-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
SP - General Too much Intercultural Marriage.
Users who are viewing this thread
Antaeus
Squire
It was specifically during this setting that you see Northern Europeans fighting in the Eastern Mediterranean - be they as guards for the Empire - literally fighting with and against Arabs on the Tigris, or fighting with the Emperor against Turks in Bulgaria. The First Crusade wasn't even the first Middle Eastern adventure for many of it's leaders - many of whom were already personally connected to the Byzantines either as foes or professional employees. There were Northern Europeans at Manzikert, and Norman lords even attempted to create kingdoms in Anatolia out of the wreckage of the empire - contributing to it's collapse pre-crusade.
We're talking plausibility, and given that there were literally Normans fighting on the Tigris during this period, and that Normans attempted to establish their own kingdoms several times on imperial lands, then it is well within the realms of plausibility that in an alternate history, one of those Norman lords might have been successful, pre First Crusade. Given that there were also British, Danish, Russian, Swedish and other Northern Europeans in imperial employment at that time, and the empire saw plenty of usurpers over the years... its also well within the realms of plausibility that any number of other Northern Europeans could have established rule in the area.
So gain. Based on plausibility in real history, I see no problem with a Sturgian or 3 ending up owning Asari lands.
And they kept their culture, because they did not join the natives.
Antaeus
Squire
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
What was the relationship between surrounding native nobles with the new invading foreigners? From my understanding, in history most people only kept their culture as nobility if they got their lands violently and master over their newly conquered people as war prizes. But, if a noble went into another culture peacefully, they more often than not adopt the customs of the locals because the power(ability to inflict violence) is in favor of the locals.
Antaeus
Squire
Historically, there is no one rule here - any assumption that there is, is wrong. Any and all situations could and did happen.
Conquering peoples sometimes lose their identity over time (look at the Franks in France for example) and merge into the locals. Sometimes the local population merges with the conquerors (E.g. the Turks in Anatolia). Sometimes individuals might adopt the local customs - either forcefully or willingly (Look at the list of Roman leaders from non-Roman backgrounds from all over Europe, Africa, Asia... or the list of famous Barbary pirates from Christian Europe for example). Some nobles might try to maintain their own culture as separate to the community they live in (Like the British Raj or Arab rulers of non-Arab lands).
These relationships can be happy, or difficult or any mix of the two, depending mostly on the wellbeing and happiness of the society. But what it does establish, is the idea that it is plausible for a foreigner to marry into local culture, and still decide to wear their traditional clothing or follow their own customs. It is also plausible for the opposite to happen - for a foreigner to marry a local, and adopt the local custom. There are no rules.
And when we're talking about a game, with a vaguely historic influence, all we need to justify this type of situation is to establish that it is plausible.
Over time. Not in one generation.
See: in history most people only kept their culture as nobility if they got their lands violently and master over their newly conquered people as war prizes.
This isn't a good counterpoint, because Anatolia's Turkic migrations and dominance came about violently. It was after the Battle of Manzikert where the Turks violently replaced the new nobles allowed them to keep their culture and impose it on the new conquered peoples.
They're still Roman-influenced however and by the time they adopt them, they have been a part of Rome's governance for a long time and have been a part of Roman fashion and tastes for quite awhile.
And the British Rulers who are at the very top and did the actual ruling and administration did not call themselves "Arab" or what not.
The application however is heavily flawed in the game, you must admit. And politically speaking, what idiot of a ruler would allow their nobles to marry someone from abroad and potentially invite foreign armies over? Most of the time, foreign marriages need consent of the monarch to ensure that someone isn't going to stab them in the back.
That's just common sense. Being royalty and nobility unfortunately for them, doesn't mean they can marry whoever they want. They not only have their family and social standing to consider, but the political oversight of the monarch who doesn't even want their vassals to get too powerful to ignore and or overthrow them.
It's the frequency that by the time I'm playing my child, they're surrounded by Battanian Imperials who call themselves Chieftain of the Imperials and... Well... Even though they peacefully assimilated... They don't seem to want to be Imperial at all. Like, holy crap. Put on some clothes and take a bath. This is the Empire. Why are you still using a falx?
Ride a horse, damn it. Didn't your Imperial father taught you to ride?
It wouldn't be as necessary but for the plain fact that factions tend to be at war with their neighbors, disqualifying them from the marriage candidacy. There are only six and if you border and war with three, that leaves slim pickings elsewise.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
To save time I'm just going to quote what I said earlier.
"I find it weird when a large number of Insular Celtic-style or Russian-style nobles, in a specifically 1000s setting, defect or marry into an Arabic-style kingdom. Or the other way around, with Arab-style nobles joining a Celtic-style kingdom. Or the same thing again, but Insular Celts and Mongols/Kipchaks/etc. This particular scenario definitely never happened in that real life time period."
So in other words, conquest examples don't apply.
And in this context, "plausible" would mean "it could have happened and it just never got recorded in the history books".
But for something like that to occur on a large scale, there is no way it would have happened without anyone noticing. So it isn't a question of "plausibility". It's something that obviously did not happen in that setting, which you have to use mental gymnastics to justify.
derWU
Recruit
I must say, i also had this in mind.
I dont say, comepletely forbid diffrent cultures from marrying each other.
