There were many people between Louis the Younger of Italy and Otto the Great that called themselves emperor while just controlling north Italy.
- 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.
Not while coexisting with the HRE. Because Italy is an integral part of the foundations of the HRE. It should not be something you can just leave and ignore. Once the HRE is formed, as opposed to just Germania, northern Italy should become part of its de jure.
Italy had more autonomy than the rest of the empire because of the alps making it more difficult to govern effectively. After Fredrick Barbarossa was unsuccessful in asserting imperial authority by force, northern Italy became de facto independent. Plus, independence factions don't always just look at de jure setup. Low cultural acceptance can impact factions that attempt to break away.
- 2
Idea: Germany or Italy could be more rebellious based on where your capital is. If you set up in Germany, Italy gets rebellious, and vice versa.
- 1
The geography update in a map painter game would be kicking over the entire hornets' nest ...
- 1
It would be a bit more complex, but different levels of authority for different regions would represent the situation better.
- 1
- 1
I remember that Medieval II Total War had a "distance from capital" modifier, where further-out provinces were more rebellious. Maybe something like that could be implemented here? It would certainly make it harder for players to blob the world.
- 3
In Rome I Total War too! (They share quite a lot mechanically)
Distance from capital there a) added a penalty to cities' public opinion and b) increased income losses from 'corruption', so it made sense to keep capital close to the richest cities.
- 2
Technically, the Italian vassals will be more likely to form independence factions due to not being dejure. But in practice, that's easy to play around, and can even be beneficial in some situations (since it means disgruntled vassals will be spread into more factions, making each individual factions weaker).
EU5's control mechanics work like that - distance from capital through owned territory, modified by terrain, infrastructure (roads, rivers, etc), and spreading much easier along a coast than inland.
- 2
The Romans did have morality, just because it's not the same as the current cultural zeitgeist idea of what is moral. Does not mean they did not have morals and virtues of their own.
I'm pretty sure bravery and courage was considered virtuous and moral.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
If they had morality, then people like the Gracchi brothers would not have been necessary. There would have been no conflict of the orders. And political violence would not have become the order of the day.
- 2
- 1
Political violence appearing and becoming more common does not mean morality - in both the general sense and political sense - no longer exists, it just means more people disrepect those rules.
Also we are getting very thoroughly off-topic in a Holy Roman Empire play thread.
- 1
The HRE styled itself as the continuation of the Roman Empire, so it is not completely off topic to talk about the Roman Empire decline, just mostly.
- 1
I meant "does morality not exist for a certain time and place if I don't think they're moral with my modern brain", which you were rather adamantly in the yes and me in the no.
- 1
- 1
By this standard no state is moral, which may be true but is also meaningless. I think it's more accurate to say that moral behavior by Roman standards was not an impediment to political violence. If you believe Sallust, Cato the Younger's speech (successfully) urging the death of Roman citizens without trial was done by appealing to traditional Republican virtues.
- 1
- 1
- 1