November 1444: State of Byzantium

[Ryasyr]

I know this is a bit off Subject. But I think That the ERE died when the Latin Empire took over and the Byzantine Empire Was just a Greek Impostor "Kingdom".



On Subject. Byzantium was Pretty much dead at 1444. The Catholics had Failed at saving them. The Turks had build one fort (and were building another) To stop Food from going in the city. Byzantium itself was Bankrupt, Had few friends, And it had A nation that Wanted Constantinople as its Capital. It Just wasn't Mehemed ( I think im using hs eu3 name idk his real name ) that Wanted the City. It was The entire populous. Even if Mehemed had died the Population would have Pushed the Next King/Sultan to take the city. The Catholics were pretty much done After the Turks beat them. The only Help Byzantium would have gotten would be is if by some miracle lasted until 1610. Because that's when Russia was anywhere near strong enough to take on the OE, And that really would have been the only nation to help them and only if they Converted back to Orthodox. Sadly Byzantium would have never lasted that long. Simply to many factors leading it to its demise.

 

[Byzan]

Typically the Byzantine Empire was sorta politically 'there' at the time of 1356 through out 1453 - they did rises and falls in territory but really as a "realistic" thing they could not see the light of day unless the Ottomans experienced Ultra Civil War, level 10 difficulty.

But EUIII and EUIV allow the player to play any nation and see what he can do or she can do with it. People in Vicky II can try to make the god-damn Omans a civilized nation, or play as a Revitalized Greece who seeks to take over the Ottomans and resurrect the Byzantine Empire.

This should be the conclusion: In weeaaal life was there hope for Byzantium? Likely not, then again stranger things have happened (Hannibal invades the Roman Republic and just taunts the Romans to see if they could go out to face him. Really surprising that not only did the Romans beat him (Hannibal) but also won the Second/Third Punic War.).

But in game? Why not allow it? By this logic any nation that is either small or surrounded should not even hope to succeed. Meaning you can not play as the natives. In the end you die, whuchu gonna do bout it? You can't argue with the force of the Imperialist Powers backed with aggressive colonists seeking to take over America, in the end when the Colonial Era starts and begins to really kick in you have to say "I give up" and let Europe take over.

Or any of the French vassals. You can't break away or try to create France in your own image. I'm sorry, you just can't.

Nor can you form Russia as Ryzan or Nizidiy Novgorod. Don't even try anything as Smolensk!

I mean really this kinda defeats the purpose of Europa Universalis. "what if?"

By this logic in CK2 you should only win as William the Bastard. When you play as Harald or Harold II, you can't win. You can only delay the inevitable of William the Conqueror winning due to his use of calvalry, arches and infantrymen as a single force.

Recognizes what, PRC or ROC?

Well, what do you think? :V That whole thing in the 70s..I dunno whut is history again?

The US shifted its recognition from ROC to PRC for cold war political reasons,

When China began to oppose the USSR. You can say the reasons, they are rather simple and eloquent for the US. For topic: The US would support a Byzantine Emperor. Real truth. I mean they supported a tyrannical monarchy during and after WW2, so bad to where Harry S. Truman had to say "Well not all states are perfect..." as even the worst anti-communists were applauded by Greece's actions towards those who fought for Greece's independence from Nazi Germany.

In 1945 everybody recognized ROC.

That is mostly due to the ROC was suppose to be sorta a collective regime between parties. It didn't, and really the 'control' was rather vague due to the support of warlords and the ROC putting the Chinese Communists on their to do list rather than the Japanese invaders.

Had ROC remained in control of most of the mainland and the PRC was off in the boonies on Soviet life support, likely nobody outside the Soviets & Warsaw Pack would recognize PRC (maybe not them, IIRC in 1945 USSR still recognized ROC from before Mao's revolution really got off the ground).

Mao's Revolution got off the ground during the Long March, it went into full-gear during the late 40s and succeeded politically in 49. Also Warsaw Pack didn't exist in 45... >:V

And the USSR held a political line of the Communists have to work with the Nationalities. Stalin reportedly told Mao "I'm glad you proved me wrong."

Also Mao's CCP was a hell-of-a-lot more popular with the denizens then the ROC. Same with Byzantium and the Turks - the Greeks made mythos about god-damn Constantine XI. The 'Marble King' to free Greece from Turkish subjugation. And really the Greeks sought to recreate a pseudo-Byzantium with their 1920s War.

 

[unmerged(271387)]

Still,the byzantine ai should fail 100% percent of time unless something really really really drastic happens to ottomans but the player should be able to succeed

 

[Byzan]

Yeah. As an AI it should fail, as player maintained it should be able to succeed.

It kinda defeats the purpose of EU to not have a way. You can make it hard or difficult but there -has- to be a way or we can list (rite nao) the other nations that'll be impossible to succeed and thus don't bother playing as them.

 

[unmerged(271387)]

Even granada is possible to plaid successfully in eu 3

 

[Byzan]

Pus that Byzantine flag, the Palaiologos flag...Urg gawd it's just so awesome.

 

[Steelers1990]

Typically the Byzantine Empire was sorta politically 'there' at the time of 1356 through out 1453 - they did rises and falls in territory but really as a "realistic" thing they could not see the light of day unless the Ottomans experienced Ultra Civil War, level 10 difficulty.

But EUIII and EUIV allow the player to play any nation and see what he can do or she can do with it. People in Vicky II can try to make the god-damn Omans a civilized nation, or play as a Revitalized Greece who seeks to take over the Ottomans and resurrect the Byzantine Empire.

This should be the conclusion: In weeaaal life was there hope for Byzantium? Likely not, then again stranger things have happened (Hannibal invades the Roman Republic and just taunts the Romans to see if they could go out to face him. Really surprising that not only did the Romans beat him (Hannibal) but also won the Second/Third Punic War.).

But in game? Why not allow it? By this logic any nation that is either small or surrounded should not even hope to succeed. Meaning you can not play as the natives. In the end you die, whuchu gonna do bout it? You can't argue with the force of the Imperialist Powers backed with aggressive colonists seeking to take over America, in the end when the Colonial Era starts and begins to really kick in you have to say "I give up" and let Europe take over.

Or any of the French vassals. You can't break away or try to create France in your own image. I'm sorry, you just can't.

Nor can you form Russia as Ryzan or Nizidiy Novgorod. Don't even try anything as Smolensk!

I mean really this kinda defeats the purpose of Europa Universalis. "what if?"

By this logic in CK2 you should only win as William the Bastard. When you play as Harald or Harold II, you can't win. You can only delay the inevitable of William the Conqueror winning due to his use of calvalry, arches and infantrymen as a single force.



Well, what do you think? :V That whole thing in the 70s..I dunno whut is history again?



When China began to oppose the USSR. You can say the reasons, they are rather simple and eloquent for the US. For topic: The US would support a Byzantine Emperor. Real truth. I mean they supported a tyrannical monarchy during and after WW2, so bad to where Harry S. Truman had to say "Well not all states are perfect..." as even the worst anti-communists were applauded by Greece's actions towards those who fought for Greece's independence from Nazi Germany.


That is mostly due to the ROC was suppose to be sorta a collective regime between parties. It didn't, and really the 'control' was rather vague due to the support of warlords and the ROC putting the Chinese Communists on their to do list rather than the Japanese invaders.





Mao's Revolution got off the ground during the Long March, it went into full-gear during the late 40s and succeeded politically in 49. Also Warsaw Pack didn't exist in 45... >:V

And the USSR held a political line of the Communists have to work with the Nationalities. Stalin reportedly told Mao "I'm glad you proved me wrong."

Also Mao's CCP was a hell-of-a-lot more popular with the denizens then the ROC. Same with Byzantium and the Turks - the Greeks made mythos about god-damn Constantine XI. The 'Marble King' to free Greece from Turkish subjugation. And really the Greeks sought to recreate a pseudo-Byzantium with their 1920s War.

I agree 100%. This game is fully about the "what if". If you want to play a fully historical history game then read a history book.

 

[Barnacle Bill]

When China began to oppose the USSR. You can say the reasons, they are rather simple and eloquent for the US. For topic: The US would support a Byzantine Emperor. Real truth. I mean they supported a tyrannical monarchy during and after WW2, so bad to where Harry S. Truman had to say "Well not all states are perfect..." as even the worst anti-communists were applauded by Greece's actions towards those who fought for Greece's independence from Nazi Germany.

Sigh... really off topic. but in for a penny in for a pound...

I brought up Taiwan as an example of what sort of claims the world would take seriously (not nesessarily agree with or support) vs what sort get dismissed as bluster - the point being that as history happens ideas move back & forth between the two categories. For ROC they went from defacto & dejure legitimate government of China to maintaining such a claim that nobody takes seriously within a single generation. So, no big deal if a resurgent BYZ gets serious claims to former Roman territory as it expands.

US foriegn policy during the Cold War, regardless of the party in power (with the possible exception of the Carter administration), was to support anybody anywhere who was anti-communist. Rather similar in principle to Churchill's "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons". From the US perspective this made complete sense - in the Cold War environment fall of any non-communist regime anywhere was more likely than not to result in a communist regime taking its place. In that context, if "those who fought for Greece's independence from Nazi Germany" were commies, their WWII record would make no difference. After all, the Soviets fought as hard as anybody (harder than most) against the Nazis, but in the Cold War they were the very leader of the other side.

That is mostly due to the ROC was suppose to be sorta a collective regime between parties. It didn't, and really the 'control' was rather vague due to the support of warlords and the ROC putting the Chinese Communists on their to do list rather than the Japanese invaders.

Mao's Revolution got off the ground during the Long March, it went into full-gear during the late 40s and succeeded politically in 49. Also Warsaw Pack didn't exist in 45... >:V

If by "collective regime between parties" you include CCP, not really. At one time there was a sort of alliance between KMT & CCP that broke down, which shouldn't be all that surprising because mostly communist parties aim to impliment the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and that's not compatible with power-sharing. Not that the KMT was interested in power-sharing, either, but communist parties are not by definition and when the KMT started it had more liberal factions.

I wouldn't charactorize the Long March as off the ground, more like life support. Off the ground happened after the war, and with a lot of Soviet help as a result of Soviet occupation of Manchuria.

I know when the Warsaw Pact was founded. I used the term as a polite short-hand for Soviet-imposed communist puppet regimes in Eastern Europe that could be expected to follow whatever line the Kremlin decided on (lest things like Hungary 1956 & Czechoslovakia 1968 happen).

Also Mao's CCP was a hell-of-a-lot more popular with the denizens then the ROC. Same with Byzantium and the Turks - the Greeks made mythos about god-damn Constantine XI. The 'Marble King' to free Greece from Turkish subjugation. And really the Greeks sought to recreate a pseudo-Byzantium with their 1920s War.

No doubt popular support contributed to the eventual outcome in China, but almost all Chinese being ethnic Chinese and having a strong concensus that China should be unified (I believe stemming from cultural memory of times when it wasn't and there was a lot of pain all around), it isn't comparable to the Greek-Turk thing.

Greek irredentism about Anatolia really just lends support to the idea that were a resurgent BYZ (run by the ancestors of those 1920's Greeks) to restore, say, the borders of the ERE under Justinian, it isn't hard to imagine them setting their sights on the remaining former terriitory of the WRE. Nor is it out of the question that a post-Kemalist Turkey would cast asside Attaturk's anti-irredentism principle and set their sights on the former territories of the OE. It's just a thing people do. Had the CSA suceeded in seceding )), I'm sure today US irredentists would be advancing claims to the southern states, and how seriously anybody took that would depend on the relative strengths of the USA & CSA at the time.

 

[Byzan]

but in for a penny in for a pound...

A pizza roll for a pizza roll I say!

In that context, if "those who fought for Greece's independence from Nazi Germany" were commies, their WWII record would make no difference. After all, the Soviets fought as hard as anybody (harder than most) against the Nazis, but in the Cold War they were the very leader of the other side.

You haven't really studied this so, you aren't getting it. The US and UK were against them DURING WORLD WAR TWO. they used 228 Nazis they captured in Greece to actively go against the ELAS. This was during World War Two. Using Nazis against Greeks who had since 1940 and 41 been going against the Fascist regime and Nazi Germany.

ELAs were forced to give up and the Monarchy was set in place. Most of the Monarchists were Nazi-supporters too..So yeah. Greece was liek a big betrayal of the west to the east. Gets worse after the War too..

But that's just the US being a Richard. Like always.

If by "collective regime between parties" you include CCP, not really.

The CCP was also made up of other parties - peasantry parties, labour parties and so forth.

[quoteI know when the Warsaw Pact was founded. I used the term as a polite short-hand for Soviet-imposed communist puppet regimes in Eastern Europe that could be expected to follow whatever line the Kremlin decided on (lest things like Hungary 1956 & Czechoslovakia 1968 happen).[/quote]

Again, Not true. Poland (sadly) did liberalization on the collectivization as well as it's policy towards the Church without the USSR uttering a peep. The problem with Czechskolovakia and Hungary was because of an active liberal movement in the regime that sought to reconcile with the West. Which, as we know now, would be death. I mean just look at Yugoslavia.

West didn't give a stick, they just wanted to use the Eastern European states as their own puppets. Hell enough that thw West forced places like France and Italy to destroy their multi-party cabinets to disband and any communists in the cabinets to be cast out. If not then the funds to the states would be frozen and they (US) would say "where's my money?"

(Both seen in William Blum's book 'Killing Hope')

But in the end, it just depends on the regime during this time-period on the legitimacy of their claims. With power and church support they could try. Russian states did this when trying to beak away from the Golden Horde.

Now it results from international recognition because the game of politics has changed in structure.

Also who votes for changing Byzantium to ERE?

I mean 1444 they wouldn't use Byzantium. Byzantion was waay, waaay back. Why not just call it ERE? If the game goes so far as to use 'Revolutionary France' or 'Qing' (used incorrectly), Mamluks (as well as Egypt!) then why just not use ERE? Or just RE.

Plus it'd look better too.

 

[thekinguter]

Exactly! Of course there's no way a feudal state could travel the length of the Mediterranean and take land from a long-established Muslim state. And even if they could, there would be no possible benefit for them, either economically or ideologically. This is, of course, infinitely more true when the objective would consist of something (a city, for example) very important to both sides. In that case, the home army of Muslims would fight in such a way that it would be nearly impossible to defeat them. It could never happen, certainly not with a feudal government. It was possible for the Europeans in 1800, but not 350 years before then (in 1450). It *certainly* wasn't possible 350 years before 1450.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

 

[Bad_Haggis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

Well done sir.

 

[Alerias]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

I assumed he was sarcastic and speaking precisely of this, but on the off-chance the guy was actually serious... Headshot!

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Stay on topic people ! The Cold War era has nothing to do with EUIV.

 

[Ichabod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

hahaha, you're not one for subtlety I take it. I even put the date in my post ㅠ_ㅠ

 

[James Beil]

I personally hope Paradox give us the cores on Greece and nothing else - it took the Ottomans around 100 years to conquer Byzantine Europe, it should take at least that to wrest it back from them. A little more representation of some of the balkan provinces might be nice though - at the moment, the finder details of the conquest get lost a little. Constantinople and Thrace really should be seperate provinces.

 

[unmerged(271387)]

Constantinople and Thrace really should be seperate provinces.

HAHAHAHAHA No

 

[Kurohata]

Speaking as a Byzantophile myself, I think they should do something different with Byzantium than they did in EU3. Most of us can agree that cores all over Anatolia is really strange considering most of that territory hasn't been in Byzantine hands for several centuries.

As to the chanses of revival, i think Byzantiums should realistically be depicted as completely shot in the foot on the economy side, with an enormous debt, possibly bankrupcy. Or represent this with some other negative modifier. If one really wants something that's messy, make Galata a Gibraltar-like area and give the owner of Galta great opportunities to cause troubble for the owner of Constantinople.

Instead of the absolutely insane core number and quests, i think maby they should play around with the possibility of reorganizing the state, getting things back into order on the internal front with a few decisions or something along those lines. If you are really lucky and the Ottomans fall into a bad civil war (wasn't the rebel system going to be improved?), you could then have te possibility of reclaiming some land and carving your way out of your misery.

Your only initial cores should be Greece, the Aegean coast, and possibly the Black sea coast of Anatolia, up til and including Trebizond. After that, maby quests or something to expand this somewhat, like a few of te islands, some turkish provinces, bulgarian and Albanian areas etc. there should be NO quests who rewards coring in Italy. they my reward entanglement in Italian affairs, but Byzantium mautomatically getting a core on Rome is just plain stupid in my eyes.

 

[Sakura_F]

Christ, so much anti-Byzantine fervor. It's just a nation in game, if people like to play it, let them play it. Don't be a total head-up-arse kind of person, folks.

 

[Sakura_F]

This is a bummer -- I can't wait until Death or Taxes is ported to EU4 so I can play in 1356. I don't like it starting this far into the 15th century.

 

[leftyboy87]

Christ, so much anti-Byzantine fervor. It's just a nation in game, if people like to play it, let them play it. Don't be a total head-up-arse kind of person, folks.

You must be new here.