Like the ones appointed by Ricimer at the end. And yeah the fall of the western empire was definitely their own doing... from what we know I don't think there has ever been anything as mismanaged as the WRE. Amazing it lasted as long as it did tbh.
-
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.
Like the ones appointed by Ricimer at the end. And yeah the fall of the western empire was definitely their own doing... from what we know I don't think there has ever been anything as mismanaged as the WRE. Amazing it lasted as long as it did tbh.
Ricimer was just a germanic individual working in what was then romano-germanic system, not "germanic tribe" or political representative of one.
Right but he was the son of the king of one of those tribes, was magister militum and half "barbarian" himself. And since the WRE now relied almost entirely on those tribes for an army that made Ricimer the head honcho and the emperors his puppets. Aetius was a similar figure though he didn't go appointing emperors.
The nuance is still wrong IMO. He did not hold particular internal political power outside WRE. He did provide career opportunities for other germanic adventurers and soldiers, but him being germanic was not even precondition for that.
I know, him being (half) Germanic meant he couldn't be the emperor, so he got the next best thing - the power behind the throne. Those tribes that were now the empire's army were generally not loyal to Rome or the emperor, they were loyal to their own people, so there was a period where half Roman half Barbarian bigwigs like Aetius and Ricimer became the real powers in the empire, and the emperor merely a puppet.
To be honest though I think the WRE had already fallen at this point. North Africa was gone, most of Gaul and Spain had been settled by various tribes and no longer answered to the emperor (though they could be roused to action by the half-barbarian magister militum, as with Aetius and Ricimer). 476 is just the date they give to finalize it but it was really gone about 50 years before that.
To be honest though I think the WRE had already fallen at this point. North Africa was gone, most of Gaul and Spain had been settled by various tribes and no longer answered to the emperor (though they could be roused to action by the half-barbarian magister militum, as with Aetius and Ricimer). 476 is just the date they give to finalize it but it was really gone about 50 years before that.
Ehhh, I skimmed through so I may have missed it buuuut:
I’m a little surprised neither Charles V nor Napoleon I were mentioned.
Charles V simultaneously ruled the HRE and Spain, having both the military might of Renaissance Germany and the economic power of Iberia backing him. Perhaps not the most succesful ruler but he definitely had a power unrivaled by any of his peers.
Napoleon ruled France in a time where it was the superpower of, at the very least, Europe. In a time where Europe was on top of the world. He had the entire continent in a throttlehold that took five coalitions of the other great powers of Europe before they finally were able to defeat him. He was hugely succesful in administrating his realm (meaning France herself), giving it a quick recovery from the struggles of the Revolution, had Europe’s strongest military, and was fully capable of strong arming his neighbors into following his own policies.
I’m a little surprised neither Charles V nor Napoleon I were mentioned.
Charles V simultaneously ruled the HRE and Spain, having both the military might of Renaissance Germany and the economic power of Iberia backing him. Perhaps not the most succesful ruler but he definitely had a power unrivaled by any of his peers.
Napoleon ruled France in a time where it was the superpower of, at the very least, Europe. In a time where Europe was on top of the world. He had the entire continent in a throttlehold that took five coalitions of the other great powers of Europe before they finally were able to defeat him. He was hugely succesful in administrating his realm (meaning France herself), giving it a quick recovery from the struggles of the Revolution, had Europe’s strongest military, and was fully capable of strong arming his neighbors into following his own policies.
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Roman Emperors up to Heraclius would be my pick.
Soviet supreme rulers could also be involved but they're losing points on the economic part in comparison with the rest of the powers in the world.
And I'd say the King/Queen of England has tremendous power.
Soviet supreme rulers could also be involved but they're losing points on the economic part in comparison with the rest of the powers in the world.
And I'd say the King/Queen of England has tremendous power.
Damit for a moment I thought hey Ricimer...from what film was that again and then oh
