-
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.
The point is that when the game starts in 1066 there were no Afonsine dynasty, and there were no independant Portugal. Even if the County of Portucale is in that won't be the Afonsine dynasty. Since the dynasties evolve dynamically after the start, there is no way to tell which dynasty will rule a Portugal, or if the Kingdom of Portugal will even exist. It might be a Afonsine dynasty, or it could be a Rodrigine(sp?) dynasty...
A small point on the Habsburg/Hapsburg thing. It wasn't a miss-spelling of "Habsburg" per se, but in the evolution German -> English, many 'b's turned into 'p's. There are many many words in English which are just German words with b->p. So it wasn't that Habsburg was miss-spelled - it was just integral enough to the German language to get 'translated' when moved over to English.
I know CK is only coming out with a Grand Campaign, but I thought sergei said they would release campaigns later on. Has this plan been changed? Even if it has, I’m not too worried, as this board has a great mod community and I’m sure if I pester someone enough I’ll get the campaign I wantOriginally posted by Txini
In Ck supposedely is only GC, so only sure thing is waht there was in the date the game starts, from there on nothing has to be like in History
.
I have heard nothing about the later scenario(s) being scrapped.Originally posted by HVC
I know CK is only coming out with a Grand Campaign, but I thought sergei said they would release campaigns later on. Has this plan been changed? Even if it has, I’m not too worried, as this board has a great mod community and I’m sure if I pester someone enough I’ll get the campaign I want
About a month ago i read that the first Portuguese ruler (Emre?) might have been a relative of I.István....I'll be happy to put the Arpad dinast to the throne of Portugal
Originally posted by Attilio
About a month ago i read that the first Portuguese ruler (Emre?) might have been a relative of I.István....I'll be happy to put the Arpad dinast to the throne of Portugal
The first ruler of what would become Portugal was a quite definitely a Capetian of the Burgunidan line. However, given the intermarriage between the various European noble houses, they were in all probability related in some way or another (perhaps Havard can look through is notes to see if there was an Arpad-Capetian marriage during the period)
None that I know of. Henri/Enrique of Portugal war, as you mentions, of Capetian stock (great-great-grandson of Huges Capet) with only French/Occitan blood on his fathers side for the first three generations. His mother was of the house of Barcelona with connections to Castile. No Árpads there...
Really ? I read the article in the Science section of a weekly economy newspaper called HVG, if i remember correctly the article described a link between Duke Imre of the Árpáds and the Burgundian dinasty. Looks like i shouldn't trust that magazine
... Are you absolutely sure ?
Do you have any more info on what the alledged connection was? Who and when?Originally posted by Attilio
Really ? I read the article in the Science section of a weekly economy newspaper called HVG, if i remember correctly the article described a link between Duke Imre of the Árpáds and the Burgundian dinasty. Looks like i shouldn't trust that magazine
Edit: Unless you mean the Imre (Emeric?) who was king of Hungary 1196-1204. His mother was a Capet. That is way after the start of the Afonsine line in Portugal though...
Last edited:
All I know is that I want to play as the Ui'Niell and the Mac Donalds for Ireland and Scotland respectfully(I think the Mac Donalds existed at this time). This should be a great game; the Stone of Destiny shall scream and a new Ard Ri shal lbe declared
Wasn't this originally a thread about various dynasty names? I thought there was a sticky about the souverign dynasties of Europe in 1066 here as well.
The sovereign dynasties thread is in the meta-thread
Any comments are welcome...
Last edited:
Originally posted by Wasa
Real scholars?..real names?...real history?...hmm...Havard, what shall we do with those 1500 fake names we came up with???...
you guys were coming up with generic names for bohemia, poland, hungary, serbia etc.?
i think it should be a group effort on par with the map quest. but i have trust in you wasa, although those czech names can get tricky...not to mention the hungarian ones. i think the developers just searched history books for any names they could get their hands on and then use it as generic names for linguistic regions. i hope
Re: Re: Dynasty names ?
Tanslating names, family as well as Christian, was common in the old days. Just to pick on one of your bete noires, let's jump to Byzantium:
In Greek, it was Kantakozinos
In Latin, it was Cantacuzinus
In Romanian, it was halfway between Greek and Latin: Cantacuzino
In French, it was Cantacuzene
My grandmother (who was born one) would regularly change between the Romanian and French spellings depending upon language and circumstances, and when refering to the imperial past, always used the Latin spelling. The Greek, admittedly, has long been archaic.
I signed up here as Alexandre because Alexander was already taken. But, in English, I always use Alexander, in French Alexandre, in Romanian Alexandru, and I've been called Sandor by Hungarians and Iskander by Moslems without offesnse being intended or taken.
If the name is important enough, it'll exist in multiple languages and those langauges will spell the word differently.
Admittedly, we're now in a "multicultural" phase where we're trying to use "authentic" "local" names, and both EU and CK reflect that. (After all, if we were trying to be historically accurate, we'd be reduced to Latin/Slavonic and Arabic province names.) While I don't mind the regionalism inherent in "local" names, I think that we should remember that it is a fairly recent, and somewhat silly trend.
Alexandre (or Alexander, or Alexandru, or Alexandrus, or Sandor or Iskander or Skander or . . . .)
Tanslating names, family as well as Christian, was common in the old days. Just to pick on one of your bete noires, let's jump to Byzantium:
In Greek, it was Kantakozinos
In Latin, it was Cantacuzinus
In Romanian, it was halfway between Greek and Latin: Cantacuzino
In French, it was Cantacuzene
My grandmother (who was born one) would regularly change between the Romanian and French spellings depending upon language and circumstances, and when refering to the imperial past, always used the Latin spelling. The Greek, admittedly, has long been archaic.
I signed up here as Alexandre because Alexander was already taken. But, in English, I always use Alexander, in French Alexandre, in Romanian Alexandru, and I've been called Sandor by Hungarians and Iskander by Moslems without offesnse being intended or taken.
If the name is important enough, it'll exist in multiple languages and those langauges will spell the word differently.
Admittedly, we're now in a "multicultural" phase where we're trying to use "authentic" "local" names, and both EU and CK reflect that. (After all, if we were trying to be historically accurate, we'd be reduced to Latin/Slavonic and Arabic province names.) While I don't mind the regionalism inherent in "local" names, I think that we should remember that it is a fairly recent, and somewhat silly trend.
Alexandre (or Alexander, or Alexandru, or Alexandrus, or Sandor or Iskander or Skander or . . . .)