Tinto Maps #4 Poland, Ruthenia, Baltic Feedback

[Dan29067]

Looking at it, it seems that you're right. Another name for it might be more appropriate.

Although the Ukrainian wikipedia page on Ukrainian dialects does suggest that Volhynian and Podillian are closer to each other than to other dialects (and I'd argue in favor of either making them one culture, or having them as two cultures but still separate from "Red Ruthenian" or Halychian).

Yeah, there is Volhynian-Podillian subgroup of South-western dialectal group of Ukrainian language if I'm not mistaken. I also think that entire Podillia area that is currently split between Halychian and Ruthenian cultures should be either its own culture or (quite bold) included into Volhynian. The only part of Podillia that should be Halychian is around Terebolia but it is already Red Ruthenia area anyway. Also Western and Eastern Podillia provinces are better to be named after cities, as both of them are in western part of Podillia area ( Eastern one includes Vinnytsia, Bratslav and Torgovytsia)

 

[Linbot#6018]

Sure, agree, the culture borders should be much more mixed at least.

Why?

 

[purplephoton]

I think cultures should look something like this:

Rusyn: represents Carpathian dialects in Ruthenia and Ruthenians within Hungary. No primary tag.
Red Ruthenian: represents Halych-Bukovina dialect group, the Red Cities, the lands controlled by Halychyna in Ukraine, and the lands influenced by Halychyna in Ukraine and Moldova. Primary tag: Halychyna.
Volhynian: represents Volhynian dialect, Duchy of Volhynia, and historical Volhynia region. Primary tag: Volhynia.
Podolian (optional): represents Podolian dialect and historical Podillia region. Primary tag: Podillia.
Dnipro Ruthenian / Ukrainian: represents Central Ukrainian dialect and part of the lands controlled by Kyiv. Primary tag: Kyiv, additional tags: Pereyaslav.
Polesian: represents two Polissian dialects, Turov-Pinsk, the former control Volhynia in Belarus, and may include parts of Southeastern Belarus where no other dialect is appropriate. Primary tag: Turov, additional tags: Pinsk, Slutsk.
Black Ruthenian: represents the Black Ruthenia region. Primary tag: Slonim.
Severian: represents Eastern Polissian dialect and the land controlled by Chernihiv. Primary tag: Chernihiv, additional tags: Rylsk.
Polatskian: represents the former extent of the Duchy of Polotsk and some Belarusian language extent in western Russia. Primary tag: Polotsk; additional tags: Vitebsk, Minsk, Drutsk.
Smolenskian: represents the Principality of Smolensk and the former extent of what we might now call the transitional Russian-Belarusian dialects. Primary tag: Smolensk, additional tags: Toropets, Mstislav, possibly others.
White Ruthenian (optional): this would represent the parts of Belarus not controlled by Polotsk, Chernihiv, or Smolensk, not part of Black Ruthenia, and not speaking a Polissian dialect. Its extent is rather arbitrary, so I'm not really in favor of it, and it's probably better split between Polatskian and Polesian. No primary tag.

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

I think cultures should look something like this:View attachment 1215978
Rusyn: represents Carpathian dialects in Ruthenia and Ruthenians within Hungary. No primary tag.
Red Ruthenian: represents Halych-Bukovina dialect group, the Red Cities, the lands controlled by Halychyna in Ukraine, and the lands influenced by Halychyna in Ukraine and Moldova. Primary tag: Halychyna.
Volhynian: represents Volhynian dialect, Duchy of Volhynia, and historical Volhynia region. Primary tag: Volhynia.
Podolian (optional): represents Podolian dialect and historical Podillia region. Primary tag: Podillia.
Dnipro Ruthenian / Ukrainian: represents Central Ukrainian dialect and part of the lands controlled by Kyiv. Primary tag: Kyiv, additional tags: Pereyaslav.
Polesian: represents two Polissian dialects, Turov-Pinsk, the former control Volhynia in Belarus, and may include parts of Southeastern Belarus where no other dialect is appropriate. Primary tag: Turov, additional tags: Pinsk, Slutsk.
Black Ruthenian: represents the Black Ruthenia region. Primary tag: Slonim.
Severian: represents Eastern Polissian dialect and the land controlled by Chernihiv. Primary tag: Chernihiv, additional tags: Rylsk.
Polatskian: represents the former extent of the Duchy of Polotsk and some Belarusian language extent in western Russia. Primary tag: Polotsk; additional tags: Vitebsk, Minsk, Drutsk.
Smolenskian: represents the Principality of Smolensk and the former extent of what we might now call the transitional Russian-Belarusian dialects. Primary tag: Smolensk, additional tags: Toropets, Mstislav, possibly others.
White Ruthenian (optional): this would represent the parts of Belarus not controlled by Polotsk, Chernihiv, or Smolensk, not part of Black Ruthenia, and not speaking a Polissian dialect. Its extent is rather arbitrary, so I'm not really in favor of it, and it's probably better split between Polatskian and Polesian. No primary tag.

