-
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.
Hmm, to be honest I`m not too knowledgable in early Polish history...but maybe we should consider the fact that, Egypt had a pretty good chance of breaking away from the Byzantine Empire on both religious and political grounds.
I doubt it. They would have been pray to Arab attacks.
I think Axum could take it's place.
I think Axum could take it's place.
Non-Byzantine Rome
Please do not misunderstand me. I was not suggesting a non-Byzantine Rome, but only saying IF the scenario specified a non-Byzantine Rome. We are in agreement that it would be easier to explain a sucessful reconquest than an 11th hour save by the Western Empire.
One might also postulate a more solid feudalism between Constantinople and the west. We remember that when Ricimer deposed the last western emperor, he became 'rex' over Italia, but he was a foederati of Constantinople. Read: Vassal. The same was eventually true of the Visgoths under Theodoric, and many other Western European tribes. Historically, these feudal relationships amounted to precious little... but it need not have been so. This is perhaps the easiest explanation for a surviving Roman Empire into CK period.
Please do not misunderstand me. I was not suggesting a non-Byzantine Rome, but only saying IF the scenario specified a non-Byzantine Rome. We are in agreement that it would be easier to explain a sucessful reconquest than an 11th hour save by the Western Empire.
One might also postulate a more solid feudalism between Constantinople and the west. We remember that when Ricimer deposed the last western emperor, he became 'rex' over Italia, but he was a foederati of Constantinople. Read: Vassal. The same was eventually true of the Visgoths under Theodoric, and many other Western European tribes. Historically, these feudal relationships amounted to precious little... but it need not have been so. This is perhaps the easiest explanation for a surviving Roman Empire into CK period.
And why would they try to do that? The pre-seventh century inhabitants of Egypt considered themselves Roman before anything else and had the same rights as the citizens of Constantinople or Carthage for that matter.
Why break away politically? They were allready part of the Empire, which, according to the Christian political theology, was the natural way of governing the Earth. As there is only one Heaven, there should be only one Empire.
Why break away religiously? Freedom of worship was a non-sense in the Christian world, for the first fifteen centuries of our era! The different interpretations of the bible, the creed, the nature of Christ, the nature of the Trinity (if there is such thing), were not an issue of 'I believe in this and you believe in that and that's fine by me 'cause I'm a politically correct kida guy and I cherish our differences.' On the contrary, they were trying to set up an universal dogma and philosophy according to which ALL people should live their lives. There was no place for deviants, and these in turn did not consider themselves deviant. A Coptic monophysite priest of the sixth century would never have considered Egypt's secession from the Empire justified on religious grounds: he would have fought for (and died for) the acceptance of his religious ideas throughout the Empire.
Cheers!!
Laur
laur is right. there would never have been an active break by the egyptians, after all there were no 'egyptians' by then, they were well and truly Romans. The Monos just wanted the Emperor to recognise their interpretation etc.
How about this
620- Muhammedism becomes widespread thruought Arabia. Muhammed is a sort of ultra-Arian: Christ was only Human, and his divine deeds where the result of divine intervention. Muhammedian and Byzantine go hand in hand with conquests througout the reagion, including the creation of a dual Muhammedian/Nicean Iranian empire.
9th Century- Khazar empire reaches height. Threatens Kiev and armies enter Bulgaria, Poland and threaten Germany. They stop Mongolians, become most powerful Eastern empire outside of Kiev
800 Pope crowns Charlamagne due to hissie fit with Irene. Rus adopt Orthodox Christanity, as do Bulgars.
Kieven Rus expands into Poland, Kaerlia, Finland and Balkans. Forms empire rival only to Constantinople, Paris and Ctesiphon.
987- Basil II's army blinds Papal/Frankish army, known as "Frankoctonos", imposes Constantinopolitan rule over Rome, but Byzantines once again are considerd Catholic. Rus does not recognize.
Same Century- Otto I (III?) Creates better ties with Byzantines, Rus, empire expands into Visigothic Kingdom and Denmark, threatens Saxon empire. HRE kills William the Conquerer.
Saxon Empire invades Scandanavia after failed invasion in 1066.
So, basically, it would revolve more around large Feudal empires instead of independant duchies and small Kingdoms. Good?
620- Muhammedism becomes widespread thruought Arabia. Muhammed is a sort of ultra-Arian: Christ was only Human, and his divine deeds where the result of divine intervention. Muhammedian and Byzantine go hand in hand with conquests througout the reagion, including the creation of a dual Muhammedian/Nicean Iranian empire.
9th Century- Khazar empire reaches height. Threatens Kiev and armies enter Bulgaria, Poland and threaten Germany. They stop Mongolians, become most powerful Eastern empire outside of Kiev
800 Pope crowns Charlamagne due to hissie fit with Irene. Rus adopt Orthodox Christanity, as do Bulgars.
Kieven Rus expands into Poland, Kaerlia, Finland and Balkans. Forms empire rival only to Constantinople, Paris and Ctesiphon.
