Late Medieval Eastern Roman clothing

[KAMCITY13]

Hopefully paradox will have the correct clothing, headwear(crowns) and military armor for the Eastern Roman character models in the late era.
Such as:

In addition to:

the women of nobility example:

and lastly the famous hat(Kapasion as it was called)the Emperor Ioannes VIII wears when visiting Italy:

Turbans were also the norm in Eastern Roman society as well one such example is Theodoros Metokhites:

 

[keoch319]

What books are these?

 

[kurthakon]

Personally, I think Paradox should be careful if they do Late Era clothing. History is not set in stone in Crusader Kings 3, and from what the little I can read from the text provided in the pictures, I think Paradox should definitely keep this in mind.

For example, a world where the 4th Crusade never happened, would have had quite the effect on both Byzantine fashion and armor.

• The text claims that the very characteristic Byzantine lamellar armor was lost after 4th Crusade.
• The female Byzantine dress does look like it could have been Latin-influenced (post-Latin Empire), but I don’t have the full context with the text cut-off.

I'm also curious on what books these pictures are from.

 

[Austregisel]

We will have this only in mods by the way, even more with these colors, almost certainly. I doubt that the Late Middle Ages, we would have clothes like that, long, with covers not only behind, for half the front as well.

 

[kurthakon]

We will have this only in mods by the way, even more with these colors, almost certainly.

That depends on how much work it is for Paradox to make them in 3D. There were Late Era clothing for some cultures in CK2 including the Byzantines, so it’s not totally out of the question.

Still, Paradox has never favored to do late-game additions anyway. So, your pessimism may be very warranted indeed.

 

[Malcolm Linair]

That depends on how much work it is for Paradox to make them in 3D. There were Late Era clothing for some cultures in CK2 including the Byzantines, so it’s not totally out of the question.

Still, Paradox has never favored to do late-game additions anyway. So, your pessimism may be very warranted indeed.

I suspect we might get some late era clothing in the "flavor packs" they've been talking about. And honestly, I'm fine with that; pretty cosmetic upgrades that don't effect the core game experience are exactly the sort of thing light DLC is meant for.

 

[Granty]

Hopefully paradox will have the correct clothing, headwear(crowns) and military armor for the Eastern Roman character models in the late era.
Such as:View attachment 580856

In addition to:
View attachment 580857

the women of nobility example:
View attachment 580858

and lastly the famous hat(Kapasion as it was called)the Emperor Ioannes VIII wears when visiting Italy:
View attachment 580871

Turbans were also the norm in Eastern Roman society as well one such example is Theodoros Metokhites:
View attachment 580872

Very detailed cultural specific clothing is probably the kind of thing that will be released in content packs and DLC. It could also be included in free patches, but I very much doubt it will actually be in the base game on release. They will certainly have "Byzantine" clothes, but I doubt there will be such highly detailed era-specific clothing options, not least because fashions were heavily influenced by things like marriages.

An ideal system would be if there was some kind of dynamic dress system that took into account things like foreign marriages, conquest, and trade. Historically the fashions of the Byzantine court were heavily influenced by things like marriages to Pecheneg princesses and such, so it would be a good way of representing that, and would also go well with the addition of dynamic cultures.

(Just as an aside, since you seem so concerned with accuracy, while the Byzantines certainly thought of themselves as being "Romans", most medieval historians don't actually use that name to describe them, and don't refer to their Empire as the "Eastern Roman Empire" either. Despite their descent from the ERE of late antiquity, there were significant cultural, religious, institutional, and territorial differences which made the Empire of the Palaiologos dynasty completely alien to what it was under the likes of Heraclius. Think of it as being similar to how we would distinguish between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, even though in the latter period Emperors still styled themselves as Republicans, and the fact that their was clear continuity between the two.

Generally speaking, the tipping point is considered to be the 8th century or so, although some would argue it is in fact even earlier, and that the post-Heraclius Empire ceased to be the ERE, owing to its enormous territorial losses and the collapse and change of its institutions.)

Edit: Not quite sure why so many people disagree, or what they disagree with. It's already been announced so there'll be content packs. The fact that Byzantine dress was heavily influenced by foreign peoples and cultures, like the Pechenegs, is incontrovertible fact. Similarly, the fact that medieval historians simply don't refer to the Byzantine Empire in the time of the Palaiologos dynasty as the "Eastern Roman Empire" is also undeniable. Go major in medieval history for four years and you'll learn the same. Hell, it's particularly dumb since the Byzantine Empire didn't even call itself the Eastern Roman Empire, preferring to be called "The Empire of the Romans" (Basileia Rhomaion). Even calling them "Romans" is something that historians simply don't do, at least in academia; the preferred term is "Rhomaioi" if you're going to be particularly formal and technical about things - "Roman", by contrast, conflates the Greek culture of the ERE and Byzantine Empire with the Latin culture of the West. Of course, "Byzantine" is still vastly preferred over both, because it is far clearer, and more easily understood. Communication, after all, is the central objective of language.

Edit 2: Clarity

 

[Vityviktor]

I would like to see Late Medieval clothing (and unit) packs in general. I can imagine a Late Western European pack with chaperons and plate armour.

 

[ChaosOnline]

I'd love to see the Romans get some clothes like these! It'd be awesome if they were in the base game, but I'd be fine if they were introduced later in a flavor pack too.

 

[2333Vladimir]

Then, What is the book's name?

 

[KAMCITY13]

What books are these?

Great book btw

 

[KAMCITY13]

The book also shows the clothing during the the early era of the Eastern Romans such as:

And also:

 

[KAMCITY13]

We will have this only in mods by the way, even more with these colors, almost certainly. I doubt that the Late Middle Ages, we would have clothes like that, long, with covers not only behind, for half the front as well.

View attachment 581082

yeah you could be right, and that screen of the Roman Emperor paradox got the crown or “Stemma” totally wrong. It should be similar to this since it’s in the year 867:

Don’t know why Paradox can’t just get the basics right for the early era Eastern Roman clothing. I guess you are right they want us to pay for the DLC. And hopefully they have the Co-Emperor aspect as that was missing in CK2 is was very important in Eastern Roman Politics. Luckily it was added into a great mod. Don’t know why Paradox couldn’t do a simple thing like that in CK2

 

[Byzantium2000]

The book also shows the clothing during the the early era of the Eastern Romans such as:

View attachment 581151
And also:
View attachment 581152

View attachment 581153

NGL this is further evidence for why I consider the Nicean Empire as different to the Byzantine Empire as People consider the Byzantine Empire to Imperial Rome.

The clothing and Regaila of the Byzantine Empire at its Height under the Macedonian Renaissance shows a Natural and splendorous continuation/evolution of the Christian Late Roman Culture.

Where as the Apperance Of Palaiologos Nicaea really shows a Empire that’s on a small ethic scale with limited funds being influenced by others and no longer the other way around but trying to hide it.

Dang OP I Need to Buy that Book ASAP

 

[KAMCITY13]

NGL this is further evidence for why I consider the Nicean Empire as different to the Byzantine Empire as People consider the Byzantine Empire to Imperial Rome.

The clothing and Regaila of the Byzantine Empire at its Height under the Macedonian Renaissance shows a Natural and splendorous continuation/evolution of the Christian Late Roman Culture.

Where as the Apperance Of Palaiologos Nicaea really shows a Empire that’s on a small ethic scale with limited funds being influenced by others and no longer the other way around but trying to hide it.

Dang OP I Need to Buy that Book ASAP

The book is pretty good goes from the 500s all the way to 1453. And the influence of Turkish was high as well during that time especially with the Empire of Trebizond in regards to horsemanship

 

[Ares Enyalios]

The Late Byzantine Court was heavily influences by western, especially french and italian customs. Reasons are obviously because members of that family had estated in Italy and in terretories long occupied by italien republics and of course the heavy influence of the Italien republics in Constantinople itself.

The question in the art style is if you want something destinctive byzantine or not. If the former is the goal one have to look for the time before the 4th crusade.

 

[Kaiserjagen]

Even calling them "Romans" is something that historians simply don't do; the preferred term is "Rhomaioi", or even just "Byzantine" to further distinguish the Greek medieval polity from its antique Latin forebear.

What? Can you name some notable Byzantinists who refer to them as "Rhomaioi" but don't like calling them "Romans"? "Byzantine" is a useful and appropriate historiographical term that I think some on these forums are being overly politically correct in refusing to use-- and I believe perfectly fine to use as their name in a video game --but I haven't read work by a notable historian afraid of calling them Romans either. Usually the names are used interchangeably in papers and books depending on the context.


Edit: And on topic, I think era-focused cultural clothing packs are where we'll see stuff like this for sure. And Byzantinophiles like me will probably buy them
too.

 

[Granty]

What? Can you name some notable Byzantinists who refer to them as "Rhomaioi" but don't like calling them "Romans"? "Byzantine" is a useful and appropriate historiographical term that I think some on these forums are being overly politically correct in refusing to use-- and I believe perfectly fine to use as their name in a video game --but I haven't read work by a notable historian afraid of calling them Romans either. Usually the names are used interchangeably in papers and books depending on the context.


Edit: And on topic, I think era-focused cultural clothing packs are where we'll see stuff like this for sure. And Byzantinophiles like me will probably buy them
too.

Sure. Off the top of my head: Chris Wickham, Judith Herrin, Caroline Humphress, Stephen Mitchell, Michael Maas, Leslie Brubaker, Alan Douglas Lee, Jonathan Shepard, and Peter Frankopan, to name but a few. Beyond that, there are myriad others whose work is very Byzantine-adjacent, like Timothy Greenwood, a specialist in Armenian studies, whom I could also add to the list.

All of them, if asked to use the "proper" contemporary name for the Byzantine Empire and Byzantines would use "Rhomaioi" rather than "Roman" - hell, I actually attended a lecture Caroline Humphress explicitly gave on the subject, talking about the identity of the people of the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire between 400 and 1000 AD. By comparison, "Roman" is merely the layperson's approximation. Again though, to reiterate what I've said all along, they would all much rather use the term "Byzantine" rather than "Roman", or even "Rhomaioi", because it's simply more accurate, clear, and specific when talking about the ERE post 700 AD or so, and frankly far less pretentious as well.

If you want, I'd recommend a few books to you. Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000 provides a nice overview that helps to place things in context, and also provides excellent grounding for understanding the influence of the Roman Empire upon different peoples like the Ostrogoths, many of whom also actively saw themselves as "Romans" for centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire (which is another reason why use of the term Roman is a bad idea, because it's horrendously broad, much like how the term "Celt" is equally loathed by ancient historians). Equally, Judith Herrin's Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire is a detailed, erudite, and fluent introduction to the history of the Byzantine Empire. If you want more depth and detail, then I'd suggest taking a look at more academic works if you can, such as The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian or The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire.

What I must reiterate, I'm afraid, is that it's one thing to be enthusiastic about Late Antique and Medieval History and the Byzantine Empire, but it's quite another thing to blatantly fetishise them and insist upon things that blatantly aren't true, as anyone who insists on exclusively referring to "Romans" and the "Eastern Roman Empire" is doing. They didn't use those terms, and there are very valid reasons why historians don't use them either past a certain point, and why the term Byzantine is so heavily preferred for the High and Late Medieval period, as I explained.

Edit: Clarity

 

[Kaiserjagen]

Sure. Off the top of my head: Chris Wickham, Judith Herrin, Caroline Humphress, Stephen Mitchell, Michael Maas, Leslie Brubaker, Alan Douglas Lee, Jonathan Shepard, and Peter Frankopan, to name but a few. Beyond that, there are myriad others whose work is very Byzantine-adjacent, like Timothy Greenwood, a specialist in Armenian studies, whom I could also add to the list.