Well, I think that those optional cultures would be an overkill. Let's say Podolian at the time would not represent any identity because earlier Podolia was under Kyivan rule and then under Halician Volhynian. It became more important much later under Polish rule as Bratslav became an important regional centre and border stronghold to protect Poland from the Crimean Tatars. But I would show it as a mixture of Ruthenian (Ukrainian) and Halychan, Volhynian cultures in 1337.

Concerning Black/White Ruthenian I can't think of any strong regional identity there at the time, but maybe Belarusian guys would know more about that.

Actually I am quite happy with the current cultures as long as I proposed identical division in the original thread , but I would not mind some small border corrections if needed.
In any case this is the level of detail I could not dream of earlier.

 

[ibvfteh]

Well, I think that those optional cultures would be an overkill. Let's say Podolian at the time would not represent any identity because earlier Podolia was under Kyivan rule and then under Halician. It became more important much later under Polish rule as Bratslav became an important regional centre. But I would show it as a mixture of Ruthenian (Ukrainian) and Halychan cultures in 1337.
Concerning Black/White Ruthenian I don't see strong regional identity there at the time, but maybe Belarusian guys would know more about that.

Actually I am quite happy with the current cultures as long as I proposed identical division in the original thread , but I would not mind some small border corrections if needed.
In any case this is the level of detail I could not dream of earlier.

Agree, the cultures are more or less okay but the shape definitely needs correction.

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Why?

To represent the culture continuum and because in some places noone can really define strict 'culture borders' in the mid 14-th century. So just make them more blurred would be OK.

If you have a look at ten different Rus Principalities maps of XI – XIII centuries from all sources, you will probably not find any two identical maps. The biggest duchies and their core lands are the same, but the borders are always different. Small local border duchies and towns switched back and forth sometimes every 10-20-30 years because of continuous internal struggle.

 

[purplephoton]

Concerning Black/White Ruthenian I can't think of any strong regional identity there at the time, but maybe Belarusian guys would know more about that.

The reason why I favor including at least Black and possibly White Ruthenian is because south-central Belarus doesn't fall neatly into other cultural categories. Unlike modern Ukrainian dialects, modern Belarusian dialects do not correspond to any particular historical region or principality. Polatskian covers the northern half of Belarus pretty well, but Tinto had to extend Polesian into the entire southern half of Belarus, which is a bit inaccurate, as Western and Central Polissian stop well south of the Hrodno - Navahrudak - Slutsk - Babruisk line. Now, representing it as Polatskian might be the best choice, but the Principality of Polotsk didn't extend that far. This is why I included Black Ruthenian (not a regional identity per se, but that area had far more Baltic influence than the rest of Belarus) and brought up the possibility of White Ruthenian (this one was mostly to fill in the gap that shouldn't have been Polissian in the first place).

Let's say Podolian at the time would not represent any identity because earlier Podolia was under Kyivan rule and then under Halician Volhynian. It became more important much later under Polish rule as Bratslav became an important regional centre and border stronghold to protect Poland from the Crimean Tatars. But I would show it as a mixture of Ruthenian (Ukrainian) and Halychan, Volhynian cultures in 1337.

