EU4: Please add more historical accurate practice of political theory

[ANO1453]

Iberia may not be much of a continuum today, but that does not mean it was not a continuum in 1444.

Again, Wikipedia:

Don't forget, this is an era before state run education systems could regulate language, and before people felt much loyalty to anything other then their town or village.

Yet again, Wikipedia:

Most theories see the nation state as a 19th-century European phenomenon, facilitated by developments such as mass literacy and the early mass media. However, historians also note the early emergence of a relatively unified state, and a sense of common identity, in Portugal and the Dutch Republic.

Not really, reading your posts proves there was a romantic nationalism in Portugal.

No, it proves that just because the big countries (France, Britain, Spain) were heterogeneous ab origine, some seem to think that was the case everywhere.

Being uneducated en masse they "did not talk the same" but only local dialects of the supposed Portuguese literature language.

See ethnic-linguistic map above.

 

[JakopDalunde]

Although I'm playing grand strategy games from the very beginning of PBM games in 80s and 90s, although I'm impressed by VIC2, HOI3 and CK2, ... I must say that I was somehow dissapointed of EU3. So I like to put my issues here for you guys, hoping it helps.

(...)

If you need help concerning theory of politics, science, culture, or philosophy, history or sciences at all, it would be a pleasure. Just PM me.

I agree with the OP on the first two points. But it might be fruitful to add that the hurdles are not necessarily about expertise or knowledge on the actual theory. It's more a question about game development. How are these theories developed into fun and immersive game mechanics?

Surely, it all begins with theory. But I gather that the heavy lifting is in development, coding, researching, testing, scripting, debugging and balancing.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

Again, Wikipedia:

That could easily be a continuum, with Leonese halfway between Castilian and Portuguese. It also puts Galician and Portuguese together, showing that the region of spain just north of Portugal shares a lot with with portugal.

Also, they have no real way of knowing how the common people spoke back in 1400, they have access to the writing of the rich and wealthy (who would have invariably spoken very differently from the commoners), but the commoners didn't write things down.

It becomes even more clear when you consider that Portuguese and Castillian Spanish are already somewhat mutually intelligible even today. That means in parts of Portugal(say just across from Badajoz) close to the border, the language would have been halfway between the two, and not dissimiliar to the language in Badajoz, while in Lisbon it would have been close to the Portuguese we know today, meanwhile in Porto it may have been something quite different.

Yet again, Wikipedia:
Most theories see the nation state as a 19th-century European phenomenon, facilitated by developments such as mass literacy and the early mass media. However, historians also note the early emergence of a relatively unified state, and a sense of common identity, in Portugal and the Dutch Republic.

Doesn't show any dates. They may be talking about the Dutch and Portuguese developing a sense of nationalism earlier then elsewhere in Europe, say in 1700, whereas the rest of Europe developed it in 1800-1850. Doesn't prove anything about 1400 though.

No, it proves that just because the big countries (France, Britain, Spain) were heterogeneous ab origine, some seem to think that was the case everywhere.

It was the case everywhere. It's simply a case of linguistics. Consider today how in your city one part may speak really differently to another, those differences would have been even larger in 1400, and would have extended across the country.

 

[Herr Doctor]

See ethnic-linguistic map above.

It does not portrait the dialects at all, only the standardised languages tradition. For example Catalan and Valencian are the same language but two dialects and two different identities that preserved even today.

 

[ANO1453]

That could easily be a continuum, with Leonese halfway between Castilian and Portuguese.

How is Leonese half-way between Castillian and Portuguese?

Also, they have no real way of knowing how the common people spoke back in 1400, they have access to the writing of the rich and wealthy (who would have invariably spoken very differently from the commoners), but the commoners didn't write things down.

I'm glad people already conducted linguistic studies:

The linguistic studies, (coming from the previous century, with Fernão de Oliveira and João de Barros) become fashionable. (...) A very curious aspect of this movement is the attention dedicated to popular speech

It becomes even more clear when you consider that Portuguese and Castillian Spanish are already somewhat mutually intelligible even today.

Not fully. It seems the difference in sounds makes it more easier for a Portuguese to understand a Spanish than vice-versa.

That means in parts of Portugal(say just across from Badajoz) close to the border, the language would have been halfway between the two, and not dissimiliar to the language in Badajoz, while in Lisbon it would have been close to the Portuguese we know today, meanwhile in Porto it may have been something quite different.

Even today, the differences between dialects are just the pronunciation of one or two diphthongs, while the differences towards Castillian are greater, in core vocabulary, in sounds they don't even have, in overall pronunciation... there is no reason to believe the differences between there were less differences between Castillian and the Portuguese speech of border areas than amongst the Portuguese dialects. In fact, you see no correlation whatsoever between dialectal development and proximity to the border - with a single notable exception, which is also of recent (last 200 years) origin.

Doesn't show any dates. They may be talking about the Dutch and Portuguese developing a sense of nationalism earlier then elsewhere in Europe, say in 1700, whereas the rest of Europe developed it in 1800-1850. Doesn't prove anything about 1400 though.

I'm not saying there was a sense of nationalism, just saying that it was a nation-state.

Portugal is an example - the oldest nation-state in Europe, and even so its diaspora, after the Discoveries, is recognised world wide. But what makes her recognised as such [nation-state] is that, despite being surrounded by other lands and peoples, the Portuguese nation occupied the same territory for almost 900 years and all the people that lived there merged into a single one.

Wikipedia

All this to say EU3 represented this aspect fine.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Of course, the Portuguese nation is the oldest in the world.
Nationalism is the religion of the late modern age, so such discussions with nationalists involved are not usually very productive.

 

[ANO1453]

Of course, the Portuguese nation is the oldest in the world.

Wikipedia says nation-state in Europe, because of correspondence state <-> nation. Did you actually read anything?

Nationalism is the religion of the late modern age, so such discussions with nationalists involved are not usually very productive.

The only reason I use the Portuguese example is because it is the example I know. I don't know enough about the Irish or Dutch or whatever history to use as an example.

Note: If someone could spilt this and send off into OT, that would be nice.

 

[Merrick Chance']

Nationalism was a force in early modern Europe, but it had nowhere near the power of religion or feudal tradition. This is because it wasn't a fully conceptualized idea yet. Portugual wasn't a Nation in 1444 any more than the Weavers were socialist in 1815.

 

[unmerged(21857)]

Agreed,

I don't think it is necessarily an either or argument. One could say Portugual was an example of a very early, proto-nation state...but it would be wrong to suggest it was the same as a nation state in the 19th century.

With technology being handled differently in EUIV I imagine governments will likewise change.

 

[pirro]

Portuguese and castillian are very, very similar, specially old-castillian (which isn't like now-days castilian/spanish, with fancy letters as ç ss and such) and old-portuguese.
And in some areas of Badajoz and Galicia, portuguese is the second language in the vast majority of the homes

 

[Kurblius]

If EU's timeframe was a transition period between kingdom to nation-state - isn't this roughly encapsulated by EU3's sliders of Centralization-Decentralization, Feudalism-Free Subject? And if not, could not it be incorporated somehow by making a Slider for it?

 

[Merrick Chance']

If EU's timeframe was a transition period between kingdom to nation-state - isn't this roughly encapsulated by EU3's sliders of Centralization-Decentralization, Feudalism-Free Subject? And if not, could not it be incorporated somehow by making a Slider for it?

I think that it's better implemented via national ideas. Perhaps replacing 'liberte egalite fraternite' with 'nationhood', or 'civic nationhood', which would require a number of government NIs to implement. Nationhood would give far lower RR, +tolerance and taxes, but would also be such a specific idea that you'd have to avoid all other kinds of ideas if you want to get it early.

 

[Grubnessul]

I think that it's better implemented via national ideas. Perhaps replacing 'liberte egalite fraternite' with 'nationhood', or 'civic nationhood', which would require a number of government NIs to implement. Nationhood would give far lower RR, +tolerance and taxes, but would also be such a specific idea that you'd have to avoid all other kinds of ideas if you want to get it early.

Giving it increasing manpower and taxes in primary culture provinces while increasing rr significantly in wrong culture provinces sounds more logical to me.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

Portuguese and castillian are very, very similar, specially old-castillian (which isn't like now-days castilian/spanish, with fancy letters as ç ss and such) and old-portuguese.
And in some areas of Badajoz and Galicia, portuguese is the second language in the vast majority of the homes

This.

Modern Portuguese and Castillian Spanish are the result of two diverging literary traditions taking place over several hundred years. The language of the illiterate peasant of 1444 would have been very different to the literary language spoken today.

 

[Merrick Chance']

Giving it increasing manpower and taxes in primary culture provinces while increasing rr significantly in wrong culture provinces sounds more logical to me.

Hm, right you are. But there should definitely be + a lot of tolerance, as nationhood replaced religion in the early 18th century as the key factor in insider-outsider thinking.

 

[ANO1453]

Nationalism was a force in early modern Europe, but it had nowhere near the power of religion or feudal tradition. This is because it wasn't a fully conceptualized idea yet. Portugual wasn't a Nation in 1444 any more than the Weavers were socialist in 1815.

I think I have expressed myself badly. I did not meant that the people were nationalistic, rather, that they constituted a nation.

 

[ANO1453]

And in some areas of Badajoz and Galicia, portuguese is the second language in the vast majority of the homes

Some linguists say Galician as in part of Galician-Portuguese - and they are so alike it I am led to agree with them.

 

[pirro]

Some linguists say Galician as in part of Galician-Portuguese - and they are so alike it I am led to agree with them.

I was taught that in the other side of the border too. But, c'mon, I lived in badajoz and many of my friends (and even I) could perfectly understand our "lusos" friends
I still hate some portugueses due to football, but that's another story

 

[Plushie]

Both the USA...independence wars were tax revolutions.

No.

I know this is the way it's taught in many parts of the world, but this just. isn't. true.

 

[Evie HJ]

It's apparently taught that way in the US too, seeing how many people routinely use the revolution symbolism for anti-tax movements.