Byzantine Monarchy

[Heinrikr]

How does Byzantium getting a unique government preclude other nations getting unique governments? Like, seriously, if instituting a new government for Byzantium takes one Paradox employee an hour at most, I genuinely fail to see how that's a bad thing in any way, unless you have some kind of pathological hatred for the good ol' Roman Empire.

My pathological hatred of byzantium aside, paradox really do have limited resources and there are an infinite amount of things that are of much higher priority than byzantium. Let's grant that it takes one hour. That is one hour not spent on improving something more important. As has been said, this is a game set in the early modern period. One would think it is more important to fix things like prussia, mughals, qing and other stuff that actually were important, rather than to spend time polishing medieval relics that are destined to die.

I like that blobbing is going from gamer slang to a term of historical analysis.

Yup, all the cool and hip historians use it these days. it's official.

The size of the country does not matter. The only thing that matters is how much it gets played. And Byzantium is one of the most played countries in EU4.

I do not agree. Just like the rise of Rome pretty much defined the classical age, the fall of byzantium and the rise of the ottomans very much defined the early modern age. EU4 is set in the early modern age, which is why byzantium must die. A classical era without rome wouldn't be classical, and an early modern era with byzantium wouldn't be early modern.

 

[keynes2.0]

That's the exact reason I think Byzantium surviving is interesting. What if instead of the Ottoblob you have a less powerful state in the Balkans, it's an interesting twist.

 

[Heinrikr]

That's the exact reason I think Byzantium surviving is interesting. What if instead of the Ottoblob you have a less powerful state in the Balkans, it's an interesting twist.

What if instead of Rome rising you had a proto slavic tribe conquering the world? Interesting perhaps, but it would not be a game set in the classical era in my view. Same logic applies here. The fall of Byzantium is simply something which defined the era.

 

[keynes2.0]

I think the better metaphor would be what if instead of Rome moving east after the Punic wars they had been checked by the Greek states and you have a more fragmented eastern Mediterranean. And yes it was a big event... that's the context I'm talking in.

 

[Grand Historian]

My pathological hatred of byzantium aside, paradox really do have limited resources and there are an infinite amount of things that are of much higher priority than byzantium. Let's grant that it takes one hour. That is one hour not spent on improving something more important. As has been said, this is a game set in the early modern period. One would think it is more important to fix things like prussia, mughals, qing and other stuff that actually were important, rather than to spend time polishing medieval relics that are destined to die.

It took me less than fifteen minutes to add in the Government idea by simply copy and pasting half of it to the proper folders and changing around a few modifiers. And it's not the fact that it precludes anything from getting added in, it's that Paradox has taken something unique and flavorful out (just like with the American Republic), and we would appreciate something in compensation, especially given that Byzantium's cores shrink by the patch. And by your logic, the dev's shouldn't have bothered adding in Andalusia for Granada. Really, I think the only reason why you're protesting this thread is because of some sort of anti-Byzantine bias.

 

[Grand Historian]

I think it's fair to say that the Byzantines deserve more of a chance, but in all probability they were far more screwed in 1444 than Mesoamerican nations were. Even little Granada was able to hold on much longer in real life.

That was primarily because it was more beneficial for the Castilians to keep Granada as a vassal state to secure North African trade, and because it would save them the trouble of conquering them outright, especially while having to deal with dynastic squabbles with their two neighbors. Once Aragon and Castile were unified, and Portugal had secured Ceuta, Granada lost all usefulness. The Byzantines, on the other hand, continued to be a thorn in the Ottomans' side regardless of their situation, and it was also seen as both a divine duty and golden opportunity for the Ottomans to conquer Constantinople.

 

[Heinrikr]

It took me less than fifteen minutes to add in the Government idea by simply copy and pasting half of it to the proper folders and changing around a few modifiers. And it's not the fact that it precludes anything from getting added in, it's that Paradox has taken something unique and flavorful out (just like with the American Republic), and we would appreciate something in compensation, especially given that Byzantium's cores shrink by the patch. And by your logic, the dev's shouldn't have bothered adding in Andalusia for Granada. Really, I think the only reason why you're protesting this thread is because of some sort of anti-Byzantine bias.

well, I suppose it just bothers me that people care so much about Byzantium in a game set in the early modern era. I guess I just suffer from a case of pathological anti-byzantism. I wish death upon andalusia too btw. Man, this disease might not only be confined to byzantium.. I better go look this up.

 

[IsadorBG]

That was primarily because it was more beneficial for the Castilians to keep Granada as a vassal state to secure North African trade, and because it would save them the trouble of conquering them outright, especially while having to deal with dynastic squabbles with their two neighbors. Once Aragon and Castile were unified, and Portugal had secured Ceuta, Granada lost all usefulness. The Byzantines, on the other hand, continued to be a thorn in the Ottomans' side regardless of their situation, and it was also seen as both a divine duty and golden opportunity for the Ottomans to conquer Constantinople.

I know it is supposed to be a pro-byzantium argument but funnily by saying that Granada only became useless after Aragon and Castille union which if you did not notice doesn't exist on start makes in an infinetly better position than Byzantium that was definetly in agony and buried after Varna and only needed the mercy blow of Mehmed to final rest in peace after centuries of torments.

Plus your argument that the Byzantium was a big priority for the Ottoman and that Granada was not as the same level does not help your case you know quite the opposite in fact.

Except Miracle of course it was already dead.

 

[Merrick Chance']

Well like the fall of Byazantium is in many ways the collapse of the kind of order that existed in the late Medieval period. No longer could small states buoyed by private militaries (knightly orders or mercenaries) survive for long against centralized states with standing armies. The fall of Byzantium is the beginning of the end for these kinds of states, and the beginning of a new kind of intellectual and political order.

 

[AlphaSonic]

I'd rather have Granadian and North African flavor. Granada at least survived more time unlike that Roman remanant and they deserve way more flavor than the Roman remanant(I'm saying this because by giving flavor to Granada we can give it to Morocco, Tunis, Tlemcen...). I'm glad they can form Andalusia. But they should receive missions for conquering (giving claims) Spain and restoring Almohade Empire (It would be an Andalusian decision after conquering Morocco Algeria and Tunis and it would give them some permanent bonuses and Empire rank but no change tag). Oh and Granada should have a Core in Ceuta.

 

[Grand Historian]

I know it is supposed to be a pro-byzantium argument but funnily by saying that Granada only became useless after Aragon and Castille union which if you did not notice doesn't exist on start makes in an infinetly better position than Byzantium that was definetly in agony and buried after Varna and only needed the mercy blow of Mehmed to final rest in peace after centuries of torments.

Plus your argument that the Byzantium was a big priority for the Ottoman and that Granada was not as the same level does not help your case you know quite the opposite in fact.

Except Miracle of course it was already dead.

It wasn't a pro-Byzantine argument; it was unbiased historical commentary. Don't confuse me asking for Byzantium to get something in compensation for losing so much (cores, treaties, government type, etc.) as me being a Byzantophile.

 

[Grand Historian]

Well like the fall of Byazantium is in many ways the collapse of the kind of order that existed in the late Medieval period. No longer could small states buoyed by private militaries (knightly orders or mercenaries) survive for long against centralized states with standing armies.

That was already becoming apparent with the Hundred Year's War, the Reconquista, and the various wars between Italian City States. And the Ottomans were far from being centralized or having a professional army; the Janissaries were merely one corps of the Ottoman Military and rarely made up a majority of it.

The fall of Byzantium is the beginning of the end for these kinds of states, and the beginning of a new kind of intellectual and political order.

What?

 

[zeredek]

Couldn't they get Absolute or Administrative Monarchy?

 

[Merrick Chance']

What?

Byzantium was going to fall eventually, it had become outmoded as a polity and the states which propped it up were already declining. Sure, you can create a world where Byzantium ends up doing well for itself, but that would go against the trends and tendencies that occurred in basically every other region in the early modern period. Small states did not fare well in this era, small states which relied on private armies less so.

 

[Grand Historian]

Byzantium was going to fall eventually, it had become outmoded as a polity and the states which propped it up were already declining. Sure, you can create a world where Byzantium ends up doing well for itself, but that would go against the trends and tendencies that occurred in basically every other region in the early modern period. Small states did not fare well in this era, small states which relied on private armies less so.

First; tell that to the HRE, Italy, the Balkans and later Ottoman Vassal States, Japan, India, the East African Coast, West Africa, Arabia, the Caucasus', Indochina, Indonesia, the Barbary Coast, Mesoamerica and North America. It wasn't until the mid-1600's that nation-states began truly emerging, and even then there have been plenty instances in history before of 'small states not faring well in this era' such as against ancient Assyria, Persia, Macedon, Rome, etc. Second, Byzantium's Army wasn't private during this period, primarily because they didn't have much of an army to begin with. Third; how would Byzantium surviving go against every trend of the period? If they survived by some harebrained miracle (or a successful Varna), then that would imply they would have had to adapt to the period to do so.

 

[wingzero890]

For crying out loud just play CK2..

 

[Angeleyed]

well, I suppose it just bothers me that people care so much about Byzantium in a game set in the early modern era. I guess I just suffer from a case of pathological anti-byzantism. I wish death upon andalusia too btw. Man, this disease might not only be confined to byzantium.. I better go look this up.

Bro what are you suggesting? Hard coded AI to follow history? This is a sandbox and anything can happen the moment you unpause. I once got into PU with Austria and France 3 seconds after I unpaused as Spain. Should we forbid PU between major protagonists because it changes history and we lose "modern era" as a whole?

For crying out loud just play CK2..

That's a very mature comment that solidifies this thread as constructive and focused.

 

[wingzero890]

Byzantium has had an entire DLC dedicated to it (In both CK2 and EU4, by the way). It really does not need any more attention.

Give France, Spain, England, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Mughals, Qing, and The Ottomans a dlc and then we can talk about our favorite 3PM again.

 

[Merrick Chance']

First; tell that to the HRE, Italy, the Balkans and later Ottoman Vassal States, Japan, India, the East African Coast, West Africa, Arabia, the Caucasus', Indochina, Indonesia, the Barbary Coast, Mesoamerica and North America. It wasn't until the mid-1600's that nation-states began truly emerging, and even then there have been plenty instances in history before of 'small states not faring well in this era' such as against ancient Assyria, Persia, Macedon, Rome, etc. Second, Byzantium's Army wasn't private during this period, primarily because they didn't have much of an army to begin with. Third; how would Byzantium surviving go against every trend of the period? If they survived by some harebrained miracle (or a successful Varna), then that would imply they would have had to adapt to the period to do so.

Odd how you picked a series of areas whose influence waned after the 1490s.

The byzantines were falling to the dustbin of history, and even if they had a reformer in charge that wouldn't change the fact that the Atlantic was becoming more of a nexus of trade.

Or let's talk about that, the fall of Byzantium was a large pressure towards the Portuguese and Spaniards looking to the West for a passageway to China, what would occur if they didn't fall? Are we going to implement drastically dynamic trade nodes to fit a world where the Byzantines survive even 20% of the time?

 

[keynes2.0]

Yeah cuz that would be the biggest problem with the trade system. Shockingly realistic otherwise.