We originally included Nikephoros Basilakes and Alexios Komnenos as well in the first script, however somehow they got lost in the course of our production process. Sorry to everyone who misses these great characters in the video, we’ll review our process to make sure this does not happen again. To see what we had to say about them, you are welcome to join our discord :)
I think they should call the empire Eastern Roman Empire. Just because they saw themselves as Rome. If you play as them make your vassals all have high martial skill.
Bruh these fuckers rebel against me even when I can't modify their contract anymore. It's like *dawg your literally except from taxes and levies and your still gonna rebel?!* 💀
Not as much as it seems. Byzantine revolts were almost always bids for the throne, rather that the far more diverse forms of inter kingdom warfare in the West.
That’s only because you ain’t paying the factions off. Get the “Thoughtful” diplomacy trait and pay the most powerful lords in a faction gold. Marry your kids off to them when you don’t have any money. And don’t start any wars right at the start of your reign, you gotta get your kingdom in order first
@@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump Sure, but by the second Chapter of The Alexiad, there's already been three civil wars and two barbarian invasions, so in those periods of instability, it was an all-out clusterfuck
Actually, you're mistaken about the extent of Greek culture. Inner Anatolia *was*, in fact, purely Greek-speaking by this point. The last of the native Anatolian languages had died out centuries earlier. While during the Classical and Archaic Greek era only the Anatolian coastline was settled by Greeks, during the Hellenistic and Roman eras (~300 BC to 600 AD) the Greek language gradually became predominant in *all* of Anatolia, save for the Armenian-speaking lands in the very east. Crimea, too, had a long history of Greek settlement.
During this period there had already been significant settlement by Turkic tribes, as well as immigration by Armenian noble families so it still wouldn't be accurate to portray inner Anatolia as purely Greek speaking. Though this raises another more general issue with the game and that is that making a one to one equivalency between language and culture in this period makes little sense. Firstly it obviously makes no sense to call a group that considered themselves Roman, Greek, but also people didn't necessarily identify based on their primary language. Armenian nobles often did speak Greek even as their primary language but they generally considered themselves Armenian, similarly you could also find speakers of other languages who still considered themselves Roman. Venice still technically considered itself an Eastern Roman vassal at this point and did clearly import a lot of culture, Venitian merchant families liked to pride themselves on having various Roman titles.
Ck2 had a similar idea as it added an "Imperial" government type that was exclusive to the Byzantines. I wonder why CK3 doesn't have anything like that?
Sadly it won’t be this year haha I do hope it’s a full expansion that brings a bunch of new mechanics rather related to imperial rule rather than a lone mechanic the flavor packs seem to be doing.
@@louispalermo9975 It wouldn't surprise me if it comes out next year. Since we're getting a flavor pack focused on Persia and possibly west Asia as a whole, it would be perfect to follow it up with a rework of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Hope they do so for the other Eastern European States. Its neighbour - Bulgaria is like some feudal western realm instead of a centralised steppe-descendent empire and falls apart every time a leader dies. The amount of times I've seen Bolghar Wallachia pop up.
@@h3nder Well, it had to come right after the Persia flavour pack. I am sure the Byzantine DLC will focus on it's wars with the Arabs, Persians and Seljuks.
I will point out that Greek culture being present in Italy is actually quite accurate, as at the time of the Normans' late medieval conquest of southern Italy and Sicily (in the late 12th century), the Salento peninsula (the "heel" of Italy), up to one-third of Sicily (concentrated in the Val Demone), and much of Calabria and Lucania were still largely Greek-speaking.
@@historyinbits There is still a Greek minority even today, around 40,000 Greek speakers. According to a PhD in linguistics Quora poster, Calabrian Griko is a lot more archaic, and Salentino Griko dialect is closer to medieval Greek. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griko_language
Also, Naples specifically was majority Greek speaking straight through the classical Roman period, even though they had become full Romans in the early 1st century bc. This wasn't the case with many other Italic or Etruscan cities who became Roman citizens at the same time. During late antiquity and the early middle ages, Naples had become predominantly Latin speaking. They didn't switch languages. They had both, and one fell into disuse. Places like Naples and Venice had a very Byzantine culture, even though they spoke Latin, and even long after they became independent. You might even say the same is true for the Papal states and other parts of Italy during that era.
When the crusaders reached Antioch in 1098AD they had Bohemond to climb the walls and come into secret talks because he knew fluent Greek. Why he knew fluent Greek and used them in Anatolian Antioch? Because he was the ruler of the Greek speaking Southern Italy.
as a cultural heritage student at University of Gothenburg specifically interested in eastern Roman society and culture I feel the need to say that even though distinct from the Latin Roman culture, the eastern Roman culture was far more similar to the Latin roman culture than it was to the Hellenic Greek culture. There still lived people who called themselves Hellenes (Hellenic Greeks) but were distinctly different from the majority Greek speaking Roman. The Greek speaking Romans were more similar to their Latin counterparts than the Latins were to their own culture just some 100 years before them. During the time when the Western and Eastern Roman empire still existed together and even some time before, people started referring to both the Latin and the Greek speaking people as just Romans sense their culture had blended to the point where the major difference between them were their mother tongue. A culture is not just defined from what's the most common language. The video was great I just wanted to clarify some things.
hey Nemo, I'm also a history student and I am interested in the society and culture of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire. I will soon have to write my thesis so could you please give me some sources? Thank you in advance
@@007Hutchings mmmyeah, I figured. Never in my time as a History student, have I heard the information the guy gave so I was curious what his sources were
What's your source on Inner Anatolia, Crimea and Southern Italy not being Greek exactly? The maps you show are misleading since they show either the distribution of Greeks in the 5th Century B.C, or the historical distribution after the 13th Century, none of which apply to 1066. Infact, given the empire's history of repopulating desolate areas in the Balkans with Greeks from Anatolia, I think it would be safe to say there were more Greeks in Anatolia than in Greece at this time.
Speaking specifically to Crimea, the area had actually been ruled for several centuries by a branch of the Gothic peoples. Hence why sometimes the Theme of Cherson is sometimes called “Gothia.” The people there were identified as Gothic as late as the 16th century and potentially lasted longer as well.
@@garrettfuhrman2549 Yeah, I know that was the case in inner Crimea, but I was always under the impression that the southern coast was Greek speaking, given it had been under Greek/Roman control for over a thousand years by this point.
On CK2 some mods created a imperial government that tried to mimick the Roman empire administration, later paradox release their own version but it's kinda embarrassing they took that long to fix this and only released in their last expansion of the game
@@yuries19 They're not lazy, but they most definitely don't have any budget assigned to them. Paradox has to juggle HoI4, Cities Skylines, Stellaris, EU4, and Victoria 3 with their own updates, with arguably 4 out of 5 of those games has a bigger fanbase and community than CK3. Not to mention that they're also currently working on Cities Skylines 2. I doubt games like CK3 and Victoria 3 will get any huge attention for the time being
I think Nubia would be a cool place to look at. A Christian holdout that didn't fall to Islam into 1500s. I've always found playthoughs there really interesting because you have all Africa to your West, you aren't far from the Mediterranean but not that close either.
nubia is weird CK2 nubian always crush their neighbour even expanding to hejaz CK3 they always get eaten, dunno if ajuuran existing has any to do with it
@@m.thorton9305 but if they are eaten its very rarely from Egypt. On a semi-related note, Nubia makes a great place to move Vikings to. With long boats you can sail down the Nile and raid most of the Mediterranean. The only force that can really attack you is Egypt.
That begs the question who the pope was/is? Because he held/holds the title of Pontifex maximus the most important religious title of ancient Rome and the middle ages was an undoubtedly highly religious period of Europe.
@@histguy101 Well technically it means "bridge-builder" and the point is that the top priest is the top priest in the middle ages so there is a question about authority and legacy.
I would be very interested to see how they go about representing an administrative empire like Byzantium in a game that is based on feudalism. Especially considering that CK3 is focused on family rule and governorships in Byzantium were normally nonhereditary.
@@historyinbits They did it in crusader kings 2 with the byzantine expansion. It acts like you say. Upon death the duke title goes to the emperor. Its also easier to revoke the titles and stuff. I haven't played it in a bit but they have different expansions that give different governing styles for romans, pagan, viking, and muslim rulers. But before the expansions they all worked as feudal as feudal is the base system in the base game.
@@brennangum6236 Reminds me of Ck3 mod Fallen Eagle in the times of roman empire. Everytime kingdom-tier title owner dies you can choose whoever you want to grant it to
@@eLeft6 Why do you think they just left it as Feudal paradox very transparent on why the byzantium is the way that it is rn some devs are chomping at the bit to rework it but the higher ups haven't green lit it
Inland anatolia did have a majority greek population cuz under roman rule and under the greek kingdoms wich apeared from alexanders empire it got greekified
@@paulmayson3129 Yep, doesn't make sense to question that bit without saying what you think it was, because there was nothing. The original anatolian languages had been dead for 1000s of years. All that was left was Greek and Armenian.
I think you have something wrong, in ck3 culture portrays popular language which was in fact greek in almost all of anatolia. As far as inner anatolia we know for a fact that capadocia was greek. Almost all of the coastline and very much of inner anatolia was greek.The wrong was in the Balkans where greek is actually overrepresented. Slavs Bulgars ruman and other semi nomadic tribes settled there and mixed with the local populace.Greek became majority in thesally and epirus after relocations of greeks from anatolia under many emperors and especially Alexios komnenos.For the start culture is wrong in the Balkans not in Anatolia where minor changes would need to be made
Very cool video! I imagine that the point about the feudal system not applying to the Byzantines could also apply to plenty of other places too, I know in Wales for example that this system barely worked in the way it’s portrayed in game.
