• 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.

St. Leo

Major
77 Badges
Jun 4, 2001
516
0
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Divine Wind
  • Cities in Motion
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For The Glory
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Why shouldn't we eliminate Lithuanian Culture? It's the other (non-Latvian) major component of the Baltic Culture. We can also change Poland's handling of exTeutonic provinces by giving them Baltic culture sometime after their union with Lithuania. The way I see it, merging Lithuanian back into Baltic is a win-win situation.
 
In a matter fact the separate Lithuanian culture did not exist in the mentioned period. Official language in the Lithuania was... Ruthenian.
So - Baltic one would be made properly...
 
I can't agree :) Lithuanian culture was (and is) reality. It's quite different from Latvian (closer to Prussian - means inhabitants of Prussia BEFORE Teutonic Order).
The core lithuanian land (north-west) definitely has own culture, different from ruthenian (on south) and russian (on east). The consequences of it were serious: Kozaks' uprisings on the south due to (among many others) cultural differences.
 
Originally posted by St. Leo
The way I see it, merging Lithuanian back into Baltic is a win-win situation.

Yeah. In Fluid Cultures, I reduced the area of Lithuanian culture to one and a half provinces, replacing the rest with White Russian. I'm considering a Lithuanian-Baltic merge for the next version. The only down-side I can see is that it would make it easier for Lithuania to hold the Baltic provnces, which they didn't do historically.
 
Many people note that Lithuania does too well. If Lithuanian is replaced with white russian and then the government doesn't recieve white russian then they won't recieve as much money. Especially if Lithuania is the only province with baltic and Lithuania recieves baltic. Hopefully without much money coming in Lithuania won't be able to fight a successful war against TO and they will therefore not gain any additional baltic provinces though the fact that they become protestant means that they won't always be as valuable to Lithuania. This will also mean that Lithuania won't always convert all their orthodox non-ruthenian provinces. Should Russia recieve the white russian culture?
 
I can agree with merging Lithuania with the rest of Baltic culture <OR giving Lithuania baltic state culture> for the following reasons:

A> Lithuanian culture/language is considered by anthropologists to be a part of the "Baltic" group, including the Latvians, Old Prussians <now extinct> and other small ethnic groups like the Yatwingians and Semogitians that have now been assimilated into Lithuanian or German society. Realistically, Lithuanians were very close culturally to the peoples that occupy the baltic culture provinces in EUII, and have substantially similar historical backgrounds. While there IS a difference between the Latvian and Prussian cultures and the Lithuanian culture, there is logic behind integrating all of them into the Baltic group.

B> Lithuania did have substantial claims to Memel and Courland on a cultural and political level <in fact, a sliver of Courland and the entire Memel province belong to modern day Lithuania>, and integrating Lithuanian and Baltic cultures would allow this on a gameplay level. Lithuania doesn't have to, and probably shouldn't recieve CBs on the other Baltic provinces, but this is a good way of simulating this claim.

C> Many of the Balts <in this context, the Latvian and Prussian provinces, but anthropologically "Balts" refers to the "Baltic group" mentioned in A> were still pagan and still practice their ancient customs under German rule. A significant cultural rift had not yet grown between the Lithuanians, Prussians and Latvians <in modern times, Latvian and Lithuanian languages are still more similar to each other than any other language>.

Also. To clear something up. "White Russians" refers to the Belorussians, most of whom consider themselves a distinct cultural group from both Lithuanians and Russians. The people and territory now known as Belarus was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since the 13th century, and some of modern Belarus was the territory of various Lithuanian pagan tribes before that. Also, modern Belarus' national symbol is a stylized version of the Vytis <The white knight rampant on a red field, also national symbol of Lithuania>. I'd say Belarus province in EUII is staunchly Lithuanian/Baltic culture in 1419 though. Belorussian nationalism is a rather recent phenomenon.

And I don't know what the hell Pithorr is smoking. Honestly. That's one of the most "interesting" <my mod-conscious adjective> statements I've ever heard.
 
Originally posted by TheLotus
And I don't know what the hell Pithorr is smoking. Honestly. That's one of the most "interesting" <my mod-conscious adjective> statements I've ever heard.

Uuuh, I did not since a loong time... :)

What do you mean? My notice about language?
Ruthenian (not Russian!) was official language of Great Duchy in fact. Lithuanians did really conquered their lands in 13-14th centuries, however were culturally absorbed by older and more sophisticated Ruthenians...
Jogaila was talking with his court in Ruthenian...
The official languages of The Commonwealth were:
- Latin, then replaced by Polish,
- Ruthenian,
- German.
If you can read Polish I propose
this text.
 
Last edited:
In all my research on the subject of medieval Lithuania and Poland, I have never seen any evidence or even mention of Ruthenian as a dominant culture in the Grand Duchy. As far as I know, the Ruthenian territories were merely a wing of Lithuanian land conquered in the 14th and 15th centuries.

If you could find some other texts supporting your claim, I'd be interested, because I CANNOT read Polish =P
 
OK,
here you are for example.
The beginning of Lithuanian writing is marked by the Chronicles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, written in the official east Slav language. During the Middle Ages, and particularly during the Renaissance period, the Latin and Polish languages were used in Lithuania. The folk Lithuanian language was accorded a marginal function.
Cheers :)
 
Originally posted by TheLotus
In all my research on the subject of medieval Lithuania and Poland, I have never seen any evidence or even mention of Ruthenian as a dominant culture in the Grand Duchy. As far as I know, the Ruthenian territories were merely a wing of Lithuanian land conquered in the 14th and 15th centuries.

If you could find some other texts supporting your claim, I'd be interested, because I CANNOT read Polish =P


No offence, Lotus, but the fact that Ruthenian (which then referred to the language of both the White Russians and the Ruthenians) was the state language of Lithuania is a well-known fact. The only history book which I'm carrying with me at the moment is Denis Hay's "Europe in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries", which mentions the fact, but it shouldn't be hard to find oodles of support for pithorr's claim. As pithorr said, Jogiello/Vwadiswav adopted Ruthenian as the state language because the state was utterly dominated by the White Russians (who were far more sophisticated than their Lithuanian overlords).
 
Yes, my mistake. You guys are quite right. I have seen through more extensive research on the topic that Ruthenian/East Slavic was the language of state in Lithuania. <This claim was also made of Belorussian, which I refute just as strongly as the nation that the GDL was a "Belorussian" nation>.

I don't believe that pithorr can reasonably make the arguement that Lithuanian culture "did not exist" in the medieval period. Perhaps, pithorr, you are referring to influences that Slavonic peoples such as the Belorussians and other Baltic tribes like the Latvians had on the Lithuanians.
 
Originally posted by TheLotus
Yes, my mistake. You guys are quite right. I have seen through more extensive research on the topic that Ruthenian/East Slavic was the language of state in Lithuania. <This claim was also made of Belorussian, which I refute just as strongly as the nation that the GDL was a "Belorussian" nation>.

I'm not too much of an expert on some of the other topics mentioned here, but I can handle this one.

Ruthenian/East Slavic/Belorussian/White Russian are all different terms and names for the same ethnic group of people.

alberta.gif
BarristerBoy
 
<i>Ruthenian/East Slavic/Belorussian/White Russian are all different terms and names for the same ethnic group of people.</i>

What about Ukrainian?
lpetr_anarchy.gif
 
Originally posted by St. Leo
<i>Ruthenian/East Slavic/Belorussian/White Russian are all different terms and names for the same ethnic group of people.</i>

What about Ukrainian?
lpetr_anarchy.gif

"Ukrainian" is 19th century invent.
In medieval period after fall of Kievian Duchy there were many Ruthenian principalties in present Ukraine territory...
I think the most common name was Red Russians (not those of 1917 :)) or just Ruthenians...
 
Originally posted by TheLotus
I don't believe that pithorr can reasonably make the arguement that Lithuanian culture "did not exist" in the medieval period. Perhaps, pithorr, you are referring to influences that Slavonic peoples such as the Belorussians and other Baltic tribes like the Latvians had on the Lithuanians.

