Roman Empire

[tanelorn]

About Barbados, I'm just joking ofcourse.
There only appears to be a gravestone with the name there, from the 17th c.
Palaiologos is not an uncommon name, you see.
I'm really into soccer, but politics, well, are not my thing.
On this whole dynastic issue however, I think one of you guys, Aleksandr (what a great name- "one that chases/scares men away"), once said not to judge something by its originality, but by its outcome (more or less, I don't memorize quotes).
Makes a point.
He had a pointy beard, after all.

[Alexandr]

To Palaiologos:

(may be, too early question): what are you planning about siege weaponry/machines in your scenario?

[tanelorn]

Proposals:
Byzantine Fire siphons???
Turkish Bombards???
Crusader Trebuschets???
Wall breaching teams (you know, to under-mine walls)
I have a fire siphon picture somewhere...

[Palaiologos]

Fairline please send the e-mail. I too have the Notia Dignitatum (at least parts of it in Peter Connoly's "Greece and Rome at War") but only read it yesterday after my posts here.
Stefan Hortel thanks a lot about the locations of the Roman navies-really a lot.
I don't however plan to make the Danube and Rhine navigable.

[Palaiologos]

About the Roman Army's transformation:

I will not have a "limitanei" unit neither will i force the player to adopt the "field army" strategy that anyways proved ineffective. Afterall the units that formed the limitanei were only the remnants of the old and proud legions. They kept their original names (Legio V Macedonica for instance) but were only shadows of their strengh-at most 1000 strong. The legion unit will become obsolete after a tech is acquired and the player will only build the new type "Legion" that formed the field armies. If he likes he may post them at the borders.

[Palaiologos]

About the Persians: I intended to use Chosroes I as their leader, but Shapur is a fine choice too. The Huns will be represented as barbarians so the Turks will be a civ themselves. The Persians might never be conquered by the Mongols or the Arabs(hard but not impossible). IT IS A CIV GAME.

About the war machines: Due to the lack of available unit slots the war machines will be limited. I intented to have a generic onager or trebuchet, a Greek fire thrower and an early bombard.

[Heresson]

All You have proven Serb is that You considered yourself
the third Rome...
And that some Greeks were so desperated to get help from You that they pretended they don't see difference between
th Empire and a northern barbarious horde...
As the only big remain of orthodox world, Muscovian state could count on treating it as the substitute for the Empire,
the only place where the true religion is alive
(though note; at the end of the Constantionopolitan Empire,
there was no unity of Russian and Greek church)
But there's no direct link between Rome and Russia,
no emperor moved to Moscow, no patriarch,
and no opinion of no-one will change that; Popes willingly called France "the oldest daughter of the Church",
which doesn't change the fact that they weren't what they were called.

[Alexandr]

Originally posted by Heresson

Oh, I hear the words of envy and ignorance, which are traditional for all barbarians

> (though note; at the end of the Constantionopolitan Empire,
> there was no unity of Russian and Greek church)

At the end of the Constantionopolitan Empire, there was no unity among the parts of Greek church: there were not only Uniats, but Orthodoxes too.

> But there's no direct link between Rome and Russia,
> no emperor moved to Moscow, no patriarch <...>

Following Your logic, there is no direct link between, for example, pre-Latin and post-Latin Constantionopolitan Empire (or, may be, between Rome and Constantinople?)...
Even if Your view is too materialistic to consider the things connected with ancient prophecies/ideas (as aeternitas imperii and translatio imperii) and Providence, but there are also: 1) the religion; 2) the culture; 3) the principles of power; 4) the same moments of history; 5) symbols, documents, genealogical links...etc.; in two words - the state and cultural model, or the civilization, is the same.

[tanelorn]

There was that Aleksandr Nievsky film on TV yesterday

There are things to say, but I fear I will aggravate spirits even further. So let things be. This is just a game.

I am currently painting that fire siphon. Palaiologos, I 'll post it here and you can tell me what you think of it.

To Aleksandr: I love the "Icon and Flame" scenario. One of my grandparents was from the "flame" heartland, you see.

To Heresson: I want to paint a polish PZL P37 Los, but I only have a blurry black and white picture of the front section. Any hints?

[Valuk]

Actually, The Russians ARE Barbarians. The Mongol subjugation (1240- 1480 a.d.) has had such an impact upon the Russians that their way of clothing, their language and customs were completely changed, they actually BECAME the Mongols. History has given us a good example in the form of Ivan Grozni. The last shred of old Russia died in 1478 A.D., when the Mocsovites destroyed the republic of Novogorod.
The same goes for the Greeks, for they were/are quite Turkicized.

Oh, and you should use the Persians for the invasion of the Roman empire during Phocas's and Heraclius's reign.
You should probably destroy the Persians altogether then.

[Stefan Härtel]

About the Persians: I intended to use Chosroes I as their leader, but Shapur is a fine choice too. The Huns will be
represented as barbarians so the Turks will be a civ themselves. The Persians might never be conquered by the
Mongols or the Arabs(hard but not impossible). IT IS A CIV GAME.

Alternate option for the conquest would simply be allying the Persians with the Arabs and Turks (thus entirely excluding the Mongols). This would work if there was a peaceful way of changing the owners of Mesopotamia...
But on the other hand, after Mesopotamia was conquered by the Arabs, there was no more impact Persia had on Byzantium. Of course it's only a game, but if there are so many different ways of making it historically accurate and yet fun to play, they should be taken into consideration. For example, you could simply 'turn' the Persians into the Mongols later on by giving them a new tech with new units and a new city style (Industrialization would work fine, especially because the cities appear so much smaller afterwards, so you'd also have the illusion that there really was a bloody conquest).

Actually, The Russians ARE Barbarians. The Mongol subjugation (1240- 1480 a.d.) has had such an impact upon the
Russians that their way of clothing, their language and customs were completely changed, they actually BECAME
the Mongols. History has given us a good example in the form of Ivan Grozni. The last shred of old Russia died in
1478 A.D., when the Mocsovites destroyed the republic of Novogorod.
The same goes for the Greeks, for they were/are quite Turkicized.

This claim works only if you define the Mongols as Barbarians, which I personally don't do, the same goes for Turks.

Oh, and you should use the Persians for the invasion of the Roman empire during Phocas's and Heraclius's reign.
You should probably destroy the Persians altogether then.

We had this discussed already. The invasion you describe is the one I already mentioned, the one done by Chosroes II. Apart from that, it was rather a large-scale war that lasted for several decades, than an invasion.

[Alexandr]

Originally posted by Valuk
Actually, The Russians ARE Barbarians. The Mongol subjugation (1240- 1480 a.d.) has had such an impact upon the Russians that their way of clothing, their language and customs were completely changed, they actually BECAME the Mongols. History has given us a good example in the form of Ivan Grozni. The last shred of old Russia died in 1478 A.D., when the Mocsovites destroyed the republic of Novogorod.
The same goes for the Greeks, for they were/are quite Turkicized.

Sorry, but it is quite absurd.

Yes, the tataro-mongol yoke had some cultural influence on Russia and Russians («Panta rei...», and the Russian people, of course, slightly changed in something to «mongolic» side), but this doesn’t mean, that «they actually became the Mongols».

> History has given us a good example in the form of Ivan Grozni.
> The last shred of old Russia died in 1478 A.D., when the Mocsovites
> destroyed the republic of Novogorod.

a good example of WHAT?! In the reign of Ivan Grozny (let’s keep silence about human qualities of this ruler - it’s a difficult thing to analyze) were finally formed the doctrine of sovereign power, the ceremony of anointing, the court ceremonies - all based on Roman/Byzantine political ideas and examples in conformity to local conditions.

And about Novgorod «republic»: it would be incorrect to speak about Novgorod in such way - it was an old (of course) but side shred.

[Alexandr]

Originally posted by tanelorn

> There was that Aleksandr Nievsky film on TV yesterday

Great film! «Who will come to us with a sword, die of a sword!»

> There are things to say, but I fear I will aggravate spirits even further.
> So let things be. This is just a game.

Don’t worry; it’s a normal discussion

> To Aleksandr: I love the "Icon and Flame" scenario.

Thanks, glad to hear it!
But I have some problems (lack of ideas...) with the «Artavasdos line» of the plot. May be, You have some «what-if» ideas?

> One of my grandparents was from the "flame" heartland, you see.

Please, in details: it’s interesting.

[Heresson]

Oh, I hear the words of envy and ignorance, which are traditional for all barbarians

I didn't know that You consider these the typical features of yourself...

At the end of the Constantionopolitan Empire, there was no unity among the parts of Greek church: there were not only Uniats, but Orthodoxes too.

The emperor was uniate, and so was the legal patrarch.

Following Your logic, there is no direct link between, for example, pre-Latin and post-Latin Constantionopolitan Empire (or, may be, between Rome and Constantinople?)...

I'm not quite sure what do You mean by pre-latin and post-latin.
If the change of the official language - it was done in the
middle of reign of one emperor, so there's a definite link here. When it comes to the Empire of before 1204 and after 1261, there's a direct link, as Theodor Lascaris was proclaimed the emperor in Constantinople during the siege, and reigned on the territories earlier belonging to the Empire.
Rome and Constantinople - don't be silly. The link is the ruler, the state, the religion, the language (later it evolutioned in another direction but that doesn't change a thing), etc.

Russia was a state of completely other roots than Rome/Byzantium, other structure, other history, not quite the same culture, completely different geographical base.
That's why its claims to the heritage of Rome and Byzantium can't be treated seriously.
When it comes to dynastical thing - people connected with dinasty of some state may claim to the throne of it perhaps... May claim to the title perhaps... But not to saying that their old state is continuation of the state to which throne they claim to.

Valuk is right about the Russians and Mongols.
Stefan - Mongols were barbarians at start at least .

a good example of WHAT?! In the reign of Ivan Grozny (let?s keep silence about human qualities of this ruler - it?s a difficult thing to analyze) were finally formed the doctrine of sovereign power, the ceremony of anointing, the court ceremonies - all based on Roman/Byzantine political ideas and examples in conformity to local conditions.

Bulgarians and Serbians also imitated the culture of Byzantium and claimed for The imperial throne. Some of their rulers, like STefan Duszan, gave themselves the title of "Greek" or "roman" emperor - which doesn't mean that
they had any right to it. Me, myself, I treat Russian claims as the last example of earlier barbarious claims to the title. No matter what they were - Frankish, Bulgarian, or
Serbian, or Russian, they deserve the same laugh.

I don't agree with Valuk's note over Ivan... Byzantine emperors weren't good either. Though they weren't killing their own sons and raping his wife...

[Valuk]

Oh, and one more thing...
Do you know who saved Vienna from the Turks in 1683?
It sure wasn't the Russian car