Isn't it time we had Romans in Charlemagne?

[Ciccillo Rre]

I agree with the OP. I just signal that the topic has been heavily discussed in the past, see here:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...man-culture-on-the-map-in-the-new-dlc.795548/

P.S. I made a point in that discussion that the divergence between regional varieties of Vulgar Latin had begun well before 476AD. The very concept of "romanness" is very much an abstraction, I do not see how Italians of the VIII century are any less "roman" than those of the III; besides, a Roman state and Roman laws/institutions continued well into the Middle Ages...

 

[Kapitalisti]

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

Perhaps, but hyphenated names like that sound very, very clunky. Anglo-Saxon is excused because of hundreds of years of acclamation.

 

[omega20056]

Perhaps, but hyphenated names like that sound very, very clunky. Anglo-Saxon is excused because of hundreds of years of acclamation.

Then just call them Italic, Hispanic, and Gallic.

 

[Scotty the Scot]

We already have Romans who self-identify as Romans in CM start.

Unless you mean filthy Latins, that is.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

You know, Romans who lived in Italy could be called Italians, especially once Roman culture and identity and political legacy had extended across the entire Mediterranean.

Roman is good as a historical culture for indisputably Roman historical figures before the game's start date.

You had basically everyone claiming to be a Roman by 769, however, and we shouldn't favor Italians over Greeks.

 

[Sergeant Flutter]

You know, Romans who lived in Italy could be called Italians, especially once Roman culture and identity and political legacy had extended across the entire Mediterranean.

Roman is good as a historical culture for indisputably Roman historical figures before the game's start date.

You had basically everyone claiming to be a Roman by 769, however, and we shouldn't favor Italians over Greeks.

But the Greeks were literally the same Empire, just reduced in size, with a change in culture.

 

[robomax]

Which idea would that be?

And you call your self a history buff? Rome thought it was the Son of Jupiter (Son of God) The Augustus (An Eternal Idea) Rome should rule the world. Rome still goes on even today . Most of the Law is Based in Roman Law.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

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.

Charlemagne claimed to be the Roman Emperor, his control of Gaul, Italia and parts of Illyria and Hispania gave him a better claim than many Western Emperors of the 5th Century and he may have held sway over more Romans than the Emperor in Constantinople, and he wouldn't have been the first Romanised Germanic to claim the Imperial Crown either. Given that the Throne of Constantinople was occupied by a woman and he was crowned by the Pope his claim was not baseless. However, that doesn't necessarily translate to his successors and it doesn't carry over after the Interregnum when there was no Emperor in the West.

This is the key point - Donation of Constantine aside - the Pope was a Roman Cleric, he was a Roman Citizen, born in Rome - elected by Romans who were at least nominally still subject to the Emperor.

As to people "moving to the ERE" (sic) good luck with that, even if you're a nobleman the best you might expect would be poverty or the army.

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.

Visigoths were actually Romanised Germanics, unlike the Lombards the Visigoths had completely fused with their Roman subjects before the game's time period and operated under one Law. the Franks are a bit more complex but it's likely that whilst cities in Gaul retained some Roman character the farmlands were a greater admixture of Frankish and Roman, but then the Franks had been in control of Gaul without Roman contest for several centuries whilst the Lombards had been fighting the Romans for Italy and therefore had a vested interest in "protecting" Roman rights to blunt revolts.

Italia was also the centre of the Empire and one of the last provinces in the West to fall to invaders, making it more likely that a definatively "Roman" character would persist there.

I agree with the OP. I just signal that the topic has been heavily discussed in the past, see here:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...man-culture-on-the-map-in-the-new-dlc.795548/

P.S. I made a point in that discussion that the divergence between regional varieties of Vulgar Latin had begun well before 476AD. The very concept of "romanness" is very much an abstraction, I do not see how Italians of the VIII century are any less "roman" than those of the III; besides, a Roman state and Roman laws/institutions continued well into the Middle Ages...

I know it's been brought up before, that's part of why I wanted it to be discussed again - before the new patch lands.

You know, Romans who lived in Italy could be called Italians, especially once Roman culture and identity and political legacy had extended across the entire Mediterranean.

Roman is good as a historical culture for indisputably Roman historical figures before the game's start date.

