the Basques

[the Basque Knight]

I was wondering how the Basques are going to be handled in this mod? I understand the Kingdom of Navarra being excluded, because its importance in the Reconquista was fading by the start of this mod, but what about the Basque provinces? The Basques have clung fiercely to their own laws, the fueros, throughout history and have revolted violently against anyone who tried to incorporate them into a central government ... will this be reflected in the mod? Perhaps the governor of the province(s) could have the title "King of Navarra" and have a lot of autonomy, and if the player attempts to remove the autonomy and take more direct control, the province would revolt? What do you think?

Also, what will north-central Spain and south-east France look like? Any cities other than Pamplona, Zaragoza, Burgos and Toulouse? Maybe Logroño, San Sebastian and Bayonne as PSFs at least?

[brennas]

Kaixo, mutiko! Zer moduz?
Well, the Kingdom of Navarre won't be represented, since in 1080 it was part of the Kingdom of Aragon. Anyway, it would be nice to have an script making it revolt each time the king of Aragon dies, so it will be a province with tendence to be rebel. About what are nowadays the Basque provinces, there will be PSFs representing each lordship in the area (Guipuzcoa and Vizcaya), that will generate ancillaries representing the fiefdom.
In southeastern France we'll have another PSFs, one of them will be the Bèarn, province of the old Navarre.

[the Basque Knight]

Bikain! I just want us to be a pain in the ass to whoever controls our territory. Lots of revolts and autonomy. And remember, the Basques only provided soldiers to protect their own provinces, but couldn't be drafted to go to war abroad ... not sure if this could be reflected in the game.

And you're right about Navarra being part of Aragón, I didn't realize that, but maybe the ancillaries for Conde de Navarra (or whatever the title was) and for the other Basque areas could decrease loyalty, leading to more revolts.

[brennas]

mmm....I personally think you have a romantised idea of the Basque country. I don't know any revolt of Basques against Castillians during the Middle Ages (please name one or two). In fact, Basque zone was a loyal land, and never was an specially conflictive region along the Middle Ages and Modern Era (unlike Catalonia or Aragon). Also, there were Basque soldiers in the armies of Navarre and Castille (even in French army, the bidautas), so where did you read those facts?

Anyway, we included a Navarre ethnic trait which makes the Navarrese characters more probable to revolt, just to represent the independence of the Navarre Kingdom.

[the Basque Knight]

Yes, there were no major revolts in the middle ages because the rulers of Aragon and Castille allowed the Basques a large degree of self rule. They respected the fueros and sent representatives to the Basque assembly in Gernika to swear to respect the fueros. When Spain tried to incorporate Basque Country in the 1800's under Isabel II and repealed the fueros, it helped to start the Carlist Wars, which the Basques and Catalans used to try to regain lost autonomy. The Basques were loyal so long as they were ruled by their fueros.

I'm sure I've read that the Basques were only obliged to defend their homeland (the fact that it bordered France made this acceptable to the Castillians). Give me a day or two and I'll get you a source . But Basque mercenaries have been prized since the Punic Wars.

It's my understanding that in DotS, when you first conquer a new province, it's run autonomously with a powerful governor, and you must work to take it more directly under your control. If you do this, the Basque provinces should absolutely revolt, because that's what they have done when their autonomy is threatened. There's no medieval precedent because they were never under direct control of a foreign king, and they retain most of that autonomy today (though they lost and regained it several times in the 19th - 20th centuries).

I'm not some rabid separatist who's going to start a long debate on this thread, I just think it would be cool if the Basques were a constant annoyance to anyone trying to directly control that corner of Iberia. If it won't work, that's cool too, I'm still gonna play...

[brennas]

Yes, there were no major revolts in the middle ages because the rulers of Aragon and Castille allowed the Basques a large degree of self rule. They respected the fueros and sent representatives to the Basque assembly in Gernika to swear to respect the fueros. When Spain tried to incorporate Basque Country in the 1800's under Isabel II and repealed the fueros, it helped to start the Carlist Wars, which the Basques and Catalans used to try to regain lost autonomy. The Basques were loyal so long as they were ruled by their fueros...

This is not accurate, my friend. The kings of Aragon didn't have power until the Basque Country, since its lands started to be prized with fueros since the XIV century, when they already were part of Navarre. Spain never "annexed" or "incorporated" the Basque Country in the 1800s (nor in another age). It was part of the Spanish state since it was formed, and before this, it was part of Castille and Navarre (Alava and Vizcaya part of Castille, Guipuzcoa part of Navarre). The carlist wars didn't seek the independence of Euskal Herria, but the instauration of the Old Regime with the old fueros (no matter if it was those of the Basque country, of Navarre or of the Maestrazgo), so it was not a war for independence of some regions. In fact, the Basques didn't have conscience of a nation until the Carlist Wars finished, when Sabino Arana (a carlist himself) settled the fundations of the Basque Nationalism in the last decades of the XIX century.

I'm sure I've read that the Basques were only obliged to defend their homeland (the fact that it bordered France made this acceptable to the Castillians). Give me a day or two and I'll get you a source . But Basque mercenaries have been prized since the Punic Wars.

Please send me the source, I am interested in Basque history and I have never heard about this before. About the Punic Wars, I think this is also a bit romantised...a lot of Celt and Iberian tribes of the Peninsula helped both of the potences in the struggle, not just Basque tribes fom the mountains. In fact, in that age the Basque tribes inhabited the North of the Ebro Valley (specially Northern Aragon and Navarre), not what is nowadays called the Basque Country (the tribes would passed to this region during romanization, I think).

If you do this, the Basque provinces should absolutely revolt, because that's what they have done when their autonomy is threatened. There's no medieval precedent because they were never under direct control of a foreign king, and they retain most of that autonomy today (though they lost and regained it several times in the 19th - 20th centuries).

That's what they have done....since the second third of the XIX century. In Middle Ages the concience of nation was not too much strong between people (at least it wasn't until the XIV century, when the nation-state and the professional armies helped to form that concept). Since DotS is a historical mod based on the XI-XV centuries, it would not be accurate to represend those kind of "if-history" events. Or should we able the French to revolt against their FL and form a Republic in Middle Ages?

About "they were never under direct control of a foreign king", you speak as if Basques would be an exception in history with their Gernika fueros. Navarra had also their own fueros, and also did Catalonia, Aragon (and I think Valencia too). With the Decret of Nueva Planta, by Felipe V (a bastard, without any doubt) the fueros of the old Crown of Aragon were banned (as a punishment because Catalans, Valencians and Aragonese supported the Austracist instead of the Borbons.
If Basques and Navarrese mantained their fueros through history it was because of they were always loyal to the borbons (foreign kings, by the way), and helped Felipe V (a French) on his candidature to the Spanish throne, as the rest of Castille did.

I don't try to generate polemic, my friend, I just want to show what I understand is the truth, based on historical basis and not in nationalism
Btw, where are you from? Bizkaia, Araba, Gipuzkoa?
Greetings!

[the Basque Knight]

I'm from Bizkaia, though I've lived in the US for several years now. I'm very happy with your solution of breaking the union between Navarre and Aragon after the death of the monarch ... Navarre gets overlooked completely by so many of these mods, it will be nice to some some ancillaries here and there! I have been romanticizing the Basques, I realize; I'm a hopeless romanticizer when it comes to my home but I guess it would be a bit ahistorical for there to be a lot of rebellions among the Basques. But what about the autonomy/direct control gameplay I mentioned? Is that possible? I suppose it would be true for most of Spain, too, which was never truly unified like France.

I'll look through my history books and find that passage about Basque soldiers only defending their homelands for you! Brennas, d'on ets? Catalunya o Arago?

Can't wait to reconquer Iberia with Aragon on DotS, great work guys.

[Lуra]

...by Felipe V (a bastard, without any doubt)...

I agree with you there, my friend!

[Laser101]

About "they were never under direct control of a foreign king", you speak as if Basques would be an exception in history with their Gernika fueros. Navarra had also their own fueros, and also did Catalonia, Aragon (and I think Valencia too). With the Decret of Nueva Planta, by Felipe V (a bastard, without any doubt) the fueros of the old Crown of Aragon were banned (as a punishment because Catalans, Valencians and Aragonese supported the Austracist instead of the Borbons.
Greetings!

If Felipe V was illegitimate, how did he become King?

[brennas]

If Felipe V was illegitimate, how did he become King?

I don't mean he was an illegitimate son of anybody, I was just insulting him
There was a large war between him and the Austrian candidate, the War of Spanish Sucession. Finally, he won the war and made a large repression against them who didn't support him in the Crown of Aragon.

[Vaz]

Not Obliged =/= entirely stopped from doing.

[Resurrection]

I am slightly confused but as a general rule, we don't go for "what if" in DotS. If Basque regions were loyal and never revolted between 1080 and 1453 or to relevant extent before 1080 then no such thing will appear in DotS. And Brennas seems pretty sure about it (he is our Iberian researcher). Making any "what if" conclusions in Middle ages from what happened in 19th century is a long shot at best and cannot be seriously considered either. That however does not mean Basques won't be represented at all. They will be according to our sources on them in Middle ages so traits, titles, possibly units, characters. Brennas is suggesting breaking of the personal union between Kingdom of Navarre and Aragon upon death of Aragonese monarch which can be done and if enough evidence can support it it might be in as scripted event eventually.

[Laser101]

I am slightly confused but as a general rule, we don't go for "what if" in DotS. If Basque regions were loyal and never revolted between 1080 and 1453 or to relevant extent before 1080 then no such thing will appear in DotS. And Brennas seems pretty sure about it (he is our Iberian researcher). Making any "what if" conclusions in Middle ages from what happened in 19th century is a long shot at best and cannot be seriously considered either. That however does not mean Basques won't be represented at all. They will be according to our sources on them in Middle ages so traits, titles, possibly units, characters. Brennas is suggesting breaking of the personal union between Kingdom of Navarre and Aragon upon death of Aragonese monarch which can be done and if enough evidence can support it it might be in as scripted event eventually.

This should probably be possible for Castille/Leon/Galicia as well.

[brennas]

This should probably be possible for Castille/Leon/Galicia as well.

It is not the same case, since we are not trying to represent civil wars each time a king dies, but to represent that Navarre (a special case) was not totally a patrimony of the King of Aragon, but an independent entity. About Galicia and Leon, it would be pretty annoying to have them revolting against Castille each time the King dies, and if it would be half-historical (that was not a constant case along history) it would also result pretty annoying for Castillian gameplay. As I said, Navarre is planned to be an exception

[Laser101]

It is not the same case, since we are not trying to represent civil wars each time a king dies, but to represent that Navarre (a special case) was not totally a patrimony of the King of Aragon, but an independent entity. About Galicia and Leon, it would be pretty annoying to have them revolting against Castille each time the King dies, and if it would be half-historical (that was not a constant case along history) it would also result pretty annoying for Castillian gameplay. As I said, Navarre is planned to be an exception

I didn't mean after every king's death; just in certain cases.

[the Basque Knight]

Hmm, "PrivateJon" what exactly do you think we are taught? I am well aware that the Basque country was not independent, I merely hoped to see the Basques represented in an area that they did indeed inhabit. In vanilla, the Basques and the kingdom of Navarre are just a rebel province, quickly conquered by Spain and most mods are not any better. I have full faith in Brennas and the team that they will do a fair job with the Iberian peninsula with all of its wonderfully diverse peoples.

As for our (manufactured) nationalism, just because we are not a nation does not mean that we don't feel proud as a people. We have a distinct language and identity; we are not Spanish. Is it wrong for us to celebrate our place in this world as well? Ask that to any Catalan or Aragonese. Or Scotsman. I think you have read one or two articles on ETA and made a judgment on all Basques. We are not brainwashed from birth hate the Spanish. I have no wish to see policeman blown up or innocents killed, nor do I think it would be wise to separate from Spain. Be careful when you generalize about an entire race.

[sumskilz]

Hmm, "PrivateJon" what exactly do you think we are taught? I am well aware that the Basque country was not independent, I merely hoped to see the Basques represented in an area that they did indeed inhabit. In vanilla, the Basques and the kingdom of Navarre are just a rebel province, quickly conquered by Spain and most mods are not any better. I have full faith in Brennas and the team that they will do a fair job with the Iberian peninsula with all of its wonderfully diverse peoples.

As for our (manufactured) nationalism, just because we are not a nation does not mean that we don't feel proud as a people. We have a distinct language and identity; we are not Spanish. Is it wrong for us to celebrate our place in this world as well? Ask that to any Catalan or Aragonese. Or Scotsman. I think you have read one or two articles on ETA and made a judgment on all Basques. We are not brainwashed from birth hate the Spanish. I have no wish to see policeman blown up or innocents killed, nor do I think it would be wise to separate from Spain. Be careful when you generalize about an entire race.

All fair points except it might have been better to say "an entire people" or "an entire ethnicity". The term race is fairly loaded in English, is basically a cultural construction with no scientific foundation, and is likely to provoke a lengthy debate about the genetic distinctiveness of Basques. Being an anthropologist, I can tell you that the Basques have a slightly higher frequency of very ancient European haplotypes lending credence to the theory that the Basque language is pre-Indo-European. For example, 87% of Basque men have Y-haplotype R1b1b2, but so do 81% Catalonians, 72% of Castilians, and 58% of Galicians. Wales and Ireland also have very high percentages of the same haplotype - 92% and 85% respectively. What that tells us is that the original Indo-European invaders had a much greater impact linguistically than genetically. Anyway, I'm not accusing you of making any false claims; I'd just like to avoid this thread turning into a pointless argument.

[PrivateJoh]

Hmm, "PrivateJon" what exactly do you think we are taught? I am well aware that the Basque country was not independent, I merely hoped to see the Basques represented in an area that they did indeed inhabit. In vanilla, the Basques and the kingdom of Navarre are just a rebel province, quickly conquered by Spain and most mods are not any better. I have full faith in Brennas and the team that they will do a fair job with the Iberian peninsula with all of its wonderfully diverse peoples.

Fair enough, we all would like certain regions to be given more attention. Unfortunately and since the number of factions is limited, it might be a good idea to focus on more relevant (no disrespect intended, just looking at the big picture here) regions.

As for our (manufactured) nationalism, just because we are not a nation does not mean that we don't feel proud as a people. We have a distinct language and identity; we are not Spanish. Is it wrong for us to celebrate our place in this world as well? Ask that to any Catalan or Aragonese. Or Scotsman. I think you have read one or two articles on ETA and made a judgment on all Basques. We are not brainwashed from birth hate the Spanish. I have no wish to see policeman blown up or innocents killed, nor do I think it would be wise to separate from Spain. Be careful when you generalize about an entire race.

As for an answer to these statements, I am afraid this is not the proper forum to do so. Moreover, I can see that you feel very strongly about this issue as my (believe me, well founded and not coming from a couple of articles) claim on the accuracy of the history lessons in the Basque Country has led you to state my disrespect to "an entire race/ethnicity". And by the way, I am well aware, as sumskilz says, that there is a particular genetic marker on the Basque native population, which by the way originates mainly from North Navarre and south-west France. However, these genetic studies were carried out trying to prove this fact, and therefore only targeted specific population groups, who now represent a minority of the people living in the area due to more recent migration patterns.

