The first Wessex king had a Celtic name it doesn't mean he was a Briton
- 2
-
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.
He's not the only one with a Bythonic or Brythonic derived name. Its a consistent pattern in the Wessex king lists in particular
Besides Cerdic himself there is Ceawlin, Cynegils, Cenwalh and Cædwalla. The last one reined from 685-688 just over 145 years after Cerdic. That's four out of nine of the kings that ruled in that time. If just under half of the kings had names influenced by Brythonic I think that hints that its not just a fluke or one off.
Last edited:
But there is no actual evidence they were considered Britons, especially not the latter king when the laws passed during the reign of:
Ine of Wessex - Wikipedia
Which was the successor of the "last Britonic" king heavily discriminated against Britons and the linguistic evidence also shows that Britonic had a very low status given the extremely low amount of Britonic loanwords in English.
There is simply no indication they identified or even had recent ancestors of Britonic identity, you could presume it to be so for Cerdic because of the early time period but even then there is 0 actual evidence from contemporary accounts as sparse as they are. As a comparison the dominance of Germanic names in the French monarch line is far stronger and far more lasting than this and no one would claim high medieval French king to be Germanic more than 5 centuries removed from the conquest by the Merovingian Clovis.
What's more likely is that they intermarried with nobles of local origin and absorbed their names, but clearly disassociate this heritage with actual living and breathing Britons certainly by 690 CE and likely from very early on given there is 0 evidence they were considered Britons.
- 2
- 1
Alright listen, if we go down the road arguing about legitimate successor states, then this conversation will literally never end. Literally every country in Europe can be made to have a decent claim to Rome... in the 21st Century too. Perhaps every country on Earth... I made a joke earlier in the thread about South Vietnam being the rightful successor to Rome, but I literally was able to come up with a reason for it.
Nicaea had an extremely good claim to Rome, better than almost all, and it had a great deal of continuity despite the brief occupation of Constantinople, so I think it's fair to say it's the same empire.
Nicaea had an extremely good claim to Rome, better than almost all, and it had a great deal of continuity despite the brief occupation of Constantinople, so I think it's fair to say it's the same empire.
- 3
- 2
I like to call the post 1261 empire the Byzantine Empire and the pre 1204 empire the Roman Empire, but that's at least partially because it pisses everyone off. And Nicaea did inherit all of Rome's bad traits, which is a pretty good mark at actually being Rome.
Idk, I kinda hate the Palaiologos though.
Idk, I kinda hate the Palaiologos though.
- 3
- 1
- 1
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
- 1
Yes, seriously, this is getting out of hand. We are getting suggestions such as Kyiv (as if being Rus was basically being Roman) and England (when England did not even adopt the Roman law to a great extent compared to most of Europe) skipping most of the Romance language speaking countries that were basically Romans who assimilated the invaders like Goths or Franks even though regional identities eventually completely displaced the Roman identity, unlike England where the conquerors assimilated the conquered. We did not even get into other Byzantine "rump states" like Venice and Arborea that are just Byzantine provinces that became independent because of lack of control, so they were clearly Roman empires as well, right? Unlike almost all of the other examples Byzantines actually toke their "claims" to the legacy of Rome seriously, I mean much more seriously the almost everyone in the HRE, they even actually considered themselves the actual Romans. Constantinople clearly had the strongest claim to being the successor of the pre-1204 empire to the point that they were able to make the other successor states drop the title of the Roman emperor as mentioned by @Aquila SPQR. Even on modern history maps Nicaea gets called Byzantine/Roman empire after 1261. I guess that after fending off those who "like the established historical terminology" we now need to face those who don't like it. Most of the HRE or even Aragon could be considered rump states of France i. e. Francia i. e. Frankish empire, but we don't get people questioning what is the real France.
- 6
- 1
- 1
I found the mention of South Vietnam, but not the reasoning?
One country missing from the list is USA. Without going to current politics and comparisons to Rome's fall, wasn't there in 19th century, so about the game timeframe, some ideas that the spirit of highest civilization or something like that had traveled from Greece to Rome to X to UK to US? I don't remember the X, but I guess it would be either Charlemagne's empire or HRE, not Byzantium, as the idea said that civilization has constantly traveled Westward. Thus also American manifest destiny to go West.
USA also has lots of Roman inspired architecture.
- 2
My suggestion of the UK was tongue in cheek. Though Britain did have its own romance language, British Latin, it went extinct around 700. the reason for this is speculated to be that the Romano-British almost uniquely fought the invading Germanic peoples, often to a standstill. and that this ultimately lead to damage and erosion of the culture and institutions.
- 1
In 14th century manuscript https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90671934/f16.item.zoom an Irish author says that the "studies" came from Greece to Rome and than to Paris at the time of Charlemagne (studium enim primo de Grecia fuit Rome translatum, deinde tempore Magni Karoli circa annum Domini DCCC fuit translatum de Roma Parisius). Later on the same page it says that a prophecy of Merlin says that "studies" would move from England to Ireland (Vigebunt studia ad Vadabovum in Anglia tempore suo ad partes Hybernie transitura ad Vadasaxa). Nothing about USA though.
- 1
- 1
And a Caligula/Caracalla/Honorius level of leadership recently.
- 8
- 3
How the devil has this conversation gone on for 95 pages?
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Both the map thread and the feedback thread contain several mentions of Rome. As if the discussion on Roman matters had been somehow balkanized into several threads.
- 6
- 1
That's what happens when an unstoppable force of pro-Roman arguments meets an immovable object of anti-Roman sentiment.
- 4
I say this as an American, the USA is more similar to Carthage than Rome
that would be a really fun campaign huh. Got to make sure your empire lasts longer than one emperor though.
No, my plan is to Hellenize and Christianize as a Turkish beylik.
And then a campaign as a Griko Sicily, usurping the Frankokratia from within.
And then a campaign as Trebizond.
And then a campaign as Epirus.
And then take one of the Albanian minors and become Aromanian, make the ERE latin again.
And then a campaign making a second Roman Republic in the city of Rome itself.
And then embrace the Roman identity as Venice and turn that into a Second Roman Republic.
And then a Arborea campaign, see if I can save African Romance and create a Southern Roman Empire.
And then see if I can get a Greek dynasty on the throne of Kyiv and turn the Rus into a proper new Rome, a Northern Roman Empire if you will.
And eventually, I will pick the state that rules Constantinople at the start...and release Philadelphia and see if playing as them is even possible.
So yeah, I see a lot of this thread as a place to get fun campaign ideas.
- 2
- 1
the usurpers, the future Ottoman puppets, the best thing that ever happened to Morea in millennia. the doom of Christian Anatolia. The Empire.
- 1
Can't find a source for the spirit of civilization or whatever traveling West to America. So I don't know if it was a continuation of that theory, or something else someone cooked up. However, there are plenty of mentions about the US founding fathers referring to Rome, so I believe it's plausible someone at some point someone has said something like that.