I only just discovered if you take wales and 1 county in Brittany you can create the Bryinthian Kingdom which is great. Is there a British Empire Create there somewhere that I cannot see it?
Is there a British Empire?
- Thread starter manicus
- Start date
-
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.
Not in vanilla. There are plenty of mods that add it and all sorts of other kingdoms and empires though.
Same as Vicky 2 and HOI3, you'll see the mod forum as a sub-forum of this one once you register your game.
Same as Vicky 2 and HOI3, you'll see the mod forum as a sub-forum of this one once you register your game.
you know, the British empire is a wee bit too anachronistic for this game. Even the kingdom of Brythonia is barely realistic (ie. it's realistic in the sense the Brittany and Wales are both celtic-descended, but unrealistic in the sense that it was unlikely for them to form a union of any kind during that period historically, but let's not discuss that further).
As DoW said, there are lots of mods that add a de jure "Empire of Brittania".
There's also another mod that allows you to create any empire once you have 4 kingdom titles, ie. "Empire of <Your Primary Title>"
Well, an empire is in general just a conglomerate of culturally diverse regions under a single ruler (... or ruling oligarchy). The game doesn't really use the name as per the official definition, though; the following empires of the period and area are missing from the game:
* Bulgarian Empire (1185-1396, south-east Europe)
* Ottoman (1299-1923, Asia Minor and surrounding area)
* Almoravid (1044-1147, north-western Africa)
* Kwarazmian (1077-1256, Persia and surrounding area)
* Ethiopian (1137-1936, north-eastern Africa)
... and quite a few more.
* Bulgarian Empire (1185-1396, south-east Europe)
* Ottoman (1299-1923, Asia Minor and surrounding area)
* Almoravid (1044-1147, north-western Africa)
* Kwarazmian (1077-1256, Persia and surrounding area)
* Ethiopian (1137-1936, north-eastern Africa)
... and quite a few more.
...
that depends on who you really ask.
If you want to be strict, an "empire", in its original definition, is a direct descendant of the Imperium (to quote Wikipedia: "At the time, in the Medieval West, the title “empire” had a specific technical meaning that was exclusively applied to states that considered themselves the heirs and successors of the Roman Empire"). That said, there are only two de jure, ie. by law, empires: The directly descended Eastern Roman Empire and the Papally-legitimized Holy Roman Empire.
The term empire as we use it now, ie. "a conglomerate of culturally diverse regions under a single ruler" as you say, gradually happened as monarchs crowned themselves emperors, while still trying to claim direct legitimacy (aside from the Emperor of Hispania, which frankly never gained recognition and just gradually disappeared). Even the "British Empire" wasn't called an empire, their rulers were just Kings of Scotland and England and Ireland (and the associated colonies). Of course, they eventually assumed the title Emperor of India, but that was well after countless pretender empires have themselves so (Russia, Austria, then Germany)
If you want to go by that definition, you have to include the Bulgarian Empire though, since its Emperor ("Zsar") was recognised as such by another Emperor (look up Simeon I). Also, if going just by this definition, an "empire" has to be a title only, with no in-game difference from a king of multiple kingdoms - but we know the game doesn't work this way.
I think both the Russian and Ottoman Empires based their claims on Rome. The Ottomans with the capture of Byzantium, and the Russians as the "Third Rome" that became the new heart of Orthodoxy after its fall.
That said it is only the name 'Empire' that is anachronistic really. Just having another tier that can vassalise kings, especially small ones isn't. Although such arrangements didn't tend to last too long.
That said it is only the name 'Empire' that is anachronistic really. Just having another tier that can vassalise kings, especially small ones isn't. Although such arrangements didn't tend to last too long.
To be fair, the way the game works, titular empires don't have crown laws, and that would obviously make it less interesting to play
(EDIT: also, I almost forgot. as DoW just mentioned, the Russian and Ottomans did base their claims on Rome. Similarly, Napoeon only declared himself emperor AFTER the HRE was dissolved in an attempt to claim decendancy. Of course, the Austrians declared themselves Emperors as well not to be outdone by Napoleon, and things gut mucky from that point onwards).