All of them would use Rhomaioi rather than Roman every day of the week - hell, I actually attended a lecture Caroline Humphress explicitly gave on the subject, talking about the identity of the people of the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire between 400 and 1000 AD. Again though, to reiterate, they would all use the term Byzantine rather than Roman, because it's simply more accurate and more specific, when talking about the ERE/Byzantine Empire post 700 AD or so. Again, that there is a distinction is not something that any credible academic historian disputes.

If you want, I'd recommend a few books to you. Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000 provides a nice overview that helps to place things in context, and also provides excellent grounding for understanding the influence of the Roman Empire upon different peoples like the Ostrogoths, many of whom actively saw themselves as "Romans" for centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Equally, Judith Herrin's Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire is a detailed, erudite, and fluent introduction to the history of the Byzantine Empire. If you want more depth and detail, then I'd suggest taking a look at more academic works if you can, such as The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian or The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire.

What I must reiterate, I'm afraid, is that it's one thing to be enthusiastic about Late Antique and Medieval History and the Byzantine Empire, but it's quite another thing to blatantly fetishise them and insist upon things that blatantly aren't true, as anyone who insists on exclusively referring to "Romans" and the "Eastern Roman Empire" is doing. They didn't use those terms, and there are very valid reasons why historians don't use them either past a certain, and why the term Byzantine is so heavily preferred for the High and Late Medieval period, as I explained.

Please give me the benefit of the doubt here and I'll try to be a bit more precise in my claim.

I'm just saying its still kosher in academia to regularly use the terms "Roman" and "Roman Empire" in writing when referring to the Byzantines (if probably improper to use it exclusively). I never disputed your claim that historians try to distinguish the Byzantine identity from classical, Latin-speaking Rome. Of course that makes sense and is the norm. I just haven't read a lot that makes this distinction mutually exclusive with calling them Romans or acknowledging the indisputable Roman-ness of the polity. Frankopan for sure refers to the Byzantine Empire and Emperors as "Roman" from time to time and so do people like Warren Treadgold and Anthony Kaldellis.

I think I do understand what you're getting at though. I 100% agree that excited armchair historians fetishize this stuff and kinda get a bit 21st century fanboyish about it. I was probably among them when I discovered this history as a teenager via video games. On the topic of identity, I think that happens precisely because people get into the history a lot and then it becomes a part of their identity a bit and they get wrongly defensive about things and it clouds how history is studied by the real academics out there. I too would agree calling, say, the Palalaiologos-era Byzantines the "Eastern Roman Empire" is more than just clunky.

I think what you're describing in the 700s is the transformation from the Roman identity from a cosmopolitan one into a more culturally homogeneous identity, right? And while I've read a bit of the arguments in favour of "Rhomaioi" to describe this latter identity, I think that's still far from an established consensus. After all, that transliteration is being used as just another historiographical construct when being used by us English speakers in that way. The Greek word didn't change. And I still don't think that analysis really sets up a firm rule where historians stop using Roman altogether, but I would agree that one does see it used less and less passed the 700s. That said, I've still seen it used by folks like Frankopan, Treadgold and Athony Kaldellis in work describing people and events well into the middle ages.

That said, I'll stop myself before I embarrass myself with poorly worded claims. I have more I'd say, but the longer I write the more likely I am to misspeak on something that while I feel confident I have a deeper knowledge of... I'm ultimately not a true expert on it either. You're clearly well-read on this stuff, I just disagreed with what you said in your last sentence of your first post more than anything.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Just in respect of Wickham, the statement above is definitively untrue. He uses Byzantine for ease of use for the reader, but is very much part of the historiographical movement that emphasizes continuity between Byzantium and the Roman Empire of late antiquity. He used Rhomaioi only once in his monograph on medieval Europe, and only in passing to mention it was the Greek word for Roman.

EDIT: Reading Shepherd's introduction to the Cambridge History now, and he also does not use Rhomaioi. I also don't believe Frankopan does, although I'll have to check my copy tomorrow. Frankly I think you just made a lot of that waffle up.