Does Byzantum get missions to restore the roman empire.

[hottwiz]

i WOULD hope that they get missions and claims nows since you can form the roman empire.
also because most of the byzantum ideas suck.

[kezientz]

every christian nation can form the roman empire.

[kaiyl_kariashi]

The Purple Pheonix DLC adds a bunch of missions and decisions to pretty restore the pre-schism Christain roman empire. Which gives a bunch of monarch points and prestige from meeting certain conquest goals.

The Early missions are to restore Byzantium to it's original CK2 holdings, and then it continues to expand from there with re-conquering the "western" roman empire.

Though by the time you've done that, you're ~half-way to restoring the borders of the original Roman Empire.

[hottwiz]

Originally posted by kaiyl_kariashi:

The Purple Pheonix DLC adds a bunch of missions and decisions to pretty restore the pre-schism Christain roman empire. Which gives a bunch of monarch points and prestige from meeting certain conquest goals.

The Early missions are to restore Byzantium to it's original CK2 holdings, and then it continues to expand from there with re-conquering the "western" roman empire.

Though by the time you've done that, you're ~half-way to restoring the borders of the original Roman Empire.

ok i knew the purple pheonix gave byzantium some events but thats about it. have not played them since i got the game :P. i was just hoping they got something speacil with it. for example instead of having to take all the that rome once held they only need key provences such as rome,tunis,constantinople etc my point is that they need Less maybe only italy and greece because the roman ideas are MUUUUUCCCH better.

[hottwiz]

Originally posted by kezientz:

every christian nation can form the roman empire.

i know that :P i just formed them as france.but you just missed my entire point.

[hottwiz]

Originally posted by Ultrix Prime:

There's Basileus which has various buffs as it takes regions from an early DLC. Restoring the Roman Empire is new and separate.

i konw i was just hoping for something special for byzantium.

[Dark Woke Cheadle]

Originally posted by kezientz:

every christian nation can form the roman empire.

Anyone who has rome as a core can.

[Anmaril]

Actually, Byzantium IS Rome, there shouldn't be any decision to become Rome for Byzantium, if the devs would finally rename the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ realm to it's historical accurate name.

[kezientz]

Originally posted by Anmaril:

Actually, Byzantium IS Rome, there shouldn't be any decision to become Rome for Byzantium, if the devs would finally rename the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ realm to it's historical accurate name.

? 1000 years before the game starts the roman empire was split in two halfs; one thousand years! the eastern roman empire / byzantine empire of 1444 had nothing but the name and titles in common with the roman empire of constantine. in 1444 the runling dynasty havent been romans, but macedonians etc. for almost 600 year, they developed a totally different culture and used greek as language. there is no connection to the roman empire of the "old days".

[Anmaril]

Originally posted by kezientz:

Originally posted by Anmaril:

Actually, Byzantium IS Rome, there shouldn't be any decision to become Rome for Byzantium, if the devs would finally rename the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ realm to it's historical accurate name.

? 1000 years before the game starts the roman empire was split in two halfs; one thousand years! the eastern roman empire / byzantine empire of 1444 had nothing but the name and titles in common with the roman empire of constantine. in 1444 the runling dynasty havent been romans, but macedonians etc. for almost 600 year, they developed a totally different culture and used greek as language. there is no connection to the roman empire of the "old days".

But if we follow your logic, than the Roman Empire of old wasn't even the realm it proclaimed to be. The Roman Republic/Empire changed heavily over time, in language and culture too. Also Greek was the dominant language in the east since the Romans established themself in Greece. Also the realm wasn't divided. There were never two Roman Empires, there was never a Western or Eastern Roman Empire. All those names are creations of our time. The population and governing bodies of that time didn't made a difference, they didn't saw the other part as a different country, but as a part which was ruled by a different emperor. And in Roman history there were multiple occasions where there were more than one Emperor. And that out of practical, and not for political reasons.
My point is, that you can't argue with the changes of a country, because every country changes. But how the people and ruler saw themself.

[hottwiz]

Originally posted by Anmaril:

Originally posted by kezientz:

? 1000 years before the game starts the roman empire was split in two halfs; one thousand years! the eastern roman empire / byzantine empire of 1444 had nothing but the name and titles in common with the roman empire of constantine. in 1444 the runling dynasty havent been romans, but macedonians etc. for almost 600 year, they developed a totally different culture and used greek as language. there is no connection to the roman empire of the "old days".

But if we follow your logic, than the Roman Empire of old wasn't even the realm it proclaimed to be. The Roman Republic/Empire changed heavily over time, in language and culture too. Also Greek was the dominant language in the east since the Romans established themself in Greece. Also the realm wasn't divided. There were never two Roman Empires, there was never a Western or Eastern Roman Empire. All those names are creations of our time. The population and governing bodies of that time didn't made a difference, they didn't saw the other part as a different country, but as a part which was ruled by a different emperor. And in Roman history there were multiple occasions where there were more than one Emperor. And that out of practical, and not for political reasons.
My point is, that you can't argue with the changes of a country, because every country changes. But how the people and ruler saw themself.

i think he has a point about the roman empire changeing so much overtime it stopped being the "grand GLOURIOUS empire" we know today.yes the byzantiums thought that they were romans but that was only in titles and names again.
its like if you play as spain and get the pu over naples and agragon then annex them both and change your primary culture group to italian thanks to naples just so you can form italy.just like the byzamtiums they would came to be something they are "MOSTLY" not.
byzantium was al that was left clinging to past glories and became "greece" with a better name.


but since they have that history and can claim to be more roman then the rest they should benifit from that even if all it means is making easier to form rome.

[kezientz]

Originally posted by Anmaril:

But if we follow your logic, than the Roman Empire of old wasn't even the realm it proclaimed to be. The Roman Republic/Empire changed heavily over time, in language and culture too. Also Greek was the dominant language in the east since the Romans established themself in Greece. Also the realm wasn't divided. There were never two Roman Empires, there was never a Western or Eastern Roman Empire. All those names are creations of our time. The population and governing bodies of that time didn't made a difference, they didn't saw the other part as a different country, but as a part which was ruled by a different emperor. And in Roman history there were multiple occasions where there were more than one Emperor. And that out of practical, and not for political reasons.
My point is, that you can't argue with the changes of a country, because every country changes. But how the people and ruler saw themself.

nope. O-N-E T-H-O-U-S-A-N-D years. in 1444 no italian ruler saw byzantium as their overlord. Your last sentence: "how the people and ruler saw themself", in 1444 NOT 1000 years before that. everything you said is right, until maybe 500 (or 600 ad). in 800 ad karolus (or charlemagne) became emperor. byzantium didnt have any "cores" in italy (or the western roman empire) any more. they were out. The emperors havent been romans for centuries, they got kicked out by some neighbouring countries, which kept the titles because roman emperor sounds better than macedonian king, but that doesnt justify any "claims" on the western empire.

600 years ago the hre emperor was austrian. 1806 austria lost the title. 1873 prussia took the title. prussia doesnt exist any more, but the english dynasty has some ties. following your logic, it would be "historically correct", to give the british empire of today, cores in italy, because 600 years ago, some predecessors had cores there.

edit: as you might have noticed, byzantium doesnt even have cores on the eastern empire. why? because they lost most of it centuries ago. the culture etc changed. why on earth should they be considered ruler of the western empire (or the whole empire), when they arent considered ruler of the eastern empire any more? Why doesnt have greece cores on alexandria in egypt, when it was greek 2000 years ago?

[Anmaril]

Originally posted by kezientz:

stuff...

