Roman Empire should be a formable nation.

[Thravid]

I was kind of disappointed the Roman Empire was not in-game. I would make sense for it to be able to be formed by Byzantium, or possibly some other Roman Successor state. The files are there, I see they have their own EU4 based ideas too. It would be great if they exist.

 

[firecage]

Well, whether the ERE assimilated or not, they were the Roman Empire. They just changed their methods(for the worse)

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Eh, as much as I wanted to instinctively reject this and tell OP that Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire...

It's feasible that a Western king would want to claim the title of Roman Emperor if the HRE fell/was controlled by a hostile branch of Christianity. Creation conditions should require that neither the Byzzies or HRE exist, or that the HRE is dominated by a hostile faith (meaning full victory, no Peace of Westphalia). Or that you are the Byzzies yourself, in which case the logic is the same as in CKII - of course you already are the Roman Empire, you're just removing all pretenders to the title, and the possibility of future contention.

 

[Sagif]

For as much as people say, the Byzantine Empire is not the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire ended when West and East were divided into two empires. After that division, we had two Roman Empires (one was more Greek than Roman, but nevermind).
I read that they created both Empires to be "easily administrated". If that were the case, the Eastern Roman Emperor was under the rule of the "only and true" Roman Emperor. But he wasn't!
Both Emperors considered the other as an equal, a brother, showing that they were on the same level. And the laws as acts that were passed, for example, in the WRE, where not valid in the ERE, and vice-versa.

So they where two distinct Empires that shared a common foundation, but they where extremely different from one another. One was Greek, the other Roman, one had the army organized into A, B, and C, the other into D, E and F, etc, etc.

Regarding the topic, the "Roman" culture was lost after the fall of the WRE. When I mean culture, I do not mean art, music, language, etc, but the feeling of being a Roman. The WRE was divided into multiple kingdoms and A LOT of "new people" from the lands beyond the Rhine. People living in Northern Italy did not considered themselves as Roman, not did the Southern Italy people. So the feeling of "Oh boy, I wish I could unite all the Roman people of Italy into one big Republic as did my great-great-great-great-great grandfather" was lost.

But as an achievement, uniting all the former Roman provinces into one nation is a nice one...

 

[firecage]

You know Sagif, since you do not read or do not comprehend what is written, I am not going to reply to your post and state things for a third time.

 

[Noel84]

For as much as people say, the Byzantine Empire is not the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire ended when West and East were divided into two empires. After that division, we had two Roman Empires (one was more Greek than Roman, but nevermind).
I read that they created both Empires to be "easily administrated". If that were the case, the Eastern Roman Emperor was under the rule of the "only and true" Roman Emperor. But he wasn't!
Both Emperors considered the other as an equal, a brother, showing that they were on the same level. And the laws as acts that were passed, for example, in the WRE, where not valid in the ERE, and vice-versa.

So they where two distinct Empires that shared a common foundation, but they where extremely different from one another. One was Greek, the other Roman, one had the army organized into A, B, and C, the other into D, E and F, etc, etc.

Regarding the topic, the "Roman" culture was lost after the fall of the WRE. When I mean culture, I do not mean art, music, language, etc, but the feeling of being a Roman. The WRE was divided into multiple kingdoms and A LOT of "new people" from the lands beyond the Rhine. People living in Northern Italy did not considered themselves as Roman, not did the Southern Italy people. So the feeling of "Oh boy, I wish I could unite all the Roman people of Italy into one big Republic as did my great-great-great-great-great grandfather" was lost.

But as an achievement, uniting all the former Roman provinces into one nation is a nice one...

Yes it is. The Roman empire did split into 2 halves of an empire, both independently administered. They were the Western and Eastern Roman empires. The western fell after less than a hundred years. There was now the Roman empire and the new kingdoms that came from the fall of the west.
Just to use a comparison, if I have a pizza and I cut in half, then eat one half, the remaining half IS the pizza. Sure, it's not the same exact thing as it was originally, but it is the pizza. It's not a different pizza now. Also, if you're going to say "But da east was greek, not roman" that doesn't matter. Just because it had a different culture doesn't mean it was different. To continue with the pizza example, the eaten half had pepperoni, the other half didn't. Does that change the fact that the remaining half is still the pizza? No. No it doesn't.


Now for something on-topic.
I feel like the roman empire shouldn't be formed, it should be "asserted'. Certain countries (byz, HRE, papal states, roman successor states, Ottoderps after taking byz) should get missions to make those other countries recognize them as the one true roman empire

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

Just to use a comparison, if I have a pizza and I cut in half, then eat one half, the remaining half IS the pizza. Sure, it's not the same exact thing as it was originally, but it is the pizza. It's not a different pizza now. Also, if you're going to say "But da east was greek, not roman" that doesn't matter. Just because it had a different culture doesn't mean it was different. To continue with the pizza example, the eaten half had pepperoni, the other half didn't. Does that change the fact that the remaining half is still the pizza? No. No it doesn't.

Well... not really. Going with your pizza example, it would be more like having a pizza with one half filled with pepperoni and the other with ham. Of course, both of the halves are pizza, they both use the same cheese and dough, but radically differ in taste. Therefore, is Byzantium a Roman Empire? Of course it is. Is it the same as the ancient Roman Empire? No, it's not, but it aspired to be at least close to power and influence of the old Rome, if they managed to do so(I don't count Justinians attempt), they wouldn't be the only ones to consider their claim the only rightful one which, in game, would result in changing their tag to already existing Roman one.

 

[Noel84]

Well... not really. Going with your pizza example, it would be more like having a pizza with one half filled with pepperoni and the other with ham. Of course, both of the halves are pizza, they both use the same cheese and dough, but radically differ in taste. Therefore, is Byzantium a Roman Empire? Of course it is. Is it the same as the ancient Roman Empire? No, it's not, but it aspired to be at least close to power and influence of the old Rome, if they managed to do so(I don't count Justinians attempt), they wouldn't be the only ones to consider their claim the only rightful one which, in game, would result in changing their tag to already existing Roman one.

that's basically what I meant. Byz is the roman empire, it's just changed a lot since the times of ancient rome.
Also why don't you count justinian's attempt? I'd say that for a brief time under justinian byzantium did restore rome, sure they weren't as strong as rome at its peak but they surely quited the other claimants and showed their superiority to the kingdoms that appeared from the fall of the west

 

[Anatur]

Maybe the best solution is to add a decision that in case byzantium reclaims rome it swtiches back to latin(and western tech group) and is renamed into Rome.

The justification is that anatolia is firmly lost to any rome or hard to hold at best so relocating the capital further west makes strategic sense,the catholics would be a lot easier to convert and byzantines might want to capitalise on their legacy to win over the catholic subjects.

Its perfectly realistic that a byzantium controling most of italy would at least consider moving there given how precarious the balkans had proven,italy is a lot more defendable in the long run while the balkans are an invasion highway from any direction.

 

[Sagif]

Yes it is. The Roman empire did split into 2 halves of an empire, both independently administered. They were the Western and Eastern Roman empires. The western fell after less than a hundred years. There was now the Roman empire and the new kingdoms that came from the fall of the west.
Just to use a comparison, if I have a pizza and I cut in half, then eat one half, the remaining half IS the pizza. Sure, it's not the same exact thing as it was originally, but it is the pizza. It's not a different pizza now. Also, if you're going to say "But da east was greek, not roman" that doesn't matter. Just because it had a different culture doesn't mean it was different. To continue with the pizza example, the eaten half had pepperoni, the other half didn't. Does that change the fact that the remaining half is still the pizza? No. No it doesn't.


Now for something on-topic.
I feel like the roman empire shouldn't be formed, it should be "asserted'. Certain countries (byz, HRE, papal states, roman successor states, Ottoderps after taking byz) should get missions to make those other countries recognize them as the one true roman empire

That is a poor example to use as a comparison... We are talking about nations, empires, not pizzas. Pizzas do not have population nor administrative, executive, etc, power...

The Roman Empire ended after the division. After that, we had the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire, also known for Byzantium.
By having a common "ancestor" does not make the WRE and the ERE the same.

Giving a true example that I relate to:
The Kingdom of Asturias was the last bastion of Christendom against the Moors. During the Reconquista, the Kingdom divided into Leon and Castille, and furthermore into Portucale, Galicia, etc... Does this mean that all of these countries can call themselves "Asturians" (do not know the name in English for those who lived in Asturias)? No, they can't.

Byzantium even abandoned the Roman name after the WRE fell... They had no connection to the former Roman Empire, no ruler's bloodline, no language (Greek was lingua franca), no religion, no army. It was a completely different nation.

Calling one the WRE and the other ERE was during the period of the alliance between "sons of Rome".

 

[Sagif]

Maybe the best solution is to add a decision that in case byzantium reclaims rome it swtiches back to latin(and western tech group) and is renamed into Rome.

The justification is that anatolia is firmly lost to any rome or hard to hold at best so relocating the capital further west makes strategic sense,the catholics would be a lot easier to convert and byzantines might want to capitalise on their legacy to win over the catholic subjects.

Its perfectly realistic that a byzantium controling most of italy would at least consider moving there given how precarious the balkans had proven,italy is a lot more defendable in the long run while the balkans are an invasion highway from any direction.

That does not make sense... To form a nation, you have to relate to it, in terms of culture.
The reason you give is strategy... Well, in that case, imagine that Cyprus decided that it's island was in a precarious situation and managed to conquer Italy, could they form the Roman Empire and change their culture to Lation? Would it make sense? No! The same goes for Byzantium...

 

[t6.28]

Also, if you're going to say "But da east was greek, not roman" that doesn't matter. Just because it had a different culture doesn't mean it was different. To continue with the pizza example, the eaten half had pepperoni, the other half didn't. Does that change the fact that the remaining half is still the pizza? No. No it doesn't.

So England and northern Germany, as well as northern Bavaria and France are also the same thing?

 

[Woifee]

That is a poor example to use as a comparison... We are talking about nations, empires, not pizzas. Pizzas do not have population nor administrative, executive, etc, power...

The Roman Empire ended after the division. After that, we had the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire, also known for Byzantium.
By having a common "ancestor" does not make the WRE and the ERE the same.

Giving a true example that I relate to:
The Kingdom of Asturias was the last bastion of Christendom against the Moors. During the Reconquista, the Kingdom divided into Leon and Castille, and furthermore into Portucale, Galicia, etc... Does this mean that all of these countries can call themselves "Asturians" (do not know the name in English for those who lived in Asturias)? No, they can't.

Byzantium even abandoned the Roman name after the WRE fell... They had no connection to the former Roman Empire, no ruler's bloodline, no language (Greek was lingua franca), no religion, no army. It was a completely different nation.

Calling one the WRE and the other ERE was during the period of the alliance between "sons of Rome".

When did ERE abandon the roman name? And what does the culture, language or dynasty matter? I speak german, still I'm not a german. Dynastys changed all the time, also in the western empire. I don't get your point.

The romans may have ben latin, still it's not called latin empire.

The ERE is the roman empire, that's a historical fact.

 

[talilu]

Didn't the two crowns unite in Constantinople after WRE fall? So with basic maths;

Roman Empire/2 = WRE and ERE

WRE + ERE = ..... Roman Empire!

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

Also why don't you count justinian's attempt? I'd say that for a brief time under justinian byzantium did restore rome, sure they weren't as strong as rome at its peak but they surely quited the other claimants and showed their superiority to the kingdoms that appeared from the fall of the west

Because in Justinian's times there weren't any other serious claimants of the "true roman successor" title. You could argue that Francia was one, but I wouldn't count it until Eastern Francia crowned itself the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[Sagif]

When did ERE abandon the roman name? And what does the culture, language or dynasty matter? I speak german, still I'm not a german. Dynastys changed all the time, also in the western empire. I don't get your point.

The romans may have ben latin, still it's not called latin empire.

The ERE is the roman empire, that's a historical fact.

Western and Eastern Roman Empire are not the names they called themselves... They did not went to battle screaming "For the glory of the Eastern Roman Empire!". One was the Roman Empire (Western), the other the Byzantine Empire (Eastern). That's their actual real names.
And culture, language and dynasty matter! You speak German, but tell me, would you consider an abomination or unnatural if all German nations united under one big Germany? Austrians may not like it, some Swiss the same, but still, it's not an abomination like putting French and English into one country and calling it France.

The point is that they had no CONNECTION to the WRE, the language was not the same, nor culture or even family bonds! They were different nations!

Latin is the language they spoke, the region they came, but they called themselves Roman, because, well, of ROME!

Didn't the two crowns unite in Constantinople after WRE fall? So with basic maths;

Roman Empire/2 = WRE and ERE

WRE + ERE = ..... Roman Empire!

They did not unite. The Byzantine emperor called himself the last or the rue Roman Emperor just because he believed it would give him claims all over the former regions owned by Rome, not because he had any connections to them...

 

[Woifee]

Byzantine Empire is a modern term, they did not use it. Nobody used it in the medieval times. They didn't even use Eastern Roman Empire, they called themselves Roman Empire.

The Austrian Identity is young, but we are not germans.Btw there are slowene and hungarian minorities in Austria, but they are still Austrians. The language or cultural Identity doesn't matter. Dynasties also don't. They changed all the time.


They may have been different political entities, but both are roman empires, and both are the Roman Empire. The modern understanding of states do not fit for that construct.

 

[firecage]

Now, I like the Roman Empire a hell of a lot, but I think this thread is getting filled with the Roman Empire equivalent of weeaboos. No matter what accurate facts and information you will tell them, they will still not listen, for example insisting that it was two different Empires/Nations due to culture, language, etc. changing. Here is a huge bloody tip to you guys. The culture, language, etc. of nations always eventually changes. Sometimes it is a minor change, someone it is a major change. Sometimes part of a culture falls away, sometimes they incorporate other cultures into it, other times they completely change their culture eventually.

And it isn't uncommon for nations to change their capital city. Does that change what nation it is? No, it does not.

The names of Byzantium Empire and Eastern Roman Empire? No, those only came about after they fell. Hell, the name Byzantium Empire doesn't even make sense, since that is the name of Constantinople before they changed it. A better name would have been the Constantine Empire if you wanted to differentiate between the timelines of the Roman Empire.

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

The names of Byzantium Empire and Eastern Roman Empire? No, those only came about after they fell. Hell, the name Byzantium Empire doesn't even make sense, since that is the name of Constantinople before they changed it. A better name would have been the Constantine Empire if you wanted to differentiate between the timelines of the Roman Empire.

But the name is a real problem - because in the game the nation is called Byzantium. It's obvious that player, after conquering the Ottomans, Levant, Egypt, Tunis, Iberia, Italy and France, would want to change their country's name from not only ahistorical but also for some people pejorative "Byzantium" to The Roman Empire.

 

[firecage]

Martin. Personally I wouldn't mind if the Devs changes the name to the Roman Empire...well. To be fair, Byzantium in the game makes sense since you can just put down Byzantium, because lets say you SOMEHOW become a republic.

Mmm, a dynamic naming system might work. If it is a monarchy, it is called the Roman Empire, if it is a republic, it is called the Roman Republic....you know, the same could go for the Ottomans technically. If they become a revolutionary republic/empire, then their name should also become Turkey.

 

[Sagif]

Byzantine Empire is a modern term, they did not use it. Nobody used it in the medieval times. They didn't even use Eastern Roman Empire, they called themselves Roman Empire.

The Austrian Identity is young, but we are not germans.Btw there are slowene and hungarian minorities in Austria, but they are still Austrians. The language or cultural Identity doesn't matter. Dynasties also don't. They changed all the time.


They may have been different political entities, but both are roman empires, and both are the Roman Empire. The modern understanding of states do not fit for that construct.

I understand that there are a LOT of differences between Austrians and Germans. But you share a common heritage, the same language (with some differences), a common past and origin. The same with Portugal and Spain, with Norway and Sweden. They are all different, but still, very very similar. The same did not happen with ERE and WRE.