But in 2nd generation aserai and the other non imperial Kingdoms have 80% empire leaders, just because there are so many empire characters.
I rarely find battanians anymore and the khuzaits seem to be extinct.
There could just be a negative modificator for diffrent culture in the progress of the AI choosing a spouse.
I dont say, comepletely forbid diffrent cultures from marrying each other.
But in 2nd generation aserai and the other non imperial Kingdoms have 80% empire leaders, just because there are so many empire characters.
I rarely find battanians anymore and the khuzaits seem to be extinct.
There could just be a negative modificator for diffrent culture in the progress of the AI choosing a spouse.
EXACTLY. I forgot to use this as an argument that there literally are cultures that are about to go extinct in SOME playthroughs. Because they've been overwhelmed genetically by some randomly chanced fecund majority. Literally bred to oblivion.
I admit, I didn't know what I was doing when I almost destroyed the Khuzait gene pool while roleplaying a bitter holy war of survival in revenge for raiding my villages, but now I do everything I can to ensure they are a protected people in my kingdom because they were almost literally genocided ala Balkan style.
SadBlueberry
Recruit
I haven't gotten to this point yet but I have seen many posts about this.
I think this should be solved where instead of having a bunch of culture mix, the offspring should just take after the culture of the father. After all, culture is not explicitly tied down to race. Culture is etiquette, mannerisms, fashion, diet, etc. That makes it quite simple and it isn't immersion breaking.
Mothers are very important in the raising of a child though. They're the ones most humans spend time with the most of their early years.
Maybe culture should be strongly in favor, say 75% in favor of the faction itself? The player kingdom should be an exception though.
SadBlueberry
Recruit
No. Bannerlord is a game and not meant to be a child psychology simulator. Historically, this is also completely wrong as the women would adopt the traditions of their husband in the medieval era (not quite so in ancient times but this was the practice in Europe). While Bannerlord takes inspiration from our world, it must be translated to fit the constraints of Calradia and development time.
- We do not have mixed cultures in Bannerlord. There would be too many combinations, especially after a few generations with its nonsensical marriages. Precious development time should be spent elsewhere.
- Historically, women who marry into a foreign nobie family would adopt the traditions of their husband. For example, if she was Bulgarian and her noble husband was Norman, she would be expected to adopt Norman traditions and teach them to her offspring. The exception being that she entered a matriarchal marriage where her husband would be the consort which was not only rare, it seems impossible in Bannerlord unless the female was the player or unless the player just murdered off all the male nobility in a particular kingdom.
My unrequested and late two cents on this one particular issue.
There should be penalties for any noble who marries with a character from another culture, and the AI should do it only very, very, very rarely.
I see a lot of folks pointing out how monarchies worked like that. Sure, you had norman dukes in Italy and Norse kings in England. But they didn't intermarry - they migrated. A norse marrying a christian noblewoman in 900AD? Basically unheard of, unless he had kidnapped her during a raid and taken her as his woman. As for more recent european courts? Sure, they intermarried, but there isn't as much difference between an austrian and a frenchman (please, don't guillottine me) as there is between a berber and a scot.
Also, as pointed before, in the overwhelming majority of cases women adopted the culture of their husbands' and the children were of his culture, never hers. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's... well, the medieval way of things. They could make a new game with 15000 cultures and all the diversity they want, if the game it's good then great. Just not in a game which is based on clan on clan and culture on culture constant warfare. This ain't no Romeo and Juliet.
There should be penalties for any noble who marries with a character from another culture, and the AI should do it only very, very, very rarely.
I see a lot of folks pointing out how monarchies worked like that. Sure, you had norman dukes in Italy and Norse kings in England. But they didn't intermarry - they migrated. A norse marrying a christian noblewoman in 900AD? Basically unheard of, unless he had kidnapped her during a raid and taken her as his woman. As for more recent european courts? Sure, they intermarried, but there isn't as much difference between an austrian and a frenchman (please, don't guillottine me) as there is between a berber and a scot.
Also, as pointed before, in the overwhelming majority of cases women adopted the culture of their husbands' and the children were of his culture, never hers. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's... well, the medieval way of things. They could make a new game with 15000 cultures and all the diversity they want, if the game it's good then great. Just not in a game which is based on clan on clan and culture on culture constant warfare. This ain't no Romeo and Juliet.
SadBlueberry
Recruit
Exactly. Cultures is very insignificant in this game since even clan loyalty isn't tied to culture. This isn't Crusader Kings which is what confuses many of the people here for some reason. I mean, Warband was no Crusader Kings, why the mix up?
But as a bit of a counter argument, Bannerlord time period inspirations are all over the place. It is set in a wide and broad medieval history with cultures and customs dating from early 7th century to late 14th century. All at the same time. Thus pinpointing to exactly what feature should be influenced exactly which part of medieval history is not quite feasible, if not impossible.
Make cultures simple. Make cultural inheritance simple. The distinction about culture has virtually no impact on gameplay.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
The game is designed around the heir system having a reason to exist, so while it's possible to conquer the whole map in the first generation right now due to a lot of exploits, it won't necessarily stay that way. Either that or they might speed up the timescale even further so that heirs grow up quicker.
At any rate, single-generation playthroughs probably aren't the intended final design, except maybe on very easy difficulties.
Similar threads
