How would the Roman Empire be in CK2?

Theddude said:

And yet they weren't the same Greeks of the Peloponnesian Wars or Thermopylae, nor of Alexander and Pyrrhus. Their culture was essentially the fusion of the Greek culture that had been there before and the Romans who came into power in that region. The Romans themselves were very into Greece, Julius Caesar's last words were in Greek, does that make him not Roman?

And more besides, the only Latinness about the Westerners was the fact that they had adopted Latin artificially for their administration, it was adopted by them like the Seljuk Turks took on Persian culture, yet the Seljuks are always considered a Turkish dynasty.

Moreover it was rather convenient for the Pope that once Roman/Byzantine power had receded far enough away from him that he could curry favor with the new powers in the region by declaring their most powerful leader "Roman" Emperor when he had no authority to do so (the Senate had that power, or a reigning Emperor). It was nothing more than a convenient charade where the Pope could elevate himself above the Ruler of the World™ and the Franks could pretend they had the legitimacy and authority of Rome. Both got the benefit of getting an upgrade, and the Pope in particular has then been able to claim he is above every secular ruler in the world ever since (because he said so in 800, that's the basis of his authority).

Strictly on topic there's no way the Roman Empire as it was in the classical era could be represented in this game very accurately, or very much fun at all either. I think the same reasons are why we reasonably shouldn't expect to see China. One playable character at the head of the country, get deposed and game over, basically.

Click to expand...

Not so close. Many people associate Greece and Rome, but the truth is that they were much less associated than people like to think. Yes, some emperors were quite hellenized and built their lifestyles around Greece, but that was widely discouraged by the senate and people of Rome. The Greeks were considered as effeminate and attached to depraved and immoral habits, and it was very difficult for them to ascend in important positions in government. The base of Rome are the etruscan and italic cultures, like it or not.

And yes, the Pope didn't had the authority to declare anyone emperor, but due to the disappearance of the western half of the empire, anyone powerful enough could to aspire to the title, and remember that Irene recognized the claim of Charlemagne.

classicist said:

He was. In fact, we hosted just last week a really nice conference here in Helsinki which was very much devoted to this subject - and boasted no less an authority on this than Alan Cameron as the guest speaker. Quite illuminating, I must say. If further interested, you might want to check his The Last Pagans of Rome, which contains much relevant information. The thing is, though Gratian is usually considered the emperor who dispensed with the "overly pagan" title of pontifex maximus in the wake of the whole scandal involving the Altar of Victory, Cameron argues that there was nothing particularly "pagan" in the title: it really was quite neutral in tone, and was not incompatible with the Christian religion on account of its association (largely technical in any case) with the pontifices themselves. Rather, it seems that the part tha chafed the bishops was the maximus part, and predictably enough we see a curious replacement title of pontifex inclitus emerging in the wake of Gratian's rather belated and symbolic change. Besides, this happened only well into his rule, and there are some epigraphic examples of "Dominus Noster Gratianus Augustus Pontifex Maximus" or some variation thereof. Indeed, if the title of pontifex maximus would really have disturbed the Christians because of its pagan associations, one would have expected them to have dispensed with it much sooner after the fall of Julian, not over half a century afterwards.

Click to expand...

However the title gradually disappeared from the the Imperial titulature, and later Christian Emperors (like Anastasius) recognized the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as Pontifex. The title of Pontifex Maximus was in inofficial use by Pope's like Leo the Great and Gregor the Great. Regular use of it, by Popes, only started during the Renaissance era. Since Pontifex could refer to other bishops too, Pontifex Maximus, here refers to the role of the Pope as head of the (Roman Catholic POV) Universal Church.

Lord Finnish said:

The Byzantines were Romans

Click to expand...

Nope.

The ERE was the decaying corpse of Ancient Rome; though it was more legitimate than the HRE, I still wouldn't count it as Rome proper, ever, it was a different entity. The real Romans spoke in Latin, called their emperor Augustus and not Basileus and worshipped the Roman pantheon.

Also, the Roman Empire is difficult to simulate in CK2 mechanics. You'd need a senate, governors, appointed succession and a focus on military generals being able to usurp power. There was no feudalism, but there was an aristocracy.

Carbon said:

Nope.

The ERE was the decaying corpse of Ancient Rome; though it was more legitimate than the HRE, I still wouldn't count it as Rome proper, ever, it was a different entity. The real Romans spoke in Latin, called their emperor Augustus and not Basileus and worshipped the Roman pantheon.

Also, the Roman Empire is difficult to simulate in CK2 mechanics. You'd need a senate, governors, appointed succession and a focus on military generals being able to usurp power. There was no feudalism, but there was an aristocracy.