You had basically everyone claiming to be a Roman by 769, however, and we shouldn't favor Italians over Greeks.

Except that the people in Italy were living under Latin Roman Law and speaking Latin (not yet Italian) whilst the Romans in the East were living under a modified version of the Justian Code and speaking and writing in Greek, and they were becoming progressively Hellenised in their culture too.

 

[KlinkerFyren]

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

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

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.

Thoughts?

I approve of these changes and ideas. Also while Paradox is at it add Crimean Goths, since.... you know they are in EU4.

 

[WeissRaben]

There are at least two wrong points on that post. First of all, Vulgar Latin is very much not Latin; as a matter of fact, it was almost nonexistent up to the fall of the centralized power in Rome, with dialects being very tame things bound to social station more than to area. Indigenous substrata had a ridiculously small effect on Latin; even cases that had been accepted as being substrata (like the Tuscan gorgia from Etruscan) have been disproved.

Thus, vulgar Latin (and in particular the Italic variation) was very much detached from Latin; and that derived from the very collapse of centralized Roman institution (local institutions survived for a surprisingly long time), such as we can't talk about Roman culture after the 6th-7th centuries. Hell, you quoted Strasbourg, but those writings are generally accepted as being proto-French and proto-German, and not really vulgar latin. Italic would work, indeed, and better than the current situation. But how should Italic move to Italian? This leads to the second wrong point, because well...

...no, Italian shouldn't come from a melting pot with Lombard. As a matter of fact, the Lombard overlords fought - tooth and nails - to keep the indigenous population and the Germanic nobility separated. As it was already said, Rotari's Edict was valid for the Lombards, while the Italians followed the old Roman code. The current setup in CK2 is indeed somewhat ridiculous: the common peasant was not Lombard, at all, and the Lombard kings had tried very hard to keep it that way. Of course, that decision was wavering, by 769 - Rotari's laws had been extended to all the inhabitants of the Kingdom one generation earlier, and some kind of melting pot had begun to creep in.

Why, then, I say that you are wrong? Because then Charlie happened. Before said mixture could happen, the Lombards were kicked out of power. This shows in the Italian language, and hard: out of some words, mostly linked to war (the word for war itself, "guerra", is pretty much self-evident), Italian is clean of Germanic influences and looks a lot like a simplified version of late-Imperial Latin. It's not weird: the Lombards, holding a monopoly on leadership, had held a monopoly on war too. Still, a lot of words even in that field (out of the simpler ones) link back to Latin, rather than Lombard.

So, I'd say. Change the culture in Italy to Italic, and Lombard to Langobard (Central Germanic); after 850, if the country is ruled by Langobards, melting pot to Lombard (Latin); otherwise, change to Italian.

 

[GeorgieBest]

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.

I didn't know people thought otherwise. I wouldn't exactly call it popular belief.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

There are at least two wrong points on that post. First of all, Vulgar Latin is very much not Latin; as a matter of fact, it was almost nonexistent up to the fall of the centralized power in Rome, with dialects being very tame things bound to social station more than to area. Indigenous substrata had a ridiculously small effect on Latin; even cases that had been accepted as being substrata (like the Tuscan gorgia from Etruscan) have been disproved.

Vulgar Latin is very much Latin, and it was spoken from at least the second century, there's little evidence for Vulgar Latin because it was a spoken language, not a written one. The situation is analogous to English dialects after 1500-1600, everything was written in Chancery (London) English and this was what was spoken by the ruling class, but not by the lower classes. Even today Italy has "Regional Itlain" and "Regional Italian Languages". The first is the local dialect of the Italian language and the second is the local Romance language.

Thus, vulgar Latin (and in particular the Italic variation) was very much detached from Latin; and that derived from the very collapse of centralized Roman institution (local institutions survived for a surprisingly long time), such as we can't talk about Roman culture after the 6th-7th centuries. Hell, you quoted Strasbourg, but those writings are generally accepted as being proto-French and proto-German, and not really vulgar latin. Italic would work, indeed, and better than the current situation. But how should Italic move to Italian? This leads to the second wrong point, because well...

If you read my post you'll see that I referenced the Strasboug oaths precisely because they are NOT considered to be in Latin, but the Latin text describes the Old French as "Romance" and that "Old French" is still very close to Latin. Strasboug is the generally accepted point of departure - prior to that it is generally accepted that the continental Vulgar Latin was one language.

To say that Vulgar Latin is "not Latin" is to say that the Romans stopped speaking Latin before the collapse of the Principate, and long before Alaric sacked Rome. Again, I addressed this in the OP. Nobody is saying that the Latin spoken in Italy is the same as Cicero's Latin, they're saying that in the 8th century the people in Italia are still speaking Latin, and still thinking of themselves as Roman, because Roman rule in Italia, around rome and Ravenna, is within living memory.

The question is when the break happens - when do we draw the line between the Romans in Italia and the Italians. It's not like everybody woke up one day and realised they weren't Roman any more, it was probably a more gradual process that spread through the province over time, and it would not have been a hard break even in a single place.

So where to draw the line? I would argue that the line is drawn between the death of Leo the Isaurian and the crowning of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor - which is actually after the CM start.

...no, Italian shouldn't come from a melting pot with Lombard. As a matter of fact, the Lombard overlords fought - tooth and nails - to keep the indigenous population and the Germanic nobility separated. As it was already said, Rotari's Edict was valid for the Lombards, while the Italians followed the old Roman code. The current setup in CK2 is indeed somewhat ridiculous: the common peasant was not Lombard, at all, and the Lombard kings had tried very hard to keep it that way. Of course, that decision was wavering, by 769 - Rotari's laws had been extended to all the inhabitants of the Kingdom one generation earlier, and some kind of melting pot had begun to creep in.

Why, then, I say that you are wrong? Because then Charlie happened. Before said mixture could happen, the Lombards were kicked out of power. This shows in the Italian language, and hard: out of some words, mostly linked to war (the word for war itself, "guerra", is pretty much self-evident), Italian is clean of Germanic influences and looks a lot like a simplified version of late-Imperial Latin. It's not weird: the Lombards, holding a monopoly on leadership, had held a monopoly on war too. Still, a lot of words even in that field (out of the simpler ones) link back to Latin, rather than Lombard.

Italia was, as I noted, the last province to fall and the only one the Romans subsequently recovered in full (albeit temporarily).

You are suggesting that the Lombards were "kicked out" but that isn't really true - their King was kicked out but it's a fiction to say that this meant all the Lombards were evicted, they weren't. Charlemagne absorbed other Germanic Kingdoms, he didn't genocide them. Modern Italian is less affected by the languages of its Germanic overlords because said Overlords were more thoroughly Romanised, the Ostagoths in partcular were likely essentially a Roman warrior-class who adhered to a different Confession as much as they were "Barbarians". Further, as a central Roman Province Italy had a greater density of Roman cities and retained a Roman aristocracy alongside its Germanic one.

Where do you think the Lombards are today?

 

[DorlasAnther]

I didn't know people thought otherwise. I wouldn't exactly call it popular belief.

I have met some. There are really many people who think controll over Rome is main requirement to be considered Roman Empire. So, ERE wasn´t Roman, because it didn´t own Rome.

 

[Sfan]

I can't talk about the very interesting stuff about people defining themselves as Latins/Romans late, but I know quite a big deal about the differences between vulgar latin and proto-european languages, as a guy who studied Proto-French and Old-French for quite some time.

First of all, there are tangible proofs that vulgar latin was spoken extremely early on. One of the most interesting things is that we still have graffitis dating from the 1st century BC in Pompei: they give us a very accurate idea of what vulgar latin already was. There is already a strong tendency leaning towards not using declensions apart from nominative and accusative cases. People already used "de + acc" for genitive and "ad/ex + acc" for dative/ablative. Scholars estimate vulgar latin already had two cases as early as from the first century; old French will keep these two, called "Cas Sujet" and "Cas Régime" until the end of the middle ages. Another interesting point is the tendency to suppress the "h" in first position and the last consonant, especially m, especially for the accusative ("hortum" is basically written and pronounced "ortu" in vulgar latin).

