Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome - DevDiary 4: Patriarchs & Pentarchs

[Don_giorgio]

That is partially false... The incontestable part is that you may beg to differ ( ) but some Eastern emperors recognized Charlemagne and his successors as Western emperors, confer, for example, Michael I by the Pax Nicephori.

Αctually with Pax Nicephori Byzantine Emperor recognised Charlemagne's authority in the West but as a "Rex" (aka King) and not as an "Imperator" (Emperor) thus technically making Charlemagne his vassal... In reality Byzantine Emperor had no authority over Charlemagne and his successors but Pax Nicephori was written in such a way in order to refuse the imperial title to Charlemgne. See how Emperors used to call Holy Roman Emperors in correspondence or during ambassador visits... Always with the inferior title "Rex" and never as Emperors...

Besides that ERE Emperors possesed the Western Emperors regalia since 476 when Odoacer shipped them to Constantinople thus recognising Zeno as Emperor of a "de jure" reunited Empire... And Charlemagne knew that without the Byzantine Emperor's recognition his title was hollow...

 

[Ruwaard]

Adding a De Jure empire to Italy would be weird though, because an empire that consisted of a single kingdom (or even just two, if one were to remove Sicily from the ERE) would not be an empire. And there are no other kingdoms to sensibly add to an Italian Empire.

As to loosening the restrictions on the Latin Empire... I dunno. The Latin Empire was a very specific thing born of the sack of constantinople, and even if the Byzantines still existed, simply having to capture a single country to propel yourself to imperial status would be a bit broken in game terms.

I think there are enough ahistorical empires as it is. An italian empire wouldn't be a valid successor to the Roman Empire any more than HRE was, because Roman Latin culture is dead by 1066 and replaced with the nascent Italian linguistic culture that is a very distinct cultural successor and not at all the same thing. Having k_italy and k_sicily should not be enough to call yourself a new Roman emperor when there is already the lawful, legitimate Roman Empire in the east and the acknowledged yet-lawfully-illegitimate successor to the Empire in the west. The only time I think an "Italian Empire" would be justifiable would be if both the HRE and the ERE have collapsed. As a gameplay issue alone, getting an empire level title should be a pain in the ass to accomplish. I'd be more inclined to say that k_italy should be added to the de jure of the ERE and that Italians should look to the legitimate Empire if they want an imperial title.

(...)

I see that your not a fan of the HRE. IMHO the HRE is a legitimate (translatio imperii) successor state of the empire in the west, whereas in contrast the ERE is the continuation of the empire in the east; the Latin Empire OTOH is an usurper state. Furthermore if the kingdom of Italy (and Burgundy too) should de jure belong to any empire it should be the HRE and not the ERE; you might dispute the legitimacy of the HRE as an empire, but it has better claims on the (medieval) kingdom of Italy (in Northern Italy; the Franks conquered the Langobard kingdom in Italy) than the ERE. However for gameplay purposes I'm fine with Italy (and Burgundy) not belonging to any empire, but if they have to belong to an empire, then it should be Holy Roman Empire.
Sicily being a de jure part the ERE is tricky too, it makes sense for some parts of Southern Italy (not all) at beginning of the game, but not so much at later starts or rather after the kingdom of Sicily was created historicallly; IMHO if the Papacy would have been an imperial tier title, then the kingdom of Sicily should have the Pope as their liege. (Personally I remove the kingdoms of Croatia and Sicily from the ERE and I only keep the ERE and the HRE (I also keep Italy and Burgundy de jure out the HRE for gameplay reasons) as the possible de jure Christian empires (I also keep the conditions for the Latin Empire).

I do agree that there are enough a-historical empires, since I'm not a fan of those either.

 

[Darkgamma]

I don't understand why they can't marry - Orthodox priests can marry.

Edit: @Ruwaard, ERE isn't a continuation of the Roman Empire, it literally is the Roman Empire. The existance of ERE actually totally invalidates the translato imperii legitimacy backbone of the HRR (as you cannot succeed something that's already present) but nobody in the West actually cared.

 

[Ruwaard]

@ Darkgamma: a continuation of the Roman Empire in the East or the Roman Empire in the East, that's basically the same thing; with regard to the HRE I specifically mentioned it as a successor or continuation, by the reasoning of the translatio imperii, of the empire in the West.

 

[Darkgamma]

I totally accept the part in the West, as witnessed to by my nod towards it - but continuation is, IMO, a rather misplaced word there; it would be a continuation if the ERE was an entity different from the Roman Empire (it wasn't dejure, but could be considered so as defacto). It's that the semantics of "continuation" bug me somewhat.

 

[Ruwaard]

Αctually with Pax Nicephori Byzantine Emperor recognised Charlemagne's authority in the West but as a "Rex" (aka King) and not as an "Imperator" (Emperor) thus technically making Charlemagne his vassal... In reality Byzantine Emperor had no authority over Charlemagne and his successors but Pax Nicephori was written in such a way in order to refuse the imperial title to Charlemgne. See how Emperors used to call Holy Roman Emperors in correspondence or during ambassador visits... Always with the inferior title "Rex" and never as Emperors...

Besides that ERE Emperors possesed the Western Emperors regalia since 476 when Odoacer shipped them to Constantinople thus recognising Zeno as Emperor of a "de jure" reunited Empire... And Charlemagne knew that without the Byzantine Emperor's recognition his title was hollow...

The Pax Nicephori recognized Charlemagne as Emperor (Basileus), but it conspicuously avoids the of the Romans part in. (This seems rather consistent, if anything they added of the Franks instead).

Later, also very important for the Holy Roman Empire Otto the Great was recognized as emperor by Johannes Tsimiskes and both were co-rulers over Southern Italy.

 

[Theddude]

Αctually with Pax Nicephori Byzantine Emperor recognised Charlemagne's authority in the West but as a "Rex" (aka King) and not as an "Imperator" (Emperor) thus technically making Charlemagne his vassal... In reality Byzantine Emperor had no authority over Charlemagne and his successors but Pax Nicephori was written in such a way in order to refuse the imperial title to Charlemgne. See how Emperors used to call Holy Roman Emperors in correspondence or during ambassador visits... Always with the inferior title "Rex" and never as Emperors...

Besides that ERE Emperors possesed the Western Emperors regalia since 476 when Odoacer shipped them to Constantinople thus recognising Zeno as Emperor of a "de jure" reunited Empire... And Charlemagne knew that without the Byzantine Emperor's recognition his title was hollow...

Precisely, "translatio imperii" was a concept that Westerners invented out of thin air to justify their claims to the Roman Empire, but the Byzantine Empire never saw it that way. Of course some Byzantine Emperors delivered varying levels of recognition to the HRE, but they always assiduously avoided recognizing them as Emperors. The Byzantines of course slowly collapsed throughout the period and had to sell more of their soul so to speak in order to beg for military assistance from the West. And it was pretty convenient for the West that Byzantium was acting as a buffer between the Turks, Fatimids, etc and Europe.

 

[leksu]

Precisely, "translatio imperii" was a concept that Westerners invented out of thin air to justify their claims to the Roman Empire, but the Byzantine Empire never saw it that way. Of course some Byzantine Emperors delivered varying levels of recognition to the HRE, but they always assiduously avoided recognizing them as Emperors. The Byzantines of course slowly collapsed throughout the period and had to sell more of their soul so to speak in order to beg for military assistance from the West. And it was pretty convenient for the West that Byzantium was acting as a buffer between the Turks, Fatimids, etc and Europe.

Actually, Translatio Imperii was not made up by Westerners, but is rather taken directly from the Bible, the Book of Daniel, Chapter 2. It says that before the end times, there will be four great Empires, Babylonia being the first, Persia the second, Greece the third and Rome the fourth. Thus, according to this, the Roman Empire must always exist, because after the four great Empires Judgement day will follow. And because there was no Emperor since 797, Charlemagne had to be crowned.

@ Ruwaard

Quote of James Bryce, take from Wikipedia:

"When Odoacer compelled the abdication of Romulus Augustulus, he did not abolish the Western Empire as a separate power, but cause it to be reunited with or sink into the Eastern, so that from that time there was a single undivided Roman Empire... [Pope Leo III and Charlemagne], like their predecessors, held the Roman Empire to be one and indivisible, and proposed by the coronation of [Charlemagne] not to proclaim a severance of the East and West... they were not revolting against a reigning sovereign, but legitimately filling up the place of the deposed Constantine VI... [Charlemagne] was held to be the legitimate successor, not of Romulus Augustulus, but of Constantine VI."

