Seleukid empire vs Kingdom of Babylonia etc

[AKronblad]

I'd say: use Greek names (with Latin letters!) for all Hellenistic states, except for those whose Diadochi are still alive (another exception: Macedonia). Thus, Makedonia, Thrake, Syria, Persia, Baktria, Aigyptos, Asia, et al.

Diadochi countries: Lysimakheia, Seleukeia, Antigoneia, et al.

Other countries use native or English names (depending on how these coincide with Greek names): Persia, Egypt, et al.

I admit it will be difficult to find a consistency here, but naming a country Seleucid Empire is just ridiculous.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

The Roman Empire countinued to call itself such long after Rome ceased to be its capital and later on even a city controlled by the Roman Empire. That alone sets a good precedence for states named after cities or specific places not needing to rename themselves even if their heartland is moved and there are other examples throughout history.

Were they not by that point "The Empire of the Romans", not "The Empire of Rome"?

 

[Caspoi]

Were they not by that point "The Empire of the Romans", not "The Empire of Rome"?

It also called itself Romania or similar things, and the principle remains. Even when they did not control the city the city that their empire was named after they did not actually rename themselves (though names such as "The Byzantine Empires" exist they were usually given by others and sometimes after the empire had ended).

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

It's out of the initial scope of the game, but how should Western Rome and Eastern Rome be named when they're de facto separate Empires?

Bear in mind the game needs to potentially break the Empire up in a different fashion, so it could potentially have capitals in Hispania and Rome, instead of Rome (or at least the vicinity of Rome) and whatever Constantinople is called in this play through.

For ease of identification, who keeps the original flag, and what does the new flag look like?

 

[AKronblad]

It's out of the initial scope of the game, but how should Western Rome and Eastern Rome be named when they're de facto separate Empires?

Bear in mind the game needs to potentially break the Empire up in a different fashion, so it could potentially have capitals in Hispania and Rome, instead of Rome (or at least the vicinity of Rome) and whatever Constantinople is called in this play through.

For ease of identification, who keeps the original flag, and what does the new flag look like?

Roma will always be Roma. And a split-off of Hispania... Hispania. And Gallia, Britannia, Africa, etc.

 

[Caspoi]

It's out of the initial scope of the game, but how should Western Rome and Eastern Rome be named when they're de facto separate Empires?

Bear in mind the game needs to potentially break the Empire up in a different fashion, so it could potentially have capitals in Hispania and Rome, instead of Rome (or at least the vicinity of Rome) and whatever Constantinople is called in this play through.

For ease of identification, who keeps the original flag, and what does the new flag look like?

If I were a developer then one of them would be treated as a breakaway state (if a civil war then who started it, if on succession then to the second heir, etc.) and be given a randomly generated name and flag, or preferably one dependant on the region that they are in. For example if like in history a civil war breaks out in Rome where the aggressor is based in Gaul then the new state would be called "Gaul".

 

[Thure]

Roma will always be Roma. And a split-off of Hispania... Hispania. And Gallia, Britannia, Africa, etc.

So... the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire in your idea would be called 'Graecia'? That would be absurd.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Roma will always be Roma. And a split-off of Hispania... Hispania. And Gallia, Britannia, Africa, etc.

And yet both "Rome" and "Constantinople" were both considered to be Rome, even after the de facto split.

If I were a developer then one of them would be treated as a breakaway state (if a civil war then who started it, if on succession then to the second heir, etc.) and be given a randomly generated name and flag, or preferably one dependant on the region that they are in. For example if like in history a civil war breaks out in Rome where the aggressor is based in Gaul then the new state would be called "Gaul".

So we'd never see the Roman Empire based in Constantinople, since it'd have been renamed with a new flag, before Rome (based in Rome/Ravenna) fell?


It's difficult, and I don't have an easy answer myself.

Flagwise, I might suggest a voluntary split giving a red flag/purple flag thing for Rome. I'm not so sure for the more general case though, where it'd have to apply to any empire breaking up like that.
Namewise, I have no good ideas. Having the Eastern Roman Empire being named Græcia or Constantinople seems wrong, but dynamically renaming it based on direction between the two capitals seems difficult on first glance, and prone to looking wrong if one capital is in Northern Europe, slightly east of the other in Southern Europe, but the majority of land for the northern capital is to its west.

 

[AKronblad]

So... the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire in your idea would be called 'Graecia'? That would be absurd.

No. Check your geography: is Constantinople located in Greece/Graecia? Don't think so.

Constantinople could be either Asia or Constantinopolis (to be consistent with Roma). I'd favour the latter.

 

[Thure]

No. Check your geography: is Constantinople located in Greece/Graecia? Don't think so.

Constantinople could be either Asia or Constantinopolis (to be consistent with Roma). I'd favour the latter.

This... didn't change my point. The Eastern Roman empire would be called Asia/Constantinopolis would absolutelly be wrong. Also as the Eastern Roman Empire came into existence Constantinoplis was called 'Byzantium' or 'Nova Roma'.

In your theory there would never be an Eastern Roman Empire

 

[AKronblad]

This... didn't change my point. The Eastern Roman empire would be called Asia/Constantinopolis would absolutelly be wrong. Also as the Eastern Roman Empire came into existence Constantinoplis was called 'Byzantium' or 'Nova Roma'.

In your theory there would never be an Eastern Roman Empire

Yes, it would: Constantinopolis. And then Roma in the west.

Byzantium wasn't a term used until much much later*. You're right on Nova Roma though.

EDIT:
* If you mean the "Empire of the Romans", that is. If you mean Byzantion, the original Greek city, it was used much much earlier.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Yes, it would: Constantinopolis. And then Roma in the west.

Byzantium wasn't a term used until much much later. You're right on Nova Roma though.

The problem is that the Eastern Empire wasn't (and isnt) generally known by the capital name.

It was known as the Roman Empire. Where a distinction is needed, the geographic designation of Western/Eastern Empire is used.

It isn't "The Asian Empire", or the "Empire of Asia"; it isn't "the Empire of Constantinople", or the "Constantinopolitan Empire".

 

[Thure]

Yes, it would: Constantinopolis. And then Roma in the west.

Byzantium wasn't a term used until much much later*. You're right on Nova Roma though.

EDIT:
* If you mean the "Empire of the Romans", that is. If you mean Byzantion, the original Greek city, it was used much much earlier.

Constinopoöis was named that AFTER the formation of the Eastern Roman Empire. Before the creation of the Eastern Roman Empire it was called 'Byzantion/Byzantium'.
And it still wouldn't change the problem. You completelly ignore that it was the 'Eastern ROMAN EMPIRE' and NOT Constantinopolis.

 

[AKronblad]

The problem is that the Eastern Empire wasn't (and isnt) generally known by the capital name.

It was known as the Roman Empire. Where a distinction is needed, the geographic designation of Western/Eastern Empire is used.

It isn't "The Asian Empire", or the "Empire of Asia"; it isn't "the Empire of Constantinople", or the "Constantinopolitan Empire".

You're absolutely right. And I'm not after exactly what it was or is known as: I'm relating it to the western half, currently using Rome or Roma, in order to be consistent. And what I favour myself personally, and am using in my two ancient era mods for EU4.

So I prefer: Roma in the west, Constantinopolis in the east. (If the capital of the eastern part is located in that city.)

Now, this is fully out of scope time wise for I:R, so doesn't matter really

 

[AKronblad]

1. Constinopoöis was named that AFTER the formation of the Eastern Roman Empire. Before the creation of the Eastern Roman Empire it was called 'Byzantion/Byzantium'.
And it still wouldn't change the problem.

2.You completelly ignore that it was the 'Eastern ROMAN EMPIRE' and NOT Constantinopolis.

1. Agree.
2. Again, I'm basing on the notion that Rome is called Rome or Roma, that is, the country (western part) ruled out of Rome, and then Constantinopolis would represent the country (the eastern part) ruled out of Constantinople. That's where I'm coming from. EDIT: But if Rome is not called Rome or Roma, that completely changes my starting point. So what is the proper name for Rome?

 

[AKronblad]

Constinopoöis was named that AFTER the formation of the Eastern Roman Empire. Before the creation of the Eastern Roman Empire...

In which year do you by the way consider ERE to be formed/created?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

You're absolutely right. And I'm not after exactly what it was or is known as: I'm relating it to the western half, currently using Rome or Roma, in order to be consistent. And what I favour myself personally, and am using in my two ancient era mods for EU4.

So I prefer: Roma in the west, Constantinopolis in the east. (If the capital of the eastern part is located in that city.)

Now, this is fully out of scope time wise for I:R, so doesn't matter really

The thing is that you could potentially have a split like this take place during the game, perhaps even involving Rome and Byzantion as the capitals.

Would it make sense for a "Roman" successor Empire with its capital in Britannia to be called (for example) Londinium or Eburacum?

Or you could have a Macedon that has taken Western Europe, and has to split to be able to cope with the distances involved.


ERE was first created by Diocletian (and Maximian) in 284 - 286 CE. The city was named for Constantine in 330 CE

 

[AKronblad]

1. The thing is that you could potentially have a split like this take place during the game, perhaps even involving Rome and Byzantion as the capitals. Would it make sense for a "Roman" successor Empire with its capital in Britannia to be called (for example) Londinium or Eburacum?

Or you could have a Macedon that has taken Western Europe, and has to split to be able to cope with the distances involved.


2. ERE was first created by Diocletian (and Maximian) in 284 - 286 CE. The city was named for Constantine in 330 CE

1. I'm basing this entirely on an assumption of an eastern half (no usurper or breakaway state), ruled out of Constantinople, and the west out of Roma. Basically a deliberate split into two equals. Violating that assumption would invalidate my suggestions. So maybe Oriens then for the east? And Britannia for Britannia. Never Londinium.

2. In 286 AD the city was just Byzantion. Did Constantine really name the city Constantinopolis himself, or did the name appear after his death?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

1. I'm basing this entirely on an assumption of an eastern half (no usurper or breakaway state), ruled out of Constantinople, and the west out of Roma. Basically a deliberate split into two equals. Violating that assumption would invalidate my suggestions. So maybe Oriens then for the east? And Britannia for Britannia. Never Londinium.

2. In 286 AD the city was just Byzantion. Did Constantine really name the city Constantinopolis himself, or did the name appear after his death?

Why then does the split off part of the Empire become named for the capital in one case, and for the province in the other? I.E. why Constantinopolis if the ERE is centred on Constantinople, but Britannia if a "Northern" Roman Empire was centred on Londinium Or Eboracum?


It looks like the city was renamed either when, or shortly after Constantine moved the capital there, and the concept of "The city of Constantine" (literally Constantinopolis) replaced the concept of Byzantion in people's minds.

 

[AKronblad]

Why then does the split off part of the Empire become named for the capital in one case, and for the province in the other? I.E. why Constantinopolis if the ERE is centred on Constantinople, but Britannia if a "Northern" Roman Empire was centred on Londinium Or Eboracum?

I'm talking about a west-east split od equals: Roma-Constantinopolis, not about a south-north split.

Britannia would be the name of a usurper breakaway state there. And then Hispania, Gallia, Oriens, Africa, etc. All based on regions, in contrast to the central imperial west-east authorities: Roma, Constantinopolis.

If the game allows for other splits than Roma- Constantinopolis, I don't have any suggestions, other than that more generically Constantinopolis would be replaced by Oriens. And still Hispania, Gallia, Oriens, Africa, etc. So regions instead. But then the name Roma stand out, in terms of consistency.

What are your own suggestions?