And they were later reunited by Constantine
It actually is. The Romans themselves didnât speak of Western or Eastern Rome. These terms were created in modern times by Historians.
Splitting the empire for better administration was a very common practice in the Roman civilization. Theodosiusâs just happened to be the last.
2 Likes
OK, I think I understand what you mean better. Thanks.
tbf thereâs lots of examples in history where the labels we apply to different groups would have been very bizarre to the actual people who were alive back then in those groups.
2 Likes
Thanks for the interesting answers to my question, everyone! However, I donât see anything here to convince me that Byzantines should be renamed to Romans. Both âByzantinesâ and âRomansâ would be correct, but âByzantinesâ is more specific temporally, geographically and culturally. To my mind that makes it a better fit.
That the Byzantines didnât call themselves Byzantines is completely irrelevant: most civs are not named after what those people called themselves, and thereâs no reason for them to be. (I would actually like to see a mod with period-appropriate endonyms for every civ, but I donât think that should be the official direction.)
How can it be not wrong but also incorrect? The historians who use the term âByzantineâ know what theyâre doing â theyâre using it deliberately, and not through ignorance or stupidity.
5 Likes
Iâm not really bothered about them being called Byzantines. However, the point here is that they are already Romans. By adding a âRoman civâ, we would end up with two Roman civs, wixh makes it redundant, since the Byzantines already cover late Antiquity Romans
4 Likes
Arguably it is more do to habit. It is already admitted that it was a polemical term used to describe the Romans after their fall. There was a time in studies where they were the dead end for anyone who wanted to be a successful historian, so no one really pushed Byzantine studies. The field needs more time to mature, and has been maturing for a bit.
1 Like
Yes. The term âByzantineâ has been used by Western Europe to downplay the role and legacy of Eastern Rome during the Middle Ages. Literally the rest of the Old World called them Romans (Arabs, Turks, Persians, etc.).
3 Likes
I wouldnât always go with that as concrete evidence. There was a time when Europeans called everyone who came out of the Asian Steppe âTatarsâ because they didnât know or really care about the differences between peoples there.
3 Likes
But they also call themselves Romans. In this case only Western Europe refuses to call them Romans. Itâs the opposite
2 Likes
I really do hope if they add Western Rome as a civilisation it wonât just be called Romans.
The most reasonably thing would be to rename the Byzantines to make it clear who is who.
Western Romans and Eastern Romans.
Their very common appearance in campaigns and the immense popularity of the Roman Empire are valid reasons to add the civilisation to the game.
I do think they should add a shared reginal unit between both Roman civilisations though to symbolise that they belong together like Poles and Lithuanians sharing the Winged Hussar.
4 Likes
I mean, The Holy Roman Empire wasnât holy, Roman or an empire 
. So perhaps we shouldnât take everyone at their word, especially when itâs common practice to use the names of famous empires for clout.
4 Likes
If a Roman civ would end up in AoEII, it should be one rapresenting the Papal States. It would fit historically and could have a intersting game style, like a monk-based civ.
As wikipedia says:
The seeds of the Papal States as a sovereign political entity were planted in the 6th century. Beginning in 535, under Emperor Justinian I, the Eastern Roman Empire â referred to by most historians as the Byzantine Empire to distinguish the Greek-speaking and religiously Byzantine polity based in Constantinople from the Latin-speaking, Roman Catholic Empire ruled from Rome â launched the Gothic War to reconquer Italy. This lasted until 554 and devastated Italyâs political and economic structures. Then in 568 the Lombards entered the peninsula from the north, establishing their own Italian kingdom, and over the next two centuries would conquer most of the Italian territory recently regained by Byzantium. By the 7th century, Byzantine authority was largely limited to a diagonal band running roughly from Ravenna, where the emperorâs representative, or Exarch, was located, to Rome and south to Naples, plus coastal exclaves.[13] North of Naples, the band of Byzantine control contracted, and the borders of the âRome-Ravenna corridorâ were extremely narrow.[14][15][16]
With effective Byzantine power weighted at the northeast end of this territory, the pope, as the largest landowner and most prestigious figure in Italy, began by default to take on much of the ruling authority that the Byzantines were unable to exercise in the areas surrounding the city of Rome.[17] While the popes legally remained âRoman subjectsâ under Byzantine authority, in practice the Duchy of Rome, an area roughly equivalent to modern-day Latium, became an independent state ruled by the pope.
1 Like
I donât understand your point. The Byzantines are direct succesors of the classical Roman Empire, the considered themselves Roman, most of the world considered them Romans. But they donât deserve to be called Romans because Western Europeans decided that title belonged to a Germanic king and we have to refer to them by a term coined in the 16th Century, decades after their fall?
1 Like
So, the split of âWesternâ and âEasternâ roman empires should be thought as something like province reformation? what about having differnet kings/emperors/caesars? They had different government institutions?
Iâm learning in this topic
I donât think renaming the Byzantines as Eastern Romans would make it clearer for players, Byzantines is a name with quite a good âbrand recognitionâ. Besides, they tend to cease being refered to as Eastern Roman Empire as soon as thereâs no Western one that they recognise as part of the Empire. Using such a name would imply they consider the Carolingian Empire or the HRE as trully Roman. Not that the Romans refered to themselves as Eastern or Western at any point anyway, especially not in diplomacy as they were supposed to still be one single entity with only the administration being split apart.
Another thing is that Iâm under the impression the devs avoid giving civs a name with several words in it.
4 Likes
In the west, the Bishop of Rome became the most important ############## and political figure. In one of the most significant acts in world history, Chalemagne was consecrated as the Roman Emperor by the Bishop of Rome, which did hold significance as there was an ############## connection to the legitimacy of the title at that time. This created tension between Rome and the Roman Empire.
1 Like
Byzantines is not necessarily a bad name for the medieval romans, but adding another âRomanâ civ is redundant at best and deceiving at worst, especially considering how many people refuse to consider Byzantines as Romans for some reason.
4 Likes
Then it should bea proper Papal States civ, not a Western Rome one.
Yes. Neither of those Imperial courts were more Roman than the other one. In fact, they were coemperors. If you are interested, check what was what Diocletian did and check Western Roman Empire history after Majorian. You can see how the Eastern Emperor appointed Western Emperors.
Always remember that for Romans, Roman was an idea. A Berber, a Celt, a Greek, a Latin, they were all Romans
1 Like
Yes, but since the game uses ethnic names of civilisations -and not political ones- the term Romans, in a medieval setting, would better suit Papal States.
2 Likes
Yes, but thatâs not how the game divides civs up.
1 Like