Ask Portugal
And no, I was merely being facetious, since it had been mentioned just up the page
Forming Roman Empire as an Islamic Nation
- Thread starter TheReaper
- Start date
-
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.
Ask Portugal
And no, I was merely being facetious, since it had been mentioned just up the page
I highly doubt any army could beat the revolt of an entire religion, especially one which dominates Europe. What you're talking about is pure fantasy and should not be encouraged.
In this game however it's possible to make Christianity a tiny minority in europe, soooo
Not all Muslims are Arabs. And Mehmed II DID claim the Roman Emperor title. And the invasion of Italy in 1481 had as its stated (as in, declared, open, said to all) objective the CAPTURE OF ROME and RECREATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
You can't get more clear about ressurrecting Rome than that, sorry.
You're also confusing the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum (which had the title the 'Sultan-i-Rum', as it lorded over Roman lands), which was stomped by the Mongols and ceased to exist in the XIVth century with the Ottoman Emirate of Bursa, which was one of the Ghazi Emirates that arose after the Mongol conquest and was the one that conquered Constantinople and took the title 'Kaiser-i-Rum' (which applied to ALL the Roman Empire).
Zhetone said:
You mean, like the British crushed the Hindu revolt of an entire subcontinent?
I am very opposed to Fantasy possibilities (like the odd changes Paradox made to the De Jure system and really fantastic Empires that were added), but a Muslim attempt to recreate the Roman Empire is an historical fact, not a fantasy.
It was indeed impossible for them in real life to achieve it (Catholic Europe had grown far too strong), but it should not be an impossibility in CK2, where players often achieve pretty weird power balances (to be fair, the game simply does not replicate the massive medieval population difference of Europe vs. the Middle East and North Africa).
Note that the Imperial claim wasn't all about Christians and the West: it was also a nice cover to take Syria and Egypt. What we today see as an Ottoman conquest was at the time regarded as Constantinople regaining its power over its historical territories.
Ziamat said:
For the record, Catholics see the Orthodox as schismatic, not as heretics. That is due to the fact that the separation initially came from their will not to answer to the Pope in Rome (since the Empire had split itself in two and the Church organized itself in a similar way as the Imperial administration, it seemed logical to have the Church split in two aswell, something the Pope fiercely resisted), rather than any theological differences.
Last edited:
Ask Portugal
And no, I was merely being facetious, since it had been mentioned just up the page
Yes, if you exploit game mechanics or do something ridiculous. Is there some Christian nation which claims the whole Arab world? No? Oh, yes, I didn't think so.
I doubt the Muslims, if they took over Europe, would wish to emulate a European empire and, if they had as much strength as you people insist they would have, would they not opt to simply form a Caliphate, anyways? It doesn't make any sense to have a Muslim Roman Empire. There's nothing which warrants it. And, if you want it so badly, edit your files.
You're suggesting that all of Christendom would suddenly put aside their petty differences and work together to repel an invader because he wants to call himself a Roman Emperor. Who's talking about pure fantasy now? Most Christian rulers wouldn't have paid attention unless the new state threatened them directly, and even then they wouldn't have fully abandoned their personal rivalries and ambitious to fight the Muslim Roman Empire.
Furthermore a Muslim forming the Roman Empire would be considered by Western Christianity as legitimate as the Byzantines forming the Roman Empire. They both practices incorrect religions and would be viewed as false claimants to the title of Roman Emperor. If a Muslim Roman Empire would need to defeat the revolt of an entire religion (see above for why it wouldn't) then the Byzantines would have to as well. The only way you could logically have a problem with a Muslim forming the Roman Empire would be if you have a problem the Byzantines forming the Roman Empire. And even then you're incorrectly assuming all of Christianity, or even all of Catholicism, would miracuously band together to fight a distant threat.
I realize that. I was actually referring to Catholicism becoming a heresy of Orthodoxy in-game when the Great Schism is mended.
Technically speaking, Christians have the holy right to wage war and take land from infidels (and Muslims too, though they don't need claims anyway), so in a way Christians do have claims on the whole non-Christian world, really. And set out to conquer it they did, too.
But I don't think that's what you meant. Byzantines also did not use the claim system, but they certainly saw the whole of the former Eastern Empire as legitimately thiers. As for the HRE, techically it had claims to rule all Catholic Christian Kings (and all Catholic Christian Kings could run for Emperor, too; in 1519, besides the Electors and Charles King of Spain, the King of France Francis I and the King of England Henry VIII were also candidates, for example). The issue was more one of actually having the power to make them comply, really.
Zhetone said:
There is nothing for you to doubt, Zhetone: an attempt to recreate the Roman Empire was exactly what the Muslims historically did. That is an historical fact, not Fantasy. If you don't accept it, then it is you who wants a Fantasy setting away from History, not the others.
For that matter, your "European Empire" comment makes me think that you have an inaccurate idea of the Roman Empire. While it is true that its roots are in Europe, Rome always saw itself as a Mediterranean polity, not an European one - half its territory was outside Europe, after all.
