• 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.

unmerged(2810)

Captain
Apr 9, 2001
485
0
Visit site
Since the "straight-up" EEP thread for "Byzantium" is so long, I'm going to commit a faux pas and start a new thread on this so people won't have to wade through so much material.

Here is an outline that I've come up with for how the Empire might be handled:

From my reading of the history, I would say that the following provinces should be considered "Rhomaoisini Irridentia", forever inseparable from the theoretical core of the Empire:

Code:
Rumelia           321
Thrace            357
Macedonia         358
Hellas            359
Morea             360
Anatolia          477
Smyrna            478
Ionia             479 (island)
Corfu             820 (island)


This does not even cover the full "Greek Culture Core", but there is method to my madness. In 1419, the Empire is on the ropes. Ambitions beyond mere survival are rare, and nobody else would recognize claims beyond this. (Remember, CB shields include international recognition of at least theoretical validity to the claim.) Likewise, I wanted to preserve the death struggle against the Ottoman. The Empire should begin with only the Greek culture group. They were a cosmopolitan state, but they lost too many of the non-Greeks to keep that up.

If the Empire stages a comeback (by taking all of the above except for Anatolia, Ionia, and Corfu), then the following territories get added to the core:

Code:
Kaffa             464
Trabzon           475
Crete             480 (island)
Rhodes            481 (island)
Kastamonu        1609
Anatalya         1610

Plus, the Empire suffers a major diplomatic penalty against Venice, unhappy that somebody is taking away their Aegean trade.

If the Empire is able to take all of the non-Island provinces, then they should be given a choice. They can either turn East, which will give them CB on all of Anatolia except for Armenia (I'll explain below), plus CB on Aleppo, Lebanon, Samaria, Judea, Sinai, Egypt, Delta, Alexandria, Nile, and Cataract, and gain lots of love from all Orthodox countries.

However, this will also drop their Innovativeness, increase Serfdom, and increase Aristocratic, increase Mercantilism. They would gain the Turkish and Syrian culture groups.

Why not Armenian? Historically and traditionally, Armenia has always been a vassal of Rome, not a property. Indeed, a "Liberate Armenia" event could be written with some benefits for taking the province and then liberating it. If they manage to conquer the Mamelukes, they should get an opportunity at Arabic culture (event chain, not a guarantee). This is because the Empire was not a Western-style ethnic nation-state.

This would be the most likely choice (A), I would think, given the situation of the time.

The next choice would be to "go west" (B). This would give a CB on Albania, all Slavonic provinces (asserting ancient submissions of the Slavonic chieftains), a claim on Ragusa, Dalmatia, Istria, and Veneto (reclaiming a rebellious colony), a claim on all Romanian provinces (the Wlach are simply Latins who need to be gathered back into the Empire), and a claim on the Ukrainian core provinces (yes, it sounds crazy, but it does make sense if one is familiar with Ukrainian church history).

They would gain a boost in Innovativeness, lower Aristocratic, lower Mercantilism, less Land--more Sea. They would gain a CoT in Thrace. Finally, they could have events to possibly gain the Slavonic, Romanian, and "Ukrainian" cultures if they get two or more provinces of the culture in question. They would not get Italian, because the Italians would find the idea of being ruled by "Greeks" to be insufferable.

They would also suffer a stability hit and their relations with all Italian countries, with all the European Orthodox countries (including Muscovy/Russia), with Austria, with Spain/Castile/Aragon, and with Hungary would plummet. Kicking tail and taking names never makes one popular. All Italian countries, Austria, Slavonic countries, Romanian countries, and Muscovy/Russia would gain a CB on them for several years. For Italian countries, this CB might last until 1821.

The third alternative (C) would be "balance, delicate balance". While it is the most "Byzantine" in its approach, I think it would be the least likely to have been adopted at the time. It would be difficult to sell at home, I'm guessing. The following province CB would be given:

Code:
Dobrudja          320
Serbia            355
Bulgaria          356
Albania           361
Ragusa            362
Kosovo            363
Bosnia            364
Adana             483
Cyprus            484
Taurus           1611


The Empire would have events to possibly gain the Turkish, Slavonic, Romanian, and Albanian culture groups (separately). They would gain Centralization, Aristocratic, maybe a bit of Innovative, Land, and/or Mercantile. There would also be a CoT in Thrace. They would suffer the ire of the Slavonics and any remaining Turks. Likewise, Venice would get a CB on them for daring to set up a CoT.


These suggestions could be tweaked, of course.
 
Essentially, the eastern expansion option is meant to reflect an enormous amount of politicking and backroom maneuvering on the part of the Empire to curry favor with a West that is far more powerful and vigorous than it ever used to be. In a way, it's how I might have seen a substitute for Florence. In exchange for renouncing further claims upon the West, the Western powers agree to recognize Imperial claims to the East.

The turn West reflects a massive internal propaganda effort on the Empire's part coupled with carefully chosen ripe and rich targets that not too many other Western nations would shed tears over. Turning so much political effort westward means that there is no recognition of Eastern legitimacy.

The balance option is essentially grudging recognition of claims that are more modest than they could have been.

I made East the first option because it seems to have better reflected the attitudes of the day, as far as I can tell. Even with all the hatred of the Ferengi and looking down on the Slavs, at least they were Christians. The wealth of Anatolia, on the other hand, would have been seen as rightful property wrongfully denied--and occupied by infidels, in any case.
 
Essentially, the eastern expansion option is meant to reflect an enormous amount of politicking and backroom maneuvering on the part of the Empire to curry favor with a West that is far more powerful and vigorous than it ever used to be. In a way, it's how I might have seen a substitute for Florence. In exchange for renouncing further claims upon the West, the Western powers agree to recognize Imperial claims to the East.

The turn West reflects a massive internal propaganda effort on the Empire's part coupled with carefully chosen ripe and rich targets that not too many other Western nations would shed tears over. Turning so much political effort westward means that there is no recognition of Eastern legitimacy.

The balance option is essentially grudging recognition of claims that are more modest than they could have been.

I made East the first option because it seems to have better reflected the attitudes of the day, as far as I can tell. Even with all the hatred of the Ferengi and looking down on the Slavs, at least they were Christians. The wealth of Anatolia, on the other hand, would have been seen as rightful property wrongfully denied--and occupied by infidels, in any case.
 
Sultanate of Rum

It's an odd fish of an idea, but it does fit a "Byzantine" way of doing things. Part of dealing with Turks might be an option establishing the "Sultanate of Rum" as a vassal. This event would result in an expulsion of Turks (loss of stability & population, if nothing else) the loss of a province to be the Sultinate, and a gain of population in that province.
 
Re: Sultanate of Rum

Originally posted by Dogface
It's an odd fish of an idea, but it does fit a "Byzantine" way of doing things. Part of dealing with Turks might be an option establishing the "Sultanate of Rum" as a vassal. This event would result in an expulsion of Turks (loss of stability & population, if nothing else) the loss of a province to be the Sultinate, and a gain of population in that province.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't really understand... :eek:
 
Towards the idea of actually merging, I'm starting at the top, revising the AGC description for the Empire as my basis:

Code:
        BYZ  = {
     countrytactics = "The road ahead is a long and hard one.  The Turks 
outnumber you significantly, and their armies all have amazing leaders, but 
they have a hamartia—an excess of infantry.  If you build cavalry superiority, 
you can defeat any army that attempts an attack on Thrace.  Once the Ottoman 
armies are destroyed, the way is open for restoration.  Your ultimate goal is to 
return the Empire to the glory days of Justinian the Great."
     countrydifficulty = 2
     countryeconomy = 2
     countrymilitary = 1
     countrydiplomacy = 3
     missiontype = 4
     numcities = 3
     numcolonies = 0
     numtradingposts = 0
     numgold = 100
}

I very intentionally and rationally removed the stuff about force-vassalizing Rome. By the 15th century, the idea of an "Orthodox reconquista" was simply a non-issue. The idea that the Empire would want to do this is utterly Western and utterly foreign to the "Byzantine" phronema.
 
Originally posted by Dogface
I very intentionally and rationally removed the stuff about force-vassalizing Rome. By the 15th century, the idea of an "Orthodox reconquista" was simply a non-issue. The idea that the Empire would want to do this is utterly Western and utterly foreign to the "Byzantine" phronema.

But if the Empire manages to survive and chooses option B (turning west) couldn't this become an option if they are successful in their expansions?

Anyways I really like your ideas and am looking forward to reading more of them. :cool:
 
Re: Re: Sultanate of Rum

Originally posted by Garbon
Can you elaborate on this? I don't really understand... :eek:

The idea is that, if the chain of "what do we do with these Turks we've conquered" gets started, one option could be to simply cut some of them loose. Give them a puppet state, which would then attract disaffected Turks from the Empire, proper. This sort of maneuvering does seem to fit the feel of the region. Now, it does go utterly against the game-ist grain of "hold that territory no matter what", but it can make political sense.

Likewise, the Sultanate of Rum could be a revolter during this (relatively short) period.

It would only be an option, and an option that would mean that the Empire would not end up with Turkish culture.
 
Re: Re: Re: Sultanate of Rum

Originally posted by Dogface
The idea is that, if the chain of "what do we do with these Turks we've conquered" gets started, one option could be to simply cut some of them loose. Give them a puppet state, which would then attract disaffected Turks from the Empire, proper. This sort of maneuvering does seem to fit the feel of the region. Now, it does go utterly against the game-ist grain of "hold that territory no matter what", but it can make political sense.

Likewise, the Sultanate of Rum could be a revolter during this (relatively short) period.

It would only be an option, and an option that would mean that the Empire would not end up with Turkish culture.

Instead of wasting a tag why not simply use the Ottoman Empire?
 
But one of the Turkish Minors like Dulkadir could be used, if you force the Byzantines to set up such a state in the appropriate province.
 
The stinky wind's "Morea"...

To Morea or not to Morea? My own preference is to set out Morea as an independent vassal and ally of the Empire. Either that, or Auvergne should be incorporated into France from the beginning.

If the Empire falls, then the following event could be used:

Trigger: No Empire.
Option A: We inherit the mantle! (Tag changes to BYZ. Sleep "We are Hellas" event.)
Option B: We have other plans. (Trigger Trebizond inheritance event. Gain CB shields on all Greek-culture provinces west of the Bosporus and on all Greek-culture islands.)

The Trebizond inheritance would be triggered by the above event.
Option A: We inherit the mantle! (Tag changes to Byz, gain Trabizond as a national territory if not already had.)
Option B: We would rather snort Drano. (Stability -1 for unrest at blowing such an opportunity.)

The "We are Hellas." event would be a followup to choosing Option B. It would be triggered after 1600 or so (or some other date) if there is no Duchy of Hellas at the time.

Option A: Yes, let us gain the recognition of other European nations. (Tag changes to whatever Hellas's tag is.)
Option B: No, we would rather suck our toenails. (Stability -1, and other problems).

However, there is still the question of what to do to keep the Turk in check for a generation or so after the game starts...
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
But one of the Turkish Minors like Dulkadir could be used, if you force the Byzantines to set up such a state in the appropriate province.

Ah! And require ownership of the province in question to trigger the event chain.

Truly you are an evil genius.
 
Re: The stinky wind's "Morea"...

Originally posted by Dogface
To Morea or not to Morea? My own preference is to set out Morea as an independent vassal and ally of the Empire. Either that, or Auvergne should be incorporated into France from the beginning.

Not really a good arguement, as it looks like Auvergne might be kicked to the curb;)
 
As I see the problem, much of the overly-early Turkish triggering of City of Men's Desire all has to do with a war that is forced by an event. So the problem isn't necessarily that Morea is separate from the Empire, the problem is that the event around 1420 needs improvement.

The game engine is not smart enough to handle the idea of a limited war by a large major against a one-province country that the major has a CB shield on and the major has a BadBoy of zero or close to it. The game engine will simply annex in that case.

Thus, this may be a situation where a "war", game speaking, is not a good representative of a "war", historically speaking.