There was a western one. It just fell apart, was partially reconquered by the eastern empire, then fell apart again, then, well you get the picture.
-
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.
How you plan to portray the autonomy level that the byzantines had with different nations during this period. fe it is known that their relationship with arbanon was based on isopolitia concept more or less the same as romans had with foederatus tribe?
"The Roman Empire" is fine by me, even "The Greek Empire".
And yes there was a western one, called "The Holy Roman Empire".
1. Byzantine was a name coined only 100 years after the fall of the empire, based on the name of the city that later was renamed Constantinople and used as capitol.
2. Maybe you think it's cooler now, but afaik the term was used to distinguish the greeks from the "real roman empire" and the "real romans", as such it has succeeded. Imho I find "The Eastern Roman Empire" not only cooler, but also has more 'umpfh' in it.
I do however realize that this is a lost cause, as the term byzantine it too popular these days.
I just wanted to say that you're all wrong, and I will let it go now
I too think "Roman Empire" is better, but it's just too hardcore for the majority of the players. The paradox games have a very stereotypical vision of history.
Will just require a simple localisation edit so not much of a problem..
I do wonder if they will have put the Romans in the game already from vanilla though, I sure hope so but the differences with the rest of medieval Europe might make it hard to portray it well enough to warrant having it playable. It worked in Crusader Kings 1 but it wasn't very accurate.
I do wonder if they will have put the Romans in the game already from vanilla though, I sure hope so but the differences with the rest of medieval Europe might make it hard to portray it well enough to warrant having it playable. It worked in Crusader Kings 1 but it wasn't very accurate.
@Evilon: I know how and when the Byzantine Empire got it's name, I just implied it was more well known by this name, and that it is. I also do know that the Eastern Roman Empire would be the right name to call it. The coolness is a subjective thing, obviously, but to me the term "Byzantium" just seems better fit for an evil empire.
When I play them, they're usually evil bastards bent on ruling the world.
When I play them, they're usually evil bastards bent on ruling the world.
I hate to say it, but like Islam and the Mongols, this empire might be best addressed in an expansion, unless the developers have already put a lot of work into representing the court politics but more importantly having a system of governors rather than (or in addition to) hereditary dukes and counts. Personally I hope that the first release of CK2 would have such a system in place, maybe translated from EU Rome. (The larger western feudal dynasties like the Angevin 'empire', France, and later Spain did appoint governors to collect feudal dues and administer justice on a regional basis after all, whether called lord lieutenant, seneschal, or viceroy.)
Okay, BIG question for the developers: will hordes (as well as factions) of the kind that exists in EU3-DW be implemented in CK2? This would cover North Africa (except for fortified cities and some settlements, like Oran, Tunis, Tripoli) and parts of the Near East well, as well as the great steppes that cover a good portion of the map. This could lead to the kind of interaction Agim I Muzaka describes, between feudal entities and settled empires and nomadic peoples, who could under some circumstances be induced to settle down. It could also simulate some of the "no man's land" as existed historically during the Iberian Reconquista.
That is a good idea. Especially for the byzantine empire and how they had to interact with 'nomads/hordes' always coming into anatolia and the balkans.