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.

 

[talilu]

Romans Culture didn't invent itself out of nowhere either, it was affected by many many nations. But mostly, they were affected by the more civilised nations like Etruscans and Greeks, resulting a common culture from Roma to Trebizond and maybe even Georgia. People followed the rules of Rome and eventually integrated each others' culture to one Roman culture and understanding.

So, even if the connection between Latin and Greek is long gone in Proto-Indo-European Language, the cultures found a way to meet up again and continue their advencement together, until one of them died as a native language.

 

[Noel84]

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!



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...

[How are they different AT ALL? they lost their capital and half their empire and changed culture, Where is became a different empire in that? Nowhere. By your definition in 1444 england isn't england

 

[Sagif]

[How are they different AT ALL? they lost their capital and half their empire and changed culture, Where is became a different empire in that? Nowhere. By your definition in 1444 england isn't england

Why isn't England, well, England in 1444?

Imagine this:

Country A has it's capital: Chupamisto
A certain culture: Chupamistian
A religion: Chuchu
And a certain amount of provinces...

After some centuries you have:
Country B, with it's capital: Far Far Away
A religion: Shrek
A culture: Ogre
And completely different provinces.

But country B comes from country A.. But, are they the same?

 

[t6.28]

How are they different AT ALL? they lost their capital and half their empire and changed culture, Where is became a different empire in that? Nowhere. By your definition in 1444 england isn't england

England didn't lose it's heartland.
By your definition, ancient northern Germany is literally England.

 

[Noel84]

Why isn't England, well, England in 1444?

Imagine this:

Country A has it's capital: Chupamisto
A certain culture: Chupamistian
A religion: Chuchu
And a certain amount of provinces...

After some centuries you have:
Country B, with it's capital: Far Far Away
A religion: Shrek
A culture: Ogre
And completely different provinces.

But country B comes from country A.. But, are they the same?

Let's see, england was once;norman
Had paris and most of france.

The only thing different here is that they didn't move their capital

England didn't lose it's heartland.
By your definition, ancient northern Germany is literally England.

So you're saying that losing a country's heartland makes it different, then poland, greece, lithuania and egypt aren't poland greece lithuania and egypt
Also how the hell would this make germany england? A german people migrated over there and took the place over, how does that make germany england?

 

[Frederick_Will]

Not getting into the historical debate but i will say it would be nice if a Roman Empire was formable in game. If a nation meets the requirements(which may or may not include certain nations existing) and has a valid claim to make said empire, then why not.(i thought the Basileus achievement was this but I was wrong. I found out when i looked into it further while doing the achievement) Other empires are form able even though they did not exist in this time period and it is a sand box game where you can tell your own story after all. Perhaps rather than having to take all the land but either a few key lands or a % of said lands, they can form the Empire. and the land they haven't taken will have claims put on them.(balance) If the tag is already in game, then you might as well put it to use.

 

[SignedName]

By the logic in this thread, Romania should be able to form the Roman Empire, since it named itself after the Romans and identified as culturally Roman. It would be cool if a non-Greek Orthodox Christian state could form Rhomania/Latin Empire, though.

 

[Sagif]

Let's see, england was once;norman
Had paris and most of france.

The only thing different here is that they didn't move their capital

You are saying that when a country conquers another's capital it no longer is the original one?

England was English, conquered northern France, so it's no longer England? But Frangland? Or Englance?

But that order of thoughts, if Portugal conquered Amsterdam it was no longer Portugal...

 

[talilu]

The point wasn't England owning Paris of France, but it's nobility and kings talking Norman and not English. When the ruling figure of England isn't English but Norman, it could be said that England didn't exist until nobility started to use English.

 

[Sagif]

The point wasn't England owning Paris of France, but it's nobility and kings talking Norman and not English. When the ruling figure of England isn't English but Norman, it could be said that England didn't exist until nobility started to use English.

The first Portuguese king was not Portuguese, but French. Does that make Portugal France?
French was lingua franca in almost all of the European Courts. It was today's English...

 

[Noel84]

You are saying that when a country conquers another's capital it no longer is the original one?

England was English, conquered northern France, so it's no longer England? But Frangland? Or Englance?

But that order of thoughts, if Portugal conquered Amsterdam it was no longer Portugal...

what are you even saying?

Let's just review our comments:
You said that changing culture and losing land=new country
I said that england was once norman and owned northern france
I also said it is now english and lost northern france, therefore by your criteria is a new country

then you said that england somehow created a new country after counquering northern france and reverted back to england after losing it???? WHAT!? Then shouldn't rome be Romegualegyptgreeceanatoliapartsofpersiaandhispania?

 

[MeteorPhoenix]

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.

Two things:

1. It doesn't make any sense for one half being Roman and one half being Greek. Being Greek was being Roman. The Greeks didn't call themselves Greeks (Hellenes, really) again until the War of Independence. Greeks were one of the many cultures of the Roman Empire, and by the end, probably the most important. There is no Roman half. Perhaps you meant Latin? But then why are you defining the Roman Empire solely through the prism of Latin culture?

2. The empire split more than once. Are you saying that the Roman Empire ceased to be and reappeared again, like a mirage, each of these times? But it doesn't count when Justinian reconquered a lot of it? Why doesn't it count when Justinian reconquered Italy, parts of Africa and parts of Spain?

 

[DominusNovus]

I'm trying to find the references I had to this, but there was a point at which the Byzantines decided to recognize the HRE as the successor to the Western Empire. Can't remember when, though. Anyway, so long as I'm not terribly mis-remembering history, then you have the HRE as your formable Roman Empire.

That, and Italy, kinda.

 

[Grand Historian]

If Crusader Kings II lets you reform the Roman Empire, during a time when both Byzantium and the Holy Roman Emperor both had much more power and recognition, then I don't see why not for EU4.

 

[Woifee]

It should not even exist in CK2

 

[firecage]

Point is this. Would be silly to add it to the game.

The real Roman Empire exists under the name of Byzantium.

If you want a country with the actual name in its name, then you can go and form the Holy Roman Empire, even though its a fake Roman Empire.

If you want a Latin-based Empire. Then go form Italy. Since you can play with it as an Empire, and it is Latin.

 

[Sagif]

what are you even saying?

Let's just review our comments:
You said that changing culture and losing land=new country
I said that england was once norman and owned northern france
I also said it is now english and lost northern france, therefore by your criteria is a new country

then you said that england somehow created a new country after counquering northern france and reverted back to england after losing it???? WHAT!? Then shouldn't rome be Romegualegyptgreeceanatoliapartsofpersiaandhispania?

My dear friend,

England was NEVER Norman. One of their rulers, William of Normandy was Norman and he disputed the succession over the British throne with Edward. He won.
Even though the King was not English, the people of England were! That's what I am saying. The first Portuguese king was French, does that make Portugal a new France?

Remember, England WAS NOT conquered by Normandy! The Duke of Normandy became King of England.
This is not like in EUIV when you get a PU over a nation and then inherit that same nation, it becomes part of your own. In this case the Duke of Normandy was FIRST King of England, and only after Duke of Normandy.

So your arguments are completely, let's say, stupid...

 

[User4035]

So what is the argument here?

Some say the byzintines are the roman empire.
Some say they are not because they are different by so many factors.

So then no one can form Rome because no one is the same as they used to be.



From a History perspective, the Roman Empire was broken when the Eastern roman empire was hit by plague which killed 200million out of 300mmillion people.

Before that plague they were considered Romans. They were reconquering the west. But after the plague they truly lost the essence of the former empire.


Also, you can totally form the roman empire in the game. It's just got the word "Holy" in front of it.

 

[Sagif]

Also, you can totally form the roman empire in the game. It's just got the word "Holy" in front of it.

The Holy Roman Empire was not quite the same as the Roman Empire...

 

[Noel84]

My dear friend,

England was NEVER Norman. One of their rulers, William of Normandy was Norman and he disputed the succession over the British throne with Edward. He won.
Even though the King was not English, the people of England were! That's what I am saying. The first Portuguese king was French, does that make Portugal a new France?

Remember, England WAS NOT conquered by Normandy! The Duke of Normandy became King of England.
This is not like in EUIV when you get a PU over a nation and then inherit that same nation, it becomes part of your own. In this case the Duke of Normandy was FIRST King of England, and only after Duke of Normandy.

So your arguments are completely, let's say, stupid...

let's see... in england the ruler was norman but barely any of the kingdom was
in Rome the ruler was latin but barely any of the empire was.

difference