Two Small Map Change Suggestions for Byzantium

  • 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.

Aidanator800

Second Lieutenant
38 Badges
Aug 14, 2018
123
536
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
So, this is a super small and pedantic request, I realize, but there were a couple of map inaccuracies for the Byzantines that I noticed for the 1066 start date. First, in the west, they should still have Bari in Italy, as that wouldn't be lost until 1071, the same year as Manzikert. In fact, having the Byzantines start at war with both the Seljuks and the Normans would both be more accurate and will make it more difficult for the Byzantines to succeed, so that it's not as easy for them to just tank the Seljuk wars like they usually do. Secondly, they should still have Edessa. The history of Edessa during this period is a bit murky, but we know that it wasn't lost until at least the 1080s, and was part of the realm of Philaretos Brachamios when he ruled his autonomous Duchy from Antioch, so we know that the Seljuks didn't yet have control of the city.
 
  • 37Like
  • 11
  • 4
Reactions:
Perhaps this will be addressed with the future Byzantine DLC. I personally was not aware they still had control of Bari in the 11th century.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So, this is a super small and pedantic request, I realize, but there were a couple of map inaccuracies for the Byzantines that I noticed for the 1066 start date. First, in the west, they should still have Bari in Italy, as that wouldn't be lost until 1071, the same year as Manzikert. In fact, having the Byzantines start at war with both the Seljuks and the Normans would both be more accurate and will make it more difficult for the Byzantines to succeed, so that it's not as easy for them to just tank the Seljuk wars like they usually do. Secondly, they should still have Edessa. The history of Edessa during this period is a bit murky, but we know that it wasn't lost until at least the 1080s, and was part of the realm of Philaretos Brachamios when he ruled his autonomous Duchy from Antioch, so we know that the Seljuks didn't yet have control of the city.
Cough https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...y-a-full-time-historian.1577207/post-28868391

Perhaps this will be addressed with the future Byzantine DLC. I personally was not aware they still had control of Bari in the 11th century.
the 11th century was the medieval Peak of Byzantine Italy before the Normans established themselves and the Capital was Bari.



Since I have little hope of map changes ever happening to the Byzantines within the next 2 years, might as well shill my own take on what the 1066 borders should be

Vanilla:
2023-04-19 (5).png

Considerations:
2023-04-19 (3).png

My Take:
2023-04-19 (4).png


Legend:
Purple: Byzantine Territory
Dark Purple: New Byzantine Territory that isn't debatable Imo
Light Purple: New Byzantine Territory that is debatable but favors Byzantine Rule Imo
Light Red: New Byzantine Territory that Favors Croatia Imo
Green: This is Seljuk territory the Byzantines have no right owning.
Light Green: This is Seljuk territory that is debatable but Favors Seljuk Rule Imo
Red: HERE BE PECHENEGS: aka the plains roamed by the Pechenegs settled around Prelsav and Dristra, autonomously/nominally under the Empire and mostly Christian since the war of the 1050s while the Cities in the region were still under the control of the Byzantines. Honestly given how inaccurate the 1066 vassal setup already is I'm not sure how to properly represent this very unique situation. Note: In the 1060s not the same Pechenegs above the Danube river.

Ignore Cherson I forgot to color it purple lol
 
  • 25
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I can hazard a guess why the Byzantines don't control Bari - the Byzantine Empire is very powerful at the start of the game, and the game doesn't do a great job at representing the difficulties of empires to project power in more distant regions. Them having a county (or two) in Italy is almost as good as the empire being wholly in Italy, as far as fighting them goes, skewing the Norman-Byzantine wars heavily in favor of the Byzantines.
 
  • 10Like
  • 8
  • 4
Reactions:
I can hazard a guess why the Byzantines don't control Bari - the Byzantine Empire is very powerful at the start of the game, and the game doesn't do a great job at representing the difficulties of empires to project power in more distant regions. Them having a county (or two) in Italy is almost as good as the empire being wholly in Italy, as far as fighting them goes, skewing the Norman-Byzantine wars heavily in favor of the Byzantines.

Immagine if they actually had to raise their armies in the location they are tied too and had to ACTUALLY have ships sufficent to transport troops over to Italy to fight, or just rely on the local troops in Bari if they cant. Ah CK3, wish they hadent abstracted away ships and raising troops in their locations.
 
  • 23
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I can hazard a guess why the Byzantines don't control Bari - the Byzantine Empire is very powerful at the start of the game, and the game doesn't do a great job at representing the difficulties of empires to project power in more distant regions. Them having a county (or two) in Italy is almost as good as the empire being wholly in Italy, as far as fighting them goes, skewing the Norman-Byzantine wars heavily in favor of the Byzantines.
Yeah I think thats always been the obvious reason why since CK2.

Historically, the Byzantines did push the Normans back from most of Apulia from 1066-1067 due to a reinforcement force being sent, but ongoing problems in the Balkans and Anatolia, sealed by the lost at Manzikert meant they were the last and thus Bari fell after a 3 year siege in 1071.

In-game if they start at war, while this might make them lose against the seljuks more, It means first they'll stomp the heck out of the normans.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Agreed; most people here are discussing Bari so let me comment about Edessa first: its governor during this period is actually already in vanilla CK3 but he's in the wrong location. Theodoros Pegonites is attested as doux of Edessa around 1067; vanilla has him as doux of Cyprus instead. What I've done in my mod is move him over to Edessa and give Cyprus to some random guy (I can find absolutely nothing about governors of Cyprus before 1092). If the devs do give Edessa to Byzantium in a future update, then I think this is the way to handle it.

As for Bari, its governor in 1066 was someone of Arab descent named Aboulchares, although I don't believe he's in the game already.

Also, the Byzantines should not own the Mayyafariqin region in 1066, that was actually the Marwanids' core territory. In vanilla they're emirs of Edessa, so it makes sense to give them Mayyafariqin in return; this can also help balance out the expanded Byzantine territory.

Edit: Actually, on the subject of Byzantine vassals, they really ought to land Gagik II, the last king of Armenia who was given land including Lykandos, Komana, and Tzamandos in return for surrendering his kingdom to the Byzantines. He's definitely one of the more interesting characters in 1066 and I would love to see him made playable. Maybe even some special decisions and events letting him reform the kingdom easier than usual, or maybe even the Seljuks offering his old territory back if he assists them against Byzantium (not something that actually happened, but it would make for a cool storyline and some interesting gameplay).
 
Last edited:
  • 10
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Paradox doesn't care about History.
They care about history, but they're writing a game.

Polite, constructive criticism of province allocations, with evidence, has been seen to be an effective means of correcting Paradox maps on a number of occasions.
 
  • 17
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Red: HERE BE PECHENEGS: aka the plains roamed by the Pechenegs settled around Prelsav and Dristra, autonomously/nominally under the Empire and mostly Christian since the war of the 1050s while the Cities in the region were still under the control of the Byzantines. Honestly given how inaccurate the 1066 vassal setup already is I'm not sure how to properly represent this very unique situation. Note: In the 1060s not the same Pechenegs above the Danube river.
Some sort of system for dividing counties up would be potentially cool. Could be nomad exclusive to represent basically the various times nomads were settled underneath other overlords, basically sacrificing some tax income in exchange for the ability to call those troops to war at need(but also with potential for them to rise up in rebellion). But still keeping cities as direct vassals to the Emperor. Not sure if it could be done but it'd be cool, almost like the Emperor/King acting as the realm priest in that area and getting the city baronies as opposed to the temple baronies(while the nomads keep the castles, ostensibly reflecting their control over the land)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
In general, blobs are always more powerful in-game, and there is little to stop them otherwise. The Normans in Sicily are a great example of where this goes wrong. Within 15 years of 1066 historically, they should have not only completely driven the Byzantines out of Italy, but they were able to launch an invasion of Greece that threatened to conquer Byzantium as a whole.

In-game, they are nothing more than a road-bump for the Byzantine reconquest of Sicily, much less a threat to actually go on the offensive. The only way Paradox can make smaller countries defeat larger ones* is with event troops (we see this with pretty much every starting war, from the Norman Conquest to Manzikert to the Sons of Ragnar).

Leaving Bari in Byzantine hands in 1066 would just mean that the Byzantines consistently reconquer all of Sicily. The Byzantines are already arguably the strongest power in the game; the last thing the game needs is to make them even more so.


*(ignoring AI incompetence that sometimes leads them to march around without ever capturing the war goal)
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Cough https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...y-a-full-time-historian.1577207/post-28868391


the 11th century was the medieval Peak of Byzantine Italy before the Normans established themselves and the Capital was Bari.



Since I have little hope of map changes ever happening to the Byzantines within the next 2 years, might as well shill my own take on what the 1066 borders should be

Vanilla: View attachment 969236
Considerations:View attachment 969237
My Take: View attachment 969238

Legend:
Purple: Byzantine Territory
Dark Purple: New Byzantine Territory that isn't debatable Imo
Light Purple: New Byzantine Territory that is debatable but favors Byzantine Rule Imo
Light Red: New Byzantine Territory that Favors Croatia Imo
Green: This is Seljuk territory the Byzantines have no right owning.
Light Green: This is Seljuk territory that is debatable but Favors Seljuk Rule Imo
Red: HERE BE PECHENEGS: aka the plains roamed by the Pechenegs settled around Prelsav and Dristra, autonomously/nominally under the Empire and mostly Christian since the war of the 1050s while the Cities in the region were still under the control of the Byzantines. Honestly given how inaccurate the 1066 vassal setup already is I'm not sure how to properly represent this very unique situation. Note: In the 1060s not the same Pechenegs above the Danube river.

Ignore Cherson I forgot to color it purple lol
Good map and even then it's going to be missing a whole lot of details like several Themata that are missing in both start dates(Koloneia for starters), several that exist but shouldn't, multiple different ethnic groups in Asia Minor that were present(Isaurians) even before the empire, or were settled by the empire like Gothic(Gothograeci and perhaps Phyrgian Goths) tribes, Slavic(Sclaveni, later Serbs, later Bulgarians such as soldiers of Kometopuli etc), Persian (Khurramites), Turkic tribes (possibly, since several Turkic groups were part of the Byzantine army in Manzikert) and still retained their identity in 867 and/or 1066, multiple mercenary groups of certain ethnic origins that numbered in thousands were settled (Normans, Lombards, Franks ) in both Balkans and Asia Minor, some of these mercenaries even carved up their own realms for a period and a whole lot of things that don't come to mind.
 
Mild necro because I kept meaning to respond to this thread then put it off for way too long: some interesting points in here, sounds like there's a few areas where we could stand to tweak some history a smidge, I've made a note and will try to look into it whenever I next get some free time for history work :). Might be a little while, but it's on my docket.

Edit: with double apologies to Byzantium2000 for completely blanking them in the other thread (I did see and meant to reply there too, honest!). ^^' Just went to PM you now to say I'd made a note of a thread with a similar suggestion then realised you were in that too.
 
  • 13Like
  • 5
  • 3Love
Reactions:
Cough https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...y-a-full-time-historian.1577207/post-28868391


the 11th century was the medieval Peak of Byzantine Italy before the Normans established themselves and the Capital was Bari.



Since I have little hope of map changes ever happening to the Byzantines within the next 2 years, might as well shill my own take on what the 1066 borders should be

Vanilla: View attachment 969236
Considerations:View attachment 969237
My Take: View attachment 969238

Legend:
Purple: Byzantine Territory
Dark Purple: New Byzantine Territory that isn't debatable Imo
Light Purple: New Byzantine Territory that is debatable but favors Byzantine Rule Imo
Light Red: New Byzantine Territory that Favors Croatia Imo
Green: This is Seljuk territory the Byzantines have no right owning.
Light Green: This is Seljuk territory that is debatable but Favors Seljuk Rule Imo
Red: HERE BE PECHENEGS: aka the plains roamed by the Pechenegs settled around Prelsav and Dristra, autonomously/nominally under the Empire and mostly Christian since the war of the 1050s while the Cities in the region were still under the control of the Byzantines. Honestly given how inaccurate the 1066 vassal setup already is I'm not sure how to properly represent this very unique situation. Note: In the 1060s not the same Pechenegs above the Danube river.

Ignore Cherson I forgot to color it purple lol
Welp, since Wokeg continues to amaze the entire forum by going where no paradox dev has gone since Snow Crystal, answering the forbidden questions we all have, might as well explain my reasoning for the individual counties and why I put them in the categories I did.(except the Balkans cause that's dangerous and because Wokeg said Dalmatia will most likely be addressed in the future)

Dark Purple:

1.The County of Marash
  1. (Germanikeia): The capital barony and namesake of this county, Marash, was taken by the Byzantines in 962 and still held in 1066 as the seat of a Strategos under the Dukaton of Antioch. Who that Strategos was in 1066 I do not know.
  2. I couldn't find anything on the city(ingame) fortress of Qalat Rr-Rum(Rumkale) or minor town mosque(ingame) of Kaisum specifically as neither were of any significant importance in our time frame and would have been mopped up between the campaigns of 958-965. Kaisum could have had a Tourmarches but Qalat would have had a lower ranking military official as a mere outpost

2. The County of Samosata:

  1. The capital barony and namesake of this county, Samosata, was taken by the Byzantines in 958 and still held in 1066 as the seat of a Strategos under the Dukaton of Edessa. Once again I do not know who would be the governor in 1066.
  2. The only other holding, Bahasna, was a minor town with no known data to me in 1066 and presumedly taken in the campaigns of 957-958.

3. The County of Aintab:
  1. The capital barony and namesake of this county, Aintab, was taken by the Byzantines in 962 and still held in 1066 as a minor border town. Only a Tourmarches if that would be ruling it in 1066.
  2. On the other hand, the ingame temple, populus and well off city of Duluk-Teluch(Teluch), also taken in 962, was ruled by a Strategos as of our 1066 start under the Dukaton of Antioch, but who he would be, again eludes me.
  3. Tall Bashir and Jarabulus were however owned by the Emirate of Aleppo and not the Byzantines. I would still give the county to the Byzantines though as while it's a 2/2 split between each realm, The Byzantines controlled the in game capital barony and the largest settlement in the county historically. Besides Aleppo/Seljuks control the Artah, Tall Afrin and Azaz holdings, all historically Byzantine controlled so it evens out lol.

The famous Byzantine General George Maniakes who conquered Edessa and Eastern Sicily, was at separate times Strategos of Teluch and Samosata. Which really goes to show hard it can be finding the right rulers for our time frame when Byzantine Command positions had such short durations with consistent rotations.

4. The County of Edessa:

  1. The capital barony of and namesake of this county, Edessa, was taken by the Byzantines in 1032 and still held in 1066 as a major fortress city serving as the seat of a Doux as a Dukaton and the commander center of the Byzantine Military in Northern Mesopotamia. Luckily, we know because it was such an important Byzantine city that it's Doux in 1066 was Theodoros Pegonites, of the Pegonites family that provided the empire multiple Douxs and Strategoi.
  2. The city holding of Al-Bira was however controlled by Aleppo and thus the Seljuks, but I think it's clear it should be a Byzantine county overall.
I'm trying to be historical as possible so I wont list non proven Byzantine governors or commanders of the time, but I do have individuals in mind to fill these counties that aren't ingame and would soon have a role to play historically in the region under Byzantium.

Light Purple -Light Red

1. The County of Lecce:
  1. The capital barony and namesake of this county, Lecce, was taken by the Byzantines in 552 and is one of the few towns still held by them in September 1066 as they began their last pushback against the Normans that would last until 1068. Lecce was a minor town under the Byzantines since the port of Otranto took it's place as the main trading hub in Salento, and wouldn't have had a Doux or Strategos but a Tourmarches.
  2. The wildly ingame empty holding of Otranto meanwhile was the largest and most important port in Byzantine Salento/Lecce county as it controlled access to the Adriatic and access to the Balkans. I've read conflicting reports but the city seems to have been possibly under Norman control during our start before the Byzantines retake it in 1067. The city while having an Archbishop metropolitan who served as the most important denizen and agent of imperial authority, did not have the Strategos spam of the Empires eastern gains and still had a Tourmarches.
  3. The ingame city of Brindisi, which is fitting as the 2nd port of Apulia, was most likely under Norman control during our start, before again the Byzantines reconquered it for the last time in 1067.
Honestly, I don't mind if the Normans keep this given how things are, it's valid.

2. The county of Bari:
  1. The capital barony and namesake of this county, Bari, Capital of post Syracuse Byzantine Italy, seat of a Strategos and later a Doux/Katapan, reclaimed in 876 when the citizens opened their gates to the Byzantines for saving them from a Muslim assault, served as the most important Byzantine city on the peninsula ever since. Still under Byzantine control in 1066 under the already said Doux Abulchares, who's leading the last major pushback against the Normans in Italy at game start but he's not even in the game....Alas
  2. The renowned city of Taranto, a relatively bustling mixed Greek-Latin City that has been conquered by the Normans in 1063 and would be reclaimed in 1067, standard protocol lol.
  3. temple of Matera, which honestly as one of the new towns settled by Greek colonists given a bishop during the 960s, fair enough I guess. Taken by the Normans at some point before our start as far as I know.
I think it's more important that the Byzantines control Bari given what it represents but as long as they keep stomping the Normans I can see why it won't happen.

