Romans should keep an ability to blind/castrate

[lozikk]

Characters of Roman culture can't inherit, just as characters of Byzantine group. But what's the point, if this culture can't blind? Why you are punished for restoring Roman culture this way? They should keep at least the blinding

 

[Metanetwork]

I disagree on the ground that political mutilation was a Byzantine practice that started in the 7th century. Romans regarded mutilation as barbaric, and the Roman empire had legislations against castration and blinding. Since an emperor who restores Roman culture at least claims to have left behind Byzantine (ie. Greek) practices and have restored Roman ones, they wouldn't be doing things that were strongly objectionable to Romans.

I have a feeling that Roman culture shouldn't disqualify blind people from inheriting, but I don't know any instance either way.

tl;dr: you can keep the blinding, but don't call yourself a Roman.

 

[treb]

I disagree on the ground that political mutilation was a Byzantine practice that started in the 7th century. Romans regarded mutilation as barbaric, and the Roman empire had legislations against castration and blinding. Since an emperor who restores Roman culture at least claims to have left behind Byzantine (ie. Greek) practices and have restored Roman ones, they wouldn't be doing things that were strongly objectionable to Romans.

I have a feeling that Roman culture shouldn't disqualify blind people from inheriting, but I don't know any instance either way.

tl;dr: you can keep the blinding, but don't call yourself a Roman.

Late Roman Culture did not have the aversion to mutilation. Castrati were in use as early as 400 AD. Hell, Constantine had court eunuchs. Going even further back than that the Galli, priests of Cybele were all eunuchs. Even one of the roman poets I forget which one, wrote about a woman who only had sex with 'partial eunuchs'.

It seems to have been common enough by the time of the late unified empire to warrant castration at least.

 

[Metanetwork]

Late Roman Culture did not have the aversion to mutilation. Castrati were in use as early as 400 AD. Hell, Constantine had court eunuchs. Going even further back than that the Galli, priests of Cybele were all eunuchs. Even one of the roman poets I forget which one, wrote about a woman who only had sex with 'partial eunuchs'.

It seems to have been common enough by the time of the late unified empire to warrant castration at least.

The galli, the poet Martial, and Constantine's court eunuchs don't prove that Roman emperors used castration as a punishment, like the Byzantines did. Roman citizens were forbidden by law to become galli, except for a brief period in the 1st century (Emperor Claudius legalized consensual castration, Emperor Domitian reaffirmed the ban). The rest of the time, galli were foreigners by birth.

Of course, many Roman emperors had eunuch slaves. Emperor Domitian himself had a court eunuch named Earinus. But I seriously doubt that Constantine was castrating his political opponents as punishment, let alone Roman nobles.

 

[Gurkhal]

The galli, the poet Martial, and Constantine's court eunuchs don't prove that Roman emperors used castration as a punishment, like the Byzantines did. Roman citizens were forbidden by law to become galli, except for a brief period in the 1st century (Emperor Claudius legalized consensual castration, Emperor Domitian reaffirmed the ban). The rest of the time, galli were foreigners by birth.

Of course, many Roman emperors had eunuch slaves. Emperor Domitian himself had a court eunuch named Earinus. But I seriously doubt that Constantine was castrating his political opponents as punishment, let alone Roman nobles.

What Romans are supposed to do and not to do bears only superficial relation to what they did and did not do. Hence the argument that Roman laws, at a minimum some 500+ years ago, said this or that on some subject is of little relevance to what the Romans in Crusader Kings 2 will do or not do.

 

[Metanetwork]

What Romans are supposed to do and not to do bears only superficial relation to what they did and did not do. Hence the argument that Roman laws, at a minimum some 500+ years ago, said this or that on some subject is of little relevance to what the Romans in Crusader Kings 2 will do or not do.

What's your angle?

Cultures in CK2 don't need to be perfect replicas of their real life counterparts. But it's not like we routinely see Frankish dukes riding war elephants and women becoming Pope. When that happens, it's a funny surprise. So why should (barring Shattered World of course) CK2 Romans be unrecognizable from the Romans of Antiquity? I mean sure restoring the unified Roman empire is already alt-history but CK2 doesn't have two Roman cultures (one for Roman emperors of Antiquity and one for the reformed Roman empire) either. The Roman culture IS the culture of old Roman emperors of Antiquity, who did not routinely blind and castrate their enemies (but often asked them to perform suicide, something not possible in CK2).

Besides, adopting Roman culture is a choice. It's okay to have a trade off on a choice. You can restore the Roman empire and retain the Byzantine culture. You already "won" CK2 by restoring the Roman empire.

 

[lozikk]

Besides, adopting Roman culture is a choice. It's okay to have a trade off on a choice. You can restore the Roman empire and retain the Byzantine culture. You already "won" CK2 by restoring the Roman empire.

My biggest issue with that that blind people still can't inherit, but since we can't blind this mechanic is not used. You lose flavor feature, when every other Roman decision (restoration gives you claims, schism weakens Catholic, old ways give you reformation) gives you something new

 

[Gurkhal]

What's your angle?

My interest comes from that I am starting to look over at reading more about Rome due to the fact that my brothers are interested in Rome and I like discussing history with them.

To that also comes that I want to make my opinion known in this issue and since I am entering a Crusader Kings 2 phase in my life, from previously having played mostly Imperator, I've started to hang out more on the CK2 subforums. And from there I noticed this thread.

Cultures in CK2 don't need to be perfect replicas of their real life counterparts. But it's not like we routinely see Frankish dukes riding war elephants and women becoming Pope. When that happens, it's a funny surprise. So why should (barring Shattered World of course) CK2 Romans be unrecognizable from the Romans of Antiquity? I mean sure restoring the unified Roman empire is already alt-history but CK2 doesn't have two Roman cultures (one for Roman emperors of Antiquity and one for the reformed Roman empire) either. The Roman culture IS the culture of old Roman emperors of Antiquity, who did not routinely blind and castrate their enemies (but often asked them to perform suicide, something not possible in CK2).

Besides, adopting Roman culture is a choice. It's okay to have a trade off on a choice. You can restore the Roman empire and retain the Byzantine culture. You already "won" CK2 by restoring the Roman empire.

You are right in that cultures don't need to be perfect replicas, but they should in my opinion be reasonable simplifications. But I don't think that this is where our main point of divergence is.

What I think is that its rather clear that we are not playing Classical Romans, we are playing neo-Romans who, from very sketchy foundations given the absence of archeology and modern intellectual tools for analyzing the texts, have reinvinted themselves as Romans. These are neo-Romans. Short and simple and I see no way around this.

To this also comes that "Roman culture" before the West fell lasted for some thousand years or so. Probably more. And from this I think that its ludicrious to try and define one set of Roman values or cultural traits in an absolute way. It just morphed and changed across the centuries too much. Early and Middle Republican Romans probably wouldn't see much similarities with Diocletian and his introduction of the Dominate. But they were still all Romans. Nor did the Romans ever practice feudalism but to my knowledge its perfectly possible to do so in CK2 with Roman culture.

In fact if Paradox ever does this thing in CK3 I would advice that we can pick one of three different types of Roman culture to re-create; Republican, Principate or Dominate. And perhaps even more choices to pick exactly which ancient Rome we're trying to recreate instead of taking bits and pieces all over the place and try and force an egg through a square hole. Yes, it can be good for a casual play through but anything more and its going to fall to bits, at least in my eyes. As I think our discussion here hints at.

 

[Rockphed]

In fact if Paradox ever does this thing in CK3 I would advice that we can pick one of three different types of Roman culture to re-create; Republican, Principate or Dominate. And perhaps even more choices to pick exactly which ancient Rome we're trying to recreate instead of taking bits and pieces all over the place and try and force an egg through a square hole. Yes, it can be good for a casual play through but anything more and its going to fall to bits, at least in my eyes. As I think our discussion here hints at.

I can see it now:

*Player clicks "Reform Roman Empire" decision*
Event 1: We are reforming the historical roman empire. What sort of realm will it be:
A: I don't care. Just slap "Rome" on Everything (maintain current government)
B: Something more republican. (Get events to determine just how republican your government will be)
C: As emperor, I am the state. (Get some events to try making a more despotic government, possibly with a rebellion)
D: Julius Ceasar was "Pontiff Maximus". That means "big bridge"! (Get events to make insane government) [Only available if already lunatic or posessed]

Event 2: As the Roman State, what sort of Roman culture should we adopt?
A: No, the Romans crumbled and were defeated. We shall remain Greek!
B: You know, Roman. Togas. Laurel wreath crowns. Big parties.
C: Carthago Delenda Est!
D: Friends, Romans, Countrymen. Lend me your ears.

 

[Castimirr]

I can see it now:

I choose C and C.

 

[fr-rein]

I suggest that Great Works like Royal Palace can have an update like some kind of Harem Thing, that allows you to castrate.

I mean, it is universal and for big realms it is obvious that Emperors for sure will be able to castrate others if they really wanted.