Scotland

[unmerged(51398)]

Just a caveat; Welsh and Scottish were referred to as two different forms of Gaelic. Welsh, however, is not at all Gaelic, it is Brythonic. They are two seperate language families, in the Celtic super-family. Welsh, Cornish, and Bretonic are all P-Celtic languages (Brythonic). Manx, Irish, and Scottish Gaelic are all Q-Celtic languages (Goedelic/Gaelic).

For differences; culturally these differences are enormous. Gaels dressed, spoke, and acted differently. They had a different form of government. They made different styles of art. While there is a relationship because both Britons and Gaels are 'Celts', this relationship is incredibly thin; Welsh mercenaries who invaded Ireland with the Normans were seen as 'backward and unusual' as the Normans were, by the Irish.

Clothing, for example, gave them an odd look. Gaels wore robes or knee-length shirts without trousers, unless they were poor, and they'd wear a thigh length shirt with breeches (others wore breeches only in winter and even that wasn't universal). They wore decorated mantles and cloaks. The Welsh, by comparison, dressed wholely different; the most similar Welsh would be some in Dyfedd (which had once been ruled by an Irish aristocracy) that maintained some slim amount of Gaelic dress, but even most of them had maintained a British dress (trousers, a shirt, etc.). Linguistically, they couldn't understand eachother at all, sharing only a few words.

Governmentally, Gaelic Irish did not rely on 'bloodlines', but on Gaelic tanistry; while it favors the family of the current monarch (out to second cousins), it doesn't necessarily mean family inherits rule, since they're elected from the body of eligible arras (nobles). In the middle ages, these were, generally, from the O'Brien, MacLochlainn, and O'Connor families, but they had little qualm with selecting some one outside of those if none were qualified (by the way; this moots any talk of 'descent'; descent was meaningless, only political and military strength and power {the only way 'descent' worked was if one maintained said power; if your businesses failed, your army weakened, etc., you were no longer eligible}). The Welsh, however, divided land up between the children of a monarch in some manner of primogeniture.

Subsequently, the Irish would be more plutocratic than aristocratic. The Irish aristocracy was largely based on individual wealth and power gained through business; you could afford to maintain your own palace or fort, and pay your soldiers (who were volunteers; tenantry didn't exist in Ireland because individuals didn't actually own land, and chiefs were only 'caretakers', so no one could actually be forced into service. As such, Irish soldiers were expensive unless one could provide them good reason to fight cheaper).

 

[MattyG]

Thanks, this was a really succint analysis.

You might know that we already have divided the cultures: Gaelic is for Eire and the Highlands, Brythonic for Brittany, Cornwall and Wales.

I find the land-use and tenancy issues intriguing and wonder if these have been properly included in the Eire file. When I go back and do more work on Wales, I will remember to include some events related to the division and have an inevitable 'reform' or 'enclosure' type event for changes to this system to force-progress Wales.

 

[Incompetent]

It has become more a convenience than it ought to be. Right and wrong culture do need to be more than mere game mechanics, which I think is at the heart of the raging debate over German culture. We see its potential for abuse so we desperately seek a slim excuse for breaking it down into smaller groups.

Yup. I wouldn't mind slicing it up, but there has to be an understanding if we do that the German cultures are much closer together than say Saxon culture and Polish culture, or Greek and Turkish. Accordingly, it should be easier for a German state to acquire several German cultures than it would be to acquire a bundle of different cultures (though of course with a balance restriction).

I definitely am swayed by your argument that Northumbria should begin the game as Scottish culture. Perhaps the name of that culture is causing some of the problems conceptually. It might better be called Border culture, Cheviots perhaps?

Border is a bad idea because where the Scottish border ends up is anyone's guess. Cheviots is OK, but sounds a bit too localised for a major's national culture (like having 'Gibraltarian' as the culture of Cordoba). How about 'lallans'?

Part of the cultural divide is an acceptance of animosities that may exist between two groups. Something that has sethed for so long that the one will not be reasonably governed by the other.

Yep, there's certainly an element of this. But given that the Inglis start off ruled by a rather aloof Norman elite, who took over from the Danes, whose conquest was preceded by intermittent Scandinavian pillaging, will the Scots be seen more or less as oppressors? Many Scots certainly resented English rule, but south of Northumbria the locals have little experience of Scottish rule, and so less historical baggage.

If Scotland doesn't move its capital to York, it doesn't mean its English holdings are ruled like an irrelevant colony, in the manner of English rule over Scotland. Rather, York acts as a second capital, without much control over Scotland's 'high diplomacy' but with extensive control over the business of government in the Duchy and also Scottish trade policies. In fact, little changes as far as the locals are concerned, as they continue to be ruled by the Percies, just the Percies are supposed to pay more attention to the King. This becomes an issue later, when a Duke decides he's powerful enough not to have to listen to Edinburgh, and is serious issue in the succession of 1640, in which Algernon Percy's power base in the South means he can fight a protracted struggle against whoever gets chosen in favour of him.

The Parliament is a pan-Scottish entity, with representatives from north and south of the Cheviots.

Hmm. This state of affairs needs more event-based explanation and exploration. Also Scotland should perhaps get whacked by a centralisation hit when it inherits York - the reason I didn't give them one is that while Edinburgh gains a rival centre of power, the Yorkish state ought to be quite centralised, more so than Scotland itself.

You were gone for over six months. In reviewing the file to remove all the bugs I made some changes that seemed appropriate. You were not around (hell, almost no-one was) to debate it with. However, I don't recall altering that sequence at all. The main changes I made were:

1. Removing Gaelic or Norweigian culture if Scotland gained Anglo-Saxon culture.

2. Bringing Scotland into line with the revised approach to the Reformation, and making sure that the events included some of the colonies and included elements such as desertion.

3. Tinkered with a few values, none that come to mind, DP sliders, revoltrisk levels etc and I think the too-cheap cost for the Manufactury in Norway.

If you want something altered in any file, it's always up for discussion.

Sorry if I sounded aggressive. I just wanted to say I didn't like the way things are set up now, but I can see the way I had it set up was flawed as well.

1. I pretty much agree with this, but I want to approach it slightly differently, rather than imposing a hard limit one of the cultures. It may be Scotland has four cultures at once, but this won't be permanent, and the choices Scotland would have to make to get this to come about would have downsides outweighing the cultural advantage. In a similar fashion the TO can keep Polish, Baltic and Russian cultures at once, but in their case it pretty much guarantees they drop to Orthodox tech.