If anyone has books(focusing on the Normans for ex) that give others dates for the fall of any of these Italian cities please feel free to share.

3. The county of Tao:
  1. The Capital barony but not namesake of this county, Tortomi, was a small town annexed in 1000 alongside rest of the Kingdom of Tao in 1000AD willed to the Empire due the death of Davit II. Most likely a Tourmarches or local Georgian notable controlled the town.
  2. The ingame City of Oltisi meanwhile was the former capital of the Georgian Kingdom of Tao and largest city in the upper Tao region. definitely would have had a Tourmarches or prominent Georgian overseeing it. Both these towns were under the Doukaton of Iberia in 1066.
  3. The Georgian town of Taoskari was still under Georgian control.
4. the County of Acampse:
  1. The capital barony but not namesake of this county, Archabis....I have no information on, I'm not sure what this holding represents, be it the Byzantine towns of Athenai and Hyspiratis or what, but it's definitely located in the byzantine part of Pontus.
  2. The ancient Late Antiquity Byzantine city of Petra, destroyed by Emperor Justinian in 551, not sure it should be a holding ingame. the Byzantine city of Bourzo, the seat of the Strategos in command of the theme of Soteropolis under the Dukaton of Chaldia, is the closet settlement to It not already in game. could also make it the copper-iron mining town of Murgul which was possibly under Georgian control at the time.
Personally I think these counties deserve to be Byzantine ingame 1066, but if the Byzantines lose Manzikert, Gerogia is given the decision to buy them and the Armenian county of Vanand(which unlike ingame was not the cost of a lost at Manzikert) as they historically did in alliance with Byzantium against the Seljuks around 1074.
It should be said the Famous Komnenian Gerogian Byzantine commander and Monastery founder Gregory Pakourianos is not accounted for in 1066 after losing Ani to the Seljuks in 1064(not his fault though), he could be placed in one of these counties as he was Doux of Iberia in 1072 but the governor Douxs of Kars and Theodosioupolis are actually acounted for in 1066.

Green:

1. The counties of Mayyafariqin and Tall Basma:
  1. Trinculo carries again by reminding us all that the Byzantines controlled no holdings in these counties in 1066 as the core of the Marwanid dynasty, who instead ingame rule Byzantine Syria and Mesopotamia, the Marwanids should be moved back to their historical capital of Mayyafarikin under the Seljuks.
2. the County of Ani:
  1. The former Capital of the Armenian Kingdom of Armenia and Dukaton of Anion, was taken by the Seljuks in 1064 and placed under Abu Al-Aswar, former Emir of Dvin and then Emir of Ganga or his son. I assume in game Abu is the ingame owner of Dvin, Vali Sawur Fezl. He should however be located in his capital, the county of Ganja which instead the Kersanids who he historically defeated from there, control ingame. So Imo the setup should be Vali ruling from Ganga with him or his son ruling Ani and a son ruling Dvin, all as vassals of the Seljuks.
Light Green:

1. The county of Bakriya:
  1. The Capital but not namesake of this county, Hani, was under Marwanid control.
  2. To be honest I'm not sure what the ingame temple Shimshat represents, my research just showed it as another name for the also ingame Arsamasat(Arsamosata), it position on the map if I'm understanding it right puts it barely or deeply on the Byzantine side of the Byzantine-seljuk frontier.
  3. Hisn di-I-Qarnain, I'm again not sure what this holding represents, I assume it's either Fum or Hattah and is in Marwanid control.
  4. The ingame empty holding of Ernke, was a town taken by the Byzantines in 971 and seat of a strategos in 1066.
  5. The town of Qulb was part of the Armenian Principality of Taron, willed to the Byzantine empire in 967 and still held in 1066.
I'm 50/50 on who should control this. If the Byzantines keep it though it would be the only part of Jazira they control left and only county with Seljuk event troops. But tbf the Seljuks were attacking Byzantine Edessa in 1066 and raiding Cilicia/Syria not invading southern Armenia yet.

Red:
Just some context, all the red regions are provinces that have parts of the lower Danube plain part of them and thus the parts open to the prowling of the Pechenegs.