Click to expand...

So in your mind everyone after Constantine expect Julian is illegitimate?

killerbee256 said:

So in your mind everyone after Constantine expect Julian is illegitimate?

Click to expand...

That's a dichotomous way of looking at it, no. I think of it as a spectrum of legitimacy, with the principate/republic on one end, and the HRE on the other end. Byzantium being far less of the same civilization Rome was during the reign of Augustus, yet still closer to Rome than the HRE. Constantine changed many things in Roman government and society and so the Roman Empire at that time looked very different from the one in the first century AD and it would look even more different still centuries down the line as Byzantium. In CK2 terms, Byzantium is the legitimized bastard of Rome while the HRE is a would-be usurper host; Byzantium is the successor and heir, but is still a bastard.

peptin said:

Not so close. Many people associate Greece and Rome, but the truth is that they were much less associated than people like to think. Yes, some emperors were quite hellenized and built their lifestyles around Greece, but that was widely discouraged by the senate and people of Rome. The Greeks were considered as effeminate and attached to depraved and immoral habits, and it was very difficult for them to ascend in important positions in government.

Click to expand...

This is terribly anachronistic. At the height of the Roman Republic and Empire Greek culture was enthusiastically embraced. Cicero was a famed scholar and imitator of the Greeks and far from it being a liability it was a huge boon to him. Virgils entire point was to emulate Greek arts in a Latin context and language. Plutarch was a born greek who became a full roman citizen in good standing. Cato is famous for his take on Greek philosophy as is Marcus Aurelius. Greek was something that a young roman of any wealth at all learned as a child least he be ridiculed as an idiot (a greek word that would apply to a political nonentity).

Of course the Greeks and Romans said nasty things about each other, what else would you expect? Look at any country in the world today and you'll see the same thing. It proves nothing. It certainly doesn't prove that Greeks were held out of higher office. There were multiple greek emperors, not to mention emperors from Gual, Hispania, Africa, Illyricum...

The actual split where people began to take the attitude you are talking about would come around 500 years after the fall of the western empire.

So just terribly, terribly wrong.

peptin said:

There aren't the same case. The Norwegian, Swedish and Danish cultures are branches of the Nordic culture. Greek culture no. The ERE eventually change their culture, traditions, language, administration and military for other. So I consider Byzantium ceased to be "Roman" and ended up becoming a Greek empire, during the reign of Heraclius or so.

Under this point of view, you could say that Western Europeans were more romans than the greeks to be influenced by latin culture and trace their origins in this.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that if the people of the United States, for some reason, decided to substitute English as their common language with French for example(due to a massive influx of French speaking immigrants e.g.), or change their government from a republic to a monarchy, then the country they are in is no longer the United States?

As for the culture and tradition of the empire, autocracy and oriental despotism was introduced even before the Western half fell, something which even the Western half adopted. It was largely kicked started by Diocletian when he decided to drop the facade of a republic.The culture of the ERE by the Middle Ages was an evolved version of that.The whole change of the title of augustus to basileus was an attempt to emphasise that the emperor isn't just the first citizen, but a monarch.

Ruwaard said:

However the title gradually disappeared from the the Imperial titulature, and later Christian Emperors (like Anastasius) recognized the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as Pontifex. The title of Pontifex Maximus was in inofficial use by Pope's like Leo the Great and Gregor the Great. Regular use of it, by Popes, only started during the Renaissance era. Since Pontifex could refer to other bishops too, Pontifex Maximus, here refers to the role of the Pope as head of the (Roman Catholic POV) Universal Church.

Click to expand...

Quite so - many thanks for the addition!

Carbon said:

Nope.

The ERE was the decaying corpse of Ancient Rome; though it was more legitimate than the HRE, I still wouldn't count it as Rome proper, ever, it was a different entity. The real Romans spoke in Latin, called their emperor Augustus and not Basileus and worshipped the Roman pantheon.

Click to expand...

I suppose you also believe that the only real Americans are white Anglo-Saxon protestants? Just because they founded the country doesn't mean they have an eternal monopoly on its culture.

darthfanta said:

So you are saying that if the people of the United States, for some reason, decided to substitute English as their common language with French for example(due to a massive influx of French speaking immigrants e.g.), or change their government from a republic to a monarchy, then the country they are in is no longer the United States?

Click to expand...

