Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Who wants Rome 2?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
StelarCF said:
The Byzantine Empire was MUCH more Roman than the "Holy" "Roman" "Empire". For one it was the DIRECT DESCENDANT of the Roman Empire.

Then you have to consider the fact that the Roman Empire always had loads of greek influences

The Byzantine Empire was more of an empire than the HRE - at least from some perspectives.
Click to expand...
After Julius Nepos died the Eastern Roman Empire became legally the only Roman Empire at the initiative of the Western senate and thus Byzantium = Rome. So Byzantine Empire was not a successor to the Roman Empire, it was the exact same thing.
 
Lord Finnish said:
After Julius Nepos died the Eastern Roman Empire became legally the only Roman Empire at the initiative of the Western senate and thus Byzantium = Rome. So Byzantine Empire was not a successor to the Roman Empire, it was the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

And that's why some Ottoman Sultans actually titled themselves to be Roman Emperors. Which is why on one of my history tests in high school I wrote "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Turkish National Movement", and "joining the Central Powers in WWI" as the chief reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. My teacher was amused.
 
VoodooEconomist said:
And that's why some Ottoman Sultans actually titled themselves to be Roman Emperors. Which is why on one of my history tests in high school I wrote "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Turkish National Movement", and "joining the Central Powers in WWI" as the chief reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. My teacher was amused.
Click to expand...

Well, in practice their ancestors 'killed' Rome in the 1450s. The Ottomans are not the successors of Rome. No one is.
 
The argument that some of you are making is wrapped entirely in ceremony and traditional lore.

This is the only case in history where anyone will argue that a successor state of an empire with totally different cultural makeup, geographical situation, and governmental structure is in fact the same state as the one it succeeds. I mean, this is particularly glaring as the name "Rome" is not the name of a federation, nor is it the name of a nation. It is the name of one city.

Think of Rome as a great tree. The tree's roots spread throughout its vicinity. Over time, the roots take such hold that they spawn new trees with roots of their own.

A great earthquake and fire eventually cripple the great tree, and sever it from its offspring. All ties but an external resemblance between the younger tree and its parent cease to be. What exists now is a new tree with its own network of roots, and its own area of influence. Is this the same tree, in fact, as the other tree? I did not ask if it is still in fact part of the same federation of roots and saplings, I asked is it the same tree as its parent?

My answer would be no. This young tree is a new thing, disconnected from its parent, and though its bark and leaves resemble the parent, their configuration and span will never be the same as the parent's. The roots with which this young tree mingle are different from the ones that surrounded its parent. Resemblance is not only skin deep.

My friends, the fanciful augmentation of the Byzantine civilization with the trappings of another city and selected parts of its' tradition are only skin deep.
 
Last edited:
diegosimeone said:
Well, in practice their ancestors 'killed' Rome in the 1450s. The Ottomans are not the successors of Rome. No one is.
Click to expand...

I think when Bizantium fell there were claimants all over the place from Spain to Russia.
In order to compare though (not to justify the argument) Ottomans claiming to be Romans is like barbarian HRE claiming to have anything to do with the Roman emperors :D
 
AndreiTLC said:
if the USA will start speaking spanish as it s primary language,does it mean it s no longer the USA ?
Click to expand...

The United States is not a good point of comparison, as it is not a centralized authoritarian Empire as its Roman predecessor was.

All roads do not lead to Washington. People in the satellite states of the US Empire do not necessarily view Obama as their supreme ruler.

Furthermore, the basic national characteristic of the United States lies essentially in its cultural and internal Geo-political diversity.

Besides it would only be apt to compare the US-Mexican relationship with the Roman Empire if the United States government (or vice-versa) were to conquer Mexico, integrate it, then be destroyed, with the outcome of Mexico delcaring itself "The United States of America".

I hope you see why your comparison makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
alvaro said:
I think when Bizantium fell there were claimants all over the place from Spain to Russia.
In order to compare though (not to justify the argument) Ottomans claiming to be Romans is like barbarian HRE claiming to have anything to do with the Roman emperors :D
Click to expand...

The Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople did confirm Mehmet's claim though ;-)
 
Quite frankly, there's more continuity and similarity between the Ottoman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, than there was between the Byzantine empire and the Roman Empire of Augustus.

Also, this:

successorsofrome.jpg
 
Far from joining the discussion about history/politics that it's going on in this thread and back to the original purpose of this thread...

I sign to beg Paradox: Please, develop EU Rome 2!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back