Agreed; most people here are discussing Bari so let me comment about Edessa first: its governor during this period is actually already in vanilla CK3 but he's in the wrong location. Theodoros Pegonites is attested as doux of Edessa around 1067; vanilla has him as doux of Cyprus instead. What I've done in my mod is move him over to Edessa and give Cyprus to some random guy (I can find absolutely nothing about governors of Cyprus before 1092). If the devs do give Edessa to Byzantium in a future update, then I think this is the way to handle it.

As for Bari, its governor in 1066 was someone of Arab descent named Aboulchares, although I don't believe he's in the game already.

Also, the Byzantines should not own the Mayyafariqin region in 1066, that was actually the Marwanids' core territory. In vanilla they're emirs of Edessa, so it makes sense to give them Mayyafariqin in return; this can also help balance out the expanded Byzantine territory.

Edit: Actually, on the subject of Byzantine vassals, they really ought to land Gagik II, the last king of Armenia who was given land including Lykandos, Komana, and Tzamandos in return for surrendering his kingdom to the Byzantines. He's definitely one of the more interesting characters in 1066 and I would love to see him made playable. Maybe even some special decisions and events letting him reform the kingdom easier than usual, or maybe even the Seljuks offering his old territory back if he assists them against Byzantium (not something that actually happened, but it would make for a cool storyline and some interesting gameplay).
Thanks for finding Pegonites btw, would have never expected him to be put in Cyprus lol. Also while King Gagik II was given lands he was not actually given control of those cities and towns, he was however later made Strategos of Sebasteia after the death Davit of Vaspurakan and later promoted to the unique and new position of Mega Doux of Charsianion after Manzikert. Thus he should be ingame Duke(gross) of Sebasteia during 1066 and not a count under his wife(daughter of Davit) who controls a gigantic ahistorical duchy.

Mild necro because I kept meaning to respond to this thread then put it off for way too long: some interesting points in here, sounds like there's a few areas where we could stand to tweak some history a smidge, I've made a note and will try to look into it whenever I next get some free time for history work :). Might be a little while, but it's on my docket.

Edit: with double apologies to Byzantium2000 for completely blanking them in the other thread (I did see and meant to reply there too, honest!). ^^' Just went to PM you now to say I'd made a note of a thread with a similar suggestion then realised you were in that too.
No prob Bob...I didn't think you would actually respond lol.

Good map and even then it's going to be missing a whole lot of details like several Themata that are missing in both start dates(Koloneia for starters), several that exist but shouldn't, multiple different ethnic groups in Asia Minor that were present(Isaurians) even before the empire, or were settled by the empire like Gothic(Gothograeci and perhaps Phyrgian Goths) tribes, Slavic(Sclaveni, later Serbs, later Bulgarians such as soldiers of Kometopuli etc), Persian (Khurramites), Turkic tribes (possibly, since several Turkic groups were part of the Byzantine army in Manzikert) and still retained their identity in 867 and/or 1066, multiple mercenary groups of certain ethnic origins that numbered in thousands were settled (Normans, Lombards, Franks ) in both Balkans and Asia Minor, some of these mercenaries even carved up their own realms for a period and a whole lot of things that don't come to mind.
I agree on the Themes and on the empire being more multiethnic to a degree, even made the map for vanilla 1066 below a while back for fun to show more concrete proven ethic groups in the Empire but I cant agree with the rest. Anatolia has been estimated to have a pop between 9 and 13 million during our start.

You can't account for the settlements of few thousands or hundreds when CK3 lacks barony cultures unless the county themselves are very small( hence the Magyars of the Axios pass I added and even and they shared that area with Vlachs making me pick and choose).

  1. Peoples like the Isaurians haven't been mentioned as a people in nearly 500 years in 1066.
  2. The Gothograeci, a Gothic unit settled in Bithynia or Mysia in the late 6th-7th century are last mentioned in the first half of the 9th century as a region and when they show up in the sources in the 8th century are already disputed by some historians as not having retained the original ethic connection. How distinct they actually were from Byzantine Romans in that century remains to be seen. By Constantine VIIs time in the 950s their origin was forgotten and their name attributed to a river .
  3. Phyrigan Goths and Phyrigans period can not be talked about period in our timeframe.​
  4. The Khurramites put at 30,000, were split up by Theophilos(829-842) near the end of his reign into units of 2000 across the Empire and their leader who had already taken a Greek name, arrested. The Byzantine Historian Genesios, writing about the event a century later says "They were dispersed and almost entirely vanished" how do you represent that in game as a distinct culture with regions? Now that said, there are a few Persian characters most likely from them that could be added to Byzantium in 867 which I'm fully down for.
  5. Mardites, said to be 12,000, disbursed into the naval themes in Greece and Anatolia, I tried to represent them in Iron Century as a ruler but their wasn't much historical basis for that when all their commanders were "Greek" and no ethic distinction is said about them at that point.
  6. On the other hand if we're talking about Slavs, Vlachs, Albanians, Armenians, Melkites, Georgians and Syrians with clear majorities or large minorities in provinces of the empire, then I'm all for that, hence this dangerous map you shouldn't take too seriously or as final.
2023-02-08.png

