+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 200

Thread: How would the Roman Empire be in CK2?

  1. #21
    Major classicist's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    apud Finnos
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea View Post
    It depends which period of Roman imperial history we're talking about. For most of its history the Roman Empire did not have 'max crown authority' - in the third century, it had the equivalent of 'autonomous vassals'. Likewise, the system of provincial government after Diocletian and Constantine was much more rigidly organised and centrally directed that it was under the Augustan principate. In the first century, most cities and local regions were effectively autonomous, with only a very thin layer of Roman provincial government laid on top; by the fifth century, that had changed drastically, and Roman provincial government was an immensely complex bureaucratic and military machine.
    Well-made points, thank you. The kernel of the whole problem is exactly that the structure and administration of the empire was in a constant flux, and we can barely talk of any consistent system lasting for more than a couple of generations. Indeed (as for instance Clifford Ando has pointed out in his excellent monograph) it may be doubted whether the changing priorities of the autocratic rulers could have facilitated any planned development of the imperial administration in one direction or the other. It was, as with the sub-provincial projections of Roman rule, very much an 'on-the-go' process of ad-hoc compromises. And certainly not a uniform system in every part of the empire, even within the same chronological confines: the British or Germanic provinces were ruled in a markedly different way than, say, those of Asia Minor or the Syro-Palestinian region - which in turn were very unlike the civic/military and local/supraregional compromises struck in Aegyptus.

    All in all, it's a fascinating complex of systems, but certainly something not easily amenable to representations in strategy games. One thing that could only barely be modelled (and incidentally one of my pet subjects within the field) is the inclusion of local elites, which can be argued to have been crucial for the overall success of the delegated Roman rule (and taxation: after all, following Chris Wickham, one can see the empire as basically just a large siphoning operation designed to yield maximum tax revenue with minimum investment of supervision and deployment). But how to model the interdependent provincial balance between centrally controlled military rule, locally powerful urban elites providing the administrative pool, and personal imperial patronage?
    Last edited by classicist; 03-02-2014 at 13:38.
    "Shall I compare thee to the copy-paste?
    Thou art more bland and more impersonal."

  2. #22
    Imperial Vicar of the HRE Ruwaard's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultCK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV
    EUIV: Wealth of NationsEUIV: Conquest of ParadiseEUIV: Res Publica

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    (North) Brabant, the Netherlands
    Posts
    3,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Finnish View Post
    The Byzantines were Romans so it was entirely their business to decide who can be on the throne. You can't just tell someone else that they have lost their legitimacy because of some thing they themselves decided. The Byzantines were cool with Irene so Irene was then a legitimate Empress.
    Define someone else, they were all Roman Christians, both in East and West. If the alleged response of Charlemagne was true, he apparently claimed that he wouldn't have entered that church, if he knew the Pope would crown him. Either he was very humble (so virtuous) or he didn't approve of the way his coronation occured (which set the precedent for the different relationship the Orthodox* Emperor had with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Catholic* Emperor had with the Pope (*= slightly anachronistic for the 9th century). In many ways it can also be seen as the East and the West growing apart, with the Pope backing the local Great Power, the Franks, which followed his religious doctrine. The connection between the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Emperor makes the position Roman (Christian).
    In a way with the Imperial throne being vacant from their Point of View, they used it to reverse the decisions made after the reign of Romulus Augustulus and Julian Nepos made by Zeno and Odoacer.
    On that Christmas day in 800 the Roman Empire was restored in the West. In fact the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, according to the Latin Chuch, had the right to coronate and anoint a new Roman Emperor, as such the acts of the bishop of Rome were fully legitimate. I guess everything depends on piont of view.
    Even when one would see it as an usurpation, like the Byzantines (initially*) did, then that was possible because Irene sat on the throne.
    (*= at various point the Imperial status was recognized, the Romanness (and with the connected 'true Christian' connotations) was much more complex (the religious connotations played a role for both sides, though that was broader than just ERE vs HRE (rather East vs West)).
    Last edited by Ruwaard; 03-02-2014 at 16:50.

  3. #23
    First Lieutenant mrstevehazzard's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA, USA
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by DominusNovus View Post
    The Tetrarchy could be simulated by having 3 really large King tier vassals...

    Yeah, clearly Diocletian should have played CK2. Might have saved the Empire a fairly nasty civil war or two.
    I had a game where I created the Empire, gave all the land West of Croatia to my brother, granted him independence, and hopped over to his side to form Italia as the 'Western Roman Empire' to my 'Eastern Roman Empire', making it two autonomous Empires related by blood. Not a perfect fit, but it was a pretty fun game.

  4. #24
    Field Marshal BurningEGO's Avatar
    200k clubCities in MotionCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDeus Vult
    East India Company CollectionDivine WindFor The GloryHeir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In Nomine
    Lead and GoldThe Kings CrusadeMagickaMarch of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's Ambition
    Victoria: RevolutionsSword of the StarsVictoria 2Rome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: Warband
    Mount & Blade: With Fire and SwordCK2: Holy KnightEU Rome Collectors EditionEU3 Collectors Edition500k club
    EUIV: Call to arms eventEuropa Universalis IVWar of the Vikings

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Posts
    7,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Finnish View Post
    HRE was a pathetic joke.
    +1

    It wasnt Holy, Roman, or an Empire.
    "If a man does not strike first, he will be the first struck" - Athenogoras of Syracuse
    "Force is the most effective and efficient means to do something and the virtuous prince will employ its leverage." - Machiavelli
    "Men should either be treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injures - for heavy ones they cannot" - Machiavelli
    "It is best to be both feared and loved, however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved." - Machiavelli
    "A prince must be a lion, but he must also know how to play the fox." - Machiavelli
    "I'm the lord of lords, not the server of servants." - Joćo II of Portugal


    ICQ: 473-826-068

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Finnish View Post
    HRE was a pathetic joke.
    Yea no. The HRE was quite powerful in medieval times.

  6. #26
    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 clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by BurningEGO View Post
    +1

    It wasnt Holy, Roman, or an Empire.
    Not this quote again... It revers to the early modern HRE. But in the time of CK2 it was powerful. And a empire. Please don't use Voltaire's quote for the empire as a whole in his 1000 years of exist.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Thure View Post
    Not this quote again... It revers to the early modern HRE. But in the time of CK2 it was powerful. And a empire. Please don't use Voltaire's quote for the empire as a whole in his 1000 years of exist.
    While it still wasn't roman.

  8. #28
    Earl of Groan Tufto's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourMagickaVictoria II: A House DividedRome: Vae Victis
    Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Wealth of NationsEUIV: Conquest of Paradise

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gormenghast
    Posts
    2,337
    It still had no claims to being Roman. At all. It was a fairly important empire in its own right, but the Byzantines were the only true Romans.
    The Iron Horde: A Kirghiz Narrative AAR My Inkwell.

    "There is nowhere else. You will only tread a circle, Titus Groan. There's not a road, not a track, but it will lead you home. For everything comes to Gormenghast."

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Thure View Post
    Not this quote again... It revers to the early modern HRE. But in the time of CK2 it was powerful. And a empire. Please don't use Voltaire's quote for the empire as a whole in his 1000 years of exist.
    Exactly. It lasted about as long as the WRE, and you don't go comparing the republican city-state that controlled much of Italy to the old world-spanning empire of 117 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tufto View Post
    It still had no claims to being Roman. At all. It was a fairly important empire in its own right, but the Byzantines were the only true Romans.
    I think it more or less came to the fact that the Pope sort of held it up as legitimate. The Papacy is in Rome, thus Holy Roman. Also bragging rights for being named after epic imperialists. Also, Holy Roman Emperors rarely called themselves Roman.

  10. #30
    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 clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by killerbee256 View Post
    While it still wasn't roman.
    It was the Roman Emperor. It was legitimated in the Western World. Because the Byzantines had a illigitemated Female ruler, the didn't accept there claim on the Roman Empire. So the Pope, Pontifex Maximus and ruler of Rome, crowned Charlemagne as Roman Emperor since he ruled Italy.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Finnish View Post
    The Byzantines were Romans ...
    Greeks.

  12. #32
    Custer's Revenge Lord Finnish's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCrusader Kings IIDarkest HourEuropa Universalis 3Divine Wind
    For the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneSemper FiVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessMount & Blade: Warband500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    b_lahti, c_tavasts, k_finland
    Posts
    10,777
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by peptin View Post
    Greeks.
    They considered themselves Romans and that makes them Romans.

    Modern day Americans can also be considered Americans even though they speak English and have German/Spanish/etc. blood.
    Mod:
    Byzantium - Imperial Restoration for Darkest Hour
    Wilhelm Scream for Crusader Kings II

    And on the first day, man created God.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Finnish View Post
    They considered themselves Romans and that makes them Romans.
    Them the Rum Sultanate is also roman?

  14. #34
    lovely debate, why don't you go make another thread and continue there.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Thure View Post
    It was the Roman Emperor. It was legitimated in the Western World. Because the Byzantines had a illigitemated Female ruler, the didn't accept there claim on the Roman Empire. So the Pope, Pontifex Maximus and ruler of Rome, crowned Charlemagne as Roman Emperor since he ruled Italy.
    They barley ruled any old roman lands, they used High German as there primary language, they weren't roman. If west francia had become the holy roman empire instead they might have more room to make that claim.

  16. #36
    Charlemange was angeling to marry Irene and unite the lands, so he clearly viewed her as legitament.

    But non-thread topic aside, for my money what n00bypl4y3r said to start the thread is probably the best (or at least most interesting) option - elective sucession with a handful of mega-vassals, simulating the late imperial period.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruwaard View Post
    On that Christmas day in 800 the Roman Empire was restored in the West. In fact the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, according to the Latin Chuch, had the right to coronate and anoint a new Roman Emperor, as such the acts of the bishop of Rome were fully legitimate. I guess everything depends on piont of view.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thure View Post
    It was the Roman Emperor. It was legitimated in the Western World. Because the Byzantines had a illigitemated Female ruler, the didn't accept there claim on the Roman Empire. So the Pope, Pontifex Maximus and ruler of Rome, crowned Charlemagne as Roman Emperor since he ruled Italy.

    The Pope didn't have the authority to crown a Roman Emperor. Otherwise why did they rely so heavily on the fraudulent Donation of Constantine?


    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Finnish View Post
    They considered themselves Romans and that makes them Romans.

    Modern day Americans can also be considered Americans even though they speak English and have German/Spanish/etc. blood.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by peptin View Post
    Them the Rum Sultanate is also roman?
    Depends. If they genuinely thought of themselves as Roman, identified with Roman culture, etc. Then sure.

    If the claim to be Roman was just a facade to legitimize their rule or gain diplomatic leverage, then no.

  18. #38
    Captain Yvanoff's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIHearts of Iron IIIMagickaVictoria 2Europa Universalis IV
    EUIV: Conquest of Paradise

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    DolphinLand
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Halcyan View Post
    Depends. If they genuinely thought of themselves as Roman, identified with Roman culture, etc. Then sure.

    If the claim to be Roman was just a facade to legitimize their rule or gain diplomatic leverage, then no.
    well, i'm not a specialist of the HRE nor ERE history, but were'nt turks and Germans situation the same ? Several centuries later they arrived and since the Roman Empire was a great empire ruling over a large part of rhe known world they said "we're roman". I see more legitimacy in ERE's claim than in HRE's.
    don't forget also that Ivan IV made Moscow the third rome. god, we really have a bunch of non latin roman emperors
    On top of that, the HRE ruled over countries that were'nt roman (most of Germany)
    Life is deadly

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Halcyan View Post
    Depends. If they genuinely thought of themselves as Roman, identified with Roman culture, etc. Then sure.

    If the claim to be Roman was just a facade to legitimize their rule or gain diplomatic leverage, then no.
    For CKII times, no state in the world itself had roman culture. And how one thinks like a roman? All this is too much relative to determine what is roman and what not.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Yvanoff View Post
    well, i'm not a specialist of the HRE nor ERE history, but were'nt turks and Germans situation the same ? Several centuries later they arrived and since the Roman Empire was a great empire ruling over a large part of rhe known world they said "we're roman". I see more legitimacy in ERE's claim than in HRE's.
    don't forget also that Ivan IV made Moscow the third rome. god, we really have a bunch of non latin roman emperors
    On top of that, the HRE ruled over countries that were'nt roman (most of Germany)
    I agree with you. That's the point that I am trying to make.

    The HRE, Turks, and Russians were mainly interested in using the Roman claim as a form of legitimacy. NOT because they actually saw themselves as Roman. The ERE, however, still identified as Roman (not to mention their strong historical connection).


    Quote Originally Posted by peptin View Post
    For CKII times, no state in the world itself had roman culture. And how one thinks like a roman? All this is too much relative to determine what is roman and what not.
    You're right that no county is inherently Roman in culture. But then again, later bookmarks don't have Norse counties either (though with Old Gods, they at least model that with Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish).

    Cultures aren't monolithic. They change. Byzantine Roman culture certainly changed from Roman culture but they could still be legitimately considered Roman. Just like how Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish culture certainly changed from Norse culture but each of them could still legitimately consider themselves Norse.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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