2, 3. No objections here.

Perhaps the thing I found too generous is that Sotland gets Norweigian culture. I realise it's hard for the AI, even with the improved AIs I've built (which do help it sometimes get the big result), but the final package of Scotland, successfully building a nation of Gaelic, Scottish, Anglo-Saxon and Norweigian cultures all feeling loyalty to the Scottish crown and being effectively adminstered by them just seemed far-fetched. As you've said, it isn't that it's as wealthy as, say, just owning the Italian Peninsula, but for me its stretches plausibility too far. I'd be much happier seeing the file reeworked such that Norweigian culture was never gained, or not until the 1700s, event thought Scotland moght inherit it and gain cores. Then I'd be quite relaxed about Scotland gaining Anglo-Saxon culture, or converting provinces as far south as Lincoln/Midlands to Scottish culture.

Again, I agree on the problem but maybe not on the solution. IMO:

Scotland + northern England + Norway: OK
All of Great Britain + Norway: Not OK

So in response, how about this:

Early game, southern-oriented Scotland: Scotland expands and takes over much of England. It later inherits Norway and its culture (can't happen before early 16th century unless Kalmar smashes Norway first, in which case Scotland has a fight on its hands). But the Highlands become a no-go zone for a long, long time and are never re-assimilated (the Highland clearances late on still don't spread lallans culture north, that only happens with a northern-oriented Scotland).

Early game, northern-oriented Scotland: Same in Norway, but in Great Britain, Scotland doesn't go south of Lincoln, and manages to deal with the Highlands one way or another. Scotland gets gaelic, and for the moment anglosaxon, but on the understanding that it doesn't overplay its hand; if it tries to conquer the whole culture-zone by taking large chunks of Ireland or the South, the bonds that hold its cultures together will fray and tear.

Reformation, Protestant Turmoil: Scotland loses Norwegian culture.

Reformation, Catholic Turmoil: Scotland has to focus most of its efforts on the Presbyterians, leaving the southern heretics to cause trouble. If Scotland had any position in the South, it'll take decades to fully recover it.

Reformation, no turmoil: Scotland gets to keep Norwegian. But a no-Turmoil Scotland has fairly high innovativeness and lots of heretic provinces, not an especially good combo. Maybe it should have diplomatic penalties as well, as most countries are sceptical of Scotland's religious compromise.

post-1640, Percies: The Percies neglect Norway and quickly lose Norwegian culture. The Percies are best if you want to pursue an Anglocentric approach.

post-1640, Bergen: if Scotland previously followed a northern approach, all is well. The cultural divide in England gets cemented some time in the 17th century, and the Bergens may pursue additional claims in Norway (such as Jamtland). If Scotland went south earlier, the Bergens suffer Consequences for trying to appease Norwegians and Southerners at the same time, such as a permanent ADM penalty, bouts of instability and the sleeping of certain beneficial events.

post-1640, Scott: The Scotts' problem is not so much a failure to hold the country together, as being poor at looking after the Kingdom's best interests in general. Sooner or later the Parliament of Scotland ends up the most powerful entity, and can choose unitary or federalist policies. If it's unitary, Norwegians find to their dismay that they're in the minority on many issues, and slowly become disillusioned. Scotland loses Norwegian culture in the 18th century. If OTOH Scotland becomes more federal, it must accept a 'constitutionally mandated' lack of centralisation, and big reductions in taxes and MP available to the government. The result is that the North Sea Blob survives but is 'diluted' on all fronts.

In almost all scenarios, it seems likely that Scotland ought to eventually lose Gaelic culture, but that it could force the highlanders from the north in numbers, resettle them in the New World (say, Acadie?) and have the Highlands province convert to this Northern culture group.

For a southern-orineted Scotland, the second part doesn't happen at the moment. Even if it did, it would happen very late in the game, long after Scotland has lost Gaelic culture. Losing cultural control over the Highlands is part of the price you pay for trying to get southern England.

Sure it is. All of the west European 'majors' begin the game with five provinces and five province ownership is effectively the 'benchmark' for entering the major league and being worthy of being called a Kingdom in the Interregnum world. If York has managed to become 5 provinces, then it is unlikely that Scotland is much bigger. Maybe 7 provinces or eight, if it was successful in Norway or took most of Eire. Comparatively, and of itself, I think this 5 province level is enough.

Those majors are also sovereign, which makes a big difference. But as you say, probably moot unless York is player controlled (but in that case, wouldn't they break vassalage anyway?)

 

[unmerged(51398)]

Thanks, this was a really succint analysis.

You might know that we already have divided the cultures: Gaelic is for Eire and the Highlands, Brythonic for Brittany, Cornwall and Wales.

I find the land-use and tenancy issues intriguing and wonder if these have been properly included in the Eire file. When I go back and do more work on Wales, I will remember to include some events related to the division and have an inevitable 'reform' or 'enclosure' type event for changes to this system to force-progress Wales.

I'm aware the two are divided in the game; I just find it bothersome to see the Welsh called Gaelic by people, when no cultural Gaels had inhabitted Wales since shortly after the time of Aircol Lawhir. I haven't played in a while, but I would make the point in this that the Irish would be more toward a free populace ('serfs' can't exist without tenantry; there was an indentured servant system and such, but that was more based on paying off debts and the like) and a plutocracy. Not completely either one, but it was a definite lean in those directions (the largest chunk of the population was 'free-men', and the 'aristocracy' was mostly a bunch of wealthy merchants and military leaders). Some events may shift those a bit (particularly plutocracy; could have 'more tanists are being selected from the major aristocratic families' moving it toward aristocracy and great centralization, and 'more tanists are being selected from the minor and new aristocrats' moving it toward plutocracy and decentralization).

