EEP Byzantium Mod Team

[Caliga]

Originally posted by driftwood
edit: deleted my previous post, as i put it in a new thread. didn't really belong here.

Can we sketch out some type of framework for developing historical sagas and branching points for the post-historical era? Since everything will be arbitrary, let's make a couple of key decisions to give the future some shape.

By 1460, I would like to see Byzantium either gone or with the provinces ringing the Aegean (my minimum survival threshold). The events up to 1460 are obviously the easiest to make, and should mostly favor the Ottomans (as I think they heavily do).

Assuming survival, I think the 1460-1520 period should be focused on building up to 1025ish levels, meaning most of the Balkans and Anatolia. If Byzantium has survived to start this period, it should be no harder to accomplish this than it is for most states to expand. This is where most of the Byzantine Renaissance events would fit well, as well as early church disputes and growing problems with the aristocracy.

I'd actually argue in favor of less emphasis on the Balkans and more on Anatolia, because if the Byzantines do manage to survive, they probably have beaten back the Turks to do so, and Anatolia was really the source of much of the Empire's manpower and agricultural wealth in better days. Also, I think that the Byzantines, had they survived, probably would have seen it as God's divine intervention or some similar drivel and felt a need to focus their energies on driving back the infidels.

A big question is how the Ecumenical Union will play out - a one-time event? A series of escalating events? A meta-event that involves many other nations?

I don't see it as a meta-event because there's not much textual evidence that the Latins (aside from the Pope) were that interested in the Union when it did "happen" historically--they were too busy dealing with their own internal divisions and clearly once the Reformation occurs, nobody will care all that much about Byzantine's comparatively ridiculous differences with the Catholics. But a series of escalating events might be neat.

The period of 1520-1620 should be one of great inner strife. Is the Empire divided into two halves? Should it be expanding into Italy, the Holy Land, Persia, North Africa, Central Europe, or Eastern Europe? The politics of the Reformation may spark great religious and/or political upheaval in the Empire.

As I said above I don't personally agree about the Reformation having an impact, though a scism among Greeks (as I think someone else suggested earlier) might be fun. I really can't see the Empire expanding in the ways you described and I think if it's able to do so then there's something really wrong (especially when you mention Persia, North Africa, and Central Europe in there).

Perhaps Aurelian II (1540-1571), inspired by Henry VIII and unhappy with the vast landholdings of the reactionary monks, seeks to confiscate their land. Perhaps the rising merchant class, established after the fateful decision to compete with Venice and Genoa, demands Protestant-inspired church reforms. Maybe Hungary calls on its military ally and Catholic brother Byzantium to fight the Protestant menace in Germany. How will the Patriarch react when Russia declares itself an empire, with an independent church?

And so on. Since there will be no other way to organize our events, I think we should pick arbitrary but important landmarks, like civil war of 1580-1597, also known as Samuel the Bitarian's war (so-called because it was sparked by the Senator Samuel's assertion that the Trinity was actually a Duality of Father and Son, since no one seemed to know what the Holy Ghost was).

Thoughts?

driftwood

I think those are all great suggestions. I really think the merchant-state idea should be pushed, but if a player (or the AI) manages to rebuild Byzantine to it's pre-Manzikert level (or, heaven forbid, to even greater lengths), then those kinds of events wouldn't make as much sense. Also, the heresy you mention and call Bitarianism is something that, I'm pretty sure, did come up historically, ironically within Byzantium (in Syria, I think), where it was called either Monophysitism or Monotheletism, though I think the heresy was much more convoluted than just a dismissal of the Holy Ghost--or maybe I'm confusing those with Arianism (though I think that denied the divinity of the Son, not the Holy Ghost).... aaargh!

-Caliga

 

[unmerged(4990)]

Bleh lets not revive Monophysitism. It was effectively crushed long before this game starts. In the west maybe not, but in the east Monophysitism had been quite destroyed.

And yes, it is my divine duty to defend all that was Rome.

 

[unmerged(4990)]

Plz ppl, come to www.avidgamers.com/byzeep and sign up.

 

[Idiotboy]

Already have, send my password dammit.

 

[David Comnenus]

Yes, But the Balkans (or at least Greece) were going to be dragged back in before Anatolia got any real focus. And the Byzantines would need a power base before they took on the Ottoman heartland.

 

[unmerged(4990)]

It should've sent already. To your e-mail. Check it out.

 

[unmerged(2952)]

May I make a few segestions here? I believe there should be a few teirs of events, if you will. Differant type of events that take off once Byzantium manages to conquer certian provinces. For instance, if you look at the origonal list that I put up a few days ago, the "Golden Age" event could be triggered by owning...say Thrace, Morea, Helles, and maybe one Asia Minor province like Smyra.

