I say this thread alone is more than enough validation for more than a few people to get a diagnosis...
- 3
- 3
-
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.
I mean I still need my oficial validation but I'm 100% ASD. Anyways Estern Roman Empire is the right name for that State. And I should think HRE should be renamed to German Empire or Northern Roman Empire.
- 4
- 1
Personally I think every tag in Europe should be titled [ordinal/cardinal direction] Roman Empire.
For example, England would be the Northwest Roman Empire. Scotland would be the Northerwest Roman Empire. To be nice to the devs, subject states and HRE states don't have to be named Roman Empire because they are already subject to one.
For example, England would be the Northwest Roman Empire. Scotland would be the Northerwest Roman Empire. To be nice to the devs, subject states and HRE states don't have to be named Roman Empire because they are already subject to one.
- 3
- 1
This is where I have to disagree, as fun as the Voltaire memes are "holy roman empire" is a historiographic term, its short hand for "medieval coalition of German states that the Pope deemed Roman because of a Byzantine succession dispute." Same with Byzantium/Byzantine empire its just the term we generally use to describe the medieval stage of the Roman empire. When you say Byzantine empire thats what you mean, same with HRE.
What I generally disagree with people here is over the validity of the Byzantines as the Roman empire, and by extension, what amounts to optional flavor text with a clearly tongue in cheek description being really that much of an issue.
This is 115th page of what has been often at point vitriolic debate over what amounts to flavor text in what is probably going to be the most mechanically deep and complex grand strategy game yet released...
Gotta love peoples priorities and emotional investments in medieval political nomenclature!
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
- 1
I move that the cardinal center which defines the names of the Roman Empires be defined by a Mandate of Rome mechanic. Different European GPs should compete to see which of them is the True Roman Empire. Every time someone imposes a Prestige casus belli on an european region GP, they gain Rome-points. Therefore, if Scotland gains the Mandate of Rome, all European countries are renamed to South, Southernmost, Southernest, Southernermost Roman Empire, and so on.
Non European GPs can occupy 5 EU GP capitals at once in order to Dismantle Romaness, triggering the 'Oh the Romanity!' event.
- 3
- 1
They are a continuation of one of the regional governments of the Roman Empire, yes- it wasn’t the continuation of the Roman state. Remember, the senate of Constantinople was created as something new, they weren’t the Roman senate transplanted into a new city. The Roman senate continued, in the city of Rome, until their dissolution in the 7th century. If a state’s identity is judged by its government, this would mean that the eastern government was established in the 4th century, when the senate was created, and that the fall of the west resulted in the East’s continuation as a separate political unit. It has its origins in the Roman Empire, to be sure, but to say that it IS the Roman Empire is incorrect- it is a regional government that continued on as a successor state, as is evidenced by their different culture, language, politics, legal system, etc
- 4
- 3
- 2
Diagnose me as a supporter of the True Roman Emperor, Johan of Bohemia, against the assorted traitors and cowards.
- 3
- 1
No. HRE should stay HRE. It was a silly attempt at usurping Roman glory, but it's historical. It simply happened. No point in denying its existence. It will also spice things up in the game, just as it did in history.
You people will really say anything just to never admit it was a Roman state
It was "a continuation of one of the regional Roman governments but not the continuation of the Roman state"? Oh, come on. ERE was not some client state formed from locals. In the IV century it was as Roman as Sicily or Galia Cisalpina. The only problem you have with it is that it outlasted the WRE. Really. If both ERE and WRE survived somehow to the 1337 together, with WRE still owning Rome (even if just it and its vincinity) - there would be no problem with the "legitimacy of ERE". But just because Rome fell out of Roman sphere of influence - you all suddenly start having problems with it. As if it really changed anything for the functioning of the eastern Roman state.
It was a huge empire spanning from Portugal to Egypt. It's not surprising that, after 1000 years of turmoil and mass migrations, only parts of it will remain. Hell, even that's pretty impressive that in 1337 part of it was still on the map, after all that had happened in the meantime.
"Different culture and language"
The Roman Empire at its height was very multicultural. It was not an ethnostate. In the IIIrd and IVth century even senators and emperors hailed from numerous provinces. Emperor Maximinus Thrax (235-238) was literally "from Thrace". Do you doubt his "Romanness"?
