What Is Your Favorite Reason For Why The HRE Is A Bad Idea

Menzies said:

\
Oh, and new post that just Appeared...

What you are saying makes no sense. Do you also think that if all the land between Europe and the Urals was taken and destroyed that it would still be Russia. But more to the point that you can't call the Byzantian Empire just Rome, because it wasn't, there was alot of change after the fall of the West, and the culture of the Empire changed, the populous, the architecture and most importantly they had a hight well after the fall of the old empire. It's not like if the Romans all just picked up and went east, the vandals beat the the living 'Native American Civ' out of them.

Click to expand...

You should look at my link of the maps I gave and check out the link that I gave on the so called "Byzantine" before you insult my intelligence on the subject of Rome. So the "Byzantine" empire was not the ROMAN EMPIRE? I find that very odd that so many people also think that just b/c they look at it as a racial issue. Since the Greek in the east considered himself Roman and the Roman empire that is good enough for me on this subject. They considered themselves the roman empire up until the turkish conquest. The very name Byzantine is infact an insult to history. The very name Byzantine was coined by a French philosopher of Montesquier. The people living in the Roman empire did not call themselves the "Byzantine Empire" but considered themselves Romans living in Romania!!!! When Constantine the great in 300'S AD won his civil war he changed the Capital of the Roman Civilization from Rome to the city of Constantinople. When he moved the capital to the east most of the artists,builders and generals moved east with him to make new ROME or Constantinople. Sure culture changed over time, but what Civilization that had a vast history did not change over time? I don't know how anyone that is into history could think that the Roman empire fell at 476AD when infact the eastern side survived the invasions for another 1,000 years and fell at 1453AD. I guess by that logic the western side of the empire fell at 476AD and the eastern side or remaining lands of the Roman Empire magically disappeared and became the "Byzantines". Sorry I don't believe in the out dated notion that the Roman empire fell at 476AD but instead 1453, especially since the greek in the east and other people considered himself roman and the roman empire. Just look at the maps I gave and the link I gave on the so called "Byzantines." IT IS THE EMPIRE OF ROMAIN

Roman empire map at 500AD after the barbarian germanics destroyed the western side of the empire. As you can see the Roman empire was still around and kicking and surely a whole new civilization did not just pop up out of nothing especially since the greek in the east considered himself Roman and the roman empire until the ottoman conquest!!!!!

http://www.roman-emperors.org/big500.htm

Let's create a separate thread about the Byzantine Empire.

Menzies

You wouldn't be former member Barton in anouther guise would you? Your both Australian, you both have little to no tact when it comes to arguing, and you both have a OTT vendetta agianst Italy for for them knocking Australia out of the World Cup.

What Is Your Favorite Reason For Why The HRE Is A Bad Idea?

Click to expand...

1, Its being placed in Western Europe which is already overcrowded.

2, It wsa really just a part of German History not a nation of itself.

3,

Fox Mccloud said:

1, Its being placed in Western Europe which is already overcrowded.

2, It wsa really just a part of German History not a nation of itself.

3,

Click to expand...

Agreed. Go POLOND!!!

Fox Mccloud said:

1, Its being placed in Western Europe which is already overcrowded.

2, It wsa really just a part of German History not a nation of itself.

3,

Click to expand...

You took the word's out of my mouth. While some parts of the world have no or very little representation, here we are trying to give full coverage on one country's changes through histrory!

Again with the Byzantine issue, Titus? I thought we'd already done this to death in the other thread... Rome fell in 476, in the East the "Byzantines" carried on as the defenders of the last vestiges of Roman civilization, but in the ensuing centuries they were transformed into something completely new, what historians now call the Byzantine Empire. Are all the professors who teach this at major world universities, who have doctorates in Roman history and Late Antiquity, completely clueless? Or have they simply fallen victim to the evil propaganda of the Pope?

You Forgot Poland

Click to expand...

Polska nie zginiela! (Sorry if I spelt it wrong).

TheLastOne36 said:

HRE is germany for the love of god. When will you get it.

Click to expand...

[/thread]

Well said!

Charlemagne was King of the Franks not Holy Roman Emperor.

Gaius Octavius said:

Again with the Byzantine issue, Titus? I thought we'd already done this to death in the other thread... Rome fell in 476, in the East the "Byzantines" carried on as the defenders of the last vestiges of Roman civilization, but in the ensuing centuries they were transformed into something completely new, what historians now call the Byzantine Empire. Are all the professors who teach this at major world universities, who have doctorates in Roman history and Late Antiquity, completely clueless? Or have they simply fallen victim to the evil propaganda of the Pope?

Click to expand...

Just terminology. My Undergrad Byzantine prof for instance, Prof. Michael Angold, uses the term "Byzantine" in many of his books, but is fully aware its a modern misleading neologism. Just convenient terminology.

Incidentally, the BTS Byzantine leader Justinian was a Latin speaker of a proto-Vlach ethnic background. If firaxis wanted a hard unambiguous line between Rome and "Byzantium", they should prolly have picked someone after the 8th century .... but there you go.

476 is not really an important date. The Western Empire was to the post 3rd century Roman Empire what western England was to England; losing it wasn't really that important, as Peter Brown's wonderfully written book shows. Greek was being used by prominent Romans since the Punic Wars, Rome itself had been peripheral to the Empire since at least Constantine, etc, etc, etc. According to Brown, the rise of the Persianized Abbasid Caliphate was what really transformed the Roman Mediterranean world, not the loss of the backward West. Pirenne has a similar argument ... Mohammad and Charlemagne being the two key people for him.

Problem with most people's perception is that the Roman Empire proper is the Julio-Claudian Empire and the Republic. People don't tend to be that interested, and hence know little, about the centuries after that.

Having said that, the Byzantine Empire is tolerable for me in the game, unlike the HRE. It would be better if they made city-lists dependent on leaders rather than civs, but until they do, Byzantine Empire can be regarded as a not terrible addition.

This Byzantine/ Roman argument seems to stem from the fact that both sides are using different criteria to define a country. Both criteria though are descriptions of different aspects of the country and are thus both correct.


Rome was the state. Byzantine was the majority culture contained within the state. One of the problems that gets created is the Firaxis dosent use the same criteria to decide each new civ's inclusion. For example Byzantine is a culture based inclusion whil HRE is a state based inclusion.

Ah, I don't much care for Peter Brown and the Late Antiquity crowd... Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins point out one of the major fallacies of the LA view, namely that it tends to downplay the barbarian invasions as "migrations" and doesn't fully capture the real shock, horror and suffering people had to endure after the Western Empire fell by 476. (You notice I say "by" not "in"; the fall had begun long before 476, but it is symbolic in that the last Emperor was finally deposed and the line of sucession beginning with Augustus ended there. For the average citizen however, not much would've been noticeable. The real changes had already taken place.)

The loss of the Western Empire in 476 was mostly titular. The sack of Rome in 410 really ended all authority of western Rome.

off topic... off topic... warning... warning...

^This coming from a man who interrupts the forum every five minutes for a pho alert...

THATS RIGHT!!!

how many reasons for the HRE being bad have we so far? i listed 11 earlier...

99. Becuase word "Roman" is a name in few slavic languages
http://www.behindthename.com/php/view.php?name=roman

and Holy Roman Empire sounds funny
like Empire of Holy John, Jack or Dick

P.S. Not even talking about our "great" Minister of Education who is also "Roman"

Rofl Holy Dick Empire?

Gaius Octavius said:

Ah, I don't much care for Peter Brown and the Late Antiquity crowd... Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins point out one of the major fallacies of the LA view, namely that it tends to downplay the barbarian invasions as "migrations" and doesn't fully capture the real shock, horror and suffering people had to endure after the Western Empire fell by 476. (You notice I say "by" not "in"; the fall had begun long before 476, but it is symbolic in that the last Emperor was finally deposed and the line of sucession beginning with Augustus ended there. For the average citizen however, not much would've been noticeable. The real changes had already taken place.)

Click to expand...

There's no contradiction between these authors when it comes to these particular points. Yeah, the Britons probably didn't regard the coming of the Saxons as a particularly pleasant experience, but that doesn't impact the fundamental continuity of the Roman Mediterranean world. But the contrast between the likes of Heather and Brown is that the latter emphasize the important parts of the Empire, the (esp. eastern) Mediterranean where more than two thirds of the population and about 90% of the wealth lay, and the like of Heather emphasize the improverished backward western, northern and frontier provinces. It would be like one group of people arguing that WWII was a good experience using American evidence, and another arguing the opposite using Chinese and Eastern European evidence.

And as you know the line of succession beginning with Augustus continued until 1453. All the Romulus Augustulus' deposition did was end the 2 century-old division between West and East, a division that the more powerful Emperor at Constantinople ceased to find tolerable.

Fundamentally, the Barbarians were expelled from all the core Mediterranean areas by the end of the reign of Justinian, and it wasn't until the Arab and Slavonic invasions that the Roman Empire began to lose many of its most important provinces. Even then, the Roman Empire continued until the end of the Middle Ages. Any idea of a "Fall of Rome" invented by modern historians would have come as quite a surprise to most 5th and 6th century Romans.