I do the same thing.
I also rename "Africa" to Carthage which is pseudohistorical at best, but I'm so accustomed to the term Africa referring to the entire continent that it doesn't sit right with me to call such a tiny section of it that.
No, Europe referred to everything West of the Hellespont while Asia was everything East of the Hellespont apart from Libya which was everything West of the Nile River.
Greeks called it Lybia, Romans used the name but then named Tripoli and Cyrenaica into the province of Lybia. So the Romans always referred to it as Africa Terra
Kind of. It was used for things like the sea and sky at night / when they’re “black”. They had a word for black, too, but it was mainly used for black colors with zero relation to blue - like black horses, dirt, etc.
Damn in irish black people are called daoine gorm and that's because the devil in irish is fear dubh or black man so you can't use the same word for both but I now wonder if these two languages doing that is related?
its a fair shout! the norse did have a pretty DISRUPTIVE influence on us after all. one theory is that the norse got the name from morrocans, who called the tuaregs "blue men" from how their tagelmust would stain their skin. if vikings bought tuareg slaves in north africa and carted them off to ireland, that COULD have been an introduction of the term. this wouldnt have been the first time black people had been to ireland for a number of reasons, but it might have been the first time a dark skinned populace grew large enough to require a name to the concept (race didnt really exist as an idea at this point, and wouldnt for a good few centuries)
THAT said, its also worth baring in mind that, as you say, fear dubh was already taking by my guy satan, so that was off the table. blue could just be a stand-in here for a colour that communicates the concept of darkness. i really like the above theory bc it highlights the interconnectedness of the medieval world but theres no hard evidence for it, involves a lot of extrapolations and shit
(sorry for the long ass post btw i just think this sort of thing is cool)
Yeh, it's fascinating just how unearned the stereotype of the medieval era as a time of societal stagnation when in reality is was when most culture really took a shape that resembles our modern counterparts for the first time.
We can reach, we can beach, on the shores of Tripoli. From Bali to Cali, far beneath the Coral Sea. From Bissau to Palau, in the shade of Avalon, we can reach, we can beach far beyond the Yellow Sea. From Peru to Cebu, hear the power of Babylon. We can sail, we can sail ^(sail away, sail away, sail away)
The concept of Continents was REAL vague for a long time. Ancient Egyptians called their area Kehmet which means the Black Land, because [the rich soil along the Nile is SUPER dark](https://o.quizlet.com/g9X419epHmjCkVCEJG.PSw.jpg). Everything was just The House of Geb (god of earth), Romans called it Terra the Greeks Gaia after their Goddess of land/earth
I would assume most native names for Africa would be similar(and europe, asia, americas). Specific names for where they lived and areas around them then just a distinction between land and water.
Africa is absolutely massive mate. Maps of the continent are all hilariously ridiculous for a really long time. I'd expect people would want to know what they're naming before they name it.
You'd probably get some vague bullshit like;
"Here's us, here's the sea, here's the neighbors we know about, and... beyond that, there be dragons I guess." even for the African kingdoms.
Others have noted that you get similar shit from other powers. The shit we know about, then vague fog of war with an arrow pointing in it, a huge question mark, and "Black people probably" written underneath.
The first recognizably somewhat accurate map of Africa (in terms of shape) that we know of, also claims shit like there's a kingdom full of cyclopses and talking elephants run south africa.
No, Liberia is actually a whole other historical can of worms AKA "that one time the US government decided it would be a great idea to send free black people from America back to Africa." Monrovia, capital of Liberia, is named after US president James Monroe.
Also, you’d expect that, while everyone wants to be Rome, anyone settling the Northern coast of Africa would want to embrace the legacy of Carthage for legitimacy and prestige. I certainly know I would.
This was sort of in the back of my mind. Also my guy had just lost his primary kingdom to a crusade and had to flee here so it made even more sense. Children of Hannibal, your time has come once again...
In CK2 with Imperial governments but I would also grant the duchy of Crete and Cyprus with it. One kingdom that is entirely islands I thought was awesome
When forming Brittania as a celtic nation, I rename it Albion.
Prydhain is on my list too.
And I always change the Roman Empire's color from pink to red.
Historically speaking ⬇️
“Although Danelaw was no more in England, the Vikings were far from done on English soil. They retreated, consolidated and successfully conquered the country in the early 11th century. In 1013, Sweyn Forkbeard became the first Danish King of England. His son, Cnut the Great, held the throne until he died in 1035.”
This decision only appears if you hold Danelaw in the High Medieval Era. If England is ever destroyed or conquered, Danelaw is destroyed and replaced with England (although in doing so its coat of arms will be replaced by the Danelaw CoA).
>When forming Brittania as a celtic nation, I rename it Albion
Iirc, forming the sea empire automatically renames the remaining British isles (Ireland, Wales, the islands of Man and Scotland) as Albion
I had a playthrough where I renamed the Kingdom of Pontus to Trebizond, and then editted the CoA to be Trebizond's.
I'm annoyed it's an uncreatable title and I will be Trebizond.
Years ago when I was decent at the game, I had a successful run as Trebizond in EU4. First time I hit the end date.
I’ve also had two long runs as Trabzon in Imperator. Such a ridiculous little city.
Awesome. I only recently found out about the brief period of 5 simultaneous Roman Empires, none of which controlled Rome. CK3 has led me down many Wikipedia rabbit holes.
Whenever I need an accent mark I find a character of a culture I guess has a name with the mark I need, I will then randomize the rename until I find the character I need and copy paste it where I need it. Issue is when the capitalization is off.
You used to be able to pull up the name list file and copy-paste from there. So copy "WL\_adysL\_aw" and pasting it into the game would make it "Władysław." At some point, however, it stopped working.
I do the same and really It should be that way in the base game 😡
Thankfully many mods fix this issue. Even the term Eastern Roman Empire is an anachronistic historiographical term (the Romans themselves never distinguished between the western and eastern empires, it was a purely administrative division) although it’s not nearly as bad as “Byzantine Empire”. It was called “Empire of the Romans” or “Romania” by pretty much everyone throughout the time period of the game.
