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.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

As an example, Æthelstan issued coins titling himself Rex totius Britanniae, King of (all of) Britain. Edwy the Fair styled himself Rex nutu Dei Angulsæxna et Northanhumbrorum imperator paganorum gubernator Breotonumque propugnator, King by the will of God, Emperor of the Anglo-Saxons and Northumbrians, governor of the pagans, commander of the British.

... And? We already knew this. Where is the documentation showing that the Scots and Welsh submitted to Æthelstan as "Emperor of Britain" (or even "King of Britain") rather than just a powerful neighboring king?

 

[Sleight of Hand]

... And? We already knew this. Where is the documentation showing that the Scots and Welsh submitted to Æthelstan as "Emperor of Britain" rather than just a powerful neighboring king?

There are numerous examples of the Saxons conquering or forcing the submission of the Scots or Welsh. For example, Harold Godwinson led the conquest of Wales during Edward the Confessor's reign, only to then kill the Welsh ruler Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (either in combat or shortly afterwards, I don't think it's confirmed which) and marry his widow.

I've already mentioned other examples such as William the Conqueror / William Rufus and Malcolm III. There were later ones of course, such as Edward I's overlordship of Scotland.

I realize you seem to be disagreeing with me here, but is it just a case of I'm not going to be able to convince you regardless?

 

[Theddude]

As an example, Æthelstan issued coins titling himself Rex totius Britanniae, King of (all of) Britain. Edwy the Fair styled himself Rex nutu Dei Angulsæxna et Northanhumbrorum imperator paganorum gubernator Breotonumque propugnator, King by the will of God, Emperor of the Anglo-Saxons and Northumbrians, governor of the pagans, commander of the British.

Imperator in that context seems to imply the old old meaning of commander in a military context (as hailed by the troops), his primary title is still King.

As for Persia and Arabia, I'm not sure how the Romans referred to them, but King of Kings seems pretty clearly equivalent to an Empire. Arabia is more vague, but it seems accurate enough. I really don't have any complaints about those empires .

I think Empires outside of what was traditionally Rome could possibly be justified, but Russia only justified itself by claiming that Rome had fallen and passed to them through dynastic ties. It's a tricky thing, determining who's "right" about their claims, but it's not really the point.

Let's set aside the legitimacy of the HRE or ERE, the obscure claims of Kings and simply think: "Is it any more farfetched for an Italian to claim the legacy of Rome as an Emperor than it is for any of the other regional emperors: Scandinavia, Britannia, Hispania, etc.?" If it is, then those empires should be taken out, but Paradox will not do this because of popular demand. In my opinion, and in others', an Italian Empire (in general terms here, I don't want anymore misinterpretations) is no more outside the realm of possibility than a Scandinavian Empire, and therefore should be a possibility for the player. This in no way prevents a player in Italy from usurping the Frankish Kingdom and continuing the Germanic legacy, but it gives them the option to break free of subordination to the Pope and setting out to restore a different vision of Rome.

 

[Kalderus]

If the gameplay issue of having an Italian Empire/Empire of Italia is that it would only include one de jure kingdom, then why not make the creation requirements similar to Francia (ie: requiring one or two more additional kingdoms totaling X number of counties to balance it to the other empires)? This is essentially how the Kingdom Brittany works but on an imperial tier (ie: Brittany is only one de jure duchy, but like any kingdom, forming it requires two duchies).

 

[Theddude]

If the gameplay issue of having an Italian Empire/Empire of Italia is that it would only include one de jure kingdom, then why not make the creation requirements similar to Francia (ie: requiring one or two more additional kingdoms totaling X number of counties to balance it to the other empires)? This is essentially how the Kingdom Brittany works but on an imperial tier (ie: Brittany is only one de jure duchy, but like any kingdom, forming it requires two duchies).

True, I like it, it seems like a pretty reasonable suggestion.

 

[Federalist girl]

I think ultimately it depends on how you define an empire. If you're talking about a powerful monarch who holds sway over other lesser rulers (kings, dukes, etc.) then Britannia is actually a pretty good example in the sense that the king of England did, at one stage or another, have the rulers of Scotland, Wales and even some in Ireland as his vassals -- even if in name only, though the kings of Scotland were sometimes held 'hostage' (in the medieval sense) in the English court.

If you're talking about empires claiming legitimacy from Rome (HRE/ERE) then that's another argument, and certainly one that probably holds the most validity during this period.

The first definition is much older, though, and lets you include otherwise totally legitimate empires such as Persia and, to a lesser extent, Arabia.

No, it is not older. The Roman usage was the original usage (imperium is where empire comes from), and the term was used in modern scholarship to refer to multi-ethnic peripheries ruled by a single metropole. It was at first via analogy, then used as a direct definition.

However, that usage was projected into the past and most certainly did not exist during the medieval period.

And again, being self-styled and being recognized are two different things. If count-so-and-so of wherever started issuing coins calling himself the King of Hyperborea, nobody would care.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

There are numerous examples of the Saxons conquering or forcing the submission of the Scots or Welsh. For example, Harold Godwinson led the conquest of Wales during Edward the Confessor's reign, only to then kill the Welsh ruler Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (either in combat or shortly afterwards, I don't think it's confirmed which) and marry his widow.

I've already mentioned other examples such as William the Conqueror / William Rufus and Malcolm III. There were later ones of course, such as Edward I's overlordship of Scotland.

I realize you seem to be disagreeing with me here, but is it just a case of I'm not going to be able to convince you regardless?

I'm open to having my mind changed here, but I just don't see the imperial pretensions of a couple of Anglo-Saxon kings as amounting to much in reality. It reminds me of how the Tudors, Stuarts, and early Hanoverians were still styling themselves King of France--just a bit of wishful thinking.

 

[Cetan]

I think one thing sums up my thoughts on this DLC.

HOLY **** ON A **** SANDWICH.

 

[riknap]

I think one thing sums up this DLC.

HOLY **** ON A **** SANDWICH.

What does that taste like? :laugh:

 

[Orinsul]

And again, being self-styled and being recognized are two different things. If count-so-and-so of wherever started issuing coins calling himself the King of Hyperborea, nobody would care.

The hyperboreans would care, and those dudes are 9 foot, strong and in control of the weather so i wouldnt mess with them. anyone else noticed that almost every DD and patch thread for CK2 ends up spending pages arguing over the useable and application of the word emperor. its weird.

Anyway, in all these pages has anyone said how the heresification of catholicism works? As im really hoping it means religions can now be altered in game by events, even if its just adding parents that still has massive modding potential.
You could have heresies with no parent at the start so you could by adding a parent mid game have them activate on historical dates or on the right conditions.
But it might just be that every catholic gets his religion changed to one thats an orthodox heresy and religions are still static from the commons.

 

[themunck]

To voice my own opinion on the Scandinavian empire: Why does everyone assume it's actually claiming to descent from Rome? I've always just thought it was a case of a Powerful king vassalizing the other kings, and still referring to himself as "King of Denmark", or possibly "King of Scandinavia", with the title "Scandinavian Empire" simply being what historians would later refer to it as (like how it is named Byzantium in the game, and not the ERE).

EDIT: Minor spelling and grammar issues.

 

[NicklasK]

In my opinion there should only be one formable empire for the catholic (HRE), and one for the orthodox(ERE). To form them you must be able to claim descent from the Roman Empire, this could be done by an event chain or by holding Rome or Constantinople.

A strong kingdom should also be able to compete for the title and threaten one of the Empires like the HRE vs France.

Here you could start a chain of events that would make the pope crown the king of France as emperor if he holds Rome, this would of course only work if the Pope likes the France better then the HRE. That would also make for more interesting struggles, if France takes Rome, who is the real pope? the French vassal pope, or a possible German Anti-pope? That's an issue that could divide the entire catholic world

I'm actually getting kinda excited about my own idea, lol. I gotta try to mod this in

 

[Sleight of Hand]

No, it is not older.

Yes it is.

Back when Rome was a small town of no consequence, the Persian emperor (shahanshah, 'king of kings') held numerous other kings in vassalage. It's the textbook definition of a traditional empire -- one guy at the top with multiple lower-tier vassals below him, and then that pattern repeated via the satrapy system.

Rome was certainly not the first empire, though granted we use it today as the basis for empire due to the general primacy of Western culture and history.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

Yes it is.

Back when Rome was a small town of no consequence, the Persian emperor (shahanshah, 'king of kings') held numerous other kings in vassalage. It's the textbook definition of a traditional empire -- one guy at the top with multiple lower-tier vassals below him, and then that pattern repeated via the satrapy system.

Rome was certainly not the first empire, though granted we use it today as the basis for empire due to the general primacy of Western culture and history.

I think that the situation is a little bit different. What you claim is an interpretation of the historical genesis of the idea of an empire intended as a monarchic power that can hold other kingdoms as vassals (like the "Shahansha" thing, in all effects the first polity claiming universal rule in the world). In the west, that idea used to be associated in the Middle Ages to the Roman Empire, the only legally legitimate polity to be above all the others. When Westphalian sovereignity became the rule, and especially after the HRE was disbanded, the usage of the term shifted to denote colonial rule (i.e. Spanish Empire, British Empire) and then the term shifted once again to the more modern meaning of "really powerful aggressive-'imperialistic' state" (as used for instance in phrases like "Soviet Empire" or "American Empire").

However, the original "Roman Empire" was something different. It was in all effects a formally Republican State with a very high office established by Augustus, the "Principatum", which had the function of ruling the army and oversee the Senate and the other magistrates ("Imperium" means "(military) command" in Latin). This top office never came to be formally hereditary, even if the power politics of the Empire made it so de facto for some time. While the Romans had their own idea of universalism (humanitas, the union of all the peoples of the world under the beneficial orderly rule of Roman Law) it was different from the oriental despotic Persian idea of an hyper-autocratic ruler with power over all the kings of the world. The Roman one is in a sense a very western concept and very "modern" to modern eyes indeed.

The idea that the Roman Emperor is the nominal overlord of all the (Christian) kings descends from two historical processes: 1) the increasing adoption after the III century crisis of eastern practices of despotism, like the proskynesis (kneeling down of the subjects in front of the Emperor, unacceptable at the time of Trajan) that gradually shifted the perception of the Roman State from a unique mixture of Republican and Caesaro-Dictatorial elements to a more "Persian" type of monarchy, and 2) the pressure of the barbaric tribes at the borders of the Empire and their acceptance as foederati or vassals, the chiefs of those tribes - those who responded directly to the Imperial court - were called in Latin reges - "kings". These changes affected the West and the East differently, but I will not comment on this here in order not to make this post too long.

So yes, the idea of a "Kings of Kings" is not really Roman but it is a distorted Medieval interpretation of it. Yet, in Europe the idea of Imperial legitimacy was necessarily connected to the Roman state and it was commonly agreed and understood that the "Emperor" and "Empire" are unique and universalistic, meant to unite the whole Christendom. This was a dramatic shift of the original universalistic Roman idea, which was also affected by the spread of Christianism and its transformation into the State Religion of the Roman Empire by the time of the Theodosius. Such a transformation is the origin of all the confusion we are debating here. So unless one strictly defines what one is talking about, as you argue in a post above, it is hard to say what came first.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

That's a very informative post and I'm not really disagreeing with you, nor do you appear to be with me. My point was simply that the East had seen emperors (call them what you will, but they were emperors) long before Rome initiated the process/model in the West.

I think the issue here is very much a cultural one -- we tend to associate empire with Rome due to it being the first Western power to adopt such a concept and, effectively, market it throughout the Roman world. Such is the power of Roman culture and so on, even today. Thus, the traditional Latin terminology has always been used by aspiring emperors who almost always based their claim to empire thru being a legal (or at least spiritual) successor to Rome; hence, presumably, the use of Roman-style symbolism by the likes of Bonaparte and Mussolini amongst others.

So yes, from a Western standpoint -- we, the heirs of those who developed a European society based around Roman law, language, history and culture -- have claimed the idea stems from them, but it was hardly a unique concept across the Old World.

I think you probably get where I was coming from, though. I was just trying to put across the point that the Persians had been ruled by emperors (in the original sense as opposed to the later post-Roman or colonial senses which you mentioned) long before Rome had even unified itself as a republic.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

I think you probably get where I was coming from, though. I was just trying to put across the point that the Persians had been ruled by emperors (in the original sense as opposed to the later post-Roman or colonial senses which you mentioned) long before Rome had even unified itself as a republic.

This; in addition I wanted to point that the original Roman sense of the word "Imperium" was even more distinct holding a third, more original meaning - the only similar expression of which in more modern times I can find in modern "Caesarisms", the most prominent of those being two examples you have mentioned, Bonaparte's and Mussolini's (two Italian guys, no surprise). They were both populistic rulers-dictators who came to hold more de facto power than the formal bodies of government established by their countries' parlamentarian or republican (in the case of France) laws. Bonaparte came to crown himself Emperor because he was hegemonic in continental Europe and, also unlike Mussolini, he had no other formal Monarch to share formal power with (but Mussolini created the "Impero" and declared Vittorio Emanuele III "Imperatore", an ambiguity coming from millennia-long confusion about the meaning of the word "Empire").

So in a sense the Roman Empire was the first original "Imperium" in its own sense (but the first dictatorship overruling a republic thus establishing a mixed form of government? No, think about classical Greece) but not the first "Empire" if we consider the two eventual developments of the idea, the "King of Kings" one and the "Big worldwide blob" one.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

So in a sense the Roman Empire was the first original "Imperium" in its own sense (but the first dictatorship overruling a republic thus establishing a mixed form of government? No, think about classical Greece) but not the first "Empire" if we consider the two eventual developments of the idea, the "King of Kings" one and the "Big worldwide blob" one.

I don't disagree with that.

I'm not sure where that leaves Scandinavia, though.

I suppose we should be glad Paradox didn't throw Poland, Hungary and the Vlach states into a de jure empire, though. That would be arbitrary.

 

[Aasmul]

To voice my own opinion on the Scandinavian empire: Why does everyone assume it's actually claiming to descent from Rome? I've always just thought it was a case of a Powerful king vassalizing the other kings, and still referring to himself as "King of Denmark", or possibly "King of Scandinavia", with the title "Scandinavian Empire" simply being what historians would later refer to it as (like how it is named Byzantium in the game, and not the ERE).

EDIT: Minor spelling and grammar issues.

There is two ways to look at history that can justify it.

The first(my personal favorit and the one used in SWMH) is to focus on the term of "Nordmannia" that the Franks and later the HRE themselves used up til the 11th-12th century, this term roughly encompassed all Scandinavia, Novgorod and a lot of the baltics(in SWMH its only used for Scandianvia).
From the Imperial anals its quite clear that the HRE veiwed everything inside this area as one way or the other dependant on the Danish king(whether it was or not is irellevant in this context, the important thing is that it was the early HRE policy that it was).
This indicates that the HRE reconized(not happilly) an equal competing powersphere and not just a (potential subordinate) kingdom, up til the point of Heinrich the fowler(from that point on the term slowly decreases in use until the 12th century where as far as I know it was moot point)

The other would be to use the analogy of the entity level and say that the Kalmar union equaled an empire

 

[Joel M Bridge]

Can get off empire debate, wonder to are self why they did not bring any interest events like how ever emperor of had four to five attempt of his throne getting Usurps enither by civil war palace coup, or how court eunuch raise his said nephew to he Imperial throne. Game mechanics like should be picture compare to magic button that let you reforge the "Roman" Empire again.

 

[Federalist girl]

Yes it is.

Back when Rome was a small town of no consequence, the Persian emperor (shahanshah, 'king of kings') held numerous other kings in vassalage. It's the textbook definition of a traditional empire -- one guy at the top with multiple lower-tier vassals below him, and then that pattern repeated via the satrapy system.

Rome was certainly not the first empire, though granted we use it today as the basis for empire due to the general primacy of Western culture and history.

What I was saying is that the word empire was originally used only to refer to the Roman Empire, which is where the word was coined. If it makes it easier, think of the word empire as equivalent of khanate--a khanate is an Altaic state or whatever--an empire is a Roman state claiming universal sovereignty.

The word was used by later scholars to describe other polities, such as that ruled by the Achaemenid dynasty (as you describe) or the even older Median, Lydian, Assyrian, etc states. That is a NEWER usage of the term to describe OLDER events.

It is NOT the medieval understanding of the term--it is POST-medieval. We use it as the basis for empire because it was the first state to be called an empire, contemporaneously, because the word empire comes from imperium, and Roman imperium meant something specific and particular: in fact, the contemporary Greek translation of Shahanshah (which is the transliteration of the Sassanid word, not Achaemenid, BTW!) was "Great King." "King of Kings" works just as well, and was the later translation in the Sassanid period, but it was only ever analogized to the Roman emperorship.

So there are two different chronologies at work here: that of history, and that of the usage of the term empire.