At the risk of an extremely tortured hypothetical, it would be more like this:

Sometime in the future, the United States conquers Mexico. In order the shore up its newfound territory, the US government spends a tremendous amount of money and power in building up Mexico, and eventually Mexico City becomes a center of arts and culture equal to, say, New York City. Despite this, the strain is getting too great up north in the 'original' US, though the new 'Southern US' that was once Mexico is still thriving. Finally disaster strikes about 200 years after the conquest, and the entirely of the North falls to barbarians (terrorists? Whatever), and Mexico City is now seen as the seat of the remaining United States, though the Northern government remains, possibly as a puppet state. Over time, more and more ethnic Mexicans raise through the ranks of power, and Spanish, which was always spoken among the base population, creeps its way up into the government. About 200 years after the fall of the North, nobody speaks English anymore, and everyone dresses, acts, and identifies as Mexican, though they still see themselves as the 'United States of America' and refer to themselves simply as 'American'. Meanwhile, up North, whoever it was that caused the fall of the North to begin with has more or less settled down, despite the now dangerous raids coming from Canada (!!!), and 400 or so years after the fall of the Northern US the one in charge of the 'civilized barbarians' is sworn in as "President of the United States of America" in order to galvanize the settlers into a proper nation and combat these vicious Canucks.

This one may have gotten away from me, but it sure was fun to write.

mrstevehazzard said:

At the risk of an extremely tortured hypothetical, it would be more like this:

Sometime in the future, the United States conquers Mexico. In order the shore up its newfound territory, the US government spends a tremendous amount of money and power in building up Mexico, and eventually Mexico City becomes a center of arts and culture equal to, say, New York City. Despite this, the strain is getting too great up north in the 'original' US, though the new 'Southern US' that was once Mexico is still thriving. Finally disaster strikes about 200 years after the conquest, and the entirely of the North falls to barbarians (terrorists? Whatever), and Mexico City is now seen as the seat of the remaining United States, though the Northern government remains, possibly as a puppet state. Over time, more and more ethnic Mexicans raise through the ranks of power, and Spanish, which was always spoken among the base population, creeps its way up into the government. About 200 years after the fall of the North, nobody speaks English anymore, and everyone dresses, acts, and identifies as Mexican, though they still see themselves as the 'United States of America' and refer to themselves simply as 'American'. Meanwhile, up North, whoever it was that caused the fall of the North to begin with has more or less settled down, despite the now dangerous raids coming from Canada (!!!), and 400 or so years after the fall of the Northern US the one in charge of the 'civilized barbarians' is sworn in as "President of the United States of America" in order to galvanize the settlers into a proper nation and combat these vicious Canucks.

This one may have gotten away from me, but it sure was fun to write.

Click to expand...

Then what was once Mexico would be the United States. The puppet government wouldn't have been the legitimate government since the law dictates that if the President were to be incapacitated, sounds like whoever's president got captured and made a puppet, he would be succeeded by someone else who isn't incapacitated.Meaning that the legitimate president would be in what was once Mexico.BTW, you do realize that nearly half of what is now currently U.S.(Texas,California etc) was once Mexican right?What made those lands more American that U.S. Mexico?

I guess a better comparison would be this. After the Jurchens conquered Northern China, was the Song Dynasty which still controlled southern China still China, or was the upstart Jin Dynasty now China? Keep in mind that the core territory of China, the Central plains(which contained the old capitals of Luoyang,Kaifeng and Chang'ang), was by then under the control of the Jin Dynasty(just like how the ERE lost Italy and Rome), what remained of Song territory wasn't subjugated until the Han dynasty. The inhabitants of southern China largely consists of migrants from the north, their descendants as well as Sinicized descendants of what was once known as southern barbarians. Culture and language of the south also differed slightly from the north.The Jin also claimed to be the legitimate Chinese Empire, just like how the HRE claimed to be the rightful Roman Empire.

Lets just crown the descendant of the wolf mother

darthfanta said:

BTW, you do realize that nearly half of what is now currently U.S.(Texas,California etc) was once Mexican right?What made those lands more American that U.S. Mexico?

Click to expand...

Considering that all American means is being a citizen of the United States of America there really isn't anyway to quantify a locality within the United States as being more American than anything But you already know that and is probably why you asked such a rhetorical question

mrstevehazzard said:

At the risk of an extremely tortured hypothetical, it would be more like this:

