What time period are you talking about here? Were discussing the time period of Charlemagne, was that part of the empire speaking Latin as the vernacular language? I don't care about the legal system and the aristocrats.
Since the Byzantine Empire has the Pentarchy event, why not a "Roman Empire" event?
- Thread starter Romaious330
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What time period are you talking about here? Were discussing the time period of Charlemagne, was that part of the empire speaking Latin as the vernacular language? I don't care about the legal system and the aristocrats.
Also, for those interested in the last days of the Roman Empire, and the subjugation of the people under the Turks, I'd recommend Steven Runciman's book "The Great Church in Captivity". It's a good book, but the guy is a bit bias and doesn't always accurately represent the Greek people or the Church. There are some things historically wrong in the book, but overall, it's pretty good. It even discusses the Sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.
The pertinent question, that is, to the actual topic of this thread (remember that) is not whether the HRE was legitimate, but whether it was accepted as such in the West.
I will also point out that such questions of legitimacy can branch indefinitely. Was the Roman Imperiate legitimate at all? If not granted this status by the Senate and People of Rome, whence does anyone's legitimacy spring?
This in not limited to Rome/Byzantium, of course. At the start of the game, England is ruled by a usurper. And it is only a little before the end of the GC that it's then ruling dynasty was fully accepted as legitimate (strictly, 1802). Charlemagne got his title the same way Henry IV and Napoleon got theirs, and Julius, his. They all took it.
I will also point out that such questions of legitimacy can branch indefinitely. Was the Roman Imperiate legitimate at all? If not granted this status by the Senate and People of Rome, whence does anyone's legitimacy spring?
This in not limited to Rome/Byzantium, of course. At the start of the game, England is ruled by a usurper. And it is only a little before the end of the GC that it's then ruling dynasty was fully accepted as legitimate (strictly, 1802). Charlemagne got his title the same way Henry IV and Napoleon got theirs, and Julius, his. They all took it.
But the thing is, Charlemagne really took nothing. Sure, he took over control over most of the barbarian lands in the west, he did do that. But he didn't "take" the title of Roman Emperor. He would have had to go to Constantinople to do so.
This is such a boring topic why is it still going on
This much attention, frankly, should not be paid to a 2 province minor that doesn't exist within 54 years of the game's start. Seriously.
This much attention, frankly, should not be paid to a 2 province minor that doesn't exist within 54 years of the game's start. Seriously.
Achem, we aren't really talking about the Roman Empire as it is in the game, we are talking about the empire as of Charlemagne's time and the illegitimacy of the HRE.
Yes, he did take the title. He and his descendants used it until the early 19th C. The fact that the Eastern Empire may not have recognized it was not going to lose them any sleep.
Look the question was creating a pentarchy-like decision in the west. I objected because the people involved would (many of them) side with the HRE as already possessing the right to the title. The fact that you do not believe they had such a right is really irrelevant, just as irrelevant as my own belief that the whole line of Roman emperors was illegitimate. The question is whether this idea makes sense in the context of time and place. I don't believe it does.
I understand that you care deeply about this subject, and I'm all for people arguing for their beliefs. (Further, I have a good deal of sympathy for your point of view.) But always remember that, in historical arguments, it is strictly impossible to prove oneself certainly correct, as one can in geometry. It is interesting to see what the Byzantine view of the HRE is. It can be supported by argument, of course, but it is always subject to qualification and refutation. That's inherent in the nature of history.
Again, I sympathize with your position, I tend to argue the same way when the Stuarts are brought up. But note that it does no good to bring up things which weaken your case. 2 examples:
1. Anyone who thinks Runciman is biased against the Byzantines is showing his own, stronger, bias in that direction. It weakens your case to imply this.
2. Earlier you referred to the Roman Catholic Church as being "under Orthodoxy" before the schism. This too is really tendentious. Before the schism, they were united in one communion. It is my opinion that both Leo IX and Michael Cerularius come out badly, but that is not a fact.
But my points are not to dispute your position, per se, but to insist that (a) most of your argument is, in fact, irrelevant to the topic of this thread, and (b) to warn against building into your arguement points which are, or were at the time, themselves in dispute. I repeat, I have much sympathy for your views, but you need to tighten up some of your arguments.
I think I understand your point.
1. I will admit I have a strong bias, but I would say mine is correct, and is supported by history. I prefer to trust the people that actually lived in the empire and at the time rather than some western scholar's opinion over 500 years later. I am currently reading a book on Early Christian and Byzantine architecture, it is a wonderful book, but it's written by a Lutheran scholar who has already (even in the early pages) made some erroneous assumptions and conclusions.
2. Being an Orthodox Christian, it is our view that it was the Church of Rome that split from us, and so that is why I use that language. I cannot ever suggest that the church itself split, or that the church was divided. In our view, it was one party that departed from the other.
I know we've gotten far off topic, but I've enjoyed this discussion. Its much more enlightened and constructive than other discussions I've had like it elsewhere...
Ok, I see what you mean now, Chinese in the sense that PRC is a multinational state and has Mongol citizens. The Turks have tried to pull the same thing with the Kurds, they're 'Mountain Turks' in official parlance: even though they aren't ethnically Turkish they're Turks because they're part of the Turkish state.
I hate to say it but that policy seems to have served the Chinese well, considering the Han started out with a little thread of land along the Yellow River and managed to turn that huge landmass of China proper into an almost homogeneously Han nationstate over the course of their history.
Last edited:
Oh no, no not that. I was reffering to the Byzantines loosing Constantinople for a couple of years, after the 4th crusade.
Haven't read the book, but i have read other Runciman's works. He is generally terribly accurate, although he has a romantic style of writing. What things are historically wrong, please do tell.
I like the idea of a resurgent Byzantine/Roman empire getting additional cores. In a multiplayer game or an AI controlled Byzantiam it would have little effect. The current events work very well. After they are met then there should be a choice, call it "Long live Rome?". The choice would be to have a greek empire or to have a resurgent roman empire. The resurgent rome would then get missions that involved such things as taking Rome, or Gaul ect. The greek empire choice could give culture bonuses or other bonuses (open to ideas). The main thing would be not to make the resurgent rome decision to powerful but to make it a challenge. Such as all western nation getting a cause for war against the ROMANS.
Taking Rome, Venice, and Southern Italy is already in the game for the Byzzies, actually.
I said that in my post. Not specificly but said the current ones work well. The problem is that after they are met the game loses the epic feel it has up to that point.
If we're talking specifically about the time of Charlemagne, then the various regional dialects of Latin would have already evolved into their own independent languages. Is that what you meant? I thought you were implying that they didn't speak Latin YET, not that they had already evolved beyond it. In that case, you're right.
And in response to Beamed, I guess you're right and wrong. Mongols living in China today could very well be considered Chinese, but that's nothing unique to China, just a by-product of the modern age of nation states. The medieval Chinese, and in fact all Chinese before the fall of the Qing, most certainly did not consider Mongols to be Chinese, in any sense of the word.
Cultural and ethnic divides are still prominent issues in China, particularly in Tibet, where the massive immigration of Han Chinese has caused significant local tension over the past decades.
There are solutions to this.
There are solutions to this.
Most countries lose their epic feel at some point. The Byz have a pretty great run till then.
I was looking at that mod changelog and I see why people suggested the things in this thread might seem overpowered.
I was looking at that mod changelog and I see why people suggested the things in this thread might seem overpowered.
That's why I said 'China proper', ie. not Xinjiang, Tibet, or Inner Mongolia. Those are short term problems though, over the long term the Chinese will just entrench themselves in ever greater numbers in those places and the possibility of separatism will wither away, look what happened to Manchuria.
Last edited:
They do have a good run until then...but I want it to continue. Not only with Byz (although they are my favorite) but with them all. Thats why I throw my ideas out there.
It is possible to add to Byz's options, while making for a more challenging game and not effecting play balance.