Since the Byzantine Empire has the Pentarchy event, why not a "Roman Empire" event?

[Romaious330]

I was thinking just the other day, as I'm playing as the Byzantine Empire. Why not add a mission/event to reform the Roman Empire? This would occur only if you capture the territories of the Roman Empire under the Emperor Justinian.

This event would give you cores in those territories, and it could do something to destabilize the Holy Roman Empire. (I think it'd be obvious why )
http://www.historiasiglo20.org/MEC-BC/images/Byzantium5503lightblue[1].png

The final event as the Byzantine Empire could be called "Veni, Vedi, Vici" and would trigger once you capture all of the territory that was part of the Roman Empire under Emperor Hadrian.
http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/262/268312/art/figures/KISH106.jpg

 

[Willem IV]

the romans have already juicy missions, no need to give them even more

 

[Moltke]

They already are the Roman Empire anyway. Once you've captured Rome, you've humiliated the heretics so what more is there? Oh yeah, conquer the HRE.

 

[Shackel]

I was thinking just the other day, as I'm playing as the Byzantine Empire. Why not add a mission/event to reform the Roman Empire? This would occur only if you capture the territories of the Roman Empire under the Emperor Justinian.

This event would give you cores in those territories, and it could do something to destabilize the Holy Roman Empire. (I think it'd be obvious why )
http://www.historiasiglo20.org/MEC-BC/images/Byzantium5503lightblue[1].png

The final event as the Byzantine Empire could be called "Veni, Vedi, Vici" and would trigger once you capture all of the territory that was part of the Roman Empire under Emperor Hadrian.
http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/262/268312/art/figures/KISH106.jpg

I don't like it, really. The Byzantines(England, too) get a bit TOO much love.

 

[The Blood Eagle]

I don't like it, really. The Byzantines(England, too) get a bit TOO much love.

Compared to Austria, every nation in this game gets the shaft in comparison.

 

[Graspiloot]

Even more missions for the byzantines? They should be called Romans in the first places because they didn't call themselves byzantines, and also why Hadrian? Why not Trajan's empire as Hadrian just gave away the recently acquired territories by Trajan without reason.

Also, Id prefer that other countries now get the same amount of love and attention in their missions. The byzantine mines are great and only England, Austria and Muscowy have similarly interesting ones. Now its time for other nations.

 

[A_Dane]

yeah, no more love for the byzzies please, I'm already having a hard time starting up a game as them, simply too easy :/

And as other pointed out: they're already the roman empire, there would probably not have been any name change if they had done it historically.

And lastly: Why should they automatically gain cores on the territory? Yeah it might have been roman.. a thousand years earlier, i see no reason to give free cores on people who would not think of themselves as roman s:

 

[Ofaloaf]

They already are the Roman Empire anyway. Once you've captured Rome, you've humiliated the heretics so what more is there? Oh yeah, conquer the HRE.

Yeah, but they're Greek. It just feels hollow to restore a Roman Empire where people are named Stephanos Dukas and Emmanuel Laskaris but not Marcus Antonius or Ambrosius Aurelius.

 

[Moltke]

Yeah, but they're Greek. It just feels hollow to restore a Roman Empire where people are named Stephanos Dukas and Emmanuel Laskaris but not Marcus Antonius or Ambrosius Aurelius.

Whose fault is it that the only thing left of the Roman Empire in 1399 is the Greek bits? Besides, the Romans learned from the Greeks anyway, so think of it as coming full circle.

 

[Shackel]

Whose fault is it that the only thing left of the Roman Empire in 1399 is the Greek bits? Besides, the Romans learned from the Greeks anyway, so think of it as coming full circle.

I personally like the idea of a "Form Roman Empire" event that could even poke fun at the fact that if the Byzantines reconquered most of the Roman Empire historians most likely would have never referred to it as the Byzantine Empire.

 

[Mongoose87]

Yeah, but they're Greek. It just feels hollow to restore a Roman Empire where people are named Stephanos Dukas and Emmanuel Laskaris but not Marcus Antonius or Ambrosius Aurelius.

So, you need to culture shift to a culture that doesn't exist anymore?

 

[Hamalcar Barca]

It's already ridiculous that the Byzantines get cores everywhere in Greece and Anatolia at the start, so this is definitely not needed.

 

[Ofaloaf]

So, you need to culture shift to a culture that doesn't exist anymore?

I'd be happy with a shift to Umbrian. It's the names more than anything else that really bothers me, though. I'd be just as bothered if there was a Roman Empire ruled by a Ludovico IV d'Este or whatever.

And there's the issue that the post-Fourth Crusade Byzantine Empire has a much more tenuous claim to the Roman mantle than the pre-1204 Byzantium to begin with, since the post-Crusade one is a restored empire created wholly by Greek nobles, there's no senate at all, there's a period of time where the Byzantines simply ceased to be, stuff like that.

 

[Willem IV]

a culture shift back for the Roman Empire that they made more than 1000 years ago would be stupid. Or France should get the option to turn back into Frankish (Germanic) as well. That happened in less then 400 years before game start

 

[TAMBOURINESNAKE]

Compared to Austria, every nation in this game gets the shaft in comparison.

It's not Austria's fault that it is literally overflowing with Gold mines.

 

[Nuril]

Whose fault is it that the only thing left of the Roman Empire in 1399 is the Greek bits? Besides, the Romans learned from the Greeks anyway, so think of it as coming full circle.

It's actually better than that. The original founding of Rome was Greeks arriving and starting to mix with the Latins. So Romans have always been Half-Greek Half-Latin by blood, they just ended up with Latin as their language and with a lot of greek culture. Greek was the language of learning (which Latin ended up as for us) and the Greeks were a strong cultural influence. The Empire had long been cut adrift from it's strictly Italian roots and had been multinational for many centuries before the fall of the west and it's capital was already in the East and the Greeks gradually became dominant as a matter of fact as the old Latin rule faded away. There is no point in which the Eastern Roman Empire fell and was replaced with a Byzantine-Greek one. It was always that way and the Latin west falling does not make them any less of an Eastern Roman Empire.

Greek nobles, there's no senate at all, there's a period of time where the Byzantines simply ceased to be, stuff like that.

You do realize the Senate stopped mattering at all over a thousand years before that, right? Reorganizing the state to reflect reality (same goes for the people actually living there ruling) does not mean a decreased claim. Rome didn't disappear when Augustus/Octavian took over just because it's institutions were different. And no, they didn't cease to exist, they lost the European territory. They were still around, but since they didn't have a strong central authority it's easier to label the different power-centres. Dynasties carried on and everyone was waiting for the Latin Empire to crumble as it inevitably would.

 

[Valynor]

Half latin, half greek, and more than half etruscan
Anyway, we have already too much roman empires as it is in EU-

 

[Beamed]

We need to focus on the many, many other nations in EU3, and less on one of the ones which becomes fictional after 1453.

 

[Mr. Domino]

Ah the old "the Byzantiums should be called the Romans" debate.

Let me attempt a compromise-let me concede, for the sake of argument, they were the Roman Empire and they should be called the Romans and have an unbroken line to the 5th century. They were clearly the Eastern Roman Empire. I see no reason to allow them to become the whole, indivisible Roman Empire or have claims to the Western Roman Empire. At least no easier than it is to make the "Western Roman Empire" with a nation like Hainut, ie conquering everything and waiting 50 years. The idea that because the West fell over 1000 years ago the East has "claims" on everything the West had seems strange. Byzantine/ERE control over France or Spain would be seen just as illegitimate in 1600 as Hainut controlling those provinces.

I think the Pentrarchy event is overpowered. Eliminating Roman Catholicism with what amounted to a 2PM in 1399 is a weird task. Maybe protestant major powers should get an equivalent event (and it would be hard to code, but counter reformed nations should get an equally ambitious mission to end "Lutheran heresy" for good.)

 

[Ofaloaf]

You do realize the Senate stopped mattering at all over a thousand years before that, right? Reorganizing the state to reflect reality (same goes for the people actually living there ruling) does not mean a decreased claim. Rome didn't disappear when Augustus/Octavian took over just because it's institutions were different. And no, they didn't cease to exist, they lost the European territory. They were still around, but since they didn't have a strong central authority it's easier to label the different power-centres. Dynasties carried on and everyone was waiting for the Latin Empire to crumble as it inevitably would.

Octavian kept the Senate and maintained the formality of the Republic (If memory serves, the WRE never stopped using the SPQR phrase) and, more importantly, he controlled Rome. The Byzantines of 1399 didn't have any Roman institutions aside from being Christian, they didn't control a speck of Italy, they didn't use the language of contemporary or ancient Romans, the only Roman thing about them was that they called themselves 'Romans'-- in Greek.

As an analogy: The Yuan dyasty was created by Kublai Khan, a Mongol, but was the Yuan dynasty itself Mongol or Chinese? If the Yuan didn't fall, but Mongolia itself was lost to... I dunno, Kazakhs or some other peoples of the steppe, would the Yuan still be Mongolian? If the Yuan dynasty lost all its Mongolian territories, adopted Chinese names and Chinese ways, moved its capital to Nanjing or Nanhai or some southern city, but still claimed the title of Great Khan, would it really still be Mongolian? I'd say no. That's how I see the Byzantines by 1399; their distant and tenuous origins are Roman and they still claim the Roman name, yes, but their historic connection to the ERE was cut by the Fourth Crusade and the only Roman institution they still maintained was the Church.