Remove ads

Crusader Kings: A Byzantium Quest

Reader mode
gutza1 said:
After having studied the Fall of the Roman Empire, I think I can say that hiring mercenaries instead of native Romanoi (Greeks) is an absolutely terrible idea, because they will more often than not be more loyal to their generals than to Rome, and an opportunistic general could use this to attempt to seize power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not a terrible practice though. It worked for centuries for Rome, and while it eventually became one of the reasons of the fall, it was one of the reasons of its survival earlier. Furthermore, from personal perspective local troops are no more trustworthy in general.
 
After reading over the suggested plans and such...I'm inclined to go with Maxillmilians. It's not optimal in the sense that I'm not too terribly keen on giving our Nobles more power...but at the end of the day it's not a truly terrible idea. It can still be beneficial in the long run. Max's plan does a decent job ingratiating us to the Doukas and since they are the most power nobles...yeah.

We are not going to be our own independent power in the EMpire necessarily. We will be relying on the Doukas, but in the long run...our heir will be of Doukas Lineage and their strength is our strength.

I also like the plan to spend time with our bride.

Happy wife, Happy life.
 
Qeqre said:
Hum, at first glance, these would be two major paths I'd go for:

[ ] Trade and Meritocracy
[] The Archontopouloi:
[] Tatikios:

Sidestep a dynastic conflict between our two greatest backers. Hopefully this will move the Byzantine Empire towards a more militarized and meritocratic state.
Likewise, with this I'm hoping that there's enough prestige in the army core for the nobles to accept us giving the general command post to somebody loyal to ourselves.

Aiming for more control over military high command at the cost of conceding control over the lower/middle command levels to the nobility.

[] The Silk Quarter:
[] The Latins:
[] The Fall of The Rus:

Essentially in preparation of economic restoration we amp up production and make sure a major trade partner to the North(who is more distant to the Venetians and therefore less viable) becomes a major power. While favouring the foreign merchants would hurt our traders, they would have an alternative source of trade to the North even if the Mediterranean dries up(for a while, we probably want to move on subjugating the Italian city states in due time).
That aside, we could get some decent military support from a unified Rus.
Between a recovering trade partner to the North(to which they have the advantage of distance over the Latins) and an upswing of silk production, our traders should be able to survive and, in time, prosper when it's time for us to start working against the Latin city states again.

If we can maintain control over Southern Italy and/or make inroads through the Balkans, we might be able to 'convince' those city states to either swear fealty to us and/or make trade concessions back in our favour for their own protection.

[] The Empress:

Problem: We need her dynasty's support
Complication: We can't give concessions to her dynasty without potentially making our mother work against us.

Making her love us(and love our child-to-be) should hopefully get us some more support from her dynasty without inciting our mother. Hopefully allowing us to begin eroding at the influence either of them holds over us.


[ ] Divide and conquer
[] Constantine Dalassenos:
[] The Doukai:

Dynastic balance. Grandmother vs wife. Giving both important positions without favouring one over the other. Get their support, set them against the other.

[] The Turks:
[] The Anatolian Lords:

Use the Turks to defeat the Normans while working to backstab/dispose of the Turks shortly afterwards while they are over-extended and distracted with the Normans. Could leave us in a fairly favourable position in Asia Minor.

[] The Varangians:
[] The Army:
Meanwhile, we get a military core of foreigners that don't really speak Greek and reaffirm their loyalty to us and us alone to undermine Dalassenos before he can get started, making his appointment somewhat irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Erm, Italy is well beyond what's within the realm of possibilities, planning for it is redundant.

Italy is fractious and splintered to high hell, but it is an economic powerhouse filled to the brim with extraordinarily skilled warriors. It also has a tradition of temporary peace to beat back any foreigner.

Add to that the fact that it is under HRE domain, and the HRE still has fangs at this date. Much bigger Fangs than us infact, and nothing gives the Kaiser more power and a unified HRE than a foreign invasion.

Lastly there's the matter of the Bishop of Rome. The schism is in its infancy true, but the dispute around the extent of the powers of Rome and Constantinopolis goes all the way back to the seventh century.
The Bishop of Rome will fight tooth and nail to keep us the fuck away from his dioceses, and he has power and influence such that the Bishop of Constantinopolis is but a village idiot in comparison.


