When the World Stopped Making Sense [ A 480 Migrational Period Mod]

[BSggg]

Then I will give you an example of one:

Hilderic - King of the Vandals between 523-530. He was the son of the Vandal King Huneric (son of the great Gaiseric) and the Roman princess Eudocia, the daughter of Roman Emperor Valentinian III. He was also a Catholic by the way. Making him anything other then a Romano-Vandal would be historically incorrect. And also, since his grandfather was Valentinian III, then he would have a weak claim on the WRE as well

Could you please read more accurate? I said multiple times that if someone Barbarian had a Roman or Romano-something (not Romanized) parent (father or mother) then he is Romano-something. So its clear that Hilderic is Romano-Vandal. Also the Vandals were invading the WRE in 406 and settled in Africa 429 nearly 100 years before Hilderics reign so theres enough time for culture mix. On the other side we dont know what Theoderics mother was (btw that someone is Catholic or Nicene or Arian does say nothing about culture) and the Goths were not that "long" in the ERE or WRE and mostly treated as Tools for Defending the Empire. The only thing we know is that he had a Gothic Father, an Roman education and great Ambitions so i think he should stay Gothic in Game.

 

[Zusk]

Then what's a comparable way of implementing a law system with tradeoffs for non-Romans? All these features for the Romans just leave everyone else comparatively barren of stuff to play with.

This

 

[Erik W]

Could you please read more accurate? I said multiple times that if someone Barbarian had a Roman or Romano-something (not Romanized) parent (father or mother) then he is Romano-something. So its clear that Hilderic is Romano-Vandal. Also the Vandals were invading the WRE in 406 and settled in Africa 429 nearly 100 years before Hilderics reign so theres enough time for culture mix. On the other side we dont know what Theoderics mother was (btw that someone is Catholic or Nicene or Arian does say nothing about culture) and the Goths were not that "long" in the ERE or WRE and mostly treated as Tools for Defending the Empire. The only thing we know is that he had a Gothic Father, an Roman education and great Ambitions so i think he should stay Gothic in Game.

Fine then, I guess he would be a Romanized Goth. Same goes for his sister Amalasuntha

 

[loup99]

Then what's a comparable way of implementing a law system with tradeoffs for non-Romans? All these features for the Romans just leave everyone else comparatively barren of stuff to play with.

I'm not for a lot of features for the romans while everything else is left undeveloped (not really the case though) and personally thinks there already is a bit too much focus around them (both here in the mod-thread and the AAR thread). I personally think that religion, cultures and migration should be the main focus with everything else is secondary but good as it adds both flavour and replayability. Zusk had good ideas and code around this and Mr.Captialist too.

 

[Erik W]

I'm not for a lot of features for the romans and personally thinks there already is a bit to much focus around them (both here in the mod-thread and the AAR thread). I personally think that religion, cultures and migration should be the main focus with everything else is secondary but good as it adds both flavour and replayability. Zusk had good ideas and code around this and Mr.Captialist too.

Have we not discussed all these in countless posts before? You can´t blame us for shifting focus every now and then. And you can´t blame Rome for requiering attention, as it is one of the most complicated institutions of this period. But I actually think we have gotten through all there is about Rome now. We have Theoderic´s Empire, the Senate, the Prefects, the people with claims and... yeah I think we have covered everything...

 

[loup99]

Have we not discussed all these in countless posts before? You can´t blame us for shifting focus every now and then. And you can´t blame Rome for requiering attention, as it is one of the most complicated institutions of this period.

We have discussed it, and I'm not blaming for shifting focus, absolutely not. It is good to shift focus especially when the mod is so big. :happy: But Rome is more discussed than other things which in my opinion are more important, so I'm encouraging to focus around that too. Continue discussing Rome as much as you want, it is a good debate and I learn things while you post about them!

With this said it makes me thinking of subforums and stickies to have even more good discussions than now. Probably a bit too early for that still.

 

[ray243]

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.

Mind if I ask for a source that explicitly argued that Theodoric as a Western Roman Emperor? I did not recall Heather or Hasall arguing that.

 

[KingdomofWales]

The standard way to refer to a Romanized people in Academia is to hyphenate their Romanness:

Gallo-Roman
Hispano-Roman
Romano-Briton
Italo-Roman
Romano-African
Romano-Illyrian
Greco-Roman
Thraco-Roman
Romano-Dacian (or Daco-Roman)
Romano-Egyptian
Romano-Syrian
Romano-Palestinian

All of these groups is considered equally Roman, with local variations: a Syrian Roman is distinguished from a Romano Briton in terms of local ethnic identity markers such as food eaten, housing employed, different clothing, but all fall within Roman standards.

Among the 'Barbarians,' those who scholars consider to be heavily Romanized when they entered the Empire CAN BE hyphenated, but there is a major catch. There's no reason to do so. If you were to look at a cultural map of the Empire and its surrounding territory in the year 500, this is what you would see:

In Britain, Romano-Britons in the Western part of the island, Wales, Cornwall, and a small strip running from the old Wall to Cornwall. The Eastern Low-Lands would be culturally 'Northern Germanic,' or 'Proto-Anglo-Saxon,' although the sense of 'Anglo-Saxon' was an identity that had not yet emerged from the hodge podge of German tribal groups living in Eastern Low-Land Britannia at the time.

