Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Tinto Maps #8 Russia Feedback

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.
Show only dev responses
ibvfteh said:
Can you share a source for that? I can not find anything to prove it

All I found is from Russian Wikipedia

It is implying that process of colonisation is already started in XI century so before the game start
Click to expand...
1733822144529.png

1733822213139.png

Saamelaisasutukseen Vienanmeren rannikolla 1300-luvulla viittaa epäsuorastiedellä jo mainittu Lazarʹ Muromalaisen elämäkerta, jossa mainitaan, että lappalaiset lähtivät Äänisen tienoilta Vienanmeren rannikolle (Vitov 1962: 71). Näin ollen voidaan olettaa, että ainakin osa Karjalan eteläosassa asuvista saamelaisista eteni kohti Vienanmeren rannikkoa myöhäiskeskiajalla eli noin 1300-luvun keskivaiheessa.Historioitsija R. B. Myllerin mukaan karjalaiset työnsivät saamelaisia Vienanmeren rannikolta kohti sisämaata 1400-luvulla. Hän olettaa myös, että silloin saamelaiset harjoittivat kauttakulkukauppaa ylläpitäen siten yhteyksiä Ruotsin ja Venäjänluoteisosien välillä. (Myller 1947: 28–29.)
Click to expand...
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Maybe it's just me, and maybe similar problems exist elsewhere as well, but having "Western Kola" be bisected into two by impassable wasteland feels weird (why would both halves count as a whole when you can't walk between them)?

1733823471541.png


Maybe shift Kola to be part of Western Kola instead?
1733823507090.png
 
  • 6Like
  • 4
Reactions:
mathuser said:
Looks like for Kositskoye and Dubrovno someone mixed up the letters going from Cyrillic to Latin characters. This can be noticed since the letter 'j' should not be used but rather the letter 'y' in the Romanization of Russian.

View attachment 1228499

For Kositskoye, Косицкое has ц [ts] mixed up with ч [ch] and е [e]/[ye] mixed up with ë [yo].

For Dubrovno, the older Доубровне has e [e]/[ye] mixed up with ë [yo].

However, the name used during this period would be Дубровна, that is Dubrovna, which is not to be confused with Dubrowna [Дуброўна] in Belarus.

On the other hand, Koporje was changed to Kopor'ye, so these seem to be slight oversights.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it could still be dubrovnO, which is a common counter-intuitive naming pattern in the region. :)
And also DOLCHNINYO -> DOLZHINO.

This is the original feedback (with the map):
Summary:
KOSICHKOJ -> KOSITSKOYE
DUBRONJO -> DUBROVNO (DUBROVNA)
DOLCHINYO -> DOLZHINO
 
Wolfgang Schmidt said:
Everyone living at that time in the Moscow principality will say that they spoke Russian, what is the Moscovite language? I agree with the different cultures of Novgorod and Moscow, but with a single Russian language.The concept of Muscovy and Muscovites was usually used by the Poles for the cultural alienation of Moscow/Russia from the historical lands of Rus as the next claimants to these lands. The princes of Moscow, Smolensk, Chernigov, Vladimir called themselves Russian people.
Click to expand...
Well, looks likes you dont really understand the therm "Russian". It applied to all the slavic inhabitants of former Rus. So people called thir language Russian from Transcarpathia to White sea and you understand pretty well, that in XIVc those people were already quiet different and spoke different languages. There is no reason to call Muscovian Russian in the game.

It is the same reason, why we have Greek, not Roman.

So Muscovian is a very accurate therm.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Cuke said:
The game is not about modern Russia, so this snowflakism is irrelevant for the game.
Click to expand...
I agree about his behaviour being snowflakism, but the point he made actually has another value.

Using a term that is considered by some people to be offensive today is a bad idea regardless of it being offensive in old times or not. The n-word, for one, became a slur only in modern times as well, but it doesnt mean that its okay to use this word to describe a culture from 14th century when it was "irrelevant" or something. Because players live today, and they will care about it instead.

So, as long as the name exists, it will just keep bringing controversive discussions like this again and again, in every thread atleast remotely related to Russian region, because some countries like Kyiv got their historically-accurate-renamings, and some other didnt. Theres no point in keeping something that only brings trouble and is not historically accurate anyway.
When the first thread ended, I thought we was already past this point, but apperently there's another "muscovites are a slur" drama on the horizon. And theres gonna be another one when the game releases. And theres gonna be another one when Russia-related dlc comes out. Theres gonna be a lot of those.
 
  • 6
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Cuke said:
And it will still be up to us the community to remind these people that they didn't bother to learn the history of their own country.
Click to expand...
Would your mind to provide a historical document from XIV century, where Russians call themselves "muscovites"? I would like to learn some history.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Cuke said:
If you have an English map or text from XIV century about Moscow yourself - feel free to provide it
Click to expand...
Why does it have to be English? I can find Russian documents where they call themselves "Russians" and not "Muscovites" and where they call Moscow the "Grand Duchy of Moscow" and not "Muscovy".
 
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
purplephoton said:
SUGGESTED EAST SLAVIC CULTURE/LANGUAGE SPLIT:

Russian linguists generally agree that Old East Slavic already had several dialect groups by the 11th-12th centuries; I found three main theories for the exact split. By the late 1300s, political developments had mostly cemented their status. They weren't a perfect match for the languages and dialects of today - not even mentioning the spread south and east - as there were additional demographic shifts after 1400 (especially around Velikiy Novgorod, Smolensk, and Belgorod). However, they provide a very good and decently convenient basis for the cultures, dialects, and languages in Project Caesar.

The three theories, as posited by the respective linguists, are:
1. Khaburgayev - southwestern (Halych-Volhynian), southern (Central-Eastern Ukrainian), central (modern Belarusian and Southern Russian), northwestern (Novgorod-Pskov), and northeastern (Vladimir-Suzdal)
2. Ivanov - southwestern (Halych-Volhynian and Central-Eastern Ukrainian), western (Smolensk-Polotsk), southeastern (Ryazan-Kursk-Chernihiv), northwestern (Novgorod-Pskov), and northeastern (Vladimir-Suzdal)
3. Zaliznyak - northwestern (Novgorod-Pskov) vs southern-central-eastern (everything else); according to him, there were regional variances within the second group as early as 11th century, but this was the primary split until the Novgorod-Pskov and Vladimir-Suzdal dialects started merging together around 1200; this would set Novgorod-Pskov dialects solidly apart from the rest but would not preclude the rest from being split into different cultures in Project Caesar.

I found a map of the first theory and edited it to include the second:
View attachment 1228501
This map also includes written standards; the Western - Old Russian differentiation is a consequence of Lithuanian conquests so it shouldn't affect cultures/languages by itself. However, the Novgorod written standard is actually relevant because it predates Lithuania (Zaliznyak mentions Novgorod dialect being very different as early as 1125, and almost certainly before that), so it can be used to differentiate cultures.

This makes for a total of six language zones; these can be merged and shifted as necessary to meet Tinto's standards of having certain linguistic zones. For simplicity, southern and southwestern can be combined into a single Ukrainian dialect. Individual cultures can be rearranged too; two possible changes stand out. First, Chernihiv Severian can be grouped with the rest of Ukrainian. Second, Turov-Pinsk Polesian can be optionally grouped with Belarusian; I don't think this is necessary, because 1) Belarusian and Ukrainian would be part of the same language anyway, while Severian and the Ryazan-Kursk group would not, 2) Ukrainian-Belarusian and Belarusian-Russian had large transitional zones, as is typical of a language that's rapidly falling apart, but the Ukrainian-Russian transitional zone was much smaller, so it makes far more sense to move Severian than Polesian, and 3) some Belarusian linguists consider the speech of Turov and Pinsk up to the early 1900s to not be part of Belarusian.

On a six-zone map, this gives us the following languages and dialects:
View attachment 1228515
(Apologies for the seam and the empty corner... I had to merge multiple maps together).
Ukrainian and Belarusian dialects would be part of Ruthenian, while Novgorodian, Muscovite, and Southeast Russian (probably needs another name) dialects would be part of Russian.

I think there are three good ways to break these into cultures: a minimalist version (just the six blocks, but Tinto has already broken three of these up), a middle version (close to Tinto's current breakdown with the addition of only a couple cultures that I think are necessary) and a maximalist version (with several additional cultures on top).
Middle version:
View attachment 1228517
Maximalist version:
View attachment 1228518

The borders between cultures generally follow the political and (our best guess for) linguistic boundaries of 1337; in a few cases, modern linguistic boundaries have been used as secondary guidelines.

The corresponding political division under Kyivan Rus, the linguistic basis, and the tags for these cultures would be:

HALYCHIAN:
Principality of Halych
Syan-Dniester-Pokuttia-Bukovina dialect subgroup of Ukrainian
Tags: Halych (primary)

Optional: RUSYN:
Ruthenians within Hungary
Rusyn
Tags: none
(this one has no primary tag but it's heavily divergent today to the point of being considered its own language and in popular demand on the Carpathia-Balkans thread)

VOLHYNIAN:
Principality of Volhynia
Volhynian-Podillian and Western Polissian dialects of Ukrainian
Tags: Volhynia (primary)

DNIPRO UKRAINIAN:
Principalities of Kyiv and Pereyaslav
Middle Dnieprian and Slobozhan dialects of Ukrainian
Tags: Kyiv (primary), Pereyaslav (releasable), Kaniv (releasable), Zaporizhia (releasable)

SEVERIAN:
Principality of Chernihiv (not including the parts that broke off around the Oka)
Eastern Polissian dialect of Ukrainian
Tags: Chernihiv (primary), Starodub-Siverskyi, Novhorod-Siverskyi, Trubchevsk, Rylsk

POLESIAN:
Principality of Turov-Pinsk (incl. Slutsk)
Central Polissian dialect of Ukrainian and parts of Southwestern Belarusian that were not part of Polotsk
Tags: Turov (primary), Pinsk, Slutsk, Dubrovytsia (releasable)

POLOTSKIAN:
Principality of Polotsk (incl. the parts that broke off)
Central and Northeastern Belarusian dialects
Tags: Polotsk (primary), Vitebsk, Drutsk, Minsk (releasable)

Optional: BLACK RUTHENIAN:
Parts of Principality of Polotsk that do not speak a Central or Northeastern Dialect; geographical region of Black Ruthenia
Southwestern Belarusian with some Yotvingian influence
Tags: Novohrudok (primary)
This one makes for a good addition because it crosses linguistic and regional lines and because Polotskian looks funny otherwise. It's currently part of Polesian, which is a bit of an odd fit.