Going after Italy is flat out suicide no questions asked. Hell, going after any lands who's diocese is beholden to Rome is suicide. So Europe is flat out unless we mend the schism (on Romes terms naturally).

Then there's the fact that it will be decades long war for any important bits (like Italy) and so we need to have 100% secure fronts beforehand, and enough men and gold to make it possible.

Basically, it's much more feasible to get anatolia, the balkans, and the levant than even spit in the direction of the west.
 
Last edited:
Allying with Turks - our conquerors - will fuck up the morale and trust in us something fierce; will likely spawn a conspiracy or two immediately. I sorely doubt Patriarch will approve either.

It kinda fucks with Church and more zealous vassals' loyalty a bit too much for my tastes. They could understand Latins - heretics, not heathens, and not conquerors of our own lands who gave us humiliating defeat - but not Turks.
And given that Church seems to have been one of our 'sponsors', fucking with its support - especially with it having more autonomy due to favours - is kinda bad mojo.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Allying with Turks - our conquerors - will fuck up the morale and trust in us something fierce; will likely spawn a conspiracy or two immediately. I sorely doubt Patriarch will approve either.

It kinda fucks with Church and more zealous vassals' loyalty a bit too much for my tastes. They could understand Latins - heretics, not heathens, and not conquerors of our own lands who gave us humiliating defeat - but not Turks.
And given that Church seems to have been one of our 'sponsors', fucking with its support - especially with it having more autonomy due to favours - is kinda bad mojo.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Not quite heretics yet, it's too early. Schismatics, but not downright heretic.
 
maximillian said:
Erm, Italy is well beyond what's withing the realm of possibilities, planning for it is redundant.

Italy is fractious and splintered to high hell, but it is an economic powerhouse filled to the brim with extraordinarily skilled warriors. It also has a tradition of temporary peace to beat back any foreigner.

Add to that the fact that it is under HRE domain, and the HRE still has fangs at this date. Much bigger Fangs than us infact, and nothing gives the Kaiser more power and a unified HRE than a foreign invasion.

Lastly there's the matter of the Bishop of Rome. The schism is in its infancy true, but the dispute around the extent of the powers of Rome and Constantinopolis goes all the way back to the seventh century.
The Bishop of Rome will fight tooth and nail to keep us th fuck away from his dioceses, and he has power an influence such that the Bishop of Constantinopolis is but a village idiot in comparison.


Going after Italy is flat out suicide no questions asked. Hell, going after any lands who's diocese is beholden to Rome is suicide. So Europe is flat out unless we mend the schism (on Romes terms naturally).

Then there's the fact that it well be decades long war for any important bits (like Italy) and so we need to have 100% secure fronts beforehand, and enough men and gold to make it possible.

Basically, it's much more feasible to get anatolia, the balkans, and the levant than even spit in the direction of the west.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty sure Venice isn't part of the HRE. Same for the Normans.

As for the other states? If we want to restore the Roman Empire, we'll need Rome. And the HRE was barely an Empire at times. We can probably afford to wait for them to elect a weak emperor or to be involved in a war elsewhere(if they haven't already).
gutza1 said:
Now, I may not have access to the internet by the time the vote is open, so I'll have to prematurely vote an hour early:

[X] Plan With Hindsight:
-[X] The Turks
-[X] The Archontopouloi
-[X] Tatikios
-[X] The Silk Quarter
-[X] The Norman Lords
-[X] The Army
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you're doing Archontopouloi for Greek Orphans with no living relatives the army should be pretty loyal to us anyway. Especially if we assign Tatikios so the personal action is better invested in winning the support of our wife(and her powerful family) so we can also gain some loyalty from the bureaucracy.

Preparing to backstab the Turks so we can smooth over the hurt pride of having to rely on Turkish assistance with promises of reconquest might also work better than destabilizing Sicily. Besides, we might be able to straight-up conquer these heathens without having to set them to infighting.
 
Last edited:
Qeqre said:
Pretty sure Venice isn't part of the HRE. Same for the Normans.

If you're doing Archontopouloi for Greek Orphans with no living relatives the army should be pretty loyal to us anyway. Especially if we assign Tatikios so the personal action is better invested in winning the support of our wife(and her powerful family) so we can also gain some loyalty from the bureaucracy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


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......
 
ctulhuslp said:
Allying with Turks - our conquerors - will fuck up the morale and trust in us something fierce; will likely spawn a conspiracy or two immediately. I sorely doubt Patriarch will approve either.

It kinda fucks with Church and more zealous vassals' loyalty a bit too much for my tastes. They could understand Latins - heretics, not heathens, and not conquerors of our own lands who gave us humiliating defeat - but not Turks.
And given that Church seems to have been one of our 'sponsors', fucking with its support - especially with it having more autonomy due to favours - is kinda bad mojo.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's important to note that the real-world Byzantine Empire did exactly this. Nearly a decade before the start of the game, in 1073, the Emperor Micheal VII formally ceded to the Turks many of the lands they had actually already conquered. In exchange, he received aid against the Norman mercenary Roussel de Bailleul, who sought to carve out a Norman state in the heart of Anatolia.

The Emperor before you, Nikephoros III, won his seat with the aid of the Seljuq Turks and their forces. With their armies at his back, he deposed Micheal VII and defeated the other rebel generals who had risen up alongside him.

Time and again, when faced with insurmountable enemies or threats from within, the Empire called on the Turks. This practice reached its height in the 14th century when the Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos requested the aid of the Ottoman sultan against his rebelling brother. The sultan won the Emperor his throne, but a decade later, in 1453, the sultan's son, Mehmet, conquered Constantinople and made it the capital of the new Ottoman Empire.

Just some food for thought.

And on that note: VOTING IS OPEN.
 
Last edited:
Telamon said:
It's important to note that the real-world Byzantine Empire did exactly this. Nearly a decade before the start of the game, in 1073, the Emperor Micheal VII formally ceded to the Turks many of the lands they had actually already conquered. In exchange, he received aid against the Norman mercenary Roussel de Bailleul, who sought to carve out a Norman state in the heart of Anatolia.

Time and again, when faced with insurmountable enemies or threats from within, the Empire called on the Turks. This practice reached its height in the 14th century when the Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos requested the aid of the Ottoman sultan against his rebelling brother. The sultan won the Emperor his throne, but a decade later, in 1453, the sultan's son, Mehmet, conquered Constantinople and made it the capital of the new Ottoman Empire.

Just some food for thought.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmmm, well the Turks are still the best option in this case, and we NEED to do something, we can eventually build up a different way or be able to do it ourselves without giving away massive advantages for a single favor.
 
12 Hours have passed.

[X] Plan With Hindsight:
-[X] The Turks
-[X] The Archontopouloi
-[X] Tatikios
-[X] The Silk Quarter
-[X] The Norman Lords
-[X] The Army
 
[X] Plan With Hindsight:
-[X] The Turks
-[X] The Archontopouloi
-[X] Tatikios
-[X] The Silk Quarter
-[X] The Norman Lords
-[X] The Army
 
[X] Plan With Hindsight

I'm pretty sure making alliances of convenience is not that alien for the empire, they did it enough otl.
 
maximillian said:
Then there's the fact that it well be decades long war for any important bits (like Italy) and so we need to have 100% secure fronts beforehand, and enough men and gold to make it possible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
> 100% secure fronts

*cries internally*

maximillian said:
Not quite heretics yet, it's too early. Schismatics, but not downright heretic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Even better for "why Latins" then. Still prefer granting more autonomy to nobility - it's not like it is possible to actually centralize effectively just yet.

I mean. If we try to, we know exactly what is going to happen (backstabbity), so why even move in that direction for now, when there are so much fires to put out? We do not need yet another buzzsaw to juggle, and attempts to centralize and institute meritocracy are two extra (at least) buzzsaws in the air. We already have normans, turks, venetians, nomads and emptying coffers to worry about; add there viper nest that is local politics; maybe we should delay attempts to reform until, like, our son or so?

We are Mil32 leader anyway, ambitious internal reforms which are going to piss off everybody against us are not exactly our forte anyway. We can, to be fair, use it to gain favour internally via good wars, but we do not have that yet so we cannot pull off "war hero is cool let's not poke him" strategy of reforms.

Telamon said:
It's important to note that the real-world Byzantine Empire did exactly this. Nearly a decade before the start of the game, in 1073, the Emperor Micheal VII formally ceded to the Turks many of the lands they had actually already conquered. In exchange, he received aid against the Norman mercenary Roussel de Bailleul, who sought to carve out a Norman state in the heart of Anatolia.

Time and again, when faced with insurmountable enemies or threats from within, the Empire called on the Turks. This practice reached its height in the 14th century when the Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos requested the aid of the Ottoman sultan against his rebelling brother. The sultan won the Emperor his throne, but a decade later, in 1453, the sultan's son, Mehmet, conquered Constantinople and made it the capital of the new Ottoman Empire.

Just some food for thought.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Give up cores? NEVER!

Although thanks.

Ghostdevil said:
Hmmm, well the Turks are still the best option in this case, and we NEED to do something, we can eventually build up a different way or be able to do it ourselves without giving away massive advantages for a single favor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hm.
When Romanos IV was defeated and captured, Michael VII remained in the background, while the initiative was taken by his uncle John Doukas and his tutor Michael Psellos.[30] They conspired to keep Romanos from regaining power after his release from captivity, while Michael felt no obligation to honor the agreement that Romanos struck with the Sultan.[33] After the dispatch of Eudokia to a monastery, Michael VII was crowned again on October 24, 1071 as senior emperor.

Although still advised by Michael Psellos and John Doukas, Michael VII became increasingly reliant on his finance minister Nikephoritzes.[34] The emperor's chief interests, shaped by Psellos, were in academic pursuits, and he allowed Nikephoritzes to increase both taxation and luxury spending without properly financing the army. As an emperor he was incompetent, surrounded by sycophantic court officials, and blind to the empire collapsing around him.[33] The underpaid army tended to mutiny, and the Byzantines lost Bari, their last possession in Italy, to the Normans of Robert Guiscard in 1071.[30] Simultaneously, they faced a serious revolt in the Balkans, where they faced an attempt for the restoration of the Bulgarian state.[34] Although this revolt was suppressed by the general Nikephoros Bryennios,[34] the Byzantine Empire was unable to recover its losses in Asia Minor.

After Manzikert, the Byzantine government sent a new army to contain the Seljuk Turks under Isaac Komnenos, a brother of the future emperor Alexios I Komnenos, but this army was defeated and its commander captured in 1073.[35] The problem was made worse by the desertion of the Byzantines' western mercenaries, who became the object of the next military expedition in the area, led by the Caesar John Doukas.[35] This campaign also ended in failure, and its commander was likewise captured by the enemy. The victorious mercenaries now forced John Doukas to stand as pretender to the throne. The government of Michael VII was forced to recognize the conquests of the Seljuks in Asia Minor in 1074, and to seek their support.[33] A new army under Alexios Komnenos, reinforced by Seljuk troops sent by Malik Shah I, finally defeated the mercenaries and captured John Doukas in 1074.[36]

These misfortunes caused widespread dissatisfaction, exacerbated by the devaluation of the currency, which gave the emperor his nickname Parapinakēs, "minus a quarter".[33]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, I think it means they were a bunch of fuckups who wouldn't find their asses with a map :V
We shouldn't use those failures as an example to follow IMO.

[x] Plan: Calculated Obligations
 
Ghostdevil said:
Hmmm, well the Turks are still the best option in this case, and we NEED to do something, we can eventually build up a different way or be able to do it ourselves without giving away massive advantages for a single favor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We're giving moderate privileges for an extremely convenient and borderline lifesaving benifits.

And allying with the existential enemy, affirming ones weakness and the strength of said enemy, and giving said enemies even more opportunities and reasons to fuck with you is hardly the best option.


Historical byzantium did it out of desperation, cultural idiocy and absolute lack of options (unlike here), not because it was sensible. And indeed it was eventually the death of them.
 
Last edited:
maximillian said:
We're giving moderate privileges for an extremely convenient and borderline lifesaving benifits.

And allying with the existential enemy, affirming ones weakness and the strength of said enemy, and giving sail enemies even more opportunities and reasons to fuck with you is hardly think best option.


Historical byzantium did it out of desperation, cultural idiocy and absolute lack of options (unlike here), not because it was sensible. And indeed it was eventually the death of them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Feudalism isn't that answer, it weakens our character for a VERY temporary advantage
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top