This would be meant to show the rejuvination and such by returnign to some power in the Balkans. Now, should you manage to take out parts of Anatolia as well, you would then be given the "Cleanse the Turks" event, which would be rather silly if you didn't own any of Anatolia and such. There by the events would correspond to the strength of the Empire.

Now, should the Empire expand fully into Anatolia and still possess certian social settings, then we get the destructive "Time of Troubles" and "Civil War" events. This would, of course, be there to make damn sure that the Empire doesn't get into Syria and Egypt where it has no place being(Basil the Bulgar Slayer didn't even make a move on Egypt even though Threadgold postulates that it could have been conquered).

They key here is to create events which are sparked by Byzantine expasion, and go along with that story, but do not make it unhistorically easy to accomplish much. I mean, Constantinople was really all that was left to the Empire, plus a few other coastal towns(when I play Byzantium, I assume that Thrace has been reconquered after a successful war againt the Turks some 10-20 years before the game started ). However, if the plater or AI manages to accomplish this feat, then we should have some events which parrelle that.

And by that, I of course mean, a mix of good AND bad events which will affect the way the game is played and give flavor to it(to the person a few posts back who claimed that my events where to posative, I would disagree. I did have Golden Age event, as well as the Turkish cleasing, but I also included a NASTY Time of Troubles event, and I think a Civil war here and there would be good as well)

 

[Idiotboy]

About the ToT we could put in a permanent revolt risk of 5-10% for say like 5 years or something. That is about the worst i could imagine happen.

 

[unmerged(4990)]

Or some rogue General claims that the Emperor has no authority over him, and he declares himself Emperor... And he and his army go revolutionary. Just trigger a civil war event. This would happen if, say, Aristocracy was high and land was high... Thus the General was a noble and his army was strong enough to do it.

Just my two cents.

 

[Idiotboy]

Almost like the old times of 3th century when troops owned more loyalty to generals than the state.

Problem with this is to simulate it. You have to make it a new nation as rebels cant have generals.

 

[driftwood]

DanielMcCollum: I tried to incorporate your ideas (I liked them all) in my events, in the Annex thread. I even stole some of your names (Byzantine Renaissance ). Feel free to tweak/replace my versions, though.

Do people think that it should be extra hard for the player to succeed as Byzantium, compared to Brabant, Brandenberg, or a smaller power in India (sorry, don't know the geography well enough)? In most successful human player games, to expand from Thrace through the Balkans and Anatolia is nothing extreme, or even very difficult. The AI should certainly fail, but even for the AI I don't consider this an impossible scenario. Would people object to suggestions of Muscovy having designs on half of Lithuania after 100-200 years?

Monophysitism was the belief that God had one nature, which is a different heresy than my fictitious Bitarianism. I forget if Monophysitism considered God to be purely/mostly divine or human (divine, I think - Arianism was the opposite. Or vice versa.) It was never wiped out at all - instead the vast Monophysite majority of Syria and Egypt welcomed the Arab conquerors who wouldn't persecute them and remove their patriarchs. Monothelitism was a doctrine proposed by Heraclius that tried to sidestep the issue of the number of God's natures by declaring that God had only one will. For some reason, EVERYONE (including the Pope, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Monophysites) thought that was the worst heresy they'd ever heard. Then there was an official doctrine that didn't address the number of natures or wills, but said God had only 1 energy. The problem was that if God had 2 of anything, they could potentially come into conflict. If he had only 1 of anything, how could he be the divine Father and the human Son?

If anything, Bitarianism is a variant of Manicheasm (sp?), reflecting the common belief of a duality between a pure spirit (God) and a less- or highly im-perfect flesh (Son). That in turn was a reflection of the influence of Zoroastrianism (as well as all the other even older religions that liked dualities). Not that Bitarianism ever existed, so I guess I just wasted everyone's time.

------------------------------

Ok, for those who don't see how Byzantium will ever reach pre-Manzikert levels, why don't you focus on fleshing out the events that would help or hinder that outcome? Those that think planning needs to occur for pushes into Central/Eastern Europe can act accordingly. I firmly believe that the latter is possible, though the former makes in unlikely.

A higher emphasis on Anatolia makes alot of logical sense, but is not very historical. After Manzikert, the Emperors all showed much more interest in Balkan expansion. Besides, as Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire have shown, the two make a highly complementary unit.

I've also been doing some more reading on Ottoman history from 1402-1453, and they were certainly in a precarious situation. If not for the exceptional skills of Murad II in particular, the situation was close to a complete disintegration. As it was, it took most of that time period to firmly reestablish control over 80% of the Balkans and Anatolia. This is why a luckier and more active Byzantium would have had a chance to grab enough strength to launch a real struggle.

driftwood

 

[Basil II]

Originally posted by Constantine XI
Bleh lets not revive Monophysitism. It was effectively crushed long before this game starts. In the west maybe not, but in the east Monophysitism had been quite destroyed.

Was it? I recall reading somewhere in the many history books on the Byzantines I've read, that Monophysitism was the main reason why the Empire failed to hold on to Syria, Palestine, and Egypt...

At that time (sixth and seventh centuries), the local heresy was what fueled what "nationalism" there was at the time. The locals gave little resistance to first, the Persian invasions (circa 600 AD), and the later Mohammedian invasions (circa 638 AD).

Monotheletism was a "compromise" between the Catholic doctrine and Monophysitism that was come up with by Heraculus. It was a failure, and did little but piss off the Catholics in the core areas, and the West.

This is largely why Heraculis, having once rescued those areas at impossible odds, pretty much gave up on them the second time.

The Empire never seriously tried to venture back into those areas (though they did retake Antioch and Aleppo during the Macedonian Dynasty, and later during the Crusades).

About the only areas they concentrated on trying to hold were the lines in Asia Minor, and at Tunisia (they held Tunisia for almost 100 years after the initial invasion). After they lost Tunisia, there was an attack that briefly retook it in the 8th Century, but by then they were unable to hold it. The Empire pretty much was at it's weakest around 800 AD (when the Empress Irene was on the throne), but started to recover after that.

Anyway, Monophysitism actually exists even today, in the Christians that still exist today in the region, the Coptic Church, I believe it's called.

BTW, might it not be interesting to throw in a few Empresses (after all, this did happen occasionially in Byzantine history), along with some events with the more patriarchal West objecting?

 

[unmerged(4990)]

I like the Empress idea. Sounds cool. Could start a whole line of Patriarchal events as well!

Hmm. Well I guess your right... Heh thats what I get for being Catholic eh?

So I guess there could be Monophysite events, but only after the conquest of Syria and/or Egypt.

 

[unmerged(4990)]

Originally posted by Idiotboy
Almost like the old times of 3th century when troops owned more loyalty to generals than the state.

Problem with this is to simulate it. You have to make it a new nation as rebels cant have generals.

Just have a civil war event. The General can be imagined.

 

[Idiotboy]

Hmm, I´ve been thinking. Much of the byzant power historically lied in a strong navy. Somewere during the golden age when the turks have been disposed of it would be interesting to make a choice to become a naval power in the eastern meditterenean. This could be balanced against the land forces. Also I would imagine that the Genoese and Venetians would not be to happy about this, could make some lower relations with them but higher relations with your land opponents. Also you could make a follow up event that lets you buy a shipyard in Thrace.

What do you think?

 

[joak]

Don't get me wrong: I like Byzantine history, and am glad they're in the game, but I'm definitely on the side that they're already WAY overpowered . . . following driftboy's lead, I re-read Treadgold's chapter's on their end last night, and it was only a combination of Ottoman civil wars, a Hungarian led crusade and some good luck that let them last so long past 1419. Making it to 1453 in EU2 should be an AI victory, not a defeat.

My two suggestions are first a negative--don't include CB shields for anything past the immediate pre-Manzikert borders, at most, and probably much less. The Byzantines had opportunities in their prime to expand past those, and they chose not to. They had no desire to rule foreign (from their point of view, non-Christian) people.

Second, a suggestion for an early "post-historical" event should be mercenary "revolts." Even in the final siege, a signicant chunk of troops and all the ships were Italian (Genovese, mostly). Such mercenaries had a history of upping demands for cash, and turning on the their employers after being denied, either pillaging or setting themselves as local lords. The Catalan Grand Company wreaked havoc in the 14th century, for example. This habit was absent near the end, under the Ottoman threat, but I suspect it could/would have returned if the soldiers again thought they had something to gain. A series of demands for money, with either revolts or even civil war if turned down, could simulate this nicely. Turning it down could also lead to a reform of the army with something along the lines of "-6 quality," but at least end the cycle of blackmail.

 

[Idiotboy]

Well, actually they don´t need any more CB´s at all. If you look what is core-provinces for the byzants you see that it is the entire former east part of the roman empire. In other words pretty shit big.

