/gsg/ - Grand Strategy General

does visigoth always culture shift to spanish?

>Says the 3PM western roman empire

>fun
No such thing, the rewards for uncivs that aren't those 3 are nowhere near the efforts needed.
Well, maybe if you manage to pull of an Indonesian unification, go for Indochina borders as Vietnam or try a releasable state, but besides that my point still stands.

Mughals is pretty easy and can be fun, Ethiopia is acceptable too

What was the question? Don't wanna search the archive.

Ethiopia is pure dogshit RGO wise. I agree with the Mughals though.
Fun uncivs that aren't Japan, Persia or Egypt blobs

...

For RGOs you can not beat Korea. Norks especially have coal and iron in one of their states, so you can stack a bunch of military factories in the North and a bunch of consumerist crap in the south.

Just like real life.

How does it feel to be eternally BTFO Julian?

It doesn't matter how small it is, it's not a Roman empire, or a properly Roman state. At best it's stasis, not true revival. Unless it's a proper, unified and singular Roman polity, it's an anti-traditional mess thrown together by the plebs in the wake of Rome's failure. The Eastern Empire is, at this point, a more legitimate successor. At least until those two nations combine and contemplate uniting Italy under a restored Western Rome.

I'm playing Soissons in WTWSMS too user. Why is your shield fucked up?

It has great mineral resources but the people will just starve to death without a sphere leader since there's too many people and few farmers and fishers.

How autistic are you faggot? Roman blood is more than enough to be a Roman empire

eu3>eu4>vic2>DH>everything else

What defined Rome was never the ethnicity, but the culture and the judiciary system.

...

>blood
t. g*rmanic barbarian

>Romans had an entire mythos dedicated to their shared ancestry being descendants of Aeneas, and Mars.
Nope

roman empire*

t. Varus
How well did Arminius having Roman culture work out for you :^)

Manichean in CK2 here, my church is now apparently deactivated after Abbasid blob slayed my Archegos, is my run over?

But their title isn't the Roman Empire, and they're not claiming to be its legitimate successors. They're petty rulers living on in Rome's wake, with no clear indication that they'll hold to its legal precedent.

How often do you suck Odoacer's cock user?

Merry Christmas, niggermod.

Odoacer is far, far worse than a petty Roman lord. But a petty Roman lord is still worse than a proper Roman successor state which is united, and that, in turn, is worse than a state which maintains the proper legal and traditional succession of the old Empire.

How do I get rid of Iconoclasm in my ruler?

Start by not playing 769

Is based Syagrius of Soissons Roman enough after using the OP Imperial Reconquest cb to restore Roman rule over Gaul?

>tfw the bubonic plague is the rightful successor to Rome, and Alexander
Send help

>bubonic plague
>482
l-lad...?

Sahara desert was the worst plague

I love niggermod!

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian
>In 2013 researchers found that the cause of the pandemic was Yersinia pestis, the bacterium responsible for bubonic plague.[4][5]

Which are the best trade nodes/line of merchants directing forward to have in EU4?

Is there any other way?

Personally I'm a huge of uninstall.exe

SEA to English Channel

I would say Genoa and english channel are the best end nodes.
Even when i play spain i push the trade to genoa instead of collecting from sevilla

R-Romanon have you returned...

Lads this plague is bad
I'm here

I believe in you great Romanon anointed one

Struck an alliance with the last independent Romano-British realm in the south. Roman culture will be saved.
And thankfully the plague is starting to die down, so I can start distributing titles again. I had about 20 or 25 vassals die, and I eventually stopped handing the titles out since they kept coming back to me.

>vanilla ck2, new expansion is out, time to give that a try
>play as matilda for the funsies
>oh hey sardinia is a bunch of OPMs now and force vassalisation is a thing
>declare on the first sardine
>some derp declares a holy war somewhere, ignore it
>beat up the first sardine's army, chase him home for the rout and siege
>the other two raise their armies to participate in the holy war, move to sardine #1's province
>not hostile to me
>they join the battle against me anyway
>lose to a force less than a quarter my size just because some other nerds decided to stand in the same tile
remind me again why people even bother playing this game

No, he's Romano-Gallic. More Roman than most, not as Roman even as the successor states in Italy.

>tfw you're forced to conquer your enemies because a succession of muslim invaders destroyed all stability in your region for christian peoples
>it gets worse when there are no nations to release which at least you'd be able to do in CK2
I can't excuse myself for taking Samara though, I just wanted that gold.

