PI, now that you've broken up Germany, could you consider breaking up Byzantium too?

  • 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'm not sure it's historically appropriate for Byzantium to be split up. The Eastern Romans had held those lands for centuries; even in game terms, they would have all been long consolidated under that state. If it's hard to tangle with the Romans, that's good. They were very resilient, and my ancestors were only able to deliver a coup de grace after the Byzantines had sustained numerous injury over a period of centuries.
 
I'm not sure it's historically appropriate for Byzantium to be split up. The Eastern Romans had held those lands for centuries; even in game terms, they would have all been long consolidated under that state. If it's hard to tangle with the Romans, that's good. They were very resilient, and my ancestors were only able to deliver a coup de grace after the Byzantines had sustained numerous injury over a period of centuries.

There's also this. Good point.
 
The thing is, such a distinction could be useful if the game were ever to allow something like a Sultanate of Rum. But that's more a reflection of the over-powered Empires, than a problem with the de jure kingdom definitions.

No, that's a reflection of everyone starting the game in 1066 instead of looking at what's available less than 20 years later. Sultanate of Rum is in the game. Just start a little later than 1066. Rum comes into existence in 1077 and peaks around 1082.

Didn't someone say they could take Khazaria and Byzantium if they got Crusades against them?

If it still works, it only works IF the crusade/jihad takes the entire kingdom, with no de jure counties held by third parties. For example, in my current game, the Shia Caliph called a jihad against Byzantium, won, and got all the Byzantine-held counties in Byzantium. However, the Sultanate of Rum holds some of the de jure-Byzantine counties, so the Sultanate of Byzantium wasn't created - or some similar condition. You can see this quite often when a successful crusade in Jerusalem fails to create the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
 
And your willingness to accept certain things is no less arbitrary. That doesn't make my view somehow less valid than yours. As I said, I just prefer that new kingdoms be based on some historical entity. If we have to split up the big empires for whatever reason, it seems to me it would make more sense to add in mechanisms for Muslims to create things like the Sultanate of Rum, or for Catholics to create the Latin Empire.

My willingness is accept things is based on perceived game play related utility. I know from experience, the Byzantine kingdom is umbalanced right now, so I'd like it balanced a little better. Your view on the other hand is contradictory and confused. You're arguing that X shouldn't be a kingdom because it isn't historical, but there are all of these other kingdoms which are equally ahistorical which you are willing to embrace. Further more, you seem to have no reasoning for why you like some ahistorical kindoms more than others past "because I do."
 
I'm not sure it's historically appropriate for Byzantium to be split up. The Eastern Romans had held those lands for centuries; even in game terms, they would have all been long consolidated under that state. If it's hard to tangle with the Romans, that's good. They were very resilient, and my ancestors were only able to deliver a coup de grace after the Byzantines had sustained numerous injury over a period of centuries.

Don't worry about it, because there are many other examples of ahistoric kingdoms in CK2, right now. Also, we're not talking about splitting up the Empire. Greece and Anatolia would still be under imperial crown laws. We're talking about KINGDOMS.
 
can we atleast find appropriate names, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe in the medieval ages that someone would call themselves "king of greece" the concept simply did not exist, they were ROMAN not greek, we simply look at them as greeks due to how things are today...the same reason that most people not familiar with history would be surprized to hear Turkey was roman only 500 years ago.
so as I posted earlier I propose four kingdoms ,Epirius, Nikaea, thessalonika, trebizond, why these kingdoms you ask? because they ALL existed historically within this timeframe as either despots or crusader kingdoms.
 
My willingness is accept things is based on perceived game play related utility. I know from experience, the Byzantine kingdom is umbalanced right now, so I'd like it balanced a little better. Your view on the other hand is contradictory and confused. You're arguing that X shouldn't be a kingdom because it isn't historical, but there are all of these other kingdoms which are equally ahistorical which you are willing to embrace. Further more, you seem to have no reasoning for why you like some ahistorical kindoms more than others past "because I do."

Look, I thoroughly disagree with you, both on a gameplay level and a historical level, but I'm trying to be nice about it. There's no call for you to be a jerk about it. Fine, you want my unvarnished opinion? I see no reason to break it up, I think the idea of every random duke becoming king of his own little nothing corner of the world is stupid (see: Pommerania, Frisia, et al), and I don't really care what you think about my reasoning (I agreed it was arbitrary on both sides. You're the one trying to spin it up like you're being reasonable and I'm "confused".) I also never said I liked any ahistorical kingdoms. I said some were easier to write off. I like the game the way it is, and that's my opinion, based on my experience, and that's just as valid as your opinion, whether you like it or not.


can we atleast find appropriate names, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe in the medieval ages that someone would call themselves "king of greece" the concept simply did not exist, they were ROMAN not greek, we simply look at them as greeks due to how things are today...the same reason that most people not familiar with history would be surprized to hear Turkey was roman only 500 years ago.
so as I posted earlier I propose four kingdoms ,Epirius, Nikaea, thessalonika, trebizond, why these kingdoms you ask? because they ALL existed historically within this timeframe as either despots or crusader kingdoms.

Thank you. Seriously, you start talking about "Greece" in this context and they probably wouldn't even know what you were talking about. If we're going to have what-if kingdoms, can we at least come up with plausible names? The names you propose at least come from the time period, as you say.
 
No, that's a reflection of everyone starting the game in 1066 instead of looking at what's available less than 20 years later. Sultanate of Rum is in the game. Just start a little later than 1066. Rum comes into existence in 1077 and peaks around 1082.
Well, most people are going to start at the earliest possible date. So it would make sense to make that campaign the most optimal, both in terms of entertainment and historicity.

If something can exist in 1077, there should be a way for it to come into existence if you start in 1066. You can argue how often it should happen, or how strong Byzantium should be all you want (and I know reasonable people seem to have widely different ideas as to how strong, weak, resilient or decaying they should be). But for it to be IMPOSSIBLE to create Rum or Trebizond or the Latin Empire is a bit of a fail.

The tie-in to the OP's point is that the Byzantine "kingdom" is simply too big, especially considering the changes to the crusade/jihad mechanics, and considering the significant (if sometimes questionable) reductions in the sizes of the de jure kingdoms in the west. Adding something like "Anatolia", presumably corresponding roughly with post-Manzikert borders, might help facilitate the creation of something like the Rum Sultanate. If so, I don't see how that could anything but a positive for the game.
 
Well, most people are going to start at the earliest possible date. So it would make sense to make that campaign the most optimal, both in terms of entertainment and historicity.

If something can exist in 1077, there should be a way for it to come into existence if you start in 1066. You can argue how often it should happen, or how strong Byzantium should be all you want (and I know reasonable people seem to have widely different ideas as to how strong, weak, resilient or decaying they should be). But for it to be IMPOSSIBLE to create Rum or Trebizond or the Latin Empire is a bit of a fail.

The tie-in to the OP's point is that the Byzantine "kingdom" is simply too big, especially considering the changes to the crusade/jihad mechanics, and considering the significant (if sometimes questionable) reductions in the sizes of the de jure kingdoms in the west. Adding something like "Anatolia", presumably corresponding roughly with post-Manzikert borders, might help facilitate the creation of something like the Rum Sultanate. If so, I don't see how that could anything but a positive for the game.

Personally, in the case of creating things like that, countries which come into existence after the start of the game, I'd like there to be decisions to give them de jure territory, more like the nation forming decisions in EU3. That way, if things don't go historically at all, the name won't even be mentioned, which makes sense. Unfortunately, you're right about the crusade mechanic. It needs a de jure kingdom to target.
 
no..kingdom of byzantium is a horrible name, it's bad enough they call it the byzantine empire., and kingdom of nikaea hardly held most of the anatolia region, most of anatolia had long since fell to the turks.
 
no..kingdom of byzantium is a horrible name, it's bad enough they call it the byzantine empire., and kingdom of nikaea hardly held most of the anatolia region, most of anatolia had long since fell to the turks.

What about Rumelia? That's another name people used for it. I don't like the idea of naming it Romania, personally, just because it gets confusing with the modern country.
 
What about Rumelia? That's another name people used for it. I don't like the idea of naming it Romania, personally, just because it gets confusing with the modern country.

Yeah, Rumelia would be a good name too, if we can't have a divided "kingdom" of epirius and thessalonika, Rumelia is what i'd go for.
 
But something like Pommerania, or a completely anachronistic kingdom of Greece are just strange. As for them all falling under the same rules, that's a just a mechanical limit. I can write that off. Hopefully, future DLC focused on those areas will flesh them out more and make them more distinct. Anyway, it's hardly a call for "historical purity". It's simply a desire that the starting situation of the game have a more or less historical basis.

There was a kingdom in Greece though, with initial borders more or less conforming to what would be required given the current de jure borders in the Balkans. I don't see the argument against Thessalonica as a king-level title at all, really. Boniface of Montferrat even believed that it was bestowed on his brother Renier legitimately by the Byzantine emperor. We could massage things to better resemble reality with a system of conditional and titular titles, but in the meantime the kingdoms of Trebizond, Epirus, Nicaea, and Thessalonica are the most historical results we have of what would result from the demise of authority in Constantinople.
 
There was a kingdom in Greece though, with initial borders more or less conforming to what would be required given the current de jure borders in the Balkans. I don't see the argument against Thessalonica as a king-level title at all, really. Boniface of Montferrat even believed that it was bestowed on his brother Renier legitimately by the Byzantine emperor. We could massage things to better resemble reality with a system of conditional and titular titles, but in the meantime the kingdoms of Trebizond, Epirus, Nicaea, and Thessalonica are the most historical results we have of what would result from the demise of authority in Constantinople.

What kingdom of Greece? I must admit I've never heard of a kingdom by that name prior to the modern state, in the 19th century.
 
What kingdom of Greece? I must admit I've never heard of a kingdom by that name prior to the modern state, in the 19th century.

I think he said 'in,' not 'of.'

Then i want the Kingdom of the Ponies over Trebizond, because its about creation an alternate history.

I want this too! In the next patch? :D

The thing about the "This is historical/this is ahistorical" thing is that there should be sort of a... I don't know, there's a cut-off to it. Good AH should focus on things that could possibly happen.

Thing about Alternate Histories in this game is that, well, it's quite often impossible for things that DID happen to happen.


Still, cut it up a little. I can imagine quite a few kingdoms arising in the "Kingdom of Byzantium" territory.
 
People always seem to get upset over the notion of ahistorical kingdoms being added as if it's heresy. Paradox did it with Germany by splitting it into Bavaria and such so they may do it with Byzantium.

Though you could just use mods. CKPlus splits Byzantium if I remember correctly.
 
The problem with Jewish culture is that it just isn't very relevent as far as European history goes. Sure it is probably one of the better known culture groups today, but comparing to Franks, Germans, Greeks and all the other cultures in the game, the Jewish culture just isn't all that important. It has no independent territory between 63BC and 1948 and generally has little bearing on major political decisions of the nations. It was one of the persecuted culture groups, but then again there were a lot of culture groups that were persecuted throughout the history.

Although I agree with you that Jewish culture was not one of the big players of Europe, it's not true that there were no independent Jewish states between 63BC and 1948. Check out the Khazar empire, it's a pretty cool story. :) A Turkic state that converted to Judaism to avoid subordination either to the Patriarch in Constantinople or the Muslim Caliph. The Khazar empire was weakened by Kievan Rus, but not finished off until the Mongols came - so an argument could be made for allowing leaders to be Jewish by religion, to model the first century and a half or so when there were Jewish Turkic princes on the steppes.

But I don't think it's the most important update they could make.
 
I think he said 'in,' not 'of.'



I want this too! In the next patch? :D

The thing about the "This is historical/this is ahistorical" thing is that there should be sort of a... I don't know, there's a cut-off to it. Good AH should focus on things that could possibly happen.

Thing about Alternate Histories in this game is that, well, it's quite often impossible for things that DID happen to happen.


Still, cut it up a little. I can imagine quite a few kingdoms arising in the "Kingdom of Byzantium" territory.

Ahh, I misread him. I was going to say, that would be counter to everything I've ever heard about the area, lol. Anyway, yes, I agree with what you're saying, in general, and I'm actually considerably less strict about what I'm willing to take as believable than many are. Like I said before, if someone feels the need to split up Byzantium, it would be good if the kingdoms were plausible ones.


People always seem to get upset over the notion of ahistorical kingdoms being added as if it's heresy. Paradox did it with Germany by splitting it into Bavaria and such so they may do it with Byzantium.

Though you could just use mods. CKPlus splits Byzantium if I remember correctly.

Yes, and there's a whole long thread about why some people didn't care for that. :p