Remove ads

Crusader Kings: A Byzantium Quest

Reader mode
Ghostdevil said:
I need to explain how giving away Imperial Authority and power to our vassals making them similar to the Feudal vassals of the west so that they will help us with their personal funds and armies weakens us?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Yes, It is not a matter of mathematics; it is a question of politics, law, culture, economics and social structure, as such it is subject to debate and cannot be condensed to simplistic one liners.

I explained how it does not. Thus explaining how it does would do the discussion a service.
 
Ghostdevil said:
I need to explain how giving away Imperial Authority and power to our vassals making them similar to the Feudal vassals of the west so that they will help us with their personal funds and armies weakens us?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Eh...while I agree it "weakens" imperial power that doesn't mean it makes us weak. Becoming more like the West is not necessarily a bad thing. I'd note that these "feudal nations" are mostly still around today.

Byzantium isn't.
 
My understanding is that Byzantium's problem was constantly getting nibbled at by everyone around it, without reprieve, not some inherent weakness of its non-feudal nature.

In fact all of those Western nations become centralized and bureaucratic later on, and the faster they did it the faster they rose.

What the Empire needs is a strong core territory that can be easily maintained and defended. That means pushing out the Turks and recreating the frontier at the Taurus Mountains. The Danubian frontier to the north could be nice too, but that's tertiary at best.

On that note, switching votes:

[X] Plan Greek snake.
-[X] The Turks
-[X] The Archontopouloi
-[X] Tatikios
-[X] The Silk Quarter
-[X] The Anatolian Lords
-[X] The Empress

Ready Anatolia for Roman reconquest, employ slave-born Brilliant Strategist, get support of wife's family.
 
Last edited:
maximillian said:
Venice and the two Sicilies are not.
But Venice is very much an enemy (we stand in the way of thier profit) and a polity that values it's independence enough to challenge emperors and popes over it.

And the two Sicilies where "bequeathed" to the Normans by non other than his holiness the Bishop of Rome. So......
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We both stand in the way of their profit and are a reason for their profit.

And while the Normans may have strong-armed the Pope into granting them legitimacy, they're still heathens. and the island is pretty secure if we can manage to wrest control over the ocean(which might be viable if we secure closer ties with either Venice or Genoa as an ally).
The bigger issue is the threat we represent to the Bishop of Rome, sure. But if the Avignon papacy is anything to go by, we're still early enough that the Franks and German Emperor would probably elect to get a pope of their own(that functions more like a Patriarch) instead of trying to reinstate the pope in Rome wouldn't they?

Though at this point, I'd probably go:

[X] Plan Greek snake.
-[X] The Turks
-[X] The Archontopouloi
-[X] Tatikios
-[X] The Silk Quarter
-[X] The Anatolian Lords
-[X] The Empress

Because while the Hindsight plan is good, the Army should be pretty loyal to us if we select Tatikios+Archontopouloi anyway, so going Princess>Army to get the support over a powerful vassal dynasty is more sensible.
Also, we can probably save destabilizing/conquering Sicily for a later date and might be better served with a massive revolt in Anatolia while the Turkish military is elsewhere(Medieval times, kind of hard to effectively communicate with the capital back home). A gamble, but it could net us more results in the short term.
 
Last edited:
HanEmpire said:
My understanding is that Byzantium's problem was constantly getting nibbled at by everyone around it, without reprieve, not some inherent weakness of its non-feudal nature.

In fact all of those Western nations become centralized and bureaucratic later on, and the faster they did it the faster they rose.

.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes...but it is the Feudal lords which lead to things such as the Magna Carta and removed the mentality of a single ruler with control over all.
The Feudal system was necessary to return to the Republican model in the long run.
 
HanEmpire said:
My understanding is that Byzantium's problem was constantly getting nibbled at by everyone around it, not some inherent weakness of its non-feudal nature.

In fact, all of those Western nations become centralized and bureaucratic later on, and the faster they did it the faster they rose.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And the rise of the nation-state was built entirely on the back of that feudal structure and its developments. Furthermore, the survival of these states up until the Renaissance relied upon the feudal structure.

Feudalism worked for so long in so many places because it was effective.

And the fact that nation states became the norm later on, shows that it is not a hindrance, but a development path/step.


Most importantly, we are giving our vassals a mild dose of watered-down feudalism. It won't be German-style unless we repeat the action fifteen times and strip the institution of the emperor from all sources of income and military might.
 
Last edited:
Arthellion said:
Yes...but it is the Feudal lords which lead to things such as the Magna Carta and removed the mentality of a single ruler with control over all.
The Feudal system was necessary to return to the Republican model in the long run.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Then again, the Republican model was more inspired by Rome, and we are the Roman Empire not only in name. We still retain the powerful bureaucratic system that Western Europe would only develop centuries later.
 
Arthellion said:
Yes...but it is the Feudal lords which lead to things such as the Magna Carta and removed the mentality of a single ruler with control over all.
The Feudal system was necessary to return to the Republican model in the long run.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why on Earth would the Roman Empire return to the Republican model? That's a system of Pagans and Merchant filth!

Also Absolutism was a very, very big thing in the West you know, and it was effective for centuries. Constantinople already has the best bureaucracy outside of China at this point, going feudal would squander that.
 
Ghostdevil said:
I need to explain how giving away Imperial Authority and power to our vassals making them similar to the Feudal vassals of the west so that they will help us with their personal funds and armies weakens us?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, given that we currently have jack shit for authority anyway and de facto power we have is zilch and is loaned by Doukas, mother and church.

We do not magically have power just because we have it in theory; power is a function of who can take it, and if feudalism makes taking it more problematic and less tempting for others it makes us factually more powerful. I am inclined to trust max's explanation of how this is the case, unless someone presents a compelling argument.

HanEmpire said:
My understanding is that Byzantium's problem was constantly getting nibbled at by everyone around it, not some inherent weakness of its non-feudal nature.

In fact all of those Western nations become centralized and bureaucratic later on, and the faster they did it the faster they rose.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Counterexample: Ivan the Terrible and his attempts to centralize leading to a century of dark times (oprichnina and the like).

Like...centralization - ability to centralize - was, in my understanding, consequence, not cause, of the rise; or at least it was started not by magical foce of will, but by lucky opportunity to counterbalance nobles with somebody else.
In England->GB it was, IIRC, combination of wealth becoming new nobilty and selling positions in administrative apparatus and rise of yeomenry - rural small businesses more or less, not mere wealthy peasants - as new 'factions' to give king opportunity to throw down with the nobles. If king tried to brute force centralization, well...he wouldn't have stayed king for long, I assume.

So, uh, if you want to claim that centralization was cause of success, you have to kinda prove it, because to the best of my knowledge it was the other way around, kinda. it's complicated, but certainly not something as simple and, on surface, wrong, as "centralization lead to success".
 
[x] plan lets do things via italy

[x] The Latins: lose some trade but it keeps the war of us
[x] The Varangians: let babarians kill other of there kind
[x] Constantine Dalassenos: trow a bone to mother
[x] The Doukai: for the wife
[x] The Norman Lords: lets see just how good his spy master is
[x] The Empress: happy wife is happy rule
 
Last edited:
Honestly I feel like retaining some Roman element in our government will increase the chance that the Enlightenment will spawn in us, to use EUIV terms.
 
Redhead222 said:
[x] The Latins: lose some trade but it keeps the war of us
[x] The Varangians: let babarians kill other of there kind
[x] Constantine Dalassenos: trow a bone to mother
[x] The Doukai: for the wife
[x] The Norman Lords: lets see just how good his spy master is
[x] The Empress: happy wife is happy rule
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Use plan voting.
 
HanEmpire said:
Why on Earth would the Roman Empire return to the Republican model? That's a system of Pagans and Merchant filth!

Also, Absolutism was a very, very big thing in the West you know, and it was effective for centuries.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But feudalism led to the ideas of separation of powers, natural rights/ inalienable rights, representation, rule by consent and so on.

And western absolutism was a completely different beast from the modern understanding of the word or even the Byzantine version.

The absolutism of the king was basically the affirmation of the supremacy of the institutions that the king is steward over.
The king was high and ruled by divine right but was beholden to law and custom by the same divine right.(of course, universal law was still in the early stages, so different laws for different segments was a thing. Still, the powers of the absolutist kings was based on the parliaments/diets/councils of country notables that they affirmed, and it was the councils that rubber stamped kingly edicts(and often refused) giving edicts legitimacy and the power of law, which was the birth of representation and rule by consent)
Whilst byzantine absolutism (and modern dictatorships) meant that the king was the law. De jure if not facto.






Correct me if am wrong, but the Normans have been Latin Christians for a long time by now. Quite zealous ones too.
 
Last edited:
gutza1 said:
As I have said previously, the downfall of both the Western and Eastern Roman Empire was precipitated by disloyalty amongst the army.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Again, you're already getting the Imperial army loyal by assigning Tatikios and making the core of our army the orphan Archontopouloi.

What Tatikios risks however? Is anger from our powerful vassals whose combined military strength probably outmatches our own.
The loyalty from the Imperial levy isn't enough. We need to throw our bureaucrats and nobles a bone. The Empress would accomplish that.
 
maximillian said:
Correct me if am wrong, but the Norman have been Latin Christians for a long time by now. Quite zealous ones too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Looking it up, they do seem to have been Christian by this time. Though the Sicilian rulers did come into conflict with the pope, it was because they didn't immediately try to convert the Muslims living there and because they were dragging their feet in spreading papal influence.

My bad on calling them heathens. But they don't seem particularly zealous Catholics either.
DkArthas said:
Would that empress option really be enough?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It'd be a start. And we have a trait that gives extra vassal opinion.

Pray it will be enough to push things through..
 
gutza1 said:
And we are Orthodox, who do not believe that the Pentarch of Rome should be the Supreme Leader of the entire Church.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

not the main point of schism and even the orthodox of the time acknowledge that he is the first amongst equals.
no, papal supremacy is actually a very very very late development.

The crux of the schism at the time is the division of political power between the eastern and western arch metropolitans, The extent of ecclesiastical mandate vis a vis secular rule, Monastic organisation. And most importantly the Filioque.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top