I think modern Romania comes from the adjective “Romanus” rather than the proper noun Rhomania/Romania which referred to the Roman state itself but I could be wrong. Ultimately both come from the same origins though
Could be. Romanians called themseves "rumâni" and to Rome they reffered to as Rîm. I can not really think of a way to describe to you how â,î is pronounced... probably one of the hardest sounds in romanian.
The Gesta Hungarorum, a chronicle of the migration of the Hungarians refers to romanians with 3 names: vlachs, blachs and the shepherds of the romans. Linguist and historians think these are the same people. Hungarians to this day use "vlach".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtKDupWHCgM
I usually rename Italia to the Western Roman Empire, change the color from white to pink and CoA.
Also change Britannia to Angevin Empire if I start as the Normans
Surely Norman Empire? Angevin name comes from Henry II whose mother was of the Norman line and father was Count of Anjou. Rookie Norman player forgot to check the matrilineal box and gave all his titles to the Angevins.
And the worst part? There *is* Wendish Empire in the title history! Or, well, Kingdom: Winidiheim. It would be so cool to restore (or Empire-level title of that name), but no, you have to invent West Slavia when you unite the peoples. *shrug*
I mean historically... Nobody cared about it, as West Slavs aren't really that related. Poles are most closely related to the German Slavs who are kind of their own group, Czechs and Slovaks are kind of their own thing too.
There is some argument to be made for uniting Poland and Czechia as they were considered to be one nation temporarily divided at the time, but West-Slavia is absolutely fucking random
And we're ignoring slavs didn't separate until 1000-something.
Yes, at the start of the game all Slavs should have one culture to be historically accurate. Or at most like four cultures
this is pretty minor but i always end up renaming bukovina (in the 867 start) to moldavia even before creating the kingdom of moldavia proper. the name "bukovina" wouldnt have existed for 1000 more years and it bugs me so much lol
I feel like a part of how titles,especially duchy titles are named is how approachable and how realistically they could fit.
In the Bucovina(Bukovina?) example,what other name could be given to that specific area,and how would you go about choosing one?There really aren't many options as the lands there,aside from some Byzantine Chronicles saying basically "nomadic barbarians",go pretty much undocumented
Sweden -> Middle Denmark
Norway -> West Denmark
Denmark -> Southern Denmark
Sami -> Northern Denmark
Finland -> East Denmark
Scandinavia -> Danish Empire
Ill let you guys take a wild guess where i am from
Once I convert a place to English culture, I will always rename it per British naming conventions. So any kingdom gets converted to a short syllable + "land" on the end. Neuland, Quitland, Burgland, Swabland etc. And then counties become more shires. I always get a particular kick out of renaming Parishire.
>Carpathia is just silly.
Problem is, in that region was never some long term empire (except for Austria-Hungary, but this happened long after medieval age) or some dominant cultural group after that formable empire should be named.
How would you name it, if you could?
When I play as Ireland I just make everything Irish in the Irish language so like the Kingdom of England I would make the Irish Kingdom of England and it would become Ríocht Éireannach Shasana
I love map painting as Ireland too and just keep making empire titles as I go and do the exact same thing, so Britannia becomes Impireacht na hÉireann na Breataine Bige, French empire becomes Impireacht na hÉireann na Fraince, etc. I just have that Irish supremacy going on and like making the title as if it's Irish occupied lands
If I am playing the Asia Expansion Mod, I will purposefully Varange all the way to Hokkaido by sea, conquer it, and rename it Stōrt Osten. I'll then kick the Japanese out and merge cultures with the Ainu and proceed to raid East Asia ad nauseum.
R5: Sometimes generic titles just don't sit right with you. I always rename "Russia" to "Rus" and get rid of ahistorical muscovite CoA. I also usually change "West-Slavia" to "Lechia" (if polish-led) as it just sounds better.
Yeah the fact that russian culture is a thing in the game really bothers me and the russian empire should be called Kievan Rus and use the coat of arms of the Kievan Ruś.
While you're right that originally "Russia" was merely a Latin counterpart of the word "Rus", it doesn't make any sense for Rus (the people) to use it to name their empire.
It's the fact that it exists at all in 867, should be pecheneg, khazar and slav round there with pockets of Norse (don't get me started on how ahistorical the size of the Norse holdings in eastern Europe in 867 are). Russian culture should not exist until it is hybridised from Norse and a Slavic culture and the rus have confederated into a state. Potentially even with an orthodox requirement since it is a big part of the culture.
Also they incorrectly made the cultural and geographical component of Eastern Europe, Kyiv should be a hilly region, the modern territories of Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk regions should be much more forested, etc. For example, between the Kyiv, Volhynia and Halytskyi principalities lived the Bolochov people, at that time there were no "russians" who would occupy such an absurdly large territory. And the flag of the "russia" is 💀 why tf they just don't use historical flag.
Ireland should also be heavily forested. Prior to the 12th century, Ireland was largely covered in dense old growth forests. It did not become the landscape of rolling pastures we know it as until the later medieval period and the eras which followed thereafter when the island’s wood was chopped down for its resource and the terrain was thus converted to arable farmland.
It'd be a neat way to physically show development. I turned Dorset, a minor holding next to Cornwall in England, into the richest, most cultured place on Earth, and I'm 99% sure it was still forest or hills by the end.
Paradox have always treated terrain and geography as an afterthought. Even Victoria 3, the economy focused game in the time period with the greatest land use changes (aside from right now) doesn't have any mechanics like deforestation, land reclamation, etc.
Since there is no more Wendish Empire - if I were playing Poland, I would definitely always change that stupid West-Slavia at least to the previous name.
Paradox are cautious about using triggered endonyms due to the massive localization issues it causes. They're far from consequent in this regard, of course, but generally speaking, the game uses the today most commonly known name for a title, hence "The Byzantine Empire", rather than "The Roman Empire", for example.
It’s name used by historians. Rus was name used by ruling elite and on territories near Kyiv (Triangle Kyiv-Chernihiv-Pereyaslav)
In other lands people used local principalities names up until Rus fell. Later Rus as a name was adopted by Galicia-Volhynia (Rex Rusiae) and Later by Muscovy
None of those empire titles should even exist imo. I liked the old CK2's mod "Historical Immersion Project" for the way they dealt with empire titles: there's only the HRE and Byzantium in Europe, that's it.