987- Basil II's army blinds Papal/Frankish army, known as "Frankoctonos", imposes Constantinopolitan rule over Rome, but Byzantines once again are considerd Catholic. Rus does not recognize.
Same Century- Otto I (III?) Creates better ties with Byzantines, Rus, empire expands into Visigothic Kingdom and Denmark, threatens Saxon empire. HRE kills William the Conquerer.
Saxon Empire invades Scandanavia after failed invasion in 1066.
So, basically, it would revolve more around large Feudal empires instead of independant duchies and small Kingdoms. Good?
...blinds the Frankish Army. That is severe, my friend. I guess there is nothing quite like Balkan vengence. It would not be as if such an atrocity were historically unprecidented, however.
...invades Scandanavia. This would seem to go against the prevailing currents, as it was rather the other way around. The North Cape was more of an origin point of invasions, and less a destination, but I am a humble knowing nothing wretch. Excuse me.
...but there is no questioning Art, I suppose.
...invades Scandanavia. This would seem to go against the prevailing currents, as it was rather the other way around. The North Cape was more of an origin point of invasions, and less a destination, but I am a humble knowing nothing wretch. Excuse me.
...but there is no questioning Art, I suppose.
I guess I just don't understand why everyone wants to paly a game in which there exists a Roman Super-state. I mean, where is the fun and challange in that? Besides, Roman politics were never Feudal(although they later developed that way after the fall of the central authority), so I don't think it would translate well into the game.
Sigismund, King of the Saxons has inherited the throne of Rome; his mother was a Roman princess?
Sigismund, King of the Saxons has inherited the throne of Rome; his mother was a Roman princess?
From what I understand, this mod is not about a Roman Superstate. It's about being able to play a Christian Western Roman Empire, beset by civil strife, succession crisis, problems in managing the foederati, invasions from the East, North, West, South (the Vandals - depends on the date the mod starts) and the political primacy conflict between Ravenna and Constantinople on top of the historical religious primacy conflict between the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople.
In my view the territorial posessions (demesne) of this Western Roman Empire should not exceed the Italian penninsula and some territories in Southern France. It should have extensive claims, though, and probably some of the barbarian kings would become vassal to the Western Empire if they convert to Christianity. In some sense the Western Roman Empire would play just like the historical Holy Roman Empire, with its centre being in Italy rather than Germany - decentralisation, military impotence, and a claim to universal rule impossible of being enforced.
Regarding feudalism, the agrarian based economy in the Western Roman Empire would lead eventually, to the formation of a feudal system, though it would still retain a trace of the meritocracy that characterised the Roman state.
Regarding Islam, I do not agree with the milder form of Mahomedanism proposed on this forum. Instead I propose this: Zoroastrianism, the religion of Persia was not widely practiced within the boundaries of the Persian state. Even though the initial onslaught of Islam is repelled, the Persians convert en-masse to the new religion. Thus, Persia as a state eventually converts to Islam and the Shah assumes the title of Caliph. War with the Eastern Roman Empire lead the Persian-Arab alliance to the walls of Constantinople and when the dust settles, we have the same situation as in the 9th century: the E.R.E's Asian posessions reduced to the Anatolian penninsula (Asia Minor), and the Persian-Arab Caliphate with the capital at Ctesphon/Baghdad stretching from the Himalayas to Spain (well not quite this big, but I imagine that the combined forces of Persia and Islam would have made an impact).
Cheers!!
Laur
In my view the territorial posessions (demesne) of this Western Roman Empire should not exceed the Italian penninsula and some territories in Southern France. It should have extensive claims, though, and probably some of the barbarian kings would become vassal to the Western Empire if they convert to Christianity. In some sense the Western Roman Empire would play just like the historical Holy Roman Empire, with its centre being in Italy rather than Germany - decentralisation, military impotence, and a claim to universal rule impossible of being enforced.
Regarding feudalism, the agrarian based economy in the Western Roman Empire would lead eventually, to the formation of a feudal system, though it would still retain a trace of the meritocracy that characterised the Roman state.
Regarding Islam, I do not agree with the milder form of Mahomedanism proposed on this forum. Instead I propose this: Zoroastrianism, the religion of Persia was not widely practiced within the boundaries of the Persian state. Even though the initial onslaught of Islam is repelled, the Persians convert en-masse to the new religion. Thus, Persia as a state eventually converts to Islam and the Shah assumes the title of Caliph. War with the Eastern Roman Empire lead the Persian-Arab alliance to the walls of Constantinople and when the dust settles, we have the same situation as in the 9th century: the E.R.E's Asian posessions reduced to the Anatolian penninsula (Asia Minor), and the Persian-Arab Caliphate with the capital at Ctesphon/Baghdad stretching from the Himalayas to Spain (well not quite this big, but I imagine that the combined forces of Persia and Islam would have made an impact).
Cheers!!
Laur
Last edited:
I agree with Laur on the principle that a good alternate history still need be made into a fun (read: challenging) game. Like a poet, one must capture the two essences in one breath. I say that this should be childs play for the likes of the grognards here. The bigger the protagonist, the harder the antagonist must be.
What events could be scripted to challenge a medeval Roman Empire, I wonder?
"Oh No Not Again": 21 provinces convert to an hitherto unknown religion. +10 revolt risk in each for all eternity.
"I, Claudius II": Lose all but the most feeble of your royalty. Add +6 to the survivors administrative skill. Gain Drool Cup Relic.
"Mu-ha-ha-ha": Angry Transylvanian lord pulls out the XVI legions eyeballs with a spoon. Loose 5000 infantry in Wallachia, and the ability to call up mercenaries for 5 years.
Let me see... there are others.
What events could be scripted to challenge a medeval Roman Empire, I wonder?
"Oh No Not Again": 21 provinces convert to an hitherto unknown religion. +10 revolt risk in each for all eternity.
"I, Claudius II": Lose all but the most feeble of your royalty. Add +6 to the survivors administrative skill. Gain Drool Cup Relic.
"Mu-ha-ha-ha": Angry Transylvanian lord pulls out the XVI legions eyeballs with a spoon. Loose 5000 infantry in Wallachia, and the ability to call up mercenaries for 5 years.
Let me see... there are others.
My 2 cents on RE survival (AH)
To avoid having to actually make up any history I'll just go by the easiest turning point.
9 A.D., P.Q.Varus is thrown by his horse and breaks his neck, L. Caedicius (or L. Asprenas, or anyone) takes command and through following protocol (sending away dependants), or by being careful (trusting Segestest more or Arminius less), or by skill (actual handling of the situation) or by all three manages to blunt our disaster in "Teutoburger Wald" to a mere humiliating defeat, but saves the three legions almost intact.
This leads to Tiberius returning in a hurry, but with lots more forces available and still some semblance of prestige and power the Roman borders are pushed on to Weser and possibly all they way to Elbe.
Then we can return to OTL, our work done
Possibly the future will see three R.E.s instead or two, ERE (Konstantinopelis), WRE (Rome) and NRE (Parisium), but that isn't really important (except in giving the HRE a basis in the NRE, giving it claims on France and Germany as in history, but on England instead of Italy).
The main part is that many, or most, Germanic tribes will become more (or less, but at least a bit) incorporated into the Empire, Romanizised if you will.
So, instead of being invited across the borders fighting for their own kingdoms, they will already be in and want to fight the whole empire (or at least a third).
The 6th century+ dissolution of control might still happen, fragmenting the state and reducing control to local areas as 'limitaires' are organized to larger units to function better (counts) giving us the game situation, but whoever sits in Rome (or Ravenna) will want to call himself emperor, since that is how it is and should be. (Instead of wanting to be king since that is what his ole' man was
(Did anyone understand this ramble or should I try again when I can be more coherent?)
To avoid having to actually make up any history I'll just go by the easiest turning point.
9 A.D., P.Q.Varus is thrown by his horse and breaks his neck, L. Caedicius (or L. Asprenas, or anyone) takes command and through following protocol (sending away dependants), or by being careful (trusting Segestest more or Arminius less), or by skill (actual handling of the situation) or by all three manages to blunt our disaster in "Teutoburger Wald" to a mere humiliating defeat, but saves the three legions almost intact.
This leads to Tiberius returning in a hurry, but with lots more forces available and still some semblance of prestige and power the Roman borders are pushed on to Weser and possibly all they way to Elbe.
Then we can return to OTL, our work done
Possibly the future will see three R.E.s instead or two, ERE (Konstantinopelis), WRE (Rome) and NRE (Parisium), but that isn't really important (except in giving the HRE a basis in the NRE, giving it claims on France and Germany as in history, but on England instead of Italy).
The main part is that many, or most, Germanic tribes will become more (or less, but at least a bit) incorporated into the Empire, Romanizised if you will.
So, instead of being invited across the borders fighting for their own kingdoms, they will already be in and want to fight the whole empire (or at least a third).
The 6th century+ dissolution of control might still happen, fragmenting the state and reducing control to local areas as 'limitaires' are organized to larger units to function better (counts) giving us the game situation, but whoever sits in Rome (or Ravenna) will want to call himself emperor, since that is how it is and should be. (Instead of wanting to be king since that is what his ole' man was
(Did anyone understand this ramble or should I try again when I can be more coherent?)