Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Latin Empire

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
unmerged(6356)

unmerged(6356)

Logothete of the Secreta
Nov 15, 2001
152
0
Visit site
Anyone know what those who ruled the "latin empire"(lower case completely intentional-ha ha!) called their empire? in official documents and such.

Or maybe even in what way the Basileus at Nicea referred to the Latin Empire .(besides "the filthy scumbag whos occuppying my REAL capitol")
 
it was called simply the empire of constantinople, as the area under the emperor's direct control was little more than the city and the environs; it was the first to shrink

his vassals (in theory at least) were the kings of thessalonica and the princes of achaia - the others (like the dukes of athens) were supposed to be vassals of the princes

other than that, the emperor had a few dukes living in the area under his direct control, meaning they weren't considerd as having dukedoms

steph
 
Romania if i am not mistaken or Constantinople empire, does it make any difference? We crush them anyway! Give me a panzerdivision and i restore the Byzantine empire within borders of Justinian I.:D :D
 
Stony Road obviously, waiting for nuclear weapons - wished i could implement them on Seljuks!:p
 
Originally posted by MRAKoris
Romania if i am not mistaken or Constantinople empire, does it make any difference?
Click to expand...

"romania" was the medieval latin term for the roman empire, and was therefore used by the popes, princes, et al to denote what we call the byzantine empire; so... no, it wasn't the same as the latin empire :)

for example, the official catalan company seal read "the fortunate army of franks in romania"

steph
 
steph, what in your opinion is the best text on the history of the latins in constantinople? i have only really looked at the Roman empire between 500-1071, after that last year it gets too depressing for a philhellene/romanophil like myself:) :D
 
Originally posted by Constantine VII
yeah but the comneni were a faded glory compared with the house of macedon. nobody beats Basil II for beating up the Bulgar's and the arabs.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Click to expand...

Too bad a lot of people beat Basil II for having a decent heir.
 
Originally posted by Priam
Too bad a lot of people beat Basil II for having a decent heir.
Click to expand...

That's why I think he can't be considered the greatest emperor. An emperor has to take into account how he will leave the empire when he dies. If he leaves it with no heir, that's not very good at all, no matter what he did while he was alive.
 
Originally posted by Constantine VII
steph, what in your opinion is the best text on the history of the latins in constantinople? i have only really looked at the Roman empire between 500-1071, after that last year it gets too depressing for a philhellene/romanophil like myself:) :D
Click to expand...

i think you're giving too much credit since i've only begun to find the book out there dealing with the topic... :)

anywho, here's the name and isbn of a book i found extremely helpful: the catalan domination of athens 1311 - 1388, 0902089773 (it gives a very good overview of events before and after the title's 1311 - 1388)

check in the library first, as i haven't found a copy for sale on the internet yet...

steph
 
Well at least you have found a book on the topic, which is more than i have done:D

will look up that text, have you read Villhardoin's (sp?) account of the 'unholy' crusade? v interesting source. as is nicetas choniates.
 
Originally posted by Marcus Valerius
That's why I think he can't be considered the greatest emperor. An emperor has to take into account how he will leave the empire when he dies. If he leaves it with no heir, that's not very good at all, no matter what he did while he was alive.
Click to expand...

He appears to have detested life at court along with the pageantry and intrigue. Too BAAD he had such a scarey Mommie!:wacko:
 
Basil would have been little without Nikephorus II Phocas and John Tzimikes. they were great emperors.
Marcus will no doubt disagree because they didnt father a dynasty of geniuses.:D :D :D :D
 
Originally posted by Constantine VII
Basil would have been little without Nikephorus II Phocas and John Tzimikes. they were great emperors.
Marcus will no doubt disagree because they didnt father a dynasty of geniuses.:D :D :D :D
Click to expand...

Well, that's a slightly different situation. When Tzimisces died, he left an 18 year old co-emperor of the legitimate line (Basil, of course ;) ), so he didn't necessarily need to have a son to succeed him. Basil, on the other hand, left the empire to his then 65 year old brother, who also had no sons.... Not exactly the best situation for an emperor to leave his empire in. ;)

I don't think an emperor necessarily has to father a line of geniuses, but at least he should make an effort.... ;)

As for Phocas, I don't think he was a great Emperor (a great general, but only a good emperor). I do think Tzimisces wasne of the greatest, though.
 
phocas got assassinated before he got the chance to secure a potentially great line of emperors. his family were very adapt in both military and political terms.

Clearly i think Constantine VII is pretty good also!!;) ;) ;)
 
Originally posted by Constantine VII
phocas got assassinated before he got the chance to secure a potentially great line of emperors. his family were very adapt in both military and political terms.
Click to expand...

I think it was good for the empire that Phocas was assassinated. Phocas was a great general, but he was not nearly as good at governing - Tzimisces was much better at that. Phocas's policies while he was governing managed to alienenate nearly everyone except the aristocracy and the army.

Clearly i think Constantine VII is pretty good also!!;) ;) ;)
Click to expand...

Defintitely agree. He was one of the better emperors. :)




I've been thinking of changing my title to something Byzantine-related, maybe one of the old titles they used for various different positions. I've been thinking of Strategus, but I'm not sure. Anyone have any suggestions? :cool:

edit: hmm, maybe 'Bulgaroctonus', in keeping with the earlier discussion.... ;)
 
Constantine VII was one of the most intelligent emperors, along with Alexios, Ioan Comnenus and Basil II.

Nikephor Phocas still remains in my mind better than Tzimiskes...unfortunately, he did not follow any of the previous social politics of the former emperors and he had to pay for it...
 
Originally posted by Marcus Valerius

I've been thinking of changing my title to something Byzantine-related, maybe one of the old titles they used for various different positions. I've been thinking of Strategus, but I'm not sure. Anyone have any suggestions? :cool:

edit: hmm, maybe 'Bulgaroctonus', in keeping with the earlier discussion.... ;)
Click to expand...

How about...Doux, Catepan, Curopalates, Sebastocrator, or if your more of the eunuch grand Chamberlain type(they werent always eunuchs-disclaimer) Parakoimomenos.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back