General Discussion & Comments

Re: General Discussion

William is forever the bastard and will never be a true Englishman!

I second this, the last Englisc King (arguably) was Harold Godwinsson!

William the Bastard was no more English than Agricola or, apparently, Artorius. Strangely though both are 'French', or a French invention, but held more closely to the English than better figures such as Hengest and Horsa and so forth.

Meh.
 
Re: General Discussion

McScott, they still hold the 70% of the British lands .... or better the descendants of the Norman-French Knights still play a great role in the leading classes of the big island ... ;)

In the end: People moves!

The Britons, who were Gauls from Gaul (France) went in Britain to which they gave their tribal name, then the Romano-British went in 'Bretagne' and give their name to that French region, the Saxons (who were not British but Germans) occupied a land to which they gave a new (not British) name, then the Normans (who were Vikings and French at the same time ...) invaded and conquered the island, meanwhile the Irish Scots from Ireland had moved in Scotland (to which they had given their ethnic name, that is an Irish tribal name!) ... people moves, and moves and moves .... now and then!
Try to live in peace with the memory of Guillaume le Conquérant or Guillaume le Bâtard or Guillaume II de Normandie or William I of England ... he was a great man! Then consider please, that probably your next King still has the name of the famous Norman Conqueror! :cool:

Sorry for the horrid 'consecutio temporum', my English is weak ... :laughter:
 
Last edited:
Re: General Discussion

Exactly, your English. Not your Latin or Norman-French. ;)

While you may be correct, let me tell you this; the elite/nobility/aristocracy of the island were the primary movers - the vast majority of those today being an intermixture of Celtic and Teutonic blood, with a bit of Scandanavian toward the northern reaches. Then there's the language, a language based around/including, to this very day, a vast majority of Teutonic words bought over by the Anglo-Saxons, with only really a smattering of foreign words generally for more 'sophisticated' or scientific concepts. Lastly, while invasions did happen, it was commonly the upper-crust that was replaced and left the peasants/serfs/slaves as the majority of whomever had been there before.

In short, if anything, the current population today would be a 'Celtic'-German mixture (Sussex actually being the most highly Germanic area, in terms of DNA) with the Normans being relegated, along with the Angevins, to the Kings and Queens.

To be pefectly honest, I really don't care, as I'm just that mixture myself. :laughter:

Oh, and finally, our next King is named Charles. :cool:


EDIT;

If you'd like to continue this, then feel free to PM me. This is for the game, and so I shall not post anymore on the matter...not here anyway. :)
 
Last edited:
Re: General Discussion

Exactly, your English. Not your Latin or Norman-French. ;)....
If you'd like to continue this, then feel free to PM me. This is for the game, and so I shall not post anymore on the matter...not here anyway. :)

No, wait:
My French is bad (but being Spoken Latin, in some way it's more understandable for me) and the same can be said for my Spanish, my English ... well, I don't need to talk about it, because as you've noted, it's abysmal, while my Latin, for this environment, is pretty good and my Ancient Greek is at school level (I mean that I can read and translate it, but with great pain!), meanwhile my Italian is ... 'superlative' or, if you prefer, simply 'perfect'! :rolleyes:

This is my linguistic condition and I've to admit that it's quite satisfactory for me :), though, improving my Latin is a permanent dream frustrated by the short time for good readings allowed me by RL ...

Anyway I agree and I stop here my 'Norman apology', because, as you said, this thread is devoted to a wonderful Mod that will be completed in a very short time, ... or at least this is the hope! :popcorn:
 
Last edited:
Re: General Discussion

Will there be 0-turn recruitment for Roman units? For Barbarian units? I always prefer 1-turn recruitment. When an AI faction has the option to build 0-turn units, how many is the maximum they create in 1 turn? I remember someone saying 4 or 5, which is not too many.
 
Re: General Discussion

Hey guys, I found something out that may be useful to this mod: prior to Constantine's renaming, Constantinopolis was called Augusta Antonina, after the wife of an early 3rd century Roman Emperor.

It's not much, but it will be better than having "Byzantium" for the name.
 
Re: General Discussion

Why don't you like the name Byzantium?

Your criteria is arbitrary, it's based on your personal tastes more than on history, for example also I preferred 'Nouvelle-Orléan', but sadly the name which prevailed is the f.... English 'New Orleans', what can we do? We have to accept what history has decided.

Commodus had changed the name of Roma, who cares about the name chosen by Commodus? The name of Roma is Roma because this name it is the name that prevailed in history, so, the name of Byzantium was Byzantium, until Constantine changed it.
 
Last edited:
Re: General Discussion

The ancient cities were often renamed. The city of Byzantium was renamed during the rebuilding of city by Septimius Severus after his son Antoninus (Caracalla) after the initial destruction of Byzantium during the civil war. Severans are already gone at the starting date of RO and the name was used only for a short period, so I think it will be better to stay with the original name.
 
Re: General Discussion

The village was called Byzantĭum till the bastard son of the Constantius Chlorus' whore, changed its name in Constantīnŏpŏlis.

All the Roman historians used the name Byzantĭum and then all the Roman historians used the name Constantīnŏpŏlis, nobody ever used the silly name name created by 'a nonentity', 'a nobody', in the III century.


If the Mod wants to be historically accurate it should use Byzantĭum, then, if the bastard son of the Constantius Chlorus' whore wins his struggle for the power, the new name Constantīnŏpŏlis is historically accurate (though the town was still know as Byzantĭum during the Middle Age, and its inhabitants Byzantĭni (from Byzantĭnus, -i, adjective II decl.)).

An example? Roma! Yes the last of the Antonini, Commodus, changed the name of the Urbs into 'Colonia Commodiana', should we call Rome 'Colonia Commodiana' only because a demented Roman Emperor tried to change its name? Please! :laughter:
 
Re: General Discussion

This was very funny post Diocle :laughter:

But I must protest - to call Septimius Severus (as in the version I read, the version that it was named after some Empress I read first time here) who renamed Byzantium as nobody is a little bit strange. Or maybe I just misunderstood what Diocle wrote :)
 
Re: General Discussion

The name Augusta Antonina was used until its renaming to Nova Roma/Constantinopolis AFAIK.

That was the official name for a very short period of time - though Roman official inertia being what it was, the name probably didn't 'officially' change again until Constantine renamed it.

However, in general usage, Byzantium remained 'Byzantium' right up to and even after its renaming by Constantine. The official coinage was still being minted with the name of Byzantium even in Constantine's reign.

To the best of my knowledge, all of the main 'contemporary' chroniclers - Herodian, Cassius Dio, the SHA (though I'd argue that's not as 'contemporary' as it claims) and most importantly Dexippus - refer to the city as Byzantium.

So you need to decide whether you want to give it the official name probably only used on imperial documents during the reign of the Severi, or the name that was in common usage throughout most of the Empire.

M<
 
Re: General Discussion

This was very funny post Diocle :laughter:

But I must protest - to call Septimius Severus (as in the version I read, the version that it was named after some Empress I read first time here) who renamed Byzantium as nobody is a little bit strange. Or maybe I just misunderstood what Diocle wrote :)

Yes tomy, you've perfectly understood what I wanted to mean using the adjective (is it a noun-adjective or is it a substantivized adjective? :hmm2:) 'a nonentity', 'a nobody' referred to Septimus Severus and his whole disgusting family. :)
 
Re: General Discussion

Well, after reading the first chapter of the new "Legion's In Crisis" book it would seem as though Diocle really is onto something here. Apparently we owe it to Severus for essentially shattering Italy's control and supremacy over the rest of the Roman provinces. He is essentially the one that brought on the 3rd century crisis.
 
Re: General Discussion

I'm merely referring to the examples offered by Paul Elliot. Clearly Severus isn't solely responsible but he did do quite a lot of the things which contributed to the beginning of the crisis.
 
Last edited:
Re: General Discussion

I hope none of the RL issues are too serious, I wish you good luck with solving them. Anyway we are all looking forward for any news related to RO ;)
Well, I had a big year with having to move house, my mother dying and finalising my Doctoral thesis for submission which is still ongoing, but hopefully will be submitted soon, but thanks for the thoughts.
 
Re: General Discussion

I´m sorry to hear such sad news, take your time.

I finished my Doctoral thesis two months ago, not sure if it is good. I hope so. It was hard time, I spend two months on PC almost everyday in work and at home writting.
 
Re: General Discussion

Well, after reading the first chapter of the new "Legion's In Crisis" book it would seem as though Diocle really is onto something here. Apparently we owe it to Severus for essentially shattering Italy's control and supremacy over the rest of the Roman provinces. He is essentially the one that brought on the 3rd century crisis.

I think many of Severus' actions were necessary. The Emperor was needed on the frontier to defend it and make sure the legions stayed loyal. His mistake was allowing Caracalla to succeed him. And to Diocle - son of a whore? He simply did what had to be done for the survival of the empire. Constantine was also stuck in a situation where his actions were necessary. The Tetrarchy obviously didn't work without one Augustus being considered superior by the other. His mistake though was to go for the hereditary succession. Rome's empire worked much better when the succession was merit-based (i.e. Nerva to Trajan, Pius to Aurelius).
 
Re: General Discussion

Error you say?

There wasn't any error, Constantine acted as any crime-boss of any time: he wanted to build his own dinasty because he wanted money and power for himself, he used Rome as a personal way to become a big Mafia boss.

Don't tell me that for you, that miserable sewer rat named Constantine, would ever have used the merit as criteria to choose his successor! Please Emp, I know you're not so naive!
 
Re: General Discussion

Finding one Emperor that rose to the purple by civil war thinking on the best for the Empire and not on himself, is probably a very hard task :laughter:.
Jullianus you had a year with much to look upon. My condolences for your loss.
 

Site News

Thread Statistics

Created
Ramon Gonzales y Garcia,
Last reply from
NapoleonMaster,
Replies
764
Views
189,707

Site Polls

  • Axis & Allies

  • Battleship

  • Checkers

  • Chess

  • Clue

  • Go

  • Monopoly

  • Risk

  • Stratego

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
Back
Top Bottom