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.
I must say I liked your original response better. Stuff them all.
But the foreigner was born in the East Coast as were his parents and grandparents as he is only a descendant of Canadians. He is as foreign to them as their neighbour. To them the President in the West would be the foreigner. To them their opinions matter and that's why we cannot discount the 'romanity' of the Frankish and Holy Roman Empires. Because there is no historical objectivity. You might be inclined to say the Byzantine Empire was the real Roman Empire and in that regard you are right. But there were at least reasons for others to see themselves as true continuations of Rome.
Read this please:I must say I liked your original response better. Stuff them all.
But the foreigner was born in the East Coast as were his parents and grandparents as he is only a descendant of Canadians. He is as foreign to them as their neighbour. To them the President in the West would be the foreigner. To them their opinions matter and that's why we cannot discount the 'romanity' of the Frankish and Holy Roman Empires. Because there is no historical objectivity. You might be inclined to say the Byzantine Empire was the real Roman Empire and in that regard you are right. But there were at least reasons for others to see themselves as true continuations of Rome.
https://www.legallanguage.com/legal-articles/lose-us-citizenship/
Since there was already an established President of the United States, then recognizing another person as one would be tantamount to treason,automatically constituting treason and thus losing your citizenship, making these people foreigners.
Last edited:
I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing from a legalist point of view. But this is too fun to not continue.
This established President did not control the East Coast and as such couldn't execute state authority. Would you blame his subjects for accepting his claim to US Presidency, because he is able to protect them?
Can you tell me what circumstances led to the lost of East Coast?I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing from a legalist point of view. But this is too fun to not continue.
This established President did not control the East Coast and as such couldn't execute state authority. Would you blame his subjects for accepting his claim to US Presidency, because he is able to protect them?
They may call him President of USA, but does that make him President?I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing from a legalist point of view. But this is too fun to not continue.
This established President did not control the East Coast and as such couldn't execute state authority. Would you blame his subjects for accepting his claim to US Presidency, because he is able to protect them?
Real-life example.
In 1939, Polish government escaped to London and ruled from there as government-in-exile.
In 1944, when Soviet Union recaptured most of Poland, they created new, communist government.
Which one was true "Poland"? First one had the continuity, second one held the land. Polish people were divided, some recognized one, some the other. Other nations recognized the government-in-exile until the end of WW2, then they shifted to communist one.
It lasted until after 1989, when the two governments combined.
Let's stay true to the decline of the Roman Empire and say that resettled Canadians whose leaders were citizens of the United States were enlisted as auxiliary US Military (i.e. foederati). Over time these military units would replace the actual military in the East. Following great civil unrest (Mexican Invasion, etc.pp.) the United States are unable to maintain order in the east. The auxiliaries take on a life of their own and usurp state authority.
Then the auxiliaries would have been rebels and anyone who WILLINGLY supports them would commit treason.
Quite possibly. But the Western President couldn't stop them and now we're three hundred years later and a descendant of these Canadian auxiliaries lays claim to the Presidency of the United States.
I'm just realizing what a great post-apocalyptic scenario this would be for a book or a game.
Correct me if Im wrong, but the Pope took on the title Pontifex Maximus, which used to be the hellenic roman high priest, who crowned the emperors. Could have to do with that.
This sound similar to the TV series Jericho, about new civil war in america after nuclear holocaust..
The states evolve, yes, but they also transformed. The Roman Empire ceased to exist in the Middle Ages, since her western half disappeared and her eastern half became a completely new state. The HRE was an attempt to continue the imperial tradition in the West, with uneven success.
I think people are ignoring one important aspect for ensuring legitimacy as an Roman Emperor. Anyone who wants to become a legitimate Emperor would have to receive confirmation of his title by the senior Emperor. As long as the senior Emperor chose not to acknowledge anyone else as a co-emperor, he or she is merely an usurper.
In a way, the Holy Roman Emperor of the west is more similar to the Gallic Emperors of the third century than a legitimate Emperor of the Western Empire. The Pope and the aristocrats crowning Charlemagne as the rightful Emperor should be seen as an attempt to break away and secede from the Roman Empire rather than the re-establishment of the Roman Empire in the western province. An Western Emperor and a Western Roman Emperor is not the same thing.
A Western Roman Emperor have the legal authority to act as the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire in the event that the Eastern Emperor have no legitimate successor. A Western Emperor do not. That is why it is important not to view the HRE as an "Roman" empire, and why we tend to treat the Byzantine Empire as the sole rightful Empire.
In a way, the Holy Roman Emperor of the west is more similar to the Gallic Emperors of the third century than a legitimate Emperor of the Western Empire. The Pope and the aristocrats crowning Charlemagne as the rightful Emperor should be seen as an attempt to break away and secede from the Roman Empire rather than the re-establishment of the Roman Empire in the western province. An Western Emperor and a Western Roman Emperor is not the same thing.
A Western Roman Emperor have the legal authority to act as the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire in the event that the Eastern Emperor have no legitimate successor. A Western Emperor do not. That is why it is important not to view the HRE as an "Roman" empire, and why we tend to treat the Byzantine Empire as the sole rightful Empire.
:blink:This person is either trolling or has clearly ignored all the other posts written earlier.
Basically, Charlemagne was an emperor, but not the emperor of the Roman Empire. He was the emperor of a newly created state that pretends to be the continuation of the old Roman Empire.Would have been a different story altogether though if he actually marched on Constantinople, deposed Irene or made her marry him or made him heir and actually received confirmation from the actual senate.
Last edited:
From what I read (mostly from wiki so please correct if I'm wrong), the Roman people do not really have an issue with usurpers though to be honest. The succession in the Roman Empire has been more of a "might makes right" thing even from the start of the empire, and the fortunes of most emperors mainly depended on the support of the army. The situation you described did happen when current emperor is popular, but most of the time the "legitamacy" of emperors derived from army acclamation rather than approval from previous emperors.
At any circumstance, the approval of the senate is a must, no matter how you obtained the throne.
Nice discussion
According to me, if we say the Holy Roman Empire is the continuation of the Western Rome .., it can also be said of the Tsardom of Russia - because the ruler want to be Emperor, because the head of the church also want to have more power then other orthodox patriarch, we'll have a new emblem and come up with new theories of the third rome and we have a new Roman Empire
HRE is not just any continuation, its a new political structure.
According to me, if we say the Holy Roman Empire is the continuation of the Western Rome .., it can also be said of the Tsardom of Russia - because the ruler want to be Emperor, because the head of the church also want to have more power then other orthodox patriarch, we'll have a new emblem and come up with new theories of the third rome and we have a new Roman Empire
HRE is not just any continuation, its a new political structure.