Before I updated my game I made it to unifying most of the Western Roman Empire, but I fucked up the whole unification since I converted to Hellenic paganism and so made it impossible to regain the Eastern Empire in anything but several hundred years of wars taking it apart piecemeal. Make sure you think through those goals before making some of those really big decisions.

Planning to go back to it with a similar Roman goal, or some kind of meme goal in mind.

He has direct administrative descent from the Western Roman bureaucracy though.

a grand strategy game WITH AN ADDITION OF INFORMATION OF THE HISTORICAL TIME PERIOD??????

it's funny how most uncivs are much better than low tier civilized ones in vicky 2, because of that shitty colonization system

Planes

>venice
ill kill u

>Montenegro with a few thousand people
>not better than Morroco or Punjab

Really makes me think.

Japan/Korea -> China -> Indonesia -> East Africa -> South Africa -> West Africa then option 1, English Channel if you're in east coast NA and Canada or option 2, Spain into Italy if you're niggering all the trade in the med

True, so he's closer to Rome, but he's not a Roman first. He might speak Latin and he might have inherited Rome's legal traditions, but he hasn't inherited its people, culture, and traditional territories. He's less Roman than the ERE because they, at least, are often ruled by fully ethnic Romans at this period. And he isn't as legitimate as the petty rulers in Italy because they are ethnically Roman ruling the heartland of traditional Roman territories, even if in some respects they have less claim to direct legitimacy.

>Romaboos IRL

>Gaul
>Not traditional Roman territory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico

Weren´t the rulers in Italy not basically Lombards in that period? After they kicked out the goths. No clue about South Italy though.

He's referring to some of the posted games ITT where Roman rebels seized Italy from Odoacer, and made independent Roman states. That game isn't the same one as mine, but I actually had the same Roman rebellions happen to Odoacer. The northern kingdom ended up getting annexed by the Ostrogoths, and the main Italian one owns all of Italy, except for Latium.

A region (in central Italy at least) which has been Roman culturally for 400 years longer than Gaul and was almost uniformly Roman in its culture, architecture, legal traditions and ethnic makeup for 400 years before Gaul was even assaulted, or a moderately Romanized province with a different religious, ethnic, cultural, architectural, and legal tradition, which has admittedly been Romanized for hundreds of years but which inevitably represents the fusion of Roman and Celtic ethnic, legal, and social traditions. It's not even a question of similarity.

It doesn't need to be similar. 400 years of Roman rule is pretty traditional. It only took 400 years for the Anglo-Saxons to create England, and make Britannia their "traditional home".

Rome was full of queer pederasts and ur all lookin mighty suspicious right about now

Forgot your trip dotty, you filthy Serb.

Yes, by a fusion culture, which is entirely my point. A Rome resuscitated in Gaul has some legitimacy, but it doesn't have the same legitimacy as a Roman successor state in Rome. It's the same concept as the ERE not being de facto as legitimate as it could have been, because it slid away from so many Roman traditions over time. The same would inevitably happen in any country which doesn't hold Roman culture and tradition as its only culture and tradition.

I'm not trying to be a meme LARPer, this is just my take on it. If the WRE exists it is the most legitimate by default, so long as it holds Italy. If it doesn't and the ERE doesn't either it's still WRE, but if the ERE holds Italy it takes precedence over the WRE. If the WRE doesn't exist then it's the ERE, followed by any Roman successor state in Italy with proper Roman governance, given that, socio-judicially, it has the greatest chance of representing a proper and lasting continuation of proper Roman culture, tradition, and law. Following that is any state which legally succeeds Rome in its provinces and maintains at least some Roman traditions, but they're lowest on the totem pole of successor states. They may have some legalistic claim to direct inheritance, but they lack the population basis for maintaining Roman values and culture in the long-term. Inevitably they're a shadow of an already fallen empire, whereas any direct legal successor from before the fall, or any Roman-culture successor in Italy after the fall, represents an actual direct continuance or potential for maintenance that the provincial leaders can't simply because of the different traditions of their people.

never accuse me of such a heinous thing again if you desire to see the next sunrise

Rome in 400AD, when it was still very much more dominant, had very little to do with the particularly Roman identity of the pre-Augustan period. I almost feel like calling the Italians "Romano-Latin" might make more sense in the frame of the game and the historical period.

Rome originally only gave citizenship to those who could claim descent from the tribes of Rome. A whole war was fought over this in the Italian peninsula itself, and later citizenship was extended even further. In the latter half of Rome's history there aren't even that many emperors who were native to the peninsula itself.

>He's less Roman than the ERE because they, at least, are often ruled by fully ethnic Romans at this period
Are Illyrians "true Romans"? Is Spain the true territorial homeland of Rome? What about the later Isaurians? Your suggestion that a Gallic Roman, even without knowing whether Syagrius was a native of Gaul or a Latin migrant, is less a true Roman than the ones you suggest is misguided given that most of the Roman emperors came from areas that were typically border regions, and often spent their time fighting in those border regions.

Cisalpine Gaul was only starting to be brought into Roman Imperium properly on the cusp of the 1st century BC, and their control was by no means complete. Meanwhile the south of Gaul was beginning to become Roman at least 50 years before Caesar's Gallic Wars. The timeframe is not so long as you imagine, especially given the city of Rome only really began it's expansion in 300BC.

Rate my roman empire.

Trajan/10

WE

>yazidi bretons
what the fuck, also i thought you could create roman empire as christians only

Victoria 2, Is there an event where you inherit Egypt if it's in your Sphere? It's 1884 and they've been in my sphere for the last 30 years I've also got my colonies around them.

Want to know if it's worth waiting for an event if it happens to get that lane or to start declaring myself.

Gallo-Romans were always closer to the original than gr*ks were, and you know it. It's why France has a romance language today.

I honestly think that the true continuation of Roman culture is incredibly hard to ascertain since you would have to arbitrarily pick out certain traits that you want to symbolise Rome. If you think the legitimacy of Rome is based on the city of Rome, then you have an altogether different idea than the political authority of Rome, although you have some connection to the actual senatorial class. Do you value the senatorial families of Rome over the Equites who filled the ranks of Diocletian's bureaucracy and helped keep the Empire together along with the soldiers from the far off garrison posts? Is being Roman more about performing the rituals of the senate house, which had no bearing on the running of the empire, than about fighting for the idea of Rome against its disintegration?

>Rome in 400AD, when it was still very much more dominant, had very little to do with the particularly Roman identity of the pre-Augustan period.
Granted. But it's also the absolute closest that you could get, and they at least had a population which almost universally spoke Latin as their primary language, had a tradition of higher functional literacy, and a structured elite which was much more used to adapting and following Roman legal traditions. When I refer to Roman traditions I'm not trying to hearken back all the way to the golden period, just to an actual practical continuation of Rome's development up to that point. Another people with different traditions can't continue that legacy in a linear way, because they're going to create a fusion and branch, if that makes sense.

>Rome originally only gave citizenship to those who could claim descent from the tribes of Rome.
Yes, the Social Wars, I know. And I know about later Emperors, although they were so frequently drawn from the elite that had been granted Roman citizenship and Latinized so effectively that in those cases I'm not inclined to cry foul. Granted they weren't always ethnically Roman, but they were culturally and legally Roman ruling an empire which was Roman in the manner of Roman culture, traditions, and law. Only after the initial breakdown did that start to switch in the ERE as it transitioned toward Greek precedents.

In other words, though I cite ethnicity, I cite ethnicity in more blanket terms, IE a Celtic ethnic group (broad-stroke) throughout Gaul isn't going to hold Latin cultural, lingual, religious, legal, etc. traditions above all else. But individuals can, and if they're ruling people who broadly are held under a social and legal structure that is Roman, then they're running a Romanized state. The problem with a Romano-Gallic state then isn't what it starts as, but what it would end up as, without a stable, majority Romanized populace. It would slip, like the ERE.

I converted after creating it.

The majority of Gaul was romanized

Ok I have been playing vicky for years and I have never been able to get more immigrants then the US no matter what. Oh ya sure when they are at war I get more or I may sneak in a few more some random month but most of the time they get like 5x at least more migrants then me. This is even when im a liberal democracy with every social and political reform. What the fuck.

You're right that a population who believe in the glory of Rome in the language of Rome is important, though I will point out that the name of Rome was so strong in the East that everyone called the people there Roman even if they did speak Greek. In fact they called Greek 'Roman', since it was the language used by the Roman people (though the Latins, and Western rulers who were educated by Latin speaking clergy, might disagree). I suppose I might suggest this then; that the economic and populated heartland of the empire, which was not necessarily just Italy, but the coast of the Mediterranean itself, would be vital to any attempt to call your empire Roman.

If the Lombards or Visigoths were assimilated into the Roman populations instead of vice versa you would have a very Roman state, as opposed to the backwater that Northern Gaul always was.

>The timeframe is not so long as you imagine, especially given the city of Rome only really began it's expansion in 300BC.
Cisalpine Gaul is a different story, and wasn't fully Romanized until even Augustus's time. I don't include it when I say central Italy anyway, I refer mainly to Latium, the Etruscan lands, and the land of the Allies, properly long-term Latinized territory. Though obviously even Cisalpine Gaul and southern Italy were far more Latinized by 450 than Transalpine Gaul.

>Gallo-Romans were always closer to the original than gr*ks were, and you know it.
The leadership class, yes. The people, no. They're the same as the Greeks were, and in similar conditions to what the ERE was at the period, with a Greco-Latin ruling class. The ERE has more legitimacy than a Gallic Rome in that case because the ERE at least directly and legitimately descends from a Roman state and was established prior to the collapse of the Empire.

All valid points, but as I said, I'm not looking to make a judgement call on what is or isn't Roman, and what the future should look like in any of these cases. I'm just saying there can be no proper continuation in a situation where the underlying population isn't fully Latinized, because in that case you get an England or France, a fusion state with a merged cultural and legal tradition. With a stable Latin population, you could move forward at least more stably than you could as a Roman elite ruling over a province with different traditions, especially now without the support of a Roman heartland that could provide cultural and material support to you, a semi-foreign elite in those lands.

Yes, to an extent. But not anywhere near close to Italy. Latin wasn't the majority language, although it was a strong minority, and there were still legal, cultural, etc. traditions which strongly deviated. You can't simply refuse to take that into account when considering what that would do to a state.

Christ almighty these Anjou runs are difficult. Last go I seized France from Louis IX's young son and got deposed in a year, and died before I conceived an heir last time I took Castille. So far, I am meeting my goals, I intend to expand at the expense of the Muslims next. And Leon is looking weak, so many options, lets hope I don't die before I make good of them.

ah yes, empire strikes back

Oh no, the only event for Egyptian clay is Suez, otherwise you gotta get it yourself baby.

>I suppose I might suggest this then; that the economic and populated heartland of the empire, which was not necessarily just Italy, but the coast of the Mediterranean itself, would be vital to any attempt to call your empire Roman.
I wouldn't go that far, per say, although I would agree that if you're going to create an actual successor state you would certainly need to do more than retreat into Italy with your tail between your legs. You would need power projection, legitimacy, and a stronger central bureaucracy than anything which I think a state in the 400s, with population collapse, rural flight, famine and epidemics ravaging the entirety of Europe, could manage.

That said, there's nothing saying that a state which comprised the heavily Latinized majority of Italy needs to actually attempt to be a successor. It is less legitimate in some respects in that sense if it chooses not to characterize itself as such, but in other ways it's much more honest.

>If the Lombards or Visigoths were assimilated into the Roman populations instead of vice versa you would have a very Roman state, as opposed to the backwater that Northern Gaul always was.
True, although again in many respects the problem here would be forging a sufficiently powerful, wealthy, and influential bureaucracy to overwhelm their authority and attempt to truly contain them at all, much less integrate them. Such an attempt would, I think, be beyond any state at this point. The best that could honestly be hoped for is a Roman-controlled Italy south of the Po, with a strong but indirect grip on a Lombard vassal state north of it. Over time they could be integrated as the population rebounded, economy stabilized, and urbanization began once again, but that's not something that could be done with so devastated a population as Italy had at that point.

Sorry, I misread what you wrote and included Cisalpine Gaul because I thought you included it???

You make a good point, generally.

This is the only acceptable way to get cucked.

what's a VNS?

Viceroyalty of New Spain, silly.

>Hungarian Yuan
Goddamn this latest expansion is a pile of shit.

Honestly I think looking at how the Eastern Empire dealt with these problems over the next few centuries is very interesting for how a rump state Western Rome could have responded. It would have taken years, and it would have taken a strong rebound to manage, something that arguably could have happened had the Vandals not been involved. Although the Garamantians and Mauri would still have been a problem.

Unlocalized Visroyalty of New Spain, I would guess.

And this is the only acceptable map.

Western Yuan is the Golden Horde, them annexing Hungary isn't so bad, and all those Slav states you see recently broke off, I can assume Hungary will follow, seeing as how a sacked and annexed Austria just did. It seems the mainland China Yuan are a separate entity.

What's your take, if it were an alternate timeline and the ERE had taken full control of Italy in the mid-1200s, what would have happened, how would they have administrated it? Their leaders are still LARPing to be Roman Emperors, but they speak Greek, are Greek, and follow Greek traditions. How would they have governed traditional Roman territory except by making it Greek? There's no real way to roll back or come to a compromise position either, because the Italians themselves have changed too much in the interim.