Thoughts on the depiction of the Byzantine Empire in the Medieval: Total War games?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'm doing a project on the depiction of Byzantium in the two Medieval: Total War games - to what extent its accurate, what kind of image of the Empire it portrays - and I'd like to get some general thoughts from other players. Anything in terms of military, names, geography, situation, politics, culture - even the faction colour. All thoughts/opinions are welcome, particularly these strands:

1) Those knowledgeable on the Byzantine Empire can perhaps say what they think is wrong with it - or right with it - and how accurate various elements are. Recommendations for improvements might also be an area of interest.

2) I'd particularly like to know first impressions from those who may never have even heard of the Byzantine Empire before playing the games. What struck you first about them? What sort of impression did you go away with purely from playing the game? Did that change over time? And so forth.

3) How do you think the depiction of Byzantium changed from Medieval to Medieval II, if at all? Did it get worse? Better?

Again, this is mostly based on your impressions just from playing the game, so even if you haven't read anything about Byzantium please feel free to chime in.

[edyzmedieval]

1) Byzantium is actually one of the most accurately depicted factions in Medieval: Total War (first one), having its own specialised units and with a particular emphasis on Constantinople (trade is very developed). However there is the feeling of being too general for such a complex faction, and clearly the building options are not really effective in recreating the theme/tagmata system of the Byzantine Empire. I particularly liked the "heroes" of the game and also the historical events which added an academical feel towards playing the Empire, making it one of the most enjoyable campaigns you can ever play in a Total War game.

Recommendations - more specific Byzantine units, building options, more court titles, more historical events and probably specific Byzantine music to get you in the mood.

M2TW is waay too general to be even considered for analysis.

2) Before playing I've known about the Byzantine Empire, but it is actually Medieval Total War that sparked my interest in them, to such a degree that today I want to pursue Byzantine history at university.

3) It clearly got worse. M2TW is very stereotypical towards the Byzantines, and with almost no specialised units. MTW is clearly the better game, from every aspect except graphics.

[Meneldil]

Yoohoo, BKB is back.

1 - I'm not knowledgeable with Byzantine history, or at least not enough to give my opinion on this.

2 - Actually, MTW was my second (gaming) experience with the Byzantine Empire, the first being Age of Kings.
What I saw in MTW kind of supported the idea of the Byzantine Empire I got from AoK: military-wise, they rely on specialized unit, often-heavy (Cataphracts, Varagian Guards) and often old-school (according to west european standards, though it might also be described as "easternish" rather than old-school, ie. scale armor, full armored horses, greek fire, and so on).

Oh, and for some reason, they are always purple. Whether it is in AoK, MTW, M2TW or Europa Universalis. There's probably a reason to this, but I can't figure it out.

[Fragony]

Oh, and for some reason, they are always purple. Whether it is in AoK, MTW, M2TW or Europa Universalis. There's probably a reason to this, but I can't figure it out.

I think it's simply because it's the color used on maps of the Roman empire after the splitup, western empire is usually green.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The purple is actually quite significant - royal princes were considered to be porphyrogenitoi (or porphyrogenita for princesses)- 'born in the purple' - and purple fabrics were highly prized in Byzantium. In the tenth century Ottonian diplomat Liudprand of Cremona was stopped from taking purple cloth back to Italy for such reasons.

Thanks for the thoughts guys - keep them coming!

[Sarmatian]

If I'm not mistaken. "porphyrogenitoi" actually means "born in red". In Serbian language the word for red is "crveno" and the word "purpur" is another word for red, like red-crimson-scarlet in English. The word "purpur" is similar to "porphyr". Ostrogorsky always translated "porphyrogenitoi" as born in red (serbian - "u purpuru rodjen").

It might be a wrong translation in English. I'm by no means expert on Byzantine Empire, so I might be wrong.

For depiction of Byzantine Empire it Total War games, I'm inclined to agree with edyz. In all fairness, Byzantine Empire was an extremely complex state that changed and reformed a lot. Byzantine Empire from the 11th century is significantly different from Byzantine Empire in the 14th century. It's very hard to portray such complexity and changes within limits of a TW engine. That's why I'd say MTW was quite good depiction of BE, while M2TW's depiction is a blasphemy...

[Meneldil]

I think it's simply because it's the color used on maps of the Roman empire after the splitup, western empire is usually green.

My empires were red and blue respectively :-/ I guess the guys who made my high school history books were kind of influenced by the "socialist/conservative" political opposition.

As for the purple, yeah, BKB is probably right, as porphyr is actually the greek for purple. Now that explains it.

[edyzmedieval]

In Romanian, purpura means porphyr, and for Ostrogorsky, porphyrogenetoi are the ones who were born in the Imperial bedrooms, which were decorated in purple.

The mods such as Stainless Steel + Basileia ton Rhomaion greatly improve the Byzantine experience in M2TW.

[Cas Cas]

I'm not sure if this is still of interest, but I happen to have a focus on Byzantine and Roman history that hasn't already been handled in this thread, so I'd like to take a jab at your first question.

1)I feel that Medieval 2 Total War did, unfortunately, a poor job of displaying the Byzantine(Eastern Roman) Empire. Though they added more in the Crusades campaign, there is still a lot to be desired. The Byzantine Empire was one of the wealthiest empires in the world during its duration. Even during periods of decline, Constantinople itself made more revenue in a day than Western Europe did in a year. Additionally, the Empire was the center of Orthodox Christianity. It was one of the two forces that managed to stop the initial explosion of Arab conquest, France being the other. The Empire had a long urban and legal tradition, making it one of the most populated, most governed by what we consider law, and richest domain in Europe. However, despite their wealth and Roman legacy, they were doomed to decline. Their beginnings of collapse began with massive population migration, same as the Western Roman Empire, except for the Byzantines it was the Seljuks. Though the Seljuks certainly didn't demolish the Empire, they delivered a stinging blow that hampered its ability to recover. Before that time period, they had made real inroads on the Muslims south of Asia Minor. Basil II had successfully pushed south to Acre, just a few days from Jerusalem.

In the game, these important historical points are lost. Though based shortly after the loss at Manzikert, the Empire was still incredibly wealthy; this was especially true during Alexios Komnenos' reign, when I believe both vanilla and Crusades starts. However, Byzantium starts fairly poor. It's units are incredibly expensive, Thessalonika (an important trade hub and the second largest city in the Empire) is a large town, and Constantinople is about as big as an Italian city. In the game, Antioch ends up pulling a greater revenue than Constantinople. The Byzantine capital should start more wealthy and probably larger, being among the most populous cities in the world at the time.

The units are an issue, too. They feel too generic and underwhelming compared to CA's main Western European focus, such as Milan, the HRE, France, and England. Their units are outclassed by units from these armies, and only the vardariotai are their saving grace. Essentially, the Byzantine Empire feels like a generic faction with subpar units. It's like competing with jinetes using desert cavalry.

I would thus beef the units up. Stainless Steel has done a great job making the Byzantines feel more at home historically. However, to balance the faction, I would suggest - honestly - an overhaul of diplomacy and home rule. The Byzantines suffered from dynastic struggle and political games. This should be reflected in the game in anyway possible. Additionally, the Byzantines must be surrounded by more enemies than it can handle. Historically, they faced the Fatimids, the Seljuks, the Normans(Sicilians), the Venetians, the Hungarians, the Bulgarians, the Rus, and African sultanates. The challenges that Eastern Rome faced should be faced by the player, yet equipping them with the majesty and sheer power of Byzantium, namely Constantinople. A good emperor back then could have conquered the world with the sort of wealth an emperor like Anastasius accumulated. The player should face similar opportunity, and failure.

[I of the Storm]

Holy necro...

*too lazy to insert thread-necroing-pic right now*

[Noncommunist]

To be fair, it's not as much of a necro as when Michael VII brought the Byzantines back to Constantinople after about 57 years.

[edyzmedieval]

To be fair, that was quite an achievement... even after 57 years of struggle.

[Prince Cobra]

To be fair, the re-conquest of Constantinople was prepared by John III Ducas Batatzes. While a capable politician, Michael VIII used the momentum to finish what Batatzes started. Alas, he was too generous with spending money and giving away privileges.

P.S. It seems this necropost awakened my spirit that still has not moved beyond the Org. I think.