|
Ghetto Prince posted:Alexios was a perfect Emperor with no faults whatsoever, and it's kind of weird to make marriage arrangements for the new emperor before she's started teething. The point was less "marry the Empress off", more "we've made alliances with the Catholics before, without converting, and can do it again".
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
 Komnenians I know I'm late, but I wanted to vote for ..But seriously, where are the hookers and blow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:
The heretics and infidels are cutting off our supplies. We need to get our stuff back from the Man, personified by the schismatic in Rome and those darn Saimids. Then you and yours can party like it's right at the BC/AD threshold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 19:51
|
|
JT Jag posted:Or if you can't find a copy, which would be a drat shame but is somewhat common because the modern day military establishment does not recognize the value of this gem and thus it is often out of print, you can just read this. Interestingly, one of the major premises of the work is that absolute victory (I won, no takesies-back forever thems the rules) is an impossible ideal and instead it recommends more focus on long term planning and heavier scrutiny towards the actual, real and tangible effects of warefare on both the victor and loser. It's gained a lot more interest in the post-Mission Accomplished world. e: topics for another thread though. HenessyHero fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
AJ_Impy posted:The heretics and infidels are cutting off our supplies. We need to get our stuff back from the Man, personified by the schismatic in Rome and those darn Saimids. Then you and yours can party like it's right at the BC/AD threshold. Hear hear! Let's give those bogarting bastards some steel. I want a fresh hookup before I'm out of resin, and I don't care who we have to kill to get it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Okay, wow, I played way more than I meant to yesterday, so this update's going to be super split up and I might not have a world map for all the parts. Anyway, let's get rolling! PART ELEVEN: The Long Regency (1130-1141) Translator's Note: There are many ways to approach translating a single document. Should one emphasize literal translation of the language the writer used, or center one's efforts on readability? In this translation of the Moesia Scroll-- which has now been definitively established as the actual work of the Byzantine Empress Iouliana the Great after centuries of being considered apocryphal-- I have chosen to preserve wherever possible the informal and even conversational tone the empress affected. Some of the language I use might strike the reader as shockingly modern. Yet I feel that the Moesian Scroll would be ill-served by the formality conveyed by the creeping hand of faux-archaicism. In any case, the tone of the scroll would likely be equally shocking to a contemporary Byzantine reader used to the more elevated tone of the propagandistic Alexiad of Iouliana Komnene, which was being composed at around the same time. Interestingly, unlike her historian namesake, who consistently refers to the empire her family ruled as the Roman Empire, Iouliana used the terms Rome and Byzantium interchangeably. I have preserved this usage here. Oh, hey, Alexios, Are you an adult? If you're not and you're still somehow reading this— well, that means that I've probably gotten myself killed somehow before you came of age. So, first, yikes. Second: Hand this over to your regent or something since you probably aren't ready for this yet. I don't plan on dying, though, so with any luck I'm just handing this to you as part of your ongoing education. Either way, you've got some big shoes to fill! If you listen to those windbag Old Romans, you've got to live up to the legacy of Augustus, Trajan, Constantine, and all those guys. But if we accept the premise that we're sufficiently removed from antiquity that comparing yourself to assorted Latin-speaking weirdos and beardos is pointless because this is a new Byzantine Empire (which, tip: don't do that in public. The Old Romans hate the douxes as much as the New Byzantines do, so try to keep them on-side. The douxes are your worst enemy— worse than the Saimids, Seljuks, Crimeans, and Bulgarians combined.) with a much shorter history— there's still me. There's a reason they call me to Iouliana the Great, and it's not just to tell me apart from that nerd historian Iouliana Komnene. No pressure. Anyway, things weren't exactly off to a great start early in my reign. Bulgaria was gone! We won two other stupid civil wars by the skin of our teeth! The Empire was in debt! The Jewish merchant families and bankers of Constantinople were extremely patient and forgiving creditors-- which is why Regent Anatolios appointed like half of them to the Senate-- but they still weren't going to lend us anything else until we'd paid them back because we'd already spent all the money they'd had available. And then the Saimids demanded the return of the province of Koloneia. Fighting them off would have been impossible. It's important to know when you just can't win, and sending a few tens of thousands of soldiers to die for literally no reason isn't worth it.  But it's also vitally important to avoid being blamed for that. Especially if you're a commoner eunuch responsible for the well-being of a gross baby empress. Crass, but true. Anatolios very carefully made the decision to surrender to the Saimids the Senate's responsibility. He even made sure that crazy Princess Konstantia, his personal representative to the Senate, was on the record as supporting war. But the Senate, due to their overall desire to not commit national suicide, correctly decided not to fight. Of course, I don't actually remember any of this because I was literally a baby at the time. But it sounds right.  Anatolios also had an affinity for merchants. So he let the merchant prince of Belgorod out of jail in spite of his role in the recent Pecheneg revolt in exchange for a giant pile of gold.  He was less cool with queens, but Tekçe Teberid had an even bigger pile of gold than that other guy, so out she went.  That was enough to put Byzantium back in the black, with money to spare. It also meant that whenever the next horrible thing happened, there'd be a line of credit waiting for us. Tip number two: Don't gently caress with the Jewish merchants of Constantinople. They've saved the empire, like, a billion times by extending the crown credit to keep the Varangians and mercenaries paid. It's easy to pay off these loans when the empire's not flying off at the seams. So just do it. Anyway, with the Saimid clouds dispersed— for now— it was time for Anatolios to hopefully make it through the regency without anybody getting their asses killed. Political power in the Senate had shifted— the Old Romans were cast down, the New Byzantines were ascendant. Anatolios aggressively promoted New Byzantine programs, immediately ordering civic works projects to modernize some of the more decrepit buildings in Constantinople. I did the same throughout my reign, and I suggest you do the same. But remember: You can work with the Old Romans, too. Both wings of the Senate want the Byzantine Empire to be something it's not-- e.g., an agglomeration of spoiled douxes acting like they're a bunch of feudal lords in some God-forsaken place like England or France and not officials of an organized empire. So if the New Byzantines should fall, well, put on a toga and brush up on your Latin.  While Anatolios concentrated on affairs of state, my education was placed in the able— if slightly unhinged— hands of Konstantia Komnene.  The standing army— while still pretty pathetic compared to the hordes of peasants armed with sticks the nobles could summon up with the snap of a finger-- was replenished to full strength.  Meanwhile, the Senate appointed a commission to reform the empire's legal system and create something more tenable than sixty volumes of Justinian Code nobody'd bothered actually looking at since like the 800s or whenever.  The New Byzantines also mandated some modest reforms to the organization of the military, although it's hard to improve on the Strategikon.  Finally, they browbeat Anatolios into continuing to invest in public works projects.  Some disturbing news came from the north— the enormous mob of Bulgarian peasants mobilized in their little uprising was being preserved by Tsar Ioakim as a standing army. I'm not sure who, exactly, Ioakim thought would be working Bulgaria's fields to feed that army, but for the time being it meant that the Bulgarian Empire was a force to be reckoned with. Remember, this is the army that wiped the floor with the armies of Rome.  So instead of just charging into Bulgaria like a bunch of morons, Anatolios and the Senate concentrated on making Byzantium as strong and modern as they could manage. Tip: The strength of the empire isn't just how big of a purple blot on the map it is. An empire can become exponentially more powerful through good government alone, without gaining an inch of new territory.  In 1132, some random Seljuk exile had the bright idea to try to claim his own little slice of Rum.  What a moron.  Still, it was nice to win a war against the Turks-- even if it wasn't exactly all the Turks. The Senate tried to order a triumphal arch built, but even Anatolios thought that'd be a bit gauche.  Instead, the money seized from our unlucky Seljuk got put towards rebuilding the depopulated urban centers of the provinces and improving Consantinople's defenses  I like towns and cities. They're filled with people that aren't nobles.  What I didn't like was studying. Thank God Konstantia wasn't having any of that, or else when the regency ended we'd have had a nincompoop for an empress.  Unfortunately, she died of pneumonia like right after that. Which blows. I miss her a lot, even now. I wish I could still ask her for advice.  Anatolios assumed direct responsibility for my education and edification after that. He was no Konstantia, but-- to be honest-- seeing the business of ruling the empire first-hand probably helped out.  Yet another war between Seljuk and Saimid loyalists broke out in 1136. Have you ever wondered why, now, we just call it the Turks Empires? Since nobody wants to remember what the dynasty of the week is.  Anatolios never let me forget that there are some people in this world who are just evil. For example, Anatolios.  The Seljuks seized control over the Turkish Empire yet again? Would it stick? Spoiler alert: Hahahaha of loving course not.  Meanwhile, Rome turned to more elevated matters.  And I had accrued enough personal influence to secure a tutor who wouldn't do things like beat me with a stick.  In 1139, the Bulgarian Empire decided to take a break from knocking around Hungary and Croatia to turn their stupid, bloated army on us. While the Bulgarian Empire looked big and solid on paper, the border between Bulgaria and Rome was extremely porous, and claimants to various Bulgarian titles clogged the courts of Constantinople. The real flashpoint was the city of Ragusa, though, whose mayor was still directly loyal to me even though the Bulgarians held the rest of the province. The Bulgarians weren't super thrilled about that.  Acceding to the Bulgarian demands was actually considered by Anatolios, who saw little reason to fight a costly war over some stupid city, but his buck-passing backfired when the Senate, which prioritized making GBS threads all over Bulgaria, shot him down. They were right to do so, as well. Retaking Bulgaria would be a long, slow process, and we'd have to destroy that standing army of theirs sooner or later. The New Byzantines and Old Romans alike both thought "sooner". In the end, we used the same trick the Bulgarians used to gently caress us over in the last war— splitting our forces in order to tempt the Bulgarians into attacking in a time and place of our choosing--  And then-- bringing the hammer down.  This was around the time I really started to take an interest in the empire being ruled on my behalf. And, well, I liked what I saw. Mostly. It was cool we wiped out that Bulgarian army, anyway. But I realized we really could be doing so much more.  The war was over. Not a single scrap of territory had changed hands— on paper, the Bulgarian Empire still cleaved Rome in two and stretched from the Adriatic to the Aegean-- but the destruction of Ioakim's bullshit huge army meant the end of The Bulgarian Empire, world power. What were they doing, calling themselves an empire anyway? They're Bulgaria. Even the miserable little stub of an empire Alexios I inherited was could be grandfathered in on the basis of being sort of Roman-y. Bulgaria's not Rome.  Anyway, all this good fortune left me feeling pretty loving positive about the people I'd surrounded myself with.  And, with that, I came of age. Empress Iouliana I Komnene. Things had been going pretty well, compared to all the disasters and setbacks of my infancy.  But we could do so much more. EDIT: World map, 1139 (i.e., two years before the end of the post but it's the closest I could find) 
Empress Theonora fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
These Traitorous Bulgarians must be made to suffer! Delenda est Bulgaria!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Iouliana I is, I suspect, going to be an awesome enough Empress that I will be seriously tempted to party-jump to the Komnenians. I like her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
A new updated party list! I'll just keep up with it until Sniper comes in and takes over if he wants (don't want to step on your toes), Rincewind tells me to bugger off or I just get bored. Old Romans: 16 Thanqol Jazerus mcclay DivineCoffeeBinge Sky Shadowing EightDeer StrifeHira Flesnolk NewMars Ubern00b Horsebanger Mortuus Grim reaper Jihad Joe Gnooble TheLoquid  New Byzantines: 25 Rogue0071 Pyroi DentedLamp Gygaxian Clayren zephyr42 Caustic Soda HenessyHero RabidWeasel Sleep of Bronze ChrisAsmadi Meinberg TheMcD sheep-dodger Luhood Aeromancia Blackunknown Rejected Fate Technowolf Frozen_flame cokerpilot Syce300 Ezo45 Jimmy4400nav Mirdini  Milvians: 8 Sindai JT Jag occipitallobe LordGugs AJ_Impy YF-23 SavageGentleman WilliamAnderson Komnenians: 8 Patter Song Lord Windy Muskatnuss ZearothK Ghetto Prince Duckbag Deceitful Penguin Capfalcon  Papists (Traitors): 7 Bulgarians Pope Goddamn Dutch Ofaloaf forkis GrabbinPeels Lord Windy fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
Look, you might unhelpfully call them traitors, I call them a potential source of vast amounts of manpower we could tap into if we just accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Look, you might unhelpfully call them traitors, I call them a potential source of vast amounts of manpower we could tap into if we just accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. Dear Lord Windy please update your list of traitors to include Ofaloaf thank you very much
