I have a highly cynical take on this one: everything you have talked about missing in CK3 will be added, eventually. Paradox wants to see how to integrate all the moving parts, and then it will release an update as DLC. This will net them a continuous income stream and make many people in their office quite pleased.
Yeah I’m with you there. It disappoints me to see our first modern “DLC-era” example of a paradox sequel follow more the model of the sims games and selling us everything again than Civ where at least half the content carries over. Excited for Vic3 to launch without claim fabrications 🙃
I live in Cornwall (another long-Celtic region of Britain) where there's a lot of association with Arthurian legend, including many historical sites portrayed as associated with Arthur (Tintagel, King Arthur's Hall, King Arthur's Stone, Dozmary Pool etc.), it's interesting but also jarring seeing the description of him as a Welsh ruler.
His myths are set, regardless of whether or not he existed, before the celtic briton culture split into Welsh and Cornish, but one of the modern branches of the culture work as an easy shorthand when pointing out that he DEFINITELY was not english.
i believe you are the most cornish-looking person i have ever seen. i don't mean that negatively, i just feel like you could recite beowulf to me in the original text from memory
14:10 Plate armour was still in use during the the reign of Henry VIII so it wouldn't be inaccurate for people to wear it, though it would also depend on the style of the amour.
The tabletop RPG King Arthur Pendragon has a neat take on the aesthetic question: its answer to it is "yes." From the reign of Uther to the Battle of Camlann, knights gradually go from chainmail to gothic plate. Anachronisms like jousting and courtly romance are introduced. After Arthur's death, the enchantment of Brtain is over and banal Dark Ages normalcy takes hold again.
@11:28 how dare you besmirch vikings, everyone knows that the goal of Crusader Kings 3 is to start as the Swedes, invade Spain, reform Asatru, conquer the former Roman Empire, convert to Hellenism, and restore Rome. Just like in real life.
I always imagine ckii and ckiii even more so as reenacting the Middle Ages through a lense of renaissance drama - All the stabbing and waring, I am here for it 😂
Something funny about the conclusion is that my local Renaissance Festival now has a shop selling replica flintlock pistols, so even their cultural perception has shifted in manner similar to the “Dark Ages” example.
I think it's also fair to say that the age of (the vague historical inspiration for) Arthur isn't quite "Rome as pop culture sees it"; it's some 400 years later, and things look a bit different by then. Sometimes in ways that, to new eyes, would look kinda medieval! Not /high/ medieval like the Arthur of most of our pop culture, but less togas and big rectangle shields, more trousers and beards and Christianity, y'know?
To be honest, I am not sure if this was an actual point you made that I am arguing against, but it's just a side tangent for myself that I think fits for this video: In my opinion the most accurate thing to do is to show King Arthur filled with anachronisms and historical inaccuracies. The tales of King Arthur as we know them do not fit in the 5th century, King Arthur is not a figure of the 5th century, even if (which is doubtable in my opinion) inspired by a 5th century figure. A few mentions of Arthur existed before Monmouth, sure, and perhaps the Mabinogion shows us an earlier version of his myth (though that's a matter of debate), but all texts that actually say anything more than a few vague sentences about this figure are mythical in nature. People desperately try to combine the 'historical Arthur' and the mythical Arthur in modern adaptations and it often just falls flat, in my opinion. A historical Arthur would have had no Guinevere, no Lancelot. Maybe Gawain and Mordred (and who knows if Mordred was even his enemy), probably Merlin (funnily enough he's inspired by some figures that are quite likely to actually be real). The mythical figure of King Arthur and all the people around him do not fit our conception of a possible historical Arthur, Arthur is basically a figure of fantasy that was birthed far more of the High Middle Ages than the Early Middle Ages. In our entertainment he should be treated with the same historicity as his 'Trojan ancestors': none, purely based in the mythical texts about them.
Just another comment that I love your videos! Great to see someone that can bridge discussion of the game mechanics and implicit ideology from an informed background understanding of the topic at hand.