SMOLENSKIAN:
Principality of Smolensk
Western subgroup of South Russian dialects (Bryansk, Smolensk, and Upper Dnieper)
Tags: Smolensk (primary), Vyazma, Bryansk, Fomin(?)

OKAN (or Verkhovian):
Upper Oka Principalities (formerly part of Chernihiv)
Central subgroup of South Russian dialects (Kursk-Orel, Yelets, parts of Kaluga and Tula dialects, transitional zone around Karachev (southwest of w-u and yakanye isoglosses))
Tags: Odoyev (primary, releasable), Karachev, Novosil, Kozelsk, Tarusa, Mosalsk (releasable)

RYAZANIAN:
Principality of Ryazan
Eastern subgroup of South Russian dialects (Ryazan, parts of Kaluga and Tula dialects (northeast of w-u and yakanye isoglosses))
Tags: Ryazan (primary), Pronsk

MUSCOVITE:
Grand Duchy of Moscow, Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal, Principality of Murom
East-Central, Kostroma, and (possibly) Torzhok groups
Tags: Muscovy (primary), Murom, Vladimir, Suzdal, Dmitrov, Rostov, Uglich, Mologa, Beloozero, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Starodub, Nizhny Novgorod, Gorodets, Galich-Mersky, Yuriev-Polsky

Optional: TVERIAN
Principality of Tver (originated in 1246)
Torzhok group and Tver subgroup
Tags: Tver (primary), Zubtsov, Klin, Kashin, Rzhev
The point of this one is that the area around Tver has some of the most transitional dialects today that might not necessarily fit with Muscovite, and also Muscovite is already the largest culture and could reasonably be split. Additionally, it could include parts of Novgorod that don't fit into the northwestern dialect group.

NOVGORODIAN:
Duchy/Republic of Novgorod
Northwestern dialect group using Old Novgorodian written standard and not subject to 14th-century Pskov-area phenomena such as yakanye; parts of Northern Russian dialect (which included Novgorod before some forced relocations by Muscovy)
Tags: Novgorod (primary), Oreshek

PSKOVIAN:
Duchy/Republic of Pskov
Northwestern dialect group not using Old Novgorod written standard and subject to yakanye and other southern/transitional phenomena; modern Pskov and Gdov groups
Tags: Pskov (primary), Toropets
Yes, I think this one should be included - the area roughly south of Pskov - Vyshniy Volochyok line was developing many new features at this time that weren't present north of the line near Novgorod and was already diverging rapidly (akanye dates to the 14th century, for example). It also makes sense to represent a political division between Pskov and Novgorod.

POMOR:
Novgorod's colonies off the coast (off-map)
No direct linguistic basis; area of secondary language formation (that is, an area that's liguistically mixed due to being recently moved into)
Tags: none
Click to expand...
Oh come on, this map was posted on Tinto Talk forum for lots of times. This map has nothing to do with reality, it isnt based on any sources and is pure fantasy of the author. There is no evidence of specifically such devide in the past or nowadays.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
lazprune said:
Hello devs, a few feedback-questions :

- Why separating ruthenian and russian language? For balance? Beforethe influence of Polish and Lithuanian, East Slavic was more of a linguistic continuum.
- Why calling the dialect Russian and the culture Muscovite? Calling the dialect russian is a Moscow-centric take (which is not necessarily bad) but the why not going full on with this and calling the culture Russian? Unless you have taken notes from the merging culture feature thread, it feels weird to have muscovite countries not being Muscovy at a time it wasn't yet an historical center of russian culture as well as ending up having the "muscovite" culture in Vladivostok area later on.
- Perhaps Baltic should be a language group instead of a language? Its "dialects are very different.
- Why keeping the Sami a huge polity (because SOPs are still polities at the end) while they hadn't any political unity?
Click to expand...
East Slavic is not even considered as a language by lots of scientists (including Russian). And even those who consider it can be called a language, do not have a common agreement when it ended, somewhere between the XII and XIV centuries because the loss of reduced vowel in the East Slavic dialects happened in the XI – XIII centuries that separated North-East and South-West dialects, the Mongolian invasion intensified the process. Of course they were still somehow intelligible, Lithuanian and Polish rule intensified this process much further, but quite everyone agrees that Old Russian and Old Ukrainian/Belarusian (=Ruthenian) existed from the XIV till XVIII centuries when they became modern Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian languages.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back