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Look, you might unhelpfully call them traitors, I call them a potential source of vast amounts of manpower we could tap into if we just accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. Why don't you just bend down and suck the kebab of a Turk with that kind of talk, Frank?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
Fellows, I think we just found a good pariah for the Senate. No matter how insufferable Old Romans, New Byzantines, Komnenians or Milvians find each other, we can all always gather around this barrel of fish that are these Papists traitors. (Also, Old Roman)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Look, you might unhelpfully call them traitors, I call them a potential source of vast amounts of manpower we could tap into if we just accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. You're as bad as the bulgarians! edit: I'll put you back in your party during the next vote Lord Windy fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
Raserys posted:Why don't you just bend down and suck the kebab of a Turk with that kind of talk, Frank?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I am a proud Roman patriot whose primary concern is the continued existence of the state, thank you. An independent patriarch means nothing if our liege ends up a sultan and not the Emperor, which is what will happen if you keep stubbornly insisting on this policy which isolates us from the rest of Europe! Get the filioque out of here, heretic!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
It is the rest of Europe that isolates itself from us for bowing to the silver tongue of that liar, the Pope! If they wish to follow the vile words of the Serpent, then let them burn in Hell alone, we need not risk the very character of Rome to save her wayward kin!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
AJ_Impy posted:Get the filioque out of here, heretic!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
This is the worst thing I have ever done and I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
The wayward Bishop of Rome will be brought to our fold, surely, but kneeling in chains to the Empress as is his place. We have no need of the Papists or their Kings and false Roman Emperors anymore. Once we crush those Bulgarian traitors, we shall have a direct land route with our brothers of the faith, those of the Kievian Rus. They shall be all that we require to see our Empire restored, rather than Papist whores and fiends whose heresies would carry us all to Hell. E: ^^^^So... awesome! 
Skyfinder fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:This is the worst thing I have ever done and I'm sorry.  That's magnificent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I am a proud Roman patriot whose primary concern is the continued existence of the state, thank you. An independent patriarch means nothing if our liege ends up a sultan and not the Emperor, which is what will happen if you keep stubbornly insisting on this policy which isolates us from the rest of Europe! If you were a true Roman patriot you would know enough shame not to even consider the Emperor bowing down to a mere bishop. I would suggest we should have your head, but I would not want to exclude from the Roman economy the Papal money you surely receive. Thanqol posted:This is the worst thing I have ever done and I'm sorry. Never stop never stopping.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:If you were a true Roman patriot you would know enough shame not to even consider the Emperor bowing down to a mere bishop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
The empress isn't that hot. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:This is the worst thing I have ever done and I'm sorry.  Roman art flourishes under this new Empress!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I am a proud Roman patriot whose primary concern is the continued existence of the state, thank you. An independent patriarch means nothing if our liege ends up a sultan and not the Emperor, which is what will happen if you keep stubbornly insisting on this policy which isolates us from the rest of Europe! If you were a patriot, sirrah, you would understand that the state you claim to revere is the Roman Empire. We are not some backwater jumped-up nobleman whose grandfather claimed a crown at the point of a sword; we are the inheritors of a legacy of greatness stretching back centuries. It is our traditions that make us great. You - and too many of the "New Byzantines," despite the clear-thinking shown by the wiser members of your party - would throw away those traditions that hearken back to the Golden Age of Civilization in the name of political expediency, without considering for an instant the ruin that will be brought about by so doing - for if we discard our ways, if we bend to the breeze like a slender reed, then even if we manage to eke out some minor successes, even if the state that you claim to love survives another decade, another century, another millennium... we will still be no better than the accursed Normans or Franks or even the Turks, for we will have lost any claim to the greatness that has allowed our Empire to shine as the greatest beacon of civilization and modernity that the world has ever known. I say fie upon thee, sirrah! For all your claims to "forward thinking" and "forging a new Byzantium" you would make of us no more than a common Norman. The "progress" your party so claims to love will be for naught if, in order to achieve it, we lose that which makes us who we are - if we lose that which makes us Romans. To hear such talk in the Senate chamber makes me ill. For shame, sir. For shame. **** Thanqol posted:This is the worst thing I have ever done and I'm sorry. Never apologize for greatness, which is what this is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
I am curious -- this seems a fairly obvious observation, but are the Old Romans effectively our "conservative" party and the New Byzantines our "liberal?" And if so, which of the other parties best takes up the Modernisers mantle? DentedLamp fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
DentedLamp posted:I am curious -- this seems a fairly obvious observation, but are the Old Romans effectively our "conservative" party and the New Byzantines our "liberal?" My reading is basically: Old Romans: Probably pretty socially conservative. Mostly concerned with restoring the glory of the Roman Empire. The party to pick if you want to angle for the 'restore the Roman Empire' decision. New Byzantines: gently caress the glories of the past, let's build a new nation unfettered by all that old crap. In other words, Modernizers. Though they do, to be fair, have the coolest flag.Milvians: Religious conservatives. Orthodox Christianity above all. The party to join if you're more interested in ending the Schism than anything else. Komnenians: Do whatever the Emperor (or Empress) says is best. Who needs to have policies when you can just set up a cult of personality? I suspect that if these guys are in the ascendance, Rincewind will run the nation according to the monarch's traits and stats and utterly ignore any of the "the thread wants you to do X" considerations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:I say fie upon thee, sirrah! For all your claims to "forward thinking" and "forging a new Byzantium" you would make of us no more than a common Norman. The "progress" your party so claims to love will be for naught if, in order to achieve it, we lose that which makes us who we are - if we lose that which makes us Romans. We are not the Romans of old. My esteemed colleague, who speaks so eloquently about the Golden Age, should understand this. To you Old Romans, you classicists out there, recall the words of Plato in his dialogue Cratylus. The Golden Age was the first age, and we are all degradations of that time. In Plato's time he reckoned that his contemporary peers were the 'iron race', in relation to the good, noble, golden men of old. If Plato's peers were men of iron, then what of we, so far removed in time and thought from they? I say to you that we are men of clay! For we are shaped, shaped by the hands of God in the garden of Eden and, as much as we try to deny it, shaped by the world around us. Like clay, we have been molded into poor imitations of originals, but like clay, we can be shaped into original, unique works if we are but willing to cast off the old mold. The Romans of iron were themselves noble, respectable, but to try and reuse their mold for ourselves is the height of vanity, an insult to their memory and will never produce as good a work as the original, as much as we may try. We must let go of the old ways. Clinging dearly to our church ways has led us to diplomatic isolation, and our aspirations to old Roman glory have led to military disaster and weakness. To you Old Romans, recognize that the golden age has long since passed, and even Plato knew that such things could not be revived. Like clay, we must reshape ourselves, and I say to you all that we should be reshapen by the strongest hands in Christendom that are not our own; that of the Latins. Ofaloaf fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
As an Old Roman, I believe the time is right to bring back one of the greatest republican senatorial traditions. I say we gather about ourselves a mob and have them hurl Ofaloaf into the Bosphorus!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
