PI, now that you've broken up Germany, could you consider breaking up Byzantium too?

Hyena Dandy said:

Yes, and if the empire were to fall, it wouldn't be ridiculous to assume that they could have banded together on the basis, eh, screw it, we're all still here. Kingdom of Greece!

I think that there's a tendency on these forums, at least in these sorts of debates, from what I've seen, that we all sort of take "Alternate History" as "Things that actually happened, but doing it at a different point."

It'd be an Alternate History thing, but as someone who does do some Alternate History writing, I think that "Kingdom of Greece" is something I could very easily see arising out of the ashes of a shattered empire. I could also see (assuming we're already in the Alternate History where the Byzantines all use the western feudal system for Celestia-Knows-What reason) that someone who's given this king-ish title could say "I don't want to be part of your country anymore" for one reason or another.

Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

not really, after the empire fell the Rhōmaiōn people that inhabited modern day greece tried to perserve what had been theres for over 1500 years, they wouldn't just go "Derp well it was a good run, who cares about being the roman empire now, we'll just call ourselves the kingdom of greece!", they definantly wouldn't of chosen the name "greece", you need to realize that greece had been the core of their empire for over 1500 years, they would have no desire to just abandon that, the most likely scenario is that whatever successor state emerged out of the fallen empire, would simply continue to call themselves the roman empire, if there were multiple successor states, then I imagine they would style themselves as despots.

On the naming, I imagine you're right. I was referring to the idea of such a kingdom arising at all.

Jia Xu said:

You mean like Arabia, a kingdom which currently exists within the game? Really, folks, please read the entire topic before responding.

Click to expand...

No, I was responding to this claim: "First of all, you've been listening to too many pseudo-Byzantine historians on this board if you think Greeks were always Romans. The concept of Hellas existed before the Roman empire did. I understand that a lot of people are victims of the misinformation spread by Byzantine fanboys, so don't feel bad about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_period."

Jia Xu said:

Wow, did you really just say that there was something Greek in Byzantium? You have just committed the greatest sin of all! I'll ask the church to plead for you at your hanging!

Click to expand...

Being "Greek" is not the same as being "Hellenistic" which is not the same as a polity known as "Greece".

Jia Xu said:

Would Greek and Anatolian kingdoms be historically accurate? No, they would not, strictly speaking. But it doesn't matter. The Byzantine experience is already 100% completely ahistorical. The Byzantine experience in Crusader Kings II involves you ruling Byzantium under western Euro-feudalistic rules. If we can accept this, then there's no reason why some extra kingdoms for game play balance should be completely out of the question. Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Yeah, fine, I can go along with that. But if we're going to be splitting up the "kingdom of Byzantium," there's no reason to replace it with something equally ahistorical. I'm scarcely an expert on the Byzantines (as you may have guessed, I'm a classicist) but if there was such a thing as a supra-thematic entity, I'd prefer the "kingdoms" be split into that, and named accordingly.

Federalist girl said:

...But if we're going to be splitting up the "kingdom of Byzantium," there's no reason to replace it with something equally ahistorical. I'm scarcely an expert on the Byzantines (as you may have guessed, I'm a classicist) but if there was such a thing as a supra-thematic entity, I'd prefer the "kingdoms" be split into that, and named accordingly.

Click to expand...

Rumelia and Anatolia were the super-thematic entities, for military purposes, at least (and the themes were, essentially, military districts). The islands, some coastal provinces, and southern Greece were generally naval themes, IIRC, and I think they reported up to a Grand Admiral type (Megadoux?). They might loosely correspond to a "Hellas" grouping, though, if we're talking about a three-way split.

The thing is, there isn't really much point to splitting apart the Byzantine "Kingdom", if it's not going to do something useful in terms of game mechanics, like weaken Byzantium, or encourage somewhat historical/logical jihads or crusades. Rumelia/Anatolia would probably still be too big as jihad/crusade targets (but still better than the current "kingdom"). But, since it's already a de jure Empire, several sub-kingdoms won't really weaken the ERE (indeed they might even strengthen it). The sub-kingdoms didn't really weaken the HRE, that I noticed, although France's division did nerf it a bit. If we're not going to use any potential sub-kingdoms in the context of the crusade system, it's probably better to leave the whole thing as a blank place holder, like it and Khazaria are now.

If sub-kingdoms can become crusade/jihad targets, though, the more I think about it, the more I think several smaller Kingdoms make sense: a tiny "Epirus"; a small "Trebizond" (probably including Chersonensus); a modest coastal "Nikea"; "Hellas" comprising southern Greece and the islands; "Rumelia" being northern Greece/Makedonia; and "Anatolia" which should also include a duchy or two of the current Kingdom of Armenia. My ideal lines would cross current duchy definitions. But since history seems a secondary concern, reasonable trade-offs could still achieve something that might vastly improve the games ability to model the situation leading up to the 1st Crusade and/or the aftermath of the 4th Crusade (again, assuming the crusade/jihad system can target the sub-kingdoms and assuming entities like the Seljuks or the Venetians have the capacity to undertake successful jihads/crusades).

I wouldn't be against breaking up or otherwise changing the Kingdom of Byzantion, it's not like it was a formally existing kingdom at any point. It's basically a game mechanic metaphor for the core empire, I guess.

Jia Xu said:

Considering the huge addition of so many (sometimes ahistorical) kingdoms in the recent patch (which I'm perfectly fine with), it would be nice if that monstrosity called the Kingdom of Byzanium was broken up as well. Break it up into Anatolia and Greece, please. I love being able to create kingdoms as an emperor now and have a big empire without having to manage 100+ dukes, but that big Greek monster is an issue. You can't create it, and even if you could, giving it to a vassal would make someone into a super power and holding it yourself leaves you with all of those little disloyal Greek dukes. If Byzantium was split into two kingdoms, both able to be created and given away, it would make the whole eastern imperial experience much more enjoyable, in my opinion. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Translation of the OP's post:

I'm having a tough time conquering everything with Byzantium, so I want more Kingdoms in order to have less vassals to worry about, thus making World Conquest easier. And when I've painted the whole map with my colours, I'll come here to brag about it/complain about how easy this game is.

That's the gist of it, IMO.

khedas said:

Translation of the OP's post:

I'm having a tough time conquering everything with Byzantium, so I want more Kingdoms in order to have less vassals to worry about, thus making World Conquest easier. And when I've painted the whole map with my colours, I'll come here to brag about it/complain about how easy this game is.

That's the gist of it, IMO.

Click to expand...

That's what it sounds like to me. I don't like all the new fantasy kingdoms at all. If there is a problem with blobbing it should be dealt with differently in my opinion.

Mammoet said:

That's what it sounds like to me. I don't like all the new fantasy kingdoms at all. If there is a problem with blobbing it should be dealt with differently in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I can't speak to the O.P.'s motives, but yes, there is a problem with blobbing. In the case of the ERE, it is partly due to poor representation of the crusades and wars in that region. Sure there might be better ways to deal with it, but absent large scale changes to the game mechanics, there are things that can be done to improve the situation, within the current constraints. So, why not split up the non-historical, over-sized Byzantine "kingdom", if that could enhance the historicity and realism of the game experience?

I'm not sure why people are so keen to throw out terms like "fantasy kingdoms". If you weren't aware of it, the Desoptate of Epirus is not fantasy, it existed; the Empire of Trebizond existed; the Empire of Nikea existed; the Principality of Achaea/Morea existed; the Kingdom of Thessalonike existed; the Sultanate of Rum existed. The only element of "fantasy" is the degree to which it might be useful to modify their "de jure" borders in such a manner as to encourage more rational and historical progression of things like crusades/jihads. Granted, things like "Pommerania", "Finland", "Mesepotamia" are essentially fantasy, but presumably they're in the game for a reason. Whereas what we're talking about here is not fantasy, at all; but I am thinking that representing these historical realities could improve the game. The larger you make these sub-kingdoms, the more they verge on "fantasy", but most of the two or three ways splits that have been discussed also have ample historical justifications.

If you're concerned that sub-kingdoms helps a Byzantine player, make them non-formable by the ERE.

tranquilium said:

The problem with Jewish culture is that it just isn't very relevent as far as European history goes. Sure it is probably one of the better known culture groups today, but comparing to Franks, Germans, Greeks and all the other cultures in the game, the Jewish culture just isn't all that important. It has no independent territory between 63BC and 1948 and generally has little bearing on major political decisions of the nations. It was one of the persecuted culture groups, but then again there were a lot of culture groups that were persecuted throughout the history.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there was no equivalent of Israel at that time, but the Jew people were very important and valuable advisors and traders. And cmon, recreating Khazaria from dust is one of the things i want to do the most in this game, as i myself descend from Jews.

EDIT: Seriously, the problem of all Paradox games, its that while they are THE best to represent the grand things (infrastructure, religion, politics) , they are absolutely horrible with most other things (battles for example, total war beats them in every way)

RobRoy3 said:

I can't speak to the O.P.'s motives, but yes, there is a problem with blobbing. In the case of the ERE, it is partly due to poor representation of the crusades and wars in that region. Sure there might be better ways to deal with it, but absent large scale changes to the game mechanics, there are things that can be done to improve the situation, within the current constraints. So, why not split up the non-historical, over-sized Byzantine "kingdom", if that could enhance the historicity and realism of the game experience?

I'm not sure why people are so keen to throw out terms like "fantasy kingdoms". If you weren't aware of it, the Desoptate of Epirus is not fantasy, it existed; the Empire of Trebizond existed; the Empire of Nikea existed; the Principality of Achaea/Morea existed; the Kingdom of Thessalonike existed; the Sultanate of Rum existed. The only element of "fantasy" is the degree to which it might be useful to modify their "de jure" borders in such a manner as to encourage more rational and historical progression of things like crusades/jihads. Granted, things like "Pommerania", "Finland", "Mesepotamia" are essentially fantasy, but presumably they're in the game for a reason. Whereas what we're talking about here is not fantasy, at all; but I am thinking that representing these historical realities could improve the game. The larger you make these sub-kingdoms, the more they verge on "fantasy", but most of the two or three ways splits that have been discussed also have ample historical justifications.

If you're concerned that sub-kingdoms helps a Byzantine player, make them non-formable by the ERE.

Click to expand...

As of 1066, if you said the Byzantine Emperor his empire would utterly fall to the Turks and be split by the Franks, he probably would lock you up in a dungeon or die of laugh. And the Dammed De Jure borders dont change in later starts! De Jure K. of Aquitaine exists in the hundred years war!

NoobRage said:

Yeah, there was no equivalent of Israel at that time, but the Jew people were very important and valuable advisors and traders. And cmon, recreating Khazaria from dust is one of the things i want to do the most in this game, as i myself descend from Jews.

EDIT: Seriously, the problem of all Paradox games, its that while they are THE best to represent the grand things (infrastructure, religion, politics) , they are absolutely horrible with most other things (battles for example, total war beats them in every way)



As of 1066, if you said the Byzantine Emperor his empire would utterly fall to the Turks and be split by the Franks, he probably would lock you up in a dungeon or die of laugh. And the Dammed De Jure borders dont change in later starts! De Jure K. of Aquitaine exists in the hundred years war!

Click to expand...

that's cause total war is a battle game, and lacks alot of strategic depth and is ahistorical as hell, there's no point comparing paradox games to total war, they are totally different genre.

Jak9090 said:

that's cause total war is a battle game, and lacks alot of strategic depth and is ahistorical as hell, there's no point comparing paradox games to total war, they are totally different genre.

Click to expand...

No, i just said that beyond the complex schemes and grand strategy, Paradox games are just mediocre and even crappy, i just used Total War there to point out how the battle system is bad, numbas just pwn everything. Not saying the game is bad or mediocre thou.

NoobRage said:

No, i just said that beyond the complex schemes and grand strategy, Paradox games are just mediocre and even crappy.

Click to expand...

Wrong forum? :laugh:

Sleight of Hand said:

Wrong forum? :laugh:

Click to expand...

Better sharpen my sword...BanHammer incoming!

NoobRage said:

(...)

As of 1066, if you said the Byzantine Emperor his empire would utterly fall to the Turks and be split by the Franks, he probably would lock you up in a dungeon or die of laugh. And the Dammed De Jure borders dont change in later starts! De Jure K. of Aquitaine exists in the hundred years war!

Click to expand...

You can change the de jure setup in the history files. By using the line de_jure_liege="k_nameofkingdom" (so for France it would be de_jure_liege=''k_france'') in the history file of a duchy on a specific date.

Ruwaard said:

You can change the de jure setup in the history files. By using the line de_jure_liege="k_nameofkingdom" (so for France it would be de_jure_liege=''k_france'') in the history file of a duchy on a specific date.

Click to expand...

Or go one better and use my setup.

So after reading through this thread, ive gathered that the argument is about what byzantium, as a kingdom, should be split up into. Since this did happen to germany there does seem to be no reason not to do it to byzantium, in my opinion. Is there no possible kingdoms that could be forged out of Byzantium? Im not worried about the names of the kingdoms at the moment, but rather where they would be, e.g. would it be best to split byzantium into two kingdoms with one in Europe and the other in the East? (cant remember name of the non-european part of land )

RobRoy3 said:

I can't speak to the O.P.'s motives, but yes, there is a problem with blobbing. In the case of the ERE, it is partly due to poor representation of the crusades and wars in that region. Sure there might be better ways to deal with it, but absent large scale changes to the game mechanics, there are things that can be done to improve the situation, within the current constraints. So, why not split up the non-historical, over-sized Byzantine "kingdom", if that could enhance the historicity and realism of the game experience?

I'm not sure why people are so keen to throw out terms like "fantasy kingdoms". If you weren't aware of it, the Desoptate of Epirus is not fantasy, it existed; the Empire of Trebizond existed; the Empire of Nikea existed; the Principality of Achaea/Morea existed; the Kingdom of Thessalonike existed; the Sultanate of Rum existed. The only element of "fantasy" is the degree to which it might be useful to modify their "de jure" borders in such a manner as to encourage more rational and historical progression of things like crusades/jihads. Granted, things like "Pommerania", "Finland", "Mesepotamia" are essentially fantasy, but presumably they're in the game for a reason. Whereas what we're talking about here is not fantasy, at all; but I am thinking that representing these historical realities could improve the game. The larger you make these sub-kingdoms, the more they verge on "fantasy", but most of the two or three ways splits that have been discussed also have ample historical justifications.

If you're concerned that sub-kingdoms helps a Byzantine player, make them non-formable by the ERE.

Click to expand...

My 'fantasy kingdoms' was more pointed at things like Bavaria, Aquitaine, Pommerania and Brythonia. Anything that would be historically plausible is fine with me. But having all those things as de jure kingdoms from the start is just nonsense in my opinion.

Mammoet said:

My 'fantasy kingdoms' was more pointed at things like Bavaria, Aquitaine, Pommerania and Brythonia. Anything that would be historically plausible is fine with me. But having all those things as de jure kingdoms from the start is just nonsense in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Good lord, finally someone with a good mind. To split Byzantium from start is to make more fantasy kingdoms like Bavaria and Pommerania (thats why it must die :laugh. From LATER start dates its ok, but from 1066 start? No.