(Also being Generous to Armenians ngl)
Legend:
*Pink = Greek
*Redish Pink = Albanian
*Light Purple = Armenian
*Purple = West Syriac
*Maroon = Gothic
*Saturated Blue = Melkite
*Light Blue = Aromanian
*Pale Blue = Romanian(Vlach)
*Grey = Bulgarian
*Light Green = Hungarian
*Yellow = Pecheneg
*Brown = Serbian
 
  • 8
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Sources:
  • History of the Byzantine state and society: by Warren Treadgold
    The making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600-1025: by Mark Whittow
    Byzantium's Balkan frontier: by Paul Stephenson
    Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium: by Anthony Kaldellis
    Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade: by Anthony Kaldellis
    A Companion to Byzantine Italy: various authors
    Byzantium, Venice and the Medieval Adriatic: Spheres of Maritime Power and Influence, C. 700-1453: various authors
    Antioch in the Middle Byzantine period (969-1084) : the reconstruction of the city as an administrative, economic, military and ecclesiastical center: by Klaus-Peter Todt
    Dumbarton Oaks. Byzantine Seal Collection
    Wikipedia for convenience
  • Countless glances through academic articles :(

Maps:
1684395252497.png


1684395315661.png

1684395938360.jpeg

1684396281856.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Immagine if they actually had to raise their armies in the location they are tied too and had to ACTUALLY have ships sufficent to transport troops over to Italy to fight, or just rely on the local troops in Bari if they cant. Ah CK3, wish they hadent abstracted away ships and raising troops in their locations.

I wish people wouldn't romanticize the past like this. Exactly the same thing would happen in CK2 because the number of ships was never an issue for any realm with a decent number of coastal provinces and levies being raised locally didn't matter because there was no reason not to gather your entire available army and sending it off to every war. Those two features just added pointless micro.
 
  • 13
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I wish people wouldn't romanticize the past like this. Exactly the same thing would happen in CK2 because the number of ships was never an issue for any realm with a decent number of coastal provinces and levies being raised locally didn't matter because there was no reason not to gather your entire available army and sending it off to every war. Those two features just added pointless micro.

Made all the difference if you were fighting the war on slow speeds. The enemy could rarely gather their entire army in one go, gave you further chance to try and isolate and wipe out disparate elements.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Made all the difference if you were fighting the war on slow speeds. The enemy could rarely gather their entire army in one go, gave you further chance to try and isolate and wipe out disparate elements.
The player could occasionally exploit AI stupidity (although that's still true today, maybe even more so), but not enough to make much difference in a Norman-Byzantine war, and it didn't help AI Sicily at all.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
There are not only geographical inaccuracies, the Byzantine Empire is very badly represented in the game. The simple fact of applying a silly feudal system when the empire had inherited the Roman imperial bureaucratic system is very anhistorical. I understand that it's done for convenience but a reform of this system would be cool, I would love to see a bureaucratic system appear as much as the return of the merchant republics. I think there are mods for that eventually. I recommend this video which sums up the problem:
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions:
There are not only geographical inaccuracies, the Byzantine Empire is very badly represented in the game. The simple fact of applying a silly feudal system when the empire had inherited the Roman imperial bureaucratic system is very anhistorical. I understand that it's done for convenience but a reform of this system would be cool, I would love to see a bureaucratic system appear as much as the return of the merchant republics. I think there are mods for that eventually. I recommend this video which sums up the problem:

This is the big elephant in the room.

Unfortunately, this is also an issue that probably can't be fixed in a minor or non-expansion/flavor-pack update, and any hypotetical related Byzantine DLC is currently out of reach (unless they include something of it in Legacy of Persia). Some minor fixes can be applied, like the unique traditions for the Byzantines to encourage factions & election weights (already added in T&T/Lance update), and maybe something like unique Vassal Contracts. But nothing like a full rework.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions: