It should not be Byzantine Empire but Roman Empire instead

[petran79]

the term Byzantine was coined much much later and was used in a derogatory way. Hope they correct it. This is a major historical inaccuracy

[Average AMD neanderthal]

i know, but its become popular with modern historians. so it will be unlikely.

[Rheinmetall]

This is hair splitting but I'm pretty sure nobody today refers to the Byzantine Empire as the "Roman Empire", it's either the former or the *Eastern* Roman Empire, for pretty obvious reasons as it would be confusing otherwise. So even if the citizens of this area called themselves romans, it's impractical for historical reasons. According to Wikipedia:

The term comes from "Byzantium", the name of the city to which Constantine moved his capital, leaving Rome, and rebuilt under the new name of Constantinople.

The greeks called this city "Byzantion" and the etymology is unknown.

I'm not sure how this could be considered derogatory, could you elaborate?

[Wallo420]

Byzantine is the term referring to the medieval Eastern Roman Empire which was pretty different to the Roman Empire as we know it. When you reunify the East with Western Sees it becomes the Roman Empire

[Sild]

It was derogatory because if the geopolitical situation that lead to it's use. Initially there was no Byzantine empire. They were known as the eastern Roman Empire or just the Roman Empire after the west fell.

The situation is rather complex but the gist of it is this:

The was a long standing feud between the east ad the west for the title "emperor of the Romans" that pretty much began with Constantine the Great when he decided to move the capital to Byzantium (and actually greatly expand the city for this purpose). Another important aspect is the cristian church and their feud between Rome and Constantinople. Charlemagne was crowned Roman emperor by the pope in Rome, for him to gain legitimacy and for the curch to have an empire, the "true Roman Empire". At that point some called the Eastern roman empire the byzantine empire but it was not a widespread term, and used to discradit the empire's origins in favor of the new "Holy" Roman empire. You can read more about this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_two_emperors

The term saw widespread use after Hieronymus Wolf, a scholar from the 16th century used it to describe works of literature from the Roman before and after it adoped the greek language.

[NewbieOne]

We know what it was, and names don't change that. Among historians, 'Eastern Roman Empire' is standard usage from Diocletian or Theodosius to about Heraclius or some undetermined point after him and before Charlemagne, 'Byzantine Empire' is standard usage from about 6th or 7th century to 1453.

'Eastern Roman Empire' would be a stretch but viable in a 769 (or earlier) start, but by 867 'Byzantine Empire' is what it is conventionally known as, without becoming a different entity.

Calling it 'Roman Empire' unqualified by an adjective would be making a partisan point, denying the legitimacy of Charlemagne and the HRE, and that is not actually as simple and clear-cut as it looks to some people, from the standards of Old Rome. By the standards of Old Rome, as opposed to strict adherence to tetrarchy's co-opting mechanisms, Charlemagne's election was actually as legitimate as any election in the West, and there is no tangible legal rule (which I say as a classical scholar AND jurist, which happens to be my education) by which to decide firmly that from the death of Honorius or Julius Nepos or deposition of Romulus Augustulus or whatever arbitrary point in time the Western Emperor shall be forever after picked by the Eastern Emperor, let alone Eastern senate and army. By the standards of Old Rome, it was hard to dispute Charlemagne's legitimacy, which I say with little sympathy for the man (I don't hate him but I'm not a fan) and without being a fan of the HRE.

But really, you might as well write 'Rome' on top of Germany before 1806 on the map just as well as write 'Rome' on top of the Byzantine Empire (from about 7th century onward) or Eastern Roman Empire (before that point).

So, 'Eastern Roman Empire' is anachronistic for CK3. 'Roman Empire' unqualified is partisan discourse. Which I say with all sympathy for folks who refer to King Constantine as Constantine XIII, myself being a big fan of Xi, Dragases, whom I see as a Roman emperor as good as any (and actually his brother Thomas AFTER him because Mystra still held out), but not as the legitimate natural lord of everything from Gibraltar to Persia and Danube to Nile.

Speaking of which, one could also argue that Trebisond was the legit Rome, all the way to 1461, so perhaps, according to that assumption, Rome fell in 1461. Small pockets of resistance held out until 16th century, even later, as the Turks couldn't and didn't necessarily bother to conquer everything.

In my view, Rome has never fallen or clear-cut ended; Rome has simply faded. Even today, some form of army and some form of senate plus perhaps some form of popular acclamation could still theoretically proclaim a Roman Emperor (although not necessarily Emperor of Rome, as in all Rome). That would be about as legitimate as any Roman Emperor ever was.

By the same token, it's bit pointless to make demonstration like writing 'Rome' on top of the Byzantine Empire or HRE on the map. We just know how Roman they were, or rather judge subjectively on the basis of facts known to or potentially knowable to all.

