+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10
Results 181 to 200 of 200

Thread: How would the Roman Empire be in CK2?

  1. #181
    Basileus Basileōn darthfanta's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIVictoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Land of the Kangaroos
    Posts
    1,621
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by andras00 View Post
    Nice discussion
    According to me, if we say the Holy Roman Empire is the continuation of the Western Rome .., it can also be said of the Tsardom of Russia - because the ruler want to be Emperor, because the head of the church also want to have more power then other orthodox patriarch, we'll have a new emblem and come up with new theories of the third rome and we have a new Roman Empire
    HRE is not just any continuation, its a new political structure.
    The Tsar's claim's complete bull.

  2. #182
    The next example is the Ottoman Empire .., when Mehmed conquer Constantinople he proclaimed himself as Roman Emperor, his claims was recognized by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople as successor to the throne of the Roman Empire. And nobody here writes about the continuation of Byzantine after 1453 :?

  3. #183
    Basileus Basileōn darthfanta's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIVictoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Land of the Kangaroos
    Posts
    1,621
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by andras00 View Post
    The next example is the Ottoman Empire .., when Mehmed conquer Constantinople he proclaimed himself as Roman Emperor, his claims was recognized by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople as successor to the throne of the Roman Empire. And nobody here writes about the continuation of Byzantine after 1453 :?
    1.No senatorial approval(doesn't really matter by that stage since the Senate no longer exist), but would have otherwise enhanced his claim if the Senate existed and confirmed him.2.The relatives of the last emperors does not even recognize him.Forgot his name, but the last emperor's brother and heir, the Despot of Morea actually willed his claims to Isabella and Ferdinand of Castille and Aragon as opposed to Mehmed. If anything, those two has a better claim than Mehmed, even though it's all meaningless.Which at any rate, the title wasn't even used by the two of them.3. The Roman Empire was by then completely destroyed(personally, I'd like to believe that it still existed and had a separate emperor until 1460 since the Despotate of Morea still existed until then).One may even claim that the real Roman Empire was destroyed in 1204. 4.Besides that, he's a foreign conqueror.By the Roman definition of a barbarian, he would also count. 5. The Orthodox Patriarch technically has no legal say on who is the emperor. If they wanted, an emperor appointed by the senate can most probably get another bishop to crown him.6. He's not a relative of any emperor(earlier Ottoman Sultans have taken Byzantine princesses as concubines, but I don't think he was a descendant of any of them).
    Last edited by darthfanta; 07-02-2014 at 12:17.

  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by darthfanta View Post
    1.No senatorial approval(doesn't really matter by that stage since the Senate no longer exist), but would have otherwise enhanced his claim if the Senate existed and confirmed him.2.The relatives of the last emperors does not even recognize him.Forgot his name, but the last emperor's brother and heir, the Despot of Morea actually willed his claims to Isabella and Ferdinand of Castille and Aragon as opposed to Mehmed. If anything, those two has a better claim than Mehmed, even though it's all meaningless.Which at any rate, the title wasn't even used by the two of them.3. The Roman Empire was by then completely destroyed(personally, I'd like to believe that it still existed and had a separate emperor until 1460 since the Despotate of Morea still existed until then).One may even claim that the real Roman Empire was destroyed in 1204. 4.Besides that, he's a foreign conqueror.By the Roman definition of a barbarian, he would also count. 5. The Orthodox Patriarch technically has no legal say on who is the emperor. If they wanted, an emperor appointed by the senate can most probably get another bishop to crown him.6. He's not a relative of any emperor(earlier Ottoman Sultans have taken Byzantine princesses as concubines, but I don't think he was a descendant of any of them).
    Just as the Pope could not crown king of Franks to emperor because he had no legal powers.

  5. #185
    Basileus Basileōn darthfanta's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIVictoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Land of the Kangaroos
    Posts
    1,621
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by andras00 View Post
    Just as the Pope could not crown king of Franks to emperor because he had no legal powers.
    That is correct.He can crown him as the Emperor of the Franks, but most certainly not the Emperor of the Romans.

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by darthfanta View Post
    2.The relatives of the last emperors does not even recognize him.Forgot his name, but the last emperor's brother and heir, the Despot of Morea actually willed his claims to Isabella and Ferdinand of Castille and Aragon as opposed to Mehmed. If anything, those two has a better claim than Mehmed, even though it's all meaningless.Which at any rate, the title wasn't even used by the two of them.
    So theoretically the title passed to the Spanish Monarchs and from them to the Habsburgs as rulers of the Holy Roman Empire. Another way to claim 'romanity' for the HRE has been found.
    'There shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.'
    - Boring Prophet

  7. #187
    Field Marshal Ruwaard's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultCK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    (North) Brabant, the Netherlands
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by darthfanta View Post
    That is correct.He can crown him as the Emperor of the Franks, but most certainly not the Emperor of the Romans.
    That isn't correct, it all depends on one's point of view.