Here's the problem I see:
1. The dialects are western, which makes Ruthenian a weak candidate.
2. Volhynia didn't control most of the area, and it would be pretty ridiculous to have Volhynian extend to Uman, making Volhynian a weak candidate.
3. Halych controlled parts of it and the Halychian dialect is close but not a perfect match, so Halychian is a fairly weak candidate overall as well.
A mixture might be ok, but if it makes sense to have Podolian emerge as a culture later under Polish rule, it might just be better to have it in the game at start.

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

The reason why I favor including at least Black and possibly White Ruthenian is because south-central Belarus doesn't fall neatly into other cultural categories. Unlike modern Ukrainian dialects, modern Belarusian dialects do not correspond to any particular historical region or principality. Polatskian covers the northern half of Belarus pretty well, but Tinto had to extend Polesian into the entire southern half of Belarus, which is a bit inaccurate, as Western and Central Polissian stop well south of the Hrodno - Navahrudak - Slutsk - Babruisk line. Now, representing it as Polatskian might be the best choice, but the Principality of Polotsk didn't extend that far. This is why I included Black Ruthenian (not a regional identity per se, but that area had far more Baltic influence than the rest of Belarus) and brought up the possibility of White Ruthenian (this one was mostly to fill in the gap that shouldn't have been Polissian in the first place).

Here's the problem I see:
1. The dialects are western, which makes Ruthenian a weak candidate.
2. Volhynia didn't control most of the area, and it would be pretty ridiculous to have Volhynian extend to Uman, making Volhynian a weak candidate.
3. Halych controlled parts of it and the Halychian dialect is close but not a perfect match, so Halychian is a fairly weak candidate overall as well.
A mixture might be ok, but if it makes sense to have Podolian emerge as a culture later under Polish rule, it might just be better to have it in the game at start.

I see your point, I would be OK if the dev change it. Maybe what you designated mostly as White Ruthenian can be drawn as Severian, because Homel and Rechytsa were parts of the Duchy of Chernihiv for quite a long time.

By the way, here is a nice map with designated Polesia region stretching from Brest to Brahin (1613), I would take it as a reference:

Concerning Podolian culture, I don't completely agree with it emerging just because it is way too small and local in the global scale, that would mean the devs would need to script hundreds of similar local cultures throughout the world. Also you wrote about dialects, but dialects are represented separately in the game.
Btw, I think that we will have 3 dialects in the East Slavic language just for dynamic naming purposes - Ukrainian (South Ruthene/Ruthenian), Belarusian (North Ruthene/Ruthenian), and Russian. There is no sense in having all these dialects related to each culture as long as they have no mechanic and are there only because of flavour.

IF we will have emerging cultures mechanic, I think those emerged cultures will be only connected with rising nationalism and centralisation in the XVII century (since the Age of Absolutism) when centralised national states became dominant and modern nations formed. Like Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian, German, Dutch, Spanish cultures etc.
Maybe it will be a game option in settings because a lot of players do not like this 'historical railroadness'.

 

[ibvfteh]

I think that we will have 3 dialects in the East Slavic language just for dynamic naming purposes - Ukrainian (South Ruthene/Ruthenian), Belarusian (North Ruthene/Ruthenian), and Russian.

I think only two are needed
Ruthenian and Russian

Wikipedia on that question states:

It is virtually impossible to differentiate Ruthenian texts into "Ukrainian" and "Belarusian" subgroups until the 16th century; with some variety, these were all functionally one language between the 14th and 16th century.

from the source itself:

5. Conclusions
The foregoing analysis suggests that the ‘rusьkij jazykъ’ and the ‘prostaja
mova’ should be treated not as different languages (Miakiszew) or two
chronologically consecutive developmental stages of one language sys-
tem, shared by Ukrainians and Belarusians (Moser), but rather as two sty-
listically differentiated varieties of one secular vernacular standard. The
‘rusьkij jazykъ’ was continuously used in administration, and also sporadi-
cally in some literary writings (e.g., tales about Tristan, Bova, and Attila),
as was wholly predictable from the functional (stylistic) continuum as po
ited for representing different degrees of ‘commonness’ of the ‘jazykъ pro-
styj ruskij’ (Smotryc’kyj). The ‘prostaja mova’, in its turn, was a result of
gradual and concurrent systemic adjustments in the vernacular system to
match ultimately the emergence of new, especially ‘learned’ genres, e.g.,
polemical and theological writings, poetry, grammars, primers, chronicles,
and so forth.
From the viewpoint of its dialect basis, the above vernacular system,
realized as the ‘rusьkij jazykъ’ and the ‘prostaja mova’, was neither pure
Ukrainian nor Belarusian. Nor was it an amalgam of common, Ukrainian
and Belarusian, features, consciously sifted out by Ukrainians and Bela-
rusians. The underlying vernacular system showed, in addition to con-
stantly fluctuating Slavonic and rather solid Polish admixtures, a particular
configuration of Polissian, viz., southern Belarusian and northern Ukrai-
nian features, which genetically were of the same provenance. Labeled in
the ducal chanceries as ‘rusьkij jazykъ’, this vernacular was widely used in
the 14th to the late 16th c., gradually bringing forth two ethnically dif-
ferentiated varieties, the more Slavonicized (southwestern) Ukrainian re-
gional variety and the more polonized (central?) Belarusian variety (She-
velov 1974, 148) of what was self-designated by that time as the ‘prostaja
mova’.
Due to the constant influx of speakers from different dialect regions to
Vil’na (Vilnius), the above regional differentiation was engendered most
likely earlier than in the 16th c., although at the very outset, Polissian
features were most likely represented in most secular and religious texts
circulated in the Ruthenian lands, in particular in the ‘Literature of the
Judaizers’, available in sixteenth-century Ruthenian manuscripts, as well
as subsequent Russian copies made in Novgorod and Moscow. Yet, in ad-
dition to ‘Polissianisms’, some Ukrainian features proper are already dis-
cernable in the Book of Esther, Pseudo-Aristotle’s “Secret of Secrets”
(“Tajnaja tajnyxъ”), and most of all in “Šestokrylъ” (in a sixteenth-century
copy from Xolm). Socio-linguistically strong, these features were also at-
tested in writings of non-Slavic speakers, although the situation with
Lithuanian Tatar manuscripts was somewhat different (Danylenko
2006)44. In early ‘kitabs’, the Lithuanian Tatars used the ‘rus’k’ij jezik’ with
typically Polissian features. However, unlike the Polish-language ‘tefsir’
(Suter 2004, 9-13), their later works were written exclusively in Bela
rusian or a Polish-Belarusian mixture (north-eastern borderland Polish),
especially with the demise of the ‘prostaja mova’ by the early 18th c.45.
All in all, the above hypothesis can serve two purposes. First, the con-
cept of the Polissian vernacular standard may help in resolving manifold
problems connected with ethnic attribution of the ‘prostaja mova’, es-
pecially in the writings of those scholars who seek to trace modern ethno-
linguistic groupings to the Late Middle Ages. Second, this theory will
flesh out the somewhat misleading learned term ‘Ruthenian’ as covering
the literary language of both Ukrainian and Belarusian lands without any
reference to its dialect basis. The latter is an indispensable constituent in
the study of the ‘prostaja mova’ and its speakers.

paper


But it is a good question how far into the future should language divisions be or even should they at all

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

I think only two are needed
Ruthenian and Russian

Wikipedia on that question states:

from the source itself:


paper


But it is a good question how far into the future should language divisions be or even should they at all

Historically you are 100% correct. But as far as I understand, dialects do not have historical purpose or mechanics in the game, they are only a 'technical' thing to solve proper naming issues and character names, that in most cases are linked to modern-day languages.
All these names are linked to the dialect of the culture, not the language.

In case of Minsk or Ivan there would not be any issues, but with all three dialects you can have all three variations of location and character names, like Chornobyl - Charnobyl - Chernobyl depending on the primary culture of the location owner or Dmytro - Zmicier - Dmitriy in case of a character. Where it would be necessary.

Actually absolutely the same way they have done the post-viking peoples: all share the Scandinavian language, but the respective locations will be in Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic depending on the owner. Even though this is also purely modern-day division:

The same is with the Czech/Slovak dialects etc.

That's why I'm sure we should have two languages instead of one: Ruthenian and Russian instead of East Slavic. Btw, I also like the adjective Ruthene
The XIV century was definitely around the time when those languages started to emerge, but noone would know the exact decade.
And Ruthene(ian) language should have two dialecs for dynamic and character naming puposes - Northern (Belarusian) and Southern (Ukrainian).

 

[donbg]

Given that we now know that:
1. New cultures won't necessarily form throughout the game
2. The formation of identities like 'Russian' will be represented by a country repressing other cultures and having 'Muscovite' spread (i.e. there will be no rise of a 'Polish' culture by unifying Greater and Lesser Polish - you either have them stick around the entire game or just Greater and Lesser will dominate over the other)
3. Culture groups work differently from EU4

I would ask if we really should have a distinction between "Greater Polish" and "Lesser Polish". From what I understand this is a distinction drawn simply because other parts of Europe have granular cultures rather than something that genuinely represents a cultural divide in Poland that shaped its history like what happened in France. It's also a bit awkward in the game, where you will either have "Greater Polish" and "Lesser Polish" around for the entire 500 period.

So it's 1756, and you're a huge Polish Empire and your lands are still split between 'greater' and 'lesser' and have different artists from the different cultures and your cultural tradition/cultural power is based on only one of these rather than the two. Alternatively, it's 1756 and you repressed 'Lesser Polish' and now your entire country is covered in just "Greater Polish" in an awkward way.

 

[antalguerrero]

Given that we now know that:
1. New cultures won't necessarily form throughout the game
2. The formation of identities like 'Russian' will be represented by a country repressing other cultures and having 'Muscovite' spread (i.e. there will be no rise of a 'Polish' culture by unifying Greater and Lesser Polish - you either have them stick around the entire game or just Greater and Lesser will dominate over the other)
3. Culture groups work differently from EU4

I would ask if we really should have a distinction between "Greater Polish" and "Lesser Polish". From what I understand this is a distinction drawn simply because other parts of Europe have granular cultures rather than something that genuinely represents a cultural divide in Poland that shaped its history like what happened in France. It's also a bit awkward in the game, where you will either have "Greater Polish" and "Lesser Polish" around for the entire 500 period.

So it's 1756, and you're a huge Polish Empire and your lands are still split between 'greater' and 'lesser' and have different artists from the different cultures and your cultural tradition/cultural power is based on only one of these rather than the two. Alternatively, it's 1756 and you repressed 'Lesser Polish' and now your entire country is covered in just "Greater Polish" in an awkward way.

I agree and prefer to hope that they will eventually find a way to introduce new cultures in a dynamic way, and at the same time make it compatible with languages and so on.

The game looks so good that I don't think they're going to 'stay halfway' on such an issue, really.

 

[Linbot#6018]

Yeah, at the time people were saying that we don't know what the culture system looks like so there's probably some system for making it make sense. But now that the culture system has been revealed, it still doesn't make sense, and it's actually worse because we have stuff like cultural power. So I really don't see how you'd defend it.

 

[SaintDaveUK]

Historically you are 100% correct. But as far as I understand, dialects do not have historical purpose or mechanics in the game, they are only a 'technical' thing to solve proper naming issues and character names, that in most cases are linked to modern-day languages.
All these names are linked to the dialect of the culture, not the language.

In case of Minsk or Ivan there would not be any issues, but with all three dialects you can have all three variations of location and character names, like Chornobyl - Charnobyl - Chernobyl depending on the primary culture of the location owner or Dmytro - Zmicier - Dmitriy in case of a character. Where it would be necessary.

Actually absolutely the same way they have done the post-viking peoples: all share the Scandinavian language, but the respective locations will be in Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic depending on the owner. Even though this is also purely modern-day division:
View attachment 1216543

The same is with the Czech/Slovak dialects etc.