NewMars posted:As an Old Roman, I believe the time is right to bring back one of the greatest republican senatorial traditions. I say we gather about ourselves a mob and have them hurl Ofaloaf into the Bosphorus! As compelling as I find my fellow Old Roman's call to tradition, I must speak out against this suggestion... for no matter how much I would no longer care to hear such nonsense as Ofaloaf's twatted about this august chamber, he does - and it pains me to say this, my friends - come vaguely close to almost making one good point, no matter how befuddled and deluded his conclusion from it may be. For we are shaped, my fellow Senators, by our times and by the world we find ourselves in. Now, Ofaloaf - who I must regretfully admit is a Senator, despite my refusal in principle to refer to him by that title so long as he proposes this 'Latin Empire' foolishness of his - would have you believe that we are men of clay. Men to be shaped and smoothed and baked into a single form. ...but clay, my friends, shatters. The Romans of old were iron, he will tell you, and this is not wrong. But iron, too, is shaped. Iron can be worked, iron can be tempered. Iron can be forged into steel. That is the shaping that we must pursue, fellow Senators. For it is steel that will return our Empire to its rightful place of glory. It is steel that makes our cataphraktoi the most powerful men under arms to be found throughout Europe. It is steel that our soldiers will wield as we cut down the Turks when the time is right to do so. And it is steel that will lend us the strength to reclaim Rome. We are not men of clay, my friends. We cannot be. For clay - the clay that Ofaloaf aspires to be, the clay that he would cast his entire New Byzantine party as - clay cannot stand to steel. I say unto you, the Roman Empire is less now than once it was. None can deny this. For while we are great - while we are Europe's bulwark against the Turk, while we are the inheritors of centuries of glory - we are diminished from the height of Empire. Ofaloaf will tell you that this is cause to flee the glories of the past. To cast them aside as worthless, to abandon that which brought us here - as though a road that takes you from Ragusa to Adrianople should be torn up and destroyed dimply because it does not extend to Constantinople. He will tell you that our tradition is meaningless because he - as a man of clay - is not strong enough to make our Empire strong again. Well I am not made of clay. And I say that this world is a crucible. I say unto you that our trials, our diminishment... these things have made us stronger. They have tempered us. Yes, there have been changes. We have cast aside many things. We employ turcopoles, he says; of course we do. We do not sacrifice to Mars anymore, either. We have made changes... when they have needed to be made in order to make us stronger. Our impurities have been hammered out of us in this world that is the Forge of God, but we have not broken. We stand on a precipice, my friends. Will you cast out even those traditions that strengthen us, as Ofaloaf proposes? Will we abandon those things that made the Roman Empire great simply because we can? Or will we hearken back to that greatness, and allow it to fuel our resurgence? Ask yourselves this, and this alone - will you be clay? Or will you be steel?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Look, you might unhelpfully call them traitors, I call them a potential source of vast amounts of manpower we could tap into if we just accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. Icon(cur). Let those determined to be schismatics continue their quest to leave the church of Christ weak to invaders! The followers of the goon mod stand over the ruins of our holy places! It is time to end our petty squabble. First among equals!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Fellow Rhomaoi, of course we learn, we grow, we improve on what we have. But we do not fabricate ourselves anew, as those who name themselves for the ancient, pre-Constantine name of our capital, a name our city has not been called since the year of our lord three hundred and thirty, and yet who have the temerity to call themselves 'New'. Nor do we hearken back to the old pagan days, following a lecherous, incestuous pantheon of disgraced, debauched deities. We acknowledge our history, and do not draw a veil over it, but it is faith that unites us. The Saimid hate us for we do not follow their barbarous false prophet, and the wayward bishop of Rome threatens to lead all of Europe away from proper orthodoxy and unity, whist claiming for themselves the name of the 'universal' church, catholikismos. As Athanasius stood strong against the scourge of Arianism, so too must we stand firm against Olafoafism, and his demands that we subjugate our faith, our very souls, to one who no longer recognises imperial authority. Our very lives - and afterlives! - depend upon rejecting the bitter fruit he offers. No matter if you hearken back to the old capital or to the city prior to Constantinople, we are of one faith, and in that faith is our strength.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
You speak of resurgence and strength harkening back to old Rome, and yet you dare deny we are men of clay? Look about our realm! Clay is our lifeblood. Were you to slice open the Theodosian Walls- I do not actually condone doing this- you would find that the city of Constantinople itself is protected by a shell of limestone surrounding a core of clay bricks. Our trade is built upon clay, for alongside the barrel it is the vessel of storage for our foodstuffs, our drinks, and the flesh and blood of our lives. Steel, though, vile, brutish steel, is a wretched material. I will grant the Milvians and our schismatic Patriarch that much, that they acknowledge the horrors of blood and war. Steel does little but destroy and kill. Clay, glorious clay, can build homes, build trade, build cities. Do we want to be men of steel, men of violence and death? Is that all the Empire is, all that the Empire should be? No! To build, to develop and grow stronger in wealth and men- these are the things which will benefit us all! Steel and blood will do little but deplete what power we have left. I beseech you, my fellow Senators, do not tread down that path of ruin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
There is little point in continuing to make noise because of one wayward child on a tantrum. But seeing as we all agree that we truly follow the orthodox church, we must also agree it must be strengthened! Much of our weakness that led the infidel Turks to invade was due to petty squabbles of the nobility. And once we restore these provinces to the empire we will have more, stronger Douxes. But that can be avoided if we put our future eastern conquests under church administration. Metropoles and Patriarchates will not be the breeding grounds of disputes over inheritances and claims. It must be done, gentlemen; a pious empire will be a strong empire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 17:01
|
|
YF-23 posted:
But CK2 doesn't allow that.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:But CK2 doesn't allow that. CK2 will let you create Bishophrics just fine though? You just do it a similar way to creating a republican vassal (start with a barony level holder of the right type).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:But CK2 doesn't allow that. You are limited in how many of your landed vassals can be church vassals, but you can still have them. And if we ever want to go over that limit rincewind can just mod the defines file to permit it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 17:12
|
|
YF-23 posted:You are limited in how many of your landed vassals can be church vassals, but you can still have them. And if we ever want to go over that limit rincewind can just mod the defines file to permit it. Well, in vanilla we're pretty much limited to like one or two duchy-level theocracies at best, and putting our future conquests under their administration would probably not work out. Of course, you can mod anything, but it makes for kind of boring gameplay, since theocracies are just boring feudals that don't give a poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
"Clay is our lifeblood." Bah! What are we, Serbs?!? (edit) YF-23 posted:There is little point in continuing to make noise because of one wayward child on a tantrum. I feel, upon further consideration, that I must disagree, Senator. Ofaloaf wishes us to embrace the Schism. I am certain that my Milvian colleagues find such a sentiment repulsive. Ofaloaf wishes us to embrace the Papal doctrine - including that doctrine whereby the Pope is granted the right of investiture over an Imperial Crown. Including ours. It was a Pope, recall, who proclaimed the false "Holy Roman" Empire! I am certain that my Komnenian colleagues find the notion that the Pope is superior to our Empress to be repulsive. Ofaloaf wishes us to abandon those traditions that have made our Empire the envy of the world. I know my Old Roman colleagues find such a sentiment repulsive. The "New Byzantines" are in the ascendancy. It is true. This cannot be denied. But they do not control a majority in the Senate. Indeed, a coalition of New Romans, Milvians, and Komnenians could well defeat any proposal they make by a comfortable margin of votes. But why should an entire party - several members of which are, to be fair, eminently reasonable Senators - be punished for the ravings of a single man? I propose, then, the following - that the New Romans, Milvians, and Komnenians stand united, and pledge to oppose the New Byzantine party in all things until such time as Ofaloaf is removed from that party, whether by his own doing or through forcible expulsion. Let him form his own 'Pope-lovers' party or whatever he chooses to call it; I would not be so thoughtless as to suggest that the man be stripped of his seat. But so long as that man represents the New Byzantines, I find myself entirely unwilling to work with them, for I cannot be certain that this heretical, short-sighted thought does not reach throughout their entire party. I have no qualms about alliances with the Papists if it serves our greater purpose, if it renders us more able to protect the Empire. But to ape them, to follow them into heresy as Ofaloaf suggests... I find such a notion to be distasteful in the extreme. Let us work together, my friends, to ensure that those traditions that we all venerate - the glories of the Roman Empire, the wisdom of the Orthodox Church, and the supremacy of our beloved Komnenian monarch - are not lost to us all. DivineCoffeeBinge fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 18:51
|
|