-
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.
Yes, but you would also find quite a few historians who say the opposite, in Byzantine republic Kaldellis says something in the sense that PC games are actually better than historians in representing the Romanness of Byzantium iirc. Maybe anti-Byzaboos could go through one of his books and find some quotation of one of his opponents and ask them about their opinion. It would be interesting to see their reaction, although it would probably not be very helpful. Most of the good and bad arguments must have already been discussed at length.
- 1
- 1
Isn't this ironically something that the Romans themselves did? Like calling every steppe horde by the same name kind of thing.
In any case, thanks for the response.
- 1
Depends, they did distinguish between broad ethnicity like Celts and Germanians. and regional divisions like Gauls, Britons, Celtibrians ext but they did tend to heavily generalize and stereotype them. Later periods they did distinguish Sarmatians from the later Huns and Goths ethnically(probably because the Sarmatians were extensive auxiliaries/Foederati). But where it gets interesting is they didn't seem to distinguish the Huns from the early Turkic peoples that supplanted the Huns.
- 1
Oh yeah, fair enough. Given how influential their class had become by that point I wasn't sure if the connotation remained as negative to them, but it makes sense that it would. I'd be all for giving that state a different name, too. It would definitely make for an interesting implementation given that the historical names are evidently taken from the place of origin of the rulers. (But that question is obviously outside of the scope of this thread beyond the point that I don't think the Roman Empire should get special treatment here but that more accurate historical names in general is beneficial in my eyes).
It would be pretty amusing to base the accuracy of in-game titles on how racist the states in question tended to be. 'Germans in this period were pretty racist, so let's call them the Hun Empire. That'll show them!'
- 1
Too many posts o read
The historical outcome of the Roman Empire under Karl IV is what they are going for after Ludwig IV dies. It would be confusing to casual players to have two Roman Empires. Surprised this thread is still going.
- 4
I am surprised how infrequently the Holy Roman Empire comes up here, the only way the Latin West really comes up is the city of Rome itself.
- 1
The HRE never comes up as a legitimate successor to Rome because it didn't actually own Ro---
Oh.
- 9
- 1
The legitimacy of the HRE comes from the Roman Catholic Church, since the Pope crowned the emperors, so it's more important to discuss the city of Rome itself, ruled by the Pope, than the HRE.
To what extent can HRE be said to rule Rome though? When a Roman king wanted to be crowned emperor in Rome it was usually an expensive military campaign. It was hard to afford and the kings often delayed for quite long. For example Sigismond of Luxembourg ruled for 22 years before being crowned and his brother Wenceslas ruled for 24 years and was never crowned. It doesn’t really look like Rome was a core part of the empire.
I didn't say the HRE ruled Rome, I said the Pope did. The HRE derived their legitimacy from the Pope.
Last edited:
- 1
This how I interpreted “than the HRE”. But the pope claim also really sucks. It is mainly based on Constantine’s donation a document that was so manifestly falsified that its falsity was proved already in the 15th century by Lorenzo Valla by which point HRE was so entrenched that it survived anyway.
But Byzantium had about a million Romans and the New Rome as its capital in the HRE the emperor wasn’t Roman and the few tens of thousands of Romans who lived on the periphery of the empire had 0 say in the imperial election.
I'm not speaking about claims. The Pope did de facto rule Rome, that is a fact. The Palailogos claim to power can also be disputed, but they did rule the empire.
Last edited:
>1 million Romans
>look inside
>Greeks, Slavs, Albanians and some Aromanians
The copium is hardium here
- 8
- 2
For some reason when "Germanics" are brought up, byzboos tend to ignore anything you say and start doing weird larping about "barbarians" or whatnot.
- 4
- 3
- 1
Unlike the Gauls, Iberians, Carthaginians, Berbers, Germanics, Illyrians, Britons in the 100% fully Roman western Roman Empire of Rome.
The delirans is hardium here.
- 4
- 2
- 1
Bold of you to assume that I think either empire could be called The Roman Empire lmao.
Also, a heads up - Gauls, Iberians, Carthaginians etc. didn't exist for a long long time by the 14th century, which is the focus of this thread.
- 3
- 1
Romans of many different ethnic backgrounds and xenoi, foreigners living in the empire as well, something absolutely normal for a multicultural state that existed for more than a millenium.
The ignorantium is hardium there.
- 3
- 1