That's why I'm sure we should have two languages instead of one: Ruthenian and Russian instead of East Slavic. Btw, I also like the adjective Ruthene
The XIV century was definitely around the time when those languages started to emerge, but noone would know the exact decade.
And Ruthene(ian) language should have two dialecs for dynamic and character naming puposes - Northern (Belarusian) and Southern (Ukrainian).

If we were to explore this, exactly which cultures would have Ruthenian language and which would have Russian? Particularly where do Smolenskian, Severian, Polatskian lie on the spectrum?

 

[Wildrake]

If we were to explore this, exactly which cultures would have Ruthenian language and which would have Russian? Particularly where do Smolenskian, Severian, Polatskian lie on the spectrum?

Smolenskian and Polatskian - definitely Ruthenian (particularly Belarusian), they fall under Smolensk-Polotsk dialect
Severian - hard to tell, western parts - Ruthenian, eastern - Russian. Severian represents Chernihovo-Severian and Ryazanian dialects which are considered to be similar. The problem here is that after Lithuanian duchy took Ruthenian lands, Chernihiv area and Ryazan are fell under different writing systems - Old Ruthenian under Lithuanian duchy and Old Russian for other Russian principalities
The Soviet classification for dialects of Rus language:
- Polotsk-Smolensk dialect (now Belarusian)
-Kyivan dialect (now Ukrainian)
-Halychian-Volhynian dialect (now Ukrainian)
-Novgorodian dialect (now Russian)
-Rostov-Suzdal dialect (now Russian)
-Chernihiv-Severia dialect (now Ukrainian)
-Ryazan dialect (now Russian), often grouped with Chernihiv-Severian

Personally, I would recommend dividing Severian into Severian and Ryazanian, while maybe unifying Volhynian and Halychian or not divide languages at all

 

[ibvfteh]

If we were to explore this, exactly which cultures would have Ruthenian language and which would have Russian? Particularly where do Smolenskian, Severian, Polatskian lie on the spectrum?

Those, who were part of Lithuania Ruthenian and Those under Muscovy Russian.

At least to my knowledge Russian formed with a great influence of Old Curch Slavonic in Muscovy as it was used side by side with old Church Slavonic, taking a lot of grammar, word and constructions from it, while Ruthenian did not have such pressure.

But this is true only in future, as neither kingdom yet formed.

If there is dynamic system for that, it will be amazing.

Polatskian is Ruthenian
Smolenskian and Severian are impossible to pinpoint to ether one in my opinion as they are in both places. I think there we need to find any literature from specifically those regions.

Severian still does include Ryazan?

 

[purplephoton]

If we were to explore this, exactly which cultures would have Ruthenian language and which would have Russian? Particularly where do Smolenskian, Severian, Polatskian lie on the spectrum?

“Severian” in Chernihiv would be Ruthenian. If I remember the Russia map correctly, though, it extends well into Russian-speaking territory. Smolenskian has a similar issue.
Polatskian is solidly Ruthenian.

Could we have a more up-to-date map of Russian cultures and/or would they be subject to tweaks based on feedback in this thread?

 

[ibvfteh]

If we were to explore this, exactly which cultures would have Ruthenian language and which would have Russian? Particularly where do Smolenskian, Severian, Polatskian lie on the spectrum?

A question.

What is the current methodology to determine when it is dialects and when separate languages?

Is it linguistic norms? Or mutual intelligibility of far away speakers?

Because I feel like again we are one the edge of dividing everything like with cultures.

 

[Wildrake]

A question.

What is the current methodology to determine when it is dialects and when separate languages?

Is it linguistic norms? Or mutual intelligibility of far away speakers?

Because I feel like again we are one the edge of dividing everything like with cultures.

they stated that dialects are needed for flavor (special names etc) - so methodology here should be based on this fact

 

[ibvfteh]

they stated that dialects are needed for flavor (special names etc) - so methodology here should be based on this fact

Okay Ivan and Johan are the variations of one name, so should every language be united with flavour dialects?

I want to understand where does flavour ends and gameplay consequences begin. As having different languages does influence the game based on Tinto Talks