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.

 

[Joel M Bridge]

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.

The word empire it self was not use before Rome is what your getting or least the Modern concept of it.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

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

Yes, and you're suggesting that because the Romans devised the word 'imperator' that they were therefore the first empire because such a concept could not possibly have existed before a useful word for it was thought up.

I was saying (correctly) that the Persians, and in fact previous peoples, had created empires in the traditional sense long before certain Romans started calling themselves imperators. I've addressed the point of later rulers claiming some sort of legitimacy from Rome, and I don't think that needs further discussion.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think I've ever disputed the points either you or Ciccillo Rre have tried to make regarding European peoples claiming the term via Roman legitimacy, and in fact I've addressed that point in a couple of posts. The fact that we refer to emperors as such is presumably self-evident, but nonetheless equivalent terms do exist in the Bible, the Avesta and historical texts which pre-date Rome.

Presumably it's not the fault of the Persian people that they didn't speak Latin and therefore did not coin a word which you're more familiar with.

 

[Don_giorgio]

I have one question... How are Orthodox Bishops appointed in this DLC? Does the ruler has something to say over who will be appointed or the game generates some random successor to the see?

Also a second question... Is Constantinople tied to the holder of the Imperial title? I ve been reading here that when some character won a civil war and thus becoming Emperor his former provincial seat became the new capital of the Empire and the defeated former Emperor retained Constantinople and his other titles... I find this quite ahistorical and annoying...

 

[Theddude]

Yes, and you're suggesting that because the Romans devised the word 'imperator' that they were therefore the first empire because such a concept could not possibly have existed before a useful word for it was thought up.

I was saying (correctly) that the Persians, and in fact previous peoples, had created empires in the traditional sense long before certain Romans started calling themselves imperators. I've addressed the point of later rulers claiming some sort of legitimacy from Rome, and I don't think that needs further discussion.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think I've ever disputed the points either you or Ciccillo Rre have tried to make regarding European peoples claiming the term via Roman legitimacy, and in fact I've addressed that point in a couple of posts. The fact that we refer to emperors as such is presumably self-evident, but nonetheless equivalent terms do exist in the Bible, the Avesta and historical texts which pre-date Rome.

Presumably it's not the fault of the Persian people that they didn't speak Latin and therefore did not coin a word which you're more familiar with.

I think the point is that the Persians created an empire in the modern sense, rather than a traditional conception of imperium specifically. They may have had ideas pertaining to their universal rule or kingdom over other kingdoms, but these ideas were not derived from the same place that the concept of imperium/empire (in the modern sense) was. I don't know the Persian term for what exactly they believed their state to be, presumably something like Kingdom over all Kingdoms, which of course while it's very similar to the Roman idea, the two different ideas themselves developed separately. Granted, though, Persian ideas heavily influenced the ERE as time went on as a result of their numerous wars and contact.

Point being, they're two separately developed ideas to represent similar, but not identical, concepts in different parts of the world. Similar to how China and Japan have their own ideas of what is usually translated as "Empire" but doesn't stem from the same tradition as Rome, but is similar enough that it can be described with the Western term. I think it's great that they added the Persian Empire into the game, and I'm pretty sure that nobody thinks that they shouldn't have been included.

 

[Sotof]

Being a king of kings is pretty much being an emperor. At least in my head. If you are the emperor of Scandinavia, you are not the emperor of Rome, you are the emperor of Scandinavia.

 

[Federalist girl]

Yes, and you're suggesting that because the Romans devised the word 'imperator' that they were therefore the first empire because such a concept could not possibly have existed before a useful word for it was thought up.

I was saying (correctly) that the Persians, and in fact previous peoples, had created empires in the traditional sense long before certain Romans started calling themselves imperators. I've addressed the point of later rulers claiming some sort of legitimacy from Rome, and I don't think that needs further discussion.

Well, I'd dispute that too. The Roman Empire was a different thing in kind to other polities that we now call empires. The Roman Empire did not claim to rule over many nations; and indeed, after 212, everyone within the Empire was Roman. Everyone in the Achaemenid empire was not Persian -- they were Medes, Persians, Parthians, Lydians, Carians, Bactrians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, etc etc etc. The Persian "empire" was more akin to a confederation than a centralized state. The same is true of the other pre-Roman "empires." The term was adulterated to simply mean rule over a large swath of land, which is really silly and more importantly, anachronistic.

 

[Ruwaard]

hmmm interesting, though I do have a few concerns though. IMHO restoring the unity in the Christian Church should be very hard and the same applies to restoring the Roman Empire.

As a general remark IMHO both these events ought to have a Catholic counterpart. Firstly from the Catholic perspective there (again) IMHO a way to have the primacy of the Papacy accepted by the Orthodox. The restoration of the Roman Empire is admittedly a bit hard, but the Holy Roman Empire/Emperor as the Catholic counterpart of the ''Byzantine''/Eastern Roman Emperor would be the Catholic emperor, which should be the Catholic candidate for such an event.
This brings up another question what happens to the Catholic Empires and other Orthodox empires (though I personally am not a huge fan of the later added extra empires)before and after the Roman Empire is reinstated.I imagine that especially the Holy Roman Empire will have a problem? Especially if it means that the HRE is stripped of their imperial title, then they really ought to have the title king of Germany (IMHO German king is better).

Finally I'm not sure about the practicality of turning Catholicism in a heresy; you might give the Byzantine/Roman Empire a similar CB after the Orthodox unification, but it actually shouldn't change much for Catholics. Though that would depend on how such a unification would be realized; IMHO that really should be more than just swords. OTOH I do agree, that after such an event Catholic rulers should have the possibility to change their religion. Unfortunately there isn't a Catholic equivalent for this event, especially since the Roman Catholic Church is part of the Western Legacy of Rome (arguably the most important Western part), some can dispute the legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire, but not the status of the Roman Catholic Church.

To end on a more cheerful note, I do like the new born in the purple trait and specific Byzantine events like unruly Varangians and Hippodrome Races.

 

[Garbon]

Well, I'd dispute that too. The Roman Empire was a different thing in kind to other polities that we now call empires. The Roman Empire did not claim to rule over many nations; and indeed, after 212, everyone within the Empire was Roman. Everyone in the Achaemenid empire was not Persian -- they were Medes, Persians, Parthians, Lydians, Carians, Bactrians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, etc etc etc. The Persian "empire" was more akin to a confederation than a centralized state. The same is true of the other pre-Roman "empires." The term was adulterated to simply mean rule over a large swath of land, which is really silly and more importantly, anachronistic.

While that's what everyone was on paper that's not really how everyone on the ground felt. Different groups and cultures didn't simply cease to be when granted full citizenship in 212.

 

[Cetan]

One of my big questions for the developers:

Is anything going to be done about the Fatimid powerhouse in the 1066 start, when they were historically supposed to be on their last leg?

I'm not pushing for a history simulator in CKII, but the Fatimids shouldn't be in a position to dominate half the world, let alone invade the Byzantine Empire.

 

[Federalist girl]

While that's what everyone was on paper that's not really how everyone on the ground felt. Different groups and cultures didn't simply cease to be when granted full citizenship in 212.

Well, yes and no. The legal change in status didn't really flip a switch or anything, but certainly over time people from all over the Empire regarded themselves as Roman. Romanitas became a sort of super-culture: thus you had Gallic Romans, Coptic Romans, Greek Romans, etc. This same thing didn't happen in the earlier "empires."

 

[King Anund]

Is there any way to mend the Schism under catholicism instead the Orthodox Church?

 

[Bad_Haggis]

Is there any way to mend the Schism under catholicism instead the Orthodox Church?

No.

 

[Ruwaard]

Is there any way to mend the Schism under catholicism instead the Orthodox Church?

No.

Again, that's a shame and IMHO there ought to be one. IMHO without a Catholic equivalent for this Orthodox possibility, for me it feels like only one side of the coin and thus (IMHO) incomplete.

 

[Sarog]

Again, that's a shame and IMHO there ought to be one.

This expansion was always billed as Byzantine/Orthodox content. It is a bit unreasonable to expect that all the orthodox content in an orthodox expansion gets a catholic equivalent. There's more expansions down the line and I'm sure at least one will add more catholic content.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

There's more expansions down the line and I'm sure at least one will add more catholic content.

I hope not. If the Roman Empire fails to reunite itself then I will always assume it's because at least 80% of the map is green and covered with the faravahar.

 

[Ruwaard]

This expansion was always billed as Byzantine/Orthodox content. It is a bit unreasonable to expect that all the orthodox content in an orthodox expansion gets a catholic equivalent. There's more expansions down the line and I'm sure at least one will add more catholic content.

I was only addressing the specific issue of ending the Schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and thus is an issue which affects both Orthodoxy and Catholicism and not only Orthodoxy (certainly not Byzantine only) and so that issue ought to be able to be solved from the Catholic perspective too.

This is different from the other big decision 'Restoring the Roman Empire', which is huge too, but can be seen in a more Byzantine specific perspective, whereas ending the Schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism affects the entire Western/Imperial Christianity (with Catholicism and Orthodoxy as main branches) and IMHO thus has a much larger scope.

 

[Federalist girl]

Anyway, the empire discussion seems to be beating a dead horse... since the fake empires are already in it.

Back to the topic of this actual DLC, I keep forgetting to ask whether or not they've implemented gender-based dynastic names, esp. since the Greeks had them. So e.g., Doukas/Doukaina, Komnenos/Komnene, Palaiologos/Palaiologina. I didn't look too closely at the screenshots but it's probably too much to hope that this has been done. Oh well.

 

[nyah]

Well, I'd dispute that too. The Roman Empire was a different thing in kind to other polities that we now call empires. The Roman Empire did not claim to rule over many nations; and indeed, after 212, everyone within the Empire was Roman. Everyone in the Achaemenid empire was not Persian -- they were Medes, Persians, Parthians, Lydians, Carians, Bactrians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, etc etc etc. The Persian "empire" was more akin to a confederation than a centralized state. The same is true of the other pre-Roman "empires." The term was adulterated to simply mean rule over a large swath of land, which is really silly and more importantly, anachronistic.

I studied a little bit of archaeology a couple of years ago, and if I remember correctly the academic definition of an empire was a large geographic area being ruled centrally (albeit possibly loosely) consisting of multiple cultures. I'd disagree about everybody in the Roman empire being Roman after 212 (did everybody just wake up one day and start wearing togas?), but if that is the case then it no longer was really an empire. Is China an empire? It was once. India? The differences in architecture between the different Roman provinces indicates that there were cultural differences (compare Roman buildings in Rome, North Africa, and Britain).

Fine, the word Empire comes from Latin. But that doesn't mean that there were no empires before the Romans.

I like to think of the European Union as the modern continuation of the Roman Empire, but that's just me. Nobel peace prize anyone? Pax Romana

 

[Federalist girl]

I didn't want the discussion to drag on, but very well, since I've been asked...

I studied a little bit of archaeology a couple of years ago, and if I remember correctly the academic definition of an empire was a large geographic area being ruled centrally (albeit possibly loosely) consisting of multiple cultures. I'd disagree about everybody in the Roman empire being Roman after 212 (did everybody just wake up one day and start wearing togas?), but if that is the case then it no longer was really an empire. Is China an empire? It was once. India? The differences in architecture between the different Roman provinces indicates that there were cultural differences (compare Roman buildings in Rome, North Africa, and Britain).

Fine, the word Empire comes from Latin. But that doesn't mean that there were no empires before the Romans.

I like to think of the European Union as the modern continuation of the Roman Empire, but that's just me. Nobel peace prize anyone? Pax Romana

It's a bit more complicated than that.

I. The definition you refer to is the modern definition of empire, which emerged as a descriptive definition: it looked at the Roman Empire as a multicultural superstate and then applied that model to other superstate of antiquity, as well as colonizing states that imitated the Roman imperial model (and indeed, CALLED themselves empires). So there is a descriptive modern definition you refer to, but then there are also formal empires: the French state in 1808 was formally renamed the First French Empire (from 1804 to 1808, it was still the First French Republic though ruled by the Emperor of the French) despite not actually being a multicultural state (the French Empire consisted of metropolitan France, while Napoleon's other conquests became client states). Under that definition, a formal empire is merely a state that calls itself an empire -- and it does not even require an emperor (see: the British Empire).

II. The medieval definition of empire is a different matter. The French word empire comes from imperium, and it literally just means: the Roman state. The definition you used (see sec. I) came much later. Under this definition, which is the definition people in CK2 would be using, there are no empires other than the Roman Empire (or states claiming to be it). For the purposes of the game, we see the Mongols being empire tier, but they are not labeled on the map as "The Mongol Empire" and their leaders are not "Emperors"--the tier is being used functionally by a non-Western culture that does not subscribe to medieval/Roman notions of universal (ecumenical) sovereignty (empire).

III. The change in 212 was the promulgation of the Constitutio Antoniana, which made all free inhabitants of the Empire Roman citizens. This is a legal change of status, not a cultural change of status--and as I described a few posts earlier in this very thread, it still took a while for the affected people to start thinking of themselves as Romans and indeed, adopting Roman habits (although do note that A. the affected regions were Roman for centuries and B. togas were going out of fashion by this point anyway).

IV. China is an empire because Westerners translated the title of their sovereign as emperor, and therefore the realm he ruled was an empire. Huangdi may also be translated as king, as I recall, but we refer to it as emperor because wang is also a word that means king and a huangdi is greater in rank. Don't take my word for either of these two things, since my knowledge of this is second hand and I know next to nothing about the Chinese language.

 

[SRM]

Please tell me that coat of arms for the restored Roman Empire is a work in progress. I like the eagle and SPQR and all, but given that this is a Christian Roman Empire it needs more ERE references, like a double-headed eagle and perhaps a cross. If not, I suppose there's always modding...

1) Did you see the thread about changing the color of Byzantium to that darker shade of purple? Tyrian, I think. That would be good for Byzantium, or Rome.

I personally would rather see purple for the Eastern Roman Empire and crimson for the restored Roman Empire, but that sounds more like something for us to mod in than have added in a DLC.