Claiming the ERE is not the Roman Empire will only demonstrate that you are a west European-centrist. It is always a sad thing that people seems to think of the Roman Empire as a "western European" Empire.
How would the Roman Empire be in CK2?
- Thread starter FFL4-V
- Start date
-
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.
Not at all the same can be said about Byzantophile views on the West. I think that we can all agree that the views both sides had from each other were prejudiced to say the least.
Early on both sides saw the Roman Empire as the Christian Empire, hence the symbolic importance and also why it is bigger than the ERE or the HRE. In practice it was about getting on equal footing. Or if you like one Christian empire with two emperors. In other words the HRE wanted to be treated as the equal of the ERE.
The funny thing is there were a few holy roman emperors who aspired to truly make their empire the western roman empire, Otto III for instance. I want I a start date where I can play as him!
I recall an incident whereby the Italians attempted to portray themselves as the inheritors of Rome during their colonisation of North Africa, only to have some North Africans point out that North Africans can also be considered as the inheritors of Rome. What this little incident goes to show that there seems to be a very modern and west eurocentric view of the Roman Empire.
It just seems like there is a tendency at the very least by people on the internet forums that view non-western European provinces of the Roman Empire as mere colonies. The idea that the provinces of Gaul is more Roman than Syria or Anatolia is dangerous view to adopt. It is projecting 19th and 20th century imperialism onto the Roman Empire.
The Ottomans called themself Roman Emperors. And the Russian Tsars too. Not only Italians. Italy controlls Rome, that's there legitimacy. Noone says that the Western part is more Roman than the Eastern part. Bu the eastern part isn't more Roman too.
Constantinople was the capital of Rome, Rome stopped being the capital of the empire in the 4th century. Being the actual continuation of roman political institutions, territories and culture, the "Byzantines" were rightful Roman citizens. Take emperor Manuel II for instance. Even if spectacularly poor when compared to any Holy Roman Emperor, he was probably more educated and civilized than nearly all of them. Which reflects much of his legitimate status as the lawful emperor of the romans.
Syria, Africa, Gaul, Hispania, Egypt etc. were all provinces of Rome. No one is denying that. In fact argument not only supports the Byzantine view, but also that of Leo III and Charlemagne, who was in control of Rome (since he had restored Pope Leo III), Gaul, (northern and central) Italy and Germany.
Still in a similar vain the attitude from Constantinople towards the West tended to be rather haughty too.
Also IMHO the issue here is people denying the Roman element of the HRE, which was broader and connected to the Universal Christian church.
Last edited:
Constantinople as capital of Rome is Eastern POV. Ravenna was capital too in the Western Empire.
The modern day parts of the Eastern Roman Empire is no longer Roman, but during the Byzantine period they can be considered as more "roman" than the various lands controlled by the Holy Roman Empire. Legally, the Byzantines are Romans, more so than the people of the HRE.
Actually, I think people are denying the political and legal legitimacy of the HRE as a Roman state. The fact that the inhabitants(the lower class or the common folks) of the Holy Roman Empire did not think of themselves as Romans makes it difficult for the HRE to be really known as a successor to the Western Roman Empire.
In order for a Roman state to exist, the majority of its inhabitants must view themselves as Romans. As long as the people do not have such a view, then the "Empire of the Romans" becomes a mere ceremonial title.
Constantinople is definitely the capital of the Roman Empire, simply because the Imperial court is there. Ravenna without an Imperial court is just a mere city. The same can be said about Trier or Milan.
I would offer you a much less convoluted hypothetical. Suppose that in the near future a massive disaster leads to WMDs decimating the population of the Eastern United States and many of the survivors heading West. The Americans in the Western states decide to move the capital out of the wasteland and towards the new economic heart of the US, either the California coast or the one of the big Texas cities, either way large hispanic population. They continue to use the US constitution as their governing document. They of course redistribute the political power after the next US census with California and Texas suddenly counting for nearly half and a third of the population respectively.
Geopolitics would naturally be dramatically altered as a much less powerful US is no longer the worlds peacekeeper. American politics would be massively altered as the surviving states are more liberal on average than the disaster states. So we would be talking about a radically, radically different country but obviously it would still be the United States of America.
Now suppose that this more liberal country changes a few constitutional amendments, say a constitutional ban on the WMDs that caused the disaster. And they are much more welcoming of Spanish speaking people so Spanish starts getting spoken a lot more over the next couple decades. This wouldn't mean they'd stop being the US, constitutional amendments have been changed before. Suppose they abandon the eastern territory for some reason, they'd still be a political continuation of before. People would be right to talk about the US being a different country but it would still be the US.
Countries change all the time. The US kept being the US despite the Louisiana Purchase and annexation of Mexican territory, the civil war, many constitutional changes and demographic shifts that changed us from an ethnically English country dominated by the Atlantic seaboard to a multiethnic country where German is the most common ethnicity and the Atlantic seaboard is nowhere near a population majority. That is a way bigger shift then the Roman Empire loosing it's Western half. But we continue to speak about countries as being the same as long as it's merely an evolution, even a dramatic upheaval. The Eastern Roman Empire kept the Roman traditions of their time and simply continued to evolve them. Thus the Eastern Roman Empire was the Roman Empire, simply at a later date. To talk about a different country you need to talk about a complete break with the past, not just the loss of the original territory. The contemporaries all spoke of the Roman Empire throughout it's existance and the whole idea of Byzantines should be regarded as an anachronistic, just like calling a hypothetical US "Angelosia".
