Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

AGC & EEP, "Byzantium"

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.
Intersting conversation from both Laur and Phystarstk.
Laur: Although I agree to the most of what you are saying, you have to consider that the reunion of the churches was always something to ponder and maybe something to achieve. They have been made many tries (all failures) during the life span of Byzantine Empire to reunite the churches. Even today there are conversation between the the Patriach in Constantinopole and the Pope in Rome. So the reunion would be more historical accurate (if someone could say this in a fantasy setting) than the conquest of Rome.

If there is a solid Byz. Empire at the time of this hypothetical event, the changes should be vast (both good and bad) for the catholics and orthodox (and maybe for the other christian religions). I don't know exactly what the changes would be and if so big changes could be handled with the editor.

Well, Phystarstk says this change could be only by the force of arms... I say it is not necessary....

Just to ponder...

Konstantine

PS I really enjoy this thread! :)
 
The Union of the Churches negociations are held between a very strong Papacy and a very weak Patriarch. What are the sizes of the flocks of both? I believe the Pope has 1000 times more believers behind him than the Patriarch. Reason for this is that the Pope has tremendous influence and authority over Catholic believers all over the world while the Patriarch of Constantinople never had this amount of authority (even during the E.R.E. he was but a subordonate of the Basileus), especially after 1453. Certainly, would be a coup for the Papacy if it manages to convince Constantinople to accept its supremacy, but one has to understand that Constantinople does no longer speak for the entire Orthodox world. In order for Rome to unite the churches, it must negociate with each national patriarch, and some, like Alexei Patriarch of Russia, do not want to talk.

If Constantinople (basileus + patriarch) manages to survive and revive its fortunes in our game, and if it successfuly manages to prevent the Russian church to break away, while, at the same time, imposing the same kind of authority over the other Orthodox people similar to the one Rome had up to the Reformation, I see absolutely no grounds for the union. But you can always say that I lack imagination :D

Cheers!!

Laur
 
Yes,
this is a good start... after the reviving of the Byz. Empire (no Ottomans) a series of events could be have to do with the autonomous orthodox churches. If the Byz player has the requirements for the events he may reunite the orthodox under the Patriach of Constantinopole. If there will be the union of the Orthodoxes then could start the event of the reunion with the Catholics.

Although at the time of EU2 the papacy is sureley stronger, it is mistake to underestimate the patriach. It is strong enough to influence the other orthodox churches despite the shrinking of the empire. It was probably the only thing that the Byzantines could show outside their borders. Of course this changed with the fall of Constantinopole.

Konstantine

PS. Sorry for my awful english
 
Well, the Ottomans certainly reached almost all the lands of Justinian, so why would it be so impossible? The majority of people in the Ottoman lands where still Christian, dispite what EU says, and would prabably flock to the banner of a Christian nation. The only problem would be Italy, and while the Ottoman incursions into Italy failed because of fanatical Catholic unions of city states, why would they unite against a fellow Christian nation? I could see a new Byzantine Napels, perhaps even a Ravennia.
 
Even if the Byzantine Patriarch would've bowed to Papal supremacy, Russia, Georgia, and other Byzantine states would've continued to be Orthodox. Even if the national leaders of these states decided to re-united, there would be sects of Orthodox believers rebelling around the world. Look at the "Old Believers" of Russia who separated when Peter the Great changed things.... they still exist. The Orthodox religion would be hard to stamp out by this period, just as it would've been impossible to stamp out Protestants and Reformed religions in the mid-1600's.
 
Originally posted by CCR_of_the_Code
Well, the Ottomans certainly reached almost all the lands of Justinian, so why would it be so impossible?
Click to expand...

Well, its not like all the other Islamic nations would just keel over and die. And its not like all the Christians would be sitting around fearing opression. Its not like the Christians in the Ottoman Empire were attempting to subvert them to join a Christian nation, so why would the all of a sudden start flocking to a revived Byzantine Empire?
 
In order to put this into perspective, I think you need to start with one very simple fact: there isn't a chance in hell that the Byzantine Empire could've been revived by 1419. The postulation to the contrary is the beginning of the fantasy series.

Now, where you go from here depends on just how fantastical you want to get. My personal preference is 'low' fantasy - postulate some non-existing starting condition and work towards the most logical outcome. In that light, any event which tries to actually revive the entire Roman empire, reconcile the churches, etc. is so far out there that it isn't even remotely believable. A lot of what's being discussed here is the stuff I'd instantly cut out of the merger pack, first thing, without hesitation because I think it has more in come with the 'Salt and Rice' sort of scenario than any realistic appraisal of what might have been. In other words, you aren't talking about believable alternate historical outcomes, but alternate *worlds*.

Perhaps that's what the Byz folks want, in which case - more power to you. I won't be using it, but that's no great loss. But I think it makes more sense, and is eminently more satisfying, if you go the low fantasy road - keep Byzantium alive, defeat the Turks, reconstitute a portion of the empire and, if possible, try to attain some measure of major power status before the game ends. All realistic goals, all believable *if* you accept that initial fantasy condition.

In any event, if you're going to argue for the extreme case I wouldn't base it on it being a believable outcome given the conditions - because it isn't. It isn't even close to being believable. Rather, base the argument on the fact that the Byz enthusiasts would think it was fun, and therefore should be included. 'Fun' and 'game' go together quite well.

I'd definitely use a low fantasy Byz set of events. But the high fantasy, alternate-world stuff? No way. It's about as hard to swallow as the idea of Wales suddenly discovering greatness and going on to conquer England.

Max
 
Originally posted by maxpublic
In any event, if you're going to argue for the extreme case I wouldn't base it on it being a believable outcome given the conditions - because it isn't. It isn't even close to being believable. Rather, base the argument on the fact that the Byz enthusiasts would think it was fun, and therefore should be included. 'Fun' and 'game' go together quite well.

I'd definitely use a low fantasy Byz set of events. But the high fantasy, alternate-world stuff? No way.
Click to expand...

I must agree as well.
 
Has there been any thought given to grafting a set of fantasy leaders to the Byzantines? Going through 350 years of gameplay with 2/2/2 all the way through hurts.
 
Originally posted by maxpublic
In order to put this into perspective, I think you need to start with one very simple fact: there isn't a chance in hell that the Byzantine Empire could've been revived by 1419. The postulation to the contrary is the beginning of the fantasy series.
Click to expand...

I think we have a different definition of what "a chance in hell" means. Was it likely? Certainly not. But if Brandenburg hadn't united a vast German empire under its dominion, we wouldn't have thought that was likely, either.

Of course, the same argument could be made for basically every minor power in the game. In an ideal game, each of these countries would have some way of getting its claims recognized, gaining new CB shields in appropriate areas, et cetera.
It just happens that Byzantium has a more ardent following than, say, Modena.

At a minimum, though, it seems reasonable that Byzantium could achieve as many cultures and CB shields as the Ottomans. While hardly revered by the 15th century, they still had a historical claim on a great many areas. Presumably they would be seen by the world community and their own people to have at least as much claim on the region as the fearsome Turks.

That being said, many of the later ideas in this thread are a little far afield. They're not completely impossible, of course, but both extremely unlikely and of dubious game value. I'd rather we settle on basic questions like "how far Byzantium's recognized borders could reasonably expand, if it mysteriously got the muscle to back it up". Ideas like moving the capital to Rome or truly uniting the churches don't really enter into that.
 
Well. I am fond of a fantasy Byz Empire. Since if the Byzantines survive everything after is fiction why not to have events that would be fit to a powerful Byzantine Empire. Then, if someone wants "low fantasy" Byz game all that he has to do is to reject the event. So both parties are satisfied. The power gamer "Byzantines" have their events and the others have the ability to reject them.

Another thing that is discussed in the Balkan thread and maybe should be brought here, is the fate of Macedonia and Morea.

Should Morea start as vassal and ally? (IMO I don't think so)

Should Macedonia start in Byzantine Empire (since the greatest Macedonian city and one of the biggest cities of the Balkans, Thessaloniki was under Byz leadership)? If not then why Ragusa should be autonomous and why Venice should control the Adriatic provinces (since she controled only some ports)?. If yes... well it isn't seems so right. Another solution is to make Macedonia a full vassal province to Ottomans (with the right of military pass) but with excellent relationship with Byz Empire (and maybe a scond right of Military Pass)... Anyway you know better :D

Thanks
Konstantine
 
Originally posted by gweinel
Should Macedonia start in Byzantine Empire (since the greatest Macedonian city and one of the biggest cities of the Balkans, Thessaloniki was under Byz leadership)? If not then why Ragusa should be autonomous and why Venice should control the Adriatic provinces (since she controled only some ports)?. If yes... well it isn't seems so right.
Click to expand...

Not a good arguement, as people want to ax Ragusa and diminish power of Venice.
 
The only real reason the Empire accepted the Union was in the hope of recieving western aid. If the Empire manages to claw it's way back from the brink, a more balanced version of the Union should trigger, and if the Empire is strong enough to stand on it's own, the Union shouldn't trigger at all.

Also, I noticed that the AGC version grants Italian culture. I'm not certain that this is a terribly good idea.
 
As someone said, Muslim Greek does make sense, I vote for it. (especially since most of the populace was ethnically greek for quite some time I believe) It won't any mechanical difference anyway since both are state-cultures.
 
The only problem I could see it that it would make it mildly easier for Hellas, DoA, Trebizond or an ahistorical russia to re-convert it, but the chance is small anyway and some of those (Trebizond and Hellas) already have events that convert the province.
 
Could it be an idea to make an event that makes it possible for the Ottomans to secede Constantinople to some specific countries, just as Byzantium can choose to do?:) The countries could be for example DoA, Trezbizond and Russia(since they did want it historically, although I don't know when that idea came into play?). If one have to conquer the whole OE, it might be a bit difficult...!:p
 
Originally posted by CCR_of_the_Code
Well, the Ottomans certainly reached almost all the lands of Justinian, so why would it be so impossible? The majority of people in the Ottoman lands where still Christian, dispite what EU says, and would prabably flock to the banner of a Christian nation. The only problem would be Italy, and while the Ottoman incursions into Italy failed because of fanatical Catholic unions of city states, why would they unite against a fellow Christian nation? I could see a new Byzantine Napels, perhaps even a Ravennia.
Click to expand...

Well Justinian took all of Italy and most of Spain, so the Ottomans fell a little short of his goals.

And I think you need to have a look at Italian history in the period. The Italian states (or a decent number of them) united in 1495 against France, in 1510 against France, in 1526 against Spain, and so on. None of these was entirely sucessful, but any Byzantine encroachment would inevitably invoke a similar response.

As to what might happen if Italy were conquered by Byzantines I think you have to look at what happened in real life to Italy after it had been conquered by Spain. The Renaissance ended, and Italy remained a backwater for over 150 years. I can't imagine that Italy would have been more valuabel to the Byzantines than it was to the Spanish, for one thing the Spanish control was very loose, and it's hard to see how the Byzantines could have a good relationship with the Pope.
 
A good point, but I think that a Greek Napoli and Sicily where entirely likely. The Greek minority would be empowerd, and the area would be re-Grecified, so I would not understand why it would be treated diffirently from any other Greek province.
Also, what would have been more likely is a trading relationship and a possible vassalship with some of the Merchant Republics, a la Venice before the 8th century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back