Centralization-wise; Ireland was not totally decentralized, and in a world where Dermot never made it to Britain, the safety of Rory O'Conner's rule would've been pretty well assured, so a centralized government would be established (not totally though), and likely begun pursuing claims of right to tributes from other Gaelic clans outside of Ireland. This has bearing in this thread, because the kings of Ireland, the high king particularly, may then decide he wants to formally issue a demand for tribute from Gaelic highland clans, in exchange for military aide and wealth (the highland Gaels would likely get a better deal from other Gaels than from an Anglo-Norman king, so this may tempt). The issue of this could give Eire claims on Gaelic provinces in Scotland, and obviously provide Scotland a casus belli on Eire for trying to rile up their highland population. Mind you, from the Irish perspective, those lands would be, in a Gaelic legal sense, Irish, since Gaels from Ireland established rule of them.

On a clan note, Ireland was not very much swayed by 'clans'; not so much as Scotland. More important were the Ri/Flath (little kings/princes) who ruled several clans, the Ruire (kings) who ruled the sub-kingdoms, and then of course to the Ard Ruire (high king/'emperor' {that was the recognized title by the Pope and Church; the High King was 'Scotum Imperator', Emperor of the Irish}). Clans were more of a minor local concern, and not something the high king would care about. His concern should be the three great noble houses, which are fronted each by a clan, but are themselves composed of many clans (as mention, the O'Connor, O'Brien, and MacLochlainn). There would be space in there for Scottish meddling. Scots could portray their own king as having Gaelic descent (as was the case with Robert the Bruce; he was a Norman but did have Gaelic ancestors; ergo, his brother Edward was an eligible king for Ireland). Through a series of events, they could press this as a claim for kingship of Ireland. In doing so, some Scots regions might become Gaelic as more 'Irish'-obsessed kings try to push their country in a more Gaelic direction. Of course, the other option in those events is to just let the cause drop, or make partial claims or support one of the major houses (probably MacLochlainn, relatives of the O'Neill, which controlled Ulster and Meath, and had a huge number of Scottish relations {though, ironically, they did not initially support the Scots in the Wars of Indepedence, but supported the English; the Scots were instead supported by the MacCarthy's who ruled Munster, and were of O'Brien stock}). In supporting one of the houses, they may seek to usurp the high kingship and install a new, loyal king, or simply take control of the lands the house controls directly (inevitably causing a war).

 

[unmerged(36449)]

I didn't mean to clog this thread with this eternal argument, and I started this in a light-hearted fashion, so I will finish it that way too.

What worries me is our anglo-centric view of cultural differences. We see big differences between - say - scots and welsh because our anglo-saxon heritage (and I am guessing here with bobthedwarf and Incompetent). Whereas with other cultures we are less sure of those subtle differences. I am, at any rate.

So we naturally find it easy when faced with a problem in the British Isles to simply whack in another culture, because the cultural differences seem clear.

I am suggesting that for other arenas perhaps those differences aren't clear to us, but blindingly obvious to others. And again, I am probably quite wrong, but I need to float the idea. In the time I spent living in Germany, I met Swabans who shuddered at the idea of meeting Berliners, and Ruhrbgebiet dwellers who thought the Bavarians were comical (and perhas a little dangerous). There are differences I could sense but not label. And this is after 200 years of formal unification as a nation.

So I instinctively feel we are right about culture in england and france, but wrong about culture in germany and erhaps italy, and would like to see Europe broken into smaller bits, but I have nothing concrete to back this claim. Perhaps we need to look at the german language EU2 forums!

I promise I will never raise it again. Love your work.

Well I am proud to say that I bear not one drop of Anglo-Saxon blood to the best of my knowledge, and considering that on my Dads side I can trace the family back to 1200 AD with a fairly high degree of certainty and my Moms family to approximately 680 AD with a little less... I am pretty sure no dastardly, good for nothing, invading Englishmen sullied my bloodline ( :rofl: meant in jest my friends, just in jest).

On my Moms side I have some Norwegian, some Cherokee, some Lakota, a dash or two of Cree and Blackfoot, but mostly the bloodlines of Niall of the Nine and Somerled. On my Dads I am a bit Norman French, a big dollop or Norwegian/Swede, and mostly German, with a little German Jewish highlight according to some but unconfirmed by many.

But I take your point on the cultural thing to a degree. Where you see a possible cultural divide in Germany I see however the same kind of grousing and kvetching that we do here in the States about people in other regions...everytime you hear a redneck joke or vapid valley girl one.. you are hearing that same kind of thing that you heard in Germany when you were there. It is also seen in how people on the East coast think those on the West are "nerfy tofu eaters", and the West coasters see New Yorkers as uptight and cold. Then again, most people hearing a US Southern accent on a man (and I am talking the thick drawl not the light one here), think that he is somewhat "dull" intellectually is another example.

Doesn't mean that they would not see those people as "Americans", well not enough to warrant a 30% income hit....

But in England you have a bit of a different story... You have the Southern Celts of Cornwall, Wales and Dorset who are closer to their kin in Brittany then they are to kith in Ireland and Scotland, and none of which is particularly close to the Anglosaxons in England. Different languages entirely, different customs, different legal systems, and far different cultural "norms" from each other. Not just dialectic differences as is the case in Germany, but entirely different branches on the Indo-European linguistic tree, coupled with different views on the rights of illegitimate children, responsibilities of the nobility, what makes one a "noble", rules of inheritance, and legal code bases. Not to mention the substrata of tribal myths and views of the supernatural that influence our views of the metaphysical and divine.

Which brings me to the way the church operated in our areas of example. England was closer to the continental model which is what Germany was using. So church wise, England and Germany are closer then England and Ireland or Scotland who were mavericks that kind of did things they way they wanted to with only a tacit listening to of the Pope.

Add it all together and what you have is a relatively tiny island that is a bizarre pathwork of cultures that in someways more resembles Yugoslavia then any continental nation.

That being said... I think that we could possibly back away from some of the cultural shotguning of the British isles. I would propose that you could get away comfortably with no more then three: Gael, covering the whole of Ireland and Scotland. Celt covering Wales and Cornwall. And of course Anglosaxon covering the rest. You could add in an event that changes Lothian to Anglosaxon if controlled for a certain time as the lowlanders however "Scot" they were would tend to Anglicize over time given enough pressure and exposure to erode them some.

But they would still be Gaels at the start, more urban then the Highlanders and a bit more open to non traditional ideas as most urban dwellers are know to be; but still Gaels.

The reverse can be true of Northumbria (Two cities in which the Scottish half of my family put to the torch in the 7th or 8th century), in Gaeling up so to speak if controlled by Scotland for a certain amount of time.

I think that we the descendents of that group of Islands can and do see the cultural patchwork that is the home of our anscestors as you describe, and are stymied a bit as to why it was not the same for every other country.

The answer is really obvious: Islands have plenty of beach front property. And everyone loves to live near a beach...

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Just a caveat; Welsh and Scottish were referred to as two different forms of Gaelic. Welsh, however, is not at all Gaelic, it is Brythonic. They are two seperate language families, in the Celtic super-family. Welsh, Cornish, and Bretonic are all P-Celtic languages (Brythonic). Manx, Irish, and Scottish Gaelic are all Q-Celtic languages (Goedelic/Gaelic).

snip.

That was my bad... I tend to use Gaelic as a catchall for the language.. has to be some hidden bias from my Scots heritage at play..( )

Thanks for the detailed explaination.. I always forget the letter differentiators between the two.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Ranika brings up a very good point: Scotland is called Scotland since the name derives from Scotia...the name of Ireland. I know that there is a treaty that was between an Irish and a Scot King that describe the two nations as Scotia majora and Scotia Minora (forgive the spelling of majora as I can't remember the proper latin spelling), but I can't recall the name of it.

And as I recall the Scots were still practicing tannistry at the the time of the game start...

 

[MattyG]

I am absolutely convinced of the need and value of having an Eire sequence claiming cores on the Highland provinces, and/or of Scotland making a claim on the High Kingship , as long as it does not, say, make the move to York.

Thanks for this excellent thematic contribution.

 

[Incompetent]

That being said... I think that we could possibly back away from some of the cultural shotguning of the British isles. I would propose that you could get away comfortably with no more then three: Gael, covering the whole of Ireland and Scotland. Celt covering Wales and Cornwall. And of course Anglosaxon covering the rest. You could add in an event that changes Lothian to Anglosaxon if controlled for a certain time as the lowlanders however "Scot" they were would tend to Anglicize over time given enough pressure and exposure to erode them some.

But they would still be Gaels at the start, more urban then the Highlanders and a bit more open to non traditional ideas as most urban dwellers are know to be; but still Gaels.

The reverse can be true of Northumbria (Two cities in which the Scottish half of my family put to the torch in the 7th or 8th century), in Gaeling up so to speak if controlled by Scotland for a certain amount of time.

Doesn't sound too unreasonable a split, though I'd say the anglianisation of Lothian had already happened by 1419 (not total anglianisation, but Lothian culture retained strong Gaelic elements rather than being simply Gaelic). Never mind cultural spread, many of them were actually descendents of the same group of Anglic settlers that ended up in Northumbria, later supplemented by Normans and with a good deal of Brythonic people thrown in for good measure. The elite would probably have been speaking Norman French, but in 1400 AD the linguistic divide among the population as a whole was something like this:

(100 years later, usage of the words 'Scottis' and 'Inglis' had changed, with 'Scottis' referring to the Anglic language of the Lowlands and the Highland language derisively known as 'Erse' or Irish).

It's reckoned that James IV (died 1513) was the last King of Scotland to speak Gaelic fluently, though he also spoke several other languages.

In vanilla, I'd make Lothian anglosaxon from the start, and Strathclyde would be anglosaxon for more than half the game, as London is the undisputed power centre of Great Britain, and its influence is felt far and wide. But the Interregnum Britain has different centres of influence, and as such the dominant culture of lowland Scotland and northern England by the end of the game is an Anglian one with a more Gaelic flavour (and arguably more Norman influence as well), which ATM is called 'scottish'.

 

[unmerged(51398)]

Ranika brings up a very good point: Scotland is called Scotland since the name derives from Scotia...the name of Ireland. I know that there is a treaty that was between an Irish and a Scot King that describe the two nations as Scotia majora and Scotia Minora (forgive the spelling of majora as I can't remember the proper latin spelling), but I can't recall the name of it.

And as I recall the Scots were still practicing tannistry at the the time of the game start...

Actually, that's a myth. Scotland is called Scotland because the Britons and Saxons who lived there refered to Gaels as 'Scotta' or 'Scotti', a Romano-British word for 'pirates' (a reference to the first experience the Romans had in Britain with Gaels, who attacked Roman ships). Some then called it Scottalandam. 'Scot' was actually an offensive term for quite some time, though by the late dark ages, it was not so bothersome, since the meaning had been pretty much lost. The Gaelic Scots called their land Alba though (meaning Britain). In part, because the Irish had once been allies of the Picts, in a movement to retake Britain from the Romans. With the Picts subjugated, they felt they had a legal right to own Britain (essentially adopted from the Picts), so they named their new kingdom Britain (though this claim would die out swiftly). However, there was an agreement that several bishops over-saw that saw the regions as you've described, but that was more of supposed to be some grand alliance, that was acted on sometimes. However, it also asserted both were part of a great Gaelic kingdom, just with seperate kings (again, this could be used in establishing claim).

Only in church records are they refered to as 'Scotia', and 'Scotum', collectively (Scotum in this case means Gaels; ironically, the English only called lowlanders Scots {who were not Gaels}, and called the Gaels Irish or Erse). Like the official recognized name of the kings of Ireland was 'Scotum (Or Scotorum) Imperator'; Emperor of the Gaels (The Irish). This would actually give Ireland some church-based legitimacy to claims for the highlands; those inhabitants are 'Scotum', and the king of Ireland is the emperor of this people; he could probably leverage it to gain church support for his claim of ownership of lands still under Gaelic control elsewhere (in Scotland). Likewise, a 'Gaelic' (real or not) king of Scotland could imply his legal right to be the high king of Ireland. However, that could backfire, giving Ireland a claim to all Scottish lands because they're a Gaelic kingdom then. Could be a very touchy bit of things; Ireland and Scotland essentially baiting eachother back and forth with progressively more serious claims, as in;

1. The Irish high king asserts right over the Gaelic clans in Scotland (gaining cores in the Gaelic provinces of Scotland, Scotland gets cassus belli against Ireland)
2. Scotland's king says he's a Gael, and has the right to keep those lands
3. The king of the Scots proves his claim and becomes eligible to be king of Ireland (Scotland gains cores in Ireland)
4. Ireland asserts that, if he's a Gael, then Scotland is a Gaelic kingdom, and is require to submit to the high king (become a vassal) or go to war over it (Ireland gets additional cores in the remaining Scottish provinces {representing their 'need' to assert the authority of the proper king over the Gaelic kingdoms})
5. Possibly have 'partial victories'; Ireland surrenders claims on all but the highlands, Scotland on all but Ulster, and the winner gains said claim as one of their provinces. Possibly gains the opposing faction as a vassal.

