Please consider an event for Russia taking Constantinople

[unmerged(18418)]

Okay, I am not going to go into a long dissertation on the historical basis for my idea. I'm not feeling too motivated to write at the moment, nor look up whatever evidence would be required that isn't off the top of my head. I trust that most people working on this project have a quite thorough knowledge of history and will know exactly why I am proposing what I am proposing. However, if I run into opposition, I may write about the historical basis later.

Anyway, my idea is that there should be a fantasy-historical event involving Russia taking Constantinople. It shouldn't be to become Byzantium, but it should be to move the Russian capital to Thrace and turn it back to Greek and Orthodox (Russia gets Greek culture from an earlier event so it works out) or possibly to Russian and Orthodox (stretching it a bit, but given the significance of that city to Russians, they could have pulled it off).

Some might say this is pure fantasy. However, for one there are already events in EU2 that are fantasy, such as Hellas remaking the Byzantine Empire as late as 1819. Secondly, this scenario actually has a very strong historical basis for it, and in fact it could very well have happened if not for the intervention of western powers.

 

[Twoflower]

Events for Catherine the Great's Greek project would definitely be great (and iirc something like that has been proposed before). Catherine only wanted to set up a vassal Byzantine Empire, though. Russia moving its capital would be highly fantasy.

 

[unmerged(18418)]

As far as I know the Russians considered themselves the heirs to the Byzantine Empire and wanted control of Constantinople for religious reasons but much more importantly for strategic reasons--even with Black Sea ports they needed control of the Bosphorus/Dardenelles to reach the outside world. The only real reason the Russians didn't accomplish this was the intervention of the rest of Europe on several occasions, the most notable being the Crimean War. Control of Constantinople was the Holy Grail of Russian foreign policy from the 18th Century until the Russian Revolution of 1917.

 

[Rhodz]

yes, but moving their capital to constantinople? highly doubtful

 

[unmerged(18418)]

If they had achieved the goal of capturing Constantinople, why wouldn't they have moved their capital there? 1. It was a far greater city than any in Russia. 2. It was the seat of their religion. 3. They believed in a mythology in which Russia was the third Rome, the direct descendent of the Byzantine Empire.

You can argue the point that Russia was never realistically going to capture Constantinople, but I don't see how you can argue that if they did pull it off it would be out of the question to move the capital there. They moved their capital to a brand new city on some swamp land just because it was a sea port and was closer to Europe. Constantinople accomplishes both of those and so much more.

 

[Rhodz]

They moved to St. Petersburg because they had a radical new type of Tsar who wanted to start a new kind of Empire based on European technology and customs. A move to Constantinople would be more of a retro-move, therefore moving to Constantinople would be done for the exact opposite reasons tey moved to St. Petersburg. And even though there was a push to reclaim the lands of Byzantium, it was more to subjugate those lands under the new Third Rome in Moscow, and impose the power of the new Russian Orthodox church rather than to regress to what was essentially an extinct empire.

 

[unmerged(9811)]

Russia taking Constantinople would be nearly impossible, unless they conquer each and every province in the vast Ottoman Empire first, or unless you write an event that forces the Turks to abandon it and relocate their court elsewhere. If Russia captures Constantinople, given their dedication to take and hold onto it, they should be allowed to keep it.

This is another reason why I think there should be an option to manually move your capital at will (with massive stability, monetary, and maybe even VP losses), as well as force the enemy to move theirs. It might be beyond the EU2 engine, but I'd like to add my voice to any others that are supporting this idea for an EU3.

 

[Rhodz]

I have no problem with them keeping the province, I just think moving the capital there wouldn't have happened if the Russians had ever captured it

 

[unmerged(18418)]

Originally posted by Rhodz
They moved to St. Petersburg because they had a radical new type of Tsar who wanted to start a new kind of Empire based on European technology and customs. A move to Constantinople would be more of a retro-move, therefore moving to Constantinople would be done for the exact opposite reasons tey moved to St. Petersburg.

No. A move to Constantinople would accomplish the goals underlying the move St. Petersburg far better than the move to St. Peterburg. For one, Constantinople is far closer to the core area of Europe, thus acting as a much better "window on Europe" than St. Peterburg ever could have been. Secondly, it is far more important to the goal of making Russia a maritime and trading empire. It is a warm water port commanding the Dardenelles and strategically situated along the trade routes of the east and west. Just because Constantinople had a history does not mean taking it would be a step back. It was a very rich and strategically located city. I never said Russia wanted to officially resurrect the Byzantine Empire. Neither did the Ottoman Empire, but they moved their capital there, didn't they? They would have moved their capital there because of the prestige, the symbolism, and mostly for the strategic reasons I stated above.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

St Petersburg was built from the ground up. As a Russian city. I can't imagine the Tsars wanting to move to a Greek city, when the core of the country was always the Russians. And, given the difficulty Peter had in getting the nobility to move to St Petersburg I can't see them moving to Constantinople.

Events for this sort of thing are fine. I don't think moving the capital makes any sense.

 

[unmerged(18418)]

Well, for one, there are many fantasy events that are in the game because they could have happened but which can't really stand up to scrutiny. An example I have stated is Hellas being able to remake Byzantium any time in the game, even as late as 1819--and in the process completely transforming the city back to a Greek one. So I'm not sure why this is one is being scrutinized with such a fine tooth comb. The Russians clearly wanted Constantinople and clearly stated their view that Constantinople was the center of Orthodox Christianity, which they championed.

Secondly, for reasons I have already stated, I don't find it all that unrealistic that the Russians would move there. I don't want to repeat myself, so just a couple things I haven't mentioned yet. Something I don't think you seem to put any importance in is the significance of the city of Constantinople. Not only was it by far the greatest city in the world, but it had a huge symbolic importance to many Christians and especially the Russians. To me it is almost inconceivable that an Orthodox Christian country would take Constantinople and not make it their capital. The city would have been completely Russified, so I don't think that is a concern. The Turkish inhabitants of the city would definitely have fled or been expelled. It's hard to get rid of a population of a whole province, but it's not that difficult for a city.

Constantinople would have been by far the greatest Russian city if they captured it. Economically, religiously, strategically, diplomatically--it would have been the primate city of the Russian Empire.

And don't forget it would only be an option. You could choose not to do it. Certainly you would have to agree that it would at least have been an option that crossed their minds.

 

[Rhodz]

Constantinople was just too damn far from the rest of the Russian Empire to be able to govern it from there. And just because there are fantasy events say for the re-establishment of an empire doesn't mean we should allow events for any whimsy that might cross a monarch's mind

 

[unmerged(18418)]

Oh well. I guess I'm in the minority. It's a shame because I know for a fact that there is solid historical evidence for this. Maybe someday one of the people that run the EEP will read more about it and it can get in.

Until then I think I'm just going to code the event myself and put it into my own games. Of course the odds of that event occurring are very slim (I've only seen the Ottoman Empire annexed once and that was completely orchestrated by me as France), so it's not a huge issue. Just something to do for fun.

Thanks for considering it anyway. Keep up the good work.

 

[Rhodz]

Solid historical evidence that the Tsars wanted to move their capital to Constantinople? You've certainly never presented any

 

[unmerged(14338)]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
St Petersburg was built from the ground up. As a Russian city. I can't imagine the Tsars wanting to move to a Greek city, when the core of the country was always the Russians. And, given the difficulty Peter had in getting the nobility to move to St Petersburg I can't see them moving to Constantinople.

Events for this sort of thing are fine. I don't think moving the capital makes any sense.

Btw, St Petersburg was built on Swedish ground, not russian. Ingermanland still belonged to Sweden. Tsar Peter started to build it before a peace had been settled with Sweden.

 

[unmerged(18418)]

It's a well known fact.

However, I have already stated that I have accepted that this event will not go into the EEP. So I see no reason for further discussion on the matter, unless you just enjoy flaming.

So again, thanks for considering it. Case closed.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Edge
It's a well known fact.

However, I have already stated that I have accepted that this event will not go into the EEP. So I see no reason for further discussion on the matter, unless you just enjoy flaming.

So again, thanks for considering it. Case closed.

If there is a solid basis for it, it ought to go in. Please present your case.

 

[Rhodz]

It's a well known fact that the Tsars would have moved their capital to Constantinople? I know it's a fact that they wanted to conquer it, but moving their capital there? It's certainly not a well-known fact. if it was so well known we'd all agree with you, but you haven't presented any evidence to support that the Tsars would have moved their capital to Constantinople.

I would rather like the idea of an event giving VPs and I dunno maybe a conversion or something if Constantinople is taken by Russia, but not a capital change

 

[Twoflower]

That's a great way of discussing things, Edge. Say "it is a well known fact, and therefore it has to be the way I want it", and if anybody disagrees, you are "flamed" and immediately stop the discussion. An impressively mature way of making your point indeed. What about instead trying to bring up some historical arguments? As for "well known facts", how about this:

[On Potemkin]
He encouraged Catherine in the so-called Greek project, which aimed at breaking up the Ottoman Empire and reestablishing a Christian empire in the conquered area. Catherine's grandson Constantine was to be emperor and Potemkin ruler of an independent kingdom comprising Moldavia, Walachia, and Bessarabia

Doesn't sound like Catherine, who was the only ruler of Russia during the EU2 timeframe - which is the period matters for us -that indeed planned to recover Constantinople, intended to move the Russian capital there, does it?

 

[unmerged(18418)]

I think maturity is realizing when it's time to agree to disagree instead of enduring in a circular argument for weeks. I presented an idea for the EEP. It was rejected. I don't see too much more to discuss. So I see no reason to continue in a flame war--and yes I do consider calling someone immature flaming. When you attack the person instead of the idea, that's a flame. It's something I'm not interested in. I was interested in coding an event for EEP. It didn't work out. That's fine. No hard feelings. Maybe I will come up with another idea that will be accepted. Until then I bid you farewell.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
P.S. By the way, in the event I wrote for my own use, moving the capital is the second option and therefore only has a 5% chance of being picked by the AI. This reflects the fact that it may have been unlikely but it was an option. I feel this is a legitimate "fantasy" option. I feel it compares very favorably to some other fantasy options in the game that were even less likely. To use an example I have used before, Hellas can not only recreate the Byzantine Empire as late as 1819, but that option is actually set as the 85% option! As I said above, I accept the decision of the EEP to reject my event, and I will make no further attempts to convince them since their mind is obviously made up. But I just wrote this as a final statement of my position. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to working with you on future events.