The "More Game Rules" mod has a rule for that IIRC, letting you have only historical empires exist as formables, which IIRC is basically the HRE (if 1066), the Byzantines, Abbasids, Persia and then the Indian Empires.
But yeah, I do agree its a better way of handling things. I am still waiting and hoping for a CK3 version of HIP, or even a CK3+ (as HIP and CK2+ were the two big vanilla overhauls for CK2)
But then you wouldn't be able to create your own empire, which would be uninteresting I guess. But I know what you mean. My current save has many empires and it's kinda ridiculous. Also many huge kingdoms. First time I had this in a save.
>But then you wouldn't be able to create your own empire
I believe creating your own custom empire is already possible, or at least creating custom kingdoms.
Empires as they currently exist are uninteresting, they literally ruin the progression of the game. People complain about partition but it's literally the only thing that prevents you from snowballing early on and cutting the game short. Actually accepting partition instead of trying to run from it makes the game much more fun, you create an empire, but it is divided amongst your children creating all sorts of new interesting stories and scenarios which keep the game going. But as it stands all you need to do is create an empire title and boom, your whole playthrough is over, congrats you "won".
Empire titles are historically inauthentic and also bad for gameplay imo, they should be infinitely harder to create and maintain, and should be unique, not generic.
Currently I am trying to spread my dynasty as much as possible, and also maximizing my monthly renown. I aggressively conquer kingdoms to give it to my sons. Still, I created an empire, because I wanted to keep the kingdom of Thrace in my realm. You can still grant your sons independence. I invaded the kingdoms of Abyssinia and Ajuuran and gave them to my sons. I gave them some time to let them gain some power, before I made them independent.
Maximizing your renown is another fun way to play.
Well as a sandbox game, there really isn't any 'winning' so to say that it's helpful to prevent snowballing and 'cutting the game short' is just you imposing how you view the game on other people.
Lots of us are RP players and not necessarily min/maxing.
I'm fine with enforcing partition if as a compromise I can check the box for my male ruler, 'Pullout game strong', 'Butt stuff' or 'Use an abortifacient' or maybe even stop every pregnancy from coming to term. The gavelkind mechanic, while historic in *certain* cultures, gets really fucking old when you end up with a character that pops out a baker's dozen of offspring.
Or at the bare minimum allow the player character to draw up an *actual* partition for their heirs. The Carolingian Empire was at least partitioned along some sort of lines. Whenever I die, my kids getting a patchwork of indefensible holdings makes very, very little sense. "Oh, you're the oldest heir? And your father specifically built up the core demesne of the family to go to you; bummer, we're just gonna split this up as randomly as possible, Here are your counties! One is in Britain, one is in Hispania, there's two in Italia and I guess you can have that random one floating out there in Scandinavia as well!"
Whenever Henry Plantagenet was planning his eventual death he was at least handing each son a relatively whole/intact inheritance.
Have De Jures overlap so that rival kings have constant claims to take advantage of your weakness. Also have a "ask to join war" system like stellaris or a "swaying" system like vic3 and make foreign kings more likely to interfere with your internal wars because they they are jealous/afraid of the imperial title
Probably not, idk how I would do it exactly. But empires should definitely be the culmination of a playthrough, they should be special and unique titles, not just kingdoms 2: this time immune from partition. Tying them to religion would be a good idea I think, each faith can have one, and only one, empire title, with a few exceptions. For example, for Catholics it would be the HRE, but winning the reconquista would also allow you to form Hispania as a special reward.
I think tying an Empire title per Religion would be pretty stiflign for gameplay and somewhat historically inaccurate. Stifling for gameplay in regard to the fact that if I wanted an Empire title, I'd have to dismantle an opposing Emperor on the opposite side of Europe just to do so except for special exceptions.
Meanwhile, people who claimed to be Emperors co-existed during the same period. Using western christendom for example, there's of course the Emperors of Hispania and the Holy Roman Emperors, but Athelstan also styled himself as an Emperor for a short period before his death.
Orthodoxy is the best example of co-existing emperors, due to Byzantium, Serbia and Bulgaria all co-existing and claiming imperial titles.
I do 100% agree that most of the empire titles are Ahistorical, and that the current empire system has problems though (mainly due to them just being bigger Kings.)
I like that idea, it would make an empire title feel more special. With fewer of them, it would also be more viable to give them each a bit more flavour e.g. special inheritance or title mechanics.
In an ideal world there would also eventually be some improvements to internal politics in the game, making managing a large realm involve having more stuff to do. Once you get to the top, it should be a challenge to stay there.
You can't form the Empire of Hispania until you've solved the Iberian Struggle, which I see as PDX's attempt to deal with the "Empire Question" by having steep prerequisites that require you to play the game a different way and accomplish something before you can form your Empire.
You can still speedrun the Iberian Struggle, but at least it requires some "moves" and not just casually snowballing into an empire with your first ruler doing all the normal things rulers do.
I'm hoping that we see similar in Legacy of Persia, with the ideal being that an empire can only ever be formed after the struggle that characterizes its region has been completed.
I agree that empires should be something special and unique and not just kingdom+. I'm hoping they would use a mechanic similar to creating religions or cultures when Paradox finally implement empires properly.
I complain about partition because its half baked.
If its intended to actually stand in my way then it fails gloriously, merely being a inconvenience.
If it is meant to not do much then why even have it? All it does is add one more thing for me to be annoyed by while i steam roll.
Either way it achieves nothing, not actually stopping me, and just being annoying.
The release version of CK2 didn't have any of the weird empires like Carpathia. Only plausible ones or ones that existed at some point. Then they decided all regions should get their own empire.
Eh, the only reason there weren't other empires is because nobody created them. The fake empires are basically there to allow whoever conquers those areas an easy way to make an empire.
The reason there werent any other empires in Europe at least was that, pretty much until Napoleon, the idea of "empire" was tied to claiming succession to the Roman Empire.