That said, I'm simply rehashing the opinions on this very discussion buried in a lot of threads before the demo was even released. Period wise, only the German Pope-legalized Holy Roman Empire and the Greek Direct-Descendant Eastern Roman Empire were recognized as empires for the majority of the period. Simeon I's emperorship was over the Bulgarians, and as the result of a peace treaty and crowned by the Patriarch. He wasn't given the title Emperor of the Romans (well, depending on how you interpret that title itself - the Popes often referred to the ERE's as Emperors of the Greeks. There was another version, with one being referred to as emperor Romanus and one Romania, but my memory fails me since my mood right now just isn't interested
).Anyway, it really doesn't matter. Period-wise, the only "empires" legally recognized by the majority of the West were the two Roman Empires, one holy and one paternal. The other "emperors" of that period, whether the Iberians, the Bulgarians, or the Latins, didn't receive the same "de jure" recognition.
As a side note, did you know that intercourse used to refer to conversation, and congress used to refer to sexual union (okay, it was a 16th century thing, but come one, the analogy works, right? :rofl: )
The problem with this approach currently is that, by game mechanics, everyone "recognises" those Emperors (that is, the effect of being one provides you with benefits with dealing with everyone). Even the Pagans and Muslims ...
Is that all that unhistorical? (genuine question) Rome was more than the Christian world after all, and left a deep impression across most of the game map, especially around the Mediterranean.
this
there's a reason why a large part of Syria are listed as de jure of the ERE - they were de facto part until recently before 1066
Even the Pentarchy is a Roman (ie. original Roman Empire) creation, and the christians in Cairo and Syria became such because of Rome. Even when it devolved into the two vestigial empires, it was this prestige that helped the ERE maintain its hegemony in the east by dissuading the Muslims from attacking the Frankish crusader states (okay, that's not exactly a general picture, but it does say something about how the "glory of Rome" was recognized even by the Muslim states).
That said, if you're asking why Pagans would recognize the legitimacy of these emperors, well that's just how the mechanics currently work. Muslims in-game all have one wife, the title of Grandmaster of any of the Holy Orders can be held by any player if they play to do so enough, hell even the Papacy itself can be vassalized by any in-game catholic emperor (that said, the ERE could suddenly decide to become Catholic, ignoring the very reason of the existence of the schism itself, ie. refusal to recognize the supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome, ie. the Pope, who was traditionally the "head" patriarch [because, well, the capital of the Empire WAS Rome] versus the Patriarch of Constantinople [ie. the Patriarch of the capital of the ERE]).
Your argument that the emperor title should be just titular has some merits, but that would throw away game balance since titular titles don't have crown laws. Similarly, fourth-tier emperor titles just don't really capture the essence of the two Imperium descendants in-game (hell, even the Investiture conflict is pretty much limited to bribing the Pope or convincing him if you're smart enough). But that's just how the game currently works.
Pretty much, yes. Non-Christians, and in a lot of cases newly Christened rulers as well, pretty much didn't give a damn about any of the Emperors solely because of their title - of course, some of them were still valued allies and fearsome enemies, but that hinged on their military, economic and political power alone, not the claims to the Emperor throne.
Actually just a few years before the start of the vanilla game the only King of Wales of that time, Gruffud ap Llywelyn, styled himself as "King of the Brythons", not of the Cymry, so Brythonia isn't really wrong for the region.
A British Empire is complete rubbish, of course. Makes absolutely no sense.
Last edited:
yep, that was also discussed in the 1.04 patch release thread. To rephrase the discussion succinctly, both Brittany and Wales have common celtic descent, ie. "Brythonian", but closer compared to say Alba/Scotland and the Irish kindoms. But the likelihood of actual interest in union between Brittany and Wales, or even "common knowledge" of the celtic co-descendancy, ie. Pan-Celticism, was an Industrial era notion.
A "British" empire wouldn't make sense, especially since the fate of England was greatly affected by the Norman victory. If Norway won, England would have been culturally tied to Scandinavia. If the Saxons won, England would retain its (loose) cultural ties with Germany. The Norman victory, as some text on English feudalism I read said, brought England into the Frankish sphere. Of course, the Normans were technically originally Scandinavians, but they've inter-bred with the locals enough to be more in-line with Frankish culture. The current idea of "British"-ness, on the other hand, did not exist as of the time period... Of course, unless you consider the almost mythical Arthur, King of the Britons (or Arthuria, if you like eastern gender-swapping drivel like I do
), and other Albion-related stuff.That said, as a side note, England (or at least pre-Saxon England) was a province of the Roman Empire. For all intents and purposes, England should be a "de jure" part of the Imperium :laugh:.
That said, I should probably thanks @manicus for giving me an excuse to rant history and forget about my recent failures in my engineering exams :rofl: :laugh: thanks?
yep, that was also discussed in the 1.04 patch release thread. To rephrase the discussion succinctly, both Brittany and Wales have common celtic descent, ie. "Brythonian", but closer compared to say Alba/Scotland and the Irish kindoms. But the likelihood of actual interest in union between Brittany and Wales, or even "common knowledge" of the celtic co-descendancy, ie. Pan-Celticism, was an Industrial era notion.
A "British" empire wouldn't make sense, especially since the fate of England was greatly affected by the Norman victory. If Norway won, England would have been culturally tied to Scandinavia. If the Saxons won, England would retain its (loose) cultural ties with Germany. The Norman victory, as some text on English feudalism I read said, brought England into the Frankish sphere. Of course, the Normans were technically originally Scandinavians, but they've inter-bred with the locals enough to be more in-line with Frankish culture. The current idea of "British"-ness, on the other hand, did not exist as of the time period... Of course, unless you consider the almost mythical Arthur, King of the Britons (or Arthuria, if you like eastern gender-swapping drivel like I do
That said, as a side note, England (or at least pre-Saxon England) was a province of the Roman Empire. For all intents and purposes, England should be a "de jure" part of the Imperium :laugh:.
That said, I should probably thanks @manicus for giving me an excuse to rant history and forget about my recent failures in my engineering exams :rofl: :laugh: thanks?
Turns out... Arthur is not so mythical after all, although not quite what I had envisioned...
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...hot-Thread&p=13598185&viewfull=1#post13598185
Syria was christian way before the Roman empire was, with Antioch being one of the oldest patriarchies and Cario was founded by the Fatamids (eg not even the first bunch of Muslims to take Egypt) so the Romans didn't put any christians there.
Christianity is not European. It doesn't spread from Papal Rome to the middle east. St. Peters is the far flung colony of early Christianity that's codified among the greek writing genteels of Alexandria, Palastine and Syria. The first monks run off for solitude in the african and west asian deserts. When the exiled Goths start their wanderings through Greece and into Europe they've already been Christianised in asia.
There's a general rule of thumb that the closer you get to the point of origin the more diversity increases while the further away you get from it the more things become homogenous. Humanity originated in Africa so two people from nearby villages in Africa have a greater genetic differance between them then the native populatons of south america have with those of canada. Potatoes come from the andes and while only a handful of varieties are grown across the world a south american farmer might grow a hundred differant ones on his small plot.
The catholic hegemony of Europe worked in the same way. Only the celts in ireland and wales create a split off european chistianity before the second millenium and their ideas filtrate back into catholocism and are easily reunited with papism. While in palestine you had a plethora of sects and heresies. Two churches on the same street in Jerusalem might have more doctrinal disagreements than those that sparked the protestant reformation.
One of the reasons the Byzantines failed to retake Syria and Egypt is that the Patriarch of Constantinople was hated outside of the core of the Byzantine Empire. The Patriach's attempts to force a united christian 'imperial' orthodoxy wasn't very attractive to the eastern and african christians living under the religious freedom sponsored by their tolerant islamic conquorers. Constantinople just couldn't forment any rebellions or gain any support outside of the hegemony of greek orthodoxy. Even the armenians who were happy to fight for Roman coin rejected attempts to bring them into orthodoxy and eventually tried to forge independant kingdoms.
Bulgarian Empire... Lul, wut?
I love those reliable wiki links btw, plenty of reliable info as usually.
Yes, Empire. The Wikipedia links are for general public; If you know Bulgarian, look for books by Prof. Vasil Nikolov Zlatarski (Васил Николов Златарски) in your local library.
As far I remember, The Holy Roman Emperor ruled, in theory, over the whole world by mandate of the pope, which is one the reasons why, no other catholic ruler declared themselves as emperors in the time period of the game, without some relation to the pope or the HRE. This idea of world rule changed somewhere between 1200 to 1300, for some reason I can’t remember… and the official name changed in 1500 to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
My point is I don’t necessary want to see another catholic Empire in the game, but rather a way to form a new kingdom, a United Kingdom or some kind of union, with one administration, when I have the same laws in all of the kingdoms I control. And if some catholic king proclaims themselves as emperor, it should have consequences in the form of extremely negative diplomatic relations to the HRE and the pope and in the long run excommunication and war.
My point is I don’t necessary want to see another catholic Empire in the game, but rather a way to form a new kingdom, a United Kingdom or some kind of union, with one administration, when I have the same laws in all of the kingdoms I control. And if some catholic king proclaims themselves as emperor, it should have consequences in the form of extremely negative diplomatic relations to the HRE and the pope and in the long run excommunication and war.
Last edited: