Roman Empire

[Stefan Härtel]

If you're really gonna start in 150 AD and end in 1453 AD, please do something about the Persians. The time the Persians themselves were true enemies to the Romans was 'only' between 224 and ca. 630. Before, you should have the Parthians in, and before you ask, it would be inaccurate to jam them into one civ; though that might still work, but after 630, you should exclude them entirely! Their place would be taken by, chronologically, Arabs (630-ca.1000), Turks (1000-1220), and Mongols (1220-1500).
And apart from that, choosing Chosroes II as their leader isn't the best idea either. He wasn't such a great king as it is always proclaimed. He was really the one entirely responsible for the downfall of the Sasanian empire. Shapur I or II would be the, IMHO, best choices, as these two kings were really the ones who gave the Romans a hard time (S. II would be the very best choice, as he actually subdued the East Romans to tributary dependance, which lasted until Chosroes I).

[Stefan Härtel]

Sorry, I was mistaken, it was Chosroes (Xusro or Husrav) I Anoshirvan (531-579) who achieved that tributary dependance; but I do believe you intended to make Chosroes II Parviz (sp) (590-628) ruler of Persia; he was the one who conquered Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, and besieged Byzantium; still he was the one who brought about the downfall of Persia.
I'd stick with Shapur II (309-379).

[Heresson]

Stefan; whatever You could say about Parthians, the core of thier empire was what we know as Persia - and that's about it in fact.
Except for Romans, who lasted up to XV century, no other state could be included in the game if we wanted to include the cibs to last from the start to the end of the game.
And it's nothing wrong in eliminating Persians in the middle of the game.

[Alexandr]

To Heresson

> Primo, the title of Roman emperor was sold by
> members of imperial family
> to several mights in the west

Yes, ONE title - to SEVERAL mights :-) That Andrew Palaeologus, Thoma's son, was a real beggar and rogue; because of this fact all his rights of the great and sacred title of Roman Emperor were lost.
Sophia wasn't a catholic (pope and his people thought so - as they thought and was mistaken, that Ioann III really wanted to turn to catholicism), she was devoted to Orthodoxy and became the wife of the orthodoxal ruler, who was related and have connections with more ancient Roman emperors (for example, Anna Porphyrogeneta).

"Two Romes are fallen, The Third is standing and a Fourth there'll not be!".

P.S. I have nothing against Poland, Polish nation and you personally :-)

To tanelorn

Fully agree with your position! ;-)

> Ivan I got married to the last Byzantine Princess <...>

not Ivan I, but III.

[Heresson]

From what I remember, the earlier Byzantine marriage of Rurik dinasty was childless. Anyway no-one gave Russia the right to claim themselves the successors of Rome except
for itself. Don't get me wrong - I don't consider Charlemagne
a true emperor as well. Remember that Mehmed II Fatih also claimed to be the successor of Roman emperors as well.
And He had more reasons to do that. Russia never ruled
(escept for little parts of northern coasts of Black Sea)
the same lands as Romans. If France was conquered by
Germany lets say, could Ireland or Spain claim that it is its successor?

[tanelorn]

1462-1505 Ivan the III. Typo. Mea Culpa. The Palaiologos family ended up in Barbados or so I've heard . Historically:
Costantine's brothers and even his mother conspired for the throne till the last minute, really. They even collaborated with the Turks at some point (the brothers, Thomas and Demetrius, that is) They kept fighting eachother even after the Turks occupied the despotate of Morea.
Demetrius Palaiologos ranks right next to Kantacuzenos as a traitor IMHO. He gave Morea to his Turkish allies without a fight. Died as a monk, in Hadrianople.
Thomas died in Rome at 1465, trying to gather an army to invade his former fiefdom.
The Palaiologos family that survives in Athens are probably descended from Gretzas Palaiologos, the garisson commander of the Soulmeniko fort, which he held for more than a year, before retreating to Naupactos (Lepanto) held by Venice.
Panathinaikos got a 1-1 draw in Costantinople yesterday, vs Fener Bahtse.
The next play is in Athens.
I don't consider myself to be a nationalist, by the way, so all this feels a bit awkward.
My God! Don't argue, it's just a game, right?

[Palaiologos]

VERY GOOD graphic Tanelorn. Your ideas are usefull. I will not however give the Romans a Varangian for every Viking killed. That will propably raise the Varangians to the status of an Army rather than an elite guard. But it is not final.


To Stefan Hortel.

Actually i was planning to have the Parthians and Persians as one civ. The Persians took over Parthia in 226 AD. However i don't plan to eradicate them at a specific date. This is a civ game, history can be altered. Since the only playable civ will be the Romans, things might go a long way off historical accuracy. Northern Africa might not fall to the Vandals(Although the Jihad will propably not be avoided), while the British Legions might never depart for Gallia, leaving the island undefended.

[Palaiologos]

The greatest problem i am currently facing is the transformation of the Roman army in the 3rd-4th Century. The frontier defense fell to the "Limitanei" units -a few hundred strong- which were only to locate the invaders and slow them until the newly formed regional field armies intervened. These armies were stationed in Thrace and Syria(Have not located one in the west yet.Please send info). The Roman army had completely changed character.

[Palaiologos]

The Roman invaded and captured Dacia in 105 AD. However all maps i have (i'll post next week-away from home) show the locations of the Roman legions up to 80 AD. Little will have changed untill the 150s but for Dacia. There are 5 legions stationed in the Danube front which does not include Dacia as a province. I have read books and maps but all refer to the area as the "Danube front" Were the legions moved "upwards" to defend Dacia as well?. Any info? I will post detailed map next week to explain.

[Palaiologos]

Any info on the locations of the Roman navies? Numbers?

I know they were about 700 ships at Octavianus' reign but in a hundred years or so when my scenario starts things will propably have changed. The Imperial navy was Greek in character and origin and thus considered an "auxiliary" unit.

[Stefan Härtel]

Actually i was planning to have the Parthians and Persians as one civ. The Persians took over Parthia in 226 AD.
However i don't plan to eradicate them at a specific date. This is a civ game, history can be altered. Since the only
playable civ will be the Romans, things might go a long way off historical accuracy. Northern Africa might not fall to
the Vandals(Although the Jihad will propably not be avoided), while the British Legions might never depart for Gallia,
leaving the island undefended.

The Persians "officially" took over Parthia after April 28th 224.
As for the rest, I'm not saying that you should eradicate the Persian civ, but if Persia is going to fall to the Arabs in any case, it would simply be a waste of civs. Why don't you have an isolated city that prevents the Persians from being whiped out, let the Arabs and Turks conquer Persia, and give the Persians a grande retourné (amateur French) as the Mongols, for instance? That wouldn't even be historically inaccurate, since Persia was more or less independent since the Mongol empire split up (the Ilkhanate began in 1251 IIRC). Of course, that doesn't have much to do with Rome at that time anymore, but anyway...

The Roman invaded and captured Dacia in 105 AD. However all maps i have (i'll post next week-away from home)
show the locations of the Roman legions up to 80 AD. Little will have changed untill the 150s but for Dacia. There
are 5 legions stationed in the Danube front which does not include Dacia as a province. I have read books and
maps but all refer to the area as the "Danube front" Were the legions moved "upwards" to defend Dacia as well?.
Any info? I will post detailed map next week to explain.

I know for sure that one legion was stationed at Sarmizegethusa. There were also legion camps and castles scattered throughout Dacia, the most notable one at Potaissa (south of Klausenburg; there was also one at Klausenburg itself, the Roman name being Napoca). The northernmost point in Dacia I can find is Porolissum, directly at the border (somewhat northwest of modern-day Dej in Romania). But there was apparently only one legion in Dacia for sure, I'll see if I can find the name, if you want to know it.

Any info on the locations of the Roman navies? Numbers?

In the 3d century (but propably also in the 2nd century AD), the Roman navies were harboured in Alexandria, Seleucia (Syria, near Antiochia), Trapezus, Neapolis and Ravenna. There weren't many changes afterward, but during Diocletian's reign, Ptolemais (Cyrenaica) was added, and Seleucia seems to have been moved to Isauria (southern Turkey), but that could as well be a mistake of my map.
As for the mid-2nd century, this is what I could gather:
Main harbours were Ravenna and Misenum (north of Neapolis). Provincial fleets were harboured in Gesoriacum (Banomia) in Gaul, Forum Iulíi (near Massalia), Alexandria, somewhere near Byzantium (Perinthus, I guess) and Trapezus.
That's about it, I guess. I don't know anything about the numbers. I hope I could still help you there.

[Stefan Härtel]

Three additions to be made on those harbours. Provincial fleets were also stationed in Europe, at the Danube and Rhine rivers (so you may want to make those navigable), at Oescus (Moesia Inferior), Aquineum (Pannonia) and at or near Colonia Traiana (Utrecht, perhaps, or else, somewhere between Utrecht and Cologne).

[fairline]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
The greatest problem i am currently facing is the transformation of the Roman army in the 3rd-4th Century. The frontier defense fell to the "Limitanei" units -a few hundred strong- which were only to locate the invaders and slow them until the newly formed regional field armies intervened. These armies were stationed in Thrace and Syria(Have not located one in the west yet.Please send info). The Roman army had completely changed character.

A document called the Notitia Dignitatum gives a virtually complete order of battle for the field armies of the Western Empire in c. 420AD and the Eastern empire in c. 395AD. I have details of the following:

Main western field army (army of the magister militum intra italium - based in Italy)
Field army of the magister equitum intra gallias (Gaul)
Field army of the comes tingitaniae (moroco)
Field army of the comes africae (tunisia and algeria)
Field army of the comes britanniae (nominally britain)
Field army of the magister militum praesentalis I and II (main eastern field armies in Greece and asia minor)
Field army of the magister militum per orientem (Syria)

The field armies consisted of vexillationes Palatinae and vexillationes comitatenses (both cavalry units); legiones palatinae and legiones comitatenses; auxilia palatina and pseudocomitatenses (all infantry). The palatina units were the original field army units set up by Diocletian whilst the comitatenses were frontier forces that had been absorbed into the field armies. Pseudocomitatenses were temporarily asigned to the field armies. In addition, there were units of scholae (guards) who replaced the disbanded Praetorians.

I also have a few examples of limitani and ripenses (frontier troops based on rivers) forces for the various Dux commanding the fixed armies on the frontier. Essentially, these were the old legions and auxillia, minus a few that had been taken into the field armies as pseudocomitatenses. If you want, I can e-mail the orders of battle

[tanelorn]

Originally posted by Palaiologos

Well, why dont you visit http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm
for heaps of info on the subject?

[Alexandr]

To Heresson (about "Russian claims" and the Third Rome):

According to the writings of monk Philotheus: Constantinople was captured physically (like Rome - spiritually); but Roman Empire is undestructible as «the Empire of the same age with Christ» [C.G. Pitsakis], and Russia succeeded it, remained the only keeper of the Ortodoxal Christianity (Roman Empire, «Tzarstvo Romeiskoe» in this case isn’t political or territorial, but mostly spiritual term).
Dec. 1560. Constantinopolian Patriarch Ioasaf II sent to Ioann IV the Charta, signed by The Counsil of 36 Greek metropolitans and bishops. Moscow Tzar Ioann IV was considered as successor from the branch of Roman emperors (from greek princess Anna Porphyrogeneta, Basilius’ II sister). I must also tell (don’t mix them!) about Anna, the sister of Basilius II Dmitrievich, who became the wife of Ioann VIII Palaeologus.
(By the way: this Charta was delivered to Moscow by metropolitan of Kizik, Ioasaf - but wasn’t presented to our Tzar - because of dirty intrigues of Polish ruler )

The next step, from the prophesy - to the law: 1589. Ulozhennaya Gramota (The Code) (it was one of the most important documents in our history, the appointment of the first russian patriarch). Signed by many high church hierarchs and by Constantinopolian Patriarch Ieremia, who wrote there: «...tvoe zhe, o blagochestivyi tzaryu, velikoe Rossijskoe tzarstvie, Tretei Rim, blagochestiem vseh prevzyde, i vsya blagochestivaya tzarstvie v tvoe v edino sobrasya, i ty edin pod nebesem hristianskii tzar imenueshis’ v vsej vselennei, vo vseh hristianeh» [«Your, o pious tzar, is the great Rossian state (tzarstvo), the Third Rome <...> and all pious states are united in your, and you are the only christian tzar in the universe, of all christians»]. There was another significant phrase in this gramota: «The great Rossian and Greek state»!

Are these facts enough for you? (if not - I have more arguments... :-))


To tanelorn:

The last from Palaeolog family died in 1874, in Turin, for all I know. What about Barbados?

> Panathinaikos got a 1-1 draw in Costantinople yesterday,
> vs Fener Bahtse. The next play is in Athens.

Lokomotiv(M) won 2:1 in the match vs. Galatasaray. This is symbolic tendency, isn’t it? )