Rome = Capital? A RPing Question
- Thread starter Lucius Drake
- 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.
I didn't realize that moving the capital to Rome could make you lose the Byzantine events. That actually influences my choice quite a bit.
Rome is more of an idea, and ideas are powerful in ahistorical strategy games. Why not go back to Rome? Makes little difference to Constantinople, but in reality, the place was a shitehouse. No way in any seven hells would the Greek court have moved there.
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think it's just the hippodrome race events and stuff like that. Not a HUGE loss. But still
And the whole Greek Fire event chain and stuff. It's not like you lose the decisions or unique mechanics anything, but that's still a bit of flavor you lose if you move your capital.
Also consider the historical rationale for why the Romans moved their capital around, and whether it'd apply RP-wise. The Western capitol moving from Rome to Milan was largely because it was inefficient to have their capital halfway down a peninsula when the borders they had to worry about were on the Rhine and Danube. They moved from Milan to Ravenna because they wanted a more secure capital and Ravenna is in the middle of a swamp. Now your capitol location isn't a huge deal in game, but those sorts of worries about borders and communication lines should matter as an RP player.
I can't recall the times I've heard people on this forum say without a doubt that these types of claims are true.
Machiavelli argues that a capital should be located in close proximity to frontiers and newly conquered regions. Ottomans established themselves in Constantinople and Chinese in Beijing.
I tend to build my own...screw living in anyones shadow (Constantine, Justinain, Ceasar, Augustus whomever). I bloodily re-establish what those losers lost. Im making my own captial (wherever fits best for central location/easy transport usually (mercs spawn at your capital)). Then if im not that important (inherited it/weak king/whatever) I either name it after a historical event or if i am important/powerful i name it after myself like Constantine did. Currently I 'rebuilt' Çūšā (which by the by is really hard to spell with the Alt-numpad letters in this game) for my rebuilt parthian empire. Yes, im aware susa is represented as that stupid temple in the fars duchy...but its location is a bit off and its a stupid temple. I almost did Pasargradae but it was too eastern. In my normal games when i establish a world empire I rename my current/future captial after the emperor who did it seems to fit roleplaying purposes for me.
First off - here, here ! I played a 767 Nubian campaign and the first thing I did was name the capital province after the founding dynasty and the capital city after the founding king. Makes sense to me.
Second, I just finished reading Gibbon's Decline and fall (advice to others - DON'T !) and in the postscript he mused on just why Rome was so devastated in his day (late 1700s). He came to the conclusion that it was the Romans themselves what done it - the barbarians smashed statues and stole gold, but there were no major earthquakes or fires to level the join in the Middle Ages, the overwhelming majority of the damage was from locals quarrying stone from pre-existing buildings or grinding up marble fittings to make lime for cement (akkk !).
According to some of the later medieval authors (eg Plutarch) Rome still carried on some of its ancient traditions well into the High Middle Ages, for example they still ran chariot races into the 1300s ! I think the key point is that after the great migrations Rome simply lost its place as a centre for world trade and communication, if there is no actual economic need to reinstate a capital then it simply wont happen - government follows business and if no one was going to set up trade emporia or trading posts there then there is no way it could ever act as a government hub ever again.
Comes with the down-side of potentially being quickly overrun and perhaps pissing off established nobility for "neglecting" traditional regions.
But most capitals seem to be rather "coincidentally" at the place they are (not like somebody blindly throwing a dart at a map, but rather by historic events that just happened to cause the capital to be where it was), less by being precisely planned for overall purposes.
Thanks for the pointers, folks. I'll likely keep it at Constantinople, considering what's been said here and what I know personally. Just seemed strange to me to keep the capital at Constantinople if I got to a point in my game where the old imperial borders are restored or as close as possible.
Depending on how big the empire gets, I could actually rationalize Palermo as a potential seat of Imperial power.
A relatively large duchy, stands at the mid-way point of the Western and Eastern parts of the empire (especially if you've retaken most of historic Roman lands).