You can't say Charlemagne was successor to the Western Roman Emperors, while he himself did not view himself as such. Rather, he was Emperor of the one, unified Roman Empire.

 

[Ruwaard]

Precisely, "translatio imperii" was a concept that Westerners invented out of thin air to justify their claims to the Roman Empire, but the Byzantine Empire never saw it that way. Of course some Byzantine Emperors delivered varying levels of recognition to the HRE, but they always assiduously avoided recognizing them as Emperors. The Byzantines of course slowly collapsed throughout the period and had to sell more of their soul so to speak in order to beg for military assistance from the West. And it was pretty convenient for the West that Byzantium was acting as a buffer between the Turks, Fatimids, etc and Europe.

Actually the HRE (Charlemagne and later Otto the Great) was recognized as an emperor (or the ruler they call their emperor, emperor of the Franks), OTOH emperor of the Romans was something different.

Overall the Byzantines and the Westerners often didn't treat each other very well, that actually worked both ways; though both sides were Christian they had some stereotypical views of each other and might have acted more diplomatically. By the time the Byzantines needed the help of the West that history might have worked against them.

 

[Theddude]

Actually, Translatio Imperii was not made up by Westerners, but is rather taken directly from the Bible, the Book of Daniel, Chapter 2. It says that before the end times, there will be four great Empires, Babylonia being the first, Persia the second, Greece the third and Rome the fourth. Thus, according to this, the Roman Empire must always exist, because after the four great Empires Judgement day will follow. And because there was no Emperor since 797, Charlemagne had to be crowned.

@ Ruwaard

Quote of James Bryce, take from Wikipedia:

"When Odoacer compelled the abdication of Romulus Augustulus, he did not abolish the Western Empire as a separate power, but cause it to be reunited with or sink into the Eastern, so that from that time there was a single undivided Roman Empire... [Pope Leo III and Charlemagne], like their predecessors, held the Roman Empire to be one and indivisible, and proposed by the coronation of [Charlemagne] not to proclaim a severance of the East and West... they were not revolting against a reigning sovereign, but legitimately filling up the place of the deposed Constantine VI... [Charlemagne] was held to be the legitimate successor, not of Romulus Augustulus, but of Constantine VI."

You can't say Charlemagne was successor to the Western Roman Emperors, while he himself did not view himself as such. Rather, he was Emperor of the one, unified Roman Empire.

That was how they chose to interpret the Four Empires passage, basically twisting it to suit their needs. They wanted to get around having to acknowledge Byzantium as the true Rome so they just proclaimed themselves Rome. Of course the Byzantines didn't agree with this, considering themselves to be Rome as they always were, seeing the HRE as claiming to be Rome when Rome already existed. I suppose you could boil it down to both of them claiming to be the Roman Empire in its entirety, rather than East/West, that's true. It kind of goes along with the Great Schism, in effect a political as well as religious division in Christianity.

 

[Don_giorgio]

Pope crowned Charlemagne as Emperor because he presumed the Imperial throne of the East as vacant... By 800 Irene had become Empress regnant after deposing her son and Pope could not recognise a woman wielding power as Basileus so he crowned Charlemagne to fill this gap.

It is interesting to note that a year later Irene proposed marriage to Charlemagne with the latter being more than delighted for that since a marriage with the Empress regnant of the East would have his title legitimised and aknowledged universally as Roman Emperor... However when Irene's plan was discovered by Palace officials she was quickly deposed and sent to a convent as in their eyes Charlemagne was noting more than a filthy barbarian and not the Heir of Rome...

 

[Ruwaard]

That was how they chose to interpret the Four Empires passage, basically twisting it to suit their needs. They wanted to get around having to acknowledge Byzantium as the true Rome so they just proclaimed themselves Rome. Of course the Byzantines didn't agree with this, considering themselves to be Rome as they always were, seeing the HRE as claiming to be Rome when Rome already existed. I suppose you could boil it down to both of them claiming to be the Roman Empire in its entirety, rather than East/West, that's true. It kind of goes along with the Great Schism, in effect a political as well as religious division in Christianity.

