Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Lithuanian Culture

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
1. Lithuanians were one of the Baltic peoples, but they managed to carve out an empire in the east out of Bielorussian lands.

2. Modern Lithuanian and Latvian (Kurlandian/Livonian) are each other's closest linguistic relatives and the two countries are very close politically.

3. Lithuanians kept trying to take the Baltic Sea provinces from the Teutonic Knights. They were unable to do so for military rather than social reasons.

4. I don't know anything about their assimilation of the good ol' Mongols.
lpetr_anarchy.gif
 
Russian Bielarus

Baltic: Lithuania
Russian: Belarus, Polotsk, Welikia
Ruthenian: Volyn, Mozyr

This is a great option because:
1. If Lithuania has Russian culture and Poland does not, then after the merger Poland's hold on its northern borders will slip.
2. There is no longer a case for giving Russia Lithuanian Culture.

Ruthenian Bielarus

Baltic: Lithuania
Russian: Welikia
Polish: Volyn
Ruthenian: Mozyr, Belarus, Polotsk

Poland will start out with Ruthenian culture but lose it circa the time of the Cossack revolts, resulting in it losing grip on both the North and the East Slav lands.
 
Re: umm, yeah...

Originally posted by Lycortas2
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.
Click to expand...
Err, not really.
 
Originally posted by loseth


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).
Click to expand...
Errr, wrong again. Those terms may be confusing in English, but they aren't that much in Slavic languages (at least in Polish). For example, Belorussian means 'white Russian'.
 
My limited knowledge of the ethnic/linguistic strains of Eastern Europe (mostly drawn from the old "Empires of the Middle Ages" wargame) is that there was an "East Slavic" language group that encompassed modern Byelorussia, Russia, and Ukraine, a "West Slavic" group that included Poland and Czechoslovakia, and a "Baltic" group that consisted of Lithuania, Latvia and Livonia.

It seems that the names "Ruthenian", "Red Russian", "Ukrainian" and "Byelorussian" don't refer to language, culture or ethnicity; they refer to history. The Byelorussians were East Slavics that were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Ruthenians East Slavics that were part of the Kingdom of Poland, the Ukrainians were East Slavs comprising Cossack domains, etc. It seems that these labels all refer to a population with essentially the same culture and language.

Granted, over the centuries, differences would appear as a result of the different cultural contacts each of these groups had with their overlords. But was it enough to make them distinct in EU2 terms? Probably not.

I'd say redesignate the existing "lithuanian" provinces as either baltic (Lithuania) or ruthenian (the rest).
 
Originally posted by crooktooth
My limited knowledge of the ethnic/linguistic strains of Eastern Europe (mostly drawn from the old "Empires of the Middle Ages" wargame) is that there was an "East Slavic" language group that encompassed modern Byelorussia, Russia, and Ukraine, a "West Slavic" group that included Poland and Czechoslovakia, and a "Baltic" group that consisted of Lithuania, Latvia and Livonia.

It seems that the names "Ruthenian", "Red Russian", "Ukrainian" and "Byelorussian" don't refer to language, culture or ethnicity; they refer to history. The Byelorussians were East Slavics that were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Ruthenians East Slavics that were part of the Kingdom of Poland, the Ukrainians were East Slavs comprising Cossack domains, etc. It seems that these labels all refer to a population with essentially the same culture and language.

Granted, over the centuries, differences would appear as a result of the different cultural contacts each of these groups had with their overlords. But was it enough to make them distinct in EU2 terms? Probably not.

I'd say redesignate the existing "lithuanian" provinces as either baltic (Lithuania) or ruthenian (the rest).
Click to expand...
Technically, you're right. The division of Slavs weren't really that advanced as western europeans. it can be seen in big "slavonic" cultural group.

though if we merge all eastern slavs into one group, we should also merge western into one. The difference (or rather, lack of it) between Czechs and Poles were similar to differences between Ruthenians and Russians.
 
And such cossacks are quite another problem...
They were formed of people escaping from their landlords, exiled or banned ones, some criminals etc. and their roots were Russian, Mongol, Polish, Ukrainian, even German or Hungarian ones...
 
Originally posted by pithorr
And such cossacks are quite another problem...
They were formed of people escaping from their landlords, exiled or banned ones, some criminals etc. and their roots were Russian, Mongol, Polish, Ukrainian, even German or Hungarian ones...
Click to expand...
Though their culture was neither one of them. Well, closest to Ruthenian or Russian (depends which Cossacks we're talking about)
 
What?!?

Maur13: "er, not really"

The loquaciousness of your response has overwhelmed my senses... i think i will swoon!
Okay, i am recovering.