really is kinda embarassing that we're more than 2 and half years out and the byzantines still dont have any unique mechanics or systems to represent their historical siutuation despite that previously being the case in ck2 already
Well as a greek I agree that first the culture map in ck3 is incorrect and there are some mods that help with that my personal biggest problem with the culture map is that we don’t have vlachs or aromanians in the pindus and in Thessaly as a aromanian myself that my bias I guess second the pronunciation of the themes (θέματα or themata in greek) first it’s Optimati or optimaton (οπτιματον) opsikion is correct (οψικιον) Anatolic or anatolia (the East in greek ) kapadokia , sevastia the rest is correct and I guess you forgot paflagonia or paphlagonia also basilios is more accurately translated into king and basilica as queen we still call a king vasilia or basilios also there are a lot of times when people that had themata became emperors a lot of Byzantine dynasty’s started that way and at last you didn’t mention the Komnenos dynasty that are present in 1066 and will become the emperors in the future also I think Alexios Komnenos or Alexios the 2 is alive in 1066
Mate I agree with you with the Vlah part as at one stage Thessaly was known as Μεγάλη Βλαχία. But the rest of what he says is all wrong. He says that iner asia minor should not be shown as Greek speaking which was wrong as up until Turkish invasions Asia Minor was Greek speaking. Also he says that south Italy should not be shown as Greek speaking which is wrong as their is records indicating that even as late as the 13th century South Italy was majorly Greek speaking and their are still some areas who speak Greek. Also he says that they should not show Greek culture in Crimea, which is wrong as Crimea had been Greek since ancient times and their was even a Greco Gothic state their till 1475 called Principality of Theodoro. Also that map he shows of Greek culture is wrong lol thats not Byzantine culture map that map is post Turkish invasions and closer to the 20th century ethnic map.And the map kind of looks link it is alighning some of the Greek culture with modern Greek borders
The idea that "the culture of the Byzantine empire was very different than the Roman empire" is a bit misleading, as it's comparing periods of history, not different civilizations or cultures. For example, was the culture of the Romans in old Rome significantly different from the culture of Constantinople in the year 800? The culture of the Byzantine empire in the 5th or 6th century was in keeping with, and an organic continuation of Roman culture of the 4th or 3rd centuries. The culture of the 7th or 8th century Byzantines was in-keeping with their culture of the 5th and 6th. And Byzantine culture in the 9th and 10th centuries is in keeping with their culture during 7th and 8th, and so on it goes backward or forward in time. We're talking about the evolution of a culture and civilization, not a sudden rupture or departure. In say... the 9th or 10th century, many of the offices of the bureaucracy, government, positions and titles, ranks, etc, dated all the way back to classical times, and not just the titles of "Augustus" and "Caesar," but from top to bottom of the state apparatus. The emperor Basil II(who died in 1025) had made a decree that the wealthy dynatoi of Anatolia needed to prove ancestral ownership of their immense estates as far back as the reign of Augustus. Constantinople was founded as a Latin speaking city, and conversely, Greek was very common in Rome. They were sister capitals of the same polity; and their cultures remained rather compatible during the early middle ages, and even after Rome became independent of New Rome(around 750-800). Latin was gradually marginalized in the east between 500-1000, and the same happened to Greek in the west, but one place medieval scholars could go in western Europe to learn Greek was actually Rome.
I think the Dutchy problem is because they forgot to port the theme system from CK 2. While the theme system from CK 2 wasn't perfect, you did actually appoint who would control the theme (or dutchy) until the Strategos would die and then come back to you as a ruler. When you got bigger, you could grant Kingdom sized titles under similar conditions called Exarchs and the state being an Exarchate. I employed this system to actually keep a super roman empire together. Dutchies were left untouched but the Exarchates were granted by the emperor. So I had mega-confederations (at the size of three empires) as to keep an area more united and less likely to fight the emperor directly. One of them was called the "Western Confederation" which packed Hispania, Britannia and Francia in one state under the Roman Empire. The African Confederation being another. The latest I had was the Indian Confederation which covered most of Northern India and later Tibet. I never got around to taking over the Chinese throne. All I gotta say is the system of confederations was pretty cool as a means to control so much land without having non-stop civil wars. Add in that I eventually revived ancient Hellenic Paganism and made the religion cosmopolitan which resulted in an empire where multiple religions actually co-existed and the religion mechanic in CK 2 was essentially made irrelevant. Tolerance and relations between the pagans, muslims and christians ended up pretty smooth by the end of the run. The Patriarch, Pope and Caliph were all subjects to the Pontifex Maximus Emperor. Christian, Muslim and any other religious ruler were left be as the Exarchate system ensured that no matter their religion, they would be loyal to the emperor.
@History in Bits Yeah. I think we'll either see a return of the CK 2 style system or they'll work in a new senate mechanic with noble houses that don't own land directly but are given the theme or governorship from the emperor. From that, I think scheming to overthrow the empire can be done, but it shouldn't be easy as pie. It should be done when the chance is right... E.g. being a good commander was how some emperors came to power.
@@historyinbits The emperors before Basil took power are great examples of people taking advantage of their station. Not a coalition of feudal lords overthrowing the emperor.
@@rishavkumar1250 There are numerous ways. You can start in the Charlemagne bookmark as a Hellenic county in the south of Greece and just try to revive it from there or... When you bring back the Roman Empire and you have the Holy Fury DLC, you get the option to bring back Hellenism and reform it. You can also secretly convert to Hellenism using one of the Hellenic holy sites and make a secret society, then convert a good deal of people all of a sudden. Like even having counties convert with you. The Roman Empire route is the best, but expect a civil war against the christian lords still around. I won it every time. You can decide the nature of Reformed Hellenism, personally I went with Cosmopolitan. I expanded and ruled over numerous christians, muslims and other religions with very few rebellions. It was truly like the Roman Empire. Religion kinda became irrelevant when you have the Cosmopolitan trait. I also had the ability to develop sympathy for a religion, because of what I picked with Hellenism. It allowed it to be a very strong faith. So Christian rebellions or Muslim rebellions were less common. I also had the Caliph, Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch as subjects of the empire. All faiths, reported in to the emperor.
4:20 But these are not examples of inaccuracies, though: Crimea had significant Greek settlements through very large parts of history and even today Ukraine has a significant Greek minority. The same goes for Southern Italy that was originally called "Magna Graecia" or "Great Greece" and still has a Greek speaking minority today and likely a much more significant Greek population in 1066. There also should not be a significant Turkish minority in 1066 as you suggest as they would, with the Seljuks, arrive later (if the Byzantines lose the starting war).
To be fair to Naples, it was originally a Greek colony ("Neapolis") in ancient times. However I myself have like, literally no idea what the actual culture of the area was like back then.
Yes, the fact that the duke there had greek ancestry points to that. However, that the local population stressed the fact he was greek (el greco) points to the local population not being majority greek anymore
@@historyinbits Yes I agree though that leaves a peculiar question in regards to what the province culture should be. "Italian" didn't really exist yet, and the region had evaded conquest from the Lombards. Should it be depicted as one of the final remnants of the "Roman" culture? That would be quite interesting.
Hey, great video as always. Have you even heard of the mod "The Fallen Eagle"? small disclaimer Im part of the TFE team but a review of our portrayal of our Byzantine/Roman Empire would be very cool :)
One thing I noticed a few years ago about the history here is that this time period from Basil II’s reconquests onward showed an interesting trend where some themes that were previously under constant threat from mostly Arab or Slavic (‘Rus) raiders had been converted into civilian administrations under “krites” instead of strategoi, doux, or katepanos.
Kinda passed over the Komnenoi chads Btw is the representation of the byzzies a bit better in Ck2 in which they’re an elective monarchy whose electors beside some powerful council vassals also has your chosen generals? Imo idk how would a totally historically accurate Byzantine system would work on a gameplay perspective, it would make playing as a vassal practically imposible without having the objective of becoming the emperor in a single generation.
The Byzantines in CK2 don't start as an Elective Monarchy, they start as Primogeniture. They do start at empire level with the ability to appoint non inheritable viceroy vassals though
@@Rynewulf The game was updated since then. If you played CK2 now. Both commanders and powerful vassals get votes which are weighted based on things like their prestige, intrigue and martial. The emperor also gets a vote which can be raised by if he was born in the purple or lowered if he appoints sycophants as commanders for example.
@@chrisarol8934 Thats council votes for laws isnt it? Im up to date on the dlc and its been untouched by the devs for a while, im pretty sure its primogeniture and the heir apparent being the eldest male relative with the 'born in the purple' trait. And I cant find any wikis or videos of the change you describe, you sure its not a mod or another mechanic? Normally electoral votes like the HRE starts with for example are weighted by rank, not by stats. Even tanistry does it by rank
@@chrisarol8934 Thats council votes for laws isnt it? Im up to date on the dlc and its been untouched by the devs for a while, im pretty sure its primogeniture and the heir apparent being the eldest male relative with the 'born in the purple' trait. And I cant find any wikis or videos of the change you describe, you sure its not a mod or another mechanic? Normally electoral votes like the HRE starts with for example are weighted by rank, not by stats. Even tanistry does it by rank
-the byzantine empire *was* continuously called the roman empire (as its surviving half) and was acknowledged as such by western germanic-ruled kingdoms until some time from justinian's invasion of italy and charlemagne's coronation as emperor. as for the greek culture of this empire, this was not an aberration from the earlier roman empire, but more just an escalation of the existing usage of greek as a language of learned elites across the whole roman world, and as the lingua franca *instead of latin* in most of the already-hellenized roman east. the rest of the cultures in regular contact with constantinople, or at least the ones who were aware of the earlier roman empire, also saw no distinction between the former and latter periods. you have to remember these people were at best only dimly aware of historical events taking place in past centuries: to the vast majority of the population, there were no other romans besides the ones who we would call greek, and the evidence to the contrary were laboriously excavated to ideologically justify the HRE and the papacy. -the hellenization of anatolia as seen on the map is correct for the period: the anatolian languages were extinct by the 5th century CE, and inner anatolia would only lose its greek-speaking character after turkic incursions in the later 11th century.
The culture w of Byzantine Anatolia was Greek in that periodand the territorial losses in Anatolia and the full loss of Italy happened during his successors. The theme system was in decline in the period and by the end of the period , it introduced feudal elements. As for the infighting, the central authority literally collapsed between 1071 and 1081.
I think it bears considering that the Byzantines being "culturally different" to ancient Romans doesn't make their claim to Roman-ness less valid. After all, Romans of Augustus' time were already very culturally different to those of the city's founding, with a totally different government, styles of dress, cultural imports from Carthage, Gaul, Iberia, Greece and more, and even different naming systems. The people of Greece and Anatolia had been Romans for many centuries while the western empire still existed, and nothing magically changed when it fell to make them stop being Romans. In any case, I think Paradox using the Theme system as a foundation for in-game duchies isn't an oversight so much as a limitation of the game engine as it stands. They designed a basic set of mechanics around 11th century feudalism, and this is the closest equivalent they can latch onto. The designers have talked about knowing the discrepancy in interviews (as you'd expect, since there are somewhat more accurate mechanics in CK2 as of its expansions). I agree it makes it dissonant to play as and makes me less inclined to play as them compared to in 2, though.
I feel like the best way to portray the Byzantine Empire is very different from Feudalism. The different Aristocratic clans called Dynatoi, didn't rule hereditary provinces, but they owned vast tracts of land and did monopolize positions in government including the themes. At one point, two noble families had their members basically governing every single theme in Anatolia. So it may be accurate to protray noble aristocratic clans where the dynasty head owns several powerful character modifiers to represent the estates of the clan, while the clan itself has good modifiers to represent this as well. Meanwhile, the more members of the clan that rule counties and themes, the more power and abilities members of that clan may have, power they can use for the empire's benefit or not. Meanwhile, the ability for generals and governors to revolt and seize the empire is accurate, so revolting a pressing a claim to the empire is alright. However, it is also very frequent where an emperors child didn't inherit after their father and instead a palace coup or maneuvering caused someone else to be crowned emperor, like what happened to Romanos IV. So the imperial elective system of CK2 might be a good system for that. Meanwhile, the governors should most definitely not be allowed to attack one another, as that would just be a revolt against the central government, though it is accurate that many rebellions were only done by a single theme. Meanwhile the system of Tagmata isn't too hard to portray, as those were just the Emperor's personal troops. Although I would also consider some special mercenary abilities of the empire, as the empire did frequently use mercenaries, for better or worse. The diarchy system can probably be used for high administrative positions as well, and court positions should be very common and powerful as well as helpful for the Byzantines.
It’s pretty interesting how the ai usually does as Byzantium because usually for me they take a lot of North Africa but not Egypt,then after a failed crusade they take back Syria but lose Anatolian land.
