The Byzantine Empire, and how Holy Fury ruined them.
- Thread starter Anilomu
- 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.
No, not like any other country in the game.
Similar things did sometimes happen, but the Byzantine Empire wasn't a fully feudal society, and the means by which the powerful people derived their power was very different, such that the opportunities to usurp the throne were far greater.
If auto assignment of commanders is on, no wonder it's impossible to control the succession. You'd be constantly maximising the amount of competitors. I usually only hand out as many commander titles as is essential. Mainly to avoid the bug that reduces your voting power when commanders quit on their own, but also to reduce the amount of candidates.
This was an actual problem for Byzantine emperors that is being well represented by this system. You had powerful generals taking the throne, and eunuch generals or campaigning emperors like Basil II running from place to place to avoid creating potential rivals.
Also for commanders, having the marshal improve them is a really attractive option since you have to work with what you have. So you will periodically get better traits and stats for them. It won't make them super warriors like the Norse, but it could help. So you have to pick between that and the levy bonus.
Byzantium isn't feudal. But being feudal means a social structure and doesn't have anything to do with how the Emperor is chosen. I mentioned it in previous posts, most successions in Byzantium were from father to son. Court intrigue should be modeled in a better way, standing armies... Maybe a similar mechanic like patrician houses for unlanded dynasties... There's a lot of things that could be done to model it more accurately, but assasinations and factions are things that all realms used. Sucessions weren't guaranteed anywhere.
.png){kind=avatar}
The succession type is accurate enough given the game mechanics. There was no such thing as hereditary succession in the Byzantine Empire and even when the empire became more fuedal in its last years, the throne was still not seen as anyones birth right from what I can gather.
There were no election, but it is just a name that best describe how the system worked. Just like the Roman Empire, it was de jure elective/heir designation, but was de facto hereditary.
There were no election, but it is just a name that best describe how the system worked. Just like the Roman Empire, it was de jure elective/heir designation, but was de facto hereditary.
How is it remotely accuarate without co-emperorship?
And as I mentioned earlier most successions were father to son. So de facto it was primogeniture with heir designation.
Just like in the game under the current law.
When the emperor is a player, anyway. I think we all agree that the AI is bad at handling it.
Born in the Purple is +50 points for electors. The Despot honorary title (which I'm pretty sure is meant to model co-emperorship) is another +50. Combined, you really have no business losing election unless the heir you've designated is a disfigured heathen lunatic.
Huh, all this talk of how hard and terrible the ERE is makes me want to play as them for the first time in literally *years*. Suddenly playing as a strong vassal makes sense again, or even as the emperor.
That's rather unnecessary I found. I kept auto-assignment on for most of my last full Byz run. I barely had any trouble controlling the succession after my dynasty got established. Even when my kids were too young there was always a brother, or nephew I was able to push as heir.
No, legally it was not. The closest legal comparison would be the Merchant Republics (which also can't change government type).
Legally the Emperor was theoretically appointed by the Senate, in practice as the power of the Senate declined dynastic succession became more stable. It's no coincidence that the Rump Byzantine Empire that was reformed after the 4th Crusade lacked the same amount of court intrigue and had the longest lasting dynasty of the entire Roman Empire.
It's also not exactly true that "dynasties mattered", more that family connections mattered - a bit like the modern mafia.
Last edited:
Sorry, but it's not true, as far as I know. Legally, on paper, Bazileus was appointed, citing, "autoritate senatus, consensu militatum" ("by the authority of Senate and with consent with army").
Not what I would call co-emperorship. It gives a small opinion boost to the electors, and it being a honorary title can be revoked and granted again easily. It should entail more, and be more permanent.
I don't thik it's hard. I think it's not a good system.
For one it should be the indisputable heir. Factions aside, of course, the same way a heir in a primogeniture realm is not 100% guaranteed to succeed.
Second one, the emperor should have liberty to choose him freely most of the time. A co-emperor which was not a son of the previous one usually meant that the previous one was childless. Or a coup. An active coup, not just a "We don't like you".
Political power. It should have implications, not like a regent, but close, so it should matter having someone loyal.
Here’s the thing. It might not be co-emperorship, but it’s better than the easy and powerful primogeniture that existed before. At least the new system models the influence of the metropolitan court nobility, which was a huge factor in the ERE.
Heir designation plus primogeniture, as some people have suggested, is basically asking for an “I win” button. Especially with the ERE’s other massive advantages.
Heir designation plus primogeniture, as some people have suggested, is basically asking for an “I win” button. Especially with the ERE’s other massive advantages.
So many ignorant people about how elective system works. Each and every one is saying 'but you only lose your top level title, if you lose your counties it's a bug'. Bullshit. If a landless bloke gets elected how the fuck would you give him only the empire title if he doesn't have any proper land? He simply HAS to have at least a barony somewhere. So, if a landless bloke is set to win an election and he is not of your dynasty it's a proper game over since he will inherit all your clay. Byz system is at least easy to game.
Now, try to play in the HRE where the weights are so bullshit like 'good trait +10' 'he is of my culture +10' and 'he is pious +150' at 1,5k piety. You simply can't farm piety for your heir. It's friggin impossible unless you give him a kingdom and wait till he is at least 50, so you are set to lose every election ever. And if there ever happens to be some man with a weak claim on the HRE in a holy order, he will automatically get elected because of his high piety - causing instant game over.
Now, try to play in the HRE where the weights are so bullshit like 'good trait +10' 'he is of my culture +10' and 'he is pious +150' at 1,5k piety. You simply can't farm piety for your heir. It's friggin impossible unless you give him a kingdom and wait till he is at least 50, so you are set to lose every election ever. And if there ever happens to be some man with a weak claim on the HRE in a holy order, he will automatically get elected because of his high piety - causing instant game over.
Co-Emperor could be an addition council position with some special ERE actions.
Don’t know what or how, but I would like it more than a simpleminor title.
Don’t know what or how, but I would like it more than a simpleminor title.
He could usurp Constantinople. And even preferably all your possible baronies inside it so he becomes stronger. But he shouldn't take all your stuff
I've been advocating for Primogeniture+heir designation. But if you read me I'm asking for more mechanics too. I think this elective method had good intentions, but went only half the way in implementation, leaving Byzantium in a weird state.