Remove ads

Crusader Kings: A Byzantium Quest

Reader mode
[x] Alexios Komnenos

Deus-fuckmothering-Vults!

Do we have to switch to Catholicism for those sweet crusades and kingdom level CBs?
 
no first of all the people will rebel in that case from the poor, to the nobles and the church which by the way has a lot of influence. Just do what alexios did during that time and support th crusaders in exchange for helping with the turks. The crusaders will fail without alexios support and they know it so that plays to our advantage
 
How is the romans government system gonna play out? Is it like in ck2 where your vassal is a duke for a lifetime only?
 
Hmmm, to kebab or not to kebab....


Screw it, Imperio Hapsburg it is!
Without heretics to fuck it up.
[X] Rudolph of Habsburg
 
[x] Alexios Komnenos:

It is a well known fact that every CKII campaign must end with the Roman Empire ruling from Mali to Siberia.
 
Walkin' Man said:
It is a well known fact that every CKII campaign must end with the Roman Empire ruling from Mali to Siberia.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think that Telamon will try to go for a more realistic quest. Speaking of which, will there be considerations such as population, feudal estates, communication efficiency, etc. to serve as realistic constraints to our growth? I've been playing a lot of Meiou and Taxes and honestly I now find the ease of blobbing in many Paradox games to be ridiculous.
 
stergiosv said:
no first of all the people will rebel in that case from the poor, to the nobles and the church which by the way has a lot of influence. Just do what alexios did during that time and support th crusaders in exchange for helping with the turks. The crusaders will fail without alexios support and they know it so that plays to our advantage
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Not really, the churches were still fairly uniform at that point in the schism(filique was more or less the sole point of contention) . And the emperor had the power to tip the scale and then some . It would likely cause a splinter in the eastren church, how large is variable. As for the nobility, they are unlikely to object, joining the west will benefit them greatly. Some will rebel sure, byzantium nobility always liked to find an excuse for grabbing the crown, but western support will render it unlikely.

As for peasants, they will only revolt in places where the church has splintered off and is agitating rebellion. Otherwise, they won't notice any changes. The entire schism was on terminology, not practices and doctrine. That, will develop centuries after the schism.
 
Last edited:
[X] Alexios Komnenos: You are Alexios I Komnenos, the great Basileus of the Greeks. The pretenders in the west call your realm Byzantium, but it's true name is Rome, and you rule from the city of Constantinople, Queen of Cities and heart of Christendom. In your day, you took control over the divided and crumbling Byzantine Empire, and united it against the Turkish invaders. The restoration you and your descendants began was known as the Komnenian Restoration, and your deeds and glories were recorded after your death by your daughter Anna in the book that has become your legacy: The Alexiad. But your legacy is more than that of your dynasty, just as your rightful empire is more than Anatolia and Greece. You are the heir of Augustus and Constantine, and on your shoulders rests the mantle of the Caesars. (Difficulty: Hard) (Dynasty Bonus: Heirs of the Caesars (+5 Military Bonus while your dynasty is Emperor of Byzantium or holds a claim on the Byzantine Empire, and gain claims on all former territories of the Roman Empire once you hold Rome, Cairo, and Jerusalem.)
 
[X] Geoffrey of Anjou

Because I want to finally unite all of France with Britain.... An then call the new nation Albion.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Why cannot we play burgeoning Scandinavian lords though? Or one of Ryrykovychs and unite the Rus?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Firstly, Rurik and Dyre, the first of the Rus, lived in the 8th century, and, unlike Paradox, I'm not willing to grossly distort the definition of 'medieval'.

Secondly, my area of historical nerdism, while extensive and frighteningly obsessive, does not include northern/northeastern Europe in the Viking Age. I am only passingly familiar with Scandinavian history, and the histories of Ragnar Lothbrok, Harald Fairhair, and their contemporaries are so vague and mythological that it would mean doing large amounts of research on an area of history I'm not familiar with.

In contrast, I once co-authored a paper on why the House of Habsburg could not sustain its 16th-century successes, and voluntarily took several classes in Byzantine History because I'm a closet Romaphile.

Lastly, the Rurikovichs can suck it. :V
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top