• 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.
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:
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:
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.
 
+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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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?


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.


Them the Rum Sultanate is also roman? :huh:

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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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).


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.