Sometime in the future, the United States conquers Mexico. In order the shore up its newfound territory, the US government spends a tremendous amount of money and power in building up Mexico, and eventually Mexico City becomes a center of arts and culture equal to, say, New York City. Despite this, the strain is getting too great up north in the 'original' US, though the new 'Southern US' that was once Mexico is still thriving. Finally disaster strikes about 200 years after the conquest, and the entirely of the North falls to barbarians (terrorists? Whatever), and Mexico City is now seen as the seat of the remaining United States, though the Northern government remains, possibly as a puppet state. Over time, more and more ethnic Mexicans raise through the ranks of power, and Spanish, which was always spoken among the base population, creeps its way up into the government. About 200 years after the fall of the North, nobody speaks English anymore, and everyone dresses, acts, and identifies as Mexican, though they still see themselves as the 'United States of America' and refer to themselves simply as 'American'. Meanwhile, up North, whoever it was that caused the fall of the North to begin with has more or less settled down, despite the now dangerous raids coming from Canada (!!!), and 400 or so years after the fall of the Northern US the one in charge of the 'civilized barbarians' is sworn in as "President of the United States of America" in order to galvanize the settlers into a proper nation and combat these vicious Canucks.

This one may have gotten away from me, but it sure was fun to write.

Click to expand...

You forget the part were the Mexican States of America get a illegitimate ruler (for exemple a 26 year old German woman who lives in America since 10 years and was elected for her thirth period) and the Canadians claims that the whole government of the USA is illegitimate because of this fact. And they elect a 40 year old man born in Houlton, Maine who has his residence there the whole time as he conquere America with the Canadians. And now he claims to be the legitimate president because the USA didn't exist de facto because they are ruled by a illegitimate ruler.

tnick0225 said:

Considering that all American means is being a citizen of the United States of America there really isn't anyway to quantify a locality within the United States as being more American than anything But you already know that and is probably why you asked such a rhetorical question

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. All you need is the citizenship. An individual is American as long as he/she possess citizenship in the United States, even if he/she couldn't speak a word of English.

Thure said:

You forget the part were the Mexican States of America get a illegitimate ruler (for exemple a 26 year old German woman who lives in America since 10 years and was elected for her thirth period) and the Canadians claims that the whole government of the USA is illegitimate because of this fact. And they elect a 40 year old man born in Houlton, Maine who has his residence there the whole time as he conquere America with the Canadians. And now he claims to be the legitimate president because the USA didn't exist de facto because they are ruled by a illegitimate ruler.

Click to expand...

Define what's illegitimate in this case? If was elected because the senate and the remaining states passed a constitutional amendment then she is perfectly legitimate. Old laws are null and void if new ones supersedes it. Irene became a legitimate empress because the body that forbade a woman from becoming an emperor in the first place, the Roman Senate, passed a resolution to accept her,meaning they have changed the law.The whole argument of the imperial throne becoming vacant is hence null and void because a new law has superseded it.

darthfanta said:

Exactly my point. All you need is the citizenship. An individual is American as long as he/she possess citizenship in the United States, even if he/she couldn't speak a word of English.

Click to expand...

Figured as much and definitely agree. Being Roman after 212 meant pretty much zilch. It just meant a person was a Citizen regardless of whether they spoke Latin or Greek or some other language. As long as they were a freeman in the Empire they were a Roman.

darthfanta said:

Define what's illegitimate in this case? If was elected because the senate and the remaining states passed a constitutional amendment then she is perfectly legitimate. Old laws are null and void if new ones supersedes it. Irene became a legitimate empress because the body that forbade a woman from becoming an emperor in the first place, the Roman Senate, passed a resolution to accept her,meaning they have changed the law.The whole argument of the imperial throne becoming vacant is hence null and void because a new law has superseded it.

Click to expand...

It's stilla dispute and the western world didn't accept the new law. For them it was a illegitimate usurpation of the throne. It was like a succession crisis where bot claimants use the law to legitimate there point. In eastern POV she was legitimatet of course. But this was the problem with many succession crisis.

And you can't call Charlemagne a barbarian... He reformed the western world and brought back the knowledges of the ancient era.

Thure said:

It's stilla dispute and the western world didn't accept the new law. For them it was a illegitimate usurpation of the throne. It was like a succession crisis where bot claimants use the law to legitimate there point. In eastern POV she was legitimatet of course. But this was the problem with many succession crisis.

And you can't call Charlemagne a barbarian... He reformed the western world and brought back the knowledges of the ancient era.

Click to expand...

The west has no right to determine whether they want to accept a new law within the ERE or not. That's an internal matter of the ERE.As for Charlemagne, he is a barbarian.He's barely even literate.Speaking of which, even if it is within the Pope's right to grant the throne of the Roman Empire, Charlemagne still would have been ineligible since he was descended from barbarians and never really Romanised so to speak.He's a Frank by culture.You are a barbarian as long as you are neither Roman nor Greek culturally,from the Roman pov.Just why did you think Roman generals who are of barbarian descent, such as Ricimer,Stilicho and Aetius chose to rule through puppet emperors instead of taking the throne themselves even though they are more powerful than the emperors they control?

darthfanta said:

The west has no right to determine whether they want to accept a new law within the ERE or not. That's an internal matter of the ERE.As for Charlemagne, he is a barbarian.He's barely even literate.Speaking of which, even if it is within the Pope's right to grant the throne of the Roman Empire, Charlemagne still would have been ineligible since he was descended from barbarians and never really Romanised so to speak.He's a Frank by culture.You are a barbarian as long as you are neither Roman nor Greek culturally,from the Roman pov.Just why did you think Roman generals who are of barbarian descent, such as Ricimer,Stilicho and Aetius chose to rule through puppet emperors instead of taking the throne themselves even though they are more powerful than the emperors they control?

Click to expand...

Charlemagne most certainly wasn't a barbarian. He restored the Empire in the west, he reformed an sponsored education, the Carolingians (his dynasty) had taken over the role of protector of the Papacy from the Byzantines and took an interest in religious matters (Council of Frankfurt, which was an reaction to the second council of Nicaea) etc.

This all shows a few things, whether the East or West liked it or realized, things were changing. The Frankish kingdom had emerged as the hegemonial power in the west, and they accepted the Pope as the religious head of the church. The Papacy and the ERE were growing apart, and didn't always agree nor have the same view on (religious) matters etc.

Regarding the law, that did matter outside the ERE, since the Roman Emperor used to be the protector of Roman (Latin & Greek) Christianity, as long as that was maintained that went beyond the borders of the ERE. As such Pope Leo III felt that Charlemagne was more suited than Irene.

The issue here is religious and political, but IMHO above all an indication that Latin Roman Christianity and Greek Roman Christianity were growing apart. And that the west was 'emancipating' if you like, combined with the fact that the East couldn't enforce anything (though the Papacy did need the military support of the Frankish kingdom to act more assertive, in that regard they needed one another).

Ruwaard said:

Charlemagne most certainly wasn't a barbarian. He restored the Empire in the west, he reformed an sponsored education, the Carolingians (his dynasty) had taken over the role of protector of the Papacy from the Byzantines and took an interest in religious matters (Council of Frankfurt, which was an reaction to the second council of Nicaea) etc.

This all shows a few things, whether the East or West liked it or realized, things were changing. The Frankish kingdom had emerged as the hegemonial power in the west, and they accepted the Pope as the religious head of the church. The Papacy and the ERE were growing apart, and didn't always agree nor have the same view on (religious) matters etc.

Regarding the law, that did matter outside the ERE, since the Roman Emperor used to be the protector of Roman (Latin & Greek) Christianity, as long as that was maintained that went beyond the borders of the ERE. As such Pope Leo III felt that Charlemagne was more suited than Irene.

The issue here is religious and political, but IMHO above all an indication that Latin Roman Christianity and Greek Roman Christianity were growing apart. And that the west was 'emancipating' if you like, combined with the fact that the East couldn't enforce anything (though the Papacy did need the military support of the Frankish kingdom to act more assertive, in that regard they needed one another).

Click to expand...

He didn't restore the empire in the west. He created a totally new empire that pretends to be the old west Roman Empire.

It has nothing in common with the old WRE apart from religion.He's not a barbarian by the standards of the present day but he is by the definition of the Romans and the Greeks of the antiquity.Just who is the pope to decided Charlemagne was more suited than Irene? He isn't even the Patriarch of Constantinople. He's just first amongst equals amongst all the patriarchs.Of all people, the Pope has the least right to bestow the throne on anyone. The Pope was the one who made a farce of the law.He has no legal authority to choose the emperor.The right to change the law of the Roman Empire or to elect an emperor lies with the Senate. And before you start talk about the Donation of Constantine, that's also a complete farce fabricated by the Pope.

Just because the Roman Emperor was the protector of Christianity, that doesn't mean other states can interference with it's internal affairs. To begin with, the Franks no longer even recognized the suzerainty of the Roman Emperor by the end of the fifth century.If the law was legitimately changed in the ERE, and the west refuse to accept Irene as empress, their claim regarding Irene being ineligible for the throne is just null and void. It was just a lousy excuse to justify the Franks' imperial pretensions.Their claim would be justified if the Senate never elected Irene, but the truth is the opposite.Their pretension that the law was never changed is just plain delusional.Their rejection of the change in law meant nothing if it was changed legitimately.

Since the West's protests were effectively null and void, and Irene was the legitimate empress from a legal perspective, the line of emperors was never broken and hence the ERE is the Roman Empire, not the HRE.