A very simplified statistic would be to say that old French had 10% of the words from Gaulish substrate, 80% from latin, and 10% from Frankish superstrate. Gaulish words are mostly related to agriculture and rural life / objects you can find in anyone's house, while Frankish words are related to administration / military stuff. Latin is used for everything else, most notably almost all of the verbs. From there we can assume that the people remained heavily latinised. Therefore, there is a strong and undeniable continuity between vulgar latin and proto-french from Serments de Strasbourg, and the text is not interesting because of any difference between this language and vulgar latin from the 7th century. There is almost none. We can basically say that the language spoken by a 4th century peasant is closer from the language of a 9th century peasant than it is from an aristocrate/educated man from the 4th century.

Another important point is that what we call latin today had almost disappeared back then. Most of the "Imperial Latin" was completely gone, and churchmen or literate people allegedly speaking and writing Latin were actually speaking another form of vulgar latin, "Administrative Latin" or "Late Latin" as we call it here. This was clearly more meticulous that the Vulgar Latin, but this was far from Cicero. Latin is pretty much reborn during the Renaissance with what we call the "Erasmian reformation". Erasmus spent a lot of time studying Cicero and Caesar to understand what "proper" Latin looked like, this is why these two authors are considered the models of Latin today, quoted widely in every textbook/dictionary. His thorough study proved very basic things, like the fact that "u" is pronounced as it is, and not "ü" but people were unaware of this in the Middle Ages, even when they thought they could speak latin.

If Serments de Strasbourg is the date where French is officially born, this is not because the text is any different from earlier vulgar Latin texts or that much different from Latin as it was spoken by churchmen by then. What matters is that for the first time, this language with old roots is not considered as a popular dialect of a purer and better language, but as a language in its own. It is hard to know when people started to understand that they were not Romans speaking Latin anymore, but the turning point is clearly around Charlemagne's lifetime, as other sources such as Reichenau's Glose prove it. Actually I'm not even sure that the conscience of speaking Latin or Proto-Something is in any way relevant when thinking about whether or not they considered themselves as Romans, which is the main point. I would actually lean towards the fact that many people considered themselves Franks speaking latin in France.

 

[Mike Louis]

I think that the solution should be to have the non Greek areas of Italy be set to have Roman culture with the rulers of the non Greek provinces having Lombard culture (Venice and the Papal States can have their starting rulers / patricians be Roman). Starting in the game year 800, the first Italian melting pot event should fire for any non Greek Italian provinces converting the Lombard / other foreign / Roman rulers and provinces to Italian culture. The second Italian melting pot event starting in the game year 1100 should fire converting any non Italian rulers / provinces in Italy to Italian.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

As for what concerns the historical/linguistic debate, I think that SigurdStormhand and Sfan get it right, while WeissRaben gets its wrong on the Vulgar Latin part (while he is right saying that the cultural influence of Germanic Lombards was very superficial).

Gameplay-wise, I would love to see Roman provinces and characters in 769. Not sure what to do with provinces currently "Lombard"; I would probably keep these but move them into the Latin group and have at some point a Lombard/Roman melting pot into Italian. I think the main opposition by the devs is about the very fact of having a "Roman" culture alive in 769. I just say that in EUIV the Roman Empire is now formable by decision, why not let us have Romans in CK2?

 

[viola]

Rome was an Idea. Not Just a City.

And you call your self a history buff? Rome thought it was the Son of Jupiter (Son of God) The Augustus (An Eternal Idea) Rome should rule the world.

In all honesty, this kind of talks sounds much less about history and much more about desperate romanticism and idealization of the Roman Empire, the stuff Byzantophiles and Illuminist philosophers seem to love doing.

What they don't seem to talk much about however is how the Romans, when not laying the foundation for modern jurisprudence, were also the same civilization that through its millennial history could never figure out how to produce a system of succession that didn't rely entirely on brute military power and didn't lead to destructive civil wars pretty much most of the times.

Just saying of course.
Pretty sure the Roman disagrees are already on the way though.

 

[Woifee]

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'.

The HRE, the Ottos and later Russia saw themselves as successor of Rome while the Byz was Rome.

 

[TheDungen]

We don't need more culture shifts that the game will screw up we have plenty of those already.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

I think that the solution should be to have the non Greek areas of Italy be set to have Roman culture with the rulers of the non Greek provinces having Lombard culture (Venice and the Papal States can have their starting rulers / patricians be Roman).

It seems bonkers to have a Roman culture that only exists outside the Roman Empire (ignoring that Venice should be a Roman vassal in 769).