Boy, I did not ask your opinion; The Influx of nomads who chose to stay in the land which became in the 14th through 18th centuries the GD of Lithuania is well known. How much effect they had is my only question.

However, What i see is that the Latvians and old Prussians were a very maritime group of people while the Lithuanians (which has nothing to do with the Lithuania on a modern map) became a much more continental group with enough differences in their culture to warrant a different tag in our game. Someone else said that the Muscowites became more like Mongols; My feeling is that the Muscowites were influenced by the Mongols and the Czars were just the decendents of the Mongol tax collectors, while the Lithuanians were more directly changed due to the number of nobles of mixed blood living in their territory.

Michael
 
Re: What?!?

Originally posted by Lycortas2
Maur13: "er, not really"

The loquaciousness of your response has overwhelmed my senses... i think i will swoon!
Okay, i am recovering.

Boy, I did not ask your opinion; The Influx of nomads who chose to stay in the land which became in the 14th through 18th centuries the GD of Lithuania is well known. How much effect they had is my only question.

However, What i see is that the Latvians and old Prussians were a very maritime group of people while the Lithuanians (which has nothing to do with the Lithuania on a modern map) became a much more continental group with enough differences in their culture to warrant a different tag in our game. Someone else said that the Muscowites became more like Mongols; My feeling is that the Muscowites were influenced by the Mongols and the Czars were just the decendents of the Mongol tax collectors, while the Lithuanians were more directly changed due to the number of nobles of mixed blood living in their territory.

Michael
Click to expand...
Oh my...:D

Maybe it's well-known in Minnesota, but here....

first, calling Mongols 'Turks' is wrong. Second, i know of only one powerful magnate family in GD, Glinski, which had Mongol blood in it.
Lithuania wasn't formed by 'Turks', but by Lithuanians. Its expansion was caused by power vacuum created by Mongol invasion and pressure from Teutonic Order.

About cavalry: 'Turks' (i assume you mean Mongols, called Tartars here) didn't influence P-L cavalry that much. Neither did real Turks. It was based on Hungarian/Serbian cavalry, and further developed domestically. Not to mention that our light cavalry was good, but nowhere near as good as our heavier one.

Modern and Medieval Lithuanians are as much those same people as medieval and modern French or Italians. And they live on the same territory almost.

Well, if you think that Czars were 'Mongol' tax collectors... well, somebody PM Crook or Webbrave:D

Same goes for stating that Princes of GD had any Mongol blood in their veins. Pure bullshit...
 
Re: Re: What?!?

Originally posted by Maur13

1) Modern and Medieval Lithuanians are as much those same people as medieval and modern French or Italians. And they live on the same territory almost.

2) Well, if you think that Czars were 'Mongol' tax collectors... well, somebody PM Crook or Webbrave:D
Click to expand...

Ad 1) Well, not quite right. Modern French or Italian nation has been developing from all social stratums. Lithuanian nobles first ruthenized and next polonized themselves, cities were populated by Poles and Jews, so modern society origins from rural area...

Ad 2) Hm, they in America just rememeber Lenin's face. You know, Lenins, Czars, Putins, arrghh, all they are the same guys, eh...
 
Re: Re: What?!?

Originally posted by Maur13

Oh my...:D

About cavalry: 'Turks' (i assume you mean Mongols, called Tartars here) didn't influence P-L cavalry that much. Neither did real Turks. It was based on Hungarian/Serbian cavalry, and further developed domestically. Not to mention that our light cavalry was good, but nowhere near as good as our heavier one.
Click to expand...

Ah, don't underestimate the light cavalry my friend. The lights working on the flanks of the heavies were quite instrumental in forming the dominant force in Eastern Europe.
 
yikes

Maur,

you need to learn something before you open your mouth to disparage someone else. I have admited my knowledge of the area is less than many of you as it is not my field.

The term 'Turk' or 'Mongol' is always difficult to work with as even though linguistically they are quite different, ethinological work is showing more similarities than differences between them.

The Steppes of Russia were occupied from 400Ce on by various Turkic (Finno-Altaic is a commonly accepted term) people starting with the Bulgars more or less. Maybe you are saying "well, the Byzantines said in 1100 or so that they destroyed the Petchnegs in the western steppe, so there are no turks left"

Actually that is no more accurate than the old school of thought that said with the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England all of the Romano-Celts were wiped out. We now know that many central and eastern towns have no Anglo-Saxon element and many towns are very genetically mixed.

The various Turkic peoples of the steppe were gathered up by Temujin and sons and were part of the Mongol army but that does not mean everyone in the Mongol army was a Mongol!