Sorry if it's all over-complex, but in this history, an Irish-Scottish war would be quite possible, since Gaelic culture wouldn't have been marginalized, and there would probably be serious approach taken at 'unifying' them (as Scotland was, at one time, considered one of the 'Irish' kingdoms).

 

[MattyG]

OK, looks like we are getting close not only to an agreement on the British Isles but also a new sense of how we are to use 'culture' in Interregnum.

Let's formalise the isles at least.

Eire, the Grampians and Highlands will remain Gaelic. Wales and Cornwall will remain Brythonic. For the rest, there is some realm for variation, it would seem. maybe with strathclyde being Gaelic?

As for a name for the remaining culture, lets avoid the use of Anglo-Saxon AND Scottish and other value-laden names and come up with something else. Here are some off-the-cuff suggestions:

Anglic
Post-Norman
Mongrel
Lowlander
Fish'n'chips
Not-French
Pommie
Southerners

Ideas?

 

[unmerged(36449)]

OK, looks like we are getting close not only to an agreement on the British Isles but also a new sense of how we are to use 'culture' in Interregnum.

Let's formalise the isles at least.

Eire, the Grampians and Highlands will remain Gaelic. Wales and Cornwall will remain Brythonic. For the rest, there is some realm for variation, it would seem. maybe with strathclyde being Gaelic?

As for a name for the remaining culture, lets avoid the use of Anglo-Saxon AND Scottish and other value-laden names and come up with something else. Here are some off-the-cuff suggestions:

Anglic
Post-Norman
Mongrel
Lowlander
Fish'n'chips
Not-French
Pommie
Southerners

Ideas?

How about "Alban" in keeping with Ranikas excellent and informative post?

With a new power center in the islands I would think it would be a nice reflection of that to have the Scottish term be used. Although I am still in favor of keeping Lothian Gaelic, I could see it being more Alban then Gael since language will tend to alter your perception if identity since it defines the means by which you can express that identity.

But the type of Inglis that would be spoken in Lothian if it is anything like the type of Scots-English being used on the Scottish parliamentary site? It ain't really "English"... as an example lay your eyes upon this: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/index.htm

 

[unmerged(16159)]

But I take your point on the cultural thing to a degree. Where you see a possible cultural divide in Germany I see however the same kind of grousing and kvetching that we do here in the States about people in other regions...everytime you hear a redneck joke or vapid valley girl one.. you are hearing that same kind of thing that you heard in Germany when you were there. It is also seen in how people on the East coast think those on the West are "nerfy tofu eaters", and the West coasters see New Yorkers as uptight and cold. Then again, most people hearing a US Southern accent on a man (and I am talking the thick drawl not the light one here), think that he is somewhat "dull" intellectually is another example.

Doesn't mean that they would not see those people as "Americans", well not enough to warrant a 30% income hit....

This is my point. Would tofu production in New York fall or rise if the entire ruling, governing and managing classes were southern? Would it fall the 10% depicted in EU2?

Would kohlrabi production in Hessen fall or rise if a steaming truckload of Bavarian nobles were running the country? Would it fall 10%?

 

[unmerged(16159)]

How about "Alban" in keeping with Ranikas excellent and informative post?

With a new power center in the islands I would think it would be a nice reflection of that to have the Scottish term be used. Although I am still in favor of keeping Lothian Gaelic, I could see it being more Alban then Gael since language will tend to alter your perception if identity since it defines the means by which you can express that identity.

But the type of Inglis that would be spoken in Lothian if it is anything like the type of Scots-English being used on the Scottish parliamentary site? It ain't really "English"... as an example lay your eyes upon this: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/index.htm

I like Alban and Inglis.

 

[unmerged(51398)]

Alban usually references the Gaels though in the highlands, though, actually, it was used again later, as 'Albion' in reference to mash culture that formed in the lowlands (essentially meaning a kind of mixed 'British' culture), since it was a sort of pan-British culture, but I don't think that reference was till the Cambrian atlas was published in the mid-1500s and wasn't used much outside of it, but it would work.

Again on the high king/kings of Scotland thing; from Scotland's side of things, it'd likely hinge on keeping the capitol at least in part of what is now Scotland, but there'd likely be a steady progression of events (the whole series would essentially be a number of claims slowly spiralling out of control on both the Irish and Scottish end). If Scotland does not capitulate or go to war over it, they instead claim their king is a Gael. Could either pay heralds copiously to 'discover' this descent (just costing Scotland money), or find some manner of cultural solidarity (moving the capitol to a Gaelic region, maybe losing one of the kingdom's cultures, perhaps shirking the lowlanders). As the events progress, it may grow more extreme; enforcing the use of traditional Gaelic language in other parts of the kingdom (which had occured before in Ireland; there was a Continental Celtic language spoken in Munster once that fell out of use due to the enforcement of Gaelic as the 'proper' language). This would be the inverse of a more Anglicized Scotland; regions of Scotland would become Gaelic, though probably not without a few rebellions; York may flatly secede.

It should be important that in such a series as Scotland trying to claim a legal right as the emperor of Gaels, that it would not be easy, or even that smart to actually attempt it; however, if they survive it, and succeed, they would have a stable Gaelic kingdom with most 'foreign' cultures rooted out. The process to it though should have much risk of secession, large wars, etc. The chance for culture friction, and inverse of local Anglicization (Gaelicization) could offer a pretty brutal amount of internal strife. Maybe have a tag reserved for a succession kingdom composed of the lowlanders and York that form an opposition, Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Gael monarchy in response to the Gaelicization of the kingdom, in resistance to things like forceful introduction of Gaelic language and clothing laws (things that historically helped cause Gaelic uprisings were the instatement of the English equivalents). Incidentally, if Ireland claims the Gaelic cores of Scotland, and Scotland moves to a more strictly Anglicization movement, those regions may secede to Ireland, or, if Ireland didn't claim the regions, they might send Ireland overtures of submission, giving Ireland the cores anyway. Would give Scotland a lot of culture-balance problems, so they have to be prepared to deal with intense civil strife if they try to formalize their society.

 

[Incompetent]

I like your ideas, Ranika.

Historically, Scotland started out as a Gaelic kindgom, but by the time of the Act of Union it was very much an Anglo-Saxon one, with the Gaelic culture mostly confined to the Highlands (which had a decent population, but little political or economic power).

By the late 14th century, the point of departure in Interregnum as far as Britain's concerned, the lowland Scots are already a long way down this road, and travelling down it quite fast. The 15th century is the last one in which Scotland could still be called a Gaelic kingdom, as after that the kings forget how to speak Gaelic, the lowland chiefs start thinking of themselves as English-style aristocrats, and the Highlanders become derisively known as 'Erse' as opposed to the true 'Scots' in and around Lothian.

Still however, if the point of no return is 1500 or so, we can give Scotland a choice before then. We can write some events where the B choice is for the Scottish elite to cling onto and strengthen Gaelic culture, rather than becoming more Anglic.

However, this wouldn't be a minor cultural fiddle event-wise. A Gaelo-centric Scotland would have quite different ambitions, different politics and different economics. For a start, it would have a different name: Alba. As such I think choosing this path should entail a tag change and a new event file. The Norwegian inheritance could still happen, but Alba's adventures in England would be limited, as in reasserting Gaelic values they'd upset those who supported the rival Anglic culture. Alba could retain Inglis as a secondary culture until it has re-assimilated Lothian, but would then lose it for good. (Northumbria could also be Gaelified maybe, but no further south than that.)

If the Scottish elite and urban population instead choose to continue down their path of Anglianisation, of course it doesn't mean the Gaels just vanish overnight. Alba would continue to exist as a revolter, and it would be possible for Alba to rebel, probably in the Highlands, conquer the remnants of Scotland and restore Gaelic rule. If Scotland goes further and actively alienates the Highlanders, the Highland provinces will have permanent RR, making an independent Alba all the more likely. And of course Eire factors into all this, as they could support a Highlands rebellion in the hope of getting Alba as a vassal or taking it over completely. On the other hand, a strongly Gaelic Alba might well create tensions in the south. The more Anglic Scotland would similarly exist as a revolter, and York would emerge as a rival to Alba for control of Northumbria and Lothian, where it would of course promote Inglis culture again. If York conquered lowland Scotland completely it could claim the crown of Scotland and morph into it in its York-centred, Gaelophobic incarnation.


I know I'm currently 'in the hot seat' for Scotland, ie an Anglified Scotland. Unfortunately I'd be quite lost trying to write events for a rather less Anglified Alba. Does anyone who knows more about Gaelic history and culture want to write events for this branch?

 

[unmerged(51398)]

I'm no good with writing events, but I could help you at least get the gist of how they'd work. For example, just throwing somethings out;

1. Alban secedes from Scotland due to Anglicization

A Gaelic Alban would, if violently seceding, ally itself, or even submit itself (could have an event for it, giving them the option to become an ally, or become a vassal, recieving perhaps a slight population boost as Gaelic lords in Ireland resettle in Scotland amongst their new subjects, or getting a small token gift from Ireland, but gives Ireland cores in their provinces {assuming Ireland doesn't have them already from claiming rights to their lands}) to Eire. This would be for more pragmatic reasons than anything; Eire is a Gaelic power that'd be sympathetic to them; at least more sympathetic than others. Eire may also have an event series tied to the Anglicization of Scotland; essentially funding highland rebellions. A successful rebellion that seizes the Highlands and Grampians becomes Alban.

Once at peace, they may pursue claims on the remainder of Scottish lands because, in their eyes, they're the proper rulers of the kingdom; they didn't really 'secede', so much as reassert their authority; Gaels founded the kingdom, so, they would reason, they have legal ownership of those lands, and could recieve cores in them, but end up, again, at war with the Scots (unless they Scots were defeated and those lands are already under Alban's control, in which case they should get cores in them anyway). However, Alban could softball this move, claiming solely ownership over former Pictish lands and Strathclyde, and recognize the other Scots as a seperate entity; avoids war, but no additional cores (except possibly Strathclyde, if that's become Inglis). That is, essentially, recognizing what was once all Celtic Alba (Gaelic and Brythonic, though Strathclyde would become ostensibly Gaelic, and would be already by this point), and discludes Inglis Lothian.

Alban now has the right to make a legal bid for power in Ireland itself, once it has local affairs settled. This has one of three options. The first being to let any claim drop for the sake of peace (improved relations with Ireland). The second is to lay claim on Ulster; the Ui Neill drove the Dalriatta out of Ireland from here, and some lands there should be under their legal ownership once reunited with Ireland (damages relationship, but not war; gives a core in Ulster, gives Ireland the option of ceding Ulster to Alban to greatly improve relations, or ignore their claim, damaging relations further; possibly also allow a declaration of war, and recieving cores on Alban's provinces for Ireland, if they haven't already). The third is to claim the high kingship (cores in all Ireland, Ireland recieves cores in Alban if not already present, and starts a war).

During a war for the high kingship, if not totally defeated or victorious; partial victory; recieve Ulster, but lose other cores in Ireland. Partial defeat; lose Strathclyde (if they have it) to Ireland and all cores in Ireland, become a vassal. Larger victory and defeat described below.


2. Alban emerges from a re-Gaelicized Scotland, or 'Emperor of the Gaels'

Ireland lays claim to the Gaelic provinces of Scotland (Ireland recieves cores in Gaelic regions in Scotland). From a Gaelic legal standpoint, these regions must submit to the high king; the people are considered 'Irish' for all intensive purposes, and, since they obey Gaelic law, should submit to the king of Gaels. Ireland can make this claim solely by legal right, or, they may also send gifts and tributes to the clan heads to assure them that they will maintain their legal status and authority when they submit to the king of Ireland, and even be given substantial favor that their Inglis kings would not give.

Scotland's kingdom can deal with Ireland's claim in two ways. Go to war (with a chance of Alban seceding, or the regions joining Ireland, if Ireland has sent gifts; perhaps have two types of gifts Ireland could send, the more expensive of the two would cause the latter, the less expensive the further, and no gifts would keep them from seceding {should be expensive for Ireland to do so, but worth it incase Scotland goes to war}); this would keep them on the 'Inglis' path, or, assert legal claimancy by declaring the king himself to be of Gaelic descent (pay heralds to invent this descent, or have church records poured over for free; the latter would carry a chance of Alban seceding due to insult that such a lie would be forefended in the name of keeping their loyalties {if Ireland has paid off the clan chiefs with the large bribe; the smaller bribe would cause no secession in this case}).

If Scotland declares the king Gaelic, Ireland can demand legitimacy, though it'd cost Ireland money (sending various experts on the matter to test him themselves {Gaels did do things rather like this, but on a smaller scale}). That is, essentially, forcing the king to prove he's a Gael (adopting language and custom). This might convert Lothian to Gaelic if he does so. If he doesn't, again, risk of Alban seceding as the clan chiefs reel from the insult of his lie, and the promises of Irish assistance. Everything up to this point should be a set up for things to spiral progressively further out of control.

Having proved his dedication to his Gaelic ancestry, he may now face a bit of a crisis. Ireland can demand his submission; Ireland will abandon the cores in Gaelic regions, if he submits himself as vassal to the 'Emperor of the Gaels'. If he does so, the kingdom becomes Alban, but part of it should secede into/remain Inglis Scotland and start at war. If it does not submit, a huge blow to relations, but no major fireworks yet.

Scotland can begin a move to further Gaelicize the population (doesn't matter if submitted or not), or let it fall. If they do the further, they lose any other cultures but Gaelic, and become Alban, placation of Inglis lords (costing a fair deal of money) or deal with their secession into the 'new' Scotland or York; Alban recieves a core in Ulster. If they don't continue to Gaelicize, they don't lose other cultures, and remain Scotland, but recieve no cores. They may further try to distance themselves from the series of events with Ireland, as war is growing more likely, if they've not submitted, and actually return to Anglicization (again, possible Alban secession, Scotland goes back to a series of events representing Anglicization of Scotland; Lothian becomes Inglis {again}).

Gaelicization continues; Scotland becomes Alban, loses other cultures. Placation of Inglis lords (costing a fair deal of money) or deal with their secession into the 'new' Scotland or York. Once the war is done, or the lords placated, they can make a legal bid for the high kingship of Ireland. In doing so, both gain cores; Alban gets cores in all Eire, Eire gets cores in Lothian and Strathclyde, as well as the Grampians and the Highlands (which they'd already have), and a war begins. Alban may also, again, choose to submit. In doing so, if they have Northumbria, it becomes Gaelic, and a serious 'York' secession threat ceases (though York may cede itself into a nearby kingdom if able to); Strathclyde become part of Eire, but all cores Eire had in Scotland disappear (though they gain one in Strathclyde if they don't have it already).

If war; war ends in a victory; Alban takes control of the provinces in Ireland, 'annexes' it (becomes the high king), recieving all of Eire's territories. An event for recognition as 'Emperor of the Gaels'. The inverse; Ireland conquers Alban, taking control of all of the provinces it has in Britain, and takes all cores as their own. Alban is submitted to Ireland, either as a vassal, or totally absorbed. Eire's king recieves genuine recognition as 'Emperor of the Gaels'.

In both cases, this can be parlayed into another event. Eire, now genuinely enforcing ancient rights, or Alban, now inheriting those rights by way of their new authority, may make Wales into a core, as parts of it had been settled by Gaels. Obviously, this starts a war, but that's a whole nother series of things, though much briefer and far less complex; essentially, Eire or Alban (the winner, whichever) gets the right to go and take Wales. With it under control, a set of random events determines if it converts to Gaelic culture or revolts (the latter being most common, until Wales does change to Gaelic, in which case these extra large culture revolts cease).


3. Other aspects of a Gaelic kingdom; Gaelicization events, that occur in this order, to Gaelicize regions (all build up for claiming legal right to the high kingship). These would convert provinces to Gaelic culture as far south as Northumbria

Gaels do not have individual land ownership over anything except what land you till/ranch directly, or where buildings you've had erected sit. Thus, no tenancy. Events for Gaelicization would include the revoking of tenancy and land ownership. Would cause revolts in Inglis provinces, but move toward a free population from serfdom.

Gaelic nobility is elected through tanistry. As tanistry is strengthed in Inglis lands, again, revolts may occur, by disenchanted nobles. The move would be from aristocracy to plutocracy. The tanist elected is chosen in large part because he is healthy, intelligent, and has enough wealth to pay his soldiers (since Gaelic soldiers are not tenants and cannot be forced to fight, they're more expensive {free population} than in a feudal or stricter monarchic kingdom).

Movements toward a free market; economically Gaels were largely anarcho-capitalistic, though not totally (they had, by contrast, a few socialized portions of society). That's why individual wealth meant so much for the nobility; they had to be able to effectively maintain a business or some sort to keep up their expenses and allow themselves to maintain their position; a bankrupted noble had to forfeit his position. Taxes could only be raised a set amount, and went into a dole; the treasury was not the nobles' personal bit to use, it was property, technically, of the clan from which it was levied, and could only be used to fund public works (specifically roads, hospitals, militia armories, and asylums; all clan territories required them to be paid for first, and the first dole of taxes went to maintaining them), and was also, to an extent, allowed to be used to pay the army (the problem was, there weren't enough taxes to actually fund an army, so he had to be able to raise an army himself out of pocket). The move would be a little away from mercantilism.

Gaels were, as a mass, very traditional. Would have a nudge toward narrow-minded, though not remarkably so. However, the strengthing of traditional values is very important to the creation of a Gaelic kingdom, since everything is based on precedent and tradition. As such, Alban or a more heavily Gaelic Scotland (that is, a Scotland where Gaels were not marginalized) would also be substantially less likely to convert from Catholicism; Gaelic law, by this point, is as much based on cultural traditions as it is religious, and monastaries still held a good amount of legal power (and churches and monastaries were the only bodies that could own land they weren't developing in some way).

