When the World Stopped Making Sense [ A 480 Migrational Period Mod]
- Thread starter Enlil
- 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.
- Status
How would that work in-game? Would that title be available for everyone to create or will there be some special requirements? Like that the Diocese is your primary title?
Yeah, it is a pretty tough to make Empire, but it exists simply for the possibilities for ahistorical development. Certain, reqierements are needed in order to make both the Egyptian Empire and the Oriens Empire.
Is there going to be an Armenian Empire possible to create? It would require an independent Armenian King to hold both the Armenian heartland, Antioch and Amida (the presumed location of the ancient capital of Tigranes the Great, Tigranakert)
I don´t know... You can look at this, the maximum extent of the Armenian Empire and then decide:
Blah, the forum ate the post I spent 2 hours writing. I'm exhausted now.
Too many supports for the legitimacy of Theodoric as a Western Empire. You can't attack one without coming up against another. Be happy to have a detailed discussion by chat some time with anyone who cared to talk, but I sleep now.
Yeah Ofaloaf, we have heard your case but objection, OVERRULED.
Theodoric was the Western Emperor. His Romanness was never questioned by his subjects (except Boethius, who was at the time in prison awaiting execution on charges of treason, and is thus a biased source.) He was praised as Semper Augustus by the senate, called Princeps and Undefeated Imperator. His reign was compared with that of Trajan. Any sufficently Romanized ruler should be able to win Italo-Roman or Gallo-Roman or even Romano-African and Hispano-Roman support for reviving the Western Empire, so long as he consciously and continually continues to uphold Roman traditions: the Romans, even the Late Romans, were completely willing to accept a non-Italian as a Roman Emperor, as long as he was sufficiently 'Roman'.
He didn't just receive a Roman education: he spent at least ten years of his life living as an elite in Constantinople. He was as Roman as they came. Additionally, the Goths living to the North of the Danube in the fifth century cannot be archaeologically distinguished from their Roman counterparts to the south of the Danube except in levels of material culture - those to the south of the Danube had MORE, which is why the Romano-Goths were willing to back any ruler who could get them settled on the Roman size of the line. The inhabitants of the Late-Roman (5th century) Balkans and the Romano-Goths lived extremely similar lifestyles outside of the major cities, and Theodoric's Romano-Goths spent years living in Roman cities in the Balkans prior to their attack on Italy. Then, while in Italy, they impressed even the Italo-Romans in their classical Roman-ness. Procopius writes that some Goths opposed Romanization after Theodoric's death, but we have no other evidence to support this claim, and Procopius is a very biased source writing in a time when the Eastern Empire was devoted to legitimizing its reconquest of Italy. For one thing, the assertion that Theodoric would ever have stated that no true Goth should ever accept a Roman education is complete bunk: Theodoric's Roman education is what made him a palatable Roman ruler in the eyes of the Italo-Roman elites, and he certainly raised his daughter to have that education and encouraged her to raise her son in like fashion and to maintain close ties with the Eastern Empire.
The 'polite fiction' you refer to about Theodoric being a viceroy of the Eastern Empire was made up after the fact by Eastern writers looking to deligitimize Amal rule in the West. Several accounts from the period refer to Theodoric being dispatched specifically to rule the Western Empire. There is also literally NO REASON to return the imperial regalia to the West if only a viceroy rules there: after the end of the Eastern Roman conquest, the regalia was shipped back to Constantinople, none of the later Exarchs wore it. Imperial purple was IMPERIAL, and Theodoric used it exclusively. And much much more (see above very long post on this subject.) too tired, sleep now.
Also, several recent historians have concluded that Theodoric exercised much greater direct authority over Visigothic Hispania than has previously been believed to be the case: see especially Haslall, Heather, Arnold, etc.) to the extent that had Eutharic not died young, the two territories would likely have remained connected even after Theodoric died.
Well, I believe all this finally put aside anyone´s doubt about making Theoderic an Emperor did it not? But Im also beginning to wonder; should we make Theoderic a Romano-Goth or an Arian Roman with Gothic Ancestry? Or is that pushing it too far?
Could I at least be pointed at some primary sources? I'm being told that these dudes said x, y, and z back in the day, and I've been told that a couple of times, but as much as taking people at their word is a common thing online, can I just have a citation of one or two primary sources where this stuff is actually said?
No defenitly not Roman. He was born a Goth and had Roman Education so Romano Goth is kinda ok. But is education the same as culture? For example: Im born German. If im educated by an French educator does it make me French-German? No im still German. Only because i speak French and have some French habits (dont know a better word for it) that does not change my culture. Only if i had a kid with a French or African women that child would be French-German or Afro-German. That is something that i find a bit annoing with CK2: If you have a Frankish son he can get Greek if you educate him by an Greek courtier. Couldnt we make Romanization a Trait like:
"Romanized"
This charakter is able to speak Latin like his mother tongue and trained in the habits and traditions of his educators.
+10 opinion with all Roman like charakters, +0,05 montly prestige and maybe an learning boost
You could add that for the culture groups like "Germanized" for the different german cultures.
Ad Loup: there were Greeks in Southern Italy at this time. And they were the greatest part of the population down there and relativly near to their homeland so atleast a few provinces should be Greek like Brindisi or Tarentum.
Last edited:
Yes, for the love of all that is good in the world KingdomofWales, please, please, please cite your sources. You're making several controversial claims here and simply taking stuff like "The religious hierarchy of Italy accepted Theodoric as a legitimate emperor." at face value is ... a bit difficult, given what the common perception of Theodoric's relationship with the papacy is. You are not the only history major on this forum and people are going to be much less bothered by you throwing down a few brackets and book titles or quotations than they are by you making very difficult to prove claims and expecting us to take your word on it.
No, if add that trait then the hybrid cultures becomes meaningless. I realize that making Theoderic Roman is pushing it too far but we will make Theoderic Romano-Gothic, which simulates Romanization just beautifully. And if we wanna make anyone a Gothized Roman then we could add another hybrid culture where Gothic would be the primary culture, Gotho-Roman to be exact
Actually, Theoderic was respected by the Popes. He was even trusted with mediating in a conflict about who was the Pope in late 498 AD.
Last edited:
Why meaningless? Romano-Gallic existed not only because Gauls took the the Habits of the Romans but also the two cultures mixed. Education is not the same as culture. When Goths were educated by Romans they didnt become Romano-Gothic they became Romanized Goths. Romanization means that these people adopted Roman tradition, habits like clothing style or even bathing. Forget the traits about other cultures but "Romanized" should be in there. Use Theodoric for an example: Even though he was educated by Romans his son was Gothic so i dont see why this is so problematic.
So what´s the difference between the Romano-Gallic and Theoderic? The Romano-Gauls are a people who originates from Romanized Gauls and Theoderic originates from a relatively Romanized people or more precise, a Romanized mother and the Gothic King Theodemir
Was she Romanized or had a Roman parent? The Difference is that Romano-Gauls originated from the mix of Roman and Gaulish people. A Romano-Gaul is a person who has Roman and Gothic ancestry. If his mother was Roman or Romano Gothic then you are right. But if she was Romanized (she lived like a Roman but she had Gothic parents) than Theodoric was also Gothic.
To be more accurate: Romanization means to accept the habits, speech and rules like bathing in public baths or that the emperors were seen as gods (in later years of the Empire) of your new overlords. It means that the Romans integradet and assimilated the populations of newly conquered territories. A Romanized Gaul can be seen as a step between fully Gaul and Romano-Gaul. Only his children could become Romano-Gaul if he married a Roman or Romano-whatever woman. Romano-Gaul is the same as for an example English: a mix of different cultures. Not as complex as English but you can compare them.
What I propose for imperial titles with bureaucracy is to have law/s that trade money for revolt risk to represent the costs a huge empire has to keep itself stable and what happens when those needs are not met.
Let's leave Theodoric Gothic and not delve into "ethnicity, blood or culture" discussion.
- Status