Learning Time! So, how did the Byzantine government actually work?

[Cetan]

I see this crop up in threads all the time, that the ERE was not really feudal, that High/Absolute Crown Authority do their best to replicate the setting, and so on.

Since I don't know, and the wikipedia article on the government of the time is quick and vague, can anyone provide insight?

[BaronVonHarry]

To become emperor, one must assassinate the current emperor.

[Gogog]

For the emperor one thing mattered over everything else.

He who controls the spice, controls the universe.

Nah seriously, it was basically almost a modern state with a really well developed career bureaucracy.

For a boring if accurate description see 'Ruling the Later Roman Empire' it sums things up pretty well and draws heavily on the memoirs of John Lydus. He was a new man and very bitter that he didn't reach the top of his department. When he's not attacking his superiors for holding him back, he provides a very interesting insiders view.

[soopaman2]

It seems to start out as a state with vassals who hate each other and want to constantly war amongst each other.

As an AI it can easily jack CA (early) up to stop this, but as a player, it is not so easy.
I was always under the impression it was highly centralized, I just wonder sometimes what I have been doing wrong as a player. That the computer can do. I give the vassals all they want. Including titles they seem butthurt about me holding. I even experimented, I switched all taxes and levies to absolute minimum, then tried to put in Medium CA and got 140 out of 401 votes. Bribes (gifts) did nothing, and the vote ends.

People outside my control (like Bulgaria, and Armenia) have more votes than actual vassals of mine, who actually contribute to "this thing of ours" and that is crap IMHO. I know they are Kings, but they do nothing for me, nor me for them. So why should they have more votes than the King of Africa, or all my random dukes who has added more land to my realm than they ever could?

In other words. The ERE is not too well represented IMHO.

[IGGEL]

Also, iirc, they had a professional standing army. Not thousands of levies pouring over into whoever they didn't like.

[riknap]

Also, iirc, they had a professional standing army. Not thousands of levies pouring over into whoever they didn't like.

although by the time period at the crusades, especially post-Manzikert, they were increasingly (not solely of course) reliant on mercenary troops

[Zenith Darksea]

The Byzantine Empire's government and administration is basically not represented at all. They are essentially a clone of the Western European countries - an understandable design decision, as Paradox didn't want to have to create an entirely new governing system, but not a historically accurate one.

As it has been said, Byzantium in the eleventh century was an empire governed from a large, sophisticated bureaucracy based in Constantinople. The bureaucracy was as close as the Middle Ages ever came to modern 'professionalism' and required a formal education in literature and rhetoric. Although the official language was Classical Greek, it was a multi-ethnic administration; historical sources contain many references to Italians, Slavs, Bulgars, Armenians, Georgians, Turks and Cumans (among others) in the government.

The empire was divided up into various provincial units (Themata, Katepanikia, Kleisourai, Archontiai etc.) that were not uniformly imposed across imperial territory but rather based on local conditions. These were governed by a military aristocracy which was in theory subservient to the civil administration and the emperor in Constantinople. Military leadership roles were not hereditary as in Western Europe, but were rather appointments made by the central government. They were often rotated, with various commanders being given authority over several different administrative units over their career. Although Byzantine aristocrats did own hereditary land, and although Byzantine provincial administration gradually became somewhat more similar to the western 'feudal' model over the centuries through the introduction of e.g. the pronoia system, Byzantine society was not ordered along western 'feudal' lines.

Ultimately CK2 does an exceedingly poor job of representing Byzantine government and society; or, rather, it makes no effort to do so. However, the designers presumably felt that the effort in research and implementation was greater than they could justify.

[riknap]

The Byzantine Empire's government and administration is basically not represented at all. They are essentially a clone of the Western European countries - an understandable design decision, as Paradox didn't want to have to create an entirely new governing system, but not a historically accurate one.

As it has been said, Byzantium in the eleventh century was an empire governed from a large, sophisticated bureaucracy based in Constantinople. The bureaucracy was as close as the Middle Ages ever came to modern 'professionalism' and required a formal education in literature and rhetoric. Although the official language was Classical Greek, it was a multi-ethnic administration; historical sources contain many references to Italians, Slavs, Bulgars, Armenians, Georgians, Turks and Cumans (among others) in the government.

The empire was divided up into various provincial units (Themata, Katepanikia, Kleisourai, Archontiai etc.) that were not uniformly imposed across imperial territory but rather based on local conditions. These were governed by a military aristocracy which was in theory subservient to the civil administration and the emperor in Constantinople. Military leadership roles were not hereditary as in Western Europe, but were rather appointments made by the central government. They were often rotated, with various commanders being given authority over several different administrative units over their career. Although Byzantine aristocrats did own hereditary land, and although Byzantine provincial administration gradually became somewhat more similar to the western 'feudal' model over the centuries through the introduction of e.g. the pronoia system, Byzantine society was not ordered along western 'feudal' lines.

Ultimately CK2 does an exceedingly poor job of representing Byzantine government and society; or, rather, it makes no effort to do so. However, the designers presumably felt that the effort in research and implementation was greater than they could justify.

as I commented in another thread, one of the devs did say in a thread a long time ago that they were considering making ERE not playable until they could make an expansion/DLC that represents it a lot better, but released it anyway since it was likely to receive a more negative reaction if they made the byzzies unplayable at the start until mechanics could be made for them (as that dev said, those would be accusations of "locking out content" yadda yadda).
tl;dr:
That said, letting the ERE be playable using the Western European mechanics really is just a stopgap solution since they just didn't have enough time/budget to make the ERE completely unique

[derelictq]

Interesting Zentih,

Sounds like there'd be a great mod in this if somebody was passionate about getting it right.

[Beamed]

The Byzantine Empire's government and administration is basically not represented at all. They are essentially a clone of the Western European countries - an understandable design decision, as Paradox didn't want to have to create an entirely new governing system, but not a historically accurate one.

As it has been said, Byzantium in the eleventh century was an empire governed from a large, sophisticated bureaucracy based in Constantinople. The bureaucracy was as close as the Middle Ages ever came to modern 'professionalism' and required a formal education in literature and rhetoric. Although the official language was Classical Greek, it was a multi-ethnic administration; historical sources contain many references to Italians, Slavs, Bulgars, Armenians, Georgians, Turks and Cumans (among others) in the government.

The empire was divided up into various provincial units (Themata, Katepanikia, Kleisourai, Archontiai etc.) that were not uniformly imposed across imperial territory but rather based on local conditions. These were governed by a military aristocracy which was in theory subservient to the civil administration and the emperor in Constantinople. Military leadership roles were not hereditary as in Western Europe, but were rather appointments made by the central government. They were often rotated, with various commanders being given authority over several different administrative units over their career. Although Byzantine aristocrats did own hereditary land, and although Byzantine provincial administration gradually became somewhat more similar to the western 'feudal' model over the centuries through the introduction of e.g. the pronoia system, Byzantine society was not ordered along western 'feudal' lines.

Ultimately CK2 does an exceedingly poor job of representing Byzantine government and society; or, rather, it makes no effort to do so. However, the designers presumably felt that the effort in research and implementation was greater than they could justify.

The devs said they wanted to exclude Byzantium entirely, for the reasons you gave, but as the fans would revolt, included it along the lines of Western Europe, and thus might create a more Byzantine-esque system for them in DLC.

[Muskeato]

Also, iirc, they had a professional standing army. Not thousands of levies pouring over into whoever they didn't like.

Just before the start date they had a large standing army of levies funnily enough. These were all disbanded though and the new Emperor moved to a mercenary-based army.

[riknap]

The devs said they wanted to exclude Byzantium entirely, for the reasons you gave, but as the fans would revolt, included it along the lines of Western Europe, and thus might create a more Byzantine-esque system for them in DLC.

AND I finally found the relevant link
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...1#post13443626
to copy:

We would have preferred to keep the Byzantines out as well until we had enought time & budget to represent them better. But they were playable in the original CK and since we don't want accusations of taking things out of the game to be sold later, we left them in.

You guys owe me some brain bleach.
And aspirin

[Joel M Bridge]

They where so very different western fedual life, they could make ERE expasion that would hot, not dlc but expasion.

[Cetan]

So, if the ERE were to be accurately represented, it would operate more along the lines of the Theocracy with Free Investiture, to put it in loose current game terms?

I'm not sure how you'd get an appointment-based government system to work with the Dynastic core of Crusader Kings II, and retain its playability. Unless you are locked out to playing the Basileus himself and have that sort of control.

[riknap]

They where so very different western fedual life, they could make ERE expasion that would hot, not dlc but expasion.

as a thousand threads have already pointed out, they're changing their policy for CK2
instead of traditional expansions (like in EU3), there will be modular gameplay DLC. for example, a muslim-gameplay DLC, then a Byzantium DLC. You can buy both or none, yet still play multiplayer with others whatever they have (both or none) since it will only affect your gameplay.
in other words, just ignore the letters "DLC" and think of it as a "non-mandatory modular expansion add-on"