Misunderstanding...
I stated "separate Lithuanian culture" in the means of EU...
Of course Lithuanians had their culture as each tribe used to do.
But better way would be to name it Baltic one, as it was relatively close to Latvian or Prussian.
And for sure Witebsk, Belarus or Polock should have rather Ruthenian culture.
You know, we have not got separate culture for Serbia, Croatia and Bulgaria as well. My proposal during discussion about EU2 was not to include "national" cultures, but for example: italic, iberian, germanic, west-, east-, south-slavic, gaellic, baltic etc...
 
Originally posted by BarristerBoy


I'm not too much of an expert on some of the other topics mentioned here, but I can handle this one.

Ruthenian/East Slavic/Belorussian/White Russian are all different terms and names for the same ethnic group of people.

alberta.gif
BarristerBoy

I have to disagree.

Ruthenians = a term used ambiguously to refer sometimes to Russians under Polish and Lithuanian sovereignty during the Middle-Ages and sometimes only to those under Polish sovereignty.

Red Russian = Name given by Poles to Russian principalities (mostly Galicia and its satellite statelets) seized early on by them. Poland would later go on to take more Russian principalities, but would by that time be calling its Russians "Ruthenians" (a mispronunciation of the Ruthenian word for "Russian").

White Russian = Name for Russian ("Ruthenian") subjects under Lithuanian (NOT Polish) sovereignty during the Middle Ages.

B(i)elorussian = Modern name for White Russians (not Ruthenians in general).

Ukrainian = A name first used in 18th C, but not widely until the 19th C. Refers to the mix of Ruthenians and Cossacks who lived in the Ukraine.

Ruthenian language in 1419 = Russian language in 1419 = language of all three ethnic groups. It was called "Russian" inside Russia, and "Ruthenian" outside (though the Ruthenians themselves called their language "Russian"). In 1419, all three ethnic groups (really one ethnic group at the time) identify as "Russians", due to their status as splinter-ethnicities from the Rus, who had their capital in Kiev (i.e. the Ukrainian/Ruthenian heartland) and occupied all Russian/Ruthenian lands (as a united ethnic Kingdom).

Given the confusing nature of the terms, I went with the EUII designers and used "Ruthenian" in Fluid Cultures to refer to those Ruthenians/Russians who were under Polish sovereignty and developed culturally into those people later referred to unambiguously as "Ruthenes", in opposition to "White Russians" and "Great Russians" (i.e. of Russia proper).
 
Last edited:
umm, yeah...

Hi all,

um, you have gone into territory i have never studied here. The question of Ruthenian/Russian/Byelorussian ethinicity is beyond my knowledge, although i would say that the eastern slavic city states in the middle ages (Vladimir/Chernigov) were much less 'Russ' then the more western of the East Slav states (Kiev/Smolensk/Novgorod). Lets face it; the money was in Novgorod and Kiev.

I have always felt that much of the 'Great Russian' antipathy and outright racism towards 'Ruthenians' was largely an historic factor from being on the sidelines for 500 years until Muscowy rose and was able to lord it over the more Western states in Russia. Being told that you are scum is a good reason to say your culture is both different and as good as the Great Russians.

But i could be completly wrong, as this is not what i wrote about anyway.

okay, Lithuanian as a seperate culture.
The GD. of Lithuania was formed after the mongol invasion and several clans of um, 'Turks' for lack of a better word stayed in what is Lithuania in the game and became nobles and landholders in the GD. The Turks provided many of the skills which gave Poland and Lithuania the finest light cavalry in Europe for the next couple hundred years. Napoleon even tried to form a 'Tatar' brigade in 1812-13 before he was run out of Russia.
So, i believe 'Lithuanian' does deserve to be a seperate culture in our game.

Like i said, i am definitely NOT an expert on Poland-Lithuania or Russia so i welcome all feedback and wacks upside the head calling me dufus.

Michael 'I know Ummayyads and Unitarians and Italian states in the 1300's and 1400's and the horse nomads but, i do not know Russia or Poland!' Johnson