Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
History
Topic Started: Oct 17 2009, 06:12 AM (621 Views)
Filo
Member Avatar
General
This is obvious that the history of tjis game is not the ours(at least for Norther Italy), so can you write here a brief story so i can use it for write mine?

For exemple Lombards ducates of the south(Benevento and Salerno) are not in Regnum Longobardorum and so on.

Thanks
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Filo, our cutoff date is 1350. Made up history applies between 1350 and 1452. I will try to post my history soon, though it is mostly similar to the real life Crown of Aragon, except that I've managed to retain a few territories like Corsica and some in Greece that the Crown had lost in real life.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Lets see. English are being dicks to the welsh, the welsh revolt with Owain Glyndŵr as Prince of Wales. Welsh do really good at first. English gains a small advantage, but the French come and help the welsh. The welsh and the French push back and take over England and Wales. Wales invades Scotland, because they helped the English and betraying a Celtic nation. Welsh/french troops invades Ireland because they betrayed the Welsh also.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
My history.

The same as RL. I didn't change any of the nation names from the RL history, so there might be some inconsistencies there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
My Roman history is EXACTLY the same as RL history up to 1452.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

That would only be possible if interacted with, or were affected by, ZERO of the changes/changed countries that exist in this world from 1350 to 1452. The chances of that are close to zero. You almost certainly were affected in some way, though it may not be a way that would perceivably affect your roleplay.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
More or less, my thoughts are the major events (being the overall decline and conquest of the Roman Empire by the Turk) would hardly be affected by what changes we have made to the history.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
I'm intending to keep Venetian history similar as well. The only change I made was establishing the Order of St. Mark. Of course, interactions with other nations would be diferent as some are different, most notably Filo's Lombards.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neo-Etrusca
Member Avatar
Like Caligula, WITH STYLE!
 *  *  *  *  *
Russia is lucky enough to be removed from the rest of you, so my history can remain the same :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Union
Member Avatar
Pyrenees Republic
Nah. Because the Third Rome, as Russia is popularly known, depends on the fall of the Second one - which lives, quite happily. XD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Russia could, I suppose, rebel against the Union as in real life, and take that as the fall of the Second Rome.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
A united Russian Empire took a long time to establish in real life. Muscovy wasn't free until 1480 under Ivan III, and it took quite a bit more conquering for the rest of Russia to fall under its sway. So... you're going to have to change history quite a bit for a Russian Empire in 1452 to work. Remember, Russia isn't the Third Rome, Moscow is. :P And no one is going to be a true Third Rome while the Roman Empire still exists! :lol:

Of course, I'm sure all parties can come to an agreement on something.

EDIT: That said, if you have Ivan III as your current ruling monarch, he was historically married to my Emperor's niece, hence why he was able to claim Muscovy as being the continuation of Rome after my Emperor's death in RL 1453.
Edited by Sedulius, Oct 26 2009, 08:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
I wanted to be the third Rome... Guess I'll have to settle for fourth.

Can the second, third, and fourth Rome all exist at the same time?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Not technically. While the Second