Byzantium

[sti]

Honestly, I wish Byzantium would get a fantasy DLC based around it. It'll be about the glorious reemergence of the empire, its eventual world domination, will have new unique mechanics based around a senate and emperor, and neo legions.

I can hear the fury of Wiz from here.

There are quite a few BZE mods some of which add a huge amount of stuff.

 

[Retrograde]

But sadly, no Granada mods Granada was a huge center of population, trade, and education long after Byzantium had degraded into poverty. More events and flavor for Granada! Andalusian Phoenix DLC!

 

[WeissRaben]

But the point is they were refugees of the Byzantine Empire, now correct me if i'm wrong but if people know something you don't, they are technologically advanced. And the refugees causing a reduced cost in tech easily represents that the Byzantines were advanced in some areas of technology (historically the refugees brought rare Greek manuscripts ect to Europe), even if their economy did not allow them to at the time take greater advantage of that technology, which is why I support the idea of technology groups representing 2 aspects of a nations technology, technology level and unit type, which is why a Byzantine tech group or something similar should be added, giving the Byzantines eastern units early on (more advanced and similar to western units later) whilst giving them western tech costs.

hnghrgno. The Renaissance can be traced all the way back to Humanism, between 13th and 14th century. The Byzantine refugees had jack to do with it - at most, one could point out that ancient texts were brought back among the loot of the Fourth Crusade, but those had been flowing from Muslim Sicily for centuries, and mostly from the Arab conquest to the Norman conquest - one century before Constantinople fell to the Latins.

 

[yoloswag6969]

By that logic then Scotland should get its own gaelic tech group, hell any number of difficult to play nations with far greater historical reasoning (that they actually participated in this period of history) should get their own tech groups units and decisions. By the by Byzantium has already had a dlc created for it despite not actually being a thing in this time period, I would consider that to be more than enough attention.

I'm late as hell,but that actually sounds like a very cool idea for a mod. Have separate tech groups for culture groups,with separated unit types too. Is there already a mod like that?

 

[Aries666]

I'm late as hell,but that actually sounds like a very cool idea for a mod. Have separate tech groups for culture groups,with separated unit types too. Is there already a mod like that?

No idea I dont play with mods theyre bad for your health.

 

[wingzero890]

I'm late as hell,but that actually sounds like a very cool idea for a mod. Have separate tech groups for culture groups,with separated unit types too. Is there already a mod like that?

Veritas et Fortitudo

 

[Scottx105]

hnghrgno. The Renaissance can be traced all the way back to Humanism, between 13th and 14th century. The Byzantine refugees had jack to do with it - at most, one could point out that ancient texts were brought back among the loot of the Fourth Crusade, but those had been flowing from Muslim Sicily for centuries, and mostly from the Arab conquest to the Norman conquest - one century before Constantinople fell to the Latins.

Aye that is true, but most of those old manuscripts fell into obscurity until Greek refugees from Constantinople brought more manuscripts with them to Europe reinvigorating interest in classical history (one of the main major parts of the Renaissance was an obsession with the classical period, especially in the form of Art work)l.

 

[WeissRaben]

Aye that is true, but most of those old manuscripts fell into obscurity until Greek refugees from Constantinople brought more manuscripts with them to Europe reinvigorating interest in classical history (one of the main major parts of the Renaissance was an obsession with the classical period, especially in the form of Art work)l.

I'll stop you. Interest in the classics goes back to the late 13th century - in his Commedia, Dante puts Virgil as deuteragonist for a reason. The "Byzantine Refugees" is a old, old myth, and as all the old myths it's hard to uproot. It doesn't make it true.

 

[Scottx105]

I'll stop you. Interest in the classics goes back to the late 13th century - in his Commedia, Dante puts Virgil as deuteragonist for a reason. The "Byzantine Refugees" is a old, old myth, and as all the old myths it's hard to uproot. It doesn't make it true.

Does not make it false either, and I will correct you that sure there was interest, but the Greeks from Constantinople after it fell reinvigorated that interest. And for the Dante thing I have no idea what your talking about (had to look most of what you said up as it made no sense to me), Dante wrote a epic poem named the Divine Comedy, and the significance of Virgil being a deuteragonist is...?? As far as I can tell, all it is, is a story based on the Roman Catholics idea of death, whilst using creative imagination of hell, purgatory and heaven based on theological studies and Greek mythology(Had to look most of this stuff up). Now I agree that obviously there would have already been pre-existing knowledge about classical Greek literature and works based on it, especially from pre-existing literature already in Europe and pre-existing Greek scholars who migrated to Europe, but most scholars agree that the refugees/migrants from the Sack and fall of Constantinople were important in the formation of Renaissance Humanitarianism, as not only would the Greek refugees from both the sack and fall of Constantinople bring manuscripts and literature, but also scholars, theologians, poets, astronomers ect who were also among the refugees would end up migrating to Europe and contributing to the Renaissance. Now I'm not saying that the Greek studies back before refugees from the sack and fall of Constantinople were irrelevant or worthless, just that the impact that the Greek refugees had on the formation of humanitarianism during the renaissance was an extremely significant contribution.

 

[WeissRaben]

Does not make it false either, and I will correct you that sure there was interest, but the Greeks from Constantinople after it fell reinvigorated that interest. And for the Dante thing I have no idea what your talking about (had to look most of what you said up as it made no sense to me), Dante wrote a epic poem named the Divine Comedy, and the significance of Virgil being a deuteragonist is...?? As far as I can tell, all it is, is a story based on the Roman Catholics idea of death, whilst using creative imagination of hell, purgatory and heaven based on theological studies and Greek mythology(Had to look most of this stuff up). Now I agree that obviously there would have already been pre-existing knowledge about classical Greek literature and works based on it, especially from pre-existing literature already in Europe and pre-existing Greek scholars who migrated to Europe, but most scholars agree that the refugees/migrants from the Sack and fall of Constantinople were important in the formation of Renaissance Humanitarianism, as not only would the Greek refugees from both the sack and fall of Constantinople bring manuscripts and literature, but also scholars, theologians, poets, astronomers ect who were also among the refugees would end up migrating to Europe and contributing to the Renaissance. Now I'm not saying that the Greek studies back before refugees from the sack and fall of Constantinople were irrelevant or worthless, just that the impact that the Greek refugees had on the formation of humanitarianism during the renaissance was an extremely significant contribution.

The importance is that Dante had studied Virgil extensively: it is put as his mentor in the narrative because Dante did consider him his artistic mentor. The absolutely Christian afterlife is built with bricks taken from Roman and Greek literatures, and it is filled by these figures - mainly in the Limbo, were those most excellent men reside without grieving for Paradise. It is a religious text, absolutely, but it would be silly to deny that it is filled with the signs of a profound admiration for the classical world.

 

[Scottx105]

The importance is that Dante had studied Virgil extensively: it is put as his mentor in the narrative because Dante did consider him his artistic mentor. The absolutely Christian afterlife is built with bricks taken from Roman and Greek literatures, and it is filled by these figures - mainly in the Limbo, were those most excellent men reside without grieving for Paradise. It is a religious text, absolutely, but it would be silly to deny that it is filled with the signs of a profound admiration for the classical world.

Would not know in detail, I've never read it. You caught me at a disadvantage in a desperate attempt to mount a stout defense ^^. Though from my point of view my point still holds merit, and whilst I agree this epic is seen as an accomplishment of literature and has aspects of the classical world present in it. I still believe that the refugees from Byzantium still had a large impact in making Greek literature ect more popular than it already was.

 

[RobRoy3]

...I still believe that the refugees from Byzantium still had a large impact in making Greek literature ect more popular than it already was.

There is no doubt that Greek scholars had a profound influence on the Renaissance in Western Europe. But you're vastly over-stating the influence of the fall of Constinople on that impact, just as you're vastly overstating the military and economic potential of the "Empire" in 1444.

Greeks had been instrumental in re-examining and re-introducing classical works for centuries, before 1453. But this rarely eminated from the Capital, which was still often hostile to the pagan aspects of Hellenism; for example, they tended to adhere to a strict preference for Aristotle over Plato, as did the Latin church. "Humanists" were often viewed with suspicion in Constantinople, as in Rome. Indeed, it was partially because of the weaknesses of the "Empire" that scholars were more inclined to study less appropriate classics in places like Ottoman controlled Adrianople or semi-independent Mistra. But the conduits for Greek influence had been active for centuries from places like Sicily, Southern Italy, Venice/Genoa with their holdings, Latin Crusader states, inter-marriage among prominent Greek and Italian families, etc. And this could be a two-way street - ties between Florence and Mistra, for example, undoubtedly influenced both Greek and Italian speaking scholars in these centers.

Whether there was any particular boost in this ongoing process as a result of 1453 "refugees" is highly debatable. Despite widespread repetition, there isn't much evidence of any sudden influx in 1453. On the contrary, there is a counter argument that in the immediate aftermath, the flow of intellectual talent from Greek speaking areas to the west slowed as the Sultan demonstrated an unusual eagerness to rebuild the city, including its intellectual life, and tried various means to lure and accommodate scholars, with some apparent success. Not all Sultans were so accommodating, however, and the 16th century has ample evidence of a return to the pattern of some scholars preferring to study/work in Venetian territory or the west, rather than doing so in Ottoman territory.

Actually, given the fairly hidebound nature of official Byzantine thought, by 1453, it would probably be more realistic to give BYZ a research penalty. But that wouldn't apply to places like Morea (which really should be an independent vassal), Trebizond, Athens, etc., which WERE centers of Renaissance thought. Isn't there another popular myth that scholastic interests in Constantinople were more concerned with "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type questions, than they were with how to reform their moribund state.

 

[zsImmortal]

There is no doubt that Greek scholars had a profound influence on the Renaissance in Western Europe. But you're vastly over-stating the influence of the fall of Constinople on that impact, just as you're vastly overstating the military and economic potential of the "Empire" in 1444.

Greeks had been instrumental in re-examining and re-introducing classical works for centuries, before 1453. But this rarely eminated from the Capital, which was still often hostile to the pagan aspects of Hellenism; for example, they tended to adhere to a strict preference for Aristotle over Plato, as did the Latin church. "Humanists" were often viewed with suspicion in Constantinople, as in Rome. Indeed, it was partially because of the weaknesses of the "Empire" that scholars were more inclined to study less appropriate classics in places like Ottoman controlled Adrianople or semi-independent Mistra. But the conduits for Greek influence had been active for centuries from places like Sicily, Southern Italy, Venice/Genoa with their holdings, Latin Crusader states, inter-marriage among prominent Greek and Italian families, etc. And this could be a two-way street - ties between Florence and Mistra, for example, undoubtedly influenced both Greek and Italian speaking scholars in these centers.

Whether there was any particular boost in this ongoing process as a result of 1453 "refugees" is highly debatable. Despite widespread repetition, there isn't much evidence of any sudden influx in 1453. On the contrary, there is a counter argument that in the immediate aftermath, the flow of intellectual talent from Greek speaking areas to the west slowed as the Sultan demonstrated an unusual eagerness to rebuild the city, including its intellectual life, and tried various means to lure and accommodate scholars, with some apparent success. Not all Sultans were so accommodating, however, and the 16th century has ample evidence of a return to the pattern of some scholars preferring to study/work in Venetian territory or the west, rather than doing so in Ottoman territory.

AFAIK, the biggest brain drain was in the post-sack period, not so much in 1453. The city was largely depleted by then, infrastructure had deteriorated and the city was little more than a group of villages within the Theodosian walls (not unlike Rome during the 5th century collapse).

WRT the influence of Byzantines on western humanism, iirc it was more because the school curriculum in the Eastern Roman Empire still taught various antiquity scholars, so the knowledge was preserved and spread. I know there's quite a few Italian Byzantine scholars, but I'm not sure one can say it's an influx of those that sparked the renaissance.

Actually, given the fairly hidebound nature of official Byzantine thought, by 1453, it would probably be more realistic to give BYZ a research penalty. But that wouldn't apply to places like Morea (which really should be an independent vassal), Trebizond, Athens, etc., which WERE centers of Renaissance thought. Isn't there another popular myth that scholastic interests in Constantinople were more concerned with "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type questions, than they were with how to reform their moribund state.

HOWEVER, that much is untrue (afaik). There was a major crisis as Constantine had acquiesed to the Pope's demand of reunification in exchange for Western help (which was not provided, save for personal expeditions by interested parties, such as Genoa's Giustani, whose family was deeply involved in trade on that side of the Mediterranean), and the people found refuge in protesting Orthodox members of the clergy who preached while the Catholic services were empty. I'm not sure why Morea should be an independent vassal since, iirc, Constantine was the one who liberated that part of Greece and left his brother in charge when he was named emperor. Why would they be an independent vassal moreso than any feudal state's subdivisions in Europe?

WRT to reforming, I don't think the Byzantines had any need to reform per se. They just had a depleted treasury and didn't have much of an army and navy to speak of due to circumstances (like strings of poor Emperors, civil wars, foreign invasions, etc.). Constantine had tried to rebuild the city as much as he could (mostly the walls as he knew Mehmet was coming for Constantinople), there just wasn't anything to do at that point.

 

[Scottx105]

AFAIK, the biggest brain drain was in the post-sack period, not so much in 1453. The city was largely depleted by then, infrastructure had deteriorated and the city was little more than a group of villages within the Theodosian walls (not unlike Rome during the 5th century collapse).

People keep saying this, 50,000 people (averaged estimate amount) is the same population that most other European cities were at the time. And you don't see London as a few decrepit villages now do you? A village by its very definition is a small community smaller than a town ranging population wise from a few hundred to a couple of thousand. So unless there were about 20-30 random villages inside the Theodosin walls (I highly doubt it) then it was still very much a functioning town which was struggling through an economic downturn.

 

[zsImmortal]

People keep saying this, 50,000 people (averaged estimate amount) is the same population that most other European cities were at the time. And you don't see London as a few decrepit villages now do you? A village by its very definition is a small community smaller than a town ranging population wise from a few hundred to a couple of thousand. So unless there were about 20-30 random villages inside the Theodosin walls (I highly doubt it) then it was still very much a functioning town which was struggling through an economic downturn.

There were parts of the city that had been burned during the sack that had never been renovated. The 'collection of villages' comes from a contemporary visitor's account. Keep in mind that it was 50 000 living in a city of 500 000. Large parts were simply deserted. Some parts were still functioning fine, like the Latin and Turkish quarters. But that wasn't where the natives wanted the money to be.

 

[Knut Skallagrim]

There were 36k inhabitants in 1453. During Justinian it had 550k inhabitants. The main factors which historians believe are the cause of the demographic decline are: 4th crusade (from 250k to under 50k, causing practically a byzantine diaspora), 3 civil wars, the black plague and the loss of thracia itself, since the negative data on constantinople demographics has no other examples in the rest of greece (the pop density still averaged the 14/15 persons per square km). On 1453 byzantine pop was almost 200k in total on 40k square miles, an area not bigger than the modern Veneto, being also shattered along greece. I'm saying this just because i'm seeing a lot of conjectures about why it "deserved" to die, that the fault of its own decline was itself, it's evident that you're avoiding the elephant in the room which is the black death, the civil wars, the invasions and last (but not least ofc) that we're speaking about byzantines after Varna, which is imo the most important turning point which they failed to attain. After that in fact ioannes practically died of depression leaving a rotten corpse to constantine, which did way more than "build 30 galleys" or send the diplomat to poland (which should also be depleted at the beginning of the game, like hungary, but nevermind this is a case in which gameplay > history), but seeked several alliances with western powers, almost managing to get married and have a discrete sum of ducats to spend in the defense. Too bad that when he started to gather allies mehmet knocked his door.

Also about Virgil, Dante puts him in the divina commedia because among the pagans, Virgil was the symbol of the reason and a moral guide later, a pagan that illuminated the people of his time in Dante's mind. He calls him magister, then auctor and at the end before saluting him, pater. And there's no simple sympathy that stands for that, that's because in the IVth Bucolica the poet predicted that a new child would be born and he would have opened a new golden age. Some historians think that Virgil was discussing about the son of Marco Antonio or Anicio Pollone, Dante and a lot of medieval historians/classicists thought that Virgil was speaking about jesus christ. So, being a possible prophet of Christ, already having discussed in the Eneid the Hades made him the candidate #1 for the divina commedia. In fact in the first 6 chapters of the hell there are a lot of elements coming from the Eneid itself. I don't see how dante has anything to do with byzantium tho, except that today is the anniversary of his death.

It really just sounds like you want special powers for your pet nation, honestly. The game would not be any more or less historical for adding it, so make some gameplay arguments instead.

# A Swedish City!
country_event = {
id = flavor_swe.1974
title = flavor_swe.1974.t
desc = flavor_swe.1974.d
picture = REVOLUTION_eventPicture

fire_only_once = yes

trigger = {
tag = SWE
primary_culture = swedish
183 = {
owned_by = SWE
culture = swedish
NOT = { is_capital = yes }
}
}
mean_time_to_happen = {
months = 1
}

option = {
name = flavor_swe.1974.a
set_capital = 183
183 = { add_base_tax = 2 }
}
}


This is my argument =PpPpPpPpPp

 

[Oddb@ll]

Some very good points Knut Skallagrim! Especially the Swedish event, hehe

 

[NADster]

Albania and East Frisia are my personal favorite countries in EU4, but Granada is cool too.

(I need to get around to making some East Frisian ideas)

I hope you include the "East Frisian jokes" as a national idea ...

 

[Scottx105]

Gloriam Byzantium!