Crusader Kings 2 Redux

[Syt]

 

[Valmy]

...would have been a better Emperor than Constantine VIII?  Probably.

[Razgovory]

Destruction, no - but future problems had already been seeded prior to Manzikert.

Yeah Manzikert was a symptom.  And if it had been in decent political health it would have easily survived Manzikert.  The army never survived Basil II's criminal disregard for the succession.  He could have appointed a regency of clowns and had a better result.  At least then Syt would have found it a humorous empire of religious zealots.

Now that I think of it the Roman empire did inspire Entry of the Gladiators a piece of music that people associate with clowns.  That is kind of humorous.

[Queequeg]

Seriously, I don't see the appeal of a humourless empire of religious zealots that was on a downhill trajectory ever since failing to defend Egypt against the Arabs.

I don't think there's anything quite as intriguing, maybe even glamorous, as inevitable defeat.  Everyone claims descent from Paris and the Trojans; apart from Odysseus all of the Greeks are assholes, and Odysseus is basically a charismatic trickster whom the Romans despised as the model of Greek avarice. 

I also think your characterization of the Empire as "humorless religious zealots" is pretty much the opposite of the appeal.  Compared to the Turks and Latins they were all Clarence Darrows.  They weren't allowed to take mass after killing a man in war for a long period of time, while the Turks built one of the most important mosques outside of Arabia for some Arab shit who died trying to conquer the city in the 7th Century. 

[Valmy]

Well it figures that the next DLC will be focused on the Orthodox, after all, they seem sort of the odd man out now.

Well "Legacy of Rome" could mean any number of things not just the Sytantine Empire.  But if it is about that then yes I do hope they flesh out Orthodoxy, particularly the eastern and African flavors of it.

[Queequeg]

Russia is massively underdeveloped as well. 

[garbon]

Destruction, no - but future problems had already been seeded prior to Manzikert.

Yeah Manzikert was a symptom.  And if it had been in decent political health it would have easily survived Manzikert.  The army never survived Basil II's criminal disregard for the succession.  He could have appointed a regency of clowns and had a better result.  At least then Syt would have found it a humorous empire of religious zealots.

Case in point (in thread about what next DLC name possibly means):

I disagree. They should lose the initial war under extreme circumstances only, like the Byzantine Emperor is captured in battle (hence, immediate -100% warscore). I see this in game from time to time, which is fair. After all, Mantzikert and the war thereafter were an exceptional circumstance. This said, the struggle for Anatolia and Armenia should continue in a balanced way after the initial war as it had been for centuries.

The Byzantines have been already nerfed enough; Anatolia has too few holdings for being among the richest areas in the planet at that time. I would re-buff them (Varangian Guard included) a little bit, as well as symmetrically I would give more power to the Seljuks, to make them both able to crush the then decaying Fatimids.

[Queequeg]

The succession crisis wasn't the only thing Basil II left behind.  Annexing Bulgaria and an ineffectual Armenian policy (that his successors would eventually follow up an insanely retarded attempt at annexing the last few Bagratid kingdoms) meant that the Byzantines had to effectively police two dangerous borders hundreds of miles in to the terrain of people who often didn't like them very much.  He also 'nerfed' the Byzantine Army in an attempt to quell local rebellions and revolts that had plagued the Empire (but in reality provided a constant stream of competent Soldier-Emperors).   I think the best, most likely way to save the Empire would have been if Tzimiskes had lived longer, and sacked Baghdad during his Mesopotamian campaign, which was a real possibility.  The resulting tumult in the Sunni world would have been pretty damaging, and it's likely that Basil II might have stayed a philandering hedonist a bit longer, and hopefully produced a few heirs.   

Beyond that, I think some kind of nomadic invasion of Anatolia was close to inevitable.  Anatolia was having trouble sustaining 3,000 years of civilization on an environmental level, making the pastoralist lifestyle superior when combined with Turkic zeal and martial abilities.  Worth pointing out that this wasn't by any means the first, nor would it be the last, time Anatolia was conquered by nomadic pastoralist peoples from the east. 

[Queequeg]

I also think that anyone who believes the Byzantines to be unduly zealous in the context of the 12th Century is very obviously wrong.  Muslims would migrate 2,000 miles for the honor to die in battle, and the Crusaders cannibalized Eastern Christians, Jews and Muslims in their great war for Jesus.  The Byzantines were Tolstoyans in comparison. 

[Viking]

.  Worth pointing out that this wasn't by any means the first, nor would it be the last, time Anatolia was conquered by nomadic pastoralist peoples from the east.

today - 1060 turks
1060 - 63 bc romans
63 bc - 334 bc macedonians
334 bc - 547 bc persians
547 bc - 1200 (ish) bc locals
1200 (ish) - pre-history hittites etc.

I see lots of raiding and pillaging in it's history, but before 1060 I only conquest by more advanced (or in the case of the macs better armed) civilized powers.

and to the best of my knowledge between the skythians and cimmerians 7th century bc and the goths in 4th ad there is very little pillaging.

[Queequeg]

Hittites, Cimmerians, Skythians, Thracians-Armenians, Celts, Parthians, Sassanids, Huns-early Altaic raiders, Arabs, Seljuks, Mongols, Timur, early Safavids.  Those are all less advanced than the native civilization, and many of the above were originally nomadic.  The Parthian influence on Armenia, in particular, is notable and often forgotten.  Much of the Armenian aristocracy had Parthian roots. 

By Anatolia, I was, in retrospect, meaning more Eastern Anatolia/Southern Caucasus.  The Black Sea and the Aegean are substantially different.

[Razgovory]

I think it's a bad move to challenge Spellus on Anatolian history.

[Viking]

Hittites, Cimmerians, Skythians, Thracians-Armenians, Celts, Parthians, Sassanids, Huns-early Altaic raiders, Arabs, Seljuks, Mongols, Timur, early Safavids.  Those are all less advanced than the native civilization, and many of the above were originally nomadic.  The Parthian influence on Armenia, in particular, is notable and often forgotten.  Much of the Armenian aristocracy had Parthian roots. 

By Anatolia, I was, in retrospect, meaning more Eastern Anatolia/Southern Caucasus.  The Black Sea and the Aegean are substantially different.

OK

all of these are either locals, civilized or nomadic raiders. I don't see many nomadic conquerors on this list.

hittites - locals, founded the local civilization
cimmerians-skythians - raiders from beyond the black sea
thracians-armenians - how the fuck do these guys get hyphenated together smelly balkan sheepstealers get associated with a post bronze age collapse civ?
celts - unpaid mercs setting up their own state on a hill, ok I'll accept these guys as WESTERN nomadic conquerors (as opposed to EASTERN)
Parthians - by the time they got that far they were civilized
Sassanids - by the time they got that far they were civilized (and probably started civilized)
huns-epthalites - raiders not conquerors
arabs - failed invaders
seljuks - the guys from 1060
mongols - tamerlaine wasn't a conqueror
safavids - didn't conquer


the thing is that 1060 was a big big change to the landscape. In every other case it was civ replacing civ with the farmers remaining unmoved. Though much of cappadokia was pasture the seljuk conquest not only replaced the nobility it also changed the agriculture.

[Viking]

I think it's a bad move to challenge Spellus on Anatolian history.

Listening to you is rarely worth doing.

I'm picking his brain right for knowledge not quote mining him for gotcha quotes.

[Razgovory]

I think it's a bad move to challenge Spellus on Anatolian history.

Listening to you is rarely worth doing.

I'm picking his brain right for knowledge not quote mining him for gotcha quotes.

I dunno, if you listened to me, people might not think of you as a hateful, annoying fanatic.