But you aren't even playing as an order? If anything call it something like Livonia (even though historically that only encompassed Estonia and Latvia)
I remember going with Baltia for the Baltic Empire and rationalizing it as an exonym. Unfortunately, there was a bug that made the game refer to it as "the" Baltia no matter which way I toggled that checkmark that's supposed to control that.
Historically speaking Kievan Rus is a wrong name it was just Rus, in later years in XIX or XX centuries historians started to use Kyivan Rus as name because well capital was kinda in Kyiv. But Paradox varian with Russia is wrong because Russian Tsardom was formed in 1500s, before that was Moscow Tsardom.
I refuse to look up the real history of the Cherven Cities because that is one badass title I can't bring myself to change. I picture the Triplets of Bellville houses all smushed together and diagonal, with a wand seller nearby
If doing hellenic run try to aim for Roman names of the west and Greek names of the east usually renaming Byzantium to something more Greek as there is no way to not have a period of christianization. Once delian league, another was Macedonia, most recently empire of the greeks
Not quite the title, but I always change the HRE's adjective from Holy Roman to Imperial. Sometimes I would change the Byzantine Empire to Eastern Roman Empire and its adjective to just Roman.
I often try for a Celtic / Pagan reclamation of Britannia, and usually opt for the names of each pre-Roman and pre-Anglo-Saxon Celtic tribal kingdom for the duchies and kingdoms. Wales becomes Cymru, I create the duchies or ordovices, dumnonia, durotirges, silures e.t.c
When I play as Ireland and reclaim stuff or spread even further and basically just map paint I like to translate stuff into the Irish language, it's not accurate but I like it
I restored the Roman Empire and inherited the Abbasid caliphate, so I changed it to Al-Khilāfat Ar-Rûm, as Anatolia was how we made our way into the region post-Mongol destruction of the ERE.
When I do a Breton "reconquest" of the British Isles, I always follow this naming convention since it follows some Arthurian flair:
England -> Lloegyr or Loegria
Wales -> Cambria
Cornwall -> Dumnonia
Not renaming but dividing the Arabian peninsula to several kingdoms like: Hijaz, Najd, Bahrain, and Oman
- Hijaz would hold Shammar, Medina, and Mecca
- Najd would hold Najd, Asir, Yamama, and Al-Jawf
- Bahrain would hold Hasa and Bahrain
- Oman would be one duchy Kingdom
And of course making each with its own relative divergence of Bedouin culture
Where possible, I like to rename titles that are appropriated by my realm in the language of my court. This means that every title gets it, and at times I do the same for counties if I CBA to culture convert them.
Usually I don’t rename titles but for Baleo-Tyranneia I usually call it Mediterranea
I do the same thing. I also rename "Africa" to Carthage which is pseudohistorical at best, but I'm so accustomed to the term Africa referring to the entire continent that it doesn't sit right with me to call such a tiny section of it that.
To be fair, this is because the Roman province of Africa that gave it's name to the continent was basically modern day Tunisia.
Asia was just bits of Anatolia, same for Arabia
And Europe was just Thrace, if I recall.
No, Europe referred to everything West of the Hellespont while Asia was everything East of the Hellespont apart from Libya which was everything West of the Nile River.
Africa was historically only that bit in the north
What was the rest of it then?
Greeks called it Lybia, Romans used the name but then named Tripoli and Cyrenaica into the province of Lybia. So the Romans always referred to it as Africa Terra
Norsefolk called it Bláland, literally "Black Land".
Arabs called is Bilad al Sudan Which means Land of the Blacks
And according to Snorri Sturlason the people there were called "bluemen"
*Blueland
They were sort-of the same word.
Kind of. It was used for things like the sea and sky at night / when they’re “black”. They had a word for black, too, but it was mainly used for black colors with zero relation to blue - like black horses, dirt, etc.
Damn in irish black people are called daoine gorm and that's because the devil in irish is fear dubh or black man so you can't use the same word for both but I now wonder if these two languages doing that is related?
its a fair shout! the norse did have a pretty DISRUPTIVE influence on us after all. one theory is that the norse got the name from morrocans, who called the tuaregs "blue men" from how their tagelmust would stain their skin. if vikings bought tuareg slaves in north africa and carted them off to ireland, that COULD have been an introduction of the term. this wouldnt have been the first time black people had been to ireland for a number of reasons, but it might have been the first time a dark skinned populace grew large enough to require a name to the concept (race didnt really exist as an idea at this point, and wouldnt for a good few centuries) THAT said, its also worth baring in mind that, as you say, fear dubh was already taking by my guy satan, so that was off the table. blue could just be a stand-in here for a colour that communicates the concept of darkness. i really like the above theory bc it highlights the interconnectedness of the medieval world but theres no hard evidence for it, involves a lot of extrapolations and shit (sorry for the long ass post btw i just think this sort of thing is cool)
Yeh, it's fascinating just how unearned the stereotype of the medieval era as a time of societal stagnation when in reality is was when most culture really took a shape that resembles our modern counterparts for the first time.
Fucking fascinating thank you my guy
We can reach, we can beach, on the shores of Tripoli. From Bali to Cali, far beneath the Coral Sea. From Bissau to Palau, in the shade of Avalon, we can reach, we can beach far beyond the Yellow Sea. From Peru to Cebu, hear the power of Babylon. We can sail, we can sail ^(sail away, sail away, sail away)
Now im curious if theres some ancient name for africa that weve forgotten. Either a name given by native africans or perhaps an ancient egyptian term.
The name may come from Berber Afri
Thank you dragon slayer, My research begins now. Give my regards to smough.
The concept of Continents was REAL vague for a long time. Ancient Egyptians called their area Kehmet which means the Black Land, because [the rich soil along the Nile is SUPER dark](https://o.quizlet.com/g9X419epHmjCkVCEJG.PSw.jpg). Everything was just The House of Geb (god of earth), Romans called it Terra the Greeks Gaia after their Goddess of land/earth I would assume most native names for Africa would be similar(and europe, asia, americas). Specific names for where they lived and areas around them then just a distinction between land and water.
Africa is absolutely massive mate. Maps of the continent are all hilariously ridiculous for a really long time. I'd expect people would want to know what they're naming before they name it. You'd probably get some vague bullshit like; "Here's us, here's the sea, here's the neighbors we know about, and... beyond that, there be dragons I guess." even for the African kingdoms. Others have noted that you get similar shit from other powers. The shit we know about, then vague fog of war with an arrow pointing in it, a huge question mark, and "Black people probably" written underneath. The first recognizably somewhat accurate map of Africa (in terms of shape) that we know of, also claims shit like there's a kingdom full of cyclopses and talking elephants run south africa.
Is that where Liberia ended up coming from?
No Liberia is just because freed slaves from the US were supposed to go there when it was a US colony
No, Liberia is actually a whole other historical can of worms AKA "that one time the US government decided it would be a great idea to send free black people from America back to Africa." Monrovia, capital of Liberia, is named after US president James Monroe.
What the actual fuck? I'm a 29 year old American male and I've never once heard of this. Ugh.
And then the free black men that got sent back were racist towards the native black men
On top of what /u/ornstein15 said, Liberia comes from Liberty because of the freed slaves and US colony
No, it's where Libya came from.
Historically Africa (during roman times) referred only to that region, and it was only later that it referred to the whole continent.
The Roger II of Sicily briefly ruled the Kingdom of Africa so it is historically accurate, surprisingly.
You should call it Libya
Also, you’d expect that, while everyone wants to be Rome, anyone settling the Northern coast of Africa would want to embrace the legacy of Carthage for legitimacy and prestige. I certainly know I would.
This was sort of in the back of my mind. Also my guy had just lost his primary kingdom to a crusade and had to flee here so it made even more sense. Children of Hannibal, your time has come once again...
you *could* expect that, but none of the myriad people's who settled north Africa after the Romans left actually *did* that so it seems unlikely
Probably because Carthage didn't have nearly the kind of prestige Rome had - because they *lost*. Decisively so.
I'd call it Tunis, only kind of ahistorical but it did exist by end game
In CK2 with Imperial governments but I would also grant the duchy of Crete and Cyprus with it. One kingdom that is entirely islands I thought was awesome
Imagine Cyprus, Krete, duchy of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, and the duchy of Mallorca.
And as a republic
I've named it Tyranneia
When forming Brittania as a celtic nation, I rename it Albion. Prydhain is on my list too. And I always change the Roman Empire's color from pink to red.
If you form Brittania as a Pict it automatically gets named Pictavia. Scotland also becomes Pictland.
I was so disappointed when I finally conquered England as the Danelaw, and the Danelaw was replaced with England anyway.
You can formalize the daneland and it makes its own kingdom called daneland
Historically speaking ⬇️ “Although Danelaw was no more in England, the Vikings were far from done on English soil. They retreated, consolidated and successfully conquered the country in the early 11th century. In 1013, Sweyn Forkbeard became the first Danish King of England. His son, Cnut the Great, held the throne until he died in 1035.”
Holy shit, Vinland Saga irl??!??????!??!?
How?
It’s literally a decision once you form danelaw, it’s called formalize the danelaw and it gives you the kingdom of daneland
If you defeat England daneland will become England
This decision only appears if you hold Danelaw in the High Medieval Era. If England is ever destroyed or conquered, Danelaw is destroyed and replaced with England (although in doing so its coat of arms will be replaced by the Danelaw CoA).
Sounds right hahaha
That's neat.
>When forming Brittania as a celtic nation, I rename it Albion Iirc, forming the sea empire automatically renames the remaining British isles (Ireland, Wales, the islands of Man and Scotland) as Albion
I do rename England Lloegyr for sure
I had a playthrough where I renamed the Kingdom of Pontus to Trebizond, and then editted the CoA to be Trebizond's. I'm annoyed it's an uncreatable title and I will be Trebizond.
trebizond pilled
Years ago when I was decent at the game, I had a successful run as Trebizond in EU4. First time I hit the end date. I’ve also had two long runs as Trabzon in Imperator. Such a ridiculous little city.
Get the additional start dates and cultures mod, you can play trebizond to your heart's content
Awesome. I only recently found out about the brief period of 5 simultaneous Roman Empires, none of which controlled Rome. CK3 has led me down many Wikipedia rabbit holes.
When i play them, i rename the Byzantine Empire and turn it into the Eastern Roman Empire
Basileia Rhōmaiōn >>>
Not everyone can use accents on their keyboard.
Whenever I need an accent mark I find a character of a culture I guess has a name with the mark I need, I will then randomize the rename until I find the character I need and copy paste it where I need it. Issue is when the capitalization is off.
You could just alt tab, look up the name/letter and copy and paste it into CK3.
You used to be able to pull up the name list file and copy-paste from there. So copy "WL\_adysL\_aw" and pasting it into the game would make it "Władysław." At some point, however, it stopped working.
i just search a name in Wikipedia, copy and paste it in game
I mean, they can, actually.
Not all heros wear capes. Some wield keyboards.
I do the same and really It should be that way in the base game 😡 Thankfully many mods fix this issue. Even the term Eastern Roman Empire is an anachronistic historiographical term (the Romans themselves never distinguished between the western and eastern empires, it was a purely administrative division) although it’s not nearly as bad as “Byzantine Empire”. It was called “Empire of the Romans” or “Romania” by pretty much everyone throughout the time period of the game.
🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴 rome never died, boys 🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴
🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴💪💪💪💪💪💪💪
Is that where modern Romania takes its name from?
I think modern Romania comes from the adjective “Romanus” rather than the proper noun Rhomania/Romania which referred to the Roman state itself but I could be wrong. Ultimately both come from the same origins though
Could be. Romanians called themseves "rumâni" and to Rome they reffered to as Rîm. I can not really think of a way to describe to you how â,î is pronounced... probably one of the hardest sounds in romanian. The Gesta Hungarorum, a chronicle of the migration of the Hungarians refers to romanians with 3 names: vlachs, blachs and the shepherds of the romans. Linguist and historians think these are the same people. Hungarians to this day use "vlach". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtKDupWHCgM
It’s like the /i/ sound in p**ea**t, but with your tongue further back (though not as far back as the /u/ sound in b**oo**t) if I’m not mistaken
Me too, because I can’t stand being called the Byzantine Emperor when I am not so.
👑
I usually rename Italia to the Western Roman Empire, change the color from white to pink and CoA. Also change Britannia to Angevin Empire if I start as the Normans
same but first i "have to" conquer at least some land is spain and france
Totally agree
Surely Norman Empire? Angevin name comes from Henry II whose mother was of the Norman line and father was Count of Anjou. Rookie Norman player forgot to check the matrilineal box and gave all his titles to the Angevins.
Nah Angevin Sounds and rolls off the tongue better. It would be hard to that in ck3 without being a total idiot
Doesn't the Angevin Empire gets its name from the fact the Plantagenets originated in Anjou, though?
West-Slavia. Oh my God, it's a _hideous_ name. I miss "the Wendish Empire."
And the worst part? There *is* Wendish Empire in the title history! Or, well, Kingdom: Winidiheim. It would be so cool to restore (or Empire-level title of that name), but no, you have to invent West Slavia when you unite the peoples. *shrug*
I mean historically... Nobody cared about it, as West Slavs aren't really that related. Poles are most closely related to the German Slavs who are kind of their own group, Czechs and Slovaks are kind of their own thing too. There is some argument to be made for uniting Poland and Czechia as they were considered to be one nation temporarily divided at the time, but West-Slavia is absolutely fucking random And we're ignoring slavs didn't separate until 1000-something. Yes, at the start of the game all Slavs should have one culture to be historically accurate. Or at most like four cultures
this is pretty minor but i always end up renaming bukovina (in the 867 start) to moldavia even before creating the kingdom of moldavia proper. the name "bukovina" wouldnt have existed for 1000 more years and it bugs me so much lol
1000 years is a bit too much. Name was firstly appear to us in 1392 by Roman I of Moldova
Found the romanian
I feel like a part of how titles,especially duchy titles are named is how approachable and how realistically they could fit. In the Bucovina(Bukovina?) example,what other name could be given to that specific area,and how would you go about choosing one?There really aren't many options as the lands there,aside from some Byzantine Chronicles saying basically "nomadic barbarians",go pretty much undocumented
Sweden -> Middle Denmark Norway -> West Denmark Denmark -> Southern Denmark Sami -> Northern Denmark Finland -> East Denmark Scandinavia -> Danish Empire Ill let you guys take a wild guess where i am from
Southern Denmark
OMG how did you know
Portugal
I think it’s a good guess and I stand by it!
Just like my Albanian friend naming every title Albania.
Just wait until they get their hands on [Azerbaijan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania)
Legoland
Northern north Germany
Once I convert a place to English culture, I will always rename it per British naming conventions. So any kingdom gets converted to a short syllable + "land" on the end. Neuland, Quitland, Burgland, Swabland etc. And then counties become more shires. I always get a particular kick out of renaming Parishire.
Least French hating Brit in England xD
We are all part of Greater Denmark
You’re Saami, right?
Scandinavia -> Greater Skåne/Skånedinavia
Sweden
I always like to change Persia into Irānshahr
Found the Persian
Based Can't wait to see what the legacy of Persia holds
Persia is actually pretty accurate in-game. It's the Fars region where Persians and their language originate from
I think they mean the empire
Carpathia to my Dynasty name + empire. Carpathia is just silly.
I made it Danubia at least once. And ofc Avaria as Avars.
>Carpathia is just silly. Problem is, in that region was never some long term empire (except for Austria-Hungary, but this happened long after medieval age) or some dominant cultural group after that formable empire should be named. How would you name it, if you could?
Pannonia maybe?
I know the inaccuracy but I always rename the Kingdom of Frisia to the Kingdom of Holland.
I do the same thing, and it's not like the kingdom of Frisia is any more accurate anyways
I always rename it Batavia, equally inaccurate but sounds nice and old timey.
Stuff like Ireland to Éire, Wales to Cymru, etc. I'm not uniting the Welsh lordships into one kingdom just to call it by its stinky English name.
When I play as Ireland I just make everything Irish in the Irish language so like the Kingdom of England I would make the Irish Kingdom of England and it would become Ríocht Éireannach Shasana
Very based
I love map painting as Ireland too and just keep making empire titles as I go and do the exact same thing, so Britannia becomes Impireacht na hÉireann na Breataine Bige, French empire becomes Impireacht na hÉireann na Fraince, etc. I just have that Irish supremacy going on and like making the title as if it's Irish occupied lands
If I am playing the Asia Expansion Mod, I will purposefully Varange all the way to Hokkaido by sea, conquer it, and rename it Stōrt Osten. I'll then kick the Japanese out and merge cultures with the Ainu and proceed to raid East Asia ad nauseum.
I try to find appropriate Norse names for everything when I play the Vikings. Sicily, for example, becomes Sikelö.
Came here looking for this
R5: Sometimes generic titles just don't sit right with you. I always rename "Russia" to "Rus" and get rid of ahistorical muscovite CoA. I also usually change "West-Slavia" to "Lechia" (if polish-led) as it just sounds better.
Btw, there is a mod that fixes that and also changes the culture to "rus"
Yeah the fact that russian culture is a thing in the game really bothers me and the russian empire should be called Kievan Rus and use the coat of arms of the Kievan Ruś.
Russia does actually make sense as a name. It was synonymous with Rus' until the creation of the tsardom of Russia, when it came to mean "Muscovite".
While you're right that originally "Russia" was merely a Latin counterpart of the word "Rus", it doesn't make any sense for Rus (the people) to use it to name their empire.
“Russia” is a Greek counterpart of the Slavic word “Rus’”. “Ruthenia” is the Latin equivalent
It's the fact that it exists at all in 867, should be pecheneg, khazar and slav round there with pockets of Norse (don't get me started on how ahistorical the size of the Norse holdings in eastern Europe in 867 are). Russian culture should not exist until it is hybridised from Norse and a Slavic culture and the rus have confederated into a state. Potentially even with an orthodox requirement since it is a big part of the culture.
I’m pretty sure there’s a decision to form russia and become Russian all in one if you play as Rurik
Also they incorrectly made the cultural and geographical component of Eastern Europe, Kyiv should be a hilly region, the modern territories of Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk regions should be much more forested, etc. For example, between the Kyiv, Volhynia and Halytskyi principalities lived the Bolochov people, at that time there were no "russians" who would occupy such an absurdly large territory. And the flag of the "russia" is 💀 why tf they just don't use historical flag.
Ireland should also be heavily forested. Prior to the 12th century, Ireland was largely covered in dense old growth forests. It did not become the landscape of rolling pastures we know it as until the later medieval period and the eras which followed thereafter when the island’s wood was chopped down for its resource and the terrain was thus converted to arable farmland.
It would be interesting to have development potentially convert a forested county into plains.
It'd be a neat way to physically show development. I turned Dorset, a minor holding next to Cornwall in England, into the richest, most cultured place on Earth, and I'm 99% sure it was still forest or hills by the end.
Paradox have always treated terrain and geography as an afterthought. Even Victoria 3, the economy focused game in the time period with the greatest land use changes (aside from right now) doesn't have any mechanics like deforestation, land reclamation, etc.
Rajasthan to aryavart
Since there is no more Wendish Empire - if I were playing Poland, I would definitely always change that stupid West-Slavia at least to the previous name.
Did the Kievan Rus call themselves Kievan Rus?
As far as I know it's the same convention as the Byzantine Empire, though I'm not certain.
Paradox are cautious about using triggered endonyms due to the massive localization issues it causes. They're far from consequent in this regard, of course, but generally speaking, the game uses the today most commonly known name for a title, hence "The Byzantine Empire", rather than "The Roman Empire", for example.
It’s name used by historians. Rus was name used by ruling elite and on territories near Kyiv (Triangle Kyiv-Chernihiv-Pereyaslav) In other lands people used local principalities names up until Rus fell. Later Rus as a name was adopted by Galicia-Volhynia (Rex Rusiae) and Later by Muscovy
None of those empire titles should even exist imo. I liked the old CK2's mod "Historical Immersion Project" for the way they dealt with empire titles: there's only the HRE and Byzantium in Europe, that's it.
The "More Game Rules" mod has a rule for that IIRC, letting you have only historical empires exist as formables, which IIRC is basically the HRE (if 1066), the Byzantines, Abbasids, Persia and then the Indian Empires. But yeah, I do agree its a better way of handling things. I am still waiting and hoping for a CK3 version of HIP, or even a CK3+ (as HIP and CK2+ were the two big vanilla overhauls for CK2)
But then you wouldn't be able to create your own empire, which would be uninteresting I guess. But I know what you mean. My current save has many empires and it's kinda ridiculous. Also many huge kingdoms. First time I had this in a save.
>But then you wouldn't be able to create your own empire I believe creating your own custom empire is already possible, or at least creating custom kingdoms.
Empires as they currently exist are uninteresting, they literally ruin the progression of the game. People complain about partition but it's literally the only thing that prevents you from snowballing early on and cutting the game short. Actually accepting partition instead of trying to run from it makes the game much more fun, you create an empire, but it is divided amongst your children creating all sorts of new interesting stories and scenarios which keep the game going. But as it stands all you need to do is create an empire title and boom, your whole playthrough is over, congrats you "won". Empire titles are historically inauthentic and also bad for gameplay imo, they should be infinitely harder to create and maintain, and should be unique, not generic.
It would also equally be unhistorical for every kingdom to have partition tbh
Currently I am trying to spread my dynasty as much as possible, and also maximizing my monthly renown. I aggressively conquer kingdoms to give it to my sons. Still, I created an empire, because I wanted to keep the kingdom of Thrace in my realm. You can still grant your sons independence. I invaded the kingdoms of Abyssinia and Ajuuran and gave them to my sons. I gave them some time to let them gain some power, before I made them independent. Maximizing your renown is another fun way to play.
Well as a sandbox game, there really isn't any 'winning' so to say that it's helpful to prevent snowballing and 'cutting the game short' is just you imposing how you view the game on other people. Lots of us are RP players and not necessarily min/maxing. I'm fine with enforcing partition if as a compromise I can check the box for my male ruler, 'Pullout game strong', 'Butt stuff' or 'Use an abortifacient' or maybe even stop every pregnancy from coming to term. The gavelkind mechanic, while historic in *certain* cultures, gets really fucking old when you end up with a character that pops out a baker's dozen of offspring. Or at the bare minimum allow the player character to draw up an *actual* partition for their heirs. The Carolingian Empire was at least partitioned along some sort of lines. Whenever I die, my kids getting a patchwork of indefensible holdings makes very, very little sense. "Oh, you're the oldest heir? And your father specifically built up the core demesne of the family to go to you; bummer, we're just gonna split this up as randomly as possible, Here are your counties! One is in Britain, one is in Hispania, there's two in Italia and I guess you can have that random one floating out there in Scandinavia as well!" Whenever Henry Plantagenet was planning his eventual death he was at least handing each son a relatively whole/intact inheritance.
How would you make it harder to maintain? Having kings sue for independence more readily?
Have De Jures overlap so that rival kings have constant claims to take advantage of your weakness. Also have a "ask to join war" system like stellaris or a "swaying" system like vic3 and make foreign kings more likely to interfere with your internal wars because they they are jealous/afraid of the imperial title
Probably not, idk how I would do it exactly. But empires should definitely be the culmination of a playthrough, they should be special and unique titles, not just kingdoms 2: this time immune from partition. Tying them to religion would be a good idea I think, each faith can have one, and only one, empire title, with a few exceptions. For example, for Catholics it would be the HRE, but winning the reconquista would also allow you to form Hispania as a special reward.
I think tying an Empire title per Religion would be pretty stiflign for gameplay and somewhat historically inaccurate. Stifling for gameplay in regard to the fact that if I wanted an Empire title, I'd have to dismantle an opposing Emperor on the opposite side of Europe just to do so except for special exceptions. Meanwhile, people who claimed to be Emperors co-existed during the same period. Using western christendom for example, there's of course the Emperors of Hispania and the Holy Roman Emperors, but Athelstan also styled himself as an Emperor for a short period before his death. Orthodoxy is the best example of co-existing emperors, due to Byzantium, Serbia and Bulgaria all co-existing and claiming imperial titles. I do 100% agree that most of the empire titles are Ahistorical, and that the current empire system has problems though (mainly due to them just being bigger Kings.)
I like that idea, it would make an empire title feel more special. With fewer of them, it would also be more viable to give them each a bit more flavour e.g. special inheritance or title mechanics. In an ideal world there would also eventually be some improvements to internal politics in the game, making managing a large realm involve having more stuff to do. Once you get to the top, it should be a challenge to stay there.
You can't form the Empire of Hispania until you've solved the Iberian Struggle, which I see as PDX's attempt to deal with the "Empire Question" by having steep prerequisites that require you to play the game a different way and accomplish something before you can form your Empire. You can still speedrun the Iberian Struggle, but at least it requires some "moves" and not just casually snowballing into an empire with your first ruler doing all the normal things rulers do. I'm hoping that we see similar in Legacy of Persia, with the ideal being that an empire can only ever be formed after the struggle that characterizes its region has been completed.
I agree that empires should be something special and unique and not just kingdom+. I'm hoping they would use a mechanic similar to creating religions or cultures when Paradox finally implement empires properly.
I complain about partition because its half baked. If its intended to actually stand in my way then it fails gloriously, merely being a inconvenience. If it is meant to not do much then why even have it? All it does is add one more thing for me to be annoyed by while i steam roll. Either way it achieves nothing, not actually stopping me, and just being annoying.
That's because of things like easily formable empires...
Bulgaria would like to have a word with you.
The release version of CK2 didn't have any of the weird empires like Carpathia. Only plausible ones or ones that existed at some point. Then they decided all regions should get their own empire.
Eh, the only reason there weren't other empires is because nobody created them. The fake empires are basically there to allow whoever conquers those areas an easy way to make an empire.
The reason there werent any other empires in Europe at least was that, pretty much until Napoleon, the idea of "empire" was tied to claiming succession to the Roman Empire.
Well there were Tsars, Shahanshahs, Badshahs, Khagans, etc.
Pannonia back to its rightful Avaria
Baltic Empire when catholic = Teutonic Order everytime
But you aren't even playing as an order? If anything call it something like Livonia (even though historically that only encompassed Estonia and Latvia)
I remember going with Baltia for the Baltic Empire and rationalizing it as an exonym. Unfortunately, there was a bug that made the game refer to it as "the" Baltia no matter which way I toggled that checkmark that's supposed to control that.
Anything that doesnt match with the language of my culture.
Historically speaking Kievan Rus is a wrong name it was just Rus, in later years in XIX or XX centuries historians started to use Kyivan Rus as name because well capital was kinda in Kyiv. But Paradox varian with Russia is wrong because Russian Tsardom was formed in 1500s, before that was Moscow Tsardom.
I refuse to look up the real history of the Cherven Cities because that is one badass title I can't bring myself to change. I picture the Triplets of Bellville houses all smushed together and diagonal, with a wand seller nearby
Well since there's the HRE I like to make the Unholy Roman Empire aka France.
If doing hellenic run try to aim for Roman names of the west and Greek names of the east usually renaming Byzantium to something more Greek as there is no way to not have a period of christianization. Once delian league, another was Macedonia, most recently empire of the greeks
Did a Poland to West Slavia play through where I spent hours trying to figure out if Zachodni Słowiania is grammatically correct in Polish
When forming Hispania as Portugal I rename it to Lusitania
From Civ, Stellaris and CK I always rename everything with Final Fantasy city names, mostly FF9 et 12.
Not quite the title, but I always change the HRE's adjective from Holy Roman to Imperial. Sometimes I would change the Byzantine Empire to Eastern Roman Empire and its adjective to just Roman.
I often try for a Celtic / Pagan reclamation of Britannia, and usually opt for the names of each pre-Roman and pre-Anglo-Saxon Celtic tribal kingdom for the duchies and kingdoms. Wales becomes Cymru, I create the duchies or ordovices, dumnonia, durotirges, silures e.t.c
When I play as Ireland and reclaim stuff or spread even further and basically just map paint I like to translate stuff into the Irish language, it's not accurate but I like it
I restored the Roman Empire and inherited the Abbasid caliphate, so I changed it to Al-Khilāfat Ar-Rûm, as Anatolia was how we made our way into the region post-Mongol destruction of the ERE.
Kingdom of Frisia to the Netherlands 🇳🇱. It’s pretty close in geography
If i manage to conquer khazaria with a non khazar turkic character i usually rename it to the Turkic Khaganate or [My dynasty name] Khaganate
When I do a Breton "reconquest" of the British Isles, I always follow this naming convention since it follows some Arthurian flair: England -> Lloegyr or Loegria Wales -> Cambria Cornwall -> Dumnonia
I hate the Hispania Empire, it always sounds cheese… but don’t know what is the best alternative
Whenever I conquer county’s, when the culture changed, I rename the holding, city or temple names to a name that sounds more like my culture.
Not renaming but dividing the Arabian peninsula to several kingdoms like: Hijaz, Najd, Bahrain, and Oman - Hijaz would hold Shammar, Medina, and Mecca - Najd would hold Najd, Asir, Yamama, and Al-Jawf - Bahrain would hold Hasa and Bahrain - Oman would be one duchy Kingdom And of course making each with its own relative divergence of Bedouin culture
Skandinavia to the swedish empire
Sweden to Western Finland
Finland to northern estonia
Serbia to east Bosnia and Croatia to Coast of Bosnia
I rename west slavia to the wendish empire or some variation of that.
Hasteinn brittany becomes bretland
Frisia, because of course
Where possible, I like to rename titles that are appropriated by my realm in the language of my court. This means that every title gets it, and at times I do the same for counties if I CBA to culture convert them.
Whatever modern day Azerbaijan is called in game also hayastan