Crusader Kings 2 Redux

[garbon]

I mean October isn't that far away and it seemed unlikely that Euros would doing working for a release during summer.

I'm assuming December, but could be wrong.

Well 4th quarter does provide a wide range.

[Valmy]

I wonder how many of those Byzantine-specific events would still work for the Latin Empire...

I wouldn't think so...but who knows?

[Queequeg]

Okay, I apologize; I meant within the Anglosphere. I don't know that much about the Turkish policy.

I don't even think that is true.  You are drawing on a long legacy of anti-Byzantine sentiment among Western intellectuals that dates all the way back to the Medieval period.  Just because there's a slight revival doesn't change that the dominant opinion of Byzantium is negative, particularly beyond the fine arts. 

I don't mean to be rude, but to be honest this sounds like a bit of a double standard. Lots of bad things happened in Europe 60 years ago; plenty of languages in Europe are dying or have died; in the case of Cappadocian Greek and Pontic I am assuming they're dead because Greeks were kicked out of the region.

I'm not Lettow, but I generally have a lot of sympathy for linguistic and cultural-ethnic minorities.

Also, throwing up your hands and saying "shit happens" isn't really effective anthropology or history.  It rationalizes the complete loss of culture and history.  I think something similar is happening with Yiddish right now-a majority of the speaking population was killed, and the remaining population was settled in areas with little to no interest in maintaining a distinct Yiddish-as opposed to Israeli Jewish or American Jewish-culture. 

And it's not like the Balkan states haven't been destroying the Ottoman heritage with gleeful abandon. I think even your posts betray a bit of it; the Turks were barbarians who destroyed an incipient Greek renaissance.

False equivalence.  The vicious but low-level violence during the (late 19th early 20th) Balkan Wars are comparable.  There are probably about a hundred Turks in Bulgaria for every Armenian or "Greek" in Turkey.   Pontic, Assyrian and Armenian massacres have body counts in the millions.  If you want to posit equivalence, look to the Circassian Massacres.

I speak Turkish.  I am not racist against Turks.  If you want to know my personal theory on the Ottomans, Mehmet II was a Renaissance figure with far more in common with contemporary Byzantine Emperors or leaders in Italy than his Arabizing successors.  I think there's substantial evidence for this, but I think it is likely that the transformation of the Ottoman State in to just another Caliphate was something close to inevitable.

You could make a pretty good case that without the Ottoman Empire, the Greeks would have just been subjects of a Venetian colonial empire, as they were in Crete and Cyprus.

Turgut Ozal made this argument.  I largely agree.  Constantinople was better off as Istanbul than as a shitty trade depo for the Venetians. 

Okay, this is a pretty weird argument to make. Roger II's state ruled over Jews, Greek Christians, Muslims, Italians, etc. This seems pretty multiethnic. The Holy Roman Empire ruled most of Central Europe and Northern Italy. Not always well, but I don't think you're going to claim the Byzantines did either. This wasn't a multiethnic state?

Neither of the crowns had the prestige of Byzantium by themselves, and while both were multiethnic, the HRE was hugely decentralized and Sicily was territoriality limited. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Also, throwing up your hands and saying "shit happens" isn't really effective anthropology or history.  It rationalizes the complete loss of culture and history.  I think something similar is happening with Yiddish right now-a majority of the speaking population was killed, and the remaining population was settled in areas with little to no interest in maintaining a distinct Yiddish-as opposed to Israeli Jewish or American Jewish-culture. 

But Yiddish is basically dead and gone at this point.  The culture that created Yiddish theater and literature is gone and isn't coming back.  Such is the way of the world.  Shit does indeed happen. Even without the Shoah the result would have been the same, for the same reason Yiddish culture died out in new York.

[garbon]

But Yiddish is basically dead and gone at this point.  The culture that created Yiddish theater and literature is gone and isn't coming back.  Such is the way of the world.  Shit does indeed happen. Even without the Shoah the result would have been the same, for the same reason Yiddish culture died out in new York.

That's kinda my small issue with Quebec and their need to institute language laws to protect said culture/language.

[Valmy]

That's kinda my small issue with Quebec and their need to institute language laws to protect said culture/language.

I do not think it is an actual need.  Their language and culture would be fine without it.  I think they make those laws out of memories of past trauma and generally nationalist douchebaggery.

[Queequeg]

But Yiddish is basically dead and gone at this point.  The culture that created Yiddish theater and literature is gone and isn't coming back.  Such is the way of the world.  Shit does indeed happen. Even without the Shoah the result would have been the same, for the same reason Yiddish culture died out in new York.

I'm not totally sure I agree that Yiddish culture would have died out as totally or as rapidly without the Shoah.  I think it's possible that a generation of intellectuals and artists like Kafka would have spanned the divide between effectively nationalized Jews of the West and the Yiddish-speaking populations of the Pale of Settlement. 

That's obviously speculation.  They almost all died.  I also don't know how Zionism would work out in this situation.  It's not really a pleasant topic to speculate on, to be honest. 

Nonetheless, I think there's a difference between assimilation of a group and extermination of a group, though the two work together more often than not.  Remaining post-extermination populations are often not large or coherent enough to survive displacement.  The exceptions (Circassians, most obviously) are rare.  I think even the Armenian and Assyrian diasporas are really starting to break down.  It's also almost impossible to find a Pontic speaker outside of Thessaloniki, and rare even there. 

[Queequeg]

There is still quite a bit of obscurity concerning Jewish migratory movements in the late classical period/Early Middle Ages, but what is clear is that there is a significant transfer out of Byzantine lands into Italy and then France and Germany on the one hand, and also into Sassanid lands of on the other.  With respect to the former, there is evidence of favorable treatment by the early Papacy, the Ostrogoths, and even the Lombards, in comparison to the their plight in those parts of Italy subject to the Byzantine reconquista; the latter tendency can be illustrated by the fact that while the Talmud was originally assembled in Palestine, the accepted version was ultimately assembled years later in Babylon - and Babylon, Isfahan and other Jewish centers in the Sassanid realm became more important centers of Jewish scholarship, culture and commerce than the traditional homeland in the Syria-Palestine region.  That the remnant Jewish population of Syria/Palestine/Egypt generally welcomed the Arab conquest is well known.  It is trivially easy to come up with names of famous Jewish scholars, philosophers and even statesmen who lived in Iraq, Persia, Arab controlled Syria/Palestine/North Africa/Spain and western/soutern Europe; I can't think of any such figures in Byzantine-controlled lands.

A few points.

1) The period you are discussing-the attempted Byzantine reconquista of Italy-is a full 400 years before the period I am discussing.  The Byzantine-Sassanid conflict is one of the most violent and desperate in all of Late Antique history, and I don't think either Empire covered themselves in glory in terms of tolerance.

2) I think some of the lack of truly famous Jewish intellectuals during the period in question-the Macedonian Dynasty and beyond-is likely as not due to the nature of Byzantine education and intellectual life.  It's almost all Monastic, or derived directly from the Monastic intellectual life.  This is in direct contrast with the Muslim world, or for that matter with post-Reformation Europe where you begin to see increased interaction between Jewish and Gentile intellectual life (Spinoza etc..)

3) I don't think there were de jure legal restrictions on Jews during any part of the post-Justinian Empire that the Ottomans didn't force on dhimmis.  They weren't allowed to buy Christian slaves or to ride horses, while Jews in the Ottoman Empire were not allowed to own Muslim slaves, build new houses of worship, ride horses or own certain types of weapons.  I actually don't think there was a big gap between Ottoman and Byzantine policies on this. 

The fact that Q has to reach to the  Palaiologi (almost 1000 years after the founding of Constantinople) is telling: the Palaiologi were happy to make whatever alliances they could and support of the Jews and their international commercial ties was useful in contesting the Italian merchant states of the Med. and of course their Comneni rivals who maintained the traditional Byzantime anti-Jewish program.  Basically it is an exception that proves the rule - a marriage of political convenience leveraged from traditional policies of hostility.

I haven't found any references to the Komnenoi being particularly anti-Jewish.  Link? 

I think you're basically right about the Palaiologi, and I made a related point about 1320s Constantinople not being the most attractive place for any group of immigrants.  Better off in Kaffa. 

I am not suggesting that a civilization be judged entirely on how it treated Jews in the middle ages (a criterion that pretty much everyone would flunk rather badly other than a few exceptional times/places) but I don't think there is much room for argument that focusing on that narrow issue, the Byzantines did not cover themselves in glory, even by the low standards of the epoch.

I think you've convinced me that they can't be compared in this regard compared with Iberia, and maybe the pre-Plague Pais d'Oc or Sicily, but still substantially different from Britain, Northern France or Germany.

[Tamas]

faction system as a regular addendum in 1.07, and not byzantium-specific? Hells yeah!

[garbon]

Only potential negative I see is that bit about each direct vassals troops being raise in one location. Good to avoid micro of having to combine lots of little armies but could be bad...especially is vassal's capital is far away (like once the Duke of Bourbon had his capital in Jaffa. Fat lot of good it would have done me if all his troops had been raised there / also would be weird to have them all transported and ready to Crusade so easily). Will have to see how that one works out.

[Martinus]

I was so engrossed in Guild Wars 2, I noticed the Legacy of Rome announcement only now. It looks fucking awesome, especially the factions system. Now I have a major Byzantium boner. 

Edit: And blinding is in! Humanitarian solution for brothers! 

[Martinus]

faction system as a regular addendum in 1.07, and not byzantium-specific? Hells yeah!

I haven't read more about it yet - how does it work? Will it be sort of like a permanent, visible intrigue for some stuff, like throne pretenders or a movement to decrease crown authority?

[Octavian]

Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome - Dev Diary 0 - Clearing the Fog of War


by Doomdark
Published on 05-09-2012 17:47  Number of Views: 2506 
It's Wednesday, and time to answer some questions about the upcoming DLC for Crusader Kings II:Legacy of Rome. The focus of this mini-expansion is going to be the Byzantine Empire and the Orthodox church. First off, in order to clear up any confusion from the original announcement, it's a bit smaller in scope than the Sword of Islam so the price is set at $5.99. While I say it's smaller in scope, if you include all the stuff we're adding for free in the accompanying patch (v1.07) it's probably about the same size as Sword of Islam (SoI) and v1.06.

So, let's take a look at what's in the Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome DLC and what's in patch 1.07...



CRUSADER KINGS II: LEGACY OF ROME DLC
Retinue system. If you don't have the DLC, you won't see the new interface and you cannot hire retinues (and neither will the AI.) The technology that controls the max size of your retinue and relative decrease of normal levy sizes simply does not have this effect without the DLC.
Orthodox Councillor models
Major Decisions for the Byzantine Empire
Byzantine Events

Oh, and we're taking another tack with the DLC this around - if you don't own the DLC, the AI won't be using the new mechanics or events either. Also, from now on in multiplayer mode, the host will control which DLCs are active.

PATCH 1.07

Faction system. Replaces many existing plots and normal revolt mechanics with factions.
Personal Improvement Ambitions
Orthodox Patriarch system
Have both a Plot and an Ambition at the same time
Revised levy raising. (You raise a single, large levy from each direct vassal. The opinions of vassals of vassals are irrelevant.)
Leader Focus on Combat
More Cultural Buildings
Improved AI
Bug fixes (of course)

I will talk about all these features in detail in upcoming dev diaries, but for now, that's all!
This article was originally published in forum thread: Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome - Dev Diary 0 started by Doomdark View original post
Categories: Crusader Kings Dev diaries

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/content.php?1068-Crusader-Kings-II-Legacy-of-Rome-Dev-Diary-0

[Martinus]

There are new screenshots on CK2 Facebook page. Byzantine emperors now have special decisions to mend the Great Schism and restore the Roman Empire; get special events for holding hippodrome races and reconquering old imperial provinces; and you can blind and/or castrate prisoners. 

[Martinus]

Also, reposting the last week's dev diary:

Hello again folks, it's time for another dev diary on Legacy of Rome! Today, I'll talk about the new Faction system as well as the changes we have made to Plots and Ambitions. Like I mentioned last Wednesday, Factions are part of patch 1.07 and will be available to everyone free of charge.

Factions are, essentially, a kind of Plot; a Faction has a leader, a number of members, and a clear goal (for example, to Lower Crown Authority in the Kingdom of England). However, there are some key differences: Factions always target the liege, and they are always known to the liege as well as the other vassals. A vassal can lead up to two Factions, but be a member in any number of other factions, unless their goals are contradictory. If a faction leader dies, the most powerful remaining faction member automatically takes over as leader. When the leader thinks the Faction is powerful enough, he can issue an ultimatum to his liege. The liege can then either give in to the demands peacefully or refuse, which triggers a Civil War where all faction members revolt together in an alliance.

Currently, we have the following Factions:

•Succession by Primogeniture in [Title] (used to be a Plot)
•Succession by Seniority in [Title] (used to be a Plot)
•Succession by Gavelkind in [Title] (used to be a Plot)
•Elective Monarchy in [Title] (used to be a Plot)
•Lower Crown Authority in [Title] (used to be a Plot)
•Independence
•Install [Claimant] in [Title]

The last two are of special interest, since they really change the dynamics of the game. AI vassals will no longer just declare wars for Independence, or revolt to install themselves on the throne. Instead, they will seek to gain enough support before daring to take such drastic measures. I.e. all members in an Independence faction will declare war together, and the war score will be determined by their mutual efforts. If they are lucky, other vassals can also ask to join them while the war is ongoing. We are considering adding some more factions, but the more we add, the trickier it is to get the balance right and the AI to pick the ones that make most sense. Factions are, of course, fully moddable, like Plots.

As a liege, there are several things you can do to suppress Factions: you can make the members like you more (of course), you can imprison or kill the members, and you can send your Spymaster to Scheme in a faction member's province, which can lead to events where the vassal is blackmailed, threatened or cajoled into desisting.

As a vassal, it is dangerous to be in Factions because the liege will not be pleased by your disloyal politicking. If you are not the leader, you can also find yourself dragged into an inopportune uprising when the Faction leader so decides. You can get other vassals to join your Faction in the same way the liege can suppress it; you can make them like you better, or send your Spymaster to "convince" them.

You can start, join, or leave Factions at any time without cooldowns or penalties; it's essentially just a declaration of support for a goal.

That's it for Factions. Another change in patch 1.07 is the separation of Plots and Ambitions in the interface. Characters are now allowed to have both a Plot and an Ambition. Plots are still mainly handled in the Intrigue View, but Ambitions, being personal, are now only selected in the main Character View; and there are more of them. We have added Ambitions for improving each of your basic skills (Diplomacy, Martial, etc), as well as one for decreasing the Decadence of your dynasty. While you have the Ambition, there is chance that various related events will trigger.

I should probably mention that, since they change the core gameplay, all of these features are available for all characters and not just the Byzantine Empire. That's it for now, stay tuned for more tidbits next Wednesday!