Mamluks and Timurids aren't literally shoved in to some insignificant corner of the map surrounded on all sides by their inevitable doom.
What features would you like to see in a unique Byzantine government.
- Thread starter dayalu
- 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.
They’re neither Greek or Armenian. And the point isn’t that Boniface didn’t happen, but he could have.
This is just one Byzantophile's opinion but Byzantium should not receive a unique government instead I think the devs should improve on the governments that are currently available to everyone.
Having said that though the byzantine form of government was known for three things: Autocracy, Civil wars, and multiculturalism. (The country as a whole was known for stability, a professional army and a well organized draft system, being The Defender of Europe, open philosophical/religious debates, and great architectural wonders.)
Autocracy or dictatorship meant that one person was in charge and he made all the rules. He even had complete control over his state's religion and appointed his pope. To be fair Byzantium did have many traditions and they also had a senate and if the king didn't abide by those traditions he would often be murdered but de jure he had supreme control over the country.
There was endless civil wars in Byzantium. Again to be fair there was endless civil wars in every country in this time period but usually people were able to put aside their differences when another country was invading their homeland. Not so in Byzantium there was many bloody civil wars while they were being invaded by hordes from the east or barbarians from the west.
Finally Multiculturalism. Byzantium was able to control pretty much any land, any people, from any religion and there was not much internal opposition because their laws were clear and for much of its time period it was safer than other country's laws.
Now that I have went over the history of the Byzantine government I will explain my proposal. Byzantium in 1444 is crumbling. Someone who reforges Byzantium should be able to choose what Byzantium becomes. Because Byzantium is an Autocracy the player should be able to choose what direction Byzantium goes. Because the emperor had complete control he should be able to do anything. He should be able to convert to whatever religion he wants, marry whoever he wants, ally whoever he wants, and generally not have restrictions. There should be events that choose what direction Byzantium grows as it becomes restored. Will it take a modern stance of feudalism, then constitutional monarchy, and eventually a republic or will it stay true to Roman ways. The choice should be up the Emperor. There should be little unrest unless you're at the Hippodrome. Civil wars should function just like CK2 with it being a serious undertaking to put them down.
Having said that though the byzantine form of government was known for three things: Autocracy, Civil wars, and multiculturalism. (The country as a whole was known for stability, a professional army and a well organized draft system, being The Defender of Europe, open philosophical/religious debates, and great architectural wonders.)
Autocracy or dictatorship meant that one person was in charge and he made all the rules. He even had complete control over his state's religion and appointed his pope. To be fair Byzantium did have many traditions and they also had a senate and if the king didn't abide by those traditions he would often be murdered but de jure he had supreme control over the country.
There was endless civil wars in Byzantium. Again to be fair there was endless civil wars in every country in this time period but usually people were able to put aside their differences when another country was invading their homeland. Not so in Byzantium there was many bloody civil wars while they were being invaded by hordes from the east or barbarians from the west.
Finally Multiculturalism. Byzantium was able to control pretty much any land, any people, from any religion and there was not much internal opposition because their laws were clear and for much of its time period it was safer than other country's laws.
Now that I have went over the history of the Byzantine government I will explain my proposal. Byzantium in 1444 is crumbling. Someone who reforges Byzantium should be able to choose what Byzantium becomes. Because Byzantium is an Autocracy the player should be able to choose what direction Byzantium goes. Because the emperor had complete control he should be able to do anything. He should be able to convert to whatever religion he wants, marry whoever he wants, ally whoever he wants, and generally not have restrictions. There should be events that choose what direction Byzantium grows as it becomes restored. Will it take a modern stance of feudalism, then constitutional monarchy, and eventually a republic or will it stay true to Roman ways. The choice should be up the Emperor. There should be little unrest unless you're at the Hippodrome. Civil wars should function just like CK2 with it being a serious undertaking to put them down.
Last edited:
One could argue that Illyrians and Thracians were quite assimilated into Roman or Greek Culture at that point(kinda like Bulgaria and the Southern Slavs)
Last edited:
But only because Enrico Dandolo made the Byzantines an offer they couldn't refuse. And even with that the Byzantines weren't really willing to take on ol Bonty, so Enrico had to give them a taste of the ol' "burn down your city and steal all your land and art" action.
Yes. 12th most 'popular' 1444 start.
How many of these starts go beyond 1445 before being reset by devout Byzantophiles?
Restarting or short games happen with every country, and Johan has stated that the game only counts one start per day per tag per user.
From the time of the Komnenos Byzantium started a process of feudalization, and in the XV century it was a feudal monarchy, only nominally it retained the prestige of the autocracy, because the basileus was still image of the power of Christ on earth (and that was the cause of many civil wars, more centralized is the power, more people want it), but the government was completely feudal and decentralized in reality, with hereditary landlords who ruled small portions of land under the supervision of despots who were part of the imperial family and received a "despotate" as a personal appanage.
Also multiculturalism wasn't a thing no more in that timeframe, the empire was mostly greek and its population identified themselves mostly as greek, in the timeframe of the game nations like Russia, Spain, Ottomans, where many more multicultural of Byzantium, and also years before many revolts happened in the byzantine empire (like in Bulgaria) because the empire was so not multicultural that appointed a lot of greek people in the administration of the new territories so the locals felt oppressed.
Also the hippodrome, I can say that because of many years of mismanagement and economic problems, in the timeframe of the game most of the city of Constantinople was just a bunch of ruins, the Hippodrome was also in ruins and the last chariots race probably happened 300 years prior of the start date of the game, from the XIII century the hippodrome was used to play a kind of polo between different byzantine noble clans, and in 300 years we can say that was a perfectly established tradition.
Even the ottomans, who restored the hippodrome after their conquest of the city, continued this tradition because they considered themselves the islamic continuation of the byzantine empire.
There wasn't stability and a profession army in that region for so long time... Anyway is wrong imho to rely on what was a nation centuries ago to create mechanics for a game set in the XV century and after, otherwise France should have something in its national ideas about Charlemagne.
I'll support anything that adds more regional, cultural and religous flavour. But, honestly, i don't think Byzantium deserves that much detail, just like i wouldn't add unique mechanics for any minor country which will be annexed in less than 50 years after the game start...
More autocratic than any other nation at the time.
Your second point is a no brainer but doesn't really make my suggestion wrong due to Byzantium's history. Byzantium was about to be conquered by the Ottomans but even so many Italian and Spanish merchants were in their little rump of a empire. The revolts were mostly to take the emperorship not to become their own country by and large. No country has had zero revolts that have had a 1000 years of history or even 100 years of history for that matter.
Constantionple was not just a bunch of ruins due to 'mismanagement and economic problems'. It was that way due to the sacking and conquest of the city by crusaders and the subsequent prolonged looting by the Latin Empire. And you think a Byzantium that is restored would leave their city in rubble?
So you think it's better to rely on what was a nation for ten more years? To ignore history for Byzantium is retarded and equivalent to saying we should change France's ideas because they didn't come up with native trading policies, the philosophies, and liberte, egalitre, fraternite for another 200 hundred or 300 years after 1444. If France's ideas should be based on 200 years in the future Byzantium should have that amount of berth as well.
What would you do for Byzantium's unique government?
Last edited:
The least the Dev's could do is make the Theme system replace Turkish Culture, for Greek in Anatolia.
The Real Roman empire couldn't even replace the Turks after they lost 2/3 of Anatolia to Rum, and their reconquest had to involve the Turks working within their empire.
When talking about the local population, Turks in the 1100s were Greeks that converted to Islam. It was still true to some extent in 1444, though more likely a Byzantine resurgence would see some Greeks reconverting, with a significant minority still identifying as both Turkish and Islamic.
Probably not more autocratic than the russian states, for example, imho.
Yes and the sack of Constantinople at the end of the fourth crusade was caused by the dethroned emperor Alexios IV Angelos, who diverted the crusade on Byzantium promising to the crusaders a lot of gold (to use it against the muslims) if they were capable of restore him on the throne against the usurper of Byzantium. But then, after the crusaders put him on the throne, he just realized that the empire was out of money and then he decided to not pay them and to leave them outside of the city, starving. So Constantinople was sacked. And also, the crusaders in that case were mostly italians, and just some years before the emperor Andronikos Komnenos ordered the genocide of all the italians residing in Constantinople (the survivors were selled as slaves to the turks, in the name of multiculturality, I believe), the so called "massacre of the latins", italians who were the major "shareholders" of the empire and the one who dominated the maritime trade and the entire financial sector of Byzantium. Economical domination acquired thanks to continue concessions that every emperor made with this or another italian city state, just to receive from time to time the assistance of this or that other Italian navy, so many concessions to strangle their own trade in a financial suicide.