Well sure, but what's the fun in an hypothetical if it can't be tortured?
In all seriousness, I am a Byzantine proponent and I would say that there's no question that they had more legitimacy than the HRE. That said, it's a tough nut to crack because the Byzantines really were completely different from the Rome of yore by the time Charlemagne was crowned in the West, and because we don't really have anything to compare it to: no other Empire has reigned for 1400 years and since the idea of 'Empire' is pretty much dead, it's doubtful that any ever will.
Of course, I would ask that why would either side bother fighting over the corpse of a dead and gone Empire, but considering that pretty much any European or West Asian since with dreams of conquest has tried to finagle their way into being Rome reborn, I guess it's a silly question.
Wrong. Accusations of being greek and hellenized were a frequent missile among roman senators. Your logic makes no sense because you associate a language of prestige within a given political arena with the cultural heritage of an entire people, when it is not. If we apply that logic, then the medieval western europeans were more romans than anyone for use the latin as cultured and administrative language.
That is an absolutely class mindset. The thought of considered as barbarian other cultures than greek or roman is obsolete within the academic environment for a long time.
Last edited:
Except for the fact that the hypothetical is not analogous since you're talking about the Roman empire through the eyes of modern capitalist nation states in a legalistic manner. Once the culture had been irreparably changed the final nail in the coffin coming during the Heraclian dynasty. The theme system, Latin being replaced by Greek, etc it ceased to have a Roman culture and was replaced with a predominantly Greek culture. Culture was a far more important indicator during this period than modern ideas of civic nationalism.
Unless of course we're treating it entirely subjectively and saying that the Roman empire was in the eye of the beholder. In which case the sultanate of Rome and the HRE were just as Roman as the ERE after 620.
note that they where thoroughly romanized even if they weren't native italians
American conservatives throw around the terms New York and California liberal like they are slurs. South eastern france lashes out at the culture it sees as embodied by Paris and the north to the point where they support a fascist party! Northern England's labeling of London as degenerate goes back centuries. Northern Chinese call the southerners squaking chickens and the south thinks the north is made of lazy hicks. I can't even begin to summarize all the ethnic and regional stereotypes that exist inside india. Even oh so polite Canada has colorful things to say about the Newfies or the people of Alberta or the 'Quebecers'.
So when you say that Roman people used xenophobia for people within Rome all I have to say is "no way Sherlock".
The point of my analogy was to draw a contradiction in the idea that evolution means end, not to be a perfect comparison, or even a good one. If the US changed so much over two centuries, why shouldn't Rome over twenty?.
If the Theme system was the end of Rome then why not the Marian reforms? If you actually look at the military that existed when the themes were adopted, they weren't nearly as dramatic a shift compared to the introduction of the legions. If the shift to Greek language was a game changer, then why not the abandonment of Italian culture and the adoption of the Hellenic pantheon? Why not the end of the monarchy or the assimilation of the Italian peoples if we are talking political shifts? Why not the first conquests of foreign peoples.
Of course the later roman empire changed. But you are acting like these changes were somehow unusual. No, the Rome you are talking about never existed because Rome's culture, military and politics were continuously changing. You are just arbitrarily deciding that some changes ended things while ignoring others. But the changes you are talking about weren't the most significant changes.
The HRE and sultanate of Rum were not Romans because they didn't take Roman politics, culture, military, religion, etc. and change it gradually, they just took something completely new and gave it the name.
@ Keynes2.0: the West did not take something completely new. The (what we now call) Roman Catholic church is a direct continuation of the church since Roman days. Sure they evolved, but so did their Orthodox counterpart in the east. You can't deny either of them a Roman heritage, even when they evolved differently.
As for the states founded by the Germanic tribes, which populations, except those in the border regions, where settling occurred, were the descendants of the population since Roman times. Roman culture and ideas didn't suddenly all disappear, when the throne of the WRE became empty. Not even when the Germanic elites did have their own influence, though ironically Rome already was an cultural influence on their own culture, when those tribes still lived near the (other side) of the border.
In part due to the fact that the church did its' best to preserve the available knowledge.
Sure things evolved, as in the East, but under different influences, more Greek in the East and Germanic in the West, not to mention outside influences for both.
You can't say Rome didn't have a cultural influence on the West.
As for the states founded by the Germanic tribes, which populations, except those in the border regions, where settling occurred, were the descendants of the population since Roman times. Roman culture and ideas didn't suddenly all disappear, when the throne of the WRE became empty. Not even when the Germanic elites did have their own influence, though ironically Rome already was an cultural influence on their own culture, when those tribes still lived near the (other side) of the border.
In part due to the fact that the church did its' best to preserve the available knowledge.
Sure things evolved, as in the East, but under different influences, more Greek in the East and Germanic in the West, not to mention outside influences for both.
You can't say Rome didn't have a cultural influence on the West.
Last edited:
And everybody was fooled, and very impressed with this technicality, I'm sure.
But not in the 800 years between the founding of the Roman Empire and Irene?
Canada doesn't get to decide what's legitimate in Mexico and and what isn't.