Isn't it time we had Romans in Charlemagne?

[SigurdStormhand]

So - let me start off by saying that if there were "Romans" in Charlemagne's time they were not toga-wearing, legionary-leading Senators, Quites and Plebs. However, that doesn't mean there were no Latin-speaking, self identifying Romans. Indeed, I would go so far as to say there were Romans after Charlemagne, though how long after is another question.

In terms of language I think ti's far to say that in the time of Charlemagne, even outside Italia, people were still just about speaking Vulgar Latin. The Reichenau Glosses show that people were beginning to have trouble reading the Vulgate Bible, but that they were still glossing it (as we do Middle English) rather than translating it.

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

Then you have the Oaths of Strasboug, generally seen to be the first oaths recorded in "French", but that language is still very close to LAtin and this is in the "Old Gods" time-frame rather than Charlemagne.

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

Actually, the whole Wikipedia article on Vulgar Latin is pretty good, especially this bit:

As early as 722, in a face to face meeting between Pope Gregory II, born and raised in Rome, and Saint Boniface, an Anglo-Saxon, Boniface complained that he found Pope Gregory's Latin speech difficult to understand, a clear sign of the transformation of Vulgar Latin in two regions of western Europe.[9]

At the third Council of Tours in 813, priests were ordered to preach in the vernacular language – either in the rustica lingua romanica (Vulgar Latin), or in the Germanic vernaculars – since the common people could no longer understand formal Latin. Within a generation, the Oaths of Strasbourg (842), a treaty between Charlemagne's grandsons Charles the Bald and Louis the German, was proffered and recorded in a language that was already distinct from Latin.

From approximately this point on, the Latin vernaculars began to be viewed as separate languages, developing local norms and, for some, orthographies of their own, so that Vulgar Latin must be regarded not as extinct – since all modern Romance varieties are its continuation – but as replaced conceptually and terminologically by multiple labels recognizing regional differences in linguistic features.​

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

As regards people's perception of "Romanness" you have this from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, comissioned in the reign of King Alfred, "The island Britain (1) is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/ang01.asp

Alfred was also anointed as a Roman Consul by the Pope, which says something about how the Pope saw himself - as a Minister of the Roman State. If you're looking for a more "concrete" example of the degree of continuity I refer you to Charlemagne's Denarius, particularly the one which depicts him on the obverse as Emperor.

I could go on, and I could admittedly provide more authoritative sources than Wikipedia (although the wiki articles are well referenced) but I don't think it's necessary.

My point is this - in an era when we have "Visigoths" (who spoke Latin) and "Franks" (Who spoke Latin and Frankish" it's anachronistic to have "Italians" and not "Romans" and this is even more of an issue when you consider the Latin cities of the Adriatic coast (some held by the ERE in game) which are all depicted as being in "Croation" Provinces.

So here's my suggestion:

1. Convert all Italians in the Charlemagne Start to Romans.

2. Make the Italian Melting pot be Lombard + Roman = Italian.

3. Make a follow on event chain where Roman provinces can convert to Italian by osmosis with bordering provinces after 814.

4. Have an "End of Rome" event that can fire after 850 to convert the remaining Roman provinces in Italy to Italian once the proportion of Italian : Roman provinces tips in favour of Italian. This would take care of Venice and Rome itself if still held by the Pope.

5. Switch some of the Croation provinces in the Adriatic, at least Dalmatia, to Roman in the Charlemagne start.

6. Prevent Romans provinces/characters under an ERE or Reformed Roman Empire from getting the events, or if they are under an independent Roman Emperor in Italia or elsewhere. The rational for this is that Romans within the Empire won't suffer the sort of cultural fragmentation that ultimately gave rise to modern Italian culture, they'll be subject to a more ordered and traditionally "Roman" regime.

The basic objective here is twofold, to make the game a better approximation of the actual historical situation and to give players a narrow but achievable path to becoming a "real" Roman Emperor.

As to how Roman characters should operate - they already have the appropriate naming convention that the eldest son takes his father's name 100% of the time, other than that I'd suggest they function and dress exactly like Greeks as both are really "late Romans" speaking a different language, the shouldn't use the Greek localisation in Italy but they should in Anatolia, and they should get custom Viceroyal titles.

Thoughts?

 

[Asiak]

I feel like I agree that having Italian there to begin with in 769 is wrong and anachronistic, I've always hated that.

But I don't know if I feel comfortable changing provinces to Roman. Remember that a province's religion is the religion of the peasants. In medieval history the peasants are the least known about group simply due to their nature.

And I just feel like those examples of works in Latin in France, and Alfred the Great are great examples of Roman culture and language being left behind. But do they really have any bearing on the peasantry of Italy, and whether or not they considered themselves Roman? Maybe they did, but even if they did was their culture anything even remotely Roman, and by whose definition of Roman, because that in itself is not easy to pin down through the ages.

But one of the things that led to the fall of the Roman Empire was de-population. And then Justinian came and tried to take Italy back, and if I recall from one lecture that to cause great depopulation, and there was a plague involved.

And then the ostrogoths where there for several years, and then the Lombards came.

Part of me could maybe bullshit there being pockets of "Roman" peasants hiding out after all that.

But part of me asks Roman elements were still around, but were there any actual Romans left?

 

[vyshan]

the eastern empire never stopped considering themselves romans

 

[Sergeant Flutter]

I love this.

However, I think that a form of "fragment cultures" would be nice. We already have "Visigothic" "Frankish" and a few other cultures, however the Devs could easily build on this feature and introduce it into other areas.

Aquitaine was heavily Roman at this point, so if "Roman" culture became a thing in 769, it'd have to also be in Aquitaine. I don't think it should be a culture that's simply there for an Italian Melting Pot.

It needs to be some form of destroyed culture, with occasional provinces in Southern France, Italy, and Croatia. Italy proper had already been occupied by Germanic Barbarians for a while at this point, so the majority should not be Roman.

 

[Shock360]

Or we could just have Hearts of Crusading Victoria Universals: Rome Can Into Space

 

[Gurkhal]

While an idea to create Romans could be interesting it seems to me that a great deal would have changed in 300 years or so and there wouldn't per necessity be "Romans" as opposed to new cultures taking inspiration from their Roman heritage, like the Occitans.

 

[Kapitalisti]

the eastern empire never stopped considering themselves romans

Yes, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[robomax]

New DLC could go back farther to the Migration Period ?376ad ? That might be going back too far, For CK2 and the game Mechanics would be quiet different. Or a New Game 376-800 (You actually started earlier. The Edict of Milan was February 313 AD. With a Converter into CK2? I have always felt that with Charlemagne we were starting in the middle of story. 313AD Edict of Milan to September 24, 768 AD (Pepin's Death) with Different Book marks such as The Raise of The Huns (Attila), Raise of the Lombardy, Pepin raise to power. The religious mechanics would be insane. All the different Forms of Christianity back then. Not Just in Europe but Africa and the Middle East as well.

 

[DorlasAnther]

Yes, but that doesn't make it true.

Contraty to popular belief, Roman Empire wasn´t empire of city Rome, but empire of Romans, a.k.a. citizens of that empire. People from eastern part were Roman citizens just like people from western part.

 

[robomax]

Contraty to popular belief, Roman Empire wasn´t empire of city Rome, but empire of Romans, a.k.a. citizens of that empire. People from eastern part were Roman citizens just like people from western part.

Rome was an Idea. Not Just a City.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

New DLC could go back farther to the Migration Period ?376ad ? That might be going back too far, For CK2 and the game Mechanics would be quiet different. Or a New Game 376-800 (You actually started earlier. The Edict of Milan was February 313 AD. With a Converter into CK2? I have always felt that with Charlemagne we were starting in the middle of story. 313AD Edict of Milan to September 24, 768 AD (Pepin's Death) with Different Book marks such as The Raise of The Huns (Attila), Raise of the Lombardy, Pepin raise to power. The religious mechanics would be insane. All the different Forms of Christianity back then. Not Just in Europe but Africa and the Middle East as well.

The Empire would never, ever fall.

 

[Kapitalisti]

Rome was an Idea. Not Just a City.

Which idea would that be?

 

[Thure]

New DLC could go back farther to the Migration Period ?376ad ? That might be going back too far, For CK2 and the game Mechanics would be quiet different. Or a New Game 376-800 (You actually started earlier. The Edict of Milan was February 313 AD. With a Converter into CK2? I have always felt that with Charlemagne we were starting in the middle of story. 313AD Edict of Milan to September 24, 768 AD (Pepin's Death) with Different Book marks such as The Raise of The Huns (Attila), Raise of the Lombardy, Pepin raise to power. The religious mechanics would be insane. All the different Forms of Christianity back then. Not Just in Europe but Africa and the Middle East as well.

It needs to be a own game focused on the rise and fall of empires, migration etc. CK2 can't handle this things. The pre-Charlemagne era was way to different from the CK2-era.

 

[Kapitalisti]

It needs to be a own game focused on the rise and fall of empires, migration etc. CK2 can't handle this things. The pre-Charlemagne era was way to different from the CK2-era.

Indeed, even the Charlemagne-era was almost too different from the rest of CK2.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

It really needs to be pointed out that these "Germanic Barbarians" were neither Barbaians nor all that Germanic once they settled in Italy. Both the Ostragoths and Visigoths were heavily Romanised. Theoderic the great was raised in Constantinople and held the Consulship, he was as Roman as Stilicho - just not as loyal.

Then Justianian came and took over, and yes, this caused de-population but it also re-established Roman Law and Order - that only breaks down after the Lombards invade because they're much less Romanised than the Ostragoths.