That's what I call mismanagement.
And Anyway, the fourth crusade happened in 1202, but in the XV century the city was again in ruin, and while they continued to rely on mercenaries, the empire had no money to pay the maintenance of many buildings so many of them collapsed, the population was reduced a lot... When the ottomans conquered the city, they rebuilded it from the scratch not because they want to destroy it but because they tried to save something that was already in pieces.
About the rebellions, with "like in Bulgaria" I was referring to the revolt of bulgarians and romanians against the greeks in the uprising of Asen and Peter, war of liberation who lead to the resurrection of Bulgaria in the guise of the second bulgarian empire.
Clearly not, I don't think that Constantinople would have been kept in rubble, but a restored Byzantium probably would be an empire of his time, it's not like if the Byzantine empire for a miracle recover itself, it start again rebuilding and making races at the hippodrome, form again the schola palatina, people start to dress like caesars etc... All those things were forgotten. Probably a restored Byzantium would have been very similar to a Christian version of the ottoman empire, with probably more western influence, and in everything, even what we perceive as "ottoman dress" was indeed taken from Byzantium, turbans at the time were pretty common between the byzantines for example, and we know that thanks to the italian painters of the reinassance.
Cyril Mango in his book about the byzantine civilization says that the byzantine people at the time even forgotten who was the builder of things like Hagia Sophia, for example, so trust me, the idea diffused in internet that the Byzantines were the true and conscious heirs of Rome, is false.
But they are still a very interesting nation, and their NI already show perfectly what Byzantium was in that period.
Regarding a unique form of government, I really don't know, in terms of gameplay it was a feudal monarchy, plain and simple.
But I like the proposal to allow them to make royal marriages even outside of their religious group, but that's apply only to byzantine princess and *other-religion* rulers, because a byzantine emperor would never marry a princess of another faith, was a problem even to marry catholic ones, in Byzantium.
Last edited:
All id want is the ability to raise special thematic troops once the theme system is restored. Just a nice touch once you've beaten the Turks.
I think in order for a byzantine government to be justified it needs to be granted to whichever orthodox nation that controls constantinople, a la what the mamluks have. Byzantium is way too likely to die early on for only them to have it.
id want to agree with you but i think Trebizond should have it regardless.
The Ambrosian Republic existed for four years but it's in there also Qara Qoyunlu and Aq Qoyunlu have unique governments but they didn't last to long either. did they Byzantines last very long after 1444 historically, no. was they're government fundamentally different from others yes. "The citizens of Constantinople were not concerned with the cause of the deposed emperor and his exiled son; hereditary right of succession had never been adopted by the empire and a palace coup between brothers was not considered illegitimate in the way it would have been in the West." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade "The Byzantine Empire had a complex system of aristocracy and bureaucracy, which was inherited from the Roman Empire. At the apex of the hierarchy stood the emperor, yet "Byzantium was a republican monarchy and not primarily a monarchy by divine right".[1] Beneath the emperor, a multitude of officials and court functionaries operated the complex administrative machinery that was necessary to run the empire. In addition to those officials, a large number of honorific titles existed, which the emperor awarded to his subjects or to friendly foreign rulers." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_bureaucracy_and_aristocracy
Would be cool but IMO mechanics would be better suited for something that other Empire tags get as well so it’s not useless for any campaign where the player isn’t Byz.
In the hundreds or even decades up to 1444 that’s definitely true but after Varna I don’t know that their demise was avoidable. I agree that Byz is bashed for little to no reason but Byz is definitely one of the most “doomed” tags. They survive longer than Albania in virtually all games even though Albania was able to repel the Ottomans until after the death of Skanderbeg (which on a side note, could use events/mechanics to ensure they last longer).
In the hundreds or even decades up to 1444 that’s definitely true but after Varna I don’t know that their demise was avoidable. I agree that Byz is bashed for little to no reason but Byz is definitely one of the most “doomed” tags. They survive longer than Albania in virtually all games even though Albania was able to repel the Ottomans until after the death of Skanderbeg (which on a side note, could use events/mechanics to ensure they last longer).
How about a Roman Republic Government form, that consists of elections every year, and has two rulers, who both add half their points to the country?