After tradition is encouraged come the final aspects of genuinely adopting Gaelic culture; language, and clothing law. The latter may sound odd to be so serious, but they were very serious about it. Gaels had three types of dress based on social class, with the use of colors and various symbols that represented many things, and held a very high position of esteem. The lower class wore trews/breeches, with a thigh length shirt, the middle wore a knee-length shirt called a leine, with a plaid or checkered shoulder-cloak called a brat, and the aristocracy could dress as such, but also in decorated robes and longer cloaks. These were signs of wealth, power, and respect, and very important. Language, obviously, is a major facet of a culture. Enforcement of Gaelic language should be a big deal. This movement should cause additional revolts, but then, convert certain provinces to the Gaelic culture. This would move another point toward free population and plutocracy. By the end of it, Alban should be about midway between aristocracy and plutocracy, and closer to a free population than serfdom.


Sorry if that's all way complex and confusing, but trying to think of an interesting and realistic way it'd play out, which would not be very simplistic at all.


4. Other considerations; just random ideas and thoughts

Military philosophy; Gaels inherited a pretty lengthy Celtic tradition as fortress builders. The Irish ringforts (cashels) and Scottish brochs were pretty well defended. The Normans found often in Ireland the best solution was to seige, as assaulting the Irish forts was very dangerous due to their unorthodox set up. Coupled with block castles or towers, they were pretty foreboding. As such, one could argue Gaels would be more defensive than offensive. Gaels didn't often fight offensive wars, though historically they had at various times, and done so with great success. I'd give them a bias to defensive but near the middle. Possibly have a specific fortification event for them, instead of the normal one, talking about the establishment of many additional minor forts (which is what they did) pushing them more toward defense, with an antithesis being the desire of the princes to raid more (lowering relations with a few random kingdoms, or even giving some a cassus belli), pushing them toward offensive.

Wars of religion. As mentioned; Gaels were on the whole traditional. Even when accepting new things, they tended to cling, most especially, to religion, when they had any real ability to. Might become counter-reform Catholics, since they'd actually have the clout in this history to do things of that nature.

'The White Martyrs' were Irish martyrs who set themselves adrift on the ocean. Several reached North America, as evidenced by the setting of connemara (green marble, which only comes from Ireland) markers, as far as modern California. Some mention of them in some capacity, when exploring the New World, might be interesting.

The Crusades; even in real history, both Irish and Scots participated in the Crusades, and the Reconquista. Having not been marginalized, some times to Jerusalem, maybe even an event or two, could be in order.

Legend obsession; Ireland's history is largely legendary and they were very serious about it. The Irish believed quite fervently their ancestors came from many regions, but specifically parts of northern Iberia (Galaecia) and around Aquitane. Events giving Eire, or Scotland if they control Ireland, cores in those regions, could provide some excuse for lengthy wars over unusual properties in Europe one might not initially associate Gaels with.


Okay, think I'm done talking for now.

 

[MattyG]

Wow again.

There is so much wealth here.

I know look at my Eire file and start to cringe.

Ranika, it would be excellent if you could review the Eire file and make suggestions on the following:

1. If an event is completely irresponsible in terms of Gaelic history and culture.

2. If an event needs to be adjusted to be more plausible.

3. Use of Gaelic words appropriate or not and how to alter them.

4. Changes to desciptions so that the flavour is better.



Now, for the ideas you propose above, I guess it's up to Incompetant and I to get cracking at some point and make all of this real. Incompetant is in charge of the Scottish file, but I think of the Eire file as my oy baby, so we need to cooperate.

There appear two ways that Alban and its succeeding events come into existence. The first is by a secession from Scotland. This needs to be Incompetant's baby and it would be easier for him to write all the events there, likely beginning with whatever event would 'lose' gaelic culture, the move to York, say. Incompetant could also write the Eire events that form part of this cycle, as weel, of course, as the A;ban events (yes, we need to create a new country with Tag and the rest).

Whereas, perhaps I can handle the entire cycle that stems from the Eire side of things, wherein they lay claim to the Gaelic part of Scotland.

My timing suggestion is as follows:

1. Eire claiming the Gaelic parts of Scotland must occur before the other events/cycles.

2. The Alban secession approach triggers from the event that sees Scotland's capital move to York, gaining Inglis culture and losing Gaelic, or:

3. The Emperor of the Gaels scenario would gebin at the same point, with Scotland chosing to keep its capital in Lothian. Inglis culture not gained, Gaelic retained and the Emperor scenario begins to unfold.

Once past that point I'd say that other avenues need to be dead to keep things simple, and that all of it needs to be 'over and done with' before the Reformation really hits.

 

[unmerged(51398)]

I could review things. Do you have an AIM or MSN address I could speak with you at? That'd make things go a bit quicker; if we could each discuss more rapidly what kind of events would need done, and how they'd relate to eachother, etc., it'd be much quicker.

I agree with your timing; I suppose I didn't really outline a time scale, but the idea I have had is, more or less, just argument over claimancy, but possibly building to such a scale that one or the other will be conquered, if they let it get too far out of hand. Obviously, that needs a flashpoint, and the high king deciding to take his church title as 'Scotorum Imperator' seriously, and demanding all Gaels submit to him (though in a soft-balled way probably; Gaels were big on gifts and he'd likely send a decent amount to the highlanders), would probably upset the right people to get that all moving.

Then, of course, we have the split; Scotland stays in the north, moves toward becoming Gaelic, we see Alban emergence. It moves south, becomes Inglis, we see Alban secession come about. Then, of course, we can lead into the Emperor of the Gaels scenario.

The secession scenario should be possible regardless of Irish claims; however, it should, if Irish doesn't make claims, have a related event in Ireland. Eire heres that Scotland is trying to Anglicize the highlands, and funds a revolt; Alban secedes, becomes a vassal of Ireland. However, that'd probably lack the elaborate considerations that go into the Emperor scenario.

 

[MattyG]

You are right in that there is more to it.

The Reformation ought not to be a cut-off. Eire especially would use the Reformation as a pre-text to invoke ancient claims, as well as to support the Catholics in the highlands.

There ought also to be a scenario wherein Scotland does poorly. If Scotland ever gets to just, three provinces, or the Highlands and Grampians are owned by someone other than Scotland and Eire, then this could trigger cores for Eire on the Highlands/Grampians as well. The reverse is also true. Scotland gaining cores on Eire if it 'stumbles' and entering the fray as protector of the Gaels.

I see a lot of events ....

As for connecting, it's tough for me with my limited time. I will ask my wife about a good time to connect and we could go at it for an hour, say. The alternative is that you simply annotate the file with your comments and I go through them working the material into shape.