Medieval Roman Empire

I suppose. Still, some sort of internal strife for a change in organization does interest me...
Might be some calling for the republic, some calling for elective monarchy. This is all a starting place to get me thinking anyway.

Well I DID also pick up the Celts book...
[hit a small trove of 2e stuff, Celts, Rome, Book of Artifacts, Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics]

Oh yeah, guys, this is my one and only player. He made a priest of Athena using Legends & Lore, and IIRC was playing too much CK2 around then as Ireland, and sucks at coming up with names.

what is the eastern roman empire?

To describe a few things that have happened for you...

>world was wracked by disasters at the same time a horrific plague swept across the world
>old gods(the ones the empire as a whole worshipped) are fading, new gods have appeared to take their places

so if we model it after Byzantium, their Divine Right is LITERALLY falling apart, and everyone knows it. There could easily be pressures to reform the republic and return to the glory days of the past.

In denial.

If you strip away the classic roman character you're just back to playing in the middle ages.

...

Issue there:
Disasters and plagues + civil war + BLAAACK DEATH PART 1 (Well, the Justinian plague) happened.

The dream of the republic was dead since the time of Nero.

Bodyguards won't allow it to happen since they'd be out of a job, and whoever gets top position wants to keep it

you aren't listening.

THEIR DIVINE RIGHT TO RULE IS LITERALLY DISINTEGRATING. THEIR GODS ARE DYING. There was a period of time in which atleast one lord of the realm went completely mad, and it lead to the empire pulling back from all the border provinces. The royal family has no political power in this time, and less as time goes on, especially if a couple worshippers of Athena manage to get prominent positions, and she's ascendant right now.

>royal family
>imperial empire
>implying the emperor isn't appointed by 'The army likes me now c:'

Divine rule is more a ...organisational flare.

What actually matters is who the army supports. Whoever they decide should be emperor? Will be emperor.

General fights off some barbarians? Local troops decide HE'S THE EMPEROR NOW.

then all it would take is someone getting control who believed in the ideal of the republic. It's not GUARANTEED to happen, but acting like it never could because it didn't in reality is fucking retarded.

its a bit different from reality though. The priestly class can't be ignored; the army is the deciding factor in real history, but could easily be balances by a priestly class that can work miracles every day.

Aaaaand now I'm picturing the strife between those who want to maintain a theocratic Empire vs a few popular military leaders vs aristocrat families that have lost a lot of influence and want it back.

Issue with your plan there matey
>someone takes over and works to restore the republic
>someone else decides 'lol no', has them killed and takes over.
Or
>Guard finds out and stabs him so they can keep the cushy 'pay us or we'll stab you' jobs (this is why you replace the guard with foriengers)
or
>Move to create a republic
>A general with the support of his army wins some conflicts, then marches back to take power (Sulla/Marius/Ceasar style).

Republics don't work in this period or the classical period unless they are small and defended by people invested in it.

Once you move onto empire buidling with professional soliders, they are just loyal to their commanders.

That's good.
Limiting and combating the powers of the aristocrat families was a major thing in 10th-13th century byzantium

Shields change. Oval, easier to make, better for model defence.
Long swords, better reach for defence + more shields.
Cav depends. Who are they fighting? Horse archers? They'd go horse archers.
Germanic radiers? They'd copy that.
Knights? Heavily armed native horsemen + hire out barbarian cav it is.

Here's the thing about the Roman military: It's shaped by who it fights and adapts to face that.

>in this period

this fantasy period?

Do you people not understand the difference between "roman inspired" and "rome"?

'I don't understand the mechanics of classical empires that survive into medieval styled worlds why can't they all be little niche republics or empires :cccc'

In 'this period' means 'Sans mass politics and mass voter interest'. Otherwise it's just gonna end up shifting from an imperial system to a close oligarchy run by elites.

Why not make an empire with a puppet ruler controleld by the elites then?

going to post a few things here that I've come up with in a discord conversation.

"I mean if i wanted I could have the entire empire say FUCK IT to the cavalry problem they might have, and get themselves on a hawk/pegasus/eagle/wyvern breeding program. Could be dropping huge clay bombs filled with flamable/explosive substances right onto enemy ranks, with the wind at their direct backs, out of normal bow range.

I'm just... playing around. I'll find a balance in it all."

That + shadow politics would work way better than shoving 'muh republic' edginess in.
Unless it was like, one guy who actually wants a republic and rest are just using 'em up undermind the emperor so they can take over

*A general addresses his men before battle*

"...these savages will be brought to heel! We shall show them the might and glory of Rome, for WE are the SONS OF MARS!"

*they look out across the enemy farmland where the battle will take place, to find the enemy already being firebombed by giant birds bred with magic over centuries to have red, purple and gold feathers*

>fire bombs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire

It'd work

"Honestly you could run interference against enemy horsemen, any kind other than horse archers who could pose a threat, by feinting dive bombs at them as they move. Horses are skiddish creatures at the best of times. A giant bird able to lift you off the ground in its talons is going to panic almost any horses."

Maybe that + hire whoever it is that are threatening them to work for them.

That's the thing about empires: They are rich enough to buy barbarians to attack the other barbarians for you

>republic
>edginess

Eeeeh. Depends.
You can train a horse to get used to a lot of shit.
The issue would be less 'horses run away' (war horses don't. Horses are skittish, trained ones can ride through explosions without giving that much of a fuck) more 'these fire bombs burnt our valuable trained horses alive'

The obession with republicans being shoved into medieval tier things is a very...american specialness.

So like the (HRE inspired) Empire from Warhammer fantasy?

what. Can you even read? Do you even know what the word Republic means?

Rome. was. a. republic.
YOU. ARE. A TOY.

>obsession

I've litterally never seen this come up before though. Nevermind, I'm more confused about

>edgy

It's not edgy at all. That's not what that term means. Fuck, saying it's literally impossible for there to be a republic is closer to edginess, because republics are objectively better than monarchies, morally speaking.

But yeah, it's largely gonna depend on what gods are involved. Don't underestimate that aspect. If a god like Athena, that values rule of law and wisdom, manages to become prominent in the military(which... goddess of victory), and the priests make it clear she supports a republic... CONGRATULATIONS! REPUBLIC!

Also, in that period we have merchant republics? Like, it might not be nations of republics, but they did exist.

A modern republic (e.g. what everyone thinks of) isn't the same as the Roman republican model.

The name is shared, but little else.
Is there voting? Yes, but the majority of the lower castes votes are that worthless that most don't even turn up to vote, and the only REAL legal power they have in the whole process is their veto power via the tribune of the plebs.

So you know nothing about medieval politics and you think too much about America. Great way to get (You)s.

>Abū 'l Ḥazm soon developed a republican system of government in Córdoba with a council of ministers and judiciaries whom he would consult before making every political decision. Under Abū 'l Ḥazm Córdoba was governed by a "collective leadership" and not by a single emir as was common in other taifas. In fact, rather than seeing himself as an overlord of his people, Abū 'l Ḥazm saw himself as the "Custodian" of Córdoba, caring for the city and its inhabitants.

>' because republics are objectively better than monarchies, morally speaking'
That's the americanism (which doesn't at all fit into a pre-enlightenment setting).

Merchant republics were basically olirachies that different wealthy families competed over.

... have you read the thread. We're talking about a RETURN to the ROMAN republic.

Get your head out of your ass and read what we're talking about.

yes but the person im responding to seems to think that us talking about a D&D fantasy civ inspired by Rome becoming a classical republic is somehow related to modern american republicans?!

"republicans being shoved into a medieval tier thing is a very... american specialness"

everything about this sentence implies that this person does not understand that the concept of a republic pre dates the USA.

bro, you just confused wanting to use The Roman Republic as a setting for wanting to put american republicans in Rome.

>a consul of ministers = republican system of government.

Nice way to project onto the past there

...and it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that no one would realisticly support a return to the republic of old (which isn't a republic by the modern sense), bar a few idealists

... yes, what do you think republics of the era were like? The rich and privileged stayed rich and privileged.

They're still OBJECTIVELY better than monarchies.

... it does mean that though. America is not the only republic.

Except that's entirely just "muh byzantines" and "oh military people can't have ideals, only greed"

It's more the 'People are gonna wanna go back to the republic!' that stinks of americanism.

That's not to say that /this is going to be creating an american style republic'/.

It's just that americans (in my experience in creative world building) try to shoe horn in 'topple the monarchy make a republic' into everything.

An over-reaction in this case, but still.

You're right. Having the state administered by a council of ministers that makes all the decisions and relegating the "rule" to a custodial position that managed the council is 100% antithetical to what a republic is.

we aren't talking about republics by the modern sense. we're quite openly talking about them using the classical era paradigm of what a republic is.

and some conceivable (unlikely, BUT CONCEIVABLE) reasons have been given that MIGHT lead some to support that change.

Jesus Christ.

Literally autistic

What if the empire only existed on paper?

Let's say the players arrive to the imperial capital and find the whole place in ruins. Not abandoned, just run down. Shanty towns have appeared all over the city like weeds. The palace is guarded by mercenaries, not professional soldiers, who spend their days drinking and gambling. Nobles and foreign dignitaries bow down to the recently crowned child Emperor on official visits just to keep up appearances while his relatives sell off old works of art just to survive. At the fringes of the empire, the old legions sell their services to the highest bidder: city states, feuding nobles, sometimes even foreign empires.

Same way the Republic of Venice worked, maybe you should first figure out what a republic is before you start projecting yourself. :^)

Social elites very rarely have ideals, and those that do have it and manage to make it last don't last over time (e.g. you do it in one generation, then the old guard/people wanting a piece of the old pie/greedy new shits come about and fuck you over)

The AD&D 2E Historical Campaigns were great reads and a noble effort, but it was totally the wrong system for that kind of game.

There's no 'objective' proof that medieval tier republics are better than monarchies.

>stinks of americanism
because people wanting to go back to an older, more nostalgic form of governance hasn't plagued every civilization on earth

well to start with, me and OP aren't americans.

Again- people remember "the good old days" of the republic, and the empire has been in decline for probably the better part of fifty years, with their gods literally dying off or losing power, while new, more powerful gods grew to prominence, including at least one goddess who directly supports republics.

I'm directly referencing the THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT that would create that drive. Stop ignoring it.

Pretty much all medieval realms had council positions

Jokes on you I'm a fucking leaf. That's why I push democracy/republics/anything but communism or monarchism into my games...

because in D&D I get to enjoy my dreams and fantasies.

Ya'll know this is being raided by Veeky Forums, right?

Interesting concept, but I've got something like this in mind already in the opposite direction on the map.

yes, there is. Monarchies are entirely built around direct succession by birthright. Republics are built around a great many people with status and privilege coming together to rule the land, and deciding its course through discussion and debate. It's a step in the right direction.

It I see Lorica Segmentata I'm gonna punch someone in the mouth.

You're forgetting Imperial systems which end up being built around 'Whoever the army likes' in that equation

good. I hope my flying eagle bombers and our discussion of RETURNING to a Republic from an Empire makes them all commit suicide.

>implying it doesn't end up being 'Whoever can bribe the most people to agree with them'

>makes them all commit suicide.
Veeky Forums posters are already dead inside, user

The fuck happened here?
I look away after and it falls to shit. .-.

who does the army like?
who do the wizards like?
who do the gods like?
who do the psionicists like?
who do the people who grow all the food like?

>IMPLYING WE'RE ALIVE

But user, on Christmas Day 1553 Ad Urbe Continda, 800 years after the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, King Charles of the Franks was crowned Emperor by Saint Leo III acting in his official capacity as Bishop of Rome and holder of the Keys of Heaven.

That is what the Roman Empire looked like in the early middle ages.

yeah, probably. The fuckers don't seem to understand the difference between a world where you can directly see that your god is dying and a world where god was dead all along.

Except that wasn't the case for rome for a huge chunk of its existence. Mostly because they were all former army men.

>implying that's not how modern politics works

look, I didn't say it was great or perfect. I said it was a step in the right direction. Or would you prefer the days of Caligula, Charles the Mad, or Mad King Ludwig?

OP mentioned he was considering having the upheaval lead to people wanting to reform a republic. People got upset.

That's a solid point, actually- I bet the Wizards would want a republic, too- it gives them a chance to have a more direct say.

