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
Hamanu said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

The features being discussed for CK2 would work well for as far back as the Carolingian period at least and as far forward as the late Renaissance (with some adjustments), so plenty of room for modding in late antiquity, my friend.
 
The Roman Empire (Byzantine redirects here)

I am sure this will be the subject of a future dev diary, but I was curious as to how the Roman Empire (alias the Byzantine Empire) is going to be portrayed in CK2. On various threads, users have suggested the religious divisions between East and West as an important aspect of how this administrative empire should be portrayed in the game and other issues such as the navy. I am interested specifically in how a rather non-feudal empire would fit into a game that is very much about medieval feudalism. The theme system of administration bore similarities to the Roman system of provincial governors that preceded it, so I was thinking that it might resemble the system of governors in EU Rome, who could be appointed and recalled more or less as the emperor (or consul) wished. Should the empire survives the Arabs, the Turks, and the Crusaders, there are a host of interesting possibilities for reform and resurgence.

(although, many larger feudal dynasties like the Angevins did appoint senechals [or more correctly senechaux] for various bits of their domain, English kings had their lieutenants of Ireland, and in time Spain and other realms made use of viceroys.)

In any case, IMO using the word empire calls up images of a civil and/or military bureaucracy through which the monarch ruled. I'm sure the developers will come up with some nifty solutions for the specific Byzantine case, but I thought I'd raise the issue with the community. I know there are some other Byzantine (or East Roman) fans out there, so any discussion?

Cheers,
the rooster
 
It would be nice to allow for some other methods of organization, such as appointed "viceroys" in some provinces, at least if the dynasty's "government type" allows it.
 
KristopherWG said:
It would be nice to allow for some other methods of organization, such as appointed "viceroys" in some provinces, at least if the dynasty's "government type" allows it.
Click to expand...

It is closer to what happened historically, and where many of the original duchies came from. There could be decisions or events to make such provincial governments hereditary (because of sustained civil unrest or weak monarchs), but there should be the option of appointing lieutenants (literally, placeholders) even for more feudal realms. And of course special revolt events against corrupt viceroys...
 
We could add another trait just for fun... The trait "Eunuch"... Byzantines liked these people a lot and usually they castrated their opponents in order to neutralise them... But in some cases eunuchs managed to virtually control the Empire by holding key offices in the Byzantine hierarchy...
 
Don_giorgio said:
We could add another trait just for fun... The trait "Eunuch"... Byzantines liked these people a lot and usually they castrated their opponents in order to neutralise them... But in some cases eunuchs managed to virtually control the Empire by holding key offices in the Byzantine hierarchy...
Click to expand...

That's an idea. The Ottomans absorbed a lot of the Byzantine administrative stuff, so that makes sense, too.

On the administrative angle, I modded my CK1 game today so that all of the Byzantine duchies in Anatolia and Greece were archbishoprics (this was the original meaning of "diocese"--a Roman term for a localized administrative unit), to mimic the effects of the theme system. Charlemagne and his successors attempted to implement a similar system in Germany, based on giving archbishops important administrative posts. Just an idea. I'll let you guys know how it works out in my current game, if you are interested.
 
Well it could be fun to have the option to castrate the sons (or threaten to castrate them) of your fierce opponents if they are in your court (either as fosterlings or hostages) in order to control them... Also castration, blinding, etc could be used after a failed rebellion in the empire after u have captured the enemy leader... Byzantines did that a lot...
 
Don_giorgio said:
Well it could be fun to have the option to castrate the sons (or threaten to castrate them) of your fierce opponents if they are in your court (either as fosterlings or hostages) in order to control them... Also castration, blinding, etc could be used after a failed rebellion in the empire after u have captured the enemy leader... Byzantines did that a lot...
Click to expand...

I'm all for hostages in general, to guarantee peace. And should add some interesting courtiers to your court. On a declaration of war, the old rule was that hostages were offered imprisonment (or worse) vs. defection to their host.
 
RedRooster81 said:
I'm all for hostages in general, to guarantee peace. And should add some interesting courtiers to your court. On a declaration of war, the old rule was that hostages were offered imprisonment (or worse) vs. defection to their host.
Click to expand...

If u hold hostages in court these would be ineligible of holding offices... Unless they are in serious odds with their original court and decide to offer u their services... It would be fun to be at war with a rival and send an army to fight him lead by their own son/nephew/cousin etc.
Also i would love to see some punishments against courtiers or hostages... such as imprisonment, blinding, castration etc.

Example:
Event -Your Steward is accused for embezzlement!!! Should we sent him to prison and confiscate his estates?
Event -You have captured the King of Khazars in battle!!! You would like to... A) execute him? B) blind him? C) castrate him?
Event -Your bastard son is accused of raping a girl in court... should we flog him?
 
Don_giorgio said:
If u hold hostages in court these would be ineligible of holding offices... Unless they are in serious odds with their original court and decide to offer u their services... It would be fun to be at war with a rival and send an army to fight him lead by their own son/nephew/cousin etc.
Also i would love to see some punishments against courtiers or hostages... such as imprisonment, blinding, castration etc.

Example:
Event -Your Steward is accused for embezzlement!!! Should we sent him to prison and confiscate his estates?
Event -You have captured the King of Khazars in battle!!! You would like to... A) execute him? B) blind him? C) castrate him?
Event -Your bastard son is accused of raping a girl in court... should we flog him?
Click to expand...

Well, you should not go around castrating captured kings. Remember the first rule of war, the Law of Reprisals. (Though his presence as a "guest" in your court should up the warscore!) Treat your hostages well, or you will have more problems. But I see where you're going with events like these.
 
Don_giorgio said:
Event -Your Steward is accused for embezzlement!!! Should we sent him to prison and confiscate his estates?
Event -You have captured the King of Khazars in battle!!! You would like to... A) execute him? B) blind him? C) castrate him?
Event -Your bastard son is accused of raping a girl in court... should we flog him?
Click to expand...

That second event looks very Byzantine. They'd generally go for options B or C from what I seem to remember, as both would render him no longer fit to be a king, being imperfect and no longer whole. However, you couldn't just kill him - that'd be wrong!
 
Not that good if you ask me, rietstap got "plenty" of arms.
Don't mean to brag or anything but I've actually researched and compiled some arms (60+) of Byzantine nobility and the empire... :)

Here's a few...
roman_empire2.png
 
RedRooster81 said:
Well, you should not go around castrating captured kings. Remember the first rule of war, the Law of Reprisals. (Though his presence as a "guest" in your court should up the warscore!) Treat your hostages well, or you will have more problems. But I see where you're going with events like these.
Click to expand...

Well i agree... Lets say that the castration, blinding, or execution options will be open for the player if he has completely annihilated the enemy... Like Basil II did to Bulgars when he blinded 15000 Bulgars leaving one one-eyed every 99 prisoners... But before this gruesome decision the Bulgarian army was annihilated and didnt posed any serious threat... On the other hand Nicephorus Phocas (before becoming Emperor) when he captured the Emir of Crete Anemas he treated him as a guest of honour (although he was displayed in his triumphal entry to Constantinople) because he didnt wanted to upset the rest of the Arabs in Syria...
 
Personally, I think one of the best ways to simulate the Byzies would be to have an authority "stat", when Romanus VI took the throne he had a shakey hold on the throne at best, after loosing to the Turks and getting captured he lost all hold on the throne which triggered a civil war. When a dynasty takes control, the families control can be based upon various variables like how they got their, how strong their leader is, and so on from there they could rule with their strength waxing and waning with time the like the Komnenoi (who phased out through the extinction of the male line) and were then replaced by the Angeloi (who had a so-so grip and then promptly lost it rather rapidly).

Honestly, I think this could be used for all of the monarchies, but this is only one viewpoint. What do you guys think?
(if I need to explain better I would be more than welling)
 
Another cool thing would be if we could divide the Byzantine Emperors into dynasties... In example when the game starts u have Constantine X Dukas as Emperor and then his son takes over as Michael VII Dukas... These are members of the Dukas dynasty... u can have the dynasty name somewhere written in their personal tab... Now if Michael VII is overthrown or succeeded by someone unrelated to him the new Emperor gets the option to form a new dynasty replacing the old one... If the usurper/adopted has a different name but is related somehow to the previous dynasty both names will be preserved... Example: Michael VII is succeeded by his nephew (his sister's son who is married to Alexius Briggas... lets call him John Briggas) He will be named Emperor John II of the Dukas-Briggas dynasty... And to avoid long names if succession through females continue only the second part will change... Example: John II dies childless and is succeeded by his cousin Nicephorus Eudokianos so the new Emperor is styled Nicephorus III Dukas-Eukokianos...
 
The characters portraits can be stick figures for all I care, as long as there is no mention of "byzantine empire".
The eastern roman empire would be a nice touch tho :)
 
I really can't believe people are prepared to argue over the name again. The reasons it will be named "The Byzantine Empire" are the following:

1. This name is more well known than the "Eastern Roman Empire".

2. It sounds way cooler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back