Look at the areas of Italy under Roman rule when Leo III came to the throne: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_III_the_Isaurian

Roman rule in Italy proper (or parts thereof) is within living memory at the Charlemagne start. Further, I'd argue that province culture doesn't represent the "peasants", it represents the people just above them who run the province - and I think those people would still be Latin speaking and still consider themselves Roman.

 

[Fishy101]

As far as I can tell, the Roman Empire continued to exist until 1453. The western part of the empire fell. But the eastern part continued. The whole Holy Roman Empire thing was just something Charlemagne and the pope concocted to lay claim to being the successor of the Roman Empire. It was pure fiction. There was no such thing as the Byzantine Empire. The ERE was the Roman Empire. Anyone who considered themselves Roman surely would have just moved to the ERE.

Its a fun mechanic to "restore" the Roman Empire. But the fact of the matter is the Roman Empire was already in existence.

 

[Thure]

As far as I can tell, the Roman Empire continued to exist until 1453. The western part of the empire fell. But the eastern part continued. The whole Holy Roman Empire thing was just something Charlemagne and the pope concocted to lay claim to being the successor of the Roman Empire. It was pure fiction. There was no such thing as the Byzantine Empire. The ERE was the Roman Empire. Anyone who considered themselves Roman surely would have just moved to the ERE.

Its a fun mechanic to "restore" the Roman Empire. But the fact of the matter is the Roman Empire was already in existence.

Read the decision ingame. Restore Roman Empire ingame is clearly discribed as 'Make them accept us as Roman Empire!'.
And actually... the Holy Roman Empire was the Roman Empire too. Yes the basis of this, the Donations of Constantine, are faked but this don't make it false. Forgery was a common think during this era and as long as it was accepted by the majority fakes are true in this era (otherwise many cities today would lose their town privilegs).
There were too Roman Empires during this era.
And actually... the Roman Empire didn't fall in 1453. The Ottomans ursurpated the title by conquest which was a legitimate basis (it happened often enough). The Ottoman Sultans used the title 'Kayser-i-Rûm' 'Caesar/Emperor of Rome'.

 

[omega20056]

You'd be better off calling it Italo-Roman and converting Visigothic into Ibero-Roman and Frankish into Gallo-Roman.

 

[Thure]

You'd be better off calling it Italo-Roman and converting Visigothic into Ibero-Roman and Frankish into Gallo-Roman.

Frankish isn't Romance ingame but Germanic. The Franks were Germanic people. But yes... they are to large ingame. France wasn't Germanic in such a high manner.

But Visigothic is just a flavour name for Ibero-Roman ingame. That's what they called themself during this time mostly too.

 

[naisel]

I feel like I agree that having Italian there to begin with in 769 is wrong and anachronistic, I've always hated that.

But I don't know if I feel comfortable changing provinces to Roman. Remember that a province's religion is the religion of the peasants. In medieval history the peasants are the least known about group simply due to their nature.

And I just feel like those examples of works in Latin in France, and Alfred the Great are great examples of Roman culture and language being left behind. But do they really have any bearing on the peasantry of Italy, and whether or not they considered themselves Roman? Maybe they did, but even if they did was their culture anything even remotely Roman, and by whose definition of Roman, because that in itself is not easy to pin down through the ages.

But one of the things that led to the fall of the Roman Empire was de-population. And then Justinian came and tried to take Italy back, and if I recall from one lecture that to cause great depopulation, and there was a plague involved.

And then the ostrogoths where there for several years, and then the Lombards came.

Part of me could maybe bullshit there being pockets of "Roman" peasants hiding out after all that.

But part of me asks Roman elements were still around, but were there any actual Romans left?

In the Lombard Kingdom the members of the Latin speaking population were still called Romans and kept applying the Roman Law.

We also have to bear in mind that the Exarchate of Ravenna, the last ERE holding in Northern Italy, fell in 751, only eighteen years before the CKII start date, its inhabitants probably considered themselves Romans still (the area is called Romagna to this day).

For example, this is a law from King Liutprand in 731:

"If a Roman man marries a Lombard woman and acquires the 'mund' over her, and after his death she marries another man without the consent of the heirs of the first husband, 'faida' or 'anagrip' are not needed, because after marrying a Roman man and after he acquired the 'mund' over her, she became Roman and the children that will come from that marriage will be Romans according to their father laws and will live following their father laws"

Spoiler

Si quis romanus homo mulierem langobardam tolerit, et mundium ex ea fecerit, et post eius decessum ad alium abolaverit maritum sine volontatem heredum prioris mariti, faida et anagrip non requiratur; quia posteus romanum maritum se copolavit, et ipse ex ea mundio fecit, romana effecta est, et filii, qui de eo matrimono nascuntur, secundum legem patris romani fiunt et legem patris vivunt;