Okay yeah after your video on pop history I came here- once again fantastic stuff, you've really sold me! I already appreciate anyone discussing the more roman aspects of arthurian legend and how the myth shifted throughout the medieval ages, and hearing you discuss the holes in their depictions while waiting for the byzantine dlc was interesting. I'm kinda less cynical about the dlc model, I do think I prefer a world where much of the actual content is still free but the dlcs seemingly exist to keep shareholders happy (I mean ideally that wouldn't be a concern but oh well) but this has got me thinking about *selling history* as an addon- fixing anachronisms and fleshing out the details of the real world in ways you have to purchase additionally, I don't know what to think of that.
For a short version from memory: It’s like how from the outside people sometimes call The Netherlands Holland despite its people being Dutch and Holland only being a small (but central) part of a bigger whole- Byzantion/Byzantium was the original name of Constantinople, became the name of the empire, and the people were Greek and called themselves the Roman Empire (Basileía Rhōmaíōn) For a somewhat longer version, it has to do, I think, with a refusal to acknowledge the continuity of Rome- because every king dreamed of claiming said continuity and after the chalcedonian split and rise in prominence of the Roman(Like Rome the city) pope, it meant a different center of authority for declaring who is truly “Roman.” I don’t however know the history of the term’s use in medieval Europe but I’d be really interested to look into it. Maybe I’ll report back when I do, maybe I’ll make a mini video.
I always imagined Arthur as a post-roman governor/general remained in the island after romans retreat in 5th cc and Merlin as celtic druid, two allied to defeat or defend against invading saxons
I feel like crusader kings of all paradox games is the one that is best least grounded in history. It should look to it to tell interesting stories and flavor. The fantasy and unrealistic aspects are, to me, what makes it so appealing. It puts you in the world rather than your piloting someone in the past.
Based on my own research, as a pan-Celtic nationalist and a Scot, I've found that Arthur was most likely a Cumbric King from Yr Hen Ogledd (the old north) comprising of brythonic kingdoms and warlords in what is now the south of Scotland and north of Britain. He was not a "King of Wales" but a Welsh king as the Hen Ogledd was Welsh. I agree fully though, pretty much all the stuff we "know" about Arthur is made up by revisionist historians like Geoffry of Monmouth and the like. I do find it weird however how the English, a people so against Welsh, Scottish, and Cornish identity so much so to ban the language at multiple points in our history are so obsessed with him as a cultural icon, considering even the mythological Arthur was fighting against the Anglo Saxons in most depictions, aka the predecesessors to the English. (The book I reference is Nora C. Chadwicks Celtic Britain, and History with Hilbert has done some videos on the topic).
If you move beyond a materialist reading of history you can also engage with the myth of Arthur at the level of myth and metaphor, which another entirely different kind of real.
Bit of a tangent, but I think CK games do a good job of modeling the life and collapse of political entities precisely because 1) a big portion of the games are dealing with sub-national divisions and 2) the games focus on individual people with their own virtues, failings, and ambitions.
I think Arthur was a general in the Gallic Empire and the son or grandson of the Gallic emperor. This can be seen from the lineages we are given for Arthur and the border of the territory Arthur was said to have ruled lines up basically with the Gallic Empire and would have allowed Arthur to fight Celts, Germans and Romans, which is what we get from all the stories but wouldn’t make sense for anyone entity besides the Gallic Empire
I’ll have to check that, cause some part of me feels like I remember a few mythological figures in the ck2 history, and maybe that’s partly where this idea all came from.
@@Rosencreutzzz even more interesting, the somerset duchy changes its name to "lloegyr" when you are welsh, the same name as england in welsh. It certainly implies something
@@Rosencreutzzz tbf a good proportion of the playable characters in the 9th century start are mythological or semi-mythological figures especially in northern and eastern europe and the steppe - the ones that aren't completely fictional at least
I haven't played the game, is there a way to play AS the peasant revolters? I want a medieval Commune according to the actual proto Communist teachings of Jesus. Despite me being Jewish LOL
This video gets distracted at times. Complaining about Paradox not carrying over enough features does not relate to your central point, and you don't do anything to tie it into a point like you do with the comment about a lack of DLC projecting a foreign default onto cultures far afield from France
I agree. It feels like ck3 was shoe horned into this video cus of his other popular videos when the video would have been better just talking about mythological perception of history
I really disagree with a lot of the points you make here, and I think you're jumping to lots of conclusions about paradox's intentions and stuff like that just from practicality. Paradox likes to make lots of money and so wants to sell lots of DLC, and so makes Muslims and republics and all these different people unplayable at the start of the game cycle. Just like how in ck2 all of these people became playable, this will obviously be the case in ck3 too, and so all of these points about the way Muslims are portrayed as enemies are a bit weird, since obviously when we'll be able to play as Muslims they won't. The only interesting bit is the fact that they decided that the one group that will be playable at game start is western Christians, but that's not too surprising given the game is literally called crusader kings. With these facts, all of your conclusions and points seem a bit forced and irrelevant.
I have a highly cynical take on this one: everything you have talked about missing in CK3 will be added, eventually. Paradox wants to see how to integrate all the moving parts, and then it will release an update as DLC. This will net them a continuous income stream and make many people in their office quite pleased.
Yeah I’m with you there. It disappoints me to see our first modern “DLC-era” example of a paradox sequel follow more the model of the sims games and selling us everything again than Civ where at least half the content carries over.
Excited for Vic3 to launch without claim fabrications 🙃
@@Rosencreutzzz you're kidding. You're kidding, right?
@@888alphaable Yeah, it was a joke about how Vic 2 didn't have fabrication until I think AHD.
@@Rosencreutzzz thank god. That sounded a little too plausible to me.
Unless I'm missing something there is no claim fabrication in Victoria 3
I live in Cornwall (another long-Celtic region of Britain) where there's a lot of association with Arthurian legend, including many historical sites portrayed as associated with Arthur (Tintagel, King Arthur's Hall, King Arthur's Stone, Dozmary Pool etc.), it's interesting but also jarring seeing the description of him as a Welsh ruler.
His myths are set, regardless of whether or not he existed, before the celtic briton culture split into Welsh and Cornish, but one of the modern branches of the culture work as an easy shorthand when pointing out that he DEFINITELY was not english.
I believe he misspoke. He probably meant Briton king but called him Welsh for less accuracy but more readability
"can you point out Camelot on a map?"
Yes, Tintagel.
i believe you are the most cornish-looking person i have ever seen. i don't mean that negatively, i just feel like you could recite beowulf to me in the original text from memory
14:10 Plate armour was still in use during the the reign of Henry VIII so it wouldn't be inaccurate for people to wear it, though it would also depend on the style of the amour.
The tabletop RPG King Arthur Pendragon has a neat take on the aesthetic question: its answer to it is "yes." From the reign of Uther to the Battle of Camlann, knights gradually go from chainmail to gothic plate. Anachronisms like jousting and courtly romance are introduced. After Arthur's death, the enchantment of Brtain is over and banal Dark Ages normalcy takes hold again.
@11:28 how dare you besmirch vikings, everyone knows that the goal of Crusader Kings 3 is to start as the Swedes, invade Spain, reform Asatru, conquer the former Roman Empire, convert to Hellenism, and restore Rome. Just like in real life.
I always imagine ckii and ckiii even more so as reenacting the Middle Ages through a lense of renaissance drama - All the stabbing and waring, I am here for it 😂
"Let's not go to Camelot tis a silly place."
I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist collective.
Something funny about the conclusion is that my local Renaissance Festival now has a shop selling replica flintlock pistols, so even their cultural perception has shifted in manner similar to the “Dark Ages” example.
man you can go to a ren fair dressed as george washington and people would still be like "yeah fuck it, kinda"
I think it's also fair to say that the age of (the vague historical inspiration for) Arthur isn't quite "Rome as pop culture sees it"; it's some 400 years later, and things look a bit different by then. Sometimes in ways that, to new eyes, would look kinda medieval! Not /high/ medieval like the Arthur of most of our pop culture, but less togas and big rectangle shields, more trousers and beards and Christianity, y'know?
