more meaningful - this is probably about african tribes?!
Yes, they are more important than some civilized Byzantium... This is so funny!!!) I will pray to the Mother of God to enlighten the lost...- 2
- 2
- 1
New rewards for Byzantium missions
- Thread starter Nikita1992
- 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.
Yes, they are more important than some civilized Byzantium... This is so funny!!!) I will pray to the Mother of God to enlighten the lost...
LOL, I'm thinking more alone the lines of the Baltic, Scandinavia and the surrounding areas. Or maybe Iran and those surrounding areas.more meaningful - this is probably about african tribes?!
- 2
Byz doesn't need buffed because it is fairly strong in the hands of a player and has a lot of tools at its disposal, and I would argue it has more tools at its disposal than many other nations. The other reason why I don't think it should be buffed is because since it is already pretty strong, it doesn't actually need it. Any further buffs only accelerates the power creep at the game currently has.
I get it. The Roman Empire was cool, however We have to acknowledge that the late Eastern Roman Empire was kind of a dumpster fire, and should have some issues like in M&T, or a disaster that it has to work through. If thats the case, then fine. But theres a lot of other areas and countries that were more relevant like Iran, scandinavia, or the middle east than continuing to focus on the last vestiges of a dying empire.
This entire thread seems to have become less about the buffs, and more people defending their favorite nation. Before someone says that I don't like byz either, I've played since eu3 and have around 5000 hours with hundreds of hours in byz alone.
I get it. The Roman Empire was cool, however We have to acknowledge that the late Eastern Roman Empire was kind of a dumpster fire, and should have some issues like in M&T, or a disaster that it has to work through. If thats the case, then fine. But theres a lot of other areas and countries that were more relevant like Iran, scandinavia, or the middle east than continuing to focus on the last vestiges of a dying empire.
This entire thread seems to have become less about the buffs, and more people defending their favorite nation. Before someone says that I don't like byz either, I've played since eu3 and have around 5000 hours with hundreds of hours in byz alone.
- 1
The first sentence is true in their power rating only. It is similar to calling Yuan a non-existent kingdom in 1444.
The second sentence though is just false. That sentence is like saying "yes the UK split away from the British Empire when they disbanded it but there was very little in common with that empire that once ruled in London." Constantine's empire was the Roman Empire it did not split away from it. In EU4 terms the Roman Empire gave independence to he Western Roman Empire.
It'd be like calling a Russian today a citizen of the Soviet Union. Except there was an actual civil war between Turkey and The Ottomans.Apart from the obvious fact that Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire - why would Turks be insulted? Honest and curious question.
Just because you guys don't find it entertaining doesn't mean the game can't expand in this area. Especially, since big part of the Community do enjoy the alternative history and making this fallen empire rise again in their playthroughs. Eu4 is about alt history afterall. What is your problem? Or is it just trolling?
Personally, I don't care much about Africa - never have I picked a country from that continent in my games. But I don't mind that devs launched Origins. Why would I?
Or maybe, by your example, I should say - 'Hey! Stop wasting your time! Who cares about Africa?? I don't! And If I don't - nobody should!".
Well, I don't think so...
- 4
- 1
What is the strongest faction in the game? Austria, Spain, Ottomans, Poland? No, they didn’t guess - this is Byzantium! Ottomans?! It's just dust on the shoes of the Byzantine emperor! Tremble!
The special tool of the faction is the icon of the Virgin Hodegetria, which turns any Venetian fleet into ashes. And if Byzantium is further strengthened, then exactly in 1677 it will launch the first man to the Moon - it will break the whole balance!
The real Roman empire was the western part. The eastern part was religiously, culturally, mentally and in language different from the Latin one, which was the true empire.
The Byzantines were Greek, not Latin.
- 6
Each province in the Empire had their own unique customs and culture.
At the split they had one official faith. One official language: Latin. The west was the barbarian's empire. The East was the Latin Empire. The seat of the Capitol prior to the split and where the Emperor and the Senate resided was Constantinople.
Although the East governed the West from the Capitol of the Roman Empire all of it was Rome neither of them were faking it.
- 4
- 1
That is simply not true. In the west they spoke the real Roman language: Latin.
The government of the east were just local Greeks who were asimiliated into the Roman empire but so we're there Jews and Arabs. Does that make them true Romans too? Lol.
- 2
Except for the emperor, the nobility, the senators and other members of high society, of course, who spoke Greek, and had done so since the Republican era, because that was the posh and proper language of the entire Mediterranean. Even the most famous, the most Roman and most quoted phrase "Alea iacta est", was probably said in Greek, on account of it being borrowed from a Greek writer and Caesar being a learned man.
- 2
I'm going to stop replying to you because I believe you are replying to me with a new lie everytime just to annoy me; not because you are honestly mistaken in your beliefs.
- 1
Reading the comments, it seems to me that the problem lies much deeper than "like Byzantium or not" ... It seems to me that some do not like the idea that there was a country that did not lose its cultural connection with the ancient world. A very strong rejection of this fact, although it seemed to me that such a reaction is characteristic of an outdated society, it seemed to me that modern games clearly show the evolution of ancient Rome into medieval Rome. But apparently this unwillingness to admit it, it is still hidden in the subconscious of the layman. There is beloved Rome, with its legions, and there is some strange Byzantium... The name here does not matter - it rather characterizes the period.
- 5
Especially during the republican time, Latin was the main language of the Roman empire. Yes the Romans admired the Greeks but there language was never a place in the senate of Rome.
- 3
Even the crusaders called them just Greeks. Because that's what they just were. The Byzantines couldn't even speak the language of the true Romans, Latin!
- 5
In the context of the ancient heritage, we should be grateful to Byzantium for preserving ancient knowledge for us. When I read the hermetic corpus of Hermes Trismegistus, I repeatedly came across a reference to the byzantine encyclopedia Suda, from which some treatises were taken for translation. Also, the main texts of the corpus themselves were sent as a gift from Byzantium for translation into Latin. Whoever says what, but this is a very important moment for European anthropocentrism, and for understanding the question of what was the true custodian of the ancient heritage.
Language, name, ethnic groups - these are all trifles. The main thing is the mentality.
Language, name, ethnic groups - these are all trifles. The main thing is the mentality.
- 1
They probably were post 1444 since Byzantium was a irrelevant piece of land wich could at most muster 8000 men to defend itself from non-existence while they helped with the slave trade.more meaningful - this is probably about african tribes?!
- 1
"Even the Crusaders"? You mean the guys fighting in the name of the religion which literally drew its early legitimacy from denouncing the East Roman Empire and the structure of its church? The warriors fighting under the blessing of the patriarch who some several hundred years before had crowned a Frankish warlord Roman Emperor to flex on the patriarch in Constantinople? Those Crusaders?
The Catholic Church would call them Greeks as a means to deligitimize them, because they themselves lay claim to the heritage of Rome. It was a prestige and legitimacy thing. Their claim of the East Roman Empire not being Roman is directly linked to the legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Church's right to crown kings and the significant influence they wielded - they had an incredible investment in not lending legitimacy to the East.
There was simply no clean break between the East and West, as you seem to think. Both halves considered themselves one empire until the fall of the West - who incidentally sent their Imperial regalia to the East. Why do you think that happened? Precisely because they didn't consider the East not to be Roman. If you told the last Emperors in the West that the East wasn't Rome, they'd be confused at best and offended at worst, because you'd have just implied Rome had somehow lost half of her territory.
- 5
And the crusaders believed that the World was 5000 years old and the Apocalypse was coming soon. Weak understanding of historical development...
As much as I love the Byzantines, I do not consider them the true Romans. That empire fell in 476. The eastern side was just inherited from the inside out by the local people, the Greeks. And they had very little in common with the Latins who came and conquered them centuries before. There religion, the language, the artworks and even the mentality of these "Romanized" Greeks was different then there western Latin Romans.
- 3
But they were the true Romans. Their Imperial traditions were directly succeeding from Rome, their Imperial authority was directly succeeding from Rome, their capital was literally the capital of Rome, their religion was the official religion of Rome, their art was the art style of Rome (compare some late western art to eastern art of the same era; they're very similar), and their language, Greek, had been the primary spoken language in the Roman elite - even if they kept their records in Latin - for seven hundred years. I'm not trying to convince you that they were the same as the Republic, but one of Rome's finest qualities, through all of its long history, is its mutability. Rome changed and adapted, and no matter your personal preference, they eventually changed into the culture we see in the Byzantine Empire.
And when it comes to the "Roman mindset", the Western Roman Empire moved their capital into the middle of a malaria-infested marsh because they were scared of barbarian raids towards the end. That's a far cry from the culture that immediately raised more Legions after Cannae, so by your own reckoning, even the West Roman Empire wasn't the true Rome by the end. They also had a much bigger problem with losing control of the provinces due to giving away land free of taxation to stop raids than the East did, even if they, too, had such issues.
But look, I'm done with this discussion. I understand that the East Roman Empire VS West Roman Empire is easy to read as two separate entities, and if that's how you want to continue seeing it, that's alright. Just, please, remember that Rome went through enormous cultural changes even before it was divided administratively. To have this one idea of a distinct, immutably Roman identity that was born with the Republic and died with the Western Empire is doing their whole history a massive disservice, even if you consider that history to have ended in 476.
And when it comes to the "Roman mindset", the Western Roman Empire moved their capital into the middle of a malaria-infested marsh because they were scared of barbarian raids towards the end. That's a far cry from the culture that immediately raised more Legions after Cannae, so by your own reckoning, even the West Roman Empire wasn't the true Rome by the end. They also had a much bigger problem with losing control of the provinces due to giving away land free of taxation to stop raids than the East did, even if they, too, had such issues.
But look, I'm done with this discussion. I understand that the East Roman Empire VS West Roman Empire is easy to read as two separate entities, and if that's how you want to continue seeing it, that's alright. Just, please, remember that Rome went through enormous cultural changes even before it was divided administratively. To have this one idea of a distinct, immutably Roman identity that was born with the Republic and died with the Western Empire is doing their whole history a massive disservice, even if you consider that history to have ended in 476.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
- 1
Saying the their art was the same art style of Rome makes it clear to me that you don't know what your talking about. Just look at the art that was made in the Byzantine history from churches and statues and then compare it with he western side. A huuuuge difference.
- 1