And that meant that men who were not Latin could rule it. Emperor Septimus Severus, who restored order to the Empire, was of punic blood (something that probably made Cato roll around in his grave).
Which also explains why his son, Caracalla (also not a Latin) put out his edict of 212 AD, where he gave Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the Empire, thus making it a multicultural/multi-ethnic state revolving around the Mediterranean. There was now as much of European in it as there was North African or Middle Eastern. Being "Roman" no longer meant being a Latin.
Heck, why do you think that the Emperor that celebrated Rome's thousand years was called "Arabicus"? Because that's what he was - an Arab. Born in a Sheik's tent in the desert, eventually rising to become master of the Empire.
Other examples abound: Emperor Maximinus I was the son of an Ostrogoth and an Alan; Emperor Elagabalus was Syrian.
Rome gave an heritage to all the peoples in the mediterranean area, not just the Europeans.
ziamatt said:
Ah, Ok. Sorry, I misunderstood.
(though with the Schism mended, Catholics [or Ortodox, if the Schism was mended with West over East] should not exist; they should break up in smaller heresies, as the main branch would merge with the other)
I think it is very rude to all polytheists to let Christian rulers form the Roman Empire. Jupiter Capitolinus!
Once the pagan DLC comes out someone needs to make a pagan Roman Empire
I think the question depends on what the decision represents.
If it's the acceptance of the Christian world as the one true Emperor of Rome, then yeah, obviously Muslims can't form it. If it's an assertion of Roman identity and territorial claims by right of might, then of course anyone could do it.
However, I think we're looking at this the wrong way. The Roman Empire already exists at every historical start; it's just called the Byzantine Empire because westerners have a tradition of not viewing it as the "real" Roman Empire. The "reformation" in game, at least in theory, should represent the leader of a resurgent Roman Empire getting serious about asserting their sole right to the title of Emperor, and to the rule of all historically Roman lands.
IMO, the logical thing to do is just to do away with this silly "reformation", call the real Roman Empire what it was really called from day 1, let anyone who takes Constantinople claim that title, and let any of those claimants who manages to take Rome enact a decision to assert their sole rights and claims to the legacy of Rome, with all of the effects that the reformation has now.
If it's the acceptance of the Christian world as the one true Emperor of Rome, then yeah, obviously Muslims can't form it. If it's an assertion of Roman identity and territorial claims by right of might, then of course anyone could do it.
However, I think we're looking at this the wrong way. The Roman Empire already exists at every historical start; it's just called the Byzantine Empire because westerners have a tradition of not viewing it as the "real" Roman Empire. The "reformation" in game, at least in theory, should represent the leader of a resurgent Roman Empire getting serious about asserting their sole right to the title of Emperor, and to the rule of all historically Roman lands.
IMO, the logical thing to do is just to do away with this silly "reformation", call the real Roman Empire what it was really called from day 1, let anyone who takes Constantinople claim that title, and let any of those claimants who manages to take Rome enact a decision to assert their sole rights and claims to the legacy of Rome, with all of the effects that the reformation has now.
The call the Byzantine Empire the Roman empire debate is not one that you are going to win. Byzantine Empire is its common name now, so that's the name it has in game.
The rest of your solution however, is the best description of what the solution should be. If you consider that owning Rome+Constantinople (+ other lands) gave that owner special legitimacy regarding CBs, then the culture or religion is irrelevant. If you don't (and as it happens, I don't think the Western European powers would be inclined to bow down to the 'legitimacy' of an emperor not seen in those parts for 600 years), then same deal applies.
Re Islam, they do, of course, have holy war anyway, and the effects of that would be more in line with what a muslim (or indeed, any) emperor claiming imperial reconquest would face.
This however, is hopeless exaggeration. The whole of Christianity isn't going to revolt just because some Muslim does some cute ceremony somewhere, no more than it revolted when the Ottomans took Constantinople (& thus the title of roman emperor, by conquest). Muslims attacking or taking Rome would almost certainly cause a response from HRE, France & Aragon (or whoever controls that part of Spain) in particular, but in game that would be an effect of holy war, not some special treatment.
The rest of your solution however, is the best description of what the solution should be. If you consider that owning Rome+Constantinople (+ other lands) gave that owner special legitimacy regarding CBs, then the culture or religion is irrelevant. If you don't (and as it happens, I don't think the Western European powers would be inclined to bow down to the 'legitimacy' of an emperor not seen in those parts for 600 years), then same deal applies.
Re Islam, they do, of course, have holy war anyway, and the effects of that would be more in line with what a muslim (or indeed, any) emperor claiming imperial reconquest would face.
This however, is hopeless exaggeration. The whole of Christianity isn't going to revolt just because some Muslim does some cute ceremony somewhere, no more than it revolted when the Ottomans took Constantinople (& thus the title of roman emperor, by conquest). Muslims attacking or taking Rome would almost certainly cause a response from HRE, France & Aragon (or whoever controls that part of Spain) in particular, but in game that would be an effect of holy war, not some special treatment.
Last edited: