Byzantium vs Eastern Roman Empire?

[pCWentY]

It's best for players to change country names freely in the new game.

Just like in CK3 where players can freely change title name. Players can change the Byzantium to Rome before clicking "Rebuild Rome" decision.

In this way, players can change country name to whatever they want. Everyone will be satisfied and let go of all the controversy

 

[Austregisel]

Why? Does that not do the exact thing you said was "reinforcing misleading stereotypes?" I pointed out in another thread eight Indian Muslim polities from the EUIV period that did not refer to themselves by their dynasty. The Tughlaqs were overthrown by the Sayyids in 1414, but they still called themselves Hindustan, as did the Lodis who came after them. Even for the Mughals this will pose a problem - shall we call them merely Gurkani? Because that is what their house was, like Timur.

II think you misunderstood me, I asked about the region and which of the scenarios was more accurate, since I don't know very well about this region and how the people saw themselves for all these hundreds of years. If they consider themselves to be part of "Hindustan" then that's it, I would be on the side of giving that name to that tag regardless of the reigning dynasty. Btw, in eu4 some tags have the name of the reigning dynasty, which are sometimes both wrong and do not represent how people saw themselves at the time.

Even when considering Hindu states this does not make complete sense - after all, the Vijayanagara were ruled by the Sangamas, then the Saluvas, and so on - but they always called themselves Karnataka Samrajya (ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಾಮ್ರಾಜ್ಯ, 'Karnataka Empire'). In fact, Robert Sewell, who rediscovered the empire, chose Vijayangara because he did not want to inflame intercommunal tensions between the Kannada and Telugu peoples (whether the Sangamas were Telugu or Kannada remains a source of controversy). So what do we do in this case? Or that of the Maratha Empire/Confederacy, who were ruled by the Bhonsles but never referred to themselves as such?

So the correct one shouldn't Vijayanagara them, it should be Karnataka Empire, It's how they saw themselves, as you said. In the case of the Maratha Empire, its simple,should be referred to as they referred to themselves, of course not in the original language, as it wouldn't be possible to understand, but at least its translation into the language the game would use, it would be a fair exonym of it.

They did not. I do not know where you have gotten this misconception from. I specifically stated that the Mughals are not typically considered continuers of their predecessors - most Mughal institutions were developed during the reign of Akbar, many decades after the death of the last Sultan of Delhi at Panipat in 1526.

It should be named after what they called themselves at the time, it's very simple. Mughals or not, Hindustan or not. Before Akbar then they should have been called something else, if that is the case.

 

[Lindaegan]

II think you misunderstood me, I asked about the region and which of the scenarios was more accurate, since I don't know very well about this region and how the people saw themselves for all these hundreds of years. If they consider themselves to be part of "Hindustan" then that's it, I would be on the side of giving that name to that tag regardless of the reigning dynasty. Btw, in eu4 some tags have the name of the reigning dynasty, which are sometimes both wrong and do not represent how people saw themselves at the time.

So the correct one shouldn't Vijayanagara them, it should be Karnataka Empire, It's how they saw themselves, as you said. In the case of the Maratha Empire, its simple,should be referred to as they referred to themselves, of course not in the original language, as it wouldn't be possible to understand, but at least its translation into the language the game would use, it would be a fair exonym of it.


It should be named after what they called themselves at the time, it's very simple. Mughals or not, Hindustan or not. Before Akbar then they should have been called something else, if that is the case.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree, then. I would rather this kind of diverse thinking be done for historical mechanics instead of only for deciding what to name a particular tag. If you call the Vijayanagara the "Karnataka Empire," exactly two people will know what you are talking about. I do not think this kind of nitpicky logic will lead to anything but a confusing experience for the player - not everyone is a history nerd, and even if you are you probably do not have in-depth knowledge of every region. EU, and other PDX GSGs, do not teach history, they give you a jumping-off point - as Brett Deveraux put it, it allows for wiki-walking. Try searching up "Karnataka Empire" - you will get no hits. "Vijayanagara" will give you plenty of sources.

 

[cz1h]

Have two name. One that is used in most contexts, the common name of the polity, and another that is a secondary name in the info screen which is a translation of the endonym.

 

[mehmeteking]

The big difference between changing the name of the "Byzantines" and every other example brought up in this thread, that people keep (intentionally?) ignoring, is that no, it is absolutely not the same deal when Iran is referred to as Persia, or when the 12 Hindustands are referred to as Delhi/Mughals/Whatever

The BIG difference between all these examples is that "Mughal Empire" and "Persia" and "Germany" and every other example EXCEPT "Byzantium" is not an exonym coined with the explicit and intentional aim of delegitimising that state. THAT is what makes the Empire of the Romans unique, THAT is why they deserve the game option to change away from their slur-like exonym and the others do not need to.

Why is this so hard to understand for you all?

Because that's not true I mean, what do you even mean by "delegitimization"? It was called the "Byzantine empire" long after it was dead, so no one needs to worry about its "legitimacy," whatever that might mean in this context.
Byzantine and Roman empires were very different in every way; that's why a distinction needs to be made while discussing them in any historical context.

 

[merudin]

The big difference between changing the name of the "Byzantines" and every other example brought up in this thread, that people keep (intentionally?) ignoring, is that no, it is absolutely not the same deal when Iran is referred to as Persia, or when the 12 Hindustands are referred to as Delhi/Mughals/Whatever

The BIG difference between all these examples is that "Mughal Empire" and "Persia" and "Germany" and every other example EXCEPT "Byzantium" is not an exonym coined with the explicit and intentional aim of delegitimising that state. THAT is what makes the Empire of the Romans unique, THAT is why they deserve the game option to change away from their slur-like exonym and the others do not need to.

Why is this so hard to understand for you all?

Do you have any sources that name "Byzantine Empire" was made in order to delegitimize state?

As many have pointed out already, name "Byzantine Empire" was created AFTER its fall. There was no point to delegitimize them, because they did not exist. Problem of the two emperors was solved already. And by the way, the term "Byzantine empire" was coined by Laonikos Chalkokondyles, greek historian who was born in Byzantine Empire (althrough writing after its fall).

 

[Lord Lambert]

Because that's not true

yes it is.

 

[Ataleh]

Because that's not true I mean, what do you even mean by "delegitimization"? It was called the "Byzantine empire" long after it was dead, so no one needs to worry about its "legitimacy," whatever that might mean in this context.
Byzantine and Roman empires were very different in every way; that's why a distinction needs to be made while discussing them in any historical context.

The "delegitimization" started way earlier, since Charlemagne, and was going full swing during Crusades. The term "Byzantine" got popularized in XIX century to replace "Greek Empire" (and again, Romans considered "Greek" to be a slant) used since way before Crusades to limit ambitions of newly born independent Greek state. Saying "Byzantine" means in practice "Neither Roman nor Greek", some weird nebulous idea, which nobody living in the medieval state would agree with. In truth, "Byzantines" identified themselves Christian, Greek-speaking Romans and did so pretty much up until the chaos of WWI and War of Turkish Independence, and small populations in Turkey still do in some way to this day.

TL;DR Term "Byzantine" is continuation, not start, of East Roman"delegitimization".

 

[Ataleh]

Do you have any sources that name "Byzantine Empire" was made in order to delegitimize state?

As many have pointed out already, name "Byzantine Empire" was created AFTER its fall. There was no point to delegitimize them, because they did not exist. Problem of the two emperors was solved already. And by the way, the term "Byzantine empire" was coined by Laonikos Chalkokondyles, greek historian who was born in Byzantine Empire (althrough writing after its fall).