In Gaul and Germania, the Rhineland region in either direction should culturally Romano-German. This region had long had its own unique culture from the rest of Gaul. It was a northern-looking culture, generating its own unique material culture that was VERY ROMAN in character, but which circulated almost entirely in Germania and southern Scandinavia (as far north as the Swedish coastline). In the late Empire, the German tribes living along the Rhine were thoroughly Romanized, but in a highly militarized way that was reflective of the local character that Romanitas took in this region - military, based on the abundance of Roman military presence in the North. 'Frankish' should not be the cultural name for this region until at least the 530s, when (as in the Old Gods DLC), it would begin to evolve out of Romano-German culture.

When you leave the Rhineland and head south towards Provence, all of this part of Gaul should be culturally Gallo-Roman. And it should remain that way until early in the seventh century (600s, 620s), when it begins to become 'Frankish.' Provence, Aquitaine, and Septimania, however, should remain Gallo-Roman until the mid 650s when it begins to become Occitan.

In Hispania, the province should remain 'Hispano-Roman' until the Arab conquest. When the Arabs arrived, they saw the inhabitants of the penninsula NOT as Visigoths (like they saw the inhabitants of Gaul as Franks), but as ROMANS. In Gaul (at least the Northern Part of Gaul), the Franks quickly became one with the Gallo-Romans, and when in the early 600s the Eastern Empire began to collapse, a 'Frankish' identity began to emerge in Gaul. It was still very Romanized, and still saw itself as the legitimate heir to the Empire, but because the Eastern Romans refused to accept the Franks as Romans, when Eastern domination of the West collapsed during the Persian and Arab invasions, the Franks began to push for their own seperate identiy. But in Hispania, the Visigoths seem never to have been more than an elite strata barely holding the various Roman local civitas regions together, and when Visigothic rule collapsed, the Arabs saw in the remaining populace Romans, like those they knew in the Eastern Mediterranean and in North Africa.

Similarly, North Africa should remain primarily Romano-African throughout our period. Along the southern fringes of the territory you could specify Romano-Moor (many of the Moors saw themselves as a Roman alternative to the Vandals during the period of Vandal rule), but Romano-African should dominate the coastlands and most of the interior. This should not change until the Arab conquests. The same goes for Egypt (Romano-Egyptian), Palestine (Romano-Palestinian), Syria (Romano-Syrian), Mesopotamia (Romano-Levantine?), Armenia (Romano-Amernian), Anatolia and Greece (Greco-Roman), and Thrace and Illyria and Dalmatia (Thraco-Roman or Romano-Illyrian).

In Italy, the culture should remain Italo-Roman. HOWEVER, if Justinian's reconquests were to occur in any form as an event series, followed by the Justinianic plague and the Lombard invasions, you could transform Italo-Roman into Italian (outside of major cities such as Ravenna, Rome, Naples, and Southern Italy) in the late sixth century, and the rest of the penninsula (and Sicily) into Greco-Roman after that.

I hestitate to use GREEK as a cultural apellation, because while the Romans living in Greece and Anatolia did SPEAK Greek, they called themselves Romans, and they were directly descended from the Romans of the Roman Empire. No 'Greek' culture re-emerged from Greece until the 19th century, and by them it meant something entirely different. The Greeks of the Late Roman and Medieval period were the direct cultural descendants of the Roman Empire, and their culture evolved very slowly and very relucantly into its Medieval form, but it clung to as many remnants of Romanitas as it could, very self-conciously. It intended to remain Roman well after the inhabitants of the rest of the Empire had given up. That ought to count for something. If you want to transform Balkan/Greecian/Thracian/Anatolian culture into 'Greek' at some point, dont have it start until the 700s, but I still think that is anachronistic and a holdover of our inherited Western prejudices.

But what about the Franks and Visigoths and Ostrogoths and Vandals and Burgundians living in these territories? Well, they should NOT change the culture of their territory.

Historically, the Visigoths BECAME Hispano-Romans to such an extent that when their kingdom collapsed, the Arabs saw in the Hispaniard populace Romans who were every bit as Roman as those they'd encountered in North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. The Visigoths became just the title of the ruling elite, and once they were gone, it was only in the northern surviving Christian-controlled holdouts of the Iberian penninsula that the idea of a 'Visigothic' restoration became an ideology. In the Arab-controlled majority of the penninsula, the Romans and their Arab conquerers quickly forged a new, combined urban civilization that revived elements of Romanitas that had suffered to impoverished neglect (public baths, public office holding, etc) and combined them with Arabic influences to create Mozarab, or Hispano-Arab culture by the 9th century.

The Burgundians were completely Romanized prior to their destruction, and there's no reason to turn any part of Gaul 'Burgundian.' Now, I know what some of you will say: 'But there was a Burgundian subculture in the Middle Ages!' YES, but that culture developed as local variety of FRANKISH (Read: Gallo-Roman) culture centuries after the Franks conquered the Burgundians. It had nothing to do with the original Burgundians, who were themselves Gallo-Romanized.

As for the Franks, well, to have Franks move into a territory and transform its culture into 'Frankish' is a mislead. The Franks became Gallo-Roman long before the Gallo-Romans became 'Frankish.' 'Frankish' as a culture that we recognize today, was an evolution of Gallo-Roman ethnic identity in the wake of Eastern Imperial collapse in the early 7th century. As the Merovingians increasingly came to see themselves as the true successors to the Roman legacy, at least as equal successors with the shrunken Roman Empire in the East), the developed a unique spin on Gallo-Romanism. But it had nothing to do with the originally Germanic culture of the very first Franks - it was a wholely Romanized culture.

What I suggest doing is this: For Romanized Barbarian peoples living in Roman soil, make them adapt their culture to the local culture. Make Franks of the 500s become "Gallo-Roman," as well as Burgundians. Make the Ostrogoths become 'Italo-Roman.' But give them each personality traits that state their descent: Frankish-descended characters could have a personality trait that reads "Frankish-Descent," This could give them a small bump to prestige and a plus to diplomacy with other trait holders and a small negative to non-trait-holders. The same for the Ostrogoths, the same for the Visigoths, the Burgundians, and the Vandals. Each of these peoples became recognizably part of their local Roman culture, not the other way around.

 

[Ofaloaf]

What I suggest doing is this: For Romanized Barbarian peoples living in Roman soil, make them adapt their culture to the local culture. Make Franks of the 500s become "Gallo-Roman," as well as Burgundians. Make the Ostrogoths become 'Italo-Roman.' But give them each personality traits that state their descent: Frankish-descended characters could have a personality trait that reads "Frankish-Descent," This could give them a small bump to prestige and a plus to diplomacy with other trait holders and a small negative to non-trait-holders. The same for the Ostrogoths, the same for the Visigoths, the Burgundians, and the Vandals. Each of these peoples became recognizably part of their local Roman culture, not the other way around.

While the rest of the post is absolutely sterling, I would advocate against this, or at least urge for some alternative to just becoming Gallo-Roman, African-Roman, etc. just for the sake of naming conventions if nothing else-- if the Franks all become Gallo-Romans and use the Gallo-Roman name lists, then there'll be no Frankish kings named Chilperic, Louis, Charles and so forth from the 7th century on!

Yeah, it does work as a means of showing the Germanic ruling classes meshing into the local culture, but it also would make the old names disappear completely and cause the King of the Visigoths to be later known as Julius or Marcus rather than Reccared or Agila. While these groups did mingle, they obviously did not wholly assimilate into local Romantic cultures. Otherwise, as just noted, there'd be King Lucius of the Franks and King Symmachus of the Vandals. They kept some markers of their old identities, notably in their names, which would not be shown if they were to all assimilate into Gallo-Roman, Hispano-Roman, etc.

 

[KingdomofWales]

Mind if I ask for a source that explicitly argued that Theodoric as a Western Roman Emperor? I did not recall Heather or Hasall arguing that.

SOURCES:

Secondary Source? Try Theodoric and the Roman Imperial Restoration to start. I suspect that if you read that, and then go back to Halsall's 'Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West,' and Conant's 'Staying Roman,' you will have a different perspective on Heather's most recent work 'The Restoration of Rome.' Then dig into the primary sources and see what you think for yourself: I mentioned several in the huge post I wrote above, but start with Ennodius' Life of Epiphanius, and his Epistulae, and ... well anything of his you can get your hands on. The Anonymous Valesianus. The Edictum Theodorici. The CIL and Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae can give you inscriptions dated to the period, some comissioned by Theodoric's regime and some by Italo-Romans, which refer to him as Emperor: Princeps, Semper Augustus, Imperator.... THEN read Cassiodorus, Procopius, and the later historians, but remember: those works were written (or edited) for Justinan's court in the wake of his reconquest, and are to be treated as extremely biased in favor of Justinian's argument for the legitimacy of his campaign; especially Cassiodorus' - who was trying to rehabilitate himself after being Praetorian Prefect in Italy at the time of the reconquest and serving Wittigis up to the end. Even Jordannes' Gothic history - an adaptation of Cassiodorus' work, but also produced in the climate of the post-Justinianic-conquest-of-Italy-atmosphere - has a few details that go along way to establishing the supposed mythical destiny of the Amal dynasty, etc.

If you need more sources start with Arnold and Heather's primary source bibliographies and go from there.

 

[KingdomofWales]

While the rest of the post is absolutely sterling, I would advocate against this, or at least urge for some alternative to just becoming Gallo-Roman, African-Roman, etc. just for the sake of naming conventions if nothing else-- if the Franks all become Gallo-Romans and use the Gallo-Roman name lists, then there'll be no Frankish kings named Chilperic, Louis, Charles and so forth from the 7th century on!

Yeah, it does work as a means of showing the Germanic ruling classes meshing into the local culture, but it also would make the old names disappear completely and cause the King of the Visigoths to be later known as Julius or Marcus rather than Reccared or Agila. While these groups did mingle, they obviously did not wholly assimilate into local Romantic cultures. Otherwise, as just noted, there'd be King Lucius of the Franks and King Symmachus of the Vandals. They kept some markers of their old identities, notably in their names, which would not be shown if they were to all assimilate into Gallo-Roman, Hispano-Roman, etc.

Yeah, see, I don't actually know how the technology works. Good point.

 

[Erik W]

The standard way to refer to a Romanized people in Academia is to hyphenate their Romanness:

Similarly, North Africa should remain primarily Romano-African throughout our period. Along the southern fringes of the territory you could specify Romano-Moor (many of the Moors saw themselves as a Roman alternative to the Vandals during the period of Vandal rule), but Romano-African should dominate the coastlands and most of the interior. This should not change until the Arab conquests. The same goes for Egypt (Romano-Egyptian), Palestine (Romano-Palestinian), Syria (Romano-Syrian), Mesopotamia (Romano-Levantine?), Armenia (Romano-Amernian), Anatolia and Greece (Greco-Roman), and Thrace and Illyria and Dalmatia (Thraco-Roman or Romano-Illyrian).

In Italy, the culture should remain Italo-Roman. HOWEVER, if Justinian's reconquests were to occur in any form as an event series, followed by the Justinianic plague and the Lombard invasions, you could transform Italo-Roman into Italian (outside of major cities such as Ravenna, Rome, Naples, and Southern Italy) in the late sixth century, and the rest of the penninsula (and Sicily) into Greco-Roman after that.

I hestitate to use GREEK as a cultural apellation, because while the Romans living in Greece and Anatolia did SPEAK Greek, they called themselves Romans, and they were directly descended from the Romans of the Roman Empire. No 'Greek' culture re-emerged from Greece until the 19th century, and by them it meant something entirely different. The Greeks of the Late Roman and Medieval period were the direct cultural descendants of the Roman Empire, and their culture evolved very slowly and very relucantly into its Medieval form, but it clung to as many remnants of Romanitas as it could, very self-conciously. It intended to remain Roman well after the inhabitants of the rest of the Empire had given up. That ought to count for something. If you want to transform Balkan/Greecian/Thracian/Anatolian culture into 'Greek' at some point, dont have it start until the 700s, but I still think that is anachronistic and a holdover of our inherited Western prejudices.

But what about the Franks and Visigoths and Ostrogoths and Vandals and Burgundians living in these territories? Well, they should NOT change the culture of their territory.

What I suggest doing is this: For Romanized Barbarian peoples living in Roman soil, make them adapt their culture to the local culture. Make Franks of the 500s become "Gallo-Roman," as well as Burgundians. Make the Ostrogoths become 'Italo-Roman.' But give them each personality traits that state their descent: Frankish-descended characters could have a personality trait that reads "Frankish-Descent," This could give them a small bump to prestige and a plus to diplomacy with other trait holders and a small negative to non-trait-holders. The same for the Ostrogoths, the same for the Visigoths, the Burgundians, and the Vandals. Each of these peoples became recognizably part of their local Roman culture, not the other way around.

Uhm... I don´t think we should have that many Romanized cultures as majorities at start. Like the Syrians and Palestinians, I can hardly imagine (or find any sources) that they were ever thoroughly Romanized. It would have been more likely that they in any case would have been Hellenized, as that culture had a more profound impact in the east. And Romano-Egyptian? Never heard that word before. Greco-Egyptian would be far more likely to have around.

Should there really be a Romano-Italian hybrid culture? Aren´t Italian very similar and in essence, the dreary modern update of ancient Roman culture?

Ostrogoths into Italo-Romans? Are we not jumping the gun here a little? Shouldn´t they become Romano-Gothic first, then Romano-Italian or Roman? With this logic, we could make Theoderic a Romano-Italian with Gothic ancestry...

While the rest of the post is absolutely sterling, I would advocate against this, or at least urge for some alternative to just becoming Gallo-Roman, African-Roman, etc. just for the sake of naming conventions if nothing else-- if the Franks all become Gallo-Romans and use the Gallo-Roman name lists, then there'll be no Frankish kings named Chilperic, Louis, Charles and so forth from the 7th century on!

Yeah, it does work as a means of showing the Germanic ruling classes meshing into the local culture, but it also would make the old names disappear completely and cause the King of the Visigoths to be later known as Julius or Marcus rather than Reccared or Agila. While these groups did mingle, they obviously did not wholly assimilate into local Romantic cultures. Otherwise, as just noted, there'd be King Lucius of the Franks and King Symmachus of the Vandals. They kept some markers of their old identities, notably in their names, which would not be shown if they were to all assimilate into Gallo-Roman, Hispano-Roman, etc.

We could make them into Romano-Franks?

 

[Duarte]

The standard way to refer to a Romanized people in Academia is to hyphenate their Romanness:

Gallo-Roman
Hispano-Roman
Romano-Briton
Italo-Roman
Romano-African
Romano-Illyrian
Greco-Roman
Thraco-Roman
Romano-Dacian (or Daco-Roman)
Romano-Egyptian
Romano-Syrian
Romano-Palestinian

All of these groups is considered equally Roman, with local variations: a Syrian Roman is distinguished from a Romano Briton in terms of local ethnic identity markers such as food eaten, housing employed, different clothing, but all fall within Roman standards.

Among the 'Barbarians,' those who scholars consider to be heavily Romanized when they entered the Empire CAN BE hyphenated, but there is a major catch. There's no reason to do so. If you were to look at a cultural map of the Empire and its surrounding territory in the year 500, this is what you would see:

In Britain, Romano-Britons in the Western part of the island, Wales, Cornwall, and a small strip running from the old Wall to Cornwall. The Eastern Low-Lands would be culturally 'Northern Germanic,' or 'Proto-Anglo-Saxon,' although the sense of 'Anglo-Saxon' was an identity that had not yet emerged from the hodge podge of German tribal groups living in Eastern Low-Land Britannia at the time.

In Gaul and Germania, the Rhineland region in either direction should culturally Romano-German. This region had long had its own unique culture from the rest of Gaul. It was a northern-looking culture, generating its own unique material culture that was VERY ROMAN in character, but which circulated almost entirely in Germania and southern Scandinavia (as far north as the Swedish coastline). In the late Empire, the German tribes living along the Rhine were thoroughly Romanized, but in a highly militarized way that was reflective of the local character that Romanitas took in this region - military, based on the abundance of Roman military presence in the North. 'Frankish' should not be the cultural name for this region until at least the 530s, when (as in the Old Gods DLC), it would begin to evolve out of Romano-German culture.

When you leave the Rhineland and head south towards Provence, all of this part of Gaul should be culturally Gallo-Roman. And it should remain that way until early in the seventh century (600s, 620s), when it begins to become 'Frankish.' Provence, Aquitaine, and Septimania, however, should remain Gallo-Roman until the mid 650s when it begins to become Occitan.

In Hispania, the province should remain 'Hispano-Roman' until the Arab conquest. When the Arabs arrived, they saw the inhabitants of the penninsula NOT as Visigoths (like they saw the inhabitants of Gaul as Franks), but as ROMANS. In Gaul (at least the Northern Part of Gaul), the Franks quickly became one with the Gallo-Romans, and when in the early 600s the Eastern Empire began to collapse, a 'Frankish' identity began to emerge in Gaul. It was still very Romanized, and still saw itself as the legitimate heir to the Empire, but because the Eastern Romans refused to accept the Franks as Romans, when Eastern domination of the West collapsed during the Persian and Arab invasions, the Franks began to push for their own seperate identiy. But in Hispania, the Visigoths seem never to have been more than an elite strata barely holding the various Roman local civitas regions together, and when Visigothic rule collapsed, the Arabs saw in the remaining populace Romans, like those they knew in the Eastern Mediterranean and in North Africa.

Similarly, North Africa should remain primarily Romano-African throughout our period. Along the southern fringes of the territory you could specify Romano-Moor (many of the Moors saw themselves as a Roman alternative to the Vandals during the period of Vandal rule), but Romano-African should dominate the coastlands and most of the interior. This should not change until the Arab conquests. The same goes for Egypt (Romano-Egyptian), Palestine (Romano-Palestinian), Syria (Romano-Syrian), Mesopotamia (Romano-Levantine?), Armenia (Romano-Amernian), Anatolia and Greece (Greco-Roman), and Thrace and Illyria and Dalmatia (Thraco-Roman or Romano-Illyrian).

In Italy, the culture should remain Italo-Roman. HOWEVER, if Justinian's reconquests were to occur in any form as an event series, followed by the Justinianic plague and the Lombard invasions, you could transform Italo-Roman into Italian (outside of major cities such as Ravenna, Rome, Naples, and Southern Italy) in the late sixth century, and the rest of the penninsula (and Sicily) into Greco-Roman after that.

I hestitate to use GREEK as a cultural apellation, because while the Romans living in Greece and Anatolia did SPEAK Greek, they called themselves Romans, and they were directly descended from the Romans of the Roman Empire. No 'Greek' culture re-emerged from Greece until the 19th century, and by them it meant something entirely different. The Greeks of the Late Roman and Medieval period were the direct cultural descendants of the Roman Empire, and their culture evolved very slowly and very relucantly into its Medieval form, but it clung to as many remnants of Romanitas as it could, very self-conciously. It intended to remain Roman well after the inhabitants of the rest of the Empire had given up. That ought to count for something. If you want to transform Balkan/Greecian/Thracian/Anatolian culture into 'Greek' at some point, dont have it start until the 700s, but I still think that is anachronistic and a holdover of our inherited Western prejudices.

But what about the Franks and Visigoths and Ostrogoths and Vandals and Burgundians living in these territories? Well, they should NOT change the culture of their territory.

Historically, the Visigoths BECAME Hispano-Romans to such an extent that when their kingdom collapsed, the Arabs saw in the Hispaniard populace Romans who were every bit as Roman as those they'd encountered in North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. The Visigoths became just the title of the ruling elite, and once they were gone, it was only in the northern surviving Christian-controlled holdouts of the Iberian penninsula that the idea of a 'Visigothic' restoration became an ideology. In the Arab-controlled majority of the penninsula, the Romans and their Arab conquerers quickly forged a new, combined urban civilization that revived elements of Romanitas that had suffered to impoverished neglect (public baths, public office holding, etc) and combined them with Arabic influences to create Mozarab, or Hispano-Arab culture by the 9th century.

The Burgundians were completely Romanized prior to their destruction, and there's no reason to turn any part of Gaul 'Burgundian.' Now, I know what some of you will say: 'But there was a Burgundian subculture in the Middle Ages!' YES, but that culture developed as local variety of FRANKISH (Read: Gallo-Roman) culture centuries after the Franks conquered the Burgundians. It had nothing to do with the original Burgundians, who were themselves Gallo-Romanized.

As for the Franks, well, to have Franks move into a territory and transform its culture into 'Frankish' is a mislead. The Franks became Gallo-Roman long before the Gallo-Romans became 'Frankish.' 'Frankish' as a culture that we recognize today, was an evolution of Gallo-Roman ethnic identity in the wake of Eastern Imperial collapse in the early 7th century. As the Merovingians increasingly came to see themselves as the true successors to the Roman legacy, at least as equal successors with the shrunken Roman Empire in the East), the developed a unique spin on Gallo-Romanism. But it had nothing to do with the originally Germanic culture of the very first Franks - it was a wholely Romanized culture.

What I suggest doing is this: For Romanized Barbarian peoples living in Roman soil, make them adapt their culture to the local culture. Make Franks of the 500s become "Gallo-Roman," as well as Burgundians. Make the Ostrogoths become 'Italo-Roman.' But give them each personality traits that state their descent: Frankish-descended characters could have a personality trait that reads "Frankish-Descent," This could give them a small bump to prestige and a plus to diplomacy with other trait holders and a small negative to non-trait-holders. The same for the Ostrogoths, the same for the Visigoths, the Burgundians, and the Vandals. Each of these peoples became recognizably part of their local Roman culture, not the other way around.

that's generalizing it too much, you're assuming that all cultures are born of mixing of culture A and B (while that is a good rule of thumb), for example it is theorized that Portuguese culture was ( and by extension galician culture) was born wen the sueves raided the Iberian peninsula, these raid continued Evan wen they settled in galicia, they resulted in the galician area being cut off from the rest of the peninsula (because they depopulated the border regions, broke the roadways) there for breaking the dialect continuum existing in the peninsula, wish resulted in the creating of a seperate culture in the galician area the Galician-Portuguese culture, wish would later give rise to the separate cultures of portugal and galicia

 

[KingdomofWales]

Uhm... I don´t think we should have that many Romanized cultures as majorities at start. Like the Syrians and Palestinians, I can hardly imagine (or find any sources) that they were ever thoroughly Romanized. It would have been more likely that they in any case would have been Hellenized, as that culture had a more profound impact in the east. And Romano-Egyptian? Never heard that word before. Greco-Egyptian would be far more likely to have around.

Academia would completely disagree with you. By the end of the first century the vast majority of the Empire's inhabitants believed themselves to be Romans, and were referred to as such. The ONLY major exception to this happens to have been the Jews while their semi-client status lasted. Once the Jewish state was eradicated and diaspora begun, there was no large hold out of non-Roman ethnic identity anywhere inside the Mediterranean basin. Moreover, the majority of the population in Palestine were imports from Roman territories abroad. Palestine and Syria in the Late Imperial period were major destinations for Romans fleeing the wars of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth centuries, or seeking to bring themselves closer to God. During the fifth century collapse of the Western Empire, even more refuges moved from Gaul, Hispania, and North Africa to Palestine. ALSO, Hadrian and later emperors founded many major Roman colonies in the region. Historians and archaeologists alike agree: the overwhelming, nearly total majority of the Empire's citizens believed themselves to be and were referred to by other Romans, AS ROMANS. There were no native resistance cultures or ethnicities. In fact, no sense of a seperate ethnic identity emerged until the Persian conquests, when Monophysistes in Syria began to see themselves as a different KIND of Roman from their Orthodox Roman counterparts. I don't have a book for Syria and Palestine, but read The City in Roman and Byzantine Egypt, Staying Roman, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, The End of the Pagan City, Approaching Late Antiquity, Urban Environments and Rual Contexts in Late Antiquity... for a start. The last one is particularly good for Palestine and Syria. Sorry, but Academia has strongly refuted the idea that Roman-ness was resisted anywhere in the settled empire after the first century, except in the case of the Jews. For example, when Samarians revolted in Palestine, they set up a local Roman state, hosted chariot races and arena matches, celebrated in the public bathhouses, etc. Understand that by the end of the early Imperial period, Hellenization had become part of Romanitas. The Roman identity is what made the Eastern Provinces so uniquely suited to Romanization. The only element of Roman culture which did not overwrite the local Hellenic tradition was that Latin never really took hold in Egypt or Syria. In Palestine it flourished in the late Imperial period, as it did in Thrace, Illyricum, and the Balkans north of Greece, proper, but aside from the Linguistic aspect, nothing culturally seperated the Eastern and Western Romans after the first century, because the Hellenic aspects of Eastern Mediterranean civilization became an intrinsic part of what it meant to BE Roman. Roman culture overlayed that foundation, but was not transitory. When the Persians conquered the East, the inhabitants there - aside from the Monophysites - fought to maintain their Romanness. The same happenned during the early years of the Arab conquest.

This is actually one of the most interesting areas of Roman study right now: Identity. The traditional narrative has been, as you suggested, that Romans came and conquered and ruled over subject peoples who were no Roman. There's an elememt of post-colonialist anti-imperalism in that perspective, but there is also racism and ethnic bias: the Western scholarly tradition BEGAN by defining itself as uniquely descended from Rome, and against the Eastern peoples, who (it claimed) were never 'Really Roman.' But as scholarship is increasingly proving today, nothing could be further from the truth. In truth, although the Romans did conquer and subdue their territories, they did something nearly unique with their empire: they invited all of their subject peoples to become part of the ruling culture - and by the end of the first century C.E., nearly total political and cultural unity had been achieved. There were regional variatios on Romanness, as there are regional variations on Americanness today - a New Yorker is very different from a Southerner in America, but those are differences of degree, not differences of KIND. The Same was true of Romanness in the Empire. All of the Late Roman writers of the Eastern Mediterranean refer to themselves and their neighbors as Roman. Archaeologically they exhibit high levels of Romanization, and their cities were thoroughly Roman - not Hellenic - in character. They were proud of their Roman heritage and fought hard to stay Roman in the Seventh Century. The only exceptions began to emerge in the wake of Arab conquests in the East.

Should there really be a Romano-Italian hybrid culture? Aren´t Italian very similar and in essence, the dreary modern update of ancient Roman culture?

Italo-Roman is not a hybrid. It's used to designate the local variety of Romanness exhibited in Italy. The same is true of Gallo-Roman, and Romano-African. They aren't half-Gaul half-Roman, or half-African, half-Roman, they're Romans, in Africa, with some African influences, or Romans in Gaul with Gallic influences, or Romans in Italy with 'Italian' influences. (Here Italian means the penninsular culture of the Roman period, NOT later Italian.) Italo-Roman is used by modern academics to try and put the fake distinction between REAL Romans and Provincial Romans to bed. By the late period, 'Roman' was the default identity of the entire empire. The Italo-Romans had just been Roman longer than most (but not all. Certain Romano-African and Gallo-Roman families had been Roman longer than Romans living in North or Southern Italy, offically anyway.)

Ostrogoths into Italo-Romans? Are we not jumping the gun here a little? Shouldn´t they become Romano-Gothic first, then Romano-Italian or Roman? With this logic, we could make Theoderic a Romano-Italian with Gothic ancestry...

Like all 'Barbarian peoples' living along the frontier in the Late Roman period, they were already Romanized before they entered the Empire. Archaeologically the Goths living north of the Danube cannot be distinguished from Romans living south of the Danube. They shared a common material culture, the Goths of the Late period were simply much poorer and had less access to that culture. They made local variations of their own to meet their demands, but they always preferred Roman originals when they can get it. They were Romano-Goths for generations before Theodoric led them into the Empire. Many of them had served in Late Roman armies for decades already, or their parents had done so before returning home, and had raised their children to be Romanized. They also spent years living in Roman territory among other Romans and serving as the standing army of the region prior to entering Italy. They were thoroughly Romano-Gothic before they got there. But in Italy, they quickly adapted to Italo-Roman culture, which was much richer, more urbane, and more literary than the frontier provinces of the Balkans. When they entered the penninsula, they were seen as Roman. Barbarous Romans, but no different from any other Late Roman frontier army. But during Theodoric's reign, they were called TRUE Romans - "Sons of Mars," an example to Italo-Romans themselves, who had stopped fighting their own wars by and large centuries ago.

 

[Erik W]

Then you have convinced me.

And you have also convinced me of making Theoderic a Romano-Goth, at first atleast. We can see how he does in-game before we make him an Italo-Roman, which I think would cause just too much of a debate here in the thread

 

[Thorpe]

I think the fear is that all this focus on the legacy of Roman culture will, intentionally or not, create implausibly stable outcomes in Western Europe. When it comes down to it, CK2 is not an exact simulation, and it simply isn't designed to effectively represent the nitty gritty details of ethnic and cultural identity. Without some allowance for the existence of (admittedly stereotyped) Gothic and Vandal cultures, you are going to end up with the absurd situation of a mod focused on "migration" which nonetheless has the Western Roman Empire lasting well into the first millennium. It's especially discouraging when the appearance of Islam, for instance, is so comparatively under discussed.

 

[Enlil]

Ohhhh, Islam was discussed, and half of the 128 pages here are a testament to that.

 

[KingdomofWales]

I think the fear is that all this focus on the legacy of Roman culture will, intentionally or not, create implausibly stable outcomes in Western Europe. When it comes down to it, CK2 is not an exact simulation, and it simply isn't designed to effectively represent the nitty gritty details of ethnic and cultural identity. Without some allowance for the existence of (admittedly stereotyped) Gothic and Vandal cultures, you are going to end up with the absurd situation of a mod focused on "migration" which nonetheless has the Western Roman Empire lasting well into the first millennium. It's especially discouraging when the appearance of Islam, for instance, is so comparatively under discussed.

But when you look at a map of the 520s, what you see when you see "Frankish Kingdoms" or "Burgundian Kingdom" Or "Visigothic Kingdom," or "Vandal Kingdom" you're not seeing a kingdom ruled by Ethnically-Barbarian peoples quickly devolving from Roman urbanism to post-Roman serfdom. You're seeing Kingdoms ruled over by Romanized army officers of federate non-Roman origin who are advised by largely Roman public and ecclesiastical authorities and governing a self-conciously Roman population that demands Romanizing policies from its leaders. Think of Western Europe of the Middle Ages as a cooked meal. The recipe doesn't read "Add five parts Barbarian Migrations, five parts decaying decadent Roman civilization, stir." If anything it would read:

"1. Add Five Parts Romanized Army Officers of Non-Roman federate Origin, Five Parts Impoverished and War Ravaged (but still economically, intellectually, culturally, and religiously Vital) Roman Civilization.
2. Bring to a boil.
3. Drain off collapsing Western Roman Imperial Infrastructure.
4. Repeat Steps until Western Roman Imperial Infrastructure has been completely drained.
5. Add Five Parts Romanizing Political and Cultural Institutions to the resulting Post-Imperial Roman Kingdoms. Stir.
6. Add Three Parts Resurgent Roman Imperial Dominance And Aggression for a new, nutty flavor.
7. Add 1 Part Dust Veil Event. Wait 10 minutes while it rises.
8. Knead out famine in the mixture, spend 10 minutes doing this.
9. Add melted pnuemonic plague to the mixture and stir. Throw 40% of the mixture out. Let remaining mixture rise, then add a teaspon of bubonic plague every five minutes, mix, throw 20% of remaining mixture out, and repeat steps seventeen more times.
10. In the center of the mixture you will find - holding it all together - a largish clump of Pan-Mediterranean Roman trade in Roman goods. Take 50% of this and throw it out.
11. Add Lombard Invasion of Italy. Stir until mixture has darkened considerably.
12. Add Persian Invasion of Eastern Empire to mixture. Stir until mixture is thin and watery. Remove 15% more Pan-Mediterreanean Roman Trade in Roman Goods.
13. Add Loss of Imperial Domination in Western Europe to Mixture, and spice with Trade shortages That Lead to Localizing markets and New Legitimacy for Western Roman rulers (combination of Romanizing Origin Legends and
14. Add Starch of Heraclius to Mixture, let thicken for 5 minutes. Add back 10% of Pan-Mediterranean Roman Trade in Roman Goods.
15. Add Arab Invasion of Eastern Empire to mixture, stir until mixture is doughy. Remove 20% of Pan-Mediterranean Roman Trade in Roman Goods. (Left with 25%) Cut 1/4th of mixture out and throw it away.
16. Add Localizing Economic and Cultural Reorganizations to mixture, stir. Let rise for 10 minutes. At 10 minutes cut out another 10% and throw it away. Let Rise for 10 more minutes.
17. Divide remaining portion into 4 Portions. Make one portion 50% of the whole and call it Eastern Roman Empire. Make a second portion 15% of the whole and call it Hispania. Make 1 portion 20% of the whole and call it Gallia. Make 1 Portion 15% of the whole and call it Italian. Divide remaining Pan-Mediterranean Roman Trade in Roman Goods between the four sections.
18. Add Imperial Ambitions to Gallia. Rename it Francia. Add a measure of Eastern Imperial legitimization to Francia. Cut out 5% of its portion of Pan Mediterranean Roman Trade in Roman Goods every 10 minutes for half an hour, then set aside.
19. Reduce Eastern Imperial portion further by cutting 40% of it out, mixing those portions with long term Slavic and Arab conquests, and setting them aside. Add thematic system to the remaining original Eastern Roman Empire portion and mix. Set Aside.
20. Take the Hispania portion and cut 90% of it off, throwing it out. Leave 10%.
21. Cut 10% of Italia Portion off and throw it aside.
22. Take Francia portion and cut it apart. Cut it into many tiny slices, then look for any Merovingian blemishes and throw them away. Remove remaining Pan-Mediterranean Roman Trade from Hispania. Then add back into the bowl and mix in Carolingian reorganization. Add Italia portion and half of Hispania portion to Carolingian Francia, along with Saxon Flour, even more Imperial Ambitions, and a serving of Papal Support.
23. Go to the trash can and dig out 15% of the discarded part of the original mixture. Put in new bowl and label "Anglo-Saxons."
24. Divide Carolingian portion into thirds. Then recombine. Redivide. Recombine. Redivide. Continue doing this for a very long time. Eventually divide into three new bowls: Germany, France, and Italy.
25. Add Viking Invasions to France and Anglo-Saxon bowls. Remove 10% of Carolingian portion and mix with Norman settlement in Normandy until you reach a firm consistency, then add the new portion to Anglo-Saxon England and blend until even consistency is created. This will take a very long time.
26. Add back the Slavic and Arab held parts of Eastern Roman Empire to its original bowl. Blend.
27. Prepare new mixture called 'Seljuk Turks,' and prepare to add it to the Eastern Roman Empire.



The thing is that the Roman nature of the post-Imperial West was not a transitory thing. It was not fleeting. The Romans held on to their status as Romans for generations, for centuries. It was only through a combination of horrible plague, the devastating Persian and Arab invasions of the Eastern Empire, and finally the Carolingian reorganization of Francia that we get to the Middle Ages. Each was a major shock to the Roman system, and if we could mod those in as major events that would be awesome, but the end results of those events should not be assumed from the get go.

 

[Enlil]

This has been added to the table of contents.

 

[Nasdaq]

I've a feeling I'm about a hundred pages too late, but out of curiosity, I had a question on migration. Or rather an idea. Namely, given that the migrations of other peoples often triggered later migrations, what about having the migration CB trigger an event if its for another tribe that is able to migrate, and allow them to instantly migrate and surrender the territory rather than fight. Anachronistic example but, more or less something drives the Huns west. Huns drive the Goths out as a result. So if the Huns used a Migrate CB on Goth lands, Goths get a choice to fight or surrender and migrate themselves.

Other than that, any plans for other possible Romano-mixes? Or mixes in general. I'd love to see a mod that lets me, hell, mix Roman or even German and, like... Indo-Vedic. Romano-Vedic or German-Vedic?