I never stated the great princes of Lithuania were
of Turkic or Mongol extraction. I have read that that some interbreeding took place by generic 'Turko-Mongolian' invader who reached the Baltic near Riga and decided to stay. I may have mispoken myself as i also find little mention of Tatar nobles, but there were enough distinct Tatars in Lithuania proper, not the Ukraine, for Napoleon to raise a Lithuanian Tatar regiment (squadron strength).

Again, my question was what effect did those people have on Lithuanian culture? The one usefull thing you did say was that the Polish-Lithuanian cavalry tradition came more from Hungary and Serbia not the Turko-Mongols. Thank you, that was usefull for me as I did not know that.

Oh, your lack of either knowledge of early Muscowy or a sense of humor amazes me.
I have various friends and colleagues who have doctorates in various aspects of Russian history, one of my favorite anecdotes from one of them is:

"The early ruling families in the Russian lands acted basically as the Mongol tax collectors, except you never, ever wanted to be called to Sarai. When the Golden Horde disintegrated the Russian nobles decided they liked the tax collecting part of their job and stayed with it but kept the taxes for themselves and started calling one of their number Czar."

It is a little basic as far as history goes, but it does give you a fair idea of how Muscowy
formed.

Michael
 
Oh, yeah

Hi all,

I was discussing the origin of the word 'Tatar' and 'Tartar' with someone, i do not remember who,
and he taught me quite a bit about the word, stuff i had not known, but had assumed. (and you know what assuming does for you!) oops. none the less,
it was an interesting discussion, and if you happen to read this i found out something new!

Ooh! ah! new!

I was talking with a friend in Venice who is an expert in Mongolian dialects, and he mentioned the word 'dadar' in Mongolian means 'submitted people'. Interesting, yes? Maybe you already knew this, but for me that was interesting. I find it especially interesting that 'Tatar' or something close to that is also the name of a Turkic tribe!

Must of kinda pissed the Turks off to find out the name of their tribe means 'slave' to the Mongols!

Interesting juxtaposition with that word in Han, Mongol, Altaic, and Greek! although, i do admit you were right that the Greek had not been used in at least several hundred years for that context.
The Patzinaks(Petchnegs) were the last example i could find of the term 'Tartar' being used by Greek speakers to describe horse nomads.

Mike
 
Re: Oh, yeah

Originally posted by Lycortas2
Hi all,

I was discussing the origin of the word 'Tatar' and 'Tartar' with someone, i do not remember who,
and he taught me quite a bit about the word, stuff i had not known, but had assumed. (and you know what assuming does for you!) oops. none the less,
it was an interesting discussion, and if you happen to read this i found out something new!

Ooh! ah! new!

I was talking with a friend in Venice who is an expert in Mongolian dialects, and he mentioned the word 'dadar' in Mongolian means 'submitted people'. Interesting, yes? Maybe you already knew this, but for me that was interesting. I find it especially interesting that 'Tatar' or something close to that is also the name of a Turkic tribe!

Must of kinda pissed the Turks off to find out the name of their tribe means 'slave' to the Mongols!

Interesting juxtaposition with that word in Han, Mongol, Altaic, and Greek! although, i do admit you were right that the Greek had not been used in at least several hundred years for that context.
The Patzinaks(Petchnegs) were the last example i could find of the term 'Tartar' being used by Greek speakers to describe horse nomads.

Mike
Click to expand...

what exactly is this quarrel about and what do you mean, your post is slightly, er, hard to understand.

juxtaposition?
wtf?

sorry, can you please explain? I always was interested in anthropology.
 
Tatar

Hi Jools,

I was discussing the use of the word 'Tatar' or
'Tartar' with someone on the board.

My Undergrad was in Ancient Greek (actually Cretan, but more or less the same thing, just don't let my professors hear me say that!) so, i knew that in Greek 'Tarterus' was a mythical place on the world ocean of great evil, actually closer to the idea of hell than Hades, which is more of a place where people go when they die.

The Greeks used the word 'Tartar' to describe Scythians, Cimmerians, Danube Bulgars, and maybe Patzinaks. Kind of a 'barbarian soldier from hell' thing. I also know that in Old Slavonic the word kept part of its meaning as a barbarian from the steppes or from the east.

I also knew that when the Volga Bulgars were conquered by, um, one of Temujins sons(?) i believe, the conquered Bulgars were called by the
Russians 'Tatars'. So, in my stupidity, i believed
that was another Slavonic use of the old word
'Tartar'.

However, this other person on the board informed me that there was also a Turkic tribe in the far east called 'Tatar' or 'Dadar' which in Han is pretty close. I had not heard of that name outside of the Volga Bulgars before.

Than i found out that in Mongolian 'Tatar' means
'submitted ones' from a friend.

I just thought all of that was quite interesting so i mentioned it in case the person i was discussing this with on the boards a month or so ago might happen to see this.

What i meant by juxtaposition is that 3 words in 3 different languages (Greek, Mongolian, and Altaic)
have completly different meaning but all came together in one place and time. I find linguistics fascinating! I wish i had known i found it fascinating before i finished my undergrad though.. now i am working on my Doctorate in Foreign Relations. I will try to get back to some Language & Linguistics courses eventually...

hope that helped explain my cryptic message!

Michael
 
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.
Click to expand...

Boy, I did not ask your opinion; The Influx of nomads who chose to stay in the land which became in the 14th through 18th centuries the GD of Lithuania is well known. How much effect they had is my only question.
Click to expand...

Lycortas2,
your facts are close to reality but you exaggerate its influence on Lithuania (and Poland)
1. Lithuania took advantage of fall of russian (ruthenian) principalities caused by the mongol invasion, but it doesn't mean that Lithuania "inherited" mongols' nobles as a result of taking over russian (ruthenian) teritories in XIII, XIV and XV centuries.
2. Mongols/Turks controlled steppes of northern cost of Black Sea but the power of Lithuania never reached there (in reality - against what you can see on many maps)
3. Lithuanians Tatars (Mongols) were "imported" by conscious decision of Witodl/Vytautas but it was a pretty small group. Of course another small groups of Tatars/Mongols escaped during centuries from power of khans to Lithuania/Poland but again - pretty small ones.
4. So to answer your question - they (Mongols/Tatars' residents of Lithuania) have no measurable effect on culture of Lithuania (and Poland) - at least in EU reality.
 
stuff

Hi all,

Awomaru,

I was not intentionaly exagerating the effect, it was just my impression that the culture was enough
different from Latvian/Prussian to warrant a new culture.

So you believe that Lithuania should be Baltic?

I have said several times that my knowledge of this area and time are a bit sketchy, but i was very surprised to hear that the official language of the GD was Russian/Ruthenian. Why did they choose an east slav language rather than Lithuanian, which is not Slavic at all? Just because there were so many Russians in their territory? What percentage of the nobility was Lithuanian by blood? what percentage was Russian/Ruthenian?

Are there too many Lithuanian culture provinces in the game?

Michael
 
Originally posted by Awomaru
Lycortas2,
your facts are close to reality but you exaggerate its influence on Lithuania (and Poland)
1. Lithuania took advantage of fall of russian (ruthenian) principalities caused by the mongol invasion, but it doesn't mean that Lithuania "inherited" mongols' nobles as a result of taking over russian (ruthenian) teritories in XIII, XIV and XV centuries.
2. Mongols/Turks controlled steppes of northern cost of Black Sea but the power of Lithuania never reached there (in reality - against what you can see on many maps)
3. Lithuanians Tatars (Mongols) were "imported" by conscious decision of Witodl/Vytautas but it was a pretty small group. Of course another small groups of Tatars/Mongols escaped during centuries from power of khans to Lithuania/Poland but again - pretty small ones.
4. So to answer your question - they (Mongols/Tatars' residents of Lithuania) have no measurable effect on culture of Lithuania (and Poland) - at least in EU reality.
Click to expand...

Right, I am the best example. My grandfather's ancestors probably originated from polonized, christianized and nobilized Tatar family.
Even my daughter has got a "Mongol spot" over her little bottom... :)
 
I was not intentionaly exagerating the effect, it was just my impression that the culture was enough
different from Latvian/Prussian to warrant a new culture.

So you believe that Lithuania should be Baltic?
Click to expand...

I don't. As I said earlier in this thread I prefer to stay with lithuanian culture.

Are there too many Lithuanian culture provinces in the game?
Click to expand...

Yes. In my opinion only Lithuania and Belarus should be lithuanian. Not Volyn, Mozyr, Polotsk and Wielikia.

[...] i was very surprised to hear that the official language of the GD was Russian/Ruthenian. Why did they choose an east slav language rather than Lithuanian, which is not Slavic at all? Just because there were so many Russians in their territory?
Click to expand...

There is nothing strange in this. Remember that for many centuries Latin was official language in most eauropean countries. (In Poland to XVI century). In Eeast Europe lingua franca was Russian/Ruthenian. Lithuania came to power rapidly, without written culture, so taking over vast russian/ruthenian teritories it could seems natural to use educated russian/ruthenian scholars in just schaping state offices. All in all, it was ease to comunicate with new subjects in this language :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back