I don't agree with your arguments because:
1) the Roman Empire was never a homogene culture, it had different languages and cultures, latin being the official language, with many regional dialects.
2) the Roman Emperors came from diffferent dynasties and parts of the country. Some of them weren't even Italian.
3) the 'eastern-byzantine' half of the realm was never completely conquered and culturally a continuation. The people spoke Greek, they called themself Romans.
4) what legitimates the name isn't therefore the proper dynasty or anchestry of the emperor, as this changed many times, or speaking latin, as the eastern population never adopted latin outside of the government (and even there Greek was used, also in the west). What legitimates the Byzantines to be named Romans was that they had the same culture as the eastern half had for thousands of years, they had the same governmental system and they even continued and build upon the same legislature, provincial order, bureaucracy, educational system and military system.
All those aspects changed over time, but those aspects changed within the Roman Empire of the ancient time as well. The Marian Reforms being one example. And the 'Byzantines' were the only one which continued those ideals in Europe, where the rest became feudal.
5) later and contemporary dynasties tried to claim it, which is ridiculous, because they were the dynasties which destroyed the Roman Empire. They didn't want the claim to continue the Roman society and achievements, but to claim Europe. What we forget is, that history has been written by the winners, and of course: no one in the medieval times wanted to have legitimate Roman Emperor in the east (especially when it was a woman). The 'western' powers didn't want to see Byzantine as what is actually was, because it would question their own authority and legitimacy over Europe. Not to start with the Pope too. But nevertheless, the name Byzantine was first mentioned in the 18th century.

[kezientz]

Originally posted by Anmaril:

Originally posted by kezientz:

stuff...

I don't agree with your arguments because:

first of all. when you quote me, quote me. dont change what i wrote and call it quote.

second: you dont agree with my arguements, so you ignore them.

third: name one undisputed caesar of the roman empire, who wasnt italian (before 300 ad).

finally: if you cant see, that calling yourself roman, without speaking latin and dynastic links to rome for hundreds of years 1000 years after the end of the roman empire is a joke, its absolutely useless to continue this discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRFgPoeS9w0 remember this woman? calling yourself black doesnt make you black, calling yourself roman doesnt make you roman.

edit: oh, and finally "...Byzantines to be named Romans was that they had the same culture as the eastern half had for thousands of years".
thousands of years????? really? lol. some hundred years at most. and they have never been equals. romans have been the rulers and some greek pesants (until 250 ad).

[Anmaril]

Originally posted by kezientz:

Originally posted by Anmaril:

I don't agree with your arguments because:

first of all. when you quote me, quote me. dont change what i wrote and call it quote.

second: you dont agree with my arguements, so you ignore them.

third: name one undisputed caesar of the roman empire, who wasnt italian (before 300 ad).

finally: if you cant see, that calling yourself roman, without speaking latin and dynastic links to rome for hundreds of years 1000 years after the end of the roman empire is a joke, its absolutely useless to continue this discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRFgPoeS9w0 remember this woman? calling yourself black doesnt make you black, calling yourself roman doesnt make you roman.

I wanted to shorten the comment, it wasn't meant as an offence. I also argued based on your arguments, I didn't ignore them.

There were numerous emperors who weren't Italian, Diokletian for example, or Trajan, or Hadrian.
The idea that the Roman Empire spoke ONE language is ridiculous. They spoke a more refined latin in the capital, but there were numerous latin languages outside of it. Why do you think we have French, where the German invaders adopted the local language? The Roman population of the ancient empire didn't spoke latin only. They used latin in the government and military, and most people would most likely be able to use it. But there were numerous dialects and local languages. Speaking latin doesn't make you Roman. The Greeks always spoke Greek. And as the emperors also changed like flies, I can't accept your arguments.
And as I also told you already: they didn't called themself Romans only, they continued the society and ideals of the Romans, as their ancestors did. And changed the system where it was necessary, as their ancestors did.

[kezientz]

Originally posted by Tiny Tyrant:

Emperor Trajan was the first Emperor of non-italian descent, being born in Spain. He ruled from AD 98 to AD 117. To be fair, its not uncommon for rulers to not be the same ethnicity as the people they rule over. The Habsburgs come to mind.

he was of roman descent, roman colonists (anchestors from umbria) and historians are not sure wether he was born in rome or in italica.

edit: same goes for hadrian.
diocletianus was the first, who wasnt italian. and he ruled in 300 ad, thats why i chose that date.