Have you guys considered making mods for the late Roman Empire era or medieval age?

[Oddnerd]

I'm not an expert on history but I figure of you could take a game like RTW and make it so much better, then the Medieval games, as well as BI must also be rife with inaccuracies and things in need of fixing.

Can I go to bed dreaming of this or is it infeasible?

[Ibrahim]

don't know why they would, afterall, EB itself takes up so much effort that I doubt it occured to them.

having said that, I'm not a member of the EB team, so don't take my word at it.

besides, there are some very lovely Medieval era mods out there already-notably Chivalry II total war (which I did work on for a short time)

[XSamatan]

Although some members have worked for mods that cover other time-spans, the team as a whole will not create a total conversion for an other time or region because
a) this would take up manpower
b) it would take longer to finish EB2
c) one would have to start from scratch
d) most of the members aren't interested in other time-spans as they are in the one covered in EB

XSamatan

[GenosseGeneral]

For Medieval Ages, may take a look at Dominion of the Sword, which is a MTW2 mod aiming at historical accuracy.http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=492

[I_damian]

I doubt they will and it's perfectly understandable. What pains me is that there has never been a mod, or game, focusing on the Byzantine Empire from AD 476 onwards. Even the realistic mods for M2 made the Byzantine's realistic, but not from 476 onwards.

Aside from EB, the second thing I'd love to see most is a mod of EB's quality for M2TW focusing on the Byz empire from 476.

[stratigos vasilios]

Wouldn't realistic accuracy start with "The Latter Roman Empire" and not the "Byzantine Empire"? I was under the impression that the word Byzantine was a late invention (1700+) to put a label on the Eastern Roman Empire (ERE).

I think mtw2 mods Stainless Steel, BC and DLV give reasonable depictions of the ERE if you want to give them a go.

[Stark]

East of Rome starts in 519 and end in 717 (I think). The Great Conflicts starts 872 and ends in 1072.

Those two should cover that empty period quite nicely.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

The term Byzantine was a late invention and the so called byzantines never referred to them as such instead they called themselves romans and the correct name for the faction would be Basileia Ton Romaion.

On a side note there is a great deal of debate over the arbitrary date of 476AD.

[Paltmull]

For Medieval Ages, may take a look at Dominion of the Sword, which is a MTW2 mod aiming at historical accuracy.http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=492

Or Broken Crescent, if you're interested in the Medieval Middle East. Historically accurate and extremely good-looking. I think it lacks the depth of EB though.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=346

[I_damian]

The term Byzantine was a late invention and the so called byzantines never referred to them as such instead they called themselves romans and the correct name for the faction would be Basileia Ton Romaion.

On a side note there is a great deal of debate over the arbitrary date of 476AD.

I know, there's always controversy about history so distant. I call them Byzantine because when I say Roman Empire it causes confusion, I hate the term "Eastern Roman Empire" because for most of the existence of the "Eastern Roman Empire" there was no western half, it had fallen. How can there be an eastern half of an empire to which no western half exists? And I always end up spelling the other thing wrong. Plus Byzantine Empire is kind of the universally accepted name for it now anyway.

And speaking of universally accepted, 476 AD is accepted as well, in general. My opinion and views do change from time to time. Physically you cannot argue that it ceased to exist in 476 AD due to what happened that year. But then you could say that it ceased to exist in 410. Or earlier, when Christianity was adopted. Or earlier, when Constantine moved the capital. See what I mean? So many arguments to be made for each date. Each one pretty much as good as the next/last.

Anyhow, when EB first was released it awoke a sleeping fascination within me about the Roman Empire and I've been devouring books on the subject since, many of them from the list of recommended reading on the EB forum. With the amount I have read, and the small library I have amassed in my house as a consequence, I can say my thirst for knowledge about the ancient Roman Empire is properly quenched for the time being. But the Roman Empire doesn't end with the deposing of the last emperor, it continues on for another thousand years, roughly, and it's that part of history I have become completely fascinated with over the last half a year or so, and have once again begun devouring books. The 2 parts of history that fascinate me most. The Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire. I already have a deep and satisfying game about the former in the Europa Barbarorum mods. The latter however, is sadly lacking. Just like it is in real life knowledge. Everybody knows the Roman Empire, hardly anybody knows what came after.

"Damian, what're you reading?"
"Book about Byzantine Empire"
"The what empire?
:stare:

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

I understand your views but still i dont think we should use the term byzantine empire after all its plain wrong. As for the arbitrary date of 476 AD, i feel that its no longer well accepted. (i, for one, believe in a later year)

We had professors like Arnaldo Momigliano saying that the middle age men never questioned the existence of the roman empire. Dates like 476 AD and terms like "bizantine empire" served a purpose that had little to do with history.

---

As for mods with the eastern roman empire, i believe BC and SS (also dots soon) are good mods yet EB is just magic, the best thing ever. (I really dont have words to describe the greatness of EB).

Take care

[I_damian]

You believe the Western Roman Empire continued to be the Roman Empire after the deposition of the last ever emperor of a united west and the breakdown of its former provinces in to minor kingdoms ruled by petty kings and strongmen with no continuance whatsoever of Roman law or custom? I'm all for debate and whatnot but sometimes you just have to stop it from wandering in to the extremes of fantasy.

Calling the eastern half of the Roman Empire that didn't fall when the western half did "The Byzantine Empire" isn't wrong at all, it's just a name we give to it to avoid confusion and it stuck, so now we call it that even though we know it was called something else, just like we call Marcus Antonius "Mark Anthony" or anything else that has had its name changed through the passage of time and is known as something different now to what it was known then.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

You believe the Western Roman Empire continued to be the Roman Empire after the deposition of the last ever emperor of a united west and the breakdown of its former provinces in to minor kingdoms ruled by petty kings and strongmen with no continuance whatsoever of Roman law or custom? I'm all for debate and whatnot but sometimes you just have to stop it from wandering in to the extremes of fantasy.

It is not me who believe that, there are a number of historians who supported it like (Arnaldo momigliano and many others). Besides there were in many cases continuation of roman law and custom, i dont know where you got this idea from.
"There are still traditionalists ready to support the once famous date of september 476, when Romulus Augustulus lost his throne; and there are more sophisticated researchers who would prefer the death ofJustinian in 565 or the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 - when the Roman empire was in a way replaced by two Roman empires. Another favourite date is the fall of Constantinople in 1453 as the end of the new Rome" --- A. Momigliano, ed., The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, The Clarendon Press, Oxford.

"But the most important discussion on the topic of social changes in the Roman empire remains that which developed in the last forty years between the followers of the Belgian scholar H. Pirenne and the followers of the Austrian A. Dopsch. As we all know, Dopsch substantially claimed that no break in continuity is noticeable in the Western world as a consequence of the German invasions. There was considerable redistribution of land, but the legal forms of ownership remained essentially Roman, city life survived, there was no return to natural economy, no interruption of the great trade-routes, and no interruption on the transmission of cultural goods.

Pirenne accepted Dopsch's view that the German invasion did not put an end to the Graeco-Roman social structure, but contended that the ancient ways of life were disrupted by the Arabs: they played the part that more conventional historans used to attribute to the Germans. In Pirenne's opinion the Arabs destroyed the unity of Mediterranean, paralysed the trade between East and West, drained the gold away from the West, and displaced the centre of civilized life from the Mediterranean to the North Sea. The West, having been cut off from Byzantium, had to look after itself. The coronation of Charlemagne was symbolically the answer given by the West to the challenge of Mohammed's followers. Thence the somewhat unexpected title of Pirenne's great book, Mohammed et Charlemagne.

It is perhaps right to say that Rostovtzeff was in essential agreement with Pirennce against Dopsch. Of course, he found the cause of the decline of the cities not in the intervention of Arabs, but in the revolution of the peasantry against the city-dwellers. But Rostovtzeff, like Pirenne, was a bourgeois in the classical sense: he identified civilization with city life and saw the end of the classical world in the decline of the cities."



Calling the eastern half of the Roman Empire that didn't fall when the western half did "The Byzantine Empire" isn't wrong at all, it's just a name we give to it to avoid confusion and it stuck, so now we call it that even though we know it was called something else, just like we call Marcus Antonius "Mark Anthony" or anything else that has had its name changed through the passage of time and is known as something different now to what it was known then.

The byzantine empire was coined in the XVII century as form of derision towards the eastern roman empire and too my thinking is even more confusing than using eastern roman empire since many ppl think the byzantine empire was something entirely different to the Roman empire.

[TheLastDays]

I don't see why it is a problem with naming the ERE "byzantine empire". We have a lot of names for historic "institutions" that weren't used by people in history themselves. For example we have the attic league, a name that wasn't used by contemporaries.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

I don't see why it is a problem with naming the ERE "byzantine empire". We have a lot of names for historic "institutions" that weren't used by people in history themselves. For example we have the attic league, a name that wasn't used by contemporaries.

For me calling the roman empire "byzantine empire" causes confusion but the main reason for not calling the roman empire as byzantine empire is the reason why such distinction was made.

I am not alone in thinkng that the XVIII century label for the roman empire shouldnt stand.

[Stark]

One vote against Byzantine Empire. :)

[TheLastDays]

For me calling the roman empire "byzantine empire" causes confusion but the main reason for not calling the roman empire as byzantine empire is the reason why such distinction was made.

I am not alone in thinkng that the XVIII century label for the roman empire shouldnt stand.

So be it. Out of interest: What exactly does constitute the existence of the roman empire? You said it continued on, so when did it end? How did it end? It certainly doesn't exist today, so how do you mark the end of an empire?
IMO roman structures or even laws taken over from Roman times aren't enough to still call it a roman empire and the "Holy Roman Empire" certainly had other than historical reasons for it's choice of a name ;)

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

So be it. Out of interest: What exactly does constitute the existence of the roman empire? You said it continued on, so when did it end? How did it end? It certainly doesn't exist today, so how do you mark the end of an empire?
IMO roman structures or even laws taken over from Roman times aren't enough to still call it a roman empire and the "Holy Roman Empire" certainly had other than historical reasons for it's choice of a name ;)

Very interesting question. It is certainly a complex matter and i certainly cant claim to have the truth of it. While the existence of a coherent administrative system and an unified (or at least feasable) political institution are important in order to determine an empire, to my thinking the most important factor in order to mark the existence of an empire is the ppl psyche... (for instance, the aforementioned historians mentioned claim that there was no question for the common folk of the existence of the roman empire (western) in the middle ages especially before the years of 800 AD).

[bobbin]

I generally take the end of the Roman Empire to have occurred when it permanently ceased to exist as a political entity, which would have been 1453 CE. I know the Ottoman rulers styled themselves as Roman Caesars but that was always subordinate to their title as the Ottoman Sultan, so you cannot consider them as being a continuation of the Roman polity.

[TheLastDays]

Very interesting question. It is certainly a complex matter and i certainly cant claim to have the truth of it. While the existence of a coherent administrative system and an unified (or at least feasable) political institution are important in order to determine an empire, to my thinking the most important factor in order to mark the existence of an empire is the ppl psyche... (for instance, the aforementioned historians mentioned claim that there was no question for the common folk of the existence of the roman empire (western) in the middle ages especially before the years of 800 AD).

Which people and where? That's definitely not true for all the former provinces, while it might be for italy proper.


I generally take the end of the Roman Empire to have occurred when it permanently ceased to exist as a political entity, which would have been 1453 CE. I know the Ottoman rulers styled themselves as Roman Caesars but that was always subordinate to their title as the Ottoman Sultan, so you cannot consider them as being a continuation of the Roman polity.

So, you would still "count" the eastern empire as "the roman empire" although they were officially seperated, even while both halfs were still active and intact?

[Stark]

They didn't officially separate into Roman and Byzantine Empire, they were two halfes of the same state. Are you saying western Roman Empire was more Roman than it's eastern counterpart?

[Arjos]

I don't think that any side went on calling itself east or west for the matter, it simply turned into a diarchy...
And Byzantines never called themselves like that, there wasn't even a Byzantium :D

[TheLastDays]

They didn't officially separate into Roman and Byzantine Empire, they were two halfes of the same state. Are you saying western Roman Empire was more Roman than it's eastern counterpart?

They did hold Rome, you know :tongue:

Anyway, of course you're right, but still most historians do mark an end of the western roman empire, as we call it but it seems some here have voiced the opinion that this western part did not actually end until deep into the middle ages? So that's why I'm interested, I like to learn and hear new points of view and I'd like to know why they think it "continued" and what ended it.

[Arjos]

476 AD as a watershed is pretty ficticious: the Papacy, Charlesmagne and the "Byzantine Empire" never experienced a brutal change in customs...

[Stark]

I like to think that Muslim invasions forever changed Roman Empire and Mediterranean (I felt that way even before reading Pirenne's book). Before that event most of barbarian states still respected the power and influence of Roman Emperor, took Roman titles as rulers, often sent from Constantinople. Christianity was universal religion in entire Mediterranean, the way of life didn't change so drastically... It was a known world, and Roman empire of the east was still enough large, diverse and powerfull to claim a spot of an universal empire.

Arabs changed all of that. They wrecked civilisation of mediterranean, crushed the old world order and changed Roman Empire into just one of great powers of Mediterranean world.

I don't look at changes of cultural identity as important enough to make a distinction from Roman to Byzantine. Roman Empire in 1st and 4th centuries were two very different states and cultures but no one claims it was a different state in 4th century. USA changed a lot since 1776 but it's still USA.

[Populus Romanus]

I like to think that Muslim invasions forever changed Roman Empire and Mediterranean (I felt that way even before reading Pirenne's book). Before that event most of barbarian states still respected the power and influence of Roman Emperor, took Roman titles as rulers, often sent from Constantinople. Christianity was universal religion in entire Mediterranean, the way of life didn't change so drastically... It was a known world, and Roman empire of the east was still enough large, diverse and powerfull to claim a spot of an universal empire.

Arabs changed all of that. They wrecked civilisation of mediterranean, crushed the old world order and changed Roman Empire into just one of great powers of Mediterranean world.

The Arabs may have squashed Rome, but all that Rome achieved in science, philosophy, politics, medicine, culture, architecture, and technology was saved by Islam. It was the Germanic tribes who destroyed Rome, Muslims salvaged the ideas of Rome and preserved them when the rotting corpse of the Empire was decomposing in Constantinople. No one has ever done a greater service to Western civilization than the Arabs.

[Arjos]

What about christian romans destroying that very greek knowledge? XD

[antisocialmunky]

It wasn't so much the Arab invasion as much as the often overlooked devastating climax of the Byzantine-Parthian Wars in Khosrau II's campaign that nearly conquered the Empire. But it failed and crippled both states and killed 1 million inhabitants of the Levant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Sassanid_War_of_602%E2%80%93628#Short-term_consequences


What about christian romans destroying that very greek knowledge?

Surely it was the Christians and not the break down in Mediterranean trade and the following collapse of cities during this period that reduced the number of people wealthy enough to sit around on their butts and think instead of having to do unuseful things like work hard to not starve to death.

[Arjos]

Surely it was the Christians and not the break down in Mediterranean trade and the following collapse of cities during this period that reduced the number of people wealthy enough to sit around on their butts and think instead of having to do unuseful things like work hard to not starve to death.

Eh eh, I was joking about generalizing too much ^^

[Stark]

Barbarian tribes maybe destroyed political unity of Roman Empire, but they remained in it's cultural sphere, tried to emulate it's institutions, shared religion, gladly received titles form Emperor (of ERE). They were not unknown, they remained a part of Roman civilization. They even tried to restore the Empire.

Arabs brought their own civilization and religion, forever changing the culture of Mediterranean.

[Hax]

Concerning the Arab conquest of the Levant and Iraq: even though the image was later created (both by Arab Muslims as well as non-Muslims) that the Arabs easily seized control over the Byzantine territories and simply rolled over the Sassanids, that image is at best only half true. In essence, the Byzantines (or Romans, if you prefer) were initially quite successful in recapturing several key cities from the Arab armies. If I recall correctly, it took the Arabs ten years to conquer the coastal area of present-day Lebanon and Syria after capturing Damascus.

Additionally, we can't really talk about the Arabs coming in and bringing their own civilisation and religion. From what we know, the Arabs were initially not at all interested in converting the local population or even displacing authority. If you look at old coins of the earliest Umayyad Caliphs, they are basically copies of earlier Sasanian and Byzantine coins. Islamisation of the provinces (meaning that people actively started to convert) took roughly two to three generations (depending on location) and by the time that Muslims were in a majority took at least three centuries (and much longer in other, more remote areas).

Current orthodoxy that is commonly referred to as fundamentalism also has little basis on the earliest history of Islam. The title "Caliph", as most of you will know, stems from the Arabic word "khalifat" meaning "representative". The earlier full version of the title was "khalifat rasul allah", meaning "representative of the Prophet of God" but the later Abbasid Caliphs were actually referred to as "khalifat allah". I bet you can figure out the meaning of that one.

Stating that Arabs displaced Helleno-Roman and Persian civilisation, I think, goes too far. They adopted a large chunk of earlier Persian and Helleno-Roman traditions but with a new twist. This also puts "fundamentalism" in a whole new perspective, as there had never been a "fundamental" Islam that we know of. The final Qur‘an we know of was written down thirty years after Muhammad's death, and Muhammad's first biography was created around two hundred years after his death. Several philosophical ideas that exist in Islam, especially in Shi‘i philosophy, are typically Iranian in origin, such as the emphasis on bloodline. There have even been suggestions that the salah (prayer) was taken from the Zoroastrians (who also pray five times a day, only in a different fashion).

So what did the Arabs do? If you ask me, they did indeed change the face of the Mediterranean world and introduced a new religion that was different from most Mediterranean traditions. However, there is a clear continuity of earlier Helleno-Roman and Persian traditions to be found in their customs that are commonly identified as "Arab" or "Muslim".

[Ibrahim]

actually, khalifah more accurately means: "successor" (from root stem kh-l-f, "be behind"; also the origin of "khalf" (meaning "behind")).

however, in this context, it can also mean representative, since he is essentially supposed to be the man "behind" the prophet in seniority. and of course, with the Abbassids, their title was such that they were basically saying they were "behind" God (i.e. second only to him).

[Genktarov]

Another consideration in some of the earlier debates: Perhaps even the deciding factor in Byzantine stagnation and the Arab conquests was that in the 500s a y. pestis (Black Plauge, or just plague) pandemic swept the Mediterranean and European regions, killing around a fourth of the population. The Arabs were so successful because the world they seek to conquer had been recently devastated by plague. The Byzantines were just too exhausted to counter Arab advances.

[Deutschland]

Yeah I have considered to make one ;)

Search for East of Rome at TWC.. Its exactly what you are looking for ;)

[Hax]

The Arabs were so successful because the world they seek to conquer had been recently devastated by plague. The Byzantines were just too exhausted to counter Arab advances.

Definitely. However, I would add to that the Sassanian-Byzantine wars which were devastating to either side, really.