|
Ofaloaf posted:Yeah, that's just the 'Western Roman Separatists' civil war/rebel faction. They split off from the WRE and then conquered most of Italy. I think they've even resettled a few razed provinces. How does this work? Do they eventually take over the "real" WRE title, form their own breakaway state (seems like they could have done this already), or will there eventually be a "South Central Roman Empire" and a "Really Western Roman Empire"?
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
All these scattered Roman polities are weird and kinda dumb but maybe by CK2 if they survive there'll be a confederation of Roman city-states?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
quote:Silk Road: This rich trade network can bring great wealth to whomever controls the cities along the route – but it’s especially ripe for pillaging. Potential land-based merchant republic mechanics??
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Blue box lady's suggestion doesn't seem mutually exclusive with others. Unless I am misunderstanding it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Drone posted:...until a bloody France-style revolution imo this should be a phase of every Paradox LP.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Speaking of which, there was also that creepy "OUR JEWS" stuff that was funny for like a page.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
tl;dr: United Republic of Roman Republics! The separatists were largely motivated by opposition to the growing "dominate" style of Roman imperial government, under which Rome actually functioned as an empire, rather than preserving the fiction of a republic united under a "first among equals," as had been the style of government during the so-called "principate" period. They were not, at first, "republicans" in any sense we or the actual pre-Caesar Roman Republic would recognize. They favored a strong Senate and an "Imperator" who truly ruled as princeps inter pares, ironically making their government a precursor to later parliamentary monarchies. Over time, though, this would evolve into a new republican ideology. The "Roman Principality" by the middle ages was a confederation of republics that prospered on trade and conquest. The "Italia" empire-level title becomes the "Roman Empire" which functions on HRE rules but is composed of republics rather than feudal realms. If possible, the elected holder of the empire title remains a patrician, lending the name "Roman Principality" to the realm. Otherwise I guess the Imperator can function as the head of a feudal realm with a bunch of republic vassals, sounds like a good system!! GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I should note that with the way CK2 works, a Republic will always either be a merchant republic, with patrician elections and trade post mechanics and the coastal trade post conquest CB, which a unified empire controlling most of Italy would be well able to enjoy the fruits of pretty quickly, or it will be an inland republic with none of those things and no means of playing any dynastic games there. I figured it being a basket case of OP/derp wouldn't be a big deal if it's not something you'd be playing as, but if you're planning on making this a mod for a larger playerbase it might be too much of a mess, yeah. I am just kind of torn between whether something like the HRE or an empire-level Roman Republic would make more sense for principate ideologues to build. If people really like my idea but you deem it unworkable, either one of those are in the spirit of the thing maybe.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:
I still love my own dumb crazy idea, but this dumb crazy idea owns pretty hard and is too beautiful to not live, so it's got my vote now. eta: I don't understand the confusion about the title implied here, isn't the idea that there'd be a "Holy Roman Empire" tag as an empire-level title which the Pope would hold, creating an empire-level theocratic state? (Incidentally, I think the name for a Catholic empire-level theocracy is "See" which is pretty cool but idk if "Holy Roman See" is what we're going for here...) GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
 I kinda like the Muslim India idea though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
sheep-dodger posted:
Changing vote to this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:Are there going to be any republics at the start of ck2? Republics are cool, we should have some republics. We had our shot at ALL the republics, but SOME PEOPLE
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Merdifex posted:Eh? I'm sure a empire level republic with all republican vassals all they way down is definitely possible, but I think that having so many merchant republics right next to each other would gently caress with the maritime trade mechanics somehow, and then you have landlocked republics, who have no access to the trade mechanics at all, and are screwed up from the beginning due to not being able to generate money for elections or whatever. Yeah the OP nature of an empire-level merchant republic or a bunch of merchant republics in one empire was one aspect of why Ofaloaf suggested it was a bit bonkers, and the other half was that if any of them are landlocked, they're unplayable (which I still think is a completely bullshit mechanic tbh).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:For Republics, I was thinking that Itallia remnant on the heel of Italy is in a good position to become a republic, access to three seas and tucked away in a small corner, it could be this time lines Amalfi, just a thought anyways. This sounds cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
I'm kinda curious where the concepts of de jure kingdoms, the names and boundaries, are coming from here. Roman provinces?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I'm super-proud of all this work, okay, let me talk about the sausage-making. Go right ahead, this is cool. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
GSD posted:We need to invent our own ideology. http://anarcho-monarchism.com/
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
I believe that there is no ideological conjunction so absurd that it doesn't exist somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I can't remember the name of the LP, but it was the one with ancestral-skeleton-ruled-corporate-Inca in it. Fun fact, other than the "corporate" part, that's the real Inca too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Or, it requires the horses and camels that lived in the Americas to be domesticated X0,000 years ago instead of hunted/climate changed/whatevered into extinction?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
1. B 2. B 3. C 4. C 5. B
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:btw I have a list of everyone who didn't vote to end slavery Glad to get that one "wrong," teach. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Hey, I resemble that remark!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
I'm a fifth year PhD student in history and while I don't know poo poo about medieval Europe, I know a thing or two about slavery in the early modern Atlantic World (although it's more background for my research than my main focus, so even here I'm not totally confident in my knowledge being comprehensive). I'm not going to weigh in definitively on speculation about how things would go in this timeline, but I wanted to point a few things out that might affect others' speculation: 1. North Africans in the Middle Ages kept sub-Saharan African slaves. The first European colonial powers, Spain and Portugal, had extensive contact with North African Muslims, one way or another, and had small numbers of sub-Saharan African slaves themselves. There's a whole line of thinking (which is far enough outside my specialty that I can only summarize it) which contends that the "racialization" of slavery and the development of an idea of "black inferiority" came about in North Africa first, transferred to Iberians, influenced their colonial policy, created an Atlantic market for African slaves, and thus influenced the ideas about race and labor of the Johnny-come-lately European colonial powers, all of which wanted to copy Spain's success (no matter how much, say, England hated them because they were Catholic). Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch past the part where we talk about North African influence on Iberians, but there could be enough to it to the point where I'm not convinced that racial slavery in the English empire, for example, was clearly a reaction to cross-racial worker solidarity. In any case, this connection between sub-Saharan Africans and Northern Mediterranean Africans and Iberians is something I can see being possibly relevant to a story about a Roman Empire spanning Iberia and the African coast of the Mediterranean! 2. Religion sometimes served as a restriction on enslavement, but it could be ignored where convenient. African-descended slaves converting to Christianity in the Americas didn't earn their freedom thereby. Converting to Catholicism did not remove the Kingdom of Kongo from the slave market. Actually, it drew them diplomatically closer to European kingdoms and made their war captives a big export item (plenty of non-Christians to enslave, after all!). This suggests to me that religious status (i.e., a more thoroughly Christian West Africa) would not necessarily have the happy impact we might like, especially if slavery was an important established institution prior to conversion. Which brings me to... 3. Slavery was an African institution. Not just in the west, and definitely not just after European contact. We can very broadly view the economic and legal regimes in Europe and Africa as differing in this way: in Europe, there were a lot of people compared to little unclaimed land, and so land was wealth. In Africa, there was a ton of land but not enough people to really work it all, and so people were wealth. Slavery was central to African economies. Going along with this, Europeans were not the dominant partners in the African slave trade. They did not "rob the continent" as anything other than accomplices to Africans, who did make mad cash selling slaves for export to the Americas. (The real problem for African states that participated in the Atlantic trade wasn't not profiting off of it, but rather profiting so much that they became dependent on it.) Europeans were simply a new participant in an existing market, albeit one with a great degree of purchasing power. For the most part, though, Europeans played by African rules, and Africans ran the show. But Europeans had some influence. There were some substantial differences between chattel slavery in the Americas and slavery as it had existed in Africa (or at least, the parts I'm most familiar with). Europeans wanted mostly adult men who could do heavy mining and farming labor. In Africa, slaves tended (again, very broadly) to be women and children set to household tasks. The "model" was different as well: Europeans applied a concept of ownership based on property in land which made people into things, whereas "people-as-wealth" in Africa was mediated by an arrangement of social ties and obligations (enslavement of orphaned or captured families could be carried out as a kind of fictive adoption, for example). So, after Europeans entered the market, there was a greater demand for mass quantities of adult male slaves than there had been before, and combined with the way these slaves were treated, as a bulk good rather than people with a subordinate status and heavy obligations, this led to political and social change in Africa. 4. I keep hedging on how broad many of my claims are because I'm always aware that it's nonsense to paint the entire continent of Africa with such a broad brush. That said, one of the most common examples of that kind of generalization is the assumption of an "African identity" in this period. When I talked about Africans selling Africans, for example, these terms are only geographically relevant. From the perspective of the traders, they are Kongolese selling some losers from some backwater tribe, so who gives a poo poo. This transferred over to the Americas, as well, as African slaves maintained their specific national/cultural/tribal identities. This has significance for any speculation about the racialization of slavery. West Africa can be thoroughly Christian and at technical parity with Europe and it's still possible for the powers-the-be on any of the continents facing the Atlantic Ocean to come up with "racial" points of distinction. Hell, until around World War 2, not even all Europeans were considered "racial equals," there was a white-ethnic-national pecking order with real implications for labor organization. 5. The role of technology in slave systems is complicated. Take the example of the cotton gin: a labor saving device that actually revitalized the slave system in the antebellum U.S. South. One of the major crops for export which slave plantations produced in the Americas was sugar, the cultivation of which was actually a fairly technically sophisticated enterprise. Gathering the crop wasn't, sure, but then you had to process it at a mill, which was a much more complex operation. Slaves worked all parts of the process. There are records of slaves in Brazil stealing the tools needed to run the mills, escaping, and attempting to negotiate a return to servitude under better conditions in exchange for coming back with the tools, rather like a strike. (Speaking of Africans maintaining their specific national/tribal identities in the Americas, they demanded that the masters only use "blacks" from some other nation to do certain kinds of dirty work. Also, they did not succeed in getting any of what they wanted and were all executed.) I am not at all sure that a more technically advanced West Africa would abandon slavery just by dint of having better technology than they did in our timeline. It's noteworthy, too, that part of the reason why Europeans didn't run the show in the slave trade is that prior to the 19th century, the technology gap was not wide enough for Europeans to outright dominate Africa. None of this can definitively confirm or deny any speculated alternate history (so much poo poo is different that a lot of the factors going into the development of slavery in the Atlantic World might be completely irrelevant just by general butterfly effect), nor should it take precedent over "what's fun." I'm just offering it as info which some might find useful. (Also I didn't read all the alt-history-slavery chat, and what I did read I might not have read all that closely, so maybe I am repeating things people have already taken into account, and if so, sorry!)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
As well you should.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Hypothetically, could the events involved be changed to be about something else?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Jesus Christ. eta: Just to be clear, I'm not offering that as a "counterpoint."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:I did not expect Gnostic Egypt when I saw gnnosticism pop up in the middle of Russia. I'm more than ok with this. It makes a certain amount of sense because I'm pretty sure gnosticism was big in Egypt originally. Maybe these neo-gnostics saw Egypt as their holy land and went there right away?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Ironically casting my vote for B.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
West
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Does joining the Orthodox League require conversion?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
A backlash and repression against Concilliarism is unlikely if one of the biggest Concilliarist powers joins the Orthodox cause. That's support that comes with some big strings attached and proves on its own that religious difference isn't necessarily a threat to the empire's stability.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Pakled posted:As of the beginning of the game, only Catholics (Orthodox in this mod) can be Emperor. When we converted to Concilarist, we became ineligible for the Imperial crown. Depending on the results of this league war, it can either have the Empire's religious policy remain the same (only Orthodox can become Emperor), make it so only Concilarists can become Emperor, or make it so any Christian can become emperor. I'd be interested in Ofaloaf's take on whether that last option is more likely if Gothia joins with the Orthodox.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Convert back to arianism and take on all comers. this
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:The Aztec capital was taken on August 19th, 1567, after a prolonged siege. Maura, frustrated by the resistance of the Aztecs in their capital, ordered the city destroyed. A priest, Anaclet de Fermat, pleaded with the conquistador to reconsider, crying that “this city is the Rome of the New World[...] what Goth would ever dream of sacking Rome?” btw I just wanted to say I laughed really hard at this one.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
 Trade
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 13:21
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Where else does that name occur? Have I duplicated something? The "Gold Rules the World" LP, where it was a creepy continent of eldritch alien ruins.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
If the French Revolution happened in Britain in the 1770s, then some things got switched around in this timeline and whoever's occupying the area of France is set to have some trouble with its colonies in the 1790s... oh wait.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2018 20:03
|
|