The imperial navy stationed in Sicily would also be able to regulate flow of trade through the channel of Malta.
A relatively large duchy, stands at the mid-way point of the Western and Eastern parts of the empire (especially if you've retaken most of historic Roman lands).
The imperial navy stationed in Sicily would also be able to regulate flow of trade through the channel of Malta.
I was about to say that even though they called themselves Romans, they spoke Greek and the culture and government had evolved into something Byzantine by that point, and no Emperor would ever consider moving the capital west from Constantinople. But...
"Constantine in reverse" strikes me as plausible in the context of after reconquering the Empire of Justinian and having the Pope under the Emperor's thumb, the schism mended, and possessing resurgent military and economic strength, that an Emperor would contemplate making a bid for complete restoration of Imperial control over the West. At that point locating the capital in Rome would take on great symbolic significance even though it had no economic or strategic advantage.
If I were founding an empire and choosing my own capital, I would pick either Sicily, Venice, or Constantinople. Sicily produces enough grain for a capital city to be self-sufficient, while basing the navy there would ensure that no commander on the frontier could march on the capital. Venice is my favorite location in EU, because you only need to control its one sea-zone to protect the capital, while still having easy land access to the center of Europe -- it can project power better than any other location. Constantinople, while not an island, is well-protected by land and easily resupplied by sea, and at the junction of both land and maritime trade routes.
"Constantine in reverse" strikes me as plausible in the context of after reconquering the Empire of Justinian and having the Pope under the Emperor's thumb, the schism mended, and possessing resurgent military and economic strength, that an Emperor would contemplate making a bid for complete restoration of Imperial control over the West. At that point locating the capital in Rome would take on great symbolic significance even though it had no economic or strategic advantage.
If I were founding an empire and choosing my own capital, I would pick either Sicily, Venice, or Constantinople. Sicily produces enough grain for a capital city to be self-sufficient, while basing the navy there would ensure that no commander on the frontier could march on the capital. Venice is my favorite location in EU, because you only need to control its one sea-zone to protect the capital, while still having easy land access to the center of Europe -- it can project power better than any other location. Constantinople, while not an island, is well-protected by land and easily resupplied by sea, and at the junction of both land and maritime trade routes.
The game misses one of Rome's key features which is its proximity to a malaria-riddled swamp. It killed a few popes. It was actually a rather interesting defensive feature - any number of HREs found themselves needing to go home early after putting pressure on the pope because their army sickened.
The feuding noble families could make things a tad interesting as well.
Leaving aside the Papacy's move to Avignon in late middle ages, there were more than a few popes that spent very little time in Rome for various 'reasons' (including Leo III, crowner of Charlemagne).
The feuding noble families could make things a tad interesting as well.
Leaving aside the Papacy's move to Avignon in late middle ages, there were more than a few popes that spent very little time in Rome for various 'reasons' (including Leo III, crowner of Charlemagne).
Restoring the Roman Empire that the West recognizes (by force) just strikes me in such a way that the Greek court would have to move west to assert it's dominance. Following the logic of the previous capital relocation, Constantinople would no longer fall within the parameters of an acceptable base of operations. It is still undoubtedly strategic in it's location, and it is close to the Danube frontier, but I feel the need to project power westward could outweigh the former two reasons. A shiny, new capital in Sicily could (as already suggested) control trade between west and east territories. And as you said, there would be enough grain to feed it and a proper navy would make it virtually untouchable. As I understand, Constantinople wasn't in too great of shape as is from the earliest CK start date. So the move could definitely be justified that way as well.
One question I have is, how do I switch the main holding to the barony instead of the bishopric? Is it possible? I am playing as Spartenous, and having formed Sicily I would like to take Rome, until I can force my way onto the throne of the Byzzie Empire, The pope has already thrown down a whole heap of churches, but there is a couple of Baronies, If I claim it and take it, how do I make the Barony the main holding?