Whether the HRE claimed to be the entire Empire or just the Western half of the Empire is open to debate, since various sources have different takes on this; furthermore for the HRE not only Charlemagne is important, but Otto the Great too.
Still with HRE seeking recognition from the Byzantine Emperor they de facto ask to be recognized as Emperor in the west and co-emperor.

Besides when the Roman Empire was de facto split in a Western and Eastern half for the first time the Empire itself (de jure) was not.

However I agree that, even more than the Emperor of the West, the Holy Roman Emperor was the Catholic Roman Emperor, just like the Byzantine Emperor was the Orthodox Roman Emperor. Even before the final Great Schism the relation between the Papacy and the Byzantine Empire was strained and the king of the Franks was in a much better position to protect the Papacy.

Now the imperial title also was somewhat controversial with the Frankish subjects of Charlemagne, which were proud of their Frankish heritage.
Furthermore the position of Holy Roman Emperor as protector of the Catholic Church (even more than kings) brought the potential of conflict between the Pope and the Emperor and some of the successors of Leo might not always have been happy with it. However in the course of the period covered by the game the initial duality between the Pope and the Emperor gradually decreased and a clearer distinction between religious and worldly matters started to develop.

 

[Theddude]

Whether the HRE claimed to be the entire Empire or just the Western half of the Empire is open to debate, since various sources have different takes on this; furthermore for the HRE not only Charlemagne is important, but Otto the Great too.
Still with HRE seeking recognition from the Byzantine Emperor they de facto ask to be recognized as Emperor in the west and co-emperor.

Besides when the Roman Empire was de facto split in a Western and Eastern half for the first time the Empire itself (de jure) was not.

However I agree that, even more than the Emperor of the West, the Holy Roman Emperor was the Catholic Roman Emperor, just like the Byzantine Emperor was the Orthodox Roman Emperor. Even before the final Great Schism the relation between the Papacy and the Byzantine Empire was strained and the king of the Franks was in a much better position to protect the Papacy.

Now the imperial title also was somewhat controversial with the Frankish subjects of Charlemagne, which were proud of their Frankish heritage.
Furthermore the position of Holy Roman Emperor as protector of the Catholic Church (even more than kings) brought the potential of conflict between the Pope and the Emperor and some of the successors of Leo might not always have been happy with it. However in the course of the period covered by the game the initial duality between the Pope and the Emperor gradually decreased and a clearer distinction between religious and worldly matters started to develop.

It would seem that with the rationale given by the Pope for crowning Charlemagne (Irene ruling, thus the Roman throne was vacant) that they were making a claim to be the one and only Emperor of Rome. Of course if they were that then they could name a co-emperor in the East if they wanted, so if they recognized an Eastern Emperor then they would be back to being Emperor in the West. It's an interesting subject, but I think now I'm just going to focus on the Byzantines when LoR comes out, given that they are the focus of the DLC. I guess we're not even really debating anything at this point so I will now withdraw to await the release tomorrow. I'm sure the ERE vs HRE topic will continue to be debated for a long while yet, though. :laugh:

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Well, it happened in 1054 AD, so there wasn't really Orthodoxy and Catholicism back then.

There was, in all but name. The Schism may have become official in 1054, but the underlying theological differences and the de-facto division of Christendom was far older. For centuries, the differences were the proverbial elephant in the room that were hushed up to maintain a resemblance of Christian unity.

 

[Gunnarr]

I don't understand why they can't marry - Orthodox priests can marry.

Edit: @Ruwaard, ERE isn't a continuation of the Roman Empire, it literally is the Roman Empire. The existance of ERE actually totally invalidates the translato imperii legitimacy backbone of the HRR (as you cannot succeed something that's already present) but nobody in the West actually cared.

Priests can be married, but they cannot marry after being ordained to the priesthood.

But that is not why the patriarchs cannot marry.

Patriarchs cannot marry because they are bishops. After the 5th century only celibate bishops were allowed as that made it so the Church could no longer lose land to the heirs of the married Bishop (heirs as in the bishops children). Bishops are traditionally almost always taken from the monastics from then on. There are of course many theological reasons for this as well and the early church fathers recommended bishops to be chosen from the monastics too.

Shortly: It is impossible for a Bishop (or Patriarch, who is a Bishop) to be married both in canon in real life and in game. Priests can be married, yes, but they cannot marry after being ordained. Married priests can never be elevated in the hierarchy according to the canons.