Roman east was always dominated by hellenic culture and language since the Roman foot stepped there for the first time. For centuries masses were using Greek language and local documents were written in Greek. And yet no one doubts the province of Achaia or Macedonia was Roman under Hadrian or Commodus. Just because centuries later Latin was replaced by Greek ("Romeika" - "Roman" language as they called it) in official documents/court changed very little. It simply acknowledged the fact that majority of citizens used that language, so it's easier to use it in administration.
"Different politics"
What exactly was different? What can't be explained as simple evolution of the same polity?
Roman kingdom of Tarquinius was different from the Roman Republic of the first Punic war, which was different from the Roman Republic of Julius Caesar which was different from Roman Empire of Nero which was different from Roman Empire of Constantine. And yet they all are perfectly "Roman", right?
Eastern Roman Empire is just a next step in this absolutely natural evolution and it continues uninterrupted up to the 1453.
Besides, I don't think it's up to discussion anymore really, as devs rightfully openly describe ERE as "the Roman empire" (there won't be a way to "restore the Roman empire" as "Byzantines" because it doesn't make sense, as "Byzantine empire" is the Roman empire). It's not a matter of "whether it was Roman or not" - it's only the matter of "which name would be best for this Roman empire" now.
"Legal system"
Now that's strange. "Byzantine Law" is basically the most Roman law in the world still in existence in 1337. Corpus Iuris Civilis and all that. There will even be an event in EUV about that as in 1345 Roman judge from Thessaloniki created a handy compilation of it in only six volumes, the Hexabiblos.
Last edited:
- 8
- 3
- 3
True Holy Roman Empire should suffice
The Holy Roman Empire: holy, Roman, AND an empire
Podcast Episode · Weird Medieval Guys · 05/31/2024 · 1h 28m
podcasts.apple.com
- 1
If the entirety of CONUS was annihilated and only Hawaii remained, would you call Hawaii “USA” 1000 years on? No, you would call it Hawaii, because it is one constituent part of the US that has persisted after the rest of the state collapsed. The Constantinople government was a new government formed within the wider Roman Empire. When the Empire began to disintegrate and the Constantinople government remained while Rome itself was lost, the eastern half of the empire could not properly be called Roman because it no longer contained Rome- especially nearly 1000 years later. They didn’t speak Latin, their senate had even less function than the Roman senate of the late Empire and later ceased to exist, and they saw the powers in the city of Rome itself as antagonistic to them, not as kindred or in any way a part of them. Is a Greek monarchy opposed to the inhabitants of the city of Rome properly Roman? The Roman Empire ceased to exist when the state based on the city of Rome ceased. The eastern empire was a successor stateNo. HRE should stay HRE. It was a silly attempt at usurping Roman glory, but it's historical. It simply happened. No point in denying its existence. It will also spice things up in the game, just as it did in history.
You people will really say anything just to never admit it was a Roman state
It was "a continuation of one of the regional Roman governments but not the continuation of the Roman state"? Oh, come on. ERE was not some client state formed from locals. In the IV century it was as Roman as Sicily or Galia Cisalpina. The only problem you have with it is that it outlasted the WRE. Really. If both ERE and WRE survived somehow to the 1337 together, with WRE still owning Rome (even if just it and its vincinity) - there would be no problem with the "legitimacy of ERE". But just because Rome fell out of Roman sphere of influence - you all suddenly start having problems with it. As if it really changed anything for the functioning of the eastern Roman state.
It was a huge empire spanning from Portugal to Egypt. It's not surprising that, after 1000 years of turmoil and mass migrations, only parts of it will remain. Hell, even that's pretty impressive that in 1337 part of it was still on the map, after all that had happened in the meantime.
"Different culture and language"
The Roman Empire at its height was very multicultural. It was not an ethnostate. In the IIIrd and IVth century even senators and emperors hailed from numerous provinces. Emperor Maximinus Thrax (235-238) was literally "from Thrace". Do you doubt his "Romanness"?
Roman east was always dominated by hellenic culture and language since the Roman foot stepped there for the first time. For centuries masses were using Greek language and local documents were written in Greek. And yet no one doubts the province of Achaia or Macedonia was Roman under Hadrian or Commodus. Just because centuries later Latin was replaced by Greek ("Romeika" - "Roman" language as they called it) in official documents/court changed very little. It simply acknowledged the fact that majority of citizens used that language, so it's easier to use it in administration.
"Different politics"
What exactly was different? What can't be explained as simple evolution of the same polity?
Roman kingdom of Tarquinius was different from the Roman Republic of the first Punic war, which was different from the Roman Republic of Julius Caesar which was different from Roman Empire of Nero which was different from Roman Empire of Constantine. And yet they all are perfectly "Roman", right?
Eastern Roman Empire is just a next step in this absolutely natural evolution and it continues uninterrupted up to the 1453.
Besides, I don't think it's up to discussion anymore really, as devs rightfully openly describe ERE as "the Roman empire" (there won't be a way to "restore the Roman empire" as "Byzantines" because it doesn't make sense, as "Byzantine empire" is the Roman empire). It's not a matter of "whether it was Roman or not" - it's only the matter of "which name would be best for this Roman empire" now.
"Legal system"
Now that's strange. "Byzantine Law" is basically the most Roman law in the world still in existence in 1337. Corpus Iuris Civilis and all that. There will even be an event in EUV about that as in 1345 Roman judge from Thessaloniki created a handy compilation of it in only six volumes, the Hexabiblos.
- 12
- 1
Unwisely entering a debate from lurkdom that has already gotten too much discussion to little effect, but if CONUS were annihilated leaving only Hawaii, but Hawaii continued to refer to itself as the 'United States of America' for the next 1000 years (even though you can't technically be united states if there are no other states left to unite with, which is a unique issue to this example...) and its citizens as Americans, continued to fly the American flag, maintain the US Constitution (with or without changes) and reestablish the three branches of government, it would very much continue to be the 'United States of America'. If it instead just referred to itself as Hawaii and its citizens as Hawaiians -- so just the state without a federal system -- it would no longer be the USA. In this case how the citizens would refer to themselves is really less significant than the legal framework and its wording.
The Roman Empire had long been struggling at controlling its extensive territories from Rome and had undergone several divisions before the final split. Those divisions were generally seen as still being Roman at the time. Rome had long since grown past its origins as a city state and the concept of what 'Roman' meant had become much broader than just 'the state with Rome as its capital'. Rome as a state, including aspects like the role and nature of the Roman senate, had already undergone drastic transformations long before the split.
Also, people bring up the whole Greek language and culture point in this thread, but the Romans had been obsessed with Greek culture (among others) pretty much from inception and figures like Caesar already spoke Greek. Greek was seen as a language of the ruling elite, while Roman citizens had always spoken a variety of languages, including Greek, even in Italy.
The Roman Empire had long been struggling at controlling its extensive territories from Rome and had undergone several divisions before the final split. Those divisions were generally seen as still being Roman at the time. Rome had long since grown past its origins as a city state and the concept of what 'Roman' meant had become much broader than just 'the state with Rome as its capital'. Rome as a state, including aspects like the role and nature of the Roman senate, had already undergone drastic transformations long before the split.
Also, people bring up the whole Greek language and culture point in this thread, but the Romans had been obsessed with Greek culture (among others) pretty much from inception and figures like Caesar already spoke Greek. Greek was seen as a language of the ruling elite, while Roman citizens had always spoken a variety of languages, including Greek, even in Italy.
- 6
- 3
- 1
If Hawaii continued to use the "USA" name - sure, I'd use it as well. Why would I stop calling it "USA" if it were officially called like that, signed all documents as USA, had a US President, followed the US constitution and law and people were still calling themselves "Americans"?
Because that's exactly how it looked like with "Byzantine empire". They never stopped calling their state "Roman empire", they never stopped calling themselves "Roman", they spoke the same (evolving a bit) language they used for generations under Roman rule, they still followed the Roman law and they still had an emperor of the Romans on the throne. Just like they did in all previous centuries.
Why is holding Rome so crucial here? Do you really think that the whole state loses its legitimacy, ethnicity, culture and legacy just because some one city which lost its status long before was lost?
So "Roman Empire" was Roman until it was split, then WRE was "Roman", but ERE was not (because it didn't control Rome). ERE became the "Constantinopolitan empire", but when Justinian reconquered it it became a Roman empire again. It caused a lot of confusion in their bureaucracy, because in the next decades Rome would switch sides idk... dozen times? And with each such change of ownership the entire state was fluctuating - "we're Roman Empire now, and now we're not, and now we're Roman again, and now we're not"?
Ownership of the city of Rome does not matter. Roman guy living in Constantinople won't lose his Romanness suddenly because Rome is no longer within borders. Roman administration in Constantinople won't suddenly cease to exist or function just because some one city few hundred miles away is no longer part of the empire.
Where in the Roman constitution it's stated that only Latin can be the official language of the empire and if state stops using it it automatically loses its Romanness? As I said - Greek was used there throughout the entire timespan of the "classical Roman empire" and no one has any issues with it.
Senate had less function? Ok, but... so what? Since when a powerful senate is a mandatory element of the Roman empire?
Few quotes:
"The Byzantine Successor State"
John F. Haldon
from "The Oxford Handbook of the State in the Ancient Near East and
Mediterranean"
Even crusaders in 1204 knew exactly what they've just conquered:
From "A History of Byzantium"
Timothy E. Gregory
(both downloaded from academia.edu)
The term "Byzantine" is a double-edged sword. It is a convienient term to differentiate between the classical Roman empire and the medieval Roman empire, but it also makes "Byzantine" historians constantly remind their readers that it's not something completely different because it has a different name, but that it's the continuation of the Roman empire. Something that would've been easily avoidable if they used the term like "medieval Roman empire" since the beginning, but "Byzantine" term is "not-Roman" and fit the western agenda. And now we pay the price of that mistake every time we have to state the obvious historical truth that "Byzantine empire" was, in fact, a "Roman empire".
Last edited:
- 13
- 2
If the state was anything other than the Roman Empire you must admit people would make fun of an Empire called Roman that doesn't own Rome. It's not that the Byzantines didn't care about Rome, they conquered it and tried to hold it but failed. I do actually think they are a continuation of the Roman Empire (though not the only continuation), but after they lose the Exarcate of Rome it becomes a little bit pathetic.
- 3
- 1
- 1
Probably, but... what does it really matter? How "people making fun of it" change anything when it comes to whether "medieval Roman empire was Roman"? There's a difference between joking about something and treating those jokes as some universal historical truth.
And I don't see how it's "pathetic". For centuries Constantinople was their main city, the "New Rome". For centuries they were the strongest, wealthiest and most cultured nation in the region. But it all was "a little bit pathetic" just because they didn't hold some ruined city in Italia?
- 4
- 2
Me again. This is something I meant to mention earlier, is that you can actually find the honest way Latins were calling Byzantium, which is "Romania" because they called the Latin Empire "Romania", and from this quote, they called the partition of Byzantium as "Partitio Romaniae" which is NOT translated as "Division of the Roman Empire" but "Division of Romania".
Edit:
![Filipus[1].jpg](https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/1305005/Filipus[1].jpg "Filipus[1].jpg")
From Wikipedia: Seal of Philip of Courtenay, Latin Emperor in exile 1273–1283. His title in the seal is Dei gratia imperator Romaniae et semper augustus ("By the Grace of God, Emperor of Romania, ever august").
The term "Romania" had been a vernacular name used for centuries by the population of the Late Roman polity for their country. On the long history of "Romania" as a territorial name for the Roman and (later) Byzantine empires, see R.L. Wolff, "Romania: The Latin Empire of Constantinople". In: Speculum, 23 (1948), pp. 1–34.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
- 1
So Romania is the heir to Rome, we need a gamerule then to rename Wallachia to Rome
- 2
- 1
- 1
Modern day Romania is actually called so because it claim succession of the byzantine empire (which was called Rhomania by the eastern european. They are kinda like if the Hawaii still called itself United States of America after all the rest of the USA fell; or when the greeks on some remote islands did still refer themself as Rhomanoi, the romanians do it on a national level actually. I would really like hearing the byzaboos opinion on this tbh