agree. Did it come off as something else? My wording isn't always the best om mondays evenings, so I apologize any misunderstanding

I wasn't quite clear on what you meant, so I apologize myself.

 

[Vaximillian]

(I think they are still responsible for russian localization of pdox games not sure)

Indeed they are.

 

[unmerged(8915)]

i think with the know how from Roma Universalis and EUIII:Httt a CK2-like game, not necessarily called that, has enormous potential.

 

[Quintarka]

Crusader kings for me was the only game that made me feel like I had to always be vary of my vassals as i never knew if could count on them to answer the call when needed. In most games you barely have to worry about anything its like you control every aspect of the society where as in Crusader kings you have to count on the other people(ai of course) to carry out your will.

I have never seen a game that shows this so well so i dont know what other company would be better to make this game honestly.

.

agreed its managing these relationships that make this game fun. and the fact that the events stated dont happen because the history changes the minute you start playing.
The frustratation of this game can be beautiful because i look back fondly of games where to my horror my wealthy huge kingdom unravels so quickly from something that in the begining seemed so minor

 

[Ayeshteni]

And so it begins.

Aye.

 

[Ambigore]

LMAO @ at the idea of medieval "nationalism".

People back in those days feared the Church more than their fellow countrymen. The only "nation" was the Christian nation. If you were French and a representative of the Pope told you to kill a French heretic, you killed him. Silly nationalists always trying to distort and insult history. :wacko:

 

[unmerged(121326)]

I'm a medieval-studies major at university. I fully agree with Orinsul's first post.

While in many respects this game is one of the best at capturing some aspects of medieval society, it fails horribly in most of the ways that Orinsul mentions. I'd say that most of the people defending the current CK representation of things such as serfdom/the church have not bothered actually learning about the Middle Ages in an academic setting and are mainly basing themselves on the typically inaccurate popular conceptions. While CK is probably the most accurate game on the Middle Ages out there (not saying much- there's not much competition), it falls victim to skewed-hindsight hollywoodism (if that's even a term).

Serf revolts were almost always in order to uphold the system, often when a lord tried to remove them from their land, which was bad as it removed their inheritance. Think of serfs almost like really low-level vassals- they don't want you to revoke their title to their land any more than a noble vassal does. Does your vassal Count Joe Smith of x-province moan and bitch about the fact that he has a county and is thus unable to move around all like those lucky landless courtiers, and ask you to remove his title so that he too can wander freely between foreign courts with 0 land to give his son? Doubt it.

A Serf's no different. Without land a serf is royally screwed. Hence, for the most part they had little or no interest in moving around, at least until the very late Middle Ages and near the end of CK's time-frame. Seeing CK events like requests to annul serfdom in 1088 are ludicrously laughable. CK should have a similar but opposite event but in which it notifies you that a Lord is trying to kick serfs off their land, with a similar noble vs. peasant loyalty/power decision chain.

And no, the Pope held high authority for a relatively short period during the Middle Ages, about the 12th century essentially. For most of the rest he was unable to really control the secular kings of Europe, especially in the periods of competing puppet antipopes (IE the French puppet hanging around in Avignon) when he was a total joke in terms of power. Definitely not the big-issue he is in CK.

I could think of other things, but yeah.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Let us look at the game called Crusader Kings.
In this game are featured Christian rulers (hence the starting nation limitations), which are encouraged to fight non-Christians (no need for claims on 'heathens').
They live, they entwine themselves to the surrounding world, they bargain and they strive for terrenial power - Measured in power (Prestige), Money, and only after that about Christianshp (Piety).
Being in stark contrast with Christianship, or pretending to manage single-handedly several nation Empires is not accepted, yes, but going a few steps off the main road isn't that bad. It always gets down to a good blending of sagacity, organizational ability and much cunning.

Now, on real world history: though rulers had to deal with 'realpolitik' and accept that one lacked the means to control large areas, even resorting to feudal contracts (in comparison to Roman standards, of course), where feudalism was in place they simply tried and raised their rank among peers.
Going up in power, dynasties grew from mere Counties to Duchies and then molded the first medieval, and not Roman-Barbarian, Kingdoms. Once reached that apex, Universalism kicked in - you were raised to think that the world could only belong to one Emperor and one Church, both blessed by God and whose will acted together as respectively patron and protector of Christian Europe. Thus you acted conforming to that model, and tried to create an 'Empire' which always was, in its naming, both 'Roman' and 'Christian'.

Therefore, is our game flawed in geopolitical representation of that? Well, yes - because that model itself is very streamlined; it accurately fits to Western Christianity, loosely represents Eastern Christianity and manages to encompass Orthodox Europe without blatant historical faults.
Papal influence is merely political, all in all, and playing as Empire of Byzantium or County of Arborea doesn't feel very much different excluding the different scale of domains and ambitions.

Paradoxian worldview may be simplistic or even socially inaccurate - but since CK is a grand strategy game, thus a mainly political simulator, I think the social aspects were forcibly dropped, or simplified a lot, to ensure quicker development and more organic/balanced gameplay; this can be applied to almost any Paradox grand strategy game, as the difference is usually portrayed by events (and then expanded by the lovely modding community!).

Now, however, Divine Wind has somehow opened to 'faction'-specific features; something which can, perhaps, lead to interesting additions to CK2 which I think may help cover the weakness the OP has perceived.
But that will probably happen only if there is development time left after the main core - world politics engine - is completed, and it will be easier if usable, already detailed in-game modifications are proposed.

 

[Xanthippus]

I want the game to reflect the era, not information screens but events to be ones that fit with the era, Laws and decisions and systems and mechanics to actually be representive of the Middle Ages, for the game to be SET during the time it covers. To have people who know what their talking about involved in the creation of the game.
Not just for flavour, but in the foundations of the game. To have it be a game ABOUT the middle ages, not just pretending to be. Victoria was built with the idea of capturing the spirit of the Victorian age, sadly the same was not true about Crusader Kings.

So what you mean to say is you want it to be an idyllic representation of some imagined golden age of old tyme glory and romanticism. I'm sorry but these posts of yours are the height of bull twaddle. I am a historian, and having spent much of my degree studying medieval Europe I can tell you that the representations of autocracy, corruption, oppression and slavery are not even a fraction of the reality. The only 'historians' who would tell Paradox otherwise are revisionists ala Keith Windshuttle, who will not only tell you the Middle Ages were a period of puppies and rainbows, but also that the holocaust never happened and that the Nazis were really just misunderstood and you would really like them if you took the time to get to know them through revised *cough*aka made up*cough* history.

Yes I'm sure if there was a fanatical Catholic sitting at Paradox's side they would make the era look all rosy. The reality is that the Church did abuse its power horribly, it played byzantine political games, sought to dominate, control and obfuscate. The Pope sought to create a unified Christendom with himself as it's absolute ruler. There is a very good reason why the reformation erupted 500 years later, it was a reaction to this horrid game the Popes played, their abuse of power and their violent, autocratic reactions to any and all opposition.

The notion that this was a Golden Era for Christendom is just absurd. There's a reason the period is known as the Dark Ages. While it's a misnomer that there was no social, political or technological progress at all, it was undoubtedly slowed, and even reversed in many cases. The Church worked tirelessly to root out 'heresy', and the Popes were not shy from declaring knowledge/research heretical. Europe stagnated while (at the time) much more liberal Islamic world bounded ahead technologically and socially. Thus why this period is known as the Muslim renaissance.

Finally, to call Feudalism and Serfdom anything other than the worst kind if tyranny and slavery is an utter farce. At least slaves in the classical period had the opportunity to work hard, impress their masters and be rewarded with freedom. And even those that didn't get that were still treated as valuable members of the family. Serfs had no such luxuries. They were doomed to toil and be treated as nothing more than indentured servants and human offal for the entirety of their existence. Yes they resisted change, that's unsurprising. Uneducated people often do, and these people were utterly and terminally uneducated, and moreover heavily indoctrinated by the church. They feared losing what little they had, and feared the wrath of God if they got 'greedy' and wished for more than their pitiful existence, and so they fought to maintain the status quo. That is hardly evidence that they loved being serfs.

Seriously, learn your history if you're going to make such wild accusations. If you're a devout Catholic and you want to dream of a time when the church dominated and everything was rosy, go ahead, but it has no bearing on reality.