    The Pope could crown him Charlemagne, Otto the Great etc. as Emperor of the Romans as the Pope did.

    Besides for most of the period covered by the game, the Senate in Constantinople also wasn't what it used to be, it retained (some) prestige, but it gradually lost virtually all powers it once had. So I would exaggerate the importance of the Senate in the ERE.
    Last edited by Ruwaard; 07-02-2014 at 16:54.

  8. #188
    Basileus Basileōn darthfanta's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIVictoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Land of the Kangaroos
    Posts
    1,621
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruwaard View Post
    That isn't correct, it all depends on one's point of view.

    The Pope could crown him Charlemagne, Otto the Great etc. as Emperor of the Romans as the Pope did.
    He doesn't have the right to do so. If he had such authority, he wouldn't have to forge the fraudulent 'Donation of Constantine'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chattus View Post
    So theoretically the title passed to the Spanish Monarchs and from them to the Habsburgs as rulers of the Holy Roman Empire. Another way to claim 'romanity' for the HRE has been found.
    Even if that is so, the Spanish line(Philip's line) would have that claim, not the Austrian line(Ferdinand's line).Besides that, the Roman Empire was ended then. The Empire he ruled over was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, not the legitimate Roman Empire.Using that claim would have been no different than the King of Cyprus styling himself as the King of Jerusalem after the Fall of Acre in 1291.

    EDIT:Turns out the legitimate heir also sold his claims to the Charles VIII of France first but then also 'sold' them to Isabella and Ferdinand.... God knows who the real Emperor is now....
    Last edited by darthfanta; 07-02-2014 at 17:07.

  9. #189
    Emir CyaN's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCities in Motion 2Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    Heir to the ThroneMagickaVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSengoku
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae VictisCK2: Holy Knight
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Andalusia
    Posts
    1,314
    Yep, the old, nasty, hip-shattering King Juan Carlos I of Spain is the only remaining Roman Emperor. Move along guys, they won the auction for the title, all other claims are BS.

    (Does Spain get the "Imperialism" CB against former territory of the Empire?)
    Every time "play on Easy" is given as the answer to an unrelated complaint, a baby seal is clubbed to death. Stop the baby seal genocide: think before you post.

  10. #190
    Field Marshal Thure's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCrusader Kings IIDarkest HourEast India Company CollectionEuropa Universalis: Chronicles
    Rome GoldSengokuVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    CK2: Holy Knight500k club

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    6,176
    After this list the Habsburgs ar the current claimants And the Hohenzollern of the Latin Empire. Thats interesting. So there rivality was inherited.

    http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/pretends.html#Byzantine

  11. #191
    Basileus Basileōn darthfanta's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIVictoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Land of the Kangaroos
    Posts
    1,621
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by CyaN View Post
    Yep, the old, nasty, hip-shattering King Juan Carlos I of Spain is the only remaining Roman Emperor. Move along guys, they won the auction for the title, all other claims are BS.

    (Does Spain get the "Imperialism" CB against former territory of the Empire?)
    The King of France actually won the auction, but the heir decided to 'sell' the title again years after it was actually sold.Well, at any rate, if the claims were to be accepted, then Juan Carlos' cousin, Louis Alphonse, the pretender to the French throne would be the real Roman Emperor. He was not only the King of France in the legitimist POV, but also the King of Spain if it wasn't for the fact that his grandfather was forced to renounce his right of succession in favour of Juan Carlos' ancestors since he was deaf.
    Last edited by darthfanta; 07-02-2014 at 17:16.

  12. #192
    Emir CyaN's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCities in Motion 2Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    Heir to the ThroneMagickaVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSengoku
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae VictisCK2: Holy Knight
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Andalusia
    Posts
    1,314
    Quote Originally Posted by Thure View Post
    After this list the Habsburgs ar the current claimants And the Hohenzollern of the Latin Empire. Thats interesting. So there rivality was inherited.

    http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/pretends.html#Byzantine
    Legally, the claim was lost when Andreas Palaiologos auctioned it off to the Catholic Kings :P

    From WP: "Andreas died a pauper during 1502, in spite of having sold his titles and royal and imperial rights again to Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. However, Runciman doubts he ever received any money due, for his widow had to beg the Pope for 104 ducats to pay the costs of his funeral."

