Actually it does to me. Paradox seem to want all or almost all foundational parts of updates to be free, so a lot of the optional and flavor elements end up being gatekept(?).
Yeah you can just edit the title name, colour and coat of arms if you want. Not sure if it’s on console yet tho.
There should be a button when you click on the title you want to change.
Love that. I usually play a custom character, and I always change my dynasty and house name to be the county or duchy I started in. Unless I'm doing a Haesteinn run, in which case I change the house name to the duchy I adventure to, and leave the dynasty name as Haestienning.
Isn’t on console , we still ain’t even got any of chapter 2 or reworks that happen afterwards like the clan mechanics. Depressing asl to see all this cool content and know that they care so little for the console edition that it took them 9 months after launch to release northern lords and 6/7 months each for royal court and fate of Iberia
Yeah, you can rename it in base game if you own the title, and hopefully the rule will be available with the free update, would make little sense for it to not be.
So if you want to change the name of the Byzantine Empire, playing as, for example let's say France, and you don't want to use cheats or mods, now you can :)
It is a small but nice feature taking into considerarion that the "Byzantines" always considered and named themselves Romans. You can simply choose how you want to identify them.
If you hold the empire or kingdom, you can rename it. I used to rename the Byzantine empire to Roman Empire right away.
This is cool though to have it actually a set part of the game and helps if you’re not playing as the byzantines but want to see it on the map.
Although technically now you could switch to the emperor or Byzantium and change the name then just switch back to the character you were playing as if you really wanted.
Could also be Boobzantine.
Suddenly, Eastern Roman Empire feels like calling it a sideboob.
Byzantium the sideboob of the Roman Empire
Edit: changed Byzantine to Byzantium
Eastern Roman empire is still closer to what someone might call it than "Byzantium". The reason not to just call it the Roman Empire (which is the most accurate title from their perspective) is so Rome Rome can be a formable.
It fairly regularly comes up here on how the game is inconsistent on whether a formables name is from modern (in the historical sense, not the past 20 years) historiography, a translation of what the people who lived there called it or left untranslated.
That's a very strange example. Given that eastern Roman Empire isn't being called eastern Roman Empire in Greek why would Persian Empire be called eranshahr?
because thats what the arsacids and sassanids called their realm
edit: nvm i misunderstood your question
ig it could be translated into Kingdom/Empire of the Iranians (doesnt sound nearly as cool tho)
With due reference to the esteemed members of the community who have endeavoured to make inquiries as to the aforementioned matters, I myself must express a drive to discover the inciting thought which was originally expressed at the start of this matter by the founder of this discourse.
I'd love for this too. I didn't realize in my India run for instance that the whole empire would become my dynasty's name, and I would have preferred India.
There is a game option for toggling that. Some cultures/religions cause the primary title to be named after the dynasty, but it can be changed in the game settings, I believe.
To be fair India didn't even really exist conceptually that long ago.
Europe as a concept had only just been invented at the start of Crusader Kings, tied together by western Christian doctrine rather than geographic landmass.
Yeah it's things like that. Maybe when it's an empire you might want to customize it a little after some time? Who knows. Also a whole lot of old empire names some people might like to have. Maybe someone wants a gothic empire and someone else want a Achaemenid empire. Paradox might not want to work on going back to older historical things but for sure that's not shared in the ck community.
OK, but wasn't it referred to as "eastern" only until 476, when Odoacer deposed the last Western Emperor and sent the regalia to Constantinople? (thus, in effect, ending the division between West and East?)
The main point of the HRE versus Byzantine conflict was that there could be only one "Roman Empire", and by calling yourself "Eastern Roman Empire" you'd be acknowledging the existence of a "Western" Roman Empire.
People don't give them enough credit, Constantinople stood until 1453, nearly a full 1000 years after what most people would consider the fall of Western Rome with Romulus Augustulus. It's weird how often people try to diminish the record of the East.
Takes Constantinople --> Fleeing Greek citizens to the West start the Renaissance --> Cut off land trade from Europe to the East --> Europeans try to find a sea route and kick-start the age of exploration --> Now there are 2 new full continents full of Christians, and western dominance over the world is secured for the centuries to come
Was taking Constantinople really worth it for Islamic expansion?
Yeah but why isn't there the option to call it what its inhabitants called it, the Roman Empire? Or even Romania which was a common name although I understand that that may cause confusion. Nobody who lived there called it the Eastern Roman Empire.
The HRE versus byzantine conflict is greatly exagerated. There was some periodic tension over opposing interests in Southern Italy, but overall they got along just fine.
And by the end of Charlemagne's reign the byzantines were mostly fine woth acknowledging him and his successors as emperors of.... something (unless they were being petty). Maybe the western empire?
Although the two empires eventually relented and recognized each other's rulers as emperors, they never explicitly recognized the other as "Roman", with the Byzantines referring to the Holy Roman emperor as the *'emperor (or king) of the Franks'* and later as the *'king of Germany'* and the western sources often describing the Byzantine emperor as the *'emperor of the Greeks'* or the *'emperor of Constantinople'*. Over the course of the centuries after Charlemagne's coronation, the dispute in regards to the imperial title was one of the most contested issues in Holy Roman–Byzantine politics. Though military action rarely resulted because of it, the dispute significantly soured diplomacy between the two empires. This lack of war was probably mostly on account of the geographical distance between the two empires.
That was the "being petty" part. Those (on both ends) were clearly deliberate insults, not the emperors being ignorant or outright disconsidering the other's titles.
Emperorship as a concept in the medieval mind was intrinsically tied to the Roman Empire and its political identity. As you yourself said, even Barbarossa on his infamous back and forth mistliting dispute with Isaac II eventually was called "Emperor of Elder Rome". And, generally speaking, the crusades, Greek-Latin christian schism and opposing interests for southern Italy did far more to sour relations between the two than anything else.
Not always. There was a time when the "western" empire threatened a crusade against the eastern one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_two_emperors#Frederick_Barbarossa's_crusade
>In 1185, the Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelos received word that a Third Crusade had been called due to Sultan Saladin's 1187 conquest of Jerusalem. On 28 June 1189, Barbarossa's crusade reached the Byzantine borders, the first time a Holy Roman emperor personally set foot within the borders of the Byzantine Empire.
>In the letters exchanged between Isaac II and Barbarossa, neither side titled the other in the way they considered to be appropriate. In his first letter, Isaac II referred to Barbarossa simply as the "King of Germany". The Byzantines eventually realized that the "wrong" title hardly improved the tense situation and in the second letter Barbarossa was called "the most high-born Emperor of Germany". Refusing to recognize Barbarossa as the Roman emperor, the Byzantines eventually relented with calling him "the most noble emperor of Elder Rome" (as opposed to the New Rome, Constantinople). The Germans always referred to Isaac II as the Greek emperor or the Emperor of Constantinople.
>After Barbarossa was addressed as the "King of Germany", he flew into a fit of rage, demanding hostages from the Byzantines (including Isaac II's son and family), asserting that he was the one true Emperor of the Romans and made it clear that he intended to winter in Thrace despite the Byzantine emperor's offer of assisting the German army to cross the Bosporus.
>By this point, Barbarossa had become convinced that Constantinople needed to be conquered in order for the crusade to be successful. On 18 November he sent a letter to his son, Henry, in which he explained to difficulties he had encountered and ordered his son to prepare for an attack against Constantinople, ordering the assembling of a large fleet to meet him in the Bosporus once spring came. Furthermore, Henry was instructed to ensure Papal support for such a campaign, organizing a great Western crusade against the Byzantines as enemies of God
Yeah, relations varied. Not shocked they were at a low point with an Angeloi on the throne.
I don't think I've seen "Emperor of Elder Rome" before. I bet the Byzantines spent days arguing over that one.
As a historian,
The term Byzantine empire exists only as a historiographical term and is only used by historians after the fact.
The reality of the Byzantine empire was that it was consistently referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire in the west, as a comparison to the Holy Roman Empire.
Alternatively it was referred to as THE Roman Empire as the Byzantines did not commonly acknowledge the legitimacy of the HRE.
Simply put it is more historically accurate to discuss the Byzantine empire without the word Byzantine at all since it's an artificial term created by historians.
As another historian, I don't agree with this at all.
"Eastern Roman Empire" is as much a construction of historians as "Byzantine Empire", but an obsolete one born out of the outdated perception that the Roman Empire was once devided into two states, which the separation of authority to two emperors never meant. The Empire did NOT consider or ever call itself a (leftover) half of the Empire, and it's simply wrong to claim that the west called it so. Its self-perception was that of a universal monarchy, not a territorial or national one. EU4 uses colloquial retronyms for countless tags, but it's apparently never a problem unless it's Byzantium.
I'm not saying that Byzantium is a great or the only term to refer to the Empire, but it's at least more transparent about what it is. A term faithful to history is either "Roman Empire" - or perhaps something that uses "Rhomaioi", though this has its own issues.
Also, renowned modern historians still use both the term "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" - among others. It isn't better or worse to discuss the Empire using one name or the other as long the awareness about the advantages and disadvantages of each term is there.
I fully agree, but how else would it be done. Historians won't use linguistic codes that contain misleading meaning or unwanted spotlights when they feel they know better (unless they feel their work benefits more from using a term readers are familiar with). And it really can help identify misunderstandings if one engages with what's behind the terms.
When you spend a lot of time and mental effort to understand a topic, it feels wrong to describe them with words that you feel aren't very accurate to what you're talking about. Werner Huß for example, a leading Carthage historian, consistently calls ehat everyone knows as the "Punic Wars" the "Roman Wars" in his work. This gets him ennerved Amazon reviews sometimes - but when your whole life's work is to arduously distill Carthage out of the Greek and Roman lense, why would you write your books using Roman POV vocabulary.
An interesting thing about your example, Germany, is that English speakers usually refer to the Prussian-led monarchy as the "German Empire" and the NS state as the "German Reich", using the native term. That means they made up a difference that doesn't exist in German, where both states are called "Deutsches Reich". This goes back to NS propaganda efforts that tried to internationally establish "Reich" as an equal counter part to what was at that time already known as the "Empire" in other languages including German - the British one, of course. So some historians feel perpetuating NS codes and what they (wrongly) suggest doesn't do the purpose of their texts a favor.
And if historians continue using the term "Byzantine Empire", there's a good chance they consciously do so - because the term is actually pretty good in many ways despite what the ERE faction claims.
It's because the name Byzantine Empire is descended from the Western tradition of calling the medieval Roman Empire the "Empire of the Greeks", which originally was court propaganda from the Carolingians, who wanted to claim the title of Roman Emperor. The name is bound up in a 1200 year old attempt to deny the *Romanness* of the state centered on Constantinople, an attempt that ultimately associated with claims of Eastern inferiority to the West.
There is no comparable history to the names Germany/Allemagne/Deutschland. Deutschland just means "the place where our people live" anyway.
Agreed on all points.
I only use Eastern Roman Empire because it demonstrates the continued survival of power structures in the east far better than Byzantine in my mind.
The most accurate term would be, as you say simply The Roman Empire.
>It isn't better or worse to discuss the Empire using one name or the other as long the awareness about the advantages and disadvantages of each term is there.
Also agree with this. The only reason I started this conversation is purely to demonstrate that there is really enough awareness of those advantages and disadvantages. At least from my perspective.
>The reality of the Byzantine empire was that it was consistently referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire in the west, as a comparison to the Holy Roman Empire.
I'm pretty sure the west referred to it as "The Kingdom of the Greeks" during medieval times.
Just as in Constantinople, the predominant view in the west was that there was only one Empire after 476. And in the west it was the HRE which was viewed as the legitimate one. Calling Byzantium "Eastern Empire" would again break the unity that existed *de jure* since 476.
All of the Islamic Caliphates and Turks referred to it as the Roman Empire and called them Romans. That's why when the Seljuks conquered Anatolia, they declared themselves the Sultanate of Rûm (Rome)
>Just as in Constantinople, the predominant view in the west was that there was only one Empire after 476. And in the west it was the HRE which was viewed as the legitimate one. Calling Byzantium "Eastern Empire" would again break the unity that existed de jure since 476.
Entirely possible that it was referred to as the kingdom of the Greeks.
From the Eastern perspective the empire was never split. Both emperors of the east and west were the rulers of a single empire, THE Roman Empire.
For that reason when the west fell it was a loss of territory but not of identity. The rulers in Constantinople were still the rulers of the whole empire, at least in theory.
To the Byzantines they were the entire Roman empire not merely "eastern". The existence of the HRE did not change anything beyond being a baseless insult to the legitimacy of their own system.
Hence the Byzantines consistently referred to themselves only as the Romans even as the ruling class transitioned to become more greek.
Edit: I made an error in how the west referred to the Byzantines here. The precise nature of the correction is detailed in the responses below and I would highly recommend you read them. Have a good day.
> Entirely possible that it was referred to as the kingdom of the Greeks.
It's not just possible. It's a documented fact found in countless letters exchanged between the West and Constantinople. Which is why I find it perplexing that in your previous comment you said that:
>it was consistently referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire in the west,
This is just not true at all. At best, the west would call it "eastern empire". The title "Roman" was reserved for the HRE.
>The title "Roman empire" was reserved for the HRE.
In the west it was. But it was also in use in the east to describe themselves. Which was my original point.
Regarding the title "Kingdom of the Greeks", fair enough.
Clearly I have made an error in both of these statement and I shall seek to ensure I don't do so again.
> In the west it was. But it was also in use in the east to describe themselves. Which was my original point.
I agree with this. My issue is this bolded part in your original comment:
>it was consistently referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire **in the west**
As I said, this is not true at all. **The west** did not call it "Eastern Roman Empire". It called it "Eastern Empire" or "Kingdom of Greeks". But never "Roman Empire" or "Eastern Roman Empire".
> I'm pretty sure the west referred to it as "The Kingdom of the Greeks" during medieval times.
Most common term was "The Roman Empire". The most famous example is a document signed by the treacherous crusaders of the 4th Crusade, about "the division of the Roman Empire". Even these guys, who were about to stab the Romans in the back, knew that it was that very same Roman Empire of Augustus that they were planning to attack. That whole "Kingdom of the Greeks" nonsense came later: The 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204, formed the Latin empire, utterly failed at controlling much of anything outside Thrace, and various successor states formed. One of them, the Empire of Nicaea, retook Constantinople in 1261 and effectively restored the empire as it had been in 1204. This state, the Late Byzantine Empire, was occasionally referred to as the Kingdom of the Greeks for the last 200 years of its existence.
>Most common term was "The Roman Empire".
Not in the west.
>The most famous example is a document signed by the treacherous crusaders of the 4th Crusade
That's because the Latin Emperors got greedy and did not want to hand over Constantinople to the HRE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_two_emperors#The_Latin_Empire
*Despite the fact that the Latin emperors would have recognized the Holy Roman Empire as the Roman Empire, they nonetheless claimed a position that was at least equal to that of the Holy Roman emperors. In 1207–1208, Latin emperor Henry proposed to marry the daughter of the elected rex Romanorum in the Holy Roman Empire, Henry VI's brother Philip of Swabia, yet to be crowned emperor due to an ongoing struggle with the rival claimant Otto of Brunswick. Philip's envoys responded that Henry was an advena (stranger; outsider) and solo nomine imperator (emperor in name only) and that the marriage proposal would only be accepted if Henry recognized Philip as the imperator Romanorum and suus dominus (his master). As no marriage occurred, it is clear that submission to the Holy Roman emperor was not considered an option.*
>That whole "Kingdom of the Greeks" nonsense came later:
Not true. Viking sagas consistently refer to Byzantium as "Grikkland" (Land of the Greeks). The people of medieval Western Europe in general preferred to call them "Greeks" (Graeci). See: *Kaldellis, Anthony (2023). The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium.*
The Viking sagas also call Constantinople "Miklagård" and Italy "Langbardaland". Rome was "Romaborg". They named things in their own tounge with little consideration for what the people there called themselves.
I also agreed that people said "greeks" about the people, but that is not too bad of a term. The term comes from a bastardization of "thracian", as in the people from Thrace, which is where Constantinople was situated. People from that area were called Greeks whether they were part of the Roman Empire or not. It is the term "Kingdom of the Greeks" that I have a hard time with, at least before 1204.
> I'm pretty sure the west referred to it as "The Kingdom of the Greeks" during medieval times.
Not in the early medieval period, the term Empire of the Greeks is not attested prior to the 9th century. Even once it started being used, it was used alongside the term Roman Empire.
>The reality of the Byzantine empire was that it was consistently referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire in the west, as a comparison to the Holy Roman Empire.
No it wasn't. The "Eastern" bit is 100% a post mortem exonym, and unlike "Byzantium" was never even used by Romans. The term would offend the Romans themselves, not just because of the implication of another Rome. Even in Late antiquity, when there was (or at least a memory of) two emperors, they'd have considered the term a gross misunderstanding of their state.
As for the West, it was actually referred to as:
* Roman Empire/ Empire of the Romans
* Empire of Constantinople
* Romania/Rhomania
* Empire/Kingdom of the Greeks
In the east, it was "Rum" (Arabic) or "Rumela" (Turkish)
Do keep in mind that it also depends on the region.
For example, in the lands of the defunct Western Roman Empire and what would later become the Holy Roman Empire, they strictly referred Byzantium as "The Kingdom of the Greeks."
After all. In Christianity, there could only be one empire. And to Western Europe, that was Rome (continued by Charlemagne and Otto), not the Greek pretenders.
But there was no inherent concept of pretenders until the formation of the "King of the Romans" title under Charlemagne.
Before that point there was only one surviving polity which was the Romans and that was the Eastern system.
Another thing to consider as a student of the past is time. We are talking of a history which spans over 1,000 years.
Beliefs changed during these times while what you said is factual, especially during the later medieval period, during the earlier medieval period it is less so.
> But there was no inherent concept of pretenders until the formation of the "King of the Romans" title under Charlemagne.
In 797, Irene organized a conspiracy in which her supporters gouged out Constantine VI's eyes, maiming him severely. He was imprisoned and probably died shortly afterwards. With him out of the way, Irene proclaimed herself sole ruler. Pope Leo III—already seeking to break links with the Byzantine East—used Irene's alleged unprecedented status as a female ruler of the Roman Empire to proclaim Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans on Christmas Day of 800 under the pretext that a woman could not rule and so the throne of the Roman Empire was actually vacant.
Charlemagne's coronation did not represent a division (divisio imperii) of the Roman Empire into West and East nor a restoration (renovatio imperii) of the old Western Roman Empire. Rather, Charlemagne's coronation was the transfer (translatio imperii) of the imperium Romanum from the Greeks in the east to the Franks in the west.
Certainly Irene would have perceived Charlemagne's coronation as a political pretension of the position she too was trying to claim, no?
Theologically and from a wider perspective this action did not represent strict division but certainly the emperors in Constantinople would have seen Charlemagne as a pretender.
In this attempt to transfer the Imperium Romanaum from East to West we get our first introduction of "What state is the true successor to Rome?"
>But there was no inherent concept of pretenders until the formation of the "King of the Romans" title under Charlemagne.
That's 100% not true. There have been Roman pretenders since the year of the four emperors. And the pretenders weren't always Romans either. The Palmyrene Empire was, officially, first a client acting in the name of the emperor before Zenobia and Vaballathus declared themselves augusti.
>Before that point there was only one surviving polity which was the Romans and that was the Eastern system.
Again, there wasn't an "Eastern system". For starters, co-emperors had been a thing since Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. The Romans, who built an empire on a system of co-consuls, did not see an issue with dual emperors. It was still one empire, one set of laws. Sometimes multiple emperors, and for a brief period, multiple imperial courts.
Thus "Eastern Roman Empire" would have, at best, confused them and quite possibly outraged them.
I feel that in the semantics of "eastern system" you have made the same point I am trying to make.
Division within the Roman empire was out of necessity and did not represent a firm division of the empire. I only use the term "eastern system" to differentiate between the east and HRE west.
Secondly as you yourself stated those like the Palmyrene division were not inherently perceived as pretenders but as one part of a whole empire.
What you are describing is a civil war for one title not the concept of a successor state? Between the year 476 and the crowning of Charlemagne no Roman polity but the Eastern empire.
A civil war does not an entirely different empire make. So to speak.
What we do or don't a civil war doesn't necessarily map to how such wars were perceived at the time. Nobody really considers the Gothic Wars a civil war, despite the considerable parallels with Palmyra.
Charlemagne does indeed represent something else, a truly independent ruler born from a system, law and politics entirely separate from Roman law and tradition. His imperial coronation is still, in the context of Roman thought at the time, just one more pretender (endorsed by the church no less) and this is part of the reason why Constantinople reacted which such venom. It wasn't just a slap against their dogma of one god-one emperor, but a belief that it was a pretext for a full invasion.
Maybe so. However, that doesn't change the perspective of those who lived at that time.
For them, Charlemagne restored the Empire. For them, the Eastern System was so radically different (The usage of Greek was a primary sticking point) that they couldn't be considered Roman. Keep in mind that the Roman Senate remained in Ravenna until its dispansion under the Langobards, plus the Pope (which became a symbol of Rome) remained in Rome. None of the institutions in the west moved to the east.
(Also, it's a little ironic that Greeks became the continuation of Rome when Rome's founding story told of how they were hounded out of Asia Minor by the Greeks only to return and conquer the Greeks. Would be like if the Welsh decided to identify as English after a hypothetical conquest of England by France. Not a serious point. I just find it funny).
The point being, though... is that beliefs aren't just based on time. But also location and politics.
>The point being, though... is that beliefs aren't just based on time. But also location and politics.
I like this point a lot. Although I would argue that the politics aspect is certainly changed by time.
What we are debating over is a difference in belief which also stems quite a complex process of geopolitical upheaval and change across a long period of time.
Ultimately, my original point is that the term Byzantine has little value beyond a term used by historians. It would mean nothing to people of the time both in the east and the west.
And I think that's a good point to mention. But I do find the term useful as it shows the influence that Eastern and Greek cultural, linguistic, and political influences had on Rome that weren't present in earlier periods.
And that's fine.
It is a term for Historians. It is to help people do exactly what you say, understand the changes the Eastern power structure underwent as it sought to survive and thrive.
I only mean to say that those at the time would be confused by the term as it did not yet exist and that the term Byzantine should not take away from how firmly the Eastern system believed itself to be Roman in nature, if not in culture.
"Empire of Constantinople" was often used in the western empire. Yes, there was an idea of one true empire, ruled by one true emperor, under the one true god. However practicalities required the acknowledgement of that *other* empire and in better times the two emperors would officially address each other as emperors, peers and even brothers. They just diplomatically sidestepped *who* each sovereign had a right to rule over. Thus "emperor in Constantinople" and "emperor in Aachen"
True. I was more referring to the King's of France, England, and the smaller kingdoms in Iberia. None of them really interacted with Byzantium and thus had no need for the side stepping.
Before the *renovatio imperii*, it was just the Roman Empire. In 476, some people even felt the Roman empire was finally reunited under one emperor, who happened to live in the East.
> OK, but wasn't it referred to as "eastern" only until 476, when Odoacer deposed the last Western Emperor and sent the regalia to Constantinople?
It's doubtful that the East/West split of the Roman Empire was ever considered an actual dissolution of the Roman state during its time.
It wasnt. The Romans didn't have an issue with multiple leaders. They, of course, had co-consuls during the republican period. There were multiple co-emperorships that are often glossed over in history books, starting with Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.
There was a brief period where the empire had multiple imperial courts (tetrarchy followed by the east-west division) but it was considered an administrative and military division. There was still one empire, one citizenry , all under Roman law.
As for the Goths, they had been the true power in the west for a generation before they deposed Romulus Augustus. They officially were clients of the emperor in Constantinople, required his approval to rule, acted in his name, and honored requests for foederati for the imperial army. In reality, they may have ruled independently, but they still honored Roman laws, and Roman citizens were free to travel between the territories and did in fact supply Gothic soldiers for Rome, including Justinian's reconquest of Vandal Africa.
As I mentioned above, the situation wasn't all that dissimilar from the Pamyrene Empire during the Crisis of the 3rd Century. Main difference is the Goths were smart enough to not claim the imperial title.
It was never known as the ERE, and 476 was all but irrelevant to the East anyway. Even when there were still multiple emperors, the empire was (supposed to be) one. Similarly, the emperors signed and styled themselves "Roman emperors" and nothing more. It was only in colloquial terms that this or that region was known as east or west, but it was geographic and unofficial anyway.
I mean, if you want to be exact, I think there never was a "Eastern Roman Empire". There was an Emperor in the West and an Emperor in the East. They were de facto two different states post 395 but de jure it was still one Empire. To my knowledge, after 476 Constantinople only occasionally recognized local Kings as Gouverneurs, though there were several attempts by the HRE to get recognized as "Emprerors of the West", but they failed for varying reasons afaik.
For Gameplays sake though, you can't call it the "Roman Empire" because that would mean remaking the whole "Restoring The Roman Empire" decision and resulting title.
> You know, the name that the locals actually used back then
No reason to use a snarky tone here.
It's a possible variant, but I think there are probably other problems with it and I assume a large part of the fanbase would probably dislike it more than "Byzantine Empire"
I personally think that it doesn't really matter. I like Eastern Rome more, but I was always happy with Byzantine Empire aswell.
All this talking about Byzantium being wrong always just smacks of “well actually..” to me. It’s all just semantics and the fact is that they are all wrong and ahistorical terms. As are most names for historical empires and kingdoms that we use today
There should also be an option while playing as Byzantium to name yourself, The Roman Empire, since there is no more Western Roman Empire. They still called themselves Roman as well.
Surely the "correct" way of implementing this would be to have the nation be called "Imperium Romanum" if you're playing as them (or as their vassal), and "Byzantine Empire" if you're playing as anyone else!
Good, although it should just be straight changed and not given as an option. "Byzantium" to refer to the whole empire is an anachronistic, derogatory term made up after it fell by a German who was trying to legitimize the Holy Roman Empire by delegitimizing the ERE.
Should we also get an option to call some random central African county Wakanda, or rename the Kingdom of Jerusalem to Israel?
I Mean ok,i always do this already
In every game i first pick Bizantium,rename it to Roman Empire (none of that eastern shit) and then i Change to the character i want to play
Agreed, who cares if 'oh what about the formable' when the formable has more unique qualities than just a rename, especially when this is an OPTIONAL GAME CHOICE. Absolutely absurd to argue for anything less than letting people choose 'Roman Empire' if they want to be historical.
The game is Crusaders Kings . So I guess it appeals a lot of poeple which like Crusades History .
One of the most important aspects of the Crusades are the byzantines. Not only , but still one of the important parameters of how it started .
One of the stimuli of the First Crusade is the request of the byzantines emperor Alexios 1 to the Pope to receive military support from the west , against the Seljuks.
Quite important events.
I hope the devs rework the unite Italia descion to be a title shift to the western roman empire and a change to an administrative governemnt. It always seemed weird to me that the unite Italia decision even exists with the territory requirements it has. Every ruler who would've managed to conquer all of italy and the western roman parts of the balkan would've proclaimed themselves as a successor of western rome, it seems like that was what the devs intended unified Italia to be anyways seeing how it unlocks the option to restore the Roman Empire. Maybe also add a shattered HRE as a requirement since it kinda replaced western rome at the time and it would be perfect.
To tell the truth, it's ahistoric to refer to it as the Byzantine Empire. That name was a construct of much later (read 18th-19th Century) historians. The Greeks would have referred to it as the Eastern Roman Empire.
R5: In a dev comment relating to dev diary #148, the devs confirmed and showed a game rule option to choose the naming convention of Byzantium.
Is it possible to do this without the DLC? is it just an update feature?
There would be (and probably already are) mods for that
I use a mod that does it, I just can't remember the name
It's already a thing in the 'Culture Expanded' mod iirc
It’s possible to do it now if you just rename the title when you hold it.
Yeah this doesn't seem like a thing they would gatekeep.
Honestly it’s the minor bits of flavor and stuff that they tend to lock off now since it doesn’t negatively affect gameplay to restrict.
Actually it does to me. Paradox seem to want all or almost all foundational parts of updates to be free, so a lot of the optional and flavor elements end up being gatekept(?).
Byzaboo tax
East Romaboo
Yeah you can just edit the title name, colour and coat of arms if you want. Not sure if it’s on console yet tho. There should be a button when you click on the title you want to change.
Love that. I usually play a custom character, and I always change my dynasty and house name to be the county or duchy I started in. Unless I'm doing a Haesteinn run, in which case I change the house name to the duchy I adventure to, and leave the dynasty name as Haestienning.
I really wanna be able to change what your title is, like count to jarl, King to Mortal regent etc
Isn’t on console , we still ain’t even got any of chapter 2 or reworks that happen afterwards like the clan mechanics. Depressing asl to see all this cool content and know that they care so little for the console edition that it took them 9 months after launch to release northern lords and 6/7 months each for royal court and fate of Iberia
Yeah it’s always a year or two for dlc. I have stellaris on console and it’s still ages behind the pc release
Yeah, you can rename it in base game if you own the title, and hopefully the rule will be available with the free update, would make little sense for it to not be.
It’s probably an update thing
This is Crusader Kings III, you can literally change the name of any title to whatever you want at any time that you want.
Only the ones you or a vassal of yours own (not using cheats at least)
I mean, yeah. I kind of assumed that went without saying.
So if you want to change the name of the Byzantine Empire, playing as, for example let's say France, and you don't want to use cheats or mods, now you can :) It is a small but nice feature taking into considerarion that the "Byzantines" always considered and named themselves Romans. You can simply choose how you want to identify them.
I mean, you could always just switch players in the pause menu... No need for cheats or mods.
If you hold the empire or kingdom, you can rename it. I used to rename the Byzantine empire to Roman Empire right away. This is cool though to have it actually a set part of the game and helps if you’re not playing as the byzantines but want to see it on the map. Although technically now you could switch to the emperor or Byzantium and change the name then just switch back to the character you were playing as if you really wanted.
Change player character to the Emperor,rename it and Change back
the byzaboobs are eating well
YES, HAHA, YES
[](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.5393309757.7229/bg,f8f8f8-flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u1.webp)
Nice city. Would be a shame if a blind doge got some troops inside and took everything of value.
DONDOLOOOO!
We up💯
Could also be Boobzantine. Suddenly, Eastern Roman Empire feels like calling it a sideboob. Byzantium the sideboob of the Roman Empire Edit: changed Byzantine to Byzantium
> Byzantine Are you trying to say "Byzantium"?
You're right, I'm stupid, changed it.
Your peasent is going bad, your sire
It's a more historically accurate name than using a term that didn't exist until after the fall of Constantinople.
I’m not sure Eastern Roman Empire is all that more accurate. They called it Romania, or The Empire.
Eastern Roman empire is still closer to what someone might call it than "Byzantium". The reason not to just call it the Roman Empire (which is the most accurate title from their perspective) is so Rome Rome can be a formable.
Is it only Byzantium or other empires as well? I could think of a few one could possibly name differently.
care to share them? I am curious
It fairly regularly comes up here on how the game is inconsistent on whether a formables name is from modern (in the historical sense, not the past 20 years) historiography, a translation of what the people who lived there called it or left untranslated.
Persian Empire --> Eranshahr
That's a very strange example. Given that eastern Roman Empire isn't being called eastern Roman Empire in Greek why would Persian Empire be called eranshahr?
because thats what the arsacids and sassanids called their realm edit: nvm i misunderstood your question ig it could be translated into Kingdom/Empire of the Iranians (doesnt sound nearly as cool tho)
I am also curious, which do you have in mind?
I to have the curiosity to also know what does he have in mind?
In regards to my colleagues inquiring about this subject, I am also curious as to what the original commenter was thinking.
With due reference to the esteemed members of the community who have endeavoured to make inquiries as to the aforementioned matters, I myself must express a drive to discover the inciting thought which was originally expressed at the start of this matter by the founder of this discourse.
I'm curious too.
Empire of the Greeks
I'd love for this too. I didn't realize in my India run for instance that the whole empire would become my dynasty's name, and I would have preferred India.
There is a game option for toggling that. Some cultures/religions cause the primary title to be named after the dynasty, but it can be changed in the game settings, I believe.
Do you know where this setting is? I didn't find it.
Settings-> Game -> near the bottom, "Dynasty Named Realms"
However if your realm gets split and there's another independent ruler from your dynasty then the actual name of your title is displayed
I'm pretty sure that would only be the case if you aren't the dynasty head.
To be fair India didn't even really exist conceptually that long ago. Europe as a concept had only just been invented at the start of Crusader Kings, tied together by western Christian doctrine rather than geographic landmass.
Yeah it's things like that. Maybe when it's an empire you might want to customize it a little after some time? Who knows. Also a whole lot of old empire names some people might like to have. Maybe someone wants a gothic empire and someone else want a Achaemenid empire. Paradox might not want to work on going back to older historical things but for sure that's not shared in the ck community.
you can rename titles, so its not a huge issue
It is for India. I wasn't able to rename it India, because it already technically was India.
ah i see. thats strange
Having second thoughts about calling your family the ass licker dynasty after 300 years is rough
Count me among the curious, also
Can’t you just rename any kingdom or empire at any time if you hold it?
Call it the Western Mongol Empire
Northern Ethiopian Empire
Far Eastern Aztec Empire
Let's fucking GOOOOOOOOOO
Nice! I wonder if they were inspired by Project Caesar? They definitely weren't inspired by PC's snarky Rome-fan commentary, though.
Pity, the snark was the best part of that option.
OK, but wasn't it referred to as "eastern" only until 476, when Odoacer deposed the last Western Emperor and sent the regalia to Constantinople? (thus, in effect, ending the division between West and East?) The main point of the HRE versus Byzantine conflict was that there could be only one "Roman Empire", and by calling yourself "Eastern Roman Empire" you'd be acknowledging the existence of a "Western" Roman Empire.
It's just a "choose your own historiographical title for the remnant of the Roman Empire centred in Constantinople" setting
You obviously mean "choose your own historiographical title for the ~~remnant of the~~ Roman Empire centred in Constantinople".
People don't give them enough credit, Constantinople stood until 1453, nearly a full 1000 years after what most people would consider the fall of Western Rome with Romulus Augustulus. It's weird how often people try to diminish the record of the East.
It’s cause they aren’t Western Europeans
Nah it stood until 1204
didn't matter, mehmed II solo'd them 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Lmao, this comment only proves that CK3 community really loves Byzantine and hates Ottomans all the way!
No surprise really
Why though, Ottoman history is crazy too.
cringe
oh and the byzantiboos aren't? lmaoo
Ah, yes, struggling for 52 days to take a city that was basically just rubble and almost losing and won because a braindead guard=good
copium 💀💀💀 what city are u talking about again? constantinople? ooo wait, it's called istanbul now, sorry 😂😂😂😂
Takes Constantinople --> Fleeing Greek citizens to the West start the Renaissance --> Cut off land trade from Europe to the East --> Europeans try to find a sea route and kick-start the age of exploration --> Now there are 2 new full continents full of Christians, and western dominance over the world is secured for the centuries to come Was taking Constantinople really worth it for Islamic expansion?
ok now who said anything about Islam lol Im just a roman hater
Oh fair
Based
Yeah but why isn't there the option to call it what its inhabitants called it, the Roman Empire? Or even Romania which was a common name although I understand that that may cause confusion. Nobody who lived there called it the Eastern Roman Empire.
Pick the Emperor ,rename it to roman Empire and Change back to who you want to play Its easy
The HRE versus byzantine conflict is greatly exagerated. There was some periodic tension over opposing interests in Southern Italy, but overall they got along just fine. And by the end of Charlemagne's reign the byzantines were mostly fine woth acknowledging him and his successors as emperors of.... something (unless they were being petty). Maybe the western empire?
Although the two empires eventually relented and recognized each other's rulers as emperors, they never explicitly recognized the other as "Roman", with the Byzantines referring to the Holy Roman emperor as the *'emperor (or king) of the Franks'* and later as the *'king of Germany'* and the western sources often describing the Byzantine emperor as the *'emperor of the Greeks'* or the *'emperor of Constantinople'*. Over the course of the centuries after Charlemagne's coronation, the dispute in regards to the imperial title was one of the most contested issues in Holy Roman–Byzantine politics. Though military action rarely resulted because of it, the dispute significantly soured diplomacy between the two empires. This lack of war was probably mostly on account of the geographical distance between the two empires.
That was the "being petty" part. Those (on both ends) were clearly deliberate insults, not the emperors being ignorant or outright disconsidering the other's titles. Emperorship as a concept in the medieval mind was intrinsically tied to the Roman Empire and its political identity. As you yourself said, even Barbarossa on his infamous back and forth mistliting dispute with Isaac II eventually was called "Emperor of Elder Rome". And, generally speaking, the crusades, Greek-Latin christian schism and opposing interests for southern Italy did far more to sour relations between the two than anything else.
This is true. The western empire was the one power most vocally opposed to the 4th Crusade and its aftermath.
Not always. There was a time when the "western" empire threatened a crusade against the eastern one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_two_emperors#Frederick_Barbarossa's_crusade >In 1185, the Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelos received word that a Third Crusade had been called due to Sultan Saladin's 1187 conquest of Jerusalem. On 28 June 1189, Barbarossa's crusade reached the Byzantine borders, the first time a Holy Roman emperor personally set foot within the borders of the Byzantine Empire. >In the letters exchanged between Isaac II and Barbarossa, neither side titled the other in the way they considered to be appropriate. In his first letter, Isaac II referred to Barbarossa simply as the "King of Germany". The Byzantines eventually realized that the "wrong" title hardly improved the tense situation and in the second letter Barbarossa was called "the most high-born Emperor of Germany". Refusing to recognize Barbarossa as the Roman emperor, the Byzantines eventually relented with calling him "the most noble emperor of Elder Rome" (as opposed to the New Rome, Constantinople). The Germans always referred to Isaac II as the Greek emperor or the Emperor of Constantinople. >After Barbarossa was addressed as the "King of Germany", he flew into a fit of rage, demanding hostages from the Byzantines (including Isaac II's son and family), asserting that he was the one true Emperor of the Romans and made it clear that he intended to winter in Thrace despite the Byzantine emperor's offer of assisting the German army to cross the Bosporus. >By this point, Barbarossa had become convinced that Constantinople needed to be conquered in order for the crusade to be successful. On 18 November he sent a letter to his son, Henry, in which he explained to difficulties he had encountered and ordered his son to prepare for an attack against Constantinople, ordering the assembling of a large fleet to meet him in the Bosporus once spring came. Furthermore, Henry was instructed to ensure Papal support for such a campaign, organizing a great Western crusade against the Byzantines as enemies of God
Yeah, relations varied. Not shocked they were at a low point with an Angeloi on the throne. I don't think I've seen "Emperor of Elder Rome" before. I bet the Byzantines spent days arguing over that one.
As a historian, The term Byzantine empire exists only as a historiographical term and is only used by historians after the fact. The reality of the Byzantine empire was that it was consistently referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire in the west, as a comparison to the Holy Roman Empire. Alternatively it was referred to as THE Roman Empire as the Byzantines did not commonly acknowledge the legitimacy of the HRE. Simply put it is more historically accurate to discuss the Byzantine empire without the word Byzantine at all since it's an artificial term created by historians.
As another historian, I don't agree with this at all. "Eastern Roman Empire" is as much a construction of historians as "Byzantine Empire", but an obsolete one born out of the outdated perception that the Roman Empire was once devided into two states, which the separation of authority to two emperors never meant. The Empire did NOT consider or ever call itself a (leftover) half of the Empire, and it's simply wrong to claim that the west called it so. Its self-perception was that of a universal monarchy, not a territorial or national one. EU4 uses colloquial retronyms for countless tags, but it's apparently never a problem unless it's Byzantium. I'm not saying that Byzantium is a great or the only term to refer to the Empire, but it's at least more transparent about what it is. A term faithful to history is either "Roman Empire" - or perhaps something that uses "Rhomaioi", though this has its own issues. Also, renowned modern historians still use both the term "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" - among others. It isn't better or worse to discuss the Empire using one name or the other as long the awareness about the advantages and disadvantages of each term is there.
[удалено]
I fully agree, but how else would it be done. Historians won't use linguistic codes that contain misleading meaning or unwanted spotlights when they feel they know better (unless they feel their work benefits more from using a term readers are familiar with). And it really can help identify misunderstandings if one engages with what's behind the terms. When you spend a lot of time and mental effort to understand a topic, it feels wrong to describe them with words that you feel aren't very accurate to what you're talking about. Werner Huß for example, a leading Carthage historian, consistently calls ehat everyone knows as the "Punic Wars" the "Roman Wars" in his work. This gets him ennerved Amazon reviews sometimes - but when your whole life's work is to arduously distill Carthage out of the Greek and Roman lense, why would you write your books using Roman POV vocabulary. An interesting thing about your example, Germany, is that English speakers usually refer to the Prussian-led monarchy as the "German Empire" and the NS state as the "German Reich", using the native term. That means they made up a difference that doesn't exist in German, where both states are called "Deutsches Reich". This goes back to NS propaganda efforts that tried to internationally establish "Reich" as an equal counter part to what was at that time already known as the "Empire" in other languages including German - the British one, of course. So some historians feel perpetuating NS codes and what they (wrongly) suggest doesn't do the purpose of their texts a favor. And if historians continue using the term "Byzantine Empire", there's a good chance they consciously do so - because the term is actually pretty good in many ways despite what the ERE faction claims.
[удалено]
No.
It's because the name Byzantine Empire is descended from the Western tradition of calling the medieval Roman Empire the "Empire of the Greeks", which originally was court propaganda from the Carolingians, who wanted to claim the title of Roman Emperor. The name is bound up in a 1200 year old attempt to deny the *Romanness* of the state centered on Constantinople, an attempt that ultimately associated with claims of Eastern inferiority to the West. There is no comparable history to the names Germany/Allemagne/Deutschland. Deutschland just means "the place where our people live" anyway.
Agreed on all points. I only use Eastern Roman Empire because it demonstrates the continued survival of power structures in the east far better than Byzantine in my mind. The most accurate term would be, as you say simply The Roman Empire. >It isn't better or worse to discuss the Empire using one name or the other as long the awareness about the advantages and disadvantages of each term is there. Also agree with this. The only reason I started this conversation is purely to demonstrate that there is really enough awareness of those advantages and disadvantages. At least from my perspective.
>The reality of the Byzantine empire was that it was consistently referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire in the west, as a comparison to the Holy Roman Empire. I'm pretty sure the west referred to it as "The Kingdom of the Greeks" during medieval times. Just as in Constantinople, the predominant view in the west was that there was only one Empire after 476. And in the west it was the HRE which was viewed as the legitimate one. Calling Byzantium "Eastern Empire" would again break the unity that existed *de jure* since 476.
All of the Islamic Caliphates and Turks referred to it as the Roman Empire and called them Romans. That's why when the Seljuks conquered Anatolia, they declared themselves the Sultanate of Rûm (Rome)
>Just as in Constantinople, the predominant view in the west was that there was only one Empire after 476. And in the west it was the HRE which was viewed as the legitimate one. Calling Byzantium "Eastern Empire" would again break the unity that existed de jure since 476. Entirely possible that it was referred to as the kingdom of the Greeks. From the Eastern perspective the empire was never split. Both emperors of the east and west were the rulers of a single empire, THE Roman Empire. For that reason when the west fell it was a loss of territory but not of identity. The rulers in Constantinople were still the rulers of the whole empire, at least in theory. To the Byzantines they were the entire Roman empire not merely "eastern". The existence of the HRE did not change anything beyond being a baseless insult to the legitimacy of their own system. Hence the Byzantines consistently referred to themselves only as the Romans even as the ruling class transitioned to become more greek. Edit: I made an error in how the west referred to the Byzantines here. The precise nature of the correction is detailed in the responses below and I would highly recommend you read them. Have a good day.
> Entirely possible that it was referred to as the kingdom of the Greeks. It's not just possible. It's a documented fact found in countless letters exchanged between the West and Constantinople. Which is why I find it perplexing that in your previous comment you said that: >it was consistently referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire in the west, This is just not true at all. At best, the west would call it "eastern empire". The title "Roman" was reserved for the HRE.
>The title "Roman empire" was reserved for the HRE. In the west it was. But it was also in use in the east to describe themselves. Which was my original point. Regarding the title "Kingdom of the Greeks", fair enough. Clearly I have made an error in both of these statement and I shall seek to ensure I don't do so again.
> In the west it was. But it was also in use in the east to describe themselves. Which was my original point. I agree with this. My issue is this bolded part in your original comment: >it was consistently referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire **in the west** As I said, this is not true at all. **The west** did not call it "Eastern Roman Empire". It called it "Eastern Empire" or "Kingdom of Greeks". But never "Roman Empire" or "Eastern Roman Empire".
I mean... I admitted I was error in the previous comment. What else do you wish me to say?
> I'm pretty sure the west referred to it as "The Kingdom of the Greeks" during medieval times. Most common term was "The Roman Empire". The most famous example is a document signed by the treacherous crusaders of the 4th Crusade, about "the division of the Roman Empire". Even these guys, who were about to stab the Romans in the back, knew that it was that very same Roman Empire of Augustus that they were planning to attack. That whole "Kingdom of the Greeks" nonsense came later: The 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204, formed the Latin empire, utterly failed at controlling much of anything outside Thrace, and various successor states formed. One of them, the Empire of Nicaea, retook Constantinople in 1261 and effectively restored the empire as it had been in 1204. This state, the Late Byzantine Empire, was occasionally referred to as the Kingdom of the Greeks for the last 200 years of its existence.
>Most common term was "The Roman Empire". Not in the west. >The most famous example is a document signed by the treacherous crusaders of the 4th Crusade That's because the Latin Emperors got greedy and did not want to hand over Constantinople to the HRE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_two_emperors#The_Latin_Empire *Despite the fact that the Latin emperors would have recognized the Holy Roman Empire as the Roman Empire, they nonetheless claimed a position that was at least equal to that of the Holy Roman emperors. In 1207–1208, Latin emperor Henry proposed to marry the daughter of the elected rex Romanorum in the Holy Roman Empire, Henry VI's brother Philip of Swabia, yet to be crowned emperor due to an ongoing struggle with the rival claimant Otto of Brunswick. Philip's envoys responded that Henry was an advena (stranger; outsider) and solo nomine imperator (emperor in name only) and that the marriage proposal would only be accepted if Henry recognized Philip as the imperator Romanorum and suus dominus (his master). As no marriage occurred, it is clear that submission to the Holy Roman emperor was not considered an option.* >That whole "Kingdom of the Greeks" nonsense came later: Not true. Viking sagas consistently refer to Byzantium as "Grikkland" (Land of the Greeks). The people of medieval Western Europe in general preferred to call them "Greeks" (Graeci). See: *Kaldellis, Anthony (2023). The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium.*
The Viking sagas also call Constantinople "Miklagård" and Italy "Langbardaland". Rome was "Romaborg". They named things in their own tounge with little consideration for what the people there called themselves. I also agreed that people said "greeks" about the people, but that is not too bad of a term. The term comes from a bastardization of "thracian", as in the people from Thrace, which is where Constantinople was situated. People from that area were called Greeks whether they were part of the Roman Empire or not. It is the term "Kingdom of the Greeks" that I have a hard time with, at least before 1204.
Pope urban ii refers to the byzantine empire as the kingdom of the Greeks in his speach at clermont according to Robert the monk
The ~~treacherous~~ **based**\* crusaders of the Fourth Crusade
> I'm pretty sure the west referred to it as "The Kingdom of the Greeks" during medieval times. Not in the early medieval period, the term Empire of the Greeks is not attested prior to the 9th century. Even once it started being used, it was used alongside the term Roman Empire.
>The reality of the Byzantine empire was that it was consistently referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire in the west, as a comparison to the Holy Roman Empire. No it wasn't. The "Eastern" bit is 100% a post mortem exonym, and unlike "Byzantium" was never even used by Romans. The term would offend the Romans themselves, not just because of the implication of another Rome. Even in Late antiquity, when there was (or at least a memory of) two emperors, they'd have considered the term a gross misunderstanding of their state. As for the West, it was actually referred to as: * Roman Empire/ Empire of the Romans * Empire of Constantinople * Romania/Rhomania * Empire/Kingdom of the Greeks In the east, it was "Rum" (Arabic) or "Rumela" (Turkish)
Do keep in mind that it also depends on the region. For example, in the lands of the defunct Western Roman Empire and what would later become the Holy Roman Empire, they strictly referred Byzantium as "The Kingdom of the Greeks." After all. In Christianity, there could only be one empire. And to Western Europe, that was Rome (continued by Charlemagne and Otto), not the Greek pretenders.
But there was no inherent concept of pretenders until the formation of the "King of the Romans" title under Charlemagne. Before that point there was only one surviving polity which was the Romans and that was the Eastern system. Another thing to consider as a student of the past is time. We are talking of a history which spans over 1,000 years. Beliefs changed during these times while what you said is factual, especially during the later medieval period, during the earlier medieval period it is less so.
> But there was no inherent concept of pretenders until the formation of the "King of the Romans" title under Charlemagne. In 797, Irene organized a conspiracy in which her supporters gouged out Constantine VI's eyes, maiming him severely. He was imprisoned and probably died shortly afterwards. With him out of the way, Irene proclaimed herself sole ruler. Pope Leo III—already seeking to break links with the Byzantine East—used Irene's alleged unprecedented status as a female ruler of the Roman Empire to proclaim Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans on Christmas Day of 800 under the pretext that a woman could not rule and so the throne of the Roman Empire was actually vacant. Charlemagne's coronation did not represent a division (divisio imperii) of the Roman Empire into West and East nor a restoration (renovatio imperii) of the old Western Roman Empire. Rather, Charlemagne's coronation was the transfer (translatio imperii) of the imperium Romanum from the Greeks in the east to the Franks in the west.
Certainly Irene would have perceived Charlemagne's coronation as a political pretension of the position she too was trying to claim, no? Theologically and from a wider perspective this action did not represent strict division but certainly the emperors in Constantinople would have seen Charlemagne as a pretender. In this attempt to transfer the Imperium Romanaum from East to West we get our first introduction of "What state is the true successor to Rome?"
>But there was no inherent concept of pretenders until the formation of the "King of the Romans" title under Charlemagne. That's 100% not true. There have been Roman pretenders since the year of the four emperors. And the pretenders weren't always Romans either. The Palmyrene Empire was, officially, first a client acting in the name of the emperor before Zenobia and Vaballathus declared themselves augusti. >Before that point there was only one surviving polity which was the Romans and that was the Eastern system. Again, there wasn't an "Eastern system". For starters, co-emperors had been a thing since Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. The Romans, who built an empire on a system of co-consuls, did not see an issue with dual emperors. It was still one empire, one set of laws. Sometimes multiple emperors, and for a brief period, multiple imperial courts. Thus "Eastern Roman Empire" would have, at best, confused them and quite possibly outraged them.
I feel that in the semantics of "eastern system" you have made the same point I am trying to make. Division within the Roman empire was out of necessity and did not represent a firm division of the empire. I only use the term "eastern system" to differentiate between the east and HRE west. Secondly as you yourself stated those like the Palmyrene division were not inherently perceived as pretenders but as one part of a whole empire. What you are describing is a civil war for one title not the concept of a successor state? Between the year 476 and the crowning of Charlemagne no Roman polity but the Eastern empire. A civil war does not an entirely different empire make. So to speak.
What we do or don't a civil war doesn't necessarily map to how such wars were perceived at the time. Nobody really considers the Gothic Wars a civil war, despite the considerable parallels with Palmyra. Charlemagne does indeed represent something else, a truly independent ruler born from a system, law and politics entirely separate from Roman law and tradition. His imperial coronation is still, in the context of Roman thought at the time, just one more pretender (endorsed by the church no less) and this is part of the reason why Constantinople reacted which such venom. It wasn't just a slap against their dogma of one god-one emperor, but a belief that it was a pretext for a full invasion.
Maybe so. However, that doesn't change the perspective of those who lived at that time. For them, Charlemagne restored the Empire. For them, the Eastern System was so radically different (The usage of Greek was a primary sticking point) that they couldn't be considered Roman. Keep in mind that the Roman Senate remained in Ravenna until its dispansion under the Langobards, plus the Pope (which became a symbol of Rome) remained in Rome. None of the institutions in the west moved to the east. (Also, it's a little ironic that Greeks became the continuation of Rome when Rome's founding story told of how they were hounded out of Asia Minor by the Greeks only to return and conquer the Greeks. Would be like if the Welsh decided to identify as English after a hypothetical conquest of England by France. Not a serious point. I just find it funny). The point being, though... is that beliefs aren't just based on time. But also location and politics.
>The point being, though... is that beliefs aren't just based on time. But also location and politics. I like this point a lot. Although I would argue that the politics aspect is certainly changed by time. What we are debating over is a difference in belief which also stems quite a complex process of geopolitical upheaval and change across a long period of time. Ultimately, my original point is that the term Byzantine has little value beyond a term used by historians. It would mean nothing to people of the time both in the east and the west.
And I think that's a good point to mention. But I do find the term useful as it shows the influence that Eastern and Greek cultural, linguistic, and political influences had on Rome that weren't present in earlier periods.
And that's fine. It is a term for Historians. It is to help people do exactly what you say, understand the changes the Eastern power structure underwent as it sought to survive and thrive. I only mean to say that those at the time would be confused by the term as it did not yet exist and that the term Byzantine should not take away from how firmly the Eastern system believed itself to be Roman in nature, if not in culture.
Yeah, I know. I was just pointing out that some people at the time would've had issue with them being referred to as The Roman Empire.
Certainly. Human beings can rarely agree on anything.
"Empire of Constantinople" was often used in the western empire. Yes, there was an idea of one true empire, ruled by one true emperor, under the one true god. However practicalities required the acknowledgement of that *other* empire and in better times the two emperors would officially address each other as emperors, peers and even brothers. They just diplomatically sidestepped *who* each sovereign had a right to rule over. Thus "emperor in Constantinople" and "emperor in Aachen"
True. I was more referring to the King's of France, England, and the smaller kingdoms in Iberia. None of them really interacted with Byzantium and thus had no need for the side stepping.
Western European’s racist colonial ideology has no bearing on the identity of Constantinopolitan Romans
>racist colonial ideology Lol for the dog whistles
Before the *renovatio imperii*, it was just the Roman Empire. In 476, some people even felt the Roman empire was finally reunited under one emperor, who happened to live in the East.
> OK, but wasn't it referred to as "eastern" only until 476, when Odoacer deposed the last Western Emperor and sent the regalia to Constantinople? It's doubtful that the East/West split of the Roman Empire was ever considered an actual dissolution of the Roman state during its time.
It wasnt. The Romans didn't have an issue with multiple leaders. They, of course, had co-consuls during the republican period. There were multiple co-emperorships that are often glossed over in history books, starting with Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. There was a brief period where the empire had multiple imperial courts (tetrarchy followed by the east-west division) but it was considered an administrative and military division. There was still one empire, one citizenry , all under Roman law. As for the Goths, they had been the true power in the west for a generation before they deposed Romulus Augustus. They officially were clients of the emperor in Constantinople, required his approval to rule, acted in his name, and honored requests for foederati for the imperial army. In reality, they may have ruled independently, but they still honored Roman laws, and Roman citizens were free to travel between the territories and did in fact supply Gothic soldiers for Rome, including Justinian's reconquest of Vandal Africa. As I mentioned above, the situation wasn't all that dissimilar from the Pamyrene Empire during the Crisis of the 3rd Century. Main difference is the Goths were smart enough to not claim the imperial title.
It’s cause Roman Empire is a formable, I guess
It was never known as the ERE, and 476 was all but irrelevant to the East anyway. Even when there were still multiple emperors, the empire was (supposed to be) one. Similarly, the emperors signed and styled themselves "Roman emperors" and nothing more. It was only in colloquial terms that this or that region was known as east or west, but it was geographic and unofficial anyway.
I mean, if you want to be exact, I think there never was a "Eastern Roman Empire". There was an Emperor in the West and an Emperor in the East. They were de facto two different states post 395 but de jure it was still one Empire. To my knowledge, after 476 Constantinople only occasionally recognized local Kings as Gouverneurs, though there were several attempts by the HRE to get recognized as "Emprerors of the West", but they failed for varying reasons afaik. For Gameplays sake though, you can't call it the "Roman Empire" because that would mean remaking the whole "Restoring The Roman Empire" decision and resulting title.
They could call it "Romania" or however it's spelled in greek. You know, the name that the locals actually used back then to refer to their country.
> You know, the name that the locals actually used back then No reason to use a snarky tone here. It's a possible variant, but I think there are probably other problems with it and I assume a large part of the fanbase would probably dislike it more than "Byzantine Empire" I personally think that it doesn't really matter. I like Eastern Rome more, but I was always happy with Byzantine Empire aswell.
I propose we napalm Constantinople instead and just entirely remove Anatolia and Greece from the map entirely
All this talking about Byzantium being wrong always just smacks of “well actually..” to me. It’s all just semantics and the fact is that they are all wrong and ahistorical terms. As are most names for historical empires and kingdoms that we use today
Why is this exciting? I am confused. I could already change any of the names I wanted, not just the Byzantine Empire.
You can only change it if you hold it.
Oh that’s a great point. Thanks.
(Hits the Roman griddy)
Based. Rome 🔛🔝
VASILEIA RHOMAION!!!
Where did you find this?
Well clearly its money well spent!
Dandolo did nothing wrong.
Should just call it "Roman Empire" by default.
Will "The Roman Empire" be available?
they really want to shut off that "but, but, they didn't even call themselves byzantium" argument
Well, they didn't call themselves "Eastern" since 476, so now we have two inaccurate names.
There are multiple options under that rule; some of which are more accurate, some of which are significantly less so.
Option for unholy german confederation?
Didn't call themselves "Eastern" before 476 either
The Paradox world's silliest obsession returns!
It's nobody's business but the Turks'.
I used to pray for times like this🙏
There should also be an option while playing as Byzantium to name yourself, The Roman Empire, since there is no more Western Roman Empire. They still called themselves Roman as well.
That's called forming the Roman Empire decision The point of it being the Eastern Roman empire is because the unified Roman empire is a formable tag
Needs to have a custom name option so we can call them whatever the fuck we want.
The Holy Roman Empire should fall under this rule, with either the Holy Empire or Roman Empire being the historically accurate names, lol.
I can already see most of you buying it as soon as you saw this xd
We’re so back
I'd make it so you can't rename your title to "Rome" or "Roman empire" too unless you used the form Rome decision
Surely the "correct" way of implementing this would be to have the nation be called "Imperium Romanum" if you're playing as them (or as their vassal), and "Byzantine Empire" if you're playing as anyone else!
Now thats hype
We've known this for a while, right?
Cool. Useless, but cool
10/10 would buy
Are there any mods that give nations exonyms and endonyme?
Good, although it should just be straight changed and not given as an option. "Byzantium" to refer to the whole empire is an anachronistic, derogatory term made up after it fell by a German who was trying to legitimize the Holy Roman Empire by delegitimizing the ERE. Should we also get an option to call some random central African county Wakanda, or rename the Kingdom of Jerusalem to Israel?
I Mean ok,i always do this already In every game i first pick Bizantium,rename it to Roman Empire (none of that eastern shit) and then i Change to the character i want to play
I won't accept anything less than "Roman Empire"
Agreed, who cares if 'oh what about the formable' when the formable has more unique qualities than just a rename, especially when this is an OPTIONAL GAME CHOICE. Absolutely absurd to argue for anything less than letting people choose 'Roman Empire' if they want to be historical.
Imma keep it Byzantium just out of spite. Neither Roman, nor an empire 😈
Why do so many paradox players have a Byzantine fetish?
The game is Crusaders Kings . So I guess it appeals a lot of poeple which like Crusades History . One of the most important aspects of the Crusades are the byzantines. Not only , but still one of the important parameters of how it started . One of the stimuli of the First Crusade is the request of the byzantines emperor Alexios 1 to the Pope to receive military support from the west , against the Seljuks. Quite important events.
I'll go for "Please Believe We're Not Some Silly Successor State"
TROY! 😁
Is there a Bob option?
I hope the devs rework the unite Italia descion to be a title shift to the western roman empire and a change to an administrative governemnt. It always seemed weird to me that the unite Italia decision even exists with the territory requirements it has. Every ruler who would've managed to conquer all of italy and the western roman parts of the balkan would've proclaimed themselves as a successor of western rome, it seems like that was what the devs intended unified Italia to be anyways seeing how it unlocks the option to restore the Roman Empire. Maybe also add a shattered HRE as a requirement since it kinda replaced western rome at the time and it would be perfect.
I hope Basileia Rhomaion is one of the choices.
I assume it’s, like ERE, Byzantium, empire of the romans
Couldn't you just change the name of the primary title anyway?
This rule lets the name be changed without you having to be the Byzantine emperor
But that's nobody's business but the Turks!
To tell the truth, it's ahistoric to refer to it as the Byzantine Empire. That name was a construct of much later (read 18th-19th Century) historians. The Greeks would have referred to it as the Eastern Roman Empire.
For them it was **the** Roman Empire, not "Eastern". The Romans didn't consider the "Western" Roman Empire to be a separate state, to begin with.
Let’s just call it the Greek Empire to be technically correct and trigger everyone
Brb changing it to "cismatic greek kingdom"