 

[Laur]

Yes, the navy idea is very good. I believe one of the last emperors tried to rebuid his fleet, but the venetians or the genoese set it on fire.

One of the principal political strifes that hit the empire before the IV Crusade and after the reconquest of the city was the conflict between the warrior families (like the Comneni) and the 'peaceful' or 'civilian' families (Ducas, Cantacuzene). While the first concentrated in supporting their army and fleet and spent their entire reigns on horseback, the second totally neglected the army and let the fleet rotting in the harbour, concentrating on art, trade, and political intrigues, and basing their defense on mercenaries (the first Turks that settled in the Balkans were mercenaries called by a Cantacuzene emperor. after the war was over, they refused to leave ). So a line of events (one that might determine whether the empire will become a trading city or an expansionistic empire) might have to do with this.

I am surprised that everybody on this thread supports the Paleologi usurpers and heretics, and no attention is given to the rightful emperors of Trapezunt (yes, yes, 90% of the time they are annexed by Georgia or Dukadir,but it's the 10% that counts! ). So I was thinking if Byz. chooses catholicism and the revolt that follows topples the catholic Paleologi, probably the next step would be the union event between Byz. and Trap. under the orthodox Comneni, capital, of course, at Constantinople (the nobles offer the crown to X Comnenos - +2 stab, +2 aristocracy -2 innovation -2 serfdom +4 quality).

I thought 'hagia' in greek means divine, while 'sophia' is wisdom. So I guess the name is Hagia Sophia (the church of divine wisdom) not St. Sophia (Saint Wisdom?!?). But I might be wrong, need to study koina more.

I find quite strange the idea of dividing the Empire into periods and related to those, distribute the C.B. shields across the world. To my knowledge, every emperor who could, tried to conquer back as much of the old empire as possible: Basil II conquered Lower Armenia, Aleppo, Bulgaria and planned even an expedition against Italy (he died however in 1025), which, by your logic, would be impossible under Mazinkert rules. Nevertheless, since it is impossible to differentiate between 'primordial' cb shields and 'lesser' cb shields I have to agree. In E.U. II par example, I edited the byz. c.b. shields to include the entire empire of Justinian, and now the Byzantines go after Algers and Tunisia instead of concentrating on Anatolia, as it should be.


'autos epha'

Laur

 

[unmerged(4990)]

Originally posted by joak
My two suggestions are first a negative--don't include CB shields for anything past the immediate pre-Manzikert borders, at most, and probably much less. The Byzantines had opportunities in their prime to expand past those, and they chose not to. They had no desire to rule foreign (from their point of view, non-Christian) people.

Second, a suggestion for an early "post-historical" event should be mercenary "revolts." Even in the final siege, a signicant chunk of troops and all the ships were Italian (Genovese, mostly). Such mercenaries had a history of upping demands for cash, and turning on the their employers after being denied, either pillaging or setting themselves as local lords. The Catalan Grand Company wreaked havoc in the 14th century, for example. This habit was absent near the end, under the Ottoman threat, but I suspect it could/would have returned if the soldiers again thought they had something to gain. A series of demands for money, with either revolts or even civil war if turned down, could simulate this nicely. Turning it down could also lead to a reform of the army with something along the lines of "-6 quality," but at least end the cycle of blackmail.

1) The Byzantines had every desire to rule people who weren't christian. They wanted to christianize them!

2) I have stated this time and again. The Byzantines could not afford to field mercenaries anymore. They had no money to speak of, and what little they did went to feeding the populace and even the bread system broke down over and over.

3) There is no way to simulate mercenary revolts in EU2 because the player may not always buy mercenaries. Unless you can code it so only a mercenary band goes revolutionary, which I believe you cannot.

4) Conclusion: You want to see Byzantium die instead of allowing the player even a slim chance of making Byzantium real.

5) Grr.

 

[unmerged(4990)]

Originally posted by Laur
I find quite strange the idea of dividing the Empire into periods and related to those, distribute the C.B. shields across the world. To my knowledge, every emperor who could, tried to conquer back as much of the old empire as possible: Basil II conquered Lower Armenia, Aleppo, Bulgaria and planned even an expedition against Italy (he died however in 1025), which, by your logic, would be impossible under Mazinkert rules. Nevertheless, since it is impossible to differentiate between 'primordial' cb shields and 'lesser' cb shields I have to agree. In E.U. II par example, I edited the byz. c.b. shields to include the entire empire of Justinian, and now the Byzantines go after Algers and Tunisia instead of concentrating on Anatolia, as it should be.


Laur

That's why the next set of CB shields doesn't come till you've conquered the ones you have.