View Full Version : Should Rome be a Byzantine city?


sennomulo
Oct 24, 2007, 01:36 PM
According to this map (http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_0600.html) and this map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:East-Hem_600ad.jpg), Rome was part of the Byzantine Empire in 600AD. Maybe assigning this city to the Byzantines, and putting an extra Cataphract or two in the city, would make it more difficult for the AI (usually France) to take the city right away. What do you guys think?

Śmarth
Oct 24, 2007, 02:18 PM
Rome was only held by the Byzantines intermittently between the sack of Rome (5th century) and the creation of the Papal states (8th century), a very small period of time on RFC's timescale. What's more, in my mind it's the loss of Rome that separates the "Eastern Roman Empire" from the "Byzantine Empire".

So, no.

Rhye
Oct 24, 2007, 04:28 PM
my biggest concert was making Byzantines too strong that way.

Squirrelloid
Oct 24, 2007, 05:00 PM
Rome was actually a vassal of Byzantium at that point, not a part of the Byzantine Empire. Rome was actually in barbarian hands at that point, it was just a way of legitimizing the throne and trying to be "Rome" rather than random barbarian state.

Further, having Cataphracts in Rome would be hugely ahistorical. Heck, having Cataphracts in 600AD would also be ahistorical. The Romans were never noted for their cavalry (in fact, most of the time any cavalry they did use was barbarian mercenaries). Cataphracts are a uniquely Byzantine unit from a few hundred years later.

wolfigor
Oct 25, 2007, 02:21 AM
One possibility could be to have Rome Bizantine, surrounded by some barbarian units and having an extremely weak or no defence.
In most cases barbarians will attack and win (but not 100% of times).

Corm
Oct 25, 2007, 06:34 AM
It would make the Byzant indies too powerfull if they had Rome as well as Istanbul and Athens.

LuKo
Oct 25, 2007, 09:16 AM
Byzantium was the main power of the World then.

Panopticon
Oct 25, 2007, 11:34 AM
True, but it also needs to collapse pretty quickly. Certainly once the Turks arrive.

SadoMacho
Oct 25, 2007, 03:12 PM
Byzantium wasted a lot of power when it recaptured Rome. The expedition was a mistake. Byzantium had Rome for only a short period until the Longobards (one of the last Germanic tribes that migrated) conquered Italy. The pope asked the Frankian empire the help him and the Longobardian empire was conquered by the Franks. Pippin (the Frankian Chancelor) gave teh worldly power over Rome to the pope. Around 600 Rome was an independent city. Northern Italy became part of East Francia (Germany in RFC) after 850 and was a part of the Holy Roman Empire.

I would like to see Germany capturing Mediolanum (Mayland) and not France. It would be even beter that Milan and Rome would remain independent until at least 1500-1600.
I don't think that Rome should be Byzantian because it was only part of the empire for a short time and it wasn't there's in 600AD.

captain beaver
Oct 25, 2007, 06:04 PM
There's another problem with giving Rome to Byzantium. They are at war with everyone from the start. While at least the independents don't get constantly attacked by the AI, Byzantium is in an AW mode. I have seen many times Rome stay independent until the renaissance but I doubt that giving it to Byzantium would change anything. It would even have more chance of falling to France or Spain.

onedreamer
Oct 26, 2007, 09:49 AM
During this period Italy was for the most part controlled by the Kingdom of Langobards, but not Rome. Rome was under the protectorate of Byzantium and was never Langobard, so it would be correct for it to start Byzantine (but not Mediolanum nor Pompei). I doubt it would make Byzantium TOO powerful, as someone said Byzantium was THE most powerful in this area in this time and for some more hundred years. It would not stop Turkey from taking over Byzantium because of their powerful UP and because Rome is too disconnected from Greece for the AI to use it effectively in case of war.
I'm also appalled by the agenda some of you use to judge these historical events in relation with the mod: for many who think that Rome would make Byzantium "too powerful", it is safe to move the Holy City to Jerusalem, risking some consolidated mod balances just for the sake of a partial historical accuracy, but in the case of a byzantine Rome, a historically 100% accurate implementation, you put a veto due to balance concerns. Really a not consistent agenda... I think the mod should have one and consistent ruleset for all such cases (and Rhye did have it until now, IMO).

Hitti-Litti
Oct 27, 2007, 04:52 AM
my biggest concert was making Byzantines too strong that way.

What did you play in the concert? :mischief:

Zhuge_Liang
Oct 27, 2007, 09:09 AM
Maybe he misspelled it.

Hitti-Litti
Oct 27, 2007, 09:13 AM
Well duh! Of course he misspelled that.