Think about this. Western Europe had a motive to delegitimize East Rome, because they wanted, both themselves and the rest of the world, to see them and them alone as heirs of both Ancient Greek and Roman legacies. There is a reason why "Byzantium" is viewed as decadent, zealous schismatics, conniving and untrustworthy, and I doubt you question where these stereotypes came from. This started way before 1453 and the term "Byzantine" is just a continuation of this trend. West is not the only heir to these traditions, East Rome and Muslim world are as well. And while Muslims could have been simply dismissed due to not following Roman faith, East Rome required more complex treatment. The fact we are having this conversation right now means that treatment was extremely successful - even in academia itself the reversal of this treatment started after WWII and is still ongoing, thought good progress is being made.

 

[AlexanderBoesen]

Please have "Romania/Rhomania" as an option. Personally I'd prefer just "The Roman Empire" but I'm guessing that would undermine the decision to reform Rome (which I'm quite sure is in every Clausewitz game. Still looking in Stellaris...).

Eastern Roman Empire is okay but technically wrong, since east-west-split was abolished by Zeno.

Byzantine Empire is obviously wrong, but the most easily understood.

I understand that "Romania" would be confusing to many, but so far I think it's the most accurate name besides "Roman Empire".

 

[Stami]

Even if the term "Byzantine" was created as a slur, it hasn't been so for quite some time now. There's many ways to view this topic.

1. Use the name that was officially used during the game's timeframe, which would be Roman Empire. This would mean that Persia needs to be Iran as well.

2. Do not use the term Byzantine because it wasn't used during the game's timeframe and when it was created it was meant as a slur.

3. Name it Byzantine Empire because in modern times it is not viewed as a slur at all. In fact, it is the commonly agreed upon name for it (Google search Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire and you're going to get very different results), despite the historical accuracy of calling it Roman Empire. This would also make it viable to call Persia as Persia.

Tinto's solution is good because it allows the usage of whatever one the player desires, although I would prefer calling it Roman Empire rather than Eastern Roman Empire because it implies the existence of a Western Roman Empire, which doesn't - and won't - exist during the game's timeframe.

I propose the implementation of this for other such countries like Persia who could also be called Iran. But they don't exist at game start. So perhaps when the country is formed this could also exist as a solution.

There is also the solution for the player to name any country whatever they want... But I don't agree with this myself.

 

[Ataleh]

Even if the term "Byzantine" was created as a slur, it hasn't been so for quite some time now. There's many ways to view this topic.

1. Use the name that was officially used during the game's timeframe, which would be Roman Empire. This would mean that Persia needs to be Iran as well.

2. Do not use the term Byzantine because it wasn't used during the game's timeframe and when it was created it was meant as a slur.

3. Name it Byzantine Empire because in modern times it is not viewed as a slur at all. In fact, it is the commonly agreed upon name for it (Google search Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire and you're going to get very different results), despite the historical accuracy of calling it Roman Empire. This would also make it viable to call Persia as Persia.

Tinto's solution is good because it allows the usage of whatever one the player desires, although I would prefer calling it Roman Empire rather than Eastern Roman Empire because it implies the existence of a Western Roman Empire, which doesn't - and won't - exist during the game's timeframe.

I propose the implementation of this for other such countries like Persia who could also be called Iran. But they don't exist at game start. So perhaps when the country is formed this could also exist as a solution.

There is also the solution for the player to name any country whatever they want... But I don't agree with this myself.

Yeah, and what does Wikipedia show in this infobox for "Roman Empire"?

Roman Empire Senatus Populusque Romanus (Latin) Imperium Romanum[a] (Latin) Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων (Ancient Greek) Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn
27 BC–AD 395 (unified)[1] AD 395–476/480 (Western) AD 395–1453 (Eastern)

What does first paragraph in "Byzantine Empire" say?

The term "Byzantine Empire" was only coined following the empire's demise; its citizens referred to the polity as the "Roman Empire" and to themselves as "Romans".[a] Due to the imperial seat's move from Rome to Byzantium, the adoption of state Christianity, and the predominance of Greek instead of Latin, modern historians continue to make a distinction between the earlier "Roman Empire" and the later "Byzantine Empire".

The question is, do we want to follow history as it was to the best of our knowledge, or the popular notion of history?

 

[Stami]

Yeah, and what does Wikipedia show in this infobox for "Roman Empire"?

Roman Empire Senatus Populusque Romanus (Latin) Imperium Romanum[a] (Latin) Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων (Ancient Greek) Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn
27 BC–AD 395 (unified)[1] AD 395–476/480 (Western) AD 395–1453 (Eastern)

What does first paragraph in "Byzantine Empire" say?

The term "Byzantine Empire" was only coined following the empire's demise; its citizens referred to the polity as the "Roman Empire" and to themselves as "Romans".[a] Due to the imperial seat's move from Rome to Byzantium, the adoption of state Christianity, and the predominance of Greek instead of Latin, modern historians continue to make a distinction between the earlier "Roman Empire" and the later "Byzantine Empire".

The question is, do we want to follow history as it was to the best of our knowledge, or the popular notion of history?

How is that against anything I said?

You chose to focus on point 3. and ignore points 1. and 2.

If you want a proper discussion don't nitpick.

 

[Ataleh]

How is that against anything I said?

You chose to focus on point 3. and ignore points 1. and 2.

If you want a proper discussion don't nitpick.

Sorry if you took that personally. I just wanted to drive home the difference between popular history and proper, academic approach. Wikipedia uses popular terms, but acknowledges the proper terms at the start of the articles. It does similar things with other states as well, with "Name" headers. And a wiki article is likely the first thing you will see when you google stuff.

 

[Stami]

Sorry if you took that personally. I just wanted to drive home the difference between popular history and proper, academic approach. Wikipedia uses popular terms, but acknowledges the proper terms at the start of the articles. It does similar things with other states as well, with "Name" headers. And a wiki article is likely the first thing you will see when you google stuff.

My post was meant to bridge the gap between opposing sides here, and highlight how Tinto's approach is the best solution. All I would do is change Eastern Roman Empire to Roman Empire.

This should satisfy everyone.

 

[mehmeteking]

The "delegitimization" started way earlier, since Charlemagne, and was going full swing during Crusades. The term "Byzantine" got popularized in XIX century to replace "Greek Empire" (and again, Romans considered "Greek" to be a slant) used since way before Crusades to limit ambitions of newly born independent Greek state. Saying "Byzantine" means in practice "Neither Roman nor Greek", some weird nebulous idea, which nobody living in the medieval state would agree with. In truth, "Byzantines" identified themselves Christian, Greek-speaking Romans and did so pretty much up until the chaos of WWI and War of Turkish Independence, and small populations in Turkey still do in some way to this day.

TL;DR Term "Byzantine" is continuation, not start, of East Roman"delegitimization".

It doesn't deligitimize anything, though. It aimed to alienate Greek people from their Byzantine heritage so that they don't go on and claim Roman lands in the future (the paper discusses this). However; "Greek Empire" was never used by Greeks in the first place; so "Byzantine Empire" would only replace the name in western sources, I guess. In any case, various people of Greece and Anatolia didn't call themselves Roman because of any "legitimacy." They didn't have "Roman passports" or anything. That's just what they called themselves for historical reasons and that's it.

I know that the Romans of medieval era (like some Pope) referred to the Byzantines as "Grakoi" in some rare cases but that name was rejected by the Byzantines who insisted they were Romans. That's the only dispute about Byzantine "legitimacy" I know of while the empire was still alive. But it is not really about legitimacy either, simply because there is no legality in any of these claims. At least there wasn't, until Rome fanboys became a thing. Now we have to fit history into some "LARPing as Rome" framework which requires us determine what is "legitimately" Rome.

At the end of the day, Byzantine Empire was sufficiently different than the Roman Empire so we use a different name for it. It is true that people under the Byzantine Empire called themselves Romans, but so did the people under the Ottoman Empire (yes, even the assimilated Turkish speakers, as Anatolian "Turk" is a new invention.) The Ottoman emperors also called themselves Caesar of Rome, ruled from the Roman capital and continued various Roman traditions. However, they were sufficiently distinct from Byzantines (or Romans) that we reject their claims. It is the same with the Byzantine Empire and (western) Roman Empire.

 

[Ataleh]

It doesn't deligitimize anything, though. It aimed to alienate Greek people from their Byzantine heritage so that they don't go on and claim Roman lands in the future (the paper discusses this). However; "Greek Empire" was never used by Greeks in the first place; so "Byzantine Empire" would only replace the name in western sources, I guess. In any case, various people of Greece and Anatolia didn't call themselves Roman because of any "legitimacy." They didn't have "Roman passports" or anything. That's just what they called themselves for historical reasons and that's it.

I know that the Romans of medieval era (like some Pope) referred to the Byzantines as "Grakoi" in some rare cases but that name was rejected by the Byzantines who insisted they were Romans. That's the only dispute about Byzantine "legitimacy" I know of while the empire was still alive. But it is not really about legitimacy either, simply because there is no legality in any of these claims. At least there wasn't, until Rome fanboys became a thing. Now we have to fit history into some "LARPing as Rome" framework which requires us determine what is "legitimately" Rome.

At the end of the day, Byzantine Empire was sufficiently different than the Roman Empire so we use a different name for it. It is true that people under the Byzantine Empire called themselves Romans, but so did the people under the Ottoman Empire (yes, even the assimilated Turkish speakers, as Anatolian "Turk" is a new invention.) The Ottoman emperors also called themselves Caesar of Rome, ruled from the Roman capital and continued various Roman traditions. However, they were sufficiently distinct from Byzantines (or Romans) that we reject their claims. It is the same with the Byzantine Empire and (western) Roman Empire.

1) I agree, 100%

2) The title of "Emperor" was at stake here. People (in both West and East) thought there can be only one emperor. So, if you are heir of Charlemagne, you cannot accept emperors in Constantinople to be Roman, and the same goes for recognition of Aachen or wherever Frankish/German Imperial capital was. For us this might be funny, as in IV-V centuries there could easily be 2 or more emperors, but these folks thought differently.

3) Ottoman claims are dismissed because there was no continuation. New religion, new language, new laws, new customs etc. of the ruling elites. An abrupt change. The claim to the title of Caesars was, IMHO, legit and earned (better than Russian or French claims, that's for certain), but it provided no continuation when it comes to facts on the ground. This was mostly due to the long existence of Ottoman state before the conquest - they already had government structures, laws etc. and didn't need to adopt Roman ones with a new coat of paint. A more interesting example is the continuation under Rashidun and Umayyads in both Roman and Iranian lands. Arab state was young and more interested in control than governance, thus a lot of structures survived and evolved with time. Seljuk Rum was a similar story in a lot of ways.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that point, but I don't think 1453 changed much besides the court moving to Constantinople.

 

[gigau]

Eastern Roman Empire beats "Byzantine Empire" any day of the week... Byzantium/Byzantion was replaced by Constantinople a millenium before the announced game start (330 AD to be precise).

One could argue that, with the fall of the Western Roman Empire when Odoacre became king of Italy in the 490's AD, it was no longer really "Eastern"... but that name still outlived Byzantion over a century.

Empire of the Romans would be better, as it's the translation of the endonym Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn.

 

[Tercio Soldier]

I find it so funny how the byzantine fans cling to the arguments of continuity and universal citizenship across the Roman Empire. When Western Rome fell and Odoacer sent the Imperial regalia to Constantinople everyone in Western Rome, rightful Roman citizens according to byzaboos, recognized the Eastern Emperor. Until Justinian decided he was so cool and started invading and conquering other "Roman citizens" under rightful Roman successor states. The visigothic kingdom of Spain was the same realm that was formed under the Roman Empire with the same "Roman" citizens and recognized Justinian as Emperor, so why would he attack? Why did he attack the kingdom that Odoacer created and sent him the Imperial regalia? The loss of Roman legitimacy is 100% the fault of the Byzantines themselves

 

[mehmeteking]

Byzantium/Byzantion was replaced by Constantinople

You only mean in name, right?