Legacy of Rome will be released next week, so this dev diary will be the last of this cycle. Doomdark is busy hammering away at the game, so this week the honor of writing it falls to me. As he said last time, we'll finish off with some of the unique decisions, events and mechanics we've added to the Byzantine Empire in the DLC. Note that the following stuff is for the DLC, not the free 1.07 patch.

Succession in Byzantium works the same as in the rest of Europe, except for one thing. Children born to an emperor during his reign will get the ”Born in the Purple” trait, which gives them a stronger succession claim than any older siblings born before their parents ascended the throne. If you, as emperor, still want your gifted firstborn son as your heir instead of his snotnosed younger brother who had the good fortune of being born during your reign, infanticide is not your only option. Granting the Despot honorary title to your firstborn will rank him the same as if he had the Purple trait, and given his seniority in age, he will become your heir again.

View attachment LoR_02_ERE_Events.jpg

Ambitious emperors will no doubt try to reclaim some of Rome's former glory by restoring the Empire's lost territory. If they or their imperial vassals hold certain provinces, they will have the opportunity to restore the Roman Empire. This decision essentially signifies that the West has no choice but to accept the Byzantines as the true heirs of Rome's legacy. You will get a new title (complete with a new flag, of course), and the rulers of a restored Rome always get the ”Augustus” trait, which gives a slight boost to vassal relations. If you wish it, there is a decision to move your capital to Rome, though the city scarcely compares to Constantinople in this era so you will likely have to invest a lot of gold and time to rebuild it.

Another major decision, of course, is to mend the Great Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. You will need to reunite the Pentarchy (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Rome) under Byzantine and Orthodox rule and accumulate a great deal of piety. When this decision is taken, Catholicism will become a heresy and Catholic rulers across Europe will have to decide whether to convert or not. A few will refuse, and Europe will likely be plagued by religious unrest for some time, but the first step has now been taken to unite Christendom under a single church.

View attachment LoR_01_ERE_Events.jpg

As you have probably seen, Byzantine rulers can elect to blind or castrate their prisoners. This can be an efficient way of permanently crippling your rivals without executing them outright. Have an obnoxious brother that covets your throne? If he is blinded or castrated, he will be removed from the imperial succession, and you will have one less pretender to worry about. Just don't expect him to like you much afterwards.

Castrated rivals aside, eunuchs played an important role at the Byzantine imperial court, and from time to time one of them will distinguish himself enough to be brought to your attention. This eunuch will be very loyal to your ruler and quite skilled in his chosen field. When other lords turn their backs on you, you will usually still be able to depend on his service, whether it's as a skilled general or a gifted spymaster.

Other events you can expect to see are triumphs being held when you emerge victorious from decisive wars, unruly Varangians in the capital, Hippodrome races and much more.

View attachment LoR_03_ERE_Events.jpg

Finally, let me stress that this does not mean that we have created a supercharged Byzantine Empire that will always go on to dominate Europe as the Romans did before them. Skilled and dedicated players will be able to stage a miraculous recovery and recreate the borders of the Roman Empire and maybe even hold it all together afterwards, but we have naturally taken care not to upset the balance of the game. Just wanted to put that out there.

 

[Theddude]

Sorry but if were being pedantic its learnt
But on the topic, the Patch does sound like itd be bigger than the DLC, unless theres plenty of events and event art or something that hasnt been mentioned in the DDs
Either way chances are none of the mods will work for a week, thats what worries me.

If we really want to be pedantic, which I said I didn't, it's actually there are plenty of events. I hear this one all the time, though.
/not passive aggressive

But I share your concern about mods being broken by this, I don't know how much it'll affect GoT mod lots of others will definitely be affected.

 

[Cruxador]

As they said, this DLC is focused on Orthodox.
In other words we need to wait for Catholic/Papacy/Battle Pope DLC

Ah yes, the DLC to improve those Catholic Kings and their tendency to Crusade, which obviously isn't within the purview of the base game.

 

[riknap]

Ah yes, the DLC to improve those Catholic Kings and their tendency to Crusade, which obviously isn't within the purview of the base game.

of course not! the game is about feudalism, not about crusader kings! we still need a Banner of the Keys and Tiara DLC of course!
:laugh:

 

[Gatkramp]

Either way chances are none of the mods will work for a week, thats what worries me.

But I share your concern about mods being broken by this, I don't know how much it'll affect GoT mod lots of others will definitely be affected.

Then don't install the patch until your mod of choice works. It's not a compulsory patch or dlc, so don't worry too much over it. Another week won't kill you.

 

[Theddude]

Then don't install the patch until your mod of choice works. It's not a compulsory patch or dlc, so don't worry too much over it. Another week won't kill you.

Maybe concern was too strong of a word. More like, it crossed my mind, I went "oh, hmm", shrugged my shoulders and proceeded to be excited about the DLC. I'm not part of that rabid screaming base that complains about every patch and whines about how awful it is that patches come out.

 

[UF6]

Can we expect new music and unique unit graphics DLC's to follow this on release?

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

I have to agree. The notion that Roma was no longer the capital of the Empire by the third and fourth centuries is a oft-bandied misconception. The city was no longer the seat of the emperor's court, but she never ceased being capital up to the very end of the Western Empire. Roma had unique privileges that no other city--not even Constantinopolis--had. Her Senate was the original Senate, and those members alone were entitled to be clarissimi. She had the unique grain dole--Constantinopolis eventually had one too, but on a lesser scale. She continued to possess the traditional republican magistracies to the end of the Empire. Roman imperial ideology continued to refer to the city on seven hills. Roma is and continued to be unique, and I would have to imagine (for westerners, anyway) that her later status as the papal city would have important symbolic significance. I don't know that the Greeks would ever accept their emperors moving from the Queen of Cities, but I don't know how much the West would accept the emperors not moving there; in the early stages of the dark ages, the East's imperial pedigree was unquestioned, but by the time period of the game... it's hard to say.

However, the in-game scenario of managing to reunite the Empire by force of arms might well impress a lot of people at the might of the one true remnant of the Roman Empire.

I agree. But I believe that the original Laur's purpose was to say that Rome itself had lost her cultural-political hegemony, if not the symbolic one, or at least it saw it very diminished with respect to the past; to allow for a less Latin-Italian interpretation of the cultural center of an eventually restored Roman Empire (something that, as I said, I would not be 100% convinced of).

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

By the way, if the Byzantine derived Roman Empire were to be of Greek culture, then I also wish we could have the Western-Italian restoration option, perhaps based off the Latin Empire as a starting point (this would make the things dramatically harder to do). In a way that the Latin Empire would also be able to make its own Roman Empire restoration based on Italian culture (no need to create any additional new title and flag for a second Roman Empire if a mechanism that bases the Empire's culture off the original title's one is implemented).

 

[riknap]

Can we expect new music and unique unit graphics DLC's to follow this on release?

we've already seen kateaphracts A song of purple isn't far fetched either

 

[Lothar Warschau]

Goosecreature, is only Byzantine able to restore Roman Empire? What about HRE? (no attack, just asking)

 

[Laur]

The romans never controlled Ireland, unless there were some military expeditions I have never heard of, if so, please enlighten me!

True, the Romans never conquered Ireland, however, Greek was quite familiar to the inhabitants of that island due to the commercial and cultural ties. For more information, see Padraic Moran, ‘Greek in early medieval Ireland’, in P. James and A. Mullen (eds), Multilingualism in the Greco-Roman Worlds and also 'A living speech? The pronunciation of Greek in early medieval Ireland', Ériu 61.

 

[Laur]

I have to agree. The notion that Roma was no longer the capital of the Empire by the third and fourth centuries is a oft-bandied misconception. The city was no longer the seat of the emperor's court, but she never ceased being capital up to the very end of the Western Empire. Roma had unique privileges that no other city--not even Constantinopolis--had. Her Senate was the original Senate, and those members alone were entitled to be clarissimi. She had the unique grain dole--Constantinopolis eventually had one too, but on a lesser scale. She continued to possess the traditional republican magistracies to the end of the Empire. Roman imperial ideology continued to refer to the city on seven hills. Roma is and continued to be unique, and I would have to imagine (for westerners, anyway) that her later status as the papal city would have important symbolic significance. I don't know that the Greeks would ever accept their emperors moving from the Queen of Cities, but I don't know how much the West would accept the emperors not moving there; in the early stages of the dark ages, the East's imperial pedigree was unquestioned, but by the time period of the game... it's hard to say.

However, the in-game scenario of managing to reunite the Empire by force of arms might well impress a lot of people at the might of the one true remnant of the Roman Empire.

You make a very good point - the rulers of Francia, Britannia or Hispania would be very reluctant to bow down to the Emperor in Constantinople, and the distances between these lands and the capital of the Empire would make the enforcing of the imperial rule almost impossible. Yes, the player might decide to move the capital to a more central location but this should also cause much upheaval: there was an attempt, around 660 a.d. (I think) when an Emperor (Constans?) wanted to move the capital from Constantinople to Syracuse in Sicily. He ended up dead. Five centuries later, the move should be even more risky for his/her health, methinks.

Thus, even if the Empire is restored by massive and impressive force of arms, there should be strong political, cultural and economic centrifugal forces that might lead either to the Western lands breaking away from the Empire or to the Empire being divided once again, into Western and Eastern halves. Whether the Emperor in the West will chose to rule from Rome, Ravenna, Mendolianum or some other place, that would be his/her choice.

Nevertheless, if the Eastern Empire does not succeed in reconquering the whole West, managing only Italy and/or Africa (Carthage), I'd like to see these lands become Exarchates (Kingdom level), as they were after Justinian's conquest, with the Italian Exarchate being ruled from Ravenna and having power over the Patriarch of Rome.

 

[Sarog]

By the way, if the Byzantine derived Roman Empire were to be of Greek culture, then I also wish we could have the Western-Italian restoration option, perhaps based off the Latin Empire as a starting point (this would make the things dramatically harder to do). In a way that the Latin Empire would also be able to make its own Roman Empire restoration based on Italian culture (no need to create any additional new title and flag for a second Roman Empire if a mechanism that bases the Empire's culture off the original title's one is implemented).

The Latin empire would be a bit of a mess to base that on. The Latin empire was not an Italian empire, it was a very specific usurper state born out of the sack of Constantinople. Which is why the creation conditions are so severe and restrictive. The Latin empire's imperial legitimacy is derived only from military possession of Constantinople, not from law, culture, custom, or anything whatsoever associated with Italy or Western Roman continuity.

If there were to be a western version of the Imperial restoration, it would only make sense if it came from the HRE. The HRE is a usurper state like the LE, but unlike the LE its claim of legitimacy is founded in the west and not in the east, and it has centuries of history and the successes of Charlemagne backing it up. And it makes sense, in a way that the LE never would. The very existence of the HRE is the result of rift the between Rome and Constantinople, and the rivalry between the Latin Rite and the Greek Rite. The HRE was the latin west's way of usurping imperial legitimacy from the greeks, and the two different visions of empire based on different interpretations of Roman continuity was one of the big barriers between east and west. The restoration events in LoR mends that rift from the perspective of eastern victory and greek legitimacy, and if there were a western equivalent it should mend the rift from the perspective of the HRE that had a centuries long relationship with this issue of legitimacy - not some random titular empire that didn't amount to anything more than banditry with a purple ribbon tied to it.

 

[unmerged(457435)]

By the way, if the Byzantine derived Roman Empire were to be of Greek culture, then I also wish we could have the Western-Italian restoration option, perhaps based off the Latin Empire as a starting point (this would make the things dramatically harder to do). In a way that the Latin Empire would also be able to make its own Roman Empire restoration based on Italian culture (no need to create any additional new title and flag for a second Roman Empire if a mechanism that bases the Empire's culture off the original title's one is implemented).

+1. This will be quite logical actually. Also they should relax some conditions for the Latin Empire creation (example: no specific culture required; only Catholic religion is required)

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

The Latin empire would be a bit of a mess to base that on. The Latin empire was not an Italian empire, it was a very specific usurper state born out of the sack of Constantinople. Which is why the creation conditions are so severe and restrictive. The Latin empire's imperial legitimacy is derived only from military possession of Constantinople, not from law, culture, custom, or anything whatsoever associated with Italy or Western Roman continuity.

If there were to be a western version of the Imperial restoration, it would only make sense if it came from the HRE. The HRE is a usurper state like the LE, but unlike the LE its claim of legitimacy is founded in the west and not in the east, and it has centuries of history and the successes of Charlemagne backing it up. And it makes sense, in a way that the LE never would. The very existence of the HRE is the result of rift the between Rome and Constantinople, and the rivalry between the Latin Rite and the Greek Rite. The HRE was the latin west's way of usurping imperial legitimacy from the greeks, and the two different visions of empire based on different interpretations of Roman continuity was one of the big barriers between east and west. The restoration events in LoR mends that rift from the perspective of eastern victory and greek legitimacy, and if there were a western equivalent it should mend the rift from the perspective of the HRE that had a centuries long relationship with this issue of legitimacy - not some random titular empire that didn't amount to anything more than banditry with a purple ribbon tied to it.

What you say is all right historically. However, it misses a couple of things from the gameplay perspective:

1) Not everyone was happy with the introduction of the new empires but, now that we have them, if it ever was to be allowed any Roman Restoration for the westerners then it should be possible for all Empires - just to give more options to gameplay - as long as they are Catholic-ruled and control the specified provinces. This includes the Latin Empire.

2) Empires typically have an associated culture to them that is important as of the current rules in order to facilitate cultural conversion. Not all cultures are associated to an empire, of course. Among several, the Italian culture stands out as one that misses an empire of its own, which can affect Italian gameplay. Some people - including me - share the vision that if an unlikely "Empire of Italia" were to be introduced (hopefully not), then the Latin Empire is the one that should receive Italian culture, for a) historically, it was essentially a byproduct of Venice; b) Italy is the western-romance geographical area that is most close to Constantinople, hence despite being hard it should not be too hard to create the title as an Italian based in Italy.

1) and 2) together would allow for the much desired "Italian restoration of the Roman Empire" option.

Personally, I don't see any necessity for letting just the HRE do that. First of all, "Roman Empire" is already included in the name of the title, hence if it were just it, there is no need to make any separate mechanism. Second, it is so much fun to play the HRE as a legally related but historically and culturally different thing with respect to the real Roman Empire, for instance as a Catholic superpower that expands more towards East than South.

 

[Sarog]

then the Latin Empire is the one that should receive Italian culture, for a) historically, it was essentially a byproduct of Venice

The Latin Empire was not culturally Italian, though. The Fourth Crusade's Alliance with Venice doesn't change the fact that the LE was dominated by Frenchmen and ruled by a branch of the Dutch house of Flanders/Hainut. There's really not historical justification for the Latin Empire to be branded as Italian. The Latin Empire title that exists in the game is there to represent the state born from the Fourth Crusade. Using it to try represent something that it never was, an Italian cultural empire, might be convenient for a player's personal narrative but it doesn't fall within the scope of the title's historical basis. It is one thing to add fictional empires to areas where uniting certain kingdoms makes cultural/geographical sense, but it is quite another thing entirely to alter a historical empire into representing something that it never was.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

The Latin Empire was not culturally Italian, though. The Fourth Crusade's Alliance with Venice doesn't change the fact that the LE was dominated by Frenchmen and ruled by a branch of the Dutch house of Flanders/Hainut. There's really not historical justification for the Latin Empire to be branded as Italian. The Latin Empire title that exists in the game is there to represent the state born from the Fourth Crusade. Using it to try represent something that it never was, an Italian cultural empire, might be convenient for a player's personal narrative but it doesn't fall within the scope of the title's historical basis. It is one thing to add fictional empires to areas where uniting certain kingdoms makes cultural/geographical sense, but it is quite another thing entirely to alter a historical empire into representing something that it never was.

Agreed.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

The kings of Thessalonica and some of the Princes of Achaia, the prime vassals of the Dutch/Frankish Emperors of Romania, were Italian. Such a mixture, together with the fact that the Empire was essentially a vassal of Venice, caused the naming "Latin" to the historical Empire of Romania to be established in modern historiography (another name shift such as "Empire of the Romans" => "Byzantine Empire"). Yet in Greece the period is known as "Frangokratia", "Rule of the Franks". It is also to be said that in the East in general, "Franks" was often a synonim for "Catholic" or more narrowly "Romance".

Hence, to give the Latin Empire any dominant culture would be as debatable as choosing swedish over danish culture for Scandinavia, or castilian over andalusian for Hispania (what about the Muslim Spanish Empire?). The issue about preferring English over Saxon, Welsh or even Breton is the reason why Britannia has no culture assigned in vanilla (a gameplay problem).

However, given that the frankish already have their own Empire, I'd pick Italians in order to level things out.

But let's assume for the moment it's just my own personal narrative: yet we'd need something for Italians, don't you guys agree? The thing is, I really don't want to remove Sicily from the de jure area of the Byzantine Empire (to combine it together with Italy for an empire of "Italia"), even if admittedly this creates some problems in game. So what would you prefer/suggest?

 

[Wezqu]

To those that want to play mods after the new patch. Make a copy of the current version on some other place on your hard drive and if the patch brakes the mods you can keep on playing the mods with the old version that you just copied. I have been doing this every time there is a new patch as I usually wanted to keep playing my old game to the end if the savegame would not worked with the new version.

 

[unmerged(457435)]

The kings of Thessalonica and some of the Princes of Achaia, the prime vassals of the Dutch/Frankish Emperors of Romania, were Italian. Such a mixture, together with the fact that the Empire was essentially a vassal of Venice, caused the naming "Latin" to the historical Empire of Romania to be established in modern historiography (another name shift such as "Empire of the Romans" => "Byzantine Empire"). Yet in Greece the period is known as "Frangokratia", "Rule of the Franks". It is also to be said that in the East in general, "Franks" was often a synonim for "Catholic" or more narrowly "Romance".

Hence, to give the Latin Empire any dominant culture would be as debatable as choosing swedish over danish culture for Scandinavia, or castilian over andalusian for Hispania (what about the Muslim Spanish Empire?). The issue about preferring English over Saxon, Welsh or even Breton is the reason why Britannia has no culture assigned in vanilla (a gameplay problem).

However, given that the frankish already have their own Empire, I'd pick Italians in order to level things out.

But let's assume for the moment it's just my own personal narrative: yet we'd need something for Italians, don't you guys agree? The thing is, I really don't want to remove Sicily from the de jure area of the Byzantine Empire (to combine it together with Italy for an empire of "Italia"), even if admittedly this creates some problems in game. So what would you prefer/suggest?

Can you recall me at least one Italian emperor of the Latin Empire, please?