And I never claimed either that Basques do not have their own language and traditions, as many other regions (some of them definitely not to the same degree) in Spain, Italy, France, Great Britain, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway ... Not to start with non-western Europeans. In fact, that is/was one of the richness (and problems) in Spain, Italy, former Yugoslavia and USSR, USA (pre- and post- civil war) ... among others.

In any case, my claim is that in the Basque Country, current history lessons do not say that the privileges obtained by the three basque regions (todays Basque Country) and Navarre (which was a completely different entity despite what modern Basque history tells us) are closely related to the tight relation between these four regions and the Spanish kings. In fact, these privileges were abolished as soon as a republic and/or Constitution [EDIT: save the last one] was/were proclaimed in Spain (and therefore, in these regions as they were part of it).

It is also my claim, that it is not taught in schools that the last major rebellion movement in the region (mainly Navarre) was due to pretenders fighting to establish their claim to the Spanish throne, where Navarre supported the brother (and latter his descendants) of the dead Spanish king over his daughter. It was a dispute about who the king/queen would be, not whether there would be a king/queen. On a side note, Galicia and Catalonia did also support Charles’ claim on the throne.

It is also my claim that it is not taught in schools that in the after math of the Spanish Civil war, privileges for Biscay and Gipuzkoa were abolished because they had supported the established government (Republicans), whereas Alava and Navarre were maintained as both regions plaid a major role in the war effort against the Republic. Requetes from Navarre were the third most feared troops by the Republican army just after the German support brigades and “the Moors” (troops deployed in Africa prior to the war). It is also not taught that Franco assimilated the remaining of Charles’ claim supporters (yes, they were still there after 100 years) in his “political” arm to control Spain during his dictatorship.

It is also my claim that whereas todays history talks about the heroic defence of the Basque people of their land and culture in the Spanish civil war, San Sebastian fell a mere three months after the hostilities broke (to forces from Navarre by the way), and that Bilbao siege lasted a whole 2 days (to troops from Navarre and Alava).

So, all and all, and with the previous considerations as examples (there are many more) taken into account, yes, IN MY OPINION (susceptible of being really really really wrong), the modern concept of a great Euskal Herria (great Basque Country composing the Basque Country (Biscay, Gipuzkoa and Alava), Navarre and the 3 French provinces) is a manufactured idea.

[brennas]

It is also my claim, that it is not taught in schools that the last major rebellion movement in the region (mainly Navarre) was due to pretenders fighting to establish their claim to the Spanish throne, where Navarre supported the brother (and latter his descendants) of the dead Spanish king over his daughter. It was a dispute about who the king/queen would be, not whether there would be a king/queen. On a side note, Galicia and Catalonia did also support Charles’ claim on the throne.

Totally agreed. Just one correction: it was not all of Galicia and all of Catalonia who supported the Carlist option. There were some shires who supported liberals, and other that supported Carlists. In Aragon and Valencia it was over all the Maestrazgo region (the stronghold of the Charles' supporters), and for example in Castille it was just in the northern area. About Catalonia, I think the supporters were in the Gerona region, but never for example in Barcelona. The carlist movement was very rural, it never gained a big support in big cities.

And yes, I also consider the Euskal-Herria concept manufactured. I think the Basque Country history is glorious and interesting enough, so I don't find the need to re-invent the history

[Laser101]

As for our (manufactured) nationalism, just because we are not a nation does not mean that we don't feel proud as a people. We have a distinct language and identity; we are not Spanish. Is it wrong for us to celebrate our place in this world as well? Ask that to any Catalan or Aragonese. Or Scotsman.

From what I understand, Basques, Catalans, Aragoneses and Galicans are Spanish, but not Castillian, just as Scots are British, but not English (although the distinction between Scottish and English is blurred; AFAIK people from Northumberland would be closer to Scots than to people from Wessex or Kent).