    Ok, so maybe they forgot to pay him for the claim... but the Catholic Kings got it anyway! :P

    (Also, apparently Andreas' wife had approved Papal Investiture)

    Quote Originally Posted by darthfanta View Post
    The King of France actually won the auction, but the heir decided to 'sell' the title again years after it was actually sold.
    Yes BUT they officially renounced the title some generations later, so... nothing to see there :P

    Seeing that they weren't using it, Andreas had every right to sell the title again to someone else! Anyway, it's not like "selling claims of Empires you don't control to vaguely amused kings" has very strict rules.
    Every time "play on Easy" is given as the answer to an unrelated complaint, a baby seal is clubbed to death. Stop the baby seal genocide: think before you post.

  13. #193
    Basileus Basileōn darthfanta's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIVictoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Land of the Kangaroos
    Posts
    1,621
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by CyaN View Post
    Legally, the claim was lost when Andreas Palaiologos auctioned it off to the Catholic Kings :P

    From WP: "Andreas died a pauper during 1502, in spite of having sold his titles and royal and imperial rights again to Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. However, Runciman doubts he ever received any money due, for his widow had to beg the Pope for 104 ducats to pay the costs of his funeral."

    Ok, so maybe they forgot to pay him for the claim... but the Catholic Kings got it anyway! :P

    (Also, apparently Andreas' wife had approved Papal Investiture)



    Yes BUT they officially renounced the title some generations later, so... nothing to see there :P

    Seeing that they weren't using it, Andreas had every right to sell the title again to someone else! Anyway, it's not like "selling claims of Empires you don't control to vaguely amused kings" has very strict rules.
    They didn't. They just forgot they even had it. Andreas sold the title twice.He wouldn't have the authority to sell it again the moment he sold it to the King of France.

  14. #194
    Emir CyaN's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCities in Motion 2Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    Heir to the ThroneMagickaVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSengoku
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae VictisCK2: Holy Knight
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Andalusia
    Posts
    1,314
    Quote Originally Posted by darthfanta View Post
    They didn't. They just forgot they even had it. Andreas sold the title twice.He wouldn't have the authority to sell it again the moment he sold it to the King of France.
    Well, if the second sale is legal, then the King of Spain is the Roman Emperor. If only the first sale is legal, then Andreas Palaiologos--->Charles VIII=Valois--->Valois-Orléans--->Valois-Angoulême--->Bourbon--->Spanish Borbón aaand the King of Spain is STILL the Roman Emperor! :P
    Every time "play on Easy" is given as the answer to an unrelated complaint, a baby seal is clubbed to death. Stop the baby seal genocide: think before you post.

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by darthfanta View Post
    Even if that is so, the Spanish line(Philip's line) would have that claim, not the Austrian line(Ferdinand's line).Besides that, the Roman Empire was ended then. The Empire he ruled over was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, not the legitimate Roman Empire.Using that claim would have been no different than the King of Cyprus styling himself as the King of Jerusalem after the Fall of Acre in 1291.
    As there is no legitimate Roman Empire whatsoever in that time I can hardly accept this reasoning. The Spanish Habsburgs died out and the Austrian Habsburgs succeeded them (only to die out shortly thereafter, but that's enough time to pass the claim to Habsburg-Lorraine).

    EDIT:Turns out the legitimate heir also sold his claims to the Charles VIII of France first but then also 'sold' them to Isabella and Ferdinand.... God knows who the real Emperor is now....
    Actually if we take into account that the French Bourbons inherited Spain from the Spanish Habsburgs, we could say that Juan Carlos has a very strong claim to the office of Roman Emperor both from the Bourbons and the Habsburgs. :P
    'There shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.'
    - Boring Prophet

  16. #196
    Been lurking in this thread for a bit, listened to a lot. Now I feel like talking:

    There was no one single event that caused the fall of the Roman Republic, Empire or of the Byzantines. The republic started it's internal decline after the first Punic war, it was then the practice of enslavement of war captives became more common meaning large estates were pushing the small family farms aside and putting them out of business. So now you have many lower class men who are out of work and homeless, the Marien reforms made it possible for any free Roman to join the legions since they didn't have to pay for their weapons and armor anymore. So now you have legions who have it out for the big wealthy landowners, all it takes is a popular general, like Caesar, and those troops are now more loyal to him than the Senate in Rome.

    For the Empire I'm willing to argue the first event to start the process was the rise of Christianity, internal unrest is especially unwanted when you're supposed to be looking to the borders for rampaging barbarians, Persians and all manner of foreign enemies.Then obviously there were the invasions and migrations of various barbarian tribes like the Franks Vandals and Slavs. These displaced or killed thousands of people and generally caused destruction where they went, so tax revenues declined as a result of population loss and the expense of defending such long borders. One could say at a de facto level the Roman empire ceased to exist when it was divided into the east and west, but more officially it was when Rome itself was sacked and the current emperor deposed.

    Byzantium doesn't have any single event that started it's decline as far as I know, just a long trend of stagnation even in the face of the Islamic and later Turkish invasions. But there were small revivals like Alexander Komenos but after the 4th Crusade it was apparent they wouldn't recover Anatolia or the holy land, with the failed crusade in 1444 being the final nail in their coffin.
    Location: the County of Austin
    Titles: none
    Culture: Latin/Meso-American
    Religion: Catholic

    Traits: thrifty clerk, scholar, cynical, just, kind, envious, gluttonous, lustful, humble, craven, shy, slothful, homosexual(?), stressed, depressed.

  17. #197
    Second Lieutenant mrstevehazzard's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA, USA
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Chattus View Post
    That's fallacious, because London was the capital of the Thirteen Colonies, because they were part of the United Kingdom back then. :P

    Okay, let's abstract this. The United States collapses on the East Coast but retains the West Coast. After a three hundred years a descendant of Canadian warlords reunites the East Coast and is proclaimed the new President of the United States. Meanwhile the President of the Western United States (who started to speak Spanish) doesn't recognize him and still lays claim to that territory but is unable to put any force behind his words. Who is the legitimate President of the East Coast?
    I like to think that, if I contributed anything to this, it's this great hypothetical about a Spanish-speaking US and Canadian warlords.

  18. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by darthfanta View Post
    This person is either trolling or has clearly ignored all the other posts written earlier.

    Basically, Charlemagne was an emperor, but not the emperor of the Roman Empire. He was the emperor of a newly created state that pretends to be the continuation of the old Roman Empire.Would have been a different story altogether though if he actually marched on Constantinople, deposed Irene or made her marry him or made him heir and actually received confirmation from the actual senate.
    Trolling because? Why not agree with what you've written? Charlemagne claims were recognized by Irene and the patriarch of Constantinople. That you consider to Byzantium as the same state as the legitimate Roman Empire doesn't mean that others have to think alike. Aside from the absurdity of speaking of "legitimacy" when we talk about empires created by force.

  19. #199
    Basileus Basileōn darthfanta's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIVictoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Land of the Kangaroos
    Posts
    1,621
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Chattus View Post
    As there is no legitimate Roman Empire whatsoever in that time I can hardly accept this reasoning. The Spanish Habsburgs died out and the Austrian Habsburgs succeeded them (only to die out shortly thereafter, but that's enough time to pass the claim to Habsburg-Lorraine).


    Actually if we take into account that the French Bourbons inherited Spain from the Spanish Habsburgs, we could say that Juan Carlos has a very strong claim to the office of Roman Emperor both from the Bourbons and the Habsburgs. :P
    Actually, Juan Carlos' cousin, the current French legitimiste pretender,Louis Alphonse, would actually have that claim. His grandfather renounced the right of succession for the Spanish throne, but not the other titles.

  20. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by bozzzyn View Post
    From what I read (mostly from wiki so please correct if I'm wrong), the Roman people do not really have an issue with usurpers though to be honest. The succession in the Roman Empire has been more of a "might makes right" thing even from the start of the empire, and the fortunes of most emperors mainly depended on the support of the army. The situation you described did happen when current emperor is popular, but most of the time the "legitamacy" of emperors derived from army acclamation rather than approval from previous emperors.
    Having the support of the army does not mean you will become an legitimate emperor, especially in the late Imperial period. For an usurper to become a Emperor officially, he needs to either receive the acknowledgement of the existing Emperor or defeat and dethrone the person. In the eyes of Roman historians during the late Roman/early Byzantine period, anyone who failed to do so will not be viewed as a legitimate Emperor.

    The holy Roman Emperor cannot be a proper Emperor of the Romans unless all Romans acknowledge him as their Emperor. The Byzantine Greeks ( despite having a different culture from the old Romans) are still considered as Roman citizens. That is why Charlemagne and many other Holy Roman Emperors attempted to seek proper recognition again and again.

    The Italians and the pope might refuse to acknowledge Irene as the proper ruler of the Roman Empire, but they are not the party has any right to acclaim anyone as a Roman Emperor on their own. They still need the approval of the senate/nobles in Constantinople. The fact that Charlemagne did not receive formal recognition means that we should treat the Holy Roman Empire as a western state that had seceded from the Empire proper rather than the re-establishment of the Empire in the West.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts