Interregnum: Culture Definition and Discussion Thread
The issue of culture in Interregnum has been creating a lot of debate and problems for us of late. In each of the threads were it is being discussed, different solutions appear to be arising, or the debate is reaching similar conclusions. I'd like to think that we could come to a consensus about what culture actually represents in our mod and establish the guidelines for determining when a province/region/country deserves a distinct culture.
It is important to remember what culture affects in EU2, in order that we understand what it is supposed to represent. It's actually definied by not having the right culture:
+1 province revoltrisk
-30% province tax
-30% manpower
Significant issues, and what they principally represent are the economic and military support of a region, something that I believe are coordinated by a cultures elites. The culture of a province cannot - in the political realities of this era - be said to generally represent the 'common man'. Late 1700s enlightened Europe maybe. Non-feudal societies like Eire, maybe. But even in these situations, the common folk essentially take their orders from the society's elites. They may change those elites through revolution or election, but the ordering of a culture and the gaining of its economic and military cooperation is something the elites effect, not the common folk.
Most discussions about culture revolve around a number of key qualities, and these are:
Language
Law
Race
Social/Political structure
Historical biases
Let's look at each of these and consider their merits.
Language
I think that language is the one most commonly assumed to define culture in EU2. However, I believe that is actually the least significant of all the concepts. Let's consider French. In 1419 there is no French language. French as we know it today was formulated in the late 16th century as an administrative tool, a kind of 'esperanto' of the langues d'oil, the provincial dialects that existed in Gaul, especially east of Brittany and north of Limousin. French was not even spoken by most people in France until after 1918. On the other hand, Arabic was a comparatively more unified language that spread west with conquest. It's use as a definition for the cultures of those provinces works well enough, but I think it does so incidentally: these regions were also united by the religion and religious laws of the Qu'ran.
Law
Law is an important one, either customary law or written law. A society structures itself around law less than it does around language, both historically and in modern times as well. Canada is unified by the federal laws and charters, rather than by a common language. In fact, the laws and charters work hard to avoid monolingualism. Gaelic law in Eire and the Highlands of Scotland was quite detailed and a significant component of political structure of the country. While much of the regions of 'France' spoke different languages from one another, the similarities of customary law and the acceptance of a 'national' law help to define them as a nation. The common language came later.
Race
This is a tricky one. It's very hard to define and mostly plays out effectively when the comparisons are very significant, such as the Europeans vrs New World arena. But there are other components that might better define those differences and the issue of 'race' can get very messy. Which is not to say that we don't recognize racism as part of the EU2 world, but neither do we pander to it nor use it as a tool for structuring game play.
Social/Political Structure
This is a big one. Feudalism, nomadism, oligarchies, theocracies, tanistry and more. Some 'cultures' are have social structures that share more similarities than others. The feudal systems of England and France were very similar. When the English and the French conquer one another's lands, assimilating the ruling elites there and gaining their cooperation is much easier than, say, the English attempting to rule Eire; the Caliphate ruling the Bedouin; or the Teutonic Order ruling the Altai hordes.
Historical biases
Another tricky one. Traditional antipathies need to be considered, but we need to be careful that the ones which exist today might not have if history were different. But in Anatolia, for example, the pre-1419 repression by the Byzantines needs to be considered before we go giving Byzantium Turkish culture. Of course, this category is also linked fundamentally with Race.
Accordingly, I would rank the above elements in the following order, and remembering that I am referring principally to a regions elites, be they feudal inherited landowners, religious leaders or elected representatives:
1. Social/Political structure
2. Law
3. Language
4. Historical biases
5. Race
Applying this ranking system to the 'brythonic' culture being debated in this thread, it becomes clear that 'brythonic' is innapropriate as the culture to be used.
Brythonic is a family of languages in the provinces of Bretagne, Cornwall and Wales. Morbihan and Armor speak predominantly Gallo, one of the many langues d'oil. But they are unified by the similar customs, law and historical political structure of the Duchy of Brittany, something that is stronger in the Interregnum world than that of the Real World. Accordingly, for the Duchy of Brittany the more appropriate culture would be something like 'Breizh' indicating its distinctiveness from the 'French' lands to the west or the Inglis and Gaelic tothe north.
Not being part of Brittany and having a somewhat distinct social and legal structure, Wales ought not to have 'Breizh' culture at the start. However, it falls into the category of a province that might more easily convert its culture, given the many similarities with those Breizh provinces/Brittany. Equally, Armor and Morbihan would be more easily converted to French culture than, say, Bretagne or Anglia, and not principally because of Language differences, but because of limited dissimilarities of law and a certain degree of historical bias.
Then compare those provinces to Tunisia. The stark differences in law and social structure between Bretagne and Tunisia ought to ensure that Tunisa should never get Breizh culture and that Brittany can never get Arabic. Not unless the province is brutally gutten of its local population and the region supplanted with colonists from Brittany, effectively changing the principal race, law and social structure of the region, regardless of the fact that the remaining majority population would still remain Arabic speaking.
MattyG
The issue of culture in Interregnum has been creating a lot of debate and problems for us of late. In each of the threads were it is being discussed, different solutions appear to be arising, or the debate is reaching similar conclusions. I'd like to think that we could come to a consensus about what culture actually represents in our mod and establish the guidelines for determining when a province/region/country deserves a distinct culture.
It is important to remember what culture affects in EU2, in order that we understand what it is supposed to represent. It's actually definied by not having the right culture:
+1 province revoltrisk
-30% province tax
-30% manpower
Significant issues, and what they principally represent are the economic and military support of a region, something that I believe are coordinated by a cultures elites. The culture of a province cannot - in the political realities of this era - be said to generally represent the 'common man'. Late 1700s enlightened Europe maybe. Non-feudal societies like Eire, maybe. But even in these situations, the common folk essentially take their orders from the society's elites. They may change those elites through revolution or election, but the ordering of a culture and the gaining of its economic and military cooperation is something the elites effect, not the common folk.
Most discussions about culture revolve around a number of key qualities, and these are:
Language
Law
Race
Social/Political structure
Historical biases
Let's look at each of these and consider their merits.
Language
I think that language is the one most commonly assumed to define culture in EU2. However, I believe that is actually the least significant of all the concepts. Let's consider French. In 1419 there is no French language. French as we know it today was formulated in the late 16th century as an administrative tool, a kind of 'esperanto' of the langues d'oil, the provincial dialects that existed in Gaul, especially east of Brittany and north of Limousin. French was not even spoken by most people in France until after 1918. On the other hand, Arabic was a comparatively more unified language that spread west with conquest. It's use as a definition for the cultures of those provinces works well enough, but I think it does so incidentally: these regions were also united by the religion and religious laws of the Qu'ran.
Law
Law is an important one, either customary law or written law. A society structures itself around law less than it does around language, both historically and in modern times as well. Canada is unified by the federal laws and charters, rather than by a common language. In fact, the laws and charters work hard to avoid monolingualism. Gaelic law in Eire and the Highlands of Scotland was quite detailed and a significant component of political structure of the country. While much of the regions of 'France' spoke different languages from one another, the similarities of customary law and the acceptance of a 'national' law help to define them as a nation. The common language came later.
Race
This is a tricky one. It's very hard to define and mostly plays out effectively when the comparisons are very significant, such as the Europeans vrs New World arena. But there are other components that might better define those differences and the issue of 'race' can get very messy. Which is not to say that we don't recognize racism as part of the EU2 world, but neither do we pander to it nor use it as a tool for structuring game play.
Social/Political Structure
This is a big one. Feudalism, nomadism, oligarchies, theocracies, tanistry and more. Some 'cultures' are have social structures that share more similarities than others. The feudal systems of England and France were very similar. When the English and the French conquer one another's lands, assimilating the ruling elites there and gaining their cooperation is much easier than, say, the English attempting to rule Eire; the Caliphate ruling the Bedouin; or the Teutonic Order ruling the Altai hordes.
Historical biases
Another tricky one. Traditional antipathies need to be considered, but we need to be careful that the ones which exist today might not have if history were different. But in Anatolia, for example, the pre-1419 repression by the Byzantines needs to be considered before we go giving Byzantium Turkish culture. Of course, this category is also linked fundamentally with Race.
Accordingly, I would rank the above elements in the following order, and remembering that I am referring principally to a regions elites, be they feudal inherited landowners, religious leaders or elected representatives:
1. Social/Political structure
2. Law
3. Language
4. Historical biases
5. Race
Applying this ranking system to the 'brythonic' culture being debated in this thread, it becomes clear that 'brythonic' is innapropriate as the culture to be used.
Brythonic is a family of languages in the provinces of Bretagne, Cornwall and Wales. Morbihan and Armor speak predominantly Gallo, one of the many langues d'oil. But they are unified by the similar customs, law and historical political structure of the Duchy of Brittany, something that is stronger in the Interregnum world than that of the Real World. Accordingly, for the Duchy of Brittany the more appropriate culture would be something like 'Breizh' indicating its distinctiveness from the 'French' lands to the west or the Inglis and Gaelic tothe north.
Not being part of Brittany and having a somewhat distinct social and legal structure, Wales ought not to have 'Breizh' culture at the start. However, it falls into the category of a province that might more easily convert its culture, given the many similarities with those Breizh provinces/Brittany. Equally, Armor and Morbihan would be more easily converted to French culture than, say, Bretagne or Anglia, and not principally because of Language differences, but because of limited dissimilarities of law and a certain degree of historical bias.
Then compare those provinces to Tunisia. The stark differences in law and social structure between Bretagne and Tunisia ought to ensure that Tunisa should never get Breizh culture and that Brittany can never get Arabic. Not unless the province is brutally gutten of its local population and the region supplanted with colonists from Brittany, effectively changing the principal race, law and social structure of the region, regardless of the fact that the remaining majority population would still remain Arabic speaking.
MattyG
Last edited:
