Civ specific Dawn of Man

[3Miro]

Kiev:
"It is the year 880. Although attributed to some weakling God, it was the mighty walls of Constantinople that hampered your attack in 866. You have now found it more profitable to settle down with your fellow Swedish vikings and establish yourselves as a local elite, selling the local slav population as slaves. Life is good, the land is fertile, and perhaps it is time to seek more peaceful and profitable exchange with the Byzantines?"

You aren't serious, are you?

The Kiev Rus were mostly slavs and their gratest rulers like Yaroslav surely was Slavic.

Also, I don't think the siege of Constantinople really played that big of a role in establishing the Kiev Rus.

 

[civ_king]

You aren't serious, are you?

The Kiev Rus were mostly slavs and their gratest rulers like Yaroslav surely was Slavic.

Also, I don't think the siege of Constantinople really played that big of a role in establishing the Kiev Rus.

Err, Yaroslav I's father was Varangian (VIKING!!)

 

[3Miro]

Err, Yaroslav I's father was Varangian (VIKING!!)

Sure his father was a Viking, was his mother a slave girl or a local princess? For quite some time Vikings formed a ruling class, but they were not those evil enslavers. The relation was no different than the Normans in France and England.

I think the text is totally not fitting.

 

[civ_king]

Sure his father was a Viking, was his mother a slave girl or a local princess? For quite some time Vikings formed a ruling class, but they were not those evil enslavers. The relation was no different than the Normans in France and England.

I think the text is totally not fitting.

We know nothing about his maternal grandmother, but we do know his maternal grandfather was Viking. IMO 3/4 Viking, 1/4 Unknown=Scandinavian

 

[3Miro]

We know nothing about his maternal grandmother, but we do know his maternal grandfather was Viking. IMO 3/4 Viking, 1/4 Unknown=Scandinavian

The % of Viking isn't my issue, he may be entirely Viking, however, Yaroslav is a Slavic name and Vikings in Kiev did adopt the local culture (just like in Normany).

My objection is towards the emphasis of the slave trade, which I don't think was a defining characteristic of Kiev Rus. You can prove me wrong with reference to how the slave trade was the backbone of their economy or key to their success or something, however, if it was about the regular amount of conquer/enslave, then I don't think it belongs to the opening menu. (and it has to be specific towards Kiev Rus, not the Vikings in general. Vikings are represented as the Norse, Kiev are the Vikings that have already settled like the Normans)

 

[AbsintheRed]

The % of Viking isn't my issue, he may be entirely Viking, however, Yaroslav is a Slavic name and Vikings in Kiev did adopt the local culture (just like in Normany).

My objection is towards the emphasis of the slave trade, which I don't think was a defining characteristic of Kiev Rus. You can prove me wrong with reference to how the slave trade was the backbone of their economy or key to their success or something, however, if it was about the regular amount of conquer/enslave, then I don't think it belongs to the opening menu. (and it has to be specific towards Kiev Rus, not the Vikings in general. Vikings are represented as the Norse, Kiev are the Vikings that have already settled like the Normans)

I agree. Kiev is absolutely separate from the Vikings in the mod, it doesn't really matter gameplay wise if the ruling noble class had Varangian ancestry.
They assimilated into the kievan culture pretty fast
The DoM text should be about the kievan people not about varangians and/or swedish vikings.
Mentioning the varangians somewhere is more than enough

 

[rrosen]

The reason for mentioning the vikings was that the year of the DoM was 880, not the year of Yaroslav. The player is placed in the role of Oleg of Novgorod, whom I think there seems to be ample evidence of being a viking.

 

[rrosen]

I actually want to emphasize again the issue I raised in my first post here: how should we deal with the start year / leader year anachronism? The issue is certainly poignant for the Hungarians. In the year 895 and ~100 year onwards, they were something of the last barbarian tribe, roaming through Europe, plundering and burning villages. Later on, they became fully integrated into the European Christian community and became a bulwark against Mongols and Ottomans. If we speak to the player as their leader in the year 895, we can hardly talk about their later history, can we?

 

[ezzlar]

rrosen: Great texts! Except for Cordoba, we shouldnt use that one at all!

 

[AbsintheRed]

rrosen: Great texts! Except for Cordoba, we shouldnt use that one at all!

Agreed, I also like most of them, but as you guys already said, Sweden and Cordoba are debatable
Will update the first post with the other ones soon

 

[3Miro]

I think we should have the texts from the point of view of the founder of the nation. The player is mostly oblivious about the leader he/she chooses, there are no traits like in BtS, you never see the graphics of you leaderhead (except a static image in one of the diplo screens), and the player can change the name of the leader.

We should have the text referring to the player as "you..." and refer to the founder of the nation. Here is the Bulgarian text. It isn't too long is it?

After many years of civil war, you father had finally united your people in the Great Bulgar. However, after his death and pushed by the Khazar hordes, you and your borthers had to divide the Bulgarians yet again and leave your old home in different direction.

After years of travel trhough snow and heat, mountains and swamps, you finally reached the northern borders of the East Roman Empire. Tired of traveling with no home, you gather your people for one last push, to cross the Danube river and to challenge the mighty Empire itself; to claim this lustful land as yours forever.

 

[rrosen]

The general idea I have is to use this format:

"It is the year X. {Some recent, important events regarding the nation, if possible in relation to other nations that affected the forming of the nation}. {How the situation forming the nation was seen from a) the founder of the nation, b) the people in the founded nation, c) later rulers of the nation or d) later people in the nation}. Finally {some optimistic outlook on the future of the nation}."

It is my interpretation of what to say as the sorta-middle bracket which has been most controversial. I'm generally inclined to agree with 3Miro that the player should be seen as the founder of the nation and use a). However, that will cause the controversies above. I think there is ample consensus that the founding rulers of the Kievan Rus saw themselves as distinct from the local population.
As i asked above, with Hungary it is even worse and I haven't yet dared to write anything What are your opinions of how to handle them?

 

[3Miro]

The way I usually handle Hungary is to let AbsintheRed deal with it.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I actually want to emphasize again the issue I raised in my first post here: how should we deal with the start year / leader year anachronism? The issue is certainly poignant for the Hungarians. In the year 895 and ~100 year onwards, they were something of the last barbarian tribe, roaming through Europe, plundering and burning villages. Later on, they became fully integrated into the European Christian community and became a bulwark against Mongols and Ottomans. If we speak to the player as their leader in the year 895, we can hardly talk about their later history, can we?

I haven't made my mind about Hungary yet
There is some (alright, huge ) controversy, but I'm sure the RFCE community will figure out something nice ,)

The way I usually handle Hungary is to let AbsintheRed deal with it.

Not very wise, but everyone has some mistakes

 

[rrosen]

Well, leaving Hungary aside, here is some more fuel to the bonfire of controversy:

Spain:
"It is the year 910. While the moors never really held sway over your northen parts of Spain, the Caliphate of Cordoba under Abd-ar-Rahman III is stronger than ever. Christians there are tolerated, but lower taxes drive them towards conversion and eternal damnation. You must launch the Reconquista and liberate them before it is too late!"

Poland:
"It is the year 966. Worried by the threat of a unified German Empire, you have accepted Christianity to protect your land against foreign aggression. You will be a shining example of liberty and toleration for the rest of Europe - no inquisition will be needed, and the Szlactha will curb any autocratic tendencies!"

England:
"It is the year 1066. The battlefield of Hastings lays quiet. Harold Godwinson is dead, but not before he took care of the Norwegians for you. Even though Scotland may be the source of trouble sometimes, the rich estates of England will fund the defense of your important possesions in France. No longer William the Bastard, henceforth you will be known as William the Conqueror!"

Portugal:
"It is the year 1139. After a magnificent victory over the Moors, your soldiers hailed you, Afonso Henriques, as the first King of the Portugese. Your country is small, so military adventures against powerful neighbors should be avoided, but your excellent location will allow you to build a colonial trading empire that will shake the foundations of the world!"

Lithuanians:
"It is the year 1236. Strange invaders, Teutonic knights worshipping a man on a cross, have disturbed the tranquility of the land. However, they are not invincible. You, Mindaugas, showed that they bleed and die, just like other men. It is high time to drive them out, the religion of your ancestors is surely also the best for you. Make them proud!"

 

[AbsintheRed]

Thanks
We already had a text for Portugal though
"It's the year 1139 AD. Under your leadership, the Portuguese people decided to break the family ties with Leon and declare independence. Now it's time to proceed with the Reconquista to the south and prepare to expand beyond the Iberian Peninsula"

Which one do you guys prefer?
Or should we merge them?

EDIT: first post updated

 

[rrosen]

Three more texts.

Austria:
"It is the year 1282. The Holy Roman Empire have had enough of the excesses of the Hohenstaufen. Called Stupor Mundi -astonishment of the world - Fredrick II has made the people long for stability and moderation. Your Habsburg dynasty will provide that. Navigate carefully through the intricate diplomacy of central Europe, and your dynasty will still stand proudly many hundreds of years from now!"

The Ottomans:
"It is the year 1359. Allah has truly shown his favour towards you. Firstly, the Black Death affected the Byzantines in the cities, but largely spared the countryside of the Turks. Secondly, the earthquake in Gallipoli 1354 levelled all the walls. The way to Europe is open, you need only to reach out and grasp it!"

The Muscovites:
"It is the year 1380. The shadow of the Mongol Golden has loomed over the land for more than a hundred years. With the people chafing under their oppression, fear has prevented effective resistance. All has changed now on the fields of Kulikovo, where you led your coalition to victory. The road ahead is long and arduous, but in the end, Mother Russia will prevail!"

By the way, I'm feeling blind, but can't seem to find it. Where is the link to the SVN version?

 

[AbsintheRed]

By the way, I'm feeling blind, but can't seem to find it. Where is the link to the SVN version?

If you don't want to use any extra programs (tortoiseSVN or something similar), then download the GNU tarball from here: http://rfceurope.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/rfceurope/
This way you download the whole mod every time (not just the modified files) but it's always the latest SVN version

 

[Nicke1]

Err, Yaroslav I's father was Varangian (VIKING!!)

Yaroslav = Slavic name means something like "strongly glorious"
His father was Vladimir = Slavic name means "possessor of the world"
His grandfather was Sviatoslav = Slavic name means "sacred glorious"

Kiev:
"It is the year 880. Although attributed to some weakling God, it was the mighty walls of Constantinople that hampered your attack in 866. You have now found it more profitable to settle down with your fellow Swedish vikings and establish yourselves as a local elite, selling the local slav population as slaves. Life is good, the land is fertile, and perhaps it is time to seek more peaceful and profitable exchange with the Byzantines?"

Nice joke. Now let's learn some history. We know that Novgorodians invited Varagian prince Rurik who established dynasty which ruled Russian land for 7 centures. The Primary Chronicle says that invited Varangians were neither Swedes, nor Normans, nor Angles, nor Gutes, but Rus'. Ioachim Chronicle sates that Rurik was relative of Novdorodian posadnik ("mayor") Gostomysl. That Rus' Varagians were probably citizens of Staraya Russa. Of cource Scandinavians were present in Kievan Rus' but surely not as lords but as mercenaries.

 

[Morholt]

Of course Normanists would argue that "Rus" were the local's name for the Swedes, compare to "Ruotsi" which is Sweden in Finnish. And the Norse sagas mention several Norse noblemen and kings as having grown up in Novgorod. This is not what most Russian historians believe though.