1)Their paymaster
2)Their guilds, I suppose
3)Whoever keeps them alive via worship?
4)NA
5)They don't matter

important question for everyone here:

just HOW MANY halfling peltist auxiliaries would they field for every unit of shock legionaries?

Define large chunk.
The 'military revolts' is a thing from...well, Nero till the end.
Off the top of my head, till the 11th century. (e.g. a century and more of it happening)

how many half-giant pelters are there? I'd assume there'd be at least 10 halflings supplied to each as ammunition.

top kek

Too small to be useful

actually, that'd be interesting. Would the fantasy!romans use different races within their borders among their normal troops, or would they have specialised forces? Would the legions be open to the likes of Orcs if they were willing to fight for Rome?

The first several hundred years were relatively stable, if nothing else.

Rome was around for some 1400~ years. Believe it or not, the last couple hundred of its decline don't define its full range.

Military revolts were always happening from later republic to empire.

Didn't happen in the kingdom/early republic, but that's because armies were farmers raised to fight who went back home afterwards and paid their own way

And it was around for around...2100 years.
(753-1453)

Auxillaries.
The man thing for the legion is organisation and fighting as a unit.
Orcs are like celtics. Strong beasts that an organised unit can ruin. To be useful, you train them as auxillaries and use their skills to help you fight other barbarians

So it's more chinese, if anything?
e.g. Mandate of Heaven.
You fuck up (or new gods hate you, whatever), you lose mandate of heaven, you not worthy.

You don't seem to understand the history we're discussing here. First of all, the roman army was NEVER farmers raised to fight, not past the city stage, that's what made Rome special. They had a dedicated MILITARY. Second of all, the change was because they went from
>soldiers who paid for their own equipment, typically came from Rome, and were paid by the state
to
>soldiers who sometimes paid for their own equipment and were paid by their commanders
the issue is an issue of military organisation. You idiot.

1400~ years as an empire, though. The time it was a city was irreverent.

>a dedicated orc auxiliary unit

huehuehue, this is an entertaining thought.

uh... do you not know anything about Europe in the medieval era? Or the Holy Roman Empire? Or Byzantine? They ruled by Divine Right. This is basically always true. The difference is, they can literally see the influence of the gods in the world. It's not that "oh if you lose you were never worthy" it's "THE GODS THAT CHOSE YOU ARE DYING!"

>The time it was a city was irreverent.
I bet it was!

?
You said that revolts only happened in the final decling stages.

When military revolts happened pretty much right after 'professional army' being established. (e.g. Marius/Sulla fighting).
Sure, you got periods of peace, but it was a constant issue that kept popping up.

The first few hundred years weren't stable (unless you class the Civil war, the second civil war, the year of the four emperors etc etc as stable).

Eh, has a point. The whole 'if you failed because the gods/heavens don't support you' and they support republicanism instead, that's closer to the chinese Mandate of Heaven than the Byzantine 'Universal Christian Emperor' stuff.

*heaven don't support you/gods that supported you are dying

shhh, typos.

The Marian Reforms were the beginning of the end, honestly. The things he did kind of fucked the empire long-term, and that's why it started. Mismanagement at this stage resulted in key problems throughout. There were a couple hundred years, though, without that issue. Also, it wasn't as notable until the last few hundred years, when the emperors started popping up constantly(which was Caesar's fault).

I'm not saying rome was fine for most of its run, but that there WERE periods where it worked fine.

No, see, you're not seeing the difference I'm outlining. The mandate of heaven is reactionary. Oh, you failed, you must not have the mandate of heaven. This is more... proactive, because the gods are actually, y'know, active. I'd argue it's not really like either, because it can't be, not with actual gods around influencing things.

Define Roman.
Roman as it 'ERE, but in the west and with fanatasy stuff?'
Or Roman as in 'MUH Lorica segmentata'

Oh yes, certainly. Just that the Mandate seemed closer than the Medieval Christian variety.

see

imo the biggest issue was that they never had secure seccession rules. Thus why 'might makes right!' always ended up happening

What's 2e anyway

I guess? In the vaguest way.

but it couldn't have happened with Marius and Ceasar. Those fuckers kind of ruined it. To be fair to Marius, he was doing what he had to, but he should have changed things back afterwards.

The genie can't go back into its bottle.