[Crowkeeper]

Nobody cares, and if you do, get better priorities.

[Ser Pounce]

I agree with the OP. The term "Byzantine Empire" feels anachronistic and overly western Europe-centered with Hieronymos Wolf even being from the title-competing holy Roman Empire :P

I think there is a big risk that people mistakenly believe the entire Roman Empire collapsed in late antiquity rather than gradually transforming from a pagan Italian-dominated empire to a Christian Greek-dominated empire if the term Byzantine empire is used.

I haven't played either empire yet, but is there more competition for the Roman empire titel in the game apart from the Dismantle Greek or German pretenders decisions by the way? It would make for nice power and prestige struggle plot points.

[Rheinmetall]

Ok, so now two people have claimed that the "Byzantine Empire" is derogatory, but no-one has still answered *why*. There is nothing in the origin of the term that anyone has mentioned yet that explains why the term would be derogatory or disrespectful.

If a term is being widely used and additionally is being used to avoid confusion, but can also be argued to be derogatory, I can agree that it can be an argument for replacing it with something equally non-confusing (i.e. *not* "the roman empire"), but there hasn't been a single argument made yet as to why.

[petran79]

Originally posted by NewbieOne:

We know what it was, and names don't change that. Among historians, 'Eastern Roman Empire' is standard usage from Diocletian or Theodosius to about Heraclius or some undetermined point after him and before Charlemagne, 'Byzantine Empire' is standard usage from about 6th or 7th century to 1453.

'Eastern Roman Empire' would be a stretch but viable in a 769 (or earlier) start, but by 867 'Byzantine Empire' is what it is conventionally known as, without becoming a different entity.

Calling it 'Roman Empire' unqualified by an adjective would be making a partisan point, denying the legitimacy of Charlemagne and the HRE, and that is not actually as simple and clear-cut as it looks to some people, from the standards of Old Rome. By the standards of Old Rome, as opposed to strict adherence to tetrarchy's co-opting mechanisms, Charlemagne's election was actually as legitimate as any election in the West, and there is no tangible legal rule (which I say as a classical scholar AND jurist, which happens to be my education) by which to decide firmly that from the death of Honorius or Julius Nepos or deposition of Romulus Augustulus or whatever arbitrary point in time the Western Emperor shall be forever after picked by the Eastern Emperor, let alone Eastern senate and army. By the standards of Old Rome, it was hard to dispute Charlemagne's legitimacy, which I say with little sympathy for the man (I don't hate him but I'm not a fan) and without being a fan of the HRE.

But really, you might as well write 'Rome' on top of Germany before 1806 on the map just as well as write 'Rome' on top of the Byzantine Empire (from about 7th century onward) or Eastern Roman Empire (before that point).

So, 'Eastern Roman Empire' is anachronistic for CK3. 'Roman Empire' unqualified is partisan discourse. Which I say with all sympathy for folks who refer to King Constantine as Constantine XIII, myself being a big fan of Xi, Dragases, whom I see as a Roman emperor as good as any (and actually his brother Thomas AFTER him because Mystra still held out), but not as the legitimate natural lord of everything from Gibraltar to Persia and Danube to Nile.

Speaking of which, one could also argue that Trebisond was the legit Rome, all the way to 1461, so perhaps, according to that assumption, Rome fell in 1461. Small pockets of resistance held out until 16th century, even later, as the Turks couldn't and didn't necessarily bother to conquer everything.

In my view, Rome has never fallen or clear-cut ended; Rome has simply faded. Even today, some form of army and some form of senate plus perhaps some form of popular acclamation could still theoretically proclaim a Roman Emperor (although not necessarily Emperor of Rome, as in all Rome). That would be about as legitimate as any Roman Emperor ever was.

By the same token, it's bit pointless to make demonstration like writing 'Rome' on top of the Byzantine Empire or HRE on the map. We just know how Roman they were, or rather judge subjectively on the basis of facts known to or potentially knowable to all.

I would agree from a historical viewpoint about those issues, however this computer game is about rivaling medieval empires and the player picks an Empire and sees things from their point of view. The successor of the Roman Empire is perhaps the most important factor of wars back then, with its culmination in the fourth Crusade. It goes even up till the 1920s with the collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires that also show themselves as successors of Rome.

There were tons of essays written, letters exchanged, insults swirled between Popes and Emperors, even civil strives. Adding the term Byzantine does devoid these historical facts of their true meaning. Were you to read any medieval Greek texts of that era, they'd all refer to them as Romans, though with a triple consciousness. Eg one could be Armenian, while also speak Greek and be Christian Orthodox. What the game is doing is essentially picking a medieval Greek text, say by Anna Comnene and switching the term Roman with Byzantine.

Originally posted by Bruh:

Nobody cares, and if you do, get better priorities.

Bruh.....

Originally posted by Ser Pounce:

I agree with the OP. The term "Byzantine Empire" feels anachronistic and overly western Europe-centered with Hieronymos Wolf even being from the title-competing holy Roman Empire :P

I think there is a big risk that people mistakenly believe the entire Roman Empire collapsed in late antiquity rather than gradually transforming from a pagan Italian-dominated empire to a Christian Greek-dominated empire if the term Byzantine empire is used.

I haven't played either empire yet, but is there more competition for the Roman empire titel in the game apart from the Dismantle Greek or German pretenders decisions by the way? It would make for nice power and prestige struggle plot points.

It is a direct result of East Roman Empire being so underrepresented in history and unfortunately even inside Greece it was regarded as decadent in order to connect Greeks more with the Ancient Greeks, to gain Europe's interest for the struggle for independence in early 19th century.

Unfortunately the era from the Roman conquest up to the Fall of Constaninople and the Ottoman Rule is still very underrepresented in layman Greek history.

[Crowkeeper]

Originally posted by petran79:

Bruh.....

I mean, you clearly can't refute what I said. There are a million more important things that should be considered over the topic of this thread. It's so ridiculously petty and could be changed through modding within minutes. Why bother authoring a complaint thread on the topic?

[petran79]

Originally posted by Rheinmetall:

Ok, so now two people have claimed that the "Byzantine Empire" is derogatory, but no-one has still answered *why*. There is nothing in the origin of the term that anyone has mentioned yet that explains why the term would be derogatory or disrespectful.

If a term is being widely used and additionally is being used to avoid confusion, but can also be argued to be derogatory, I can agree that it can be an argument for replacing it with something equally non-confusing (i.e. *not* "the roman empire"), but there hasn't been a single argument made yet as to why.

Term was first used by Montesquieu in 1734,

He wanted to separate the high spirit of the Ancient Greek and Roman Civilization from the decadence of the Middle Ages. With the term Byzantine he wanted to show the hypocricy, superstition, corruption etc with the veil of the Christian religion that was imposed by Roman generals on the people of the Balkans and Asia Minor. Though his was just a part of his essay that covered politics in general.

Far bigger influence were the works of historian Edward Gibbon that were translated in many languages. Same for French historians like Lebeau who did not know sufficient Greek and had to read from Latin texts. Same with Nougaret and Royou whose works were not worth reading.

Marxist historians were also very harsh.

Only with George Finlay in the mid-19th century laid the foundations for the more serious and objective study of the East Roman Empire, though his division into various periods was arbitrary. Same for German historian Karl Hopf around same era, who also negated the theories of German Falmereyer about the origins of the Greeks.

Excluding the strives during the Medieval era, modern prejudices arrived from the marvel at the Classical Antiquity and the anti-religious sentiment

[petran79]

Originally posted by Bruh:

Originally posted by petran79:

Bruh.....

I mean, you clearly can't refute what I said. There are a million more important things that should be considered over the topic of this thread. It's so ridiculously petty and could be changed through modding within minutes. Why bother authoring a complaint thread on the topic?

What are the more important topics? THis is a major historical issue. Would you like it if the Carolinian Empire was referred as Gaul in the game?

[Crowkeeper]

Originally posted by petran79:

Originally posted by Bruh:

I mean, you clearly can't refute what I said. There are a million more important things that should be considered over the topic of this thread. It's so ridiculously petty and could be changed through modding within minutes. Why bother authoring a complaint thread on the topic?

What are the more important topics? THis is a major historical issue. Would you like it if the Carolinian Empire was referred as Gaul in the game?

Well your question is pretty pointless considering it's not referred to as such in the game, and "Byzantine Empire" is the most common way we refer to the Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of the West. This argument OP has started you have started is, again, petty and entirely pointless. You don't like it? Okay then, "historian," mod it.

[david.artrex]

Originally posted by petran79:

Originally posted by Bruh:

I mean, you clearly can't refute what I said. There are a million more important things that should be considered over the topic of this thread. It's so ridiculously petty and could be changed through modding within minutes. Why bother authoring a complaint thread on the topic?

What are the more important topics? THis is a major historical issue. Would you like it if the Carolinian Empire was referred as Gaul in the game?

Every other topic is more important. Everyone knows that they didnt call themselves Byzantine Empire. Paradox knows it and still they call it Byzantine since CKI. And they wont change it, cause they use the names that are common, like historians (some of them are called byzantinists) use it.
So: entirely pointless.

[KharnTheKhan]

Well since The eastern roman empire(Byzantium) Was so drastically different in culture being more influenced by Greek culture than the Western Roman Empire, I would still consider them Byzantine Empire, Besides youre forgetting why they started being called Byzantium anyway which was the Muslim assaults during the 630s which drastically changed the empire, along with various plagues, social upheavel