forming the HRE

[Liquid Ghost]

Wouldn't most people go along with it? At the end it just needs to be a name people can identify with. So for example renaming Germany HRE is something people can connect to, renaming it Frankish Empire wouldn't work.

Let's remind ourselves that the name Byzantine Empire is historiographic and not actually the one BYZ used. They called themselves Imperium Romanun, i.e. Roman Empire. Who in their right mind in the 30s/40s would take that seriously? And I don't even mean abroad but even domestically: who in Greece would have the gall to claim the Roman Empire reborn in the southern Balkans and a bit of Anatolian coastline? A Greek state claiming themselves as the Byzantine Empire would make little sense to anyone, at that point, just plain call it the Hellenic Empire.

You can't have one without the other. The Greek kings were considered legitimate successors to the Byzantine Palaiologos Emperors (Constantine I also went by Constantine XII), restoration of the Byzantine Empire was always a possibility (even if not a stated goal), and it's no more ridiculous than restoring the HRE (and I would argue less).

I've never heard about the Kings of Greece claiming to be successors of BYZ, I'm going to need a citation on that.

Furthermore, the Megali idea was about Greek nationalism: Greek land for Greek people. BYZ is about claiming all the ERE lands to a lesser extent and the whole SPQR lands to a greater extent, no matter the nationality, culture or religion of the people living in the 20th century there. Seeing that Greece controls less than 10% of the ERE lands and less than 5% of the SPQR lands in 1936, and Germany controls maybe 75% of HRE lands (sans Kingdom of Italy) in 1936, then I would argue an attempt to reform the latter makes a bit more sense.

 

[hkrommel]

Let's remind ourselves that the name Byzantine Empire is historiographic and not actually the one BYZ used. They called themselves Imperium Romanun, i.e. Roman Empire. Who in their right mind in the 30s/40s would take that seriously? And I don't even mean abroad but even domestically: who in Greece would have the gall to claim the Roman Empire reborn in the southern Balkans and a bit of Anatolian coastline?

Pedantry aside, there is actual, documented support for such a thing. The line of Byzantine (or whatever you want to call them, it really doesn't matter) Emperors never "went away", they just married into other royalty, from which Constantine I got his name.

Furthermore, the Megali idea was about Greek nationalism: Greek land for Greek people.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Greece/Building-the-nation-1832-1913#ref297977

"The Great Idea envisaged the restoration of the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire, with its capital once again established in Constantinople, which would be achieved by incorporating within the bounds of a single state all the areas of Greek settlement in the Middle East."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megali_Idea

Google is your friend.

I've never heard about the Kings of Greece claiming to be successors of BYZ, I'm going to need a citation on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_of_Greece

Relevant part: "huge crowds gathered outside the Palace shouting what they thought should rightfully be the newborn prince's name: "Constantine". This was not only the name of his maternal grandfather, Grand Duke Konstantin Romanov of Russia, but also the name of the "King who would reconquer Constantinople", the future "Constantine XII, legitimate successor to the Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos", according to popular legend. He was inevitably christened "Constantine" (Greek: Κωνσταντῖνος, Kōnstantīnos) on 12 August, and his official style was the Diádochos (Διάδοχος, Crown Prince, literally: "Successor"). An additional nickname adopted mainly by the royalists for Constantine was "the son of the eagle" (ο γιός του αητού)"

Edit: Perhaps I should elaborate more on why I think Byzantine restoration was less outlandish than HRE restoration.

First, the idea was actually floating around in the corridors of power in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and it only really died in the 1920s. Reviving such a notion would certainly be more plausible than Hungary restoring a foreign-held dual monarchy in which it was a junior partner, for example.

Second, reviving the Byzantine Empire would actually be conducive to a more aggressive Greece. Doing so would give them claim to former Byzantine land, revive notions of grandeur, and announce intentions of reestablishing a more cosmopolitan entity, something that would go over much better with non-Greeks than a Hellenic empire.

Third, reviving the HRE is fundamentally pointless for the Germans. The HRE was largely decentralized and, quite frankly, a mess. Germany under Prussian rule was a highly centralized and bureaucratic state, so reviving localist sentiment is hardly in their best interests. Further, the Hohenzollerns were opposed to the HRE as soon as they gained real power (remember they were the Kings "in Prussia" rather than "of Prussia"). They would be reviving an entity that would challenge their power, both through localist sentiment and the elector system (which would at least be more present in people's minds than before), and which they were historically opposed to.

 

[Tempestra]

You can't have one without the other.

The Megali idea may have based its "legitimacy" on Byzantium, but the plan was never to literally rename Greece the Byzantine Empire, change the flag, etc etc.

This comes up every time this is discussed in any Paradox game. It seems to be a pretty common misapprehension, but the Megali Idea =/= Byzantium restoration, any more than Mussolini's plans to conquer Yugoslavia involved him restoring the Roman Empire.

 

[solidprice]

The idea of 3 settings been put forward before. Historical, ahistorical and crazy town. No idea about how easy or hard that would be to implement.

So it's:
Achievent let's play / poland forms its own faction let's play / isorrow Belgian lives matter and drew questionable orientation paintbrush levels of wtf?


I'm ok with that.

 

[hkrommel]

It seems to be a pretty common misapprehension,

https://www.britannica.com/place/Greece/Building-the-nation-1832-1913#ref297977

Common enough that Encyclopaedia Britannica states it as fact. Please don't take this as me being overly stubborn, I don't know enough about it personally and you may well be right, but I can't accept what you're saying as true until you provide something that trumps EB as a well-researched and edited source.

 

[Duke_Dave]

The main issue I have here is that people complain about a feature they will never see in MP or Singleplayer unless they do it themselves, the development time that went into this is negliable and it is a neat feature for achievment hunter not only to restore the Holy Roman Empire for an achievment but to get to rename it that in-game.

 

[Alliegorical]

Let's remind ourselves that the name Byzantine Empire is historiographic and not actually the one BYZ used.

Byzantine means "of Constantinople." The medieval Byzantines themselves used the word this way; Anna Komnene called the citizens of the city Byzantines in her biography of her father Alexios I.

So Byzantine Empire just means, "The empire who's capital is Constantinople," just as the Roman Empire was the empire of the city of Rome. If Greece somehow conquered Istanbul in WW2 and moved their capital, it would make perfect sense to assume that title, especially if they weren't at all interested in the legacy of Rome.

 

[Krilnik]

I am really surprised how much BORING people play Paradox games. Do you even have imagination?
I read through the whole thread and I can't belive how many of you are against this.

So what if it's far-streched? If it's ahistorical?
Many of you here play this game mostly as Germany, and history starts changing the moment YOU take over that country. Because you are not playing to lose.
So arguments that this is a historical game and should be kept like that are totally unacceptable. Because it isn't. This is a GAME, and it should include PLAUSIBLE things. If I was a fascist dictator of Italy and if I managed to conquer most of the old territories I wouldn't even consider not to proclaim myself Roman Emperor.

Same for Germany and HRE, why wouldn't someone do it? Same for Greeks and Byzantium and many other entities.
You look on things from today's standpoint. Today, in 21st century, things like this wouldn't really be possible.

 

[Tempestra]

So arguments that this is a historical game and should be kept like that are totally unacceptable. Because it isn't. This is a GAME, and it should include PLAUSIBLE things. .

You're exactly right. The debate here is whether or not a restored HRE is plausible.

Many of us don't consider it to be so.

 

[kviiri]

Many of us don't consider it to be so.

This is one of those times when you can, y'know, just not push the button. There's no mechanical benefit as far as anyone knows for using the HRE Easter Egg.

Were it up to me, they should just add the option to rename any nation at any time in SP.

 

[Rommel 459]

This is one of those times when you can, y'know, just not push the button. There's no mechanical benefit as far as anyone knows for using the HRE Easter Egg.

the amount of cores given are actually a substantial benefit in both concrete manpower, and additional factory slots, and potentially in decreasing unrest as well

 

[kviiri]

the amount of cores given are actually a substantial benefit in both concrete manpower, and additional factory slots, and potentially in decreasing unrest as well

Well okay, I forgot about the cores, that's a fair point marshall.

 

[Duke_Dave]

the amount of cores given are actually a substantial benefit in both concrete manpower, and additional factory slots, and potentially in decreasing unrest as well

Yes but you need to own those territories meaning you defeated almost all enemies except maybe the Soviets, and even than just make them puppets and get the manpoer this way - so it doesn't really matter.

The Germans recruited up to 50.000 Dutch people for the army and Waffen-SS its not like its impossible to recruit froma subjected population.

 

[Rommel 459]

Yes but you need to own those territories meaning you defeated almost all enemies except maybe the Soviets, and even than just make them puppets and get the manpoer this way - so it doesn't really matter.

The Germans recruited up to 50.000 Dutch people for the army and Waffen-SS its not like its impossible to recruit froma subjected population.

according to the tooltip...You do need to control them, you don't need to own them.

so in the version of this we have seen, you can declare war, occupy all the territory, and make the territory cores, BEFORE you sign a peace treaty with any of the countries that are now partially/completely your core territory.
I imagine that will change before the decision is released, but at present that's how the tooltips we've seen say it works.
and since you get full use of manpower and factory slots from core territory, and don't take resistance in core territory..... this is in fact OP and exploitable as all hell at present,

 

[LiberiusX]

according to the tooltip...You do need to control them, you don't need to own them.

so in the version of this we have seen, you can declare war, occupy all the territory, and make the territory cores, BEFORE you sign a peace treaty with any of the countries that are now partially/completely your core territory.
I imagine that will change before the decision is released, but at present that's how the tooltips we've seen say it works.
and since you get full use of manpower and factory slots from core territory, and don't take resistance in core territory..... this is in fact OP and exploitable as all hell at present,

I think we're all pretty sure this will be changed to owned from control. Control would be utter madness from a balance standpoint.

 

[Rommel 459]

I agree it will and should be changed, but to assume that it will be and not point out how unbalanced and OP and such it is, and in fact argue how balanced it already is (considering the hypothetical change) may result in the change not being implemented.(unlikely, but not as unlikely as the HRE being reformed by a military Junta

 

[Duke_Dave]

according to the tooltip...You do need to control them, you don't need to own them.

so in the version of this we have seen, you can declare war, occupy all the territory, and make the territory cores, BEFORE you sign a peace treaty with any of the countries that are now partially/completely your core territory.
I imagine that will change before the decision is released, but at present that's how the tooltips we've seen say it works.
and since you get full use of manpower and factory slots from core territory, and don't take resistance in core territory..... this is in fact OP and exploitable as all hell at present,

agreed that should be fixed.

 

[hkrommel]

This is one of those times when you can, y'know, just not push the button. There's no mechanical benefit as far as anyone knows for using the HRE Easter Egg.

I agree with this, what I'm worried about (and that to my knowledge hasn't been clarified) is that the AI could do it, which is not something I'm on board with.

The Germans recruited up to 50.000 Dutch people for the army and Waffen-SS its not like its impossible to recruit froma subjected population.

It's impossible to do in meaningful numbers, however. 50,000 over the course of the war is not all that much unless those formations take no losses.

 

[kviiri]

I agree with this, what I'm worried about (and that to my knowledge hasn't been clarified) is that the AI could do it, which is not something I'm on board with.

Given that it was meant to be an Easter egg, seems unlikely... at least by design. By coding mistake, on the other hand, anything goes.

 

[Fipse]

this is in fact OP and exploitable as all hell at present,

So? Why does this matter? Because people can get German achievements more easy? Because it would be OP in MP?