To be honest, I am not sure if this was an actual point you made that I am arguing against, but it's just a side tangent for myself that I think fits for this video: In my opinion the most accurate thing to do is to show King Arthur filled with anachronisms and historical inaccuracies. The tales of King Arthur as we know them do not fit in the 5th century, King Arthur is not a figure of the 5th century, even if (which is doubtable in my opinion) inspired by a 5th century figure. A few mentions of Arthur existed before Monmouth, sure, and perhaps the Mabinogion shows us an earlier version of his myth (though that's a matter of debate), but all texts that actually say anything more than a few vague sentences about this figure are mythical in nature. People desperately try to combine the 'historical Arthur' and the mythical Arthur in modern adaptations and it often just falls flat, in my opinion. A historical Arthur would have had no Guinevere, no Lancelot. Maybe Gawain and Mordred (and who knows if Mordred was even his enemy), probably Merlin (funnily enough he's inspired by some figures that are quite likely to actually be real). The mythical figure of King Arthur and all the people around him do not fit our conception of a possible historical Arthur, Arthur is basically a figure of fantasy that was birthed far more of the High Middle Ages than the Early Middle Ages. In our entertainment he should be treated with the same historicity as his 'Trojan ancestors': none, purely based in the mythical texts about them.
Just another comment that I love your videos! Great to see someone that can bridge discussion of the game mechanics and implicit ideology from an informed background understanding of the topic at hand.
Okay yeah after your video on pop history I came here- once again fantastic stuff, you've really sold me! I already appreciate anyone discussing the more roman aspects of arthurian legend and how the myth shifted throughout the medieval ages, and hearing you discuss the holes in their depictions while waiting for the byzantine dlc was interesting. I'm kinda less cynical about the dlc model, I do think I prefer a world where much of the actual content is still free but the dlcs seemingly exist to keep shareholders happy (I mean ideally that wouldn't be a concern but oh well) but this has got me thinking about *selling history* as an addon- fixing anachronisms and fleshing out the details of the real world in ways you have to purchase additionally, I don't know what to think of that.
Just found this channel, I love it!
Hopefully I can keep up the momentum, haha.
Very good video, just subscribed and will be looking forward to going through the playlist and seeing the next 4 videos
Good video, I got here from Reddit as the other guy did.
A topic to discuss, if you don’t mind researching, would be the naming of Byzantine Empire
For a short version from memory:
It’s like how from the outside people sometimes call The Netherlands Holland despite its people being Dutch and Holland only being a small (but central) part of a bigger whole- Byzantion/Byzantium was the original name of Constantinople, became the name of the empire, and the people were Greek and called themselves the Roman Empire (Basileía Rhōmaíōn)
For a somewhat longer version, it has to do, I think, with a refusal to acknowledge the continuity of Rome- because every king dreamed of claiming said continuity and after the chalcedonian split and rise in prominence of the Roman(Like Rome the city) pope, it meant a different center of authority for declaring who is truly “Roman.”
I don’t however know the history of the term’s use in medieval Europe but I’d be really interested to look into it. Maybe I’ll report back when I do, maybe I’ll make a mini video.
I did it. th-cam.com/video/0rQPck017II/w-d-xo.html
Dude I love your channel, I'm so glad I stumbled across it. Feels like it was custom-made to appeal to me.
I always imagined Arthur as a post-roman governor/general remained in the island after romans retreat in 5th cc and Merlin as celtic druid, two allied to defeat or defend against invading saxons
King Arthur came a lot
Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War is the best depiction of arthurian mythology
I feel like crusader kings of all paradox games is the one that is best least grounded in history. It should look to it to tell interesting stories and flavor. The fantasy and unrealistic aspects are, to me, what makes it so appealing. It puts you in the world rather than your piloting someone in the past.
Based on my own research, as a pan-Celtic nationalist and a Scot, I've found that Arthur was most likely a Cumbric King from Yr Hen Ogledd (the old north) comprising of brythonic kingdoms and warlords in what is now the south of Scotland and north of Britain. He was not a "King of Wales" but a Welsh king as the Hen Ogledd was Welsh. I agree fully though, pretty much all the stuff we "know" about Arthur is made up by revisionist historians like Geoffry of Monmouth and the like. I do find it weird however how the English, a people so against Welsh, Scottish, and Cornish identity so much so to ban the language at multiple points in our history are so obsessed with him as a cultural icon, considering even the mythological Arthur was fighting against the Anglo Saxons in most depictions, aka the predecesessors to the English. (The book I reference is Nora C. Chadwicks Celtic Britain, and History with Hilbert has done some videos on the topic).
bro really called himself a pan-Celtic nationalist 😭😭💀
If you move beyond a materialist reading of history you can also engage with the myth of Arthur at the level of myth and metaphor, which another entirely different kind of real.
Bit of a tangent, but I think CK games do a good job of modeling the life and collapse of political entities precisely because 1) a big portion of the games are dealing with sub-national divisions and 2) the games focus on individual people with their own virtues, failings, and ambitions.
I think Arthur was a general in the Gallic Empire and the son or grandson of the Gallic emperor.
This can be seen from the lineages we are given for Arthur and the border of the territory Arthur was said to have ruled lines up basically with the Gallic Empire and would have allowed Arthur to fight Celts, Germans and Romans, which is what we get from all the stories but wouldn’t make sense for anyone entity besides the Gallic Empire
Where did you get the info that the term "dark age" refers to a lack of sources?
It was used by renaissance people to mock the medieval age.
very good video dude! :)
Just a slight thing I want to point out: Henry VIII did have a suit of plate armor. It's on display in the Tower of London
Cool. Good vid. Got here from reddit.
Good to hear it, I never know if posting on a sub will work or not but I’m glad when it does. Welcome.
In CK2 king arthur appears in the history of the somerset duchy. Might Interest you
I’ll have to check that, cause some part of me feels like I remember a few mythological figures in the ck2 history, and maybe that’s partly where this idea all came from.
@@Rosencreutzzz even more interesting, the somerset duchy changes its name to "lloegyr" when you are welsh, the same name as england in welsh. It certainly implies something
@@Rosencreutzzz tbf a good proportion of the playable characters in the 9th century start are mythological or semi-mythological figures especially in northern and eastern europe and the steppe - the ones that aren't completely fictional at least
My local renn fair also has a pirate day.
great vid
At Aquae Sulis in WTWSMS
I haven't played the game, is there a way to play AS the peasant revolters? I want a medieval Commune according to the actual proto Communist teachings of Jesus. Despite me being Jewish LOL
W for Jewish people
This video gets distracted at times. Complaining about Paradox not carrying over enough features does not relate to your central point, and you don't do anything to tie it into a point like you do with the comment about a lack of DLC projecting a foreign default onto cultures far afield from France
I agree. It feels like ck3 was shoe horned into this video cus of his other popular videos when the video would have been better just talking about mythological perception of history
He was in wales and he was a roman
I really disagree with a lot of the points you make here, and I think you're jumping to lots of conclusions about paradox's intentions and stuff like that just from practicality. Paradox likes to make lots of money and so wants to sell lots of DLC, and so makes Muslims and republics and all these different people unplayable at the start of the game cycle. Just like how in ck2 all of these people became playable, this will obviously be the case in ck3 too, and so all of these points about the way Muslims are portrayed as enemies are a bit weird, since obviously when we'll be able to play as Muslims they won't. The only interesting bit is the fact that they decided that the one group that will be playable at game start is western Christians, but that's not too surprising given the game is literally called crusader kings. With these facts, all of your conclusions and points seem a bit forced and irrelevant.
🌹✖️