Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Byzantine Empire (...not about how it should be named)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Crusader Kings II 69946 Bug Reports 19719 User Modifications 10605 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6374 After Action Reports
Which Emperor moved his capital to Sicily? I never read anything about that.

The last attempt to split the Empire in two was by Maurice who on one occasion when he was very ill in 597 wrote that the Empire should be split in two, West would go to his son Tiberius who would rule from Rome and the East ruled from Constantinople would be ruled by his other son Theodosius.
 
Serbon said:
Which Emperor moved his capital to Sicily? I never read anything about that.

The last attempt to split the Empire in two was by Maurice who on one occasion when he was very ill in 597 wrote that the Empire should be split in two, West would go to his son Tiberius who would rule from Rome and the East ruled from Constantinople would be ruled by his other son Theodosius.
Click to expand...

During Constans II's reign there were rumours that he would move the capital to Syracuse. Those rumours probably played a part in his eventual downfall.
 
Panjer said:
During Constans II's reign there were rumours that he would move the capital to Syracuse. Those rumours probably played a part in his eventual downfall.
Click to expand...

This rumour played a major part in his death... Constantinople officials bribed his chamberlain to assassinate him and he clubbed the Emperor to the death while he was taking a bath in Syracusa
 
I read some months ago an entire book about Byzantine empire, but I either study really in historical field, nor I am especially aware of what Byzantine empire really was (in comparison with some of you). However, I think that the primary conflict, in all Middle age to modern day, was a religious one. And I see some "correlation" between the degree of conflict between religious and political powers and the tendency to be a laic country today. I think the Byzantine empire is one in which political power initially won against religious one, until it was crushed and, in the last year of this empire, religious like the Patriarch were of great influence, leaving Muscovy to be the successor of Byzantine empire.

The fact is that I would like the game to show us the difference between the Roman catholics and their threat of excommunication, which was always a Damocles sword fot kings, and the more centralized (but not absolutely, since Heraclius) structure of the Eastern roman empire, in which the Patriarch was clearly under the emperor control when the emperor was strong. In the muslim world, things were even more "mixed", because political leaders took entirely the religious influence. Maybe I'm wrong, thought.

Since this game is about the "Crusader Kings", I think what I'm saying is important. Dynamic was different. The emperor was not dethroned because he didn't listened the pope or the patriarch, but because there were clearly personal conflicts, which were not mediatized by the church. Maybe this is what lead XIX century historians to conclude that byzantine empire was such a conflictual world, with greed and anger.

Finally... What could I say about the game, given all of that? I think piety should be less important for eastern orthodox monarchs than it is for western linked to the pope ones. But this system should be dynamic and depend of the influence of religious centers, since piety is prestige for the religious.
 
Frederic III said:
I read some months ago an entire book about Byzantine empire, but I either study really in historical field, nor I am especially aware of what Byzantine empire really was (in comparison with some of you). However, I think that the primary conflict, in all Middle age to modern day, was a religious one. And I see some "correlation" between the degree of conflict between religious and political powers and the tendency to be a laic country today. I think the Byzantine empire is one in which political power initially won against religious one, until it was crushed and, in the last year of this empire, religious like the Patriarch were of great influence, leaving Muscovy to be the successor of Byzantine empire.

The fact is that I would like the game to show us the difference between the Roman catholics and their threat of excommunication, which was always a Damocles sword fot kings, and the more centralized (but not absolutely, since Heraclius) structure of the Eastern roman empire, in which the Patriarch was clearly under the emperor control when the emperor was strong. In the muslim world, things were even more "mixed", because political leaders took entirely the religious influence. Maybe I'm wrong, thought.

Since this game is about the "Crusader Kings", I think what I'm saying is important. Dynamic was different. The emperor was not dethroned because he didn't listened the pope or the patriarch, but because there were clearly personal conflicts, which were not mediatized by the church. Maybe this is what lead XIX century historians to conclude that byzantine empire was such a conflictual world, with greed and anger.

Finally... What could I say about the game, given all of that? I think piety should be less important for eastern orthodox monarchs than it is for western linked to the pope ones. But this system should be dynamic and depend of the influence of religious centers, since piety is prestige for the religious.
Click to expand...

What you say about religious differences is important. I do not think that the Western and Eastern Christians are that far away by 1066. The investiture controversy in the Holy Roman Empire at that time pitted Emperor Henry IV against Pope Gregory VII. What the Emperor would ultimately have wanted was something like Caesaropapism, and at the local level and in more remote places, like Iberia and the Celtic kingdoms, there was a similar dynamic in real terms. Henry set up the Archbishop of Milan (and some German prelates as well IIRC) as a sort of antipope. So this should be an option I think. Instead, Henry's opponents in Germany and Italy sided with Gregory and really stuck it to their king. For me, one of the major things to do in early CK1 games is to watch Germany implode (even disappear), either as France or an ambitious Castilla.
 
Contemporary religious authors seem to have been rather unclear that the Great Schism was, in fact, a schism at all. You can't really find it in the writings of Theophylaktos of Ohrid, for instance. The language and ideology of schism developed rather more slowly over the course of the centuries between then and the Fourth Crusade.
 
I hope they decide not to call them Byzantine Empire in this, i'm tired of seeing that. Especially in modern era games such as Victoria as they were NEVER called that until that time but then as an insult.
 
A major difference between the West and the East in game should be that the Patriarch is appointed by the Roman Emperor, which is not how the Pope is chosen and is easily modeled in game with a system like EU Rome's court appointments. I would also say that the Emperor's piety should not have a less effect than in the West. The Emperor was just as important a spiritual leader as the Patriarch, they just had different responsibilities in the Empire with both working toward the same goal; the protection and superiority of their religion.
 
Kanaric said:
I hope they decide not to call them Byzantine Empire in this, i'm tired of seeing that. Especially in modern era games such as Victoria as they were NEVER called that until that time but then as an insult.
Click to expand...

It will almost certainly be called that .... as it was in the previous game, and any other PI game where they existed. If you don't like the name, just rename them to something else. It is a single line in one file.
 
I think it's been brought up earlier in the thread that the naming of The Empire should not be discussed. Just thought I'd point it out.

@RomanGuy:

Well, it's not like the pope does much in CK either, xD, spiritual leader or not. In my opinion, if piety still exists, the byzantine emperor would be using piety mainly to gain loyalty from their vassals and provinces I so think. Maybe the emperor's piety would directly influence the Orthodox religion itself in some way, or the religious system for the Orthodox church could be implemented something like court politics where the Emperor would use his piety ot influence his goals. Or something like that I guess.
 
Beskar said:
The split was recent in the beginnings of the game, so a mending should be a possibility.
Click to expand...

Several commenters have claimed this in this thread, but it simply isn't accurate. While it is true that we date the so-called "Great Schism" to 1054, you have to remember that the schism was based on long-standing political and ecclesiastical differences between the Latin West and the Greek East that went back for centuries before that. Differences so great that I for one think that a mending would be outside the realm of possibility by 1066.
 
I agree, however, as a consequence of the Emperor and Patriarch sharing the responsibilities of tending to the flock, the spiritual power of the Patriarch reflected the political power of the Emperor. Thus, if the Roman Empire implodes, there should be no reason why the Serbian, Bulgarian Romanian, Rus, or any other orthodox King will not appoint their own Patriarch. So rather than inventing a new function, I would suggest that for a kingdom + level orthodox state, the court "bishops" should be considered Patriarchs, with all the relevant functions and interactions.
 
Porcupine1981 said:
Really? I didn't know this - how?
Click to expand...

I was referring to Byzantium's Pentarchy event which disables the Papacy when Rome and various other provinces are converted to Orthodoxy. It doesn't remove Catholicism, though.

The description of the event says:

"$COUNTRY$, having brought all Patriarchates back into the Christian - Orthodox - fold, have restored the old Pentarchy thus effectively ending the great East-West Schism. While some countries might continue to cling to Catholicism, the Pope has lost his vaunted primacy as the lawful successor of St Peter and Bishop of Rome."

Serbon said:
Which Emperor moved his capital to Sicily? I never read anything about that.
Click to expand...

According to the Cambridge Medieval History (and I just read this today, in fact), there were moves by various emperors to change the capital to Sicily and also moves to change it to Carthage, and Constans II did in fact move his court to Sicily in the 660s.
 
Last edited:
Zechariah Zevi said:
According to the Cambridge Medieval History (and I just read this today, in fact), there were moves by various emperors to change the capital to Sicily and also moves to change it to Carthage, and Constans II did in fact move his court to Sicily in the 660s.
Click to expand...

Yeap... Constans moved in Syracusa with his court and started building the new capital... But nobility an people back in Constantinople didnt liked the idea and bribed his chamberlain to assassinate him... he was succeeded by his minor son Constantine IV (also nicknamed Pogonatus) who was quickly persuaded to abandon this crazy idea of building a new city and return to Constantinople...
 
RomanGuy said:
A major difference between the West and the East in game should be that the Patriarch is appointed by the Roman Emperor, which is not how the Pope is chosen
Click to expand...

Actually, the Holy Roman Emperors of the Saxon and Salian had the right to nominate the pope, and Ottos (I, II, and III) intervened regularly and deposed popes not to their liking. It wasn't until Henry IV in the mid 11h century that the papacy challenged the emperor's right of nomination with In Nomine Domini that created the college of cardinals.

Granted, CK I begins in 1066 when this is already in place but I'd like to see CK II begin in late antiquity :)
 
The problem here on how to prganize the Byzantine Empire is a tricky one. While the empire (im guessing) was more centralized than the Feudal states of the west and Muslim (is horde a fair term for the Seljuks?) If not done correctly then the Empire will be overly powerful, and just bowl through the Muslims, or we could see the opposite and wath them be bowled over.

Very tricky, and important location.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back