It's the one about which I am the most interested though........
- 1
-
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.
Kind of hilarious how this thread is still going despite the game rule being added to PC.
- 1
Despite? Bro the very first post is literally the announcement of the rule being added
This thread wouldnt exist without it.- 7
- 2
I was hoping that was an edit hehDespite? Bro the very first post is literally the announcement of the rule being added
- 2
My actual opinion, rather than just a joke: it entirely depends on the nature of "replacing the Byzantine Empire". If Bulgaria or Serbia were to conquer the Byzantines and assert their own status as the rightful rulers of Rome, would that also incur a tag-switch? If so, then it should be the Eastern Roman Empire (since my understanding is that the only dynamic state names we'll be seeing are dynastic ones, though the game will support modders doing whatever they wish) to avoid the weirdness of a Serbian or Bulgarian-ruled Byzantine Empire. If not (i.e. the only people tag-switching to the Byzantines are some flavor of Greek, e.g. Trebizond), then keep it as Byzantine Empire.
In other words, is the claim to be the rightful ruler of Rome tied to the tag, or a broader system? If tied to the tag, name it the Eastern Roman Empire. If some broader system, name it the Byzantine Empire. Or hell, Empire of the Greeks.
In other words, is the claim to be the rightful ruler of Rome tied to the tag, or a broader system? If tied to the tag, name it the Eastern Roman Empire. If some broader system, name it the Byzantine Empire. Or hell, Empire of the Greeks.
Going to add some spice to the thread.
I support arbitrarily only Orthodox Romanians to be able to do this.
Even if a polity historically insisted on being called "Roman", see Sultanate of Rûm and the HRE, the debate about the right of these polities to call themselves "Roman" isn't as heated as this thread for the medieval Greeks. Largely because the primary cultures of these polities were Turks and Germans who called themselves Turks and Germans and were seen by others as Turks and Germans. Doesn't matter what we retroactively think today with our hawty-tawty made-up academic terms like "Byzantine" for the Greeks lol.
Generally one should look at what the common people of the period were doing and saying.
If Serbs or Bulgarians annexed Constantinople, their general population wouldn't suddenly overnight call themselves "Roman", neither would people around them call them "Roman." Even if they attempted to usurp the title it would just never have caught on. So the name will just have been larpy and would also have received a special academic name today to distinguish it from the actual Eastern Roman Empire. Maybe something like the "Serbo Balkan Empire" or "Third Bulgarian Empire".
The rest of the polities around them will have seen them in much the same light as the Ostrogoths or Ottomans historically, not as the new "Romans", but a totally different empire entirely, despite inheriting the institutions and land.
Meanwhile, the Greeks called themselves Rhōmaîoi throughout the period and Romanians called themselves Rumâni afaik. Both these names were specifically used at the time because they literally meant to say they are ethnically Roman. People around them are documented as using these terms for them repeatedly as well.
The tag having "Roman" in the name thus isn't weird because it's literally what the ruling class and general population identify as, an empire of Eastern Romans, The Eastern Roman Empire.
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
Is it? I mean, historically, as we all know, the Swedes rebelled against Denmark and restored the independence of their own kingdom, under a Swedish monarch. That definitely sounds alot like the loyalty of the Swedish ethnicity trending toward their own national kingdom. How else would it be explained?
- 1
I don't understand what you are trying to convey here. For the record, I am very much against Serbia and Bulgaria being able to "form" Rome after conquering Constantinople (you could get some event about claiming it or something but your country would definitely still be called Serbia or Bulgaria). But supposing they did, how would it be weird for it to be called Byzantium? The "Byzantium" label explictly ties the identity of the state to its capital city and implies that all you need to be the Byzantine Empire is Constantinople. It's not an ethnicity. Speaking of which, as per Kaldellis' works, I would argue that we should regard this country as being called "Rome" because its inhabitants (i.e. people whom we would call Greeks) called themselves Romans, and not because they thought every day about how much they liked larping as Augustus. Therefore, the only three acceptable names for it, are "Roman Empire", "Romania", or "Greece"
What Romans in Latin? Romani. There we have our answer
- 1
Look, I'm not saying I'm much of a fan of the idea of Serbia or Bulgaria "forming" the Byzantine Empire, but I have no idea how the devs plan on representing that. Frankly I'd just have it be as you describe with any state being able to "lay claim" to Rome and all that other fun stuff that's been discussed in many other threads.I don't understand what you are trying to convey here. For the record, I am very much against Serbia and Bulgaria being able to "form" Rome after conquering Constantinople (you could get some event about claiming it or something but your country would definitely still be called Serbia or Bulgaria). But supposing they did, how would it be weird for it to be called Byzantium? The "Byzantium" label explictly ties the identity of the state to its capital city and implies that all you need to be the Byzantine Empire is Constantinople. It's not an ethnicity. Speaking of which, as per Kaldellis' works, I would argue that we should regard this country as being called "Rome" because its inhabitants (i.e. people whom we would call Greeks) called themselves Romans, and not because they thought every day about how much they liked larping as Augustus. Therefore, the only three acceptable names for it, are "Roman Empire", "Romania", or "Greece"
- 2
I agree with you on the Byzantines and Romanians.
However on the Serbs and Bulgars
In a hypothetical allowing that one of them takes Constantinople that would mean extremely high amounts of support for the Bulgar or Serb king becoming the emperor.
Lets say this king is unmarried and childless
Following this marriage to e Greek speaking Roman woman of the highest aristocracy
His culturally split son is raised in Constantinople, first language is Greek not Serb/Bulgarian which he knows in order to avoid alienation of his father's people, runs both Greece and Bulgaria or Serbia under Roman Laws with the same title as the emperor his father overthrew with Roman inspired institutions although he makes sure to appoint the local to positions of importance to avoid local alienation.
Why isn't that the Roman Empire?
A Serb or Bulgar player taking Constantinople and Greece should be given options that either lead to tag switching or you get no new tags.
- 2
- 1
You're describing what was attempted with Athalaric, and it didn't pan out because the rest of the ruling Gothic aristocracy didn't approve because they looked down upon the culture of their defeated Roman subjects and weren't liking the idea of themselves just becoming Romans. Remember, you're asking for the entire tag to totally switch to being Eastern Rome, not just the emperor. That's why I say it only makes sense with Romanoi and Romanians.
What you're anyway suggesting is a bit convoluted, as it involves at least 16 years of, for example Serbia, ruling Constantinople. With Serbs as the obvious ruling aristocracy and presumably Serbs elevated to equal footing with Romanoi(Greek) citizens, if not higher, only to then be seen as 2nd class citizens when the child comes of age. And this assumes the current Serbian ruler immediately dies when this happens in the perfect scenario.
Then it's like a weird switch-a-roonie where this Serbian Empire switches to being the "Eastern Rome" tag, with a Romanoi Emperor instead of a Serbian Emperor ruling over Romanoi subjects.
The rest of the aristocracy is all still Serbs and won't suddenly in lock-step also let their children be educated as Romanoi because the emperor has had a weird upbringing. Serbs will see themselves as Serbs, and polities around it will still see a Serbian aristocracy ruling over Romanoi subjects.
This would make more sense if, in 1337, Serbs were a highly integrated and loyal subject people within the Eastern Roman Empire like the Greeks became historically (and thus basically also become and be seen as Romanoi, albeit a Slavic variety) but in 1337 that wasn't the case.
Last edited:
- 2
Honestly, I noticed a term both the Greeks and their defenders use very very often, and going by a method they used in antiquity to name another group, so clearly, it must be the perfect term to give to that little roadbump for the ottomans:
We should call it Barbarium/Barbarian Empire and the culture Barbaroi, truly, the best name for those dudes. Yes indeed!
We should call it Barbarium/Barbarian Empire and the culture Barbaroi, truly, the best name for those dudes. Yes indeed!
- 5
- 3
- 1
It's
Barbarion, not Barbarium... BARBARIUM is for the civilized Latins, not us enlightened uncivilized Greeks
Sorry it took this long to respond
That is what happened historically but that was also involving a perception of having conquered the Romans.
Would Serbs who entered Constantinople entirely because they built up support amongst the Greek speaking Roman population for Dushan as emperor of the Romans have perceived themselves as conquerors or people ruled by the same monarch like Poland Lithuania?
Historically speaking whatever Dushan attempted was rejected, and Anna of Savoy did have some very harsh words for him, and the examples of one king for two countries ruling both in ways the natives of that country would accept as legitimate is outside of Dushan's lifetime, but unless he was willing to be that kind of king I just don't see anyone opening the gates of Constantinople for him, or the patriarch crowning him.
A very vague idea upon which your entire point rests. And even then it's still just the emperor with a Serbian aristocracy.
The native Greek institutions were also famously involved and supportive in the administration of the Ottoman Empire, but that didn't translate into the Ottomans just being a Turkish dynasty of a Roman Empire. As much as you want to fanfiction about Serbs being the new head of Eastern Rome, the conditions for that do not exist in 1337 as I already explained. It would take many centuries and a lot of assimilation of literally being ruled by Eastern Rome as an integrated province, only then to coup the Greeks much later while being subjects of them, for what you're suggesting to be possible.
Had Dushan taken Constantinople it would be seen universally as a Serbian Empire by everyone else and their citizens. The Russians famously attempted to also be seen as the "Third Rome" but we all know that was seen by everyone as a larp. Greeks had been Romans for more than 1000 years, Romanians saw themselves as literal Romans. Serbs by and large did not see themselves as Roman, neither did Russians.
- 1
- 1
63 pages....quite interesting dispute.... ill gave my own-interesting and logical argument..
HISTORICALLY IT WAS EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE!
HISTORICALLY IT WAS EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE!
- 3
- 3
yeah yeah,
Too lazy to look for the mad max "its a trap" meme but.. yeah yeah
counter point... it was an empire with nobles.. empire.. nobles... kill em all! root and stem.
More accurately referred to as the Byzantine Empire
- 9
- 8