Marry in the family to keep the bloodline pure.
Marry in the family to keep the bloodline pure.
"Throughout history" yes, but in this particular "600AD-1100AD" setting, no. The First Crusade was Frankish, German and Italian, with no Celtic armies participating, not even Brittany. See here the start and end locations.
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.
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.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.
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...
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
To save time I'm just going to quote what I said earlier.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.
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 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.
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.
but now I do everything I can
I haven't gotten to this point yet but I have seen many posts about this.Doesn't anyone else find it weird that when you're at the second generation or so, you're fighting literally a buttload of Sturgian Aserais? Sturgian Khuzaits? Sturgian Vlandians and Battanians?
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.I usually conquer the whole map in 10-15 years, so for me it's never an issue.