4:15 no it doesn't. In fact there are STILL Greeks in Crimea,Russia and Ukraine in the hundreds of thousands and during Byzantine times,yes the Greeks were a majority in inter Anatolia too. They also made pluralities minorities or sometimes majorities in ares of Egypt and the Levant too. Greek culture isn't over-represented in game,it's just historically accurate Edit:Forgot to talk about Italy where there are still tens(some estimates even say 200k)of thousands of Greeks even today. A place that had been colonized by the ancient Greeks and used to be a Greek and Greek Orthodox majority area for many many centuries. Btw Southern Italians of today have more Greek DNA than they have Latin for that exact reason
Im pretty sure you can also find the komnenos dynasty is 1066 bizantine empire A very important historical character when talking about the crusades taking into account the fact that it was kinda alexios komnenos who asked the pope for the first crusade
No, he sent a request out to the Pope for Western mercenaries - the Pope reinterpreted that for his own interests to mean a holy crusade. Crusades were never a thing in Orthodox religious thinking. While the West and Islam developed those concepts the Orthodoxy of Rome was essentially as anti-war as an Imperial state could reasonably be.
It would be cool to have an imperial government type that allows for checkbox that allows for the return of the "possesed" land to be return to the emperor upon the death of its ruler or that automatically grants it to a character depending on the pareters chose by the emperor(pious people or people of the same dynasty as the previous ruler or people of the emperor's dynasty etc). And feudal rulers could change to it if they have maximum crown attority and the approval of strong vassal( of course, most vassal would rebel, making it a very important point in the campaign if the player desires it)
What are you talking about dude? Draw a line from the gulf of Alexandretta to a point on the Black Sea coast some distance east of Trebizond and be assured that the overwhelmingly preponderant language of Anatolia west of that line was Greek in 1066 AD. Inner Anatolia included Cappadocia one of the heartlands of the Empire where Greek was spoken. Incidentally there was still considerable Greek remnants in southern Italy at the time. In fact southern Italy and western Sicily were likely to have been primarily Greek speaking well into the 12th century AD.
Feels like the centralisation problem could be fixed with just locking so the feudal lord’s successor has to be the emperor, and starting with the highest crown authority
CK2 had such a feature, it was called Viceroyalties and the Byzantines started off with it. It's insane how CK3 still doesn't include that after three years.
One thing to add will be the conquest of Bulgaria. It is said that after the conquest, the emperor gave titles the then bulgarian nobility in the armenian heartland with the idea to remove any idea of a bulgarian uprisings in the future.
Bulgaria itself is very poorly represented . While the kings and titles in the early start are correct the form of governance and the main problem during that exact time-christianization . Is very misrepresented . The king "Boris" is canonically recognized as a saint here. His main wish historically was to adopt Christianity to assimilate Slavs and Bolghars into one identity . In game it's presented as a monolithic culture . His first son was executed for dysobeying his father and his third son became the actual ruler . The funding of the Cyrillic alphabet was again to establish that singular culture -bulgarian as well as easier rulership of the Balkans . The whole dinasty is not called Balgarsko .
Very niche request but id love a video on what is known about the old Basque religion you can form. There doesnt seem to be a lot of info on it so it would be cool to see what is actually supported vs what was guessed/favricated by Paradox to fill in the blanks
and dont forget the parania was a garanting the tax income or part of it and not only was the land not owned they had no authority over it exept the collection of certain taxes or recieving them as anuity or pension or salary
I don´t think PDX overlooked that their duchies are in fact more like modern gouvernantes. It´s just a simplification. Like it is a simplification (in my opinion so simplified that it´s just wrong) to call all of Europe feudal and even give all of Europe a feudal structure with counts, dukes and kings. Even in the most "feudal" realms like France or Germany there was nearly never a time or place that was like that.
I would like a "heal the schism" mechanic to reuinte the empire through herculean effort, causing either the HRE or Byzantines being absorbed by and taking on the government type of the one that triggers the event.
From memory I do recall the Schism coming close to being healed in the 14th and 15th centuries as the end approached and Rome appealed for aid in the West.
Basileus is pronounced vasilefs On another note, the byzantines are unquestionably the continuation of the roman empire. Yes it was quite different a place by 1066, but it got there slowly through centuries of reform. In the 500s, after the western half of the empire faded away, the east retained the exact same political system for a good 300 years. It only really started becoming noticeably different by the late 800s, and even up to the 4th crusade in the 1200s, the state was still structured around a coin economy, unlike western europe whose feudal states were based on land holdings of individuals. The rich and powerful in the byzantine world still were seen as mere state officials like it had been since classical times, we even get nods to this from the writings of crusaders who visited, as they were apalled that commoners in Constantinople would heckle the emperor if they disagreed with him, indeed that disagreeing with the emperor was permissible at all was a foreign idea to them.
For the culture of the byzantine empire while yes it wasn't as greek as shown in the game it wasn't as small as the picture you show in the video. That photo depicts greeks in the 19th century after all the killings and displacements of the ottomans. The Greek mainland was mostly dominated by Greeks and so was the whole coast of Anatolia. As for the interior of it it was again mostly greek majority or if you'd like the Greek culture domitaned there and it only stared to fade away after the incursion of the Seljuks into Anatolia. Finally Crimea was indeed mostly inhabited by goths and the Balkans by the 11th century had the Illyrians almost completely gone so it only makes sense to have the Bulgars as the dominant non greek culture in the Balkans. As for south Italy if you exclude Naples where you are completely right the two other majority greek regions are I believe semi reasonable since there is still a significant Greek prenecne there and has been since the ancient greek first colonized south Italy (magna grecia)
One little nitpick. Southern Crimea being Greek is accurate. While there were Tatars there, they were on the northern plains. And while there were goths there, there were only very few. The main part of the population in the south was Greek. Indeed that population of Crimean Greeks with their own unique dialect of Greek still exists today, though they were moved into what is now the Donbass by the Russians in the 18th century. I believe there were about 90k-100k ethnic Greeks in Ukraine and Russia as of last count
and in the byzatine empire all classes paid taxes and the nobility paid more this is why even the rich nobility worked in the army since they where even responsible to pay their pessant taxes if they earned less than a certain income as well as naboring farmers
Great video! I really hope there's a major revamp of the Byzantine Empire as an expansion/update. I think as part of that, if your capital is in Constantinople, you should have a major "Hostile Scheme Success Chance" buff and a significant "Hostile Resistance Chance" penalty. Would make things spicy as apparently the Imperial Court was in History. The game could even assign those buffs and penalties to *any* courtier or guest in Constantinople. No royal court was more "intriguing" than Constantinople! ^_^
Also as some other changes they should: - Remove Indulgences from the Orthodox Religion (Even if bribes happened, it was no where near a formalized institution like it was in Roman Catholicism) - Allow you to imprison/exile the Patriarch of Constantinople (as happened so often). Also would be cool if you could somehow pressure the Patriarch to boost your General Opinion either by a carrot or a stick. - Remove the option to grant land to the Patriarch of Constantinople (the Orthodox religion forbids clergy from being temporal/political rulers) - Would be nice if you could unlock a casus belli to reclaim lands under Justinian or something like that.
ALSO, the Great Schism should be major event that captures the player's attention in 1054. Yeah yeah, the Great Schism did not mean in that year what it means to us today, but with how poorly Paradox represents Orthodoxy, I'm not sure they would know that anyways. But it is weird to play in 866 with two clearly distinct and "astray" religions of Catholic and Orthodox and play right on through to the 2nd millennium with absolutely nothing changing. Would be interesting if at 1054, the game would automatically make historical nations switch to the historical choice *if* the borders and cultures are still the same (but suppose you married your zealous Greek brother to the Queen of England... lots of cool alternate history stuff that could happen)
CK2 took a long time, but eneded up with a good version of the byzantine government. Titles are not hereditary, the succession is murky, and its all about the court titles, the intrigue and bribes, and if you breathe the wrong way the empire will just dethrone you and place someone else
The fact that Southern Italy is shown as partly Greek in culture isn't absurd at all. While yes, people had been migrating and moving around constantly, the majority were indeed Greek in the areas portrayed in-game. This has been the case since the antiquity when the cities were founded by Greek colonists and to some extent remains so even today. If you're interested, you should look up information about the current Greek settlements in Rheggio Di Calabria.
In regards to the cultures, if you truly are a history nerd, then you’d know that the Assyrians and Arabs were never a significant part of the empire and were usually situated on the frontier in the east and usually on the non Roman side of the frontier, also if you’re pissed that Thracians don’t exist, you can thank the irl Bulgarians that exterminated them, also that brings us to the Bulgarians which are part of the empire in 1066 and are just north of it in 867 if your pissed about the Illyrians not being around, you can again thank another invading people irl called the Slavs, which exterminated them much earlier than even the Thracians were wiped out, which brings us to the Slavs, who are in fact part of the empire but on the north western Balkan frontier and usually on the non Roman side of it, this is because much like real life the Roman’s in CK3 try to keep all invading and non Roman people out of their empire, meaning the Arabs Bulgarians Slavs assyrians and others, however the Arminians have always had good relations with the Roman’s and thus are a bigger part of the empire and it’s culture, also because Basil the vulgar slayer subjugated them (or was it one of his successors?). Anyway getting back to the cultures, the goths stopped being a thing the minute they became the Ostrogoths and the visigoths and this happened while the western empire was still around so way way way before the ck3 start dates, you can still find some Visigoths in Iberia in 867 but that’s about it since that culture had largely died offa be splintered into the other Christian cultures of Iberia, the Ostrogoths were unfortunately wiped out by both the Roman’s with a Belisarius and by the Lombards right after, as for the Khazars, yes they had a few alliances with the Byzantines historically but were never settled in the imperial lands, and the same can be said about the Turks, but in regards to the Turks, they were especially feared and kept out of all imperial lands whenever possible but all this happened after the 1070’s so not during the ck3 start date in 1066
i am more of an EU4 player myself, and smth that i've noticed there in the Extended Timeline mod as well as here in CK3 was that in 1066, the romans have no holdings in Italy anymore. pretty sure they lose their last fort there in 1071(Bari, i think) just a bit before the infamous battle at Mazikert. why isn't Bari appearing in "byzantine" hands in either game? also... while i do get feudalism somewhat... i really am ignorant in how the romans managed their lands(till 1204, since whatever came after was virtually feudal till 1453). i wish i knew how their political system worked, how and why generals rebelled, and most importantly... court intrigues. where can i find books with these? i only hear/read that at one random point a general decided to rebel. why? idk. or that an emperor was assassinated by someone, even though he ruled well. why? idk. my mind simply cannot understand how the romans lived for so long with such issues in their state management. and how could they had fix(grammar be damned) their inheritance system? or rather... why the west had one and accepted it, and the romans did not? plenty of emperors made their sons co-emperors, yet it was a very unstable transition of power many times. P.S. love how the map looks in CK3. and how the empire is mapped in districts, provinces and such. much better imho compared to how eu4 shows.
My main issue with it’s representation in game is the fact that they didn’t make a different government type for the Byzantines when they already did in ck2, I think currently they have made a new gov type called administrative for the up coming doc but come on would it have been that hard to just have it in game upon release
Ck2 did a better job at portraying the system of non hereditary rule in duchy equivalents. You could had out Themes that were non hereditary and caused no penalty to revoke. Every feudal vassal of yours would have a negative opinion based of how many Themes you had.
I think the Byzantine's should have a professional army instead of levies. The army would be stronger, but it would also have a passive maintenance cost. If nothing else, they could simply increase the amount and size of men-at-arms regiments and decrease the amount of levies for Byzantines. That would be a great way of balancing out the more centralized government system, which would give the Emperor a larger percentage of tax revenue than feudal lords.
For people who lived in the Byzantine Empire not much has changed as Western Rome became defunct. To them they’ve always been Roman and continue to be, unless they have specific interests that necessitated frequent travels to the city of Rome they might even think that being Roman means being Greek!
Within the mechanics of the game is probably difficult to represent the empire accurately without making it too easy. With high crown authority, viceroyalty, standing army and lots of money you can easily exploit the position. In CK2 the imperial system in a way was fixed the (ruined someone says) forcing you to pick your generals among your nobles only basically mimicking the thematic system, and forcing an elective system because overall the roman/byzantine empire was never purely hereditary. Culturewise, yes there was a lot of "greek" in the beginning especially, like in southern Italy that didn't truly latinize if not after the Norman conquest, so I would not really consider that a mistake.
Some points of interest. 1) the Eastern regions (and basically all of Anatolia) was lost to the Seljuk Turks by Romanos IV, not Constantine X. 2) One of the possible explanations for the low crown authority could stem from the history of the themes themselves: Initially, there were only 5 themes (approximately the size of the kingdoms inside the Byzantine Empire at the 1066 start date, although I can't speak for the accuracy of the borders off-hand). As the strategoi (who were both the provincial governor of a theme as well as the commander of the theme's military forces) proved incredibly powerful and rebellious, emperors often found themselves either giving concessions to the strategoi as well as breaking the themes up into smaller provinces that would be unable to challenge imperial authority alone. This also led to the creation of an imperial field army, but that's described later. 3) Pronoia was a reform that came from Alexios I after the theme system collapsed and - to put it in Paradox gaming terms - the main imperial army, the imperial tagmata...which would basically included the Scholae Palatinae, Varangian Guard (both of which are shown as mercenary companies in CK2 and 3), and all the emperor's Men-at-Arms regiments, was stack wiped at Manzikert in 1071 with Romanos IV captured. The pronoia system was a way to raise troops (local and foreign) without having to directly pay for their military service. Some ways I think the Byzantine military could be improved would be to replace the levies with strateia (a term for the soldier-farmers that were given hereditary farmlands in exchange for military service...the farms were meant to fund and provide for a stratiot's training, arms, armor, and horse). Personally, I'd give the strateia a minor stat boost over basic levies. I'd also give the Byzantines (except for the emperor) a much lower limit on MAA regiments (maybe 1 for a count, 3 for a duke, 5 for a king, and the normal number for the emperor). Additionally, let the Byzantines get an option for implementing the pronoia system, which removes the entire system outlined here (allowing the emperors to save more money from having to carry the empire military). That's my spitball idea though. Someone else will need to tell me their thoughts on it. Additionally, I'd bring back the viceroyalty system from CK2, since that offered Byzantine emperors MUCH more control and influence over the vassals than ANY other monarch at the time, picking and choosing who moves up in the world at court and who is pushed down the ranks. If you do a part 2, I'd recommend mentioning the houses of Komnenos (obviously), Angelos, and Palaiologos. I can't remember any Laskaris house in the 1066 start date, but I do know there's a Bryennios, which did have considerable influence in the empire. For a separate episode, can you do the Kievan Rus?
Very good video, i would hope for a rework of the vassal system within the Empire. Although i was hoping you would at least spend some time on the Byzantines in 867 considering that the Emperor Basileos I isn't supposed to be the Emperor until a full year later when he kills Michael III.
Optimatoi is actually pronounced Optimatee. essentialy, in greek when Ο is followed by I then the 2 letters together "oi" are pronounced as an "e". Bucellarians would be pronounced more like Bukelarians, with a hard C, like a K. Same for cibyrrhaeots, the C would be pronounced as K. Chaldia would be haldia, but with a bit of a pronounciation I can't properly explain here. That Ch couldn't be represented better in english. In greek, the letter Χ is pronounced "hee" (you can google the sound if it doesn't make sense), and Chaldia in greek would be Χαλδια, with an "X". Any I didn't mention you pronounced correctly. Honorable mention of sebastea which you pronounced correctly but the intonation should be on the last e, so SebastEa. This word actually comes from the greek word Σεβασμός, which means respect. Sebastea would be how they would call a "respectable woman" back then. EDIT: Same for the word "PRONOIA", like optimatoi, you'd pronounce it pronea. This word actually means "forethought", however in modern greek and I assume back then too, when we talk about "pronoia" we mean the sum of systems the state uses to support the inhabitants, so the health system, the help for the poor and needy, help with finding work, help for orphan children etc.
Something I personally feel weird about in CK3s Byzantium is the claims you get from the Pope/patriarch. In the game your religious head (at least if you are Catholic or Orthodox) can sell claims to titles owned by sinful lords to pious lords for piety. The pope can hand out these claims if the owner is sinful, like a murderer or a fornicator but also if the ruler is a child or a woman. Which is a bit weird. It's even weirder when the Orthodox patriarch, which is supposed to be beneath the Emperor is handling out claims to provinces to other provincial rulers without the Emperor having a say. I think a better way to have this system would be to have the Emperor capable of getting legal revocation claims with patriarchal support instead of other vassals buying them.
The only parts that would not, perhaps, be majority Greek would be the inner Anatolian lands, with the entire coast of Anatolia remaining Greek. The rest as I see it is quite accurate.
The Anatolian Interior was definitely made up entirely of Greek and Armenian speakers by this point. The last native Anatolian language went extinct around the 6th Century AD.
And Ofcourse NO ONE speaks about the post 1204 transformation!!!After 1204 they identify themselves as Greeks, because of the Nicean Laskarids who used to call their dominion "Hellas". Read Niketas Choniates, a contemporary scholar of the time.
thematic troops paid less tax as they didnt pay the military tax since they where sopposed to theoraticly use it to equipt themselves as well as train themselves and maintain their equiptment
Medieval Rome wasn't a descendant of the Romans, it was Rome. Using language like "they saw themselves as Rome" is condescending. Also John Haldon argues that by 1066 the Theme system had broken down as the Empire went on the offensive. Anyway, Thematic organisation isn't equivalent to Feudalism, it's something else entirely. A product of Rome's extreme centralisation. Pronoia played a part but really wasn't widely used. What existed in Medieval Rome wasn't replicated until The Sun King. And Anatolia was heavily Greek. So Greek in fact that over the centuries Emperors transplanted the Greek population to Greece in order to de-Slav the regions.
I could agree about cultural differences in Balkans and southern italy especially in Naples but i heavily disagree about the greek culture of anatolia. during the 10th century the region was heavily Hellenised and only the eastern themes started to get armenian refugees due to nomad invasions of turkish tribes still crimea should have its own culture group as it has nomad Slavic gothic and freek influence at this time. Still i am greek and most sources are mostly greek so if im on the wrong id like to gear a different opinion
The most annoying thing is that you did not say and did not note that the borders in Southern Italy are wrong. By 1066, under the control of the Byzantines, Bari, Lecce, Otranto and a couple more cities of Apulia were separating. These territories would not be captured until 1071, the same year that Roman Diogenes suffered a crushing defeat at Manzikert.
If the hinted expansion will be anything like the CK2 one then there will be some things but the fundamental issues with the presentation of the political system will remain because changing that would require a big rework for just one realm.
When the crusaders reached Antioch in 1098AD they had Bohemond to climb the walls and come into secret talks because he knew fluent Greek. Why he knew fluent Greek and used them in Anatolian Antioch? Because he was the ruler of the Greek speaking Southern Italy. Read history before you make a video about history.
We originally included Nikephoros Basilakes and Alexios Komnenos as well in the first script, however somehow they got lost in the course of our production process. Sorry to everyone who misses these great characters in the video, we’ll review our process to make sure this does not happen again. To see what we had to say about them, you are welcome to join our discord :)
I think they should call the empire Eastern Roman Empire. Just because they saw themselves as Rome. If you play as them make your vassals all have high martial skill.
I mean the fact the lords rebel every 5 seconds is pretty accurate
Bruh these fuckers rebel against me even when I can't modify their contract anymore. It's like *dawg your literally except from taxes and levies and your still gonna rebel?!* 💀
Not as much as it seems. Byzantine revolts were almost always bids for the throne, rather that the far more diverse forms of inter kingdom warfare in the West.
That’s only because you ain’t paying the factions off. Get the “Thoughtful” diplomacy trait and pay the most powerful lords in a faction gold. Marry your kids off to them when you don’t have any money. And don’t start any wars right at the start of your reign, you gotta get your kingdom in order first
@@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump Sure, but by the second Chapter of The Alexiad, there's already been three civil wars and two barbarian invasions, so in those periods of instability, it was an all-out clusterfuck
Nah its not that bad, you have to be good at vassal management 😂
Actually, you're mistaken about the extent of Greek culture. Inner Anatolia *was*, in fact, purely Greek-speaking by this point. The last of the native Anatolian languages had died out centuries earlier. While during the Classical and Archaic Greek era only the Anatolian coastline was settled by Greeks, during the Hellenistic and Roman eras (~300 BC to 600 AD) the Greek language gradually became predominant in *all* of Anatolia, save for the Armenian-speaking lands in the very east. Crimea, too, had a long history of Greek settlement.
Ah, TH-cam's formatting messed up the text and made a bunch of it bold... Oh well.
Language and culture are different in the game
During this period there had already been significant settlement by Turkic tribes, as well as immigration by Armenian noble families so it still wouldn't be accurate to portray inner Anatolia as purely Greek speaking. Though this raises another more general issue with the game and that is that making a one to one equivalency between language and culture in this period makes little sense. Firstly it obviously makes no sense to call a group that considered themselves Roman, Greek, but also people didn't necessarily identify based on their primary language. Armenian nobles often did speak Greek even as their primary language but they generally considered themselves Armenian, similarly you could also find speakers of other languages who still considered themselves Roman. Venice still technically considered itself an Eastern Roman vassal at this point and did clearly import a lot of culture, Venitian merchant families liked to pride themselves on having various Roman titles.
@@hedgehog3180 Ummm no.
@@hedgehog3180Court language and culture are two different things in ck3 my man
They should add a Bureaucratic government system, like what you see in the Fallen Eagle mod.
Absolutely!
There is a Government+ mod including the same bureacratic government from Fallen Eagle.
Ck2 had a similar idea as it added an "Imperial" government type that was exclusive to the Byzantines. I wonder why CK3 doesn't have anything like that?
@@philthephilosopher9235 Because Paradox prefer shekels over doing decent games
@@philthephilosopher9235 dude why would you not go with philtheosopher
Really glad that Eastern Romans are getting an entire expansion considering their portrayal is one of the most inaccurate in the game.
Sadly it won’t be this year haha
I do hope it’s a full expansion that brings a bunch of new mechanics rather related to imperial rule rather than a lone mechanic the flavor packs seem to be doing.
@@louispalermo9975 It wouldn't surprise me if it comes out next year. Since we're getting a flavor pack focused on Persia and possibly west Asia as a whole, it would be perfect to follow it up with a rework of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Hope they do so for the other Eastern European States. Its neighbour - Bulgaria is like some feudal western realm instead of a centralised steppe-descendent empire and falls apart every time a leader dies. The amount of times I've seen Bolghar Wallachia pop up.
@@h3nder Well, it had to come right after the Persia flavour pack. I am sure the Byzantine DLC will focus on it's wars with the Arabs, Persians and Seljuks.
@@zshivkonezshivkov380 bc the heir is tengri and usually plunges the country into a civil war
I will point out that Greek culture being present in Italy is actually quite accurate, as at the time of the Normans' late medieval conquest of southern Italy and Sicily (in the late 12th century), the Salento peninsula (the "heel" of Italy), up to one-third of Sicily (concentrated in the Val Demone), and much of Calabria and Lucania were still largely Greek-speaking.
You are right that there was still a significant Greek minority in medieval Southern Italy!
@@historyinbits There is still a Greek minority even today, around 40,000 Greek speakers.
According to a PhD in linguistics Quora poster, Calabrian Griko is a lot more archaic, and Salentino Griko dialect is closer to medieval Greek.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griko_language
Also, Naples specifically was majority Greek speaking straight through the classical Roman period, even though they had become full Romans in the early 1st century bc. This wasn't the case with many other Italic or Etruscan cities who became Roman citizens at the same time.
During late antiquity and the early middle ages, Naples had become predominantly Latin speaking. They didn't switch languages. They had both, and one fell into disuse. Places like Naples and Venice had a very Byzantine culture, even though they spoke Latin, and even long after they became independent. You might even say the same is true for the Papal states and other parts of Italy during that era.
Looks like the creator has no idea what he is talking about in this video. Sad
When the crusaders reached Antioch in 1098AD they had Bohemond to climb the walls and come into secret talks because he knew fluent Greek. Why he knew fluent Greek and used them in Anatolian Antioch? Because he was the ruler of the Greek speaking Southern Italy.
as a cultural heritage student at University of Gothenburg specifically interested in eastern Roman society and culture I feel the need to say that even though distinct from the Latin Roman culture, the eastern Roman culture was far more similar to the Latin roman culture than it was to the Hellenic Greek culture. There still lived people who called themselves Hellenes (Hellenic Greeks) but were distinctly different from the majority Greek speaking Roman. The Greek speaking Romans were more similar to their Latin counterparts than the Latins were to their own culture just some 100 years before them. During the time when the Western and Eastern Roman empire still existed together and even some time before, people started referring to both the Latin and the Greek speaking people as just Romans sense their culture had blended to the point where the major difference between them were their mother tongue. A culture is not just defined from what's the most common language. The video was great I just wanted to clarify some things.
Thank you for this valuable input 🙏
hey Nemo, I'm also a history student and I am interested in the society and culture of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire. I will soon have to write my thesis so could you please give me some sources? Thank you in advance
@@jan7982 He will not help you because he is lying.
@@007Hutchings mmmyeah, I figured. Never in my time as a History student, have I heard the information the guy gave so I was curious what his sources were
Indeed, and they also referred to their language (what we call Medieval Greek) as "Romaika", Roman. So they didn't speak Greek, they spoke Roman.
What's your source on Inner Anatolia, Crimea and Southern Italy not being Greek exactly?
The maps you show are misleading since they show either the distribution of Greeks in the 5th Century B.C, or the historical distribution after the 13th Century, none of which apply to 1066.
Infact, given the empire's history of repopulating desolate areas in the Balkans with Greeks from Anatolia, I think it would be safe to say there were more Greeks in Anatolia than in Greece at this time.
Speaking specifically to Crimea, the area had actually been ruled for several centuries by a branch of the Gothic peoples. Hence why sometimes the Theme of Cherson is sometimes called “Gothia.” The people there were identified as Gothic as late as the 16th century and potentially lasted longer as well.
@@garrettfuhrman2549
Yeah, I know that was the case in inner Crimea, but I was always under the impression that the southern coast was Greek speaking, given it had been under Greek/Roman control for over a thousand years by this point.
@@marvelfannumber1 yes their was even a Greek state that survived in Crimea till 1475 called Principality of Theodoro.
@@garrettfuhrman2549 Yes but they assimilated to the Greek culture due to their being many Greeks their
@@DCCrisisclips, Theodoro was a Goth state
On CK2 some mods created a imperial government that tried to mimick the Roman empire administration, later paradox release their own version but it's kinda embarrassing they took that long to fix this and only released in their last expansion of the game
Hopefully it will come soon for ck3
@@historyinbits it won't m8, ck3 developers are lazy as all hell and they got no budget. Paradox only takes City Skylines and EU4 seriously
@@yuries19 Developers are not lazy, that is a terrible and ignorant take
@@yuries19 wtf are you talking about lol? Look at the new Dlc and the free update.
@@yuries19 They're not lazy, but they most definitely don't have any budget assigned to them. Paradox has to juggle HoI4, Cities Skylines, Stellaris, EU4, and Victoria 3 with their own updates, with arguably 4 out of 5 of those games has a bigger fanbase and community than CK3. Not to mention that they're also currently working on Cities Skylines 2. I doubt games like CK3 and Victoria 3 will get any huge attention for the time being
I think Nubia would be a cool place to look at. A Christian holdout that didn't fall to Islam into 1500s. I've always found playthoughs there really interesting because you have all Africa to your West, you aren't far from the Mediterranean but not that close either.
Interesting, will look into it!
nubia is weird
CK2 nubian always crush their neighbour even expanding to hejaz
CK3 they always get eaten, dunno if ajuuran existing has any to do with it
@@m.thorton9305 but if they are eaten its very rarely from Egypt.
On a semi-related note, Nubia makes a great place to move Vikings to. With long boats you can sail down the Nile and raid most of the Mediterranean. The only force that can really attack you is Egypt.
@@m.thorton9305 in ck3 they love joining byzantium somehow
@@m.thorton9305 I had a ck3 game that had Nubia eat Muslim Egypt, (I was Coptic Eygpt)
They weren't "the descendants" or "the continuation" they were the roman empire
That begs the question who the pope was/is? Because he held/holds the title of Pontifex maximus the most important religious title of ancient Rome and the middle ages was an undoubtedly highly religious period of Europe.
Whatever is left of them.
larp
@@olleani It just means "Top priest."
@@histguy101 Well technically it means "bridge-builder" and the point is that the top priest is the top priest in the middle ages so there is a question about authority and legacy.
I would be very interested to see how they go about representing an administrative empire like Byzantium in a game that is based on feudalism. Especially considering that CK3 is focused on family rule and governorships in Byzantium were normally nonhereditary.
That was our biggest issue with ck3’s portrayal
@@historyinbits They did it in crusader kings 2 with the byzantine expansion. It acts like you say. Upon death the duke title goes to the emperor. Its also easier to revoke the titles and stuff. I haven't played it in a bit but they have different expansions that give different governing styles for romans, pagan, viking, and muslim rulers. But before the expansions they all worked as feudal as feudal is the base system in the base game.
@@brennangum6236 Reminds me of Ck3 mod Fallen Eagle in the times of roman empire. Everytime kingdom-tier title owner dies you can choose whoever you want to grant it to
@@brennangum6236 In ck2 it is still incorrect but improved when compared to ck3
@@eLeft6 Why do you think they just left it as Feudal paradox very transparent on why the byzantium is the way that it is rn some devs are chomping at the bit to rework it but the higher ups haven't green lit it
Should definitely give them another look over when Roads to Power comes out next week, great video 👍🏻
Inland anatolia did have a majority greek population cuz under roman rule and under the greek kingdoms wich apeared from alexanders empire it got greekified
Anatolia had more Greeks than Greece itself, its unreasonable to call it non-Greek.
@@paulmayson3129 Yep, doesn't make sense to question that bit without saying what you think it was, because there was nothing. The original anatolian languages had been dead for 1000s of years. All that was left was Greek and Armenian.
I think you have something wrong, in ck3 culture portrays popular language which was in fact greek in almost all of anatolia. As far as inner anatolia we know for a fact that capadocia was greek. Almost all of the coastline and very much of inner anatolia was greek.The wrong was in the Balkans where greek is actually overrepresented. Slavs Bulgars ruman and other semi nomadic tribes settled there and mixed with the local populace.Greek became majority in thesally and epirus after relocations of greeks from anatolia under many emperors and especially Alexios komnenos.For the start culture is wrong in the Balkans not in Anatolia where minor changes would need to be made
Thank you for the feedback and valuable input
Very cool video! I imagine that the point about the feudal system not applying to the Byzantines could also apply to plenty of other places too, I know in Wales for example that this system barely worked in the way it’s portrayed in game.
Maybe we should do a video on Wales. Pronunciation would be quite a challenge though haha
@@historyinbits It’s not too hard with some practice, I’d be happy to help if you ever cover Wales!
really is kinda embarassing that we're more than 2 and half years out and the byzantines still dont have any unique mechanics or systems to represent their historical siutuation despite that previously being the case in ck2 already
West white like Hre more than ERE
How well it portrayed:
- Famously loyal to the emperor Varangian Guard can be hired by anyone with enough money
I guess that concludes it:)
Haha good point
Well as a greek I agree that first the culture map in ck3 is incorrect and there are some mods that help with that my personal biggest problem with the culture map is that we don’t have vlachs or aromanians in the pindus and in Thessaly as a aromanian myself that my bias I guess second the pronunciation of the themes (θέματα or themata in greek) first it’s Optimati or optimaton (οπτιματον) opsikion is correct (οψικιον) Anatolic or anatolia (the East in greek ) kapadokia , sevastia the rest is correct and I guess you forgot paflagonia or paphlagonia also basilios is more accurately translated into king and basilica as queen we still call a king vasilia or basilios also there are a lot of times when people that had themata became emperors a lot of Byzantine dynasty’s started that way and at last you didn’t mention the Komnenos dynasty that are present in 1066 and will become the emperors in the future also I think Alexios Komnenos or Alexios the 2 is alive in 1066
Thank you for the comprehensive feedback
What's the culture mod
@@Lp-army1 the 1337 mod and some other mods
@@greekandbulgariangamertv8633 k
Mate I agree with you with the Vlah part as at one stage Thessaly was known as Μεγάλη Βλαχία. But the rest of what he says is all wrong. He says that iner asia minor should not be shown as Greek speaking which was wrong as up until Turkish invasions Asia Minor was Greek speaking. Also he says that south Italy should not be shown as Greek speaking which is wrong as their is records indicating that even as late as the 13th century South Italy was majorly Greek speaking and their are still some areas who speak Greek. Also he says that they should not show Greek culture in Crimea, which is wrong as Crimea had been Greek since ancient times and their was even a Greco Gothic state their till 1475 called Principality of Theodoro.
Also that map he shows of Greek culture is wrong lol thats not Byzantine culture map that map is post Turkish invasions and closer to the 20th century ethnic map.And the map kind of looks link it is alighning some of the Greek culture with modern Greek borders
The idea that "the culture of the Byzantine empire was very different than the Roman empire" is a bit misleading, as it's comparing periods of history, not different civilizations or cultures. For example, was the culture of the Romans in old Rome significantly different from the culture of Constantinople in the year 800?
The culture of the Byzantine empire in the 5th or 6th century was in keeping with, and an organic continuation of Roman culture of the 4th or 3rd centuries. The culture of the 7th or 8th century Byzantines was in-keeping with their culture of the 5th and 6th. And Byzantine culture in the 9th and 10th centuries is in keeping with their culture during 7th and 8th, and so on it goes backward or forward in time. We're talking about the evolution of a culture and civilization, not a sudden rupture or departure. In say... the 9th or 10th century, many of the offices of the bureaucracy, government, positions and titles, ranks, etc, dated all the way back to classical times, and not just the titles of "Augustus" and "Caesar," but from top to bottom of the state apparatus.
The emperor Basil II(who died in 1025) had made a decree that the wealthy dynatoi of Anatolia needed to prove ancestral ownership of their immense estates as far back as the reign of Augustus.
Constantinople was founded as a Latin speaking city, and conversely, Greek was very common in Rome. They were sister capitals of the same polity; and their cultures remained rather compatible during the early middle ages, and even after Rome became independent of New Rome(around 750-800). Latin was gradually marginalized in the east between 500-1000, and the same happened to Greek in the west, but one place medieval scholars could go in western Europe to learn Greek was actually Rome.
You need to do this again after roads to power
Would be interesting.
I think the Dutchy problem is because they forgot to port the theme system from CK 2. While the theme system from CK 2 wasn't perfect, you did actually appoint who would control the theme (or dutchy) until the Strategos would die and then come back to you as a ruler. When you got bigger, you could grant Kingdom sized titles under similar conditions called Exarchs and the state being an Exarchate.
I employed this system to actually keep a super roman empire together. Dutchies were left untouched but the Exarchates were granted by the emperor. So I had mega-confederations (at the size of three empires) as to keep an area more united and less likely to fight the emperor directly. One of them was called the "Western Confederation" which packed Hispania, Britannia and Francia in one state under the Roman Empire.
The African Confederation being another.
The latest I had was the Indian Confederation which covered most of Northern India and later Tibet. I never got around to taking over the Chinese throne.
All I gotta say is the system of confederations was pretty cool as a means to control so much land without having non-stop civil wars.
Add in that I eventually revived ancient Hellenic Paganism and made the religion cosmopolitan which resulted in an empire where multiple religions actually co-existed and the religion mechanic in CK 2 was essentially made irrelevant. Tolerance and relations between the pagans, muslims and christians ended up pretty smooth by the end of the run. The Patriarch, Pope and Caliph were all subjects to the Pontifex Maximus Emperor.
Christian, Muslim and any other religious ruler were left be as the Exarchate system ensured that no matter their religion, they would be loyal to the emperor.
Beautiful! Are you optimistic the new DLC will make a similar run like this possible in ck3?
@History in Bits Yeah. I think we'll either see a return of the CK 2 style system or they'll work in a new senate mechanic with noble houses that don't own land directly but are given the theme or governorship from the emperor.
From that, I think scheming to overthrow the empire can be done, but it shouldn't be easy as pie. It should be done when the chance is right... E.g. being a good commander was how some emperors came to power.
@@historyinbits The emperors before Basil took power are great examples of people taking advantage of their station. Not a coalition of feudal lords overthrowing the emperor.
@@MerlinWood-Evans how did you review Greco-Roman Paganism ?
@@rishavkumar1250 There are numerous ways. You can start in the Charlemagne bookmark as a Hellenic county in the south of Greece and just try to revive it from there or...
When you bring back the Roman Empire and you have the Holy Fury DLC, you get the option to bring back Hellenism and reform it.
You can also secretly convert to Hellenism using one of the Hellenic holy sites and make a secret society, then convert a good deal of people all of a sudden.
Like even having counties convert with you.
The Roman Empire route is the best, but expect a civil war against the christian lords still around. I won it every time.
You can decide the nature of Reformed Hellenism, personally I went with Cosmopolitan. I expanded and ruled over numerous christians, muslims and other religions with very few rebellions. It was truly like the Roman Empire.
Religion kinda became irrelevant when you have the Cosmopolitan trait.
I also had the ability to develop sympathy for a religion, because of what I picked with Hellenism. It allowed it to be a very strong faith. So Christian rebellions or Muslim rebellions were less common.
I also had the Caliph, Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch as subjects of the empire. All faiths, reported in to the emperor.
4:20 But these are not examples of inaccuracies, though: Crimea had significant Greek settlements through very large parts of history and even today Ukraine has a significant Greek minority. The same goes for Southern Italy that was originally called "Magna Graecia" or "Great Greece" and still has a Greek speaking minority today and likely a much more significant Greek population in 1066. There also should not be a significant Turkish minority in 1066 as you suggest as they would, with the Seljuks, arrive later (if the Byzantines lose the starting war).
Theres turks and turkics other than the seljuks thatd be present by 1066 such as the pechenegs, khazars, and cumans
To be fair to Naples, it was originally a Greek colony ("Neapolis") in ancient times. However I myself have like, literally no idea what the actual culture of the area was like back then.
Yes, the fact that the duke there had greek ancestry points to that. However, that the local population stressed the fact he was greek (el greco) points to the local population not being majority greek anymore
@@historyinbits Yes I agree though that leaves a peculiar question in regards to what the province culture should be. "Italian" didn't really exist yet, and the region had evaded conquest from the Lombards. Should it be depicted as one of the final remnants of the "Roman" culture? That would be quite interesting.
I think it would be cool if you revisited this since the dlc came out
Honestly though by the 10th and 11th centuries most of Anatolia was almost thoroughly Hellenized.
Hey, great video as always.
Have you even heard of the mod "The Fallen Eagle"? small disclaimer Im part of the TFE team but a review of our portrayal of our Byzantine/Roman Empire would be very cool :)
Awesome Mod!
Will look into making a video about it :)
@@JonTheManZ thank you :)
Love the 'apostate' update man, keep up the good work
@@Imperial_Navy03 thank you, next update will deal with the new dlc, cant say much about that yet.
One thing I noticed a few years ago about the history here is that this time period from Basil II’s reconquests onward showed an interesting trend where some themes that were previously under constant threat from mostly Arab or Slavic (‘Rus) raiders had been converted into civilian administrations under “krites” instead of strategoi, doux, or katepanos.
Kinda passed over the Komnenoi chads
Btw is the representation of the byzzies a bit better in Ck2 in which they’re an elective monarchy whose electors beside some powerful council vassals also has your chosen generals?
Imo idk how would a totally historically accurate Byzantine system would work on a gameplay perspective, it would make playing as a vassal practically imposible without having the objective of becoming the emperor in a single generation.
The Byzantines in CK2 don't start as an Elective Monarchy, they start as Primogeniture. They do start at empire level with the ability to appoint non inheritable viceroy vassals though
@@Rynewulf The game was updated since then. If you played CK2 now. Both commanders and powerful vassals get votes which are weighted based on things like their prestige, intrigue and martial. The emperor also gets a vote which can be raised by if he was born in the purple or lowered if he appoints sycophants as commanders for example.
@@chrisarol8934 Thats council votes for laws isnt it? Im up to date on the dlc and its been untouched by the devs for a while, im pretty sure its primogeniture and the heir apparent being the eldest male relative with the 'born in the purple' trait. And I cant find any wikis or videos of the change you describe, you sure its not a mod or another mechanic? Normally electoral votes like the HRE starts with for example are weighted by rank, not by stats. Even tanistry does it by rank
@@chrisarol8934 Thats council votes for laws isnt it? Im up to date on the dlc and its been untouched by the devs for a while, im pretty sure its primogeniture and the heir apparent being the eldest male relative with the 'born in the purple' trait. And I cant find any wikis or videos of the change you describe, you sure its not a mod or another mechanic? Normally electoral votes like the HRE starts with for example are weighted by rank, not by stats. Even tanistry does it by rank
@@Rynewulf it is as the other person describes, the succession right now is much more interesting
-the byzantine empire *was* continuously called the roman empire (as its surviving half) and was acknowledged as such by western germanic-ruled kingdoms until some time from justinian's invasion of italy and charlemagne's coronation as emperor.
as for the greek culture of this empire, this was not an aberration from the earlier roman empire, but more just an escalation of the existing usage of greek as a language of learned elites across the whole roman world, and as the lingua franca *instead of latin* in most of the already-hellenized roman east. the rest of the cultures in regular contact with constantinople, or at least the ones who were aware of the earlier roman empire, also saw no distinction between the former and latter periods. you have to remember these people were at best only dimly aware of historical events taking place in past centuries: to the vast majority of the population, there were no other romans besides the ones who we would call greek, and the evidence to the contrary were laboriously excavated to ideologically justify the HRE and the papacy.
-the hellenization of anatolia as seen on the map is correct for the period: the anatolian languages were extinct by the 5th century CE, and inner anatolia would only lose its greek-speaking character after turkic incursions in the later 11th century.
Thank you for the feedback!
In CK2, Byzantium was just in constant revolution.
The culture w of Byzantine Anatolia was Greek in that periodand the territorial losses in Anatolia and the full loss of Italy happened during his successors. The theme system was in decline in the period and by the end of the period , it introduced feudal elements. As for the infighting, the central authority literally collapsed between 1071 and 1081.
I think it bears considering that the Byzantines being "culturally different" to ancient Romans doesn't make their claim to Roman-ness less valid. After all, Romans of Augustus' time were already very culturally different to those of the city's founding, with a totally different government, styles of dress, cultural imports from Carthage, Gaul, Iberia, Greece and more, and even different naming systems. The people of Greece and Anatolia had been Romans for many centuries while the western empire still existed, and nothing magically changed when it fell to make them stop being Romans.
In any case, I think Paradox using the Theme system as a foundation for in-game duchies isn't an oversight so much as a limitation of the game engine as it stands. They designed a basic set of mechanics around 11th century feudalism, and this is the closest equivalent they can latch onto. The designers have talked about knowing the discrepancy in interviews (as you'd expect, since there are somewhat more accurate mechanics in CK2 as of its expansions). I agree it makes it dissonant to play as and makes me less inclined to play as them compared to in 2, though.
Aside from the needed imperial rework I hope we finally get a great schism mechanic or at least an event if we begin in 867
Agreed!
One video idea is that you can show the characters who would become well known Crusaders or if they don’t exist yet, you can show their family .
Good idea, thank you! :)
I feel like the best way to portray the Byzantine Empire is very different from Feudalism. The different Aristocratic clans called Dynatoi, didn't rule hereditary provinces, but they owned vast tracts of land and did monopolize positions in government including the themes. At one point, two noble families had their members basically governing every single theme in Anatolia. So it may be accurate to protray noble aristocratic clans where the dynasty head owns several powerful character modifiers to represent the estates of the clan, while the clan itself has good modifiers to represent this as well. Meanwhile, the more members of the clan that rule counties and themes, the more power and abilities members of that clan may have, power they can use for the empire's benefit or not. Meanwhile, the ability for generals and governors to revolt and seize the empire is accurate, so revolting a pressing a claim to the empire is alright. However, it is also very frequent where an emperors child didn't inherit after their father and instead a palace coup or maneuvering caused someone else to be crowned emperor, like what happened to Romanos IV. So the imperial elective system of CK2 might be a good system for that. Meanwhile, the governors should most definitely not be allowed to attack one another, as that would just be a revolt against the central government, though it is accurate that many rebellions were only done by a single theme. Meanwhile the system of Tagmata isn't too hard to portray, as those were just the Emperor's personal troops. Although I would also consider some special mercenary abilities of the empire, as the empire did frequently use mercenaries, for better or worse. The diarchy system can probably be used for high administrative positions as well, and court positions should be very common and powerful as well as helpful for the Byzantines.
It’s pretty interesting how the ai usually does as Byzantium because usually for me they take a lot of North Africa but not Egypt,then after a failed crusade they take back Syria but lose Anatolian land.
Indeed interesting. How do you usually play the Byzantines yourself?
4:15 no it doesn't. In fact there are STILL Greeks in Crimea,Russia and Ukraine in the hundreds of thousands and during Byzantine times,yes the Greeks were a majority in inter Anatolia too. They also made pluralities minorities or sometimes majorities in ares of Egypt and the Levant too. Greek culture isn't over-represented in game,it's just historically accurate
Edit:Forgot to talk about Italy where there are still tens(some estimates even say 200k)of thousands of Greeks even today. A place that had been colonized by the ancient Greeks and used to be a Greek and Greek Orthodox majority area for many many centuries. Btw Southern Italians of today have more Greek DNA than they have Latin for that exact reason
Im pretty sure you can also find the komnenos dynasty is 1066 bizantine empire
A very important historical character when talking about the crusades taking into account the fact that it was kinda alexios komnenos who asked the pope for the first crusade
Alexis got lost in our process somehow, sorry!
@@historyinbits make a video about him
No, he sent a request out to the Pope for Western mercenaries - the Pope reinterpreted that for his own interests to mean a holy crusade. Crusades were never a thing in Orthodox religious thinking. While the West and Islam developed those concepts the Orthodoxy of Rome was essentially as anti-war as an Imperial state could reasonably be.
It would be cool to have an imperial government type that allows for checkbox that allows for the return of the "possesed" land to be return to the emperor upon the death of its ruler or that automatically grants it to a character depending on the pareters chose by the emperor(pious people or people of the same dynasty as the previous ruler or people of the emperor's dynasty etc).
And feudal rulers could change to it if they have maximum crown attority and the approval of strong vassal( of course, most vassal would rebel, making it a very important point in the campaign if the player desires it)
What are you talking about dude? Draw a line from the gulf of Alexandretta to a point on the Black Sea coast some distance east of Trebizond and be assured that the overwhelmingly preponderant language of Anatolia west of that line was Greek in 1066 AD. Inner Anatolia included Cappadocia one of the heartlands of the Empire where Greek was spoken. Incidentally there was still considerable Greek remnants in southern Italy at the time. In fact southern Italy and western Sicily were likely to have been primarily Greek speaking well into the 12th century AD.
Feels like the centralisation problem could be fixed with just locking so the feudal lord’s successor has to be the emperor, and starting with the highest crown authority
Good idea, and very funny user name :D
CK2 had such a feature, it was called Viceroyalties and the Byzantines started off with it. It's insane how CK3 still doesn't include that after three years.
@@PuzzlingGoal Is that DLC? I played Byzantines in CK2, and I don't remember any of that.
One thing to add will be the conquest of Bulgaria. It is said that after the conquest, the emperor gave titles the then bulgarian nobility in the armenian heartland with the idea to remove any idea of a bulgarian uprisings in the future.
Bulgaria itself is very poorly represented .
While the kings and titles in the early start are correct the form of governance and the main problem during that exact time-christianization .
Is very misrepresented .
The king "Boris" is canonically recognized as a saint here.
His main wish historically was to adopt Christianity to assimilate Slavs and Bolghars into one identity . In game it's presented as a monolithic culture .
His first son was executed for dysobeying his father and his third son became the actual ruler .
The funding of the Cyrillic alphabet was again to establish that singular culture -bulgarian as well as easier rulership of the Balkans .
The whole dinasty is not called Balgarsko .
Whats the music in the background? It's so good!
Very niche request but id love a video on what is known about the old Basque religion you can form. There doesnt seem to be a lot of info on it so it would be cool to see what is actually supported vs what was guessed/favricated by Paradox to fill in the blanks
and dont forget the parania was a garanting the tax income or part of it and not only was the land not owned they had no authority over it exept the collection of certain taxes or recieving them as anuity or pension or salary
I don´t think PDX overlooked that their duchies are in fact more like modern gouvernantes. It´s just a simplification. Like it is a simplification (in my opinion so simplified that it´s just wrong) to call all of Europe feudal and even give all of Europe a feudal structure with counts, dukes and kings. Even in the most "feudal" realms like France or Germany there was nearly never a time or place that was like that.
Very good point!
in Greek when you see "oi" in the end its because of plural, you pronounce it as normal "i"
I would like a "heal the schism" mechanic to reuinte the empire through herculean effort, causing either the HRE or Byzantines being absorbed by and taking on the government type of the one that triggers the event.
From memory I do recall the Schism coming close to being healed in the 14th and 15th centuries as the end approached and Rome appealed for aid in the West.
Thanks for the video I hope you do one about abbasid
We’ll look into it :)
Basileus is pronounced vasilefs
On another note, the byzantines are unquestionably the continuation of the roman empire. Yes it was quite different a place by 1066, but it got there slowly through centuries of reform. In the 500s, after the western half of the empire faded away, the east retained the exact same political system for a good 300 years. It only really started becoming noticeably different by the late 800s, and even up to the 4th crusade in the 1200s, the state was still structured around a coin economy, unlike western europe whose feudal states were based on land holdings of individuals. The rich and powerful in the byzantine world still were seen as mere state officials like it had been since classical times, we even get nods to this from the writings of crusaders who visited, as they were apalled that commoners in Constantinople would heckle the emperor if they disagreed with him, indeed that disagreeing with the emperor was permissible at all was a foreign idea to them.
Thank you so much for this valuable input!
Wow. I never knew the byzantine empire was that modernistic and degenerate
Great point. Videos like this somehow still manage to mimic Gibbon's thinking instead of revelling in the splendour of Medieval Rome
For the culture of the byzantine empire while yes it wasn't as greek as shown in the game it wasn't as small as the picture you show in the video. That photo depicts greeks in the 19th century after all the killings and displacements of the ottomans. The Greek mainland was mostly dominated by Greeks and so was the whole coast of Anatolia. As for the interior of it it was again mostly greek majority or if you'd like the Greek culture domitaned there and it only stared to fade away after the incursion of the Seljuks into Anatolia. Finally Crimea was indeed mostly inhabited by goths and the Balkans by the 11th century had the Illyrians almost completely gone so it only makes sense to have the Bulgars as the dominant non greek culture in the Balkans. As for south Italy if you exclude Naples where you are completely right the two other majority greek regions are I believe semi reasonable since there is still a significant Greek prenecne there and has been since the ancient greek first colonized south Italy (magna grecia)
One little nitpick. Southern Crimea being Greek is accurate. While there were Tatars there, they were on the northern plains. And while there were goths there, there were only very few. The main part of the population in the south was Greek. Indeed that population of Crimean Greeks with their own unique dialect of Greek still exists today, though they were moved into what is now the Donbass by the Russians in the 18th century. I believe there were about 90k-100k ethnic Greeks in Ukraine and Russia as of last count
and in the byzatine empire all classes paid taxes and the nobility paid more this is why even the rich nobility worked in the army since they where even responsible to pay their pessant taxes if they earned less than a certain income as well as naboring farmers
Great video! I really hope there's a major revamp of the Byzantine Empire as an expansion/update. I think as part of that, if your capital is in Constantinople, you should have a major "Hostile Scheme Success Chance" buff and a significant "Hostile Resistance Chance" penalty. Would make things spicy as apparently the Imperial Court was in History. The game could even assign those buffs and penalties to *any* courtier or guest in Constantinople. No royal court was more "intriguing" than Constantinople! ^_^
Also as some other changes they should:
- Remove Indulgences from the Orthodox Religion (Even if bribes happened, it was no where near a formalized institution like it was in Roman Catholicism)
- Allow you to imprison/exile the Patriarch of Constantinople (as happened so often). Also would be cool if you could somehow pressure the Patriarch to boost your General Opinion either by a carrot or a stick.
- Remove the option to grant land to the Patriarch of Constantinople (the Orthodox religion forbids clergy from being temporal/political rulers)
- Would be nice if you could unlock a casus belli to reclaim lands under Justinian or something like that.
ALSO, the Great Schism should be major event that captures the player's attention in 1054. Yeah yeah, the Great Schism did not mean in that year what it means to us today, but with how poorly Paradox represents Orthodoxy, I'm not sure they would know that anyways. But it is weird to play in 866 with two clearly distinct and "astray" religions of Catholic and Orthodox and play right on through to the 2nd millennium with absolutely nothing changing. Would be interesting if at 1054, the game would automatically make historical nations switch to the historical choice *if* the borders and cultures are still the same (but suppose you married your zealous Greek brother to the Queen of England... lots of cool alternate history stuff that could happen)
Really interesting points, thank you so much!
I love the music in the background well choosen
A new DLC focus on Byzantine is on the way. This video should get update soon
i dont understand why we're getting a persian dlc when there should be a lot of changes to the byzantines
CK2 took a long time, but eneded up with a good version of the byzantine government.
Titles are not hereditary, the succession is murky, and its all about the court titles, the intrigue and bribes, and if you breathe the wrong way the empire will just dethrone you and place someone else
The fact that Southern Italy is shown as partly Greek in culture isn't absurd at all. While yes, people had been migrating and moving around constantly, the majority were indeed Greek in the areas portrayed in-game. This has been the case since the antiquity when the cities were founded by Greek colonists and to some extent remains so even today. If you're interested, you should look up information about the current Greek settlements in Rheggio Di Calabria.
In regards to the cultures, if you truly are a history nerd, then you’d know that the Assyrians and Arabs were never a significant part of the empire and were usually situated on the frontier in the east and usually on the non Roman side of the frontier, also if you’re pissed that Thracians don’t exist, you can thank the irl Bulgarians that exterminated them, also that brings us to the Bulgarians which are part of the empire in 1066 and are just north of it in 867 if your pissed about the Illyrians not being around, you can again thank another invading people irl called the Slavs, which exterminated them much earlier than even the Thracians were wiped out, which brings us to the Slavs, who are in fact part of the empire but on the north western Balkan frontier and usually on the non Roman side of it, this is because much like real life the Roman’s in CK3 try to keep all invading and non Roman people out of their empire, meaning the Arabs Bulgarians Slavs assyrians and others, however the Arminians have always had good relations with the Roman’s and thus are a bigger part of the empire and it’s culture, also because Basil the vulgar slayer subjugated them (or was it one of his successors?). Anyway getting back to the cultures, the goths stopped being a thing the minute they became the Ostrogoths and the visigoths and this happened while the western empire was still around so way way way before the ck3 start dates, you can still find some Visigoths in Iberia in 867 but that’s about it since that culture had largely died offa be splintered into the other Christian cultures of Iberia, the Ostrogoths were unfortunately wiped out by both the Roman’s with a Belisarius and by the Lombards right after, as for the Khazars, yes they had a few alliances with the Byzantines historically but were never settled in the imperial lands, and the same can be said about the Turks, but in regards to the Turks, they were especially feared and kept out of all imperial lands whenever possible but all this happened after the 1070’s so not during the ck3 start date in 1066
Oh yeah. This is that good Roman content
You didn't mention the Komnenoi :(
Got lost in our process, sorry!
ooo! Can't wait for this one.
As for next, I'd love to see one on the Abbasids in 867!
Thank you very much, good idea!
i am more of an EU4 player myself, and smth that i've noticed there in the Extended Timeline mod as well as here in CK3 was that in 1066, the romans have no holdings in Italy anymore. pretty sure they lose their last fort there in 1071(Bari, i think) just a bit before the infamous battle at Mazikert. why isn't Bari appearing in "byzantine" hands in either game?
also... while i do get feudalism somewhat... i really am ignorant in how the romans managed their lands(till 1204, since whatever came after was virtually feudal till 1453). i wish i knew how their political system worked, how and why generals rebelled, and most importantly... court intrigues. where can i find books with these? i only hear/read that at one random point a general decided to rebel. why? idk. or that an emperor was assassinated by someone, even though he ruled well. why? idk. my mind simply cannot understand how the romans lived for so long with such issues in their state management. and how could they had fix(grammar be damned) their inheritance system? or rather... why the west had one and accepted it, and the romans did not? plenty of emperors made their sons co-emperors, yet it was a very unstable transition of power many times.
P.S. love how the map looks in CK3. and how the empire is mapped in districts, provinces and such. much better imho compared to how eu4 shows.
My main issue with it’s representation in game is the fact that they didn’t make a different government type for the Byzantines when they already did in ck2, I think currently they have made a new gov type called administrative for the up coming doc but come on would it have been that hard to just have it in game upon release
Alexios needed mention.
He got lost in our process! Sorry about that!
Ck2 did a better job at portraying the system of non hereditary rule in duchy equivalents. You could had out Themes that were non hereditary and caused no penalty to revoke. Every feudal vassal of yours would have a negative opinion based of how many Themes you had.
Very good pronunciation for a german creator!
I think the Byzantine's should have a professional army instead of levies. The army would be stronger, but it would also have a passive maintenance cost. If nothing else, they could simply increase the amount and size of men-at-arms regiments and decrease the amount of levies for Byzantines. That would be a great way of balancing out the more centralized government system, which would give the Emperor a larger percentage of tax revenue than feudal lords.
Your exact thought Is in the game with the eastern Roman legacy .
While I would argue it should be even more drastic it's there
In CK2, when playing the basileus you could make vicedukes and viceroys because you had the "imperial" government type instead of feudal
For people who lived in the Byzantine Empire not much has changed as Western Rome became defunct. To them they’ve always been Roman and continue to be, unless they have specific interests that necessitated frequent travels to the city of Rome they might even think that being Roman means being Greek!
watching this after a year with road to power DLC shipped. The administrative government feels very bizantine
Within the mechanics of the game is probably difficult to represent the empire accurately without making it too easy. With high crown authority, viceroyalty, standing army and lots of money you can easily exploit the position. In CK2 the imperial system in a way was fixed the (ruined someone says) forcing you to pick your generals among your nobles only basically mimicking the thematic system, and forcing an elective system because overall the roman/byzantine empire was never purely hereditary. Culturewise, yes there was a lot of "greek" in the beginning especially, like in southern Italy that didn't truly latinize if not after the Norman conquest, so I would not really consider that a mistake.
Hopefully Bulgaria and orthodoxy as a whole get improved with Byzantium
Some points of interest. 1) the Eastern regions (and basically all of Anatolia) was lost to the Seljuk Turks by Romanos IV, not Constantine X. 2) One of the possible explanations for the low crown authority could stem from the history of the themes themselves: Initially, there were only 5 themes (approximately the size of the kingdoms inside the Byzantine Empire at the 1066 start date, although I can't speak for the accuracy of the borders off-hand). As the strategoi (who were both the provincial governor of a theme as well as the commander of the theme's military forces) proved incredibly powerful and rebellious, emperors often found themselves either giving concessions to the strategoi as well as breaking the themes up into smaller provinces that would be unable to challenge imperial authority alone. This also led to the creation of an imperial field army, but that's described later. 3) Pronoia was a reform that came from Alexios I after the theme system collapsed and - to put it in Paradox gaming terms - the main imperial army, the imperial tagmata...which would basically included the Scholae Palatinae, Varangian Guard (both of which are shown as mercenary companies in CK2 and 3), and all the emperor's Men-at-Arms regiments, was stack wiped at Manzikert in 1071 with Romanos IV captured. The pronoia system was a way to raise troops (local and foreign) without having to directly pay for their military service.
Some ways I think the Byzantine military could be improved would be to replace the levies with strateia (a term for the soldier-farmers that were given hereditary farmlands in exchange for military service...the farms were meant to fund and provide for a stratiot's training, arms, armor, and horse). Personally, I'd give the strateia a minor stat boost over basic levies. I'd also give the Byzantines (except for the emperor) a much lower limit on MAA regiments (maybe 1 for a count, 3 for a duke, 5 for a king, and the normal number for the emperor). Additionally, let the Byzantines get an option for implementing the pronoia system, which removes the entire system outlined here (allowing the emperors to save more money from having to carry the empire military). That's my spitball idea though. Someone else will need to tell me their thoughts on it. Additionally, I'd bring back the viceroyalty system from CK2, since that offered Byzantine emperors MUCH more control and influence over the vassals than ANY other monarch at the time, picking and choosing who moves up in the world at court and who is pushed down the ranks.
If you do a part 2, I'd recommend mentioning the houses of Komnenos (obviously), Angelos, and Palaiologos. I can't remember any Laskaris house in the 1066 start date, but I do know there's a Bryennios, which did have considerable influence in the empire. For a separate episode, can you do the Kievan Rus?
Very good video, i would hope for a rework of the vassal system within the Empire.
Although i was hoping you would at least spend some time on the Byzantines in 867 considering that the Emperor Basileos I isn't supposed to be the Emperor until a full year later when he kills Michael III.
Thank you for the feedback :)
Optimatoi is actually pronounced Optimatee. essentialy, in greek when Ο is followed by I then the 2 letters together "oi" are pronounced as an "e". Bucellarians would be pronounced more like Bukelarians, with a hard C, like a K. Same for cibyrrhaeots, the C would be pronounced as K. Chaldia would be haldia, but with a bit of a pronounciation I can't properly explain here. That Ch couldn't be represented better in english. In greek, the letter Χ is pronounced "hee" (you can google the sound if it doesn't make sense), and Chaldia in greek would be Χαλδια, with an "X". Any I didn't mention you pronounced correctly. Honorable mention of sebastea which you pronounced correctly but the intonation should be on the last e, so SebastEa. This word actually comes from the greek word Σεβασμός, which means respect. Sebastea would be how they would call a "respectable woman" back then.
EDIT: Same for the word "PRONOIA", like optimatoi, you'd pronounce it pronea. This word actually means "forethought", however in modern greek and I assume back then too, when we talk about "pronoia" we mean the sum of systems the state uses to support the inhabitants, so the health system, the help for the poor and needy, help with finding work, help for orphan children etc.
Something I personally feel weird about in CK3s Byzantium is the claims you get from the Pope/patriarch.
In the game your religious head (at least if you are Catholic or Orthodox) can sell claims to titles owned by sinful lords to pious lords for piety.
The pope can hand out these claims if the owner is sinful, like a murderer or a fornicator but also if the ruler is a child or a woman. Which is a bit weird.
It's even weirder when the Orthodox patriarch, which is supposed to be beneath the Emperor is handling out claims to provinces to other provincial rulers without the Emperor having a say.
I think a better way to have this system would be to have the Emperor capable of getting legal revocation claims with patriarchal support instead of other vassals buying them.
Pleaaaaaaaaase somebody gimme a list of the background music used in the video 😭
The only parts that would not, perhaps, be majority Greek would be the inner Anatolian lands, with the entire coast of Anatolia remaining Greek. The rest as I see it is quite accurate.
The Anatolian Interior was definitely made up entirely of Greek and Armenian speakers by this point. The last native Anatolian language went extinct around the 6th Century AD.
And Ofcourse NO ONE speaks about the post 1204 transformation!!!After 1204 they identify themselves as Greeks, because of the Nicean Laskarids who used to call their dominion "Hellas". Read Niketas Choniates, a contemporary scholar of the time.
Whats the music called in the backround?
I would also mention the Kourkuas family 'Duke', as they gave birth to one of the absolute best generals the eastern empire ever had.
thematic troops paid less tax as they didnt pay the military tax since they where sopposed to theoraticly use it to equipt themselves as well as train themselves and maintain their equiptment
Medieval Rome wasn't a descendant of the Romans, it was Rome. Using language like "they saw themselves as Rome" is condescending.
Also John Haldon argues that by 1066 the Theme system had broken down as the Empire went on the offensive. Anyway, Thematic organisation isn't equivalent to Feudalism, it's something else entirely. A product of Rome's extreme centralisation. Pronoia played a part but really wasn't widely used. What existed in Medieval Rome wasn't replicated until The Sun King.
And Anatolia was heavily Greek. So Greek in fact that over the centuries Emperors transplanted the Greek population to Greece in order to de-Slav the regions.
I could agree about cultural differences in Balkans and southern italy especially in Naples but i heavily disagree about the greek culture of anatolia. during the 10th century the region was heavily Hellenised and only the eastern themes started to get armenian refugees due to nomad invasions of turkish tribes still crimea should have its own culture group as it has nomad Slavic gothic and freek influence at this time. Still i am greek and most sources are mostly greek so if im on the wrong id like to gear a different opinion
Hopefully some of these will be fixed or at least addressed in the expansion
Cool video! And what's the music you used in the video?
Just the ck3 soundtrack :)
@@historyinbits thanks!
great video & love the background music, what is the title of this songh?
Byzantine Empire theme Civilization
Anyone recognize what movie those scenes in the video are from?
The most annoying thing is that you did not say and did not note that the borders in Southern Italy are wrong. By 1066, under the control of the Byzantines, Bari, Lecce, Otranto and a couple more cities of Apulia were separating. These territories would not be captured until 1071, the same year that Roman Diogenes suffered a crushing defeat at Manzikert.
If the hinted expansion will be anything like the CK2 one then there will be some things but the fundamental issues with the presentation of the political system will remain because changing that would require a big rework for just one realm.
When the crusaders reached Antioch in 1098AD they had Bohemond to climb the walls and come into secret talks because he knew fluent Greek. Why he knew fluent Greek and used them in Anatolian Antioch? Because he was the ruler of the Greek speaking Southern Italy. Read history before you make a video about history.
I love your videos 👍🏻❤️
Thank you, that means a lot to us 🥰
What movie are the video clips from?
Didn't they also have a standing army? Not this levy system?
why are the subtitles all glitchy?
Does anyone know the name of the song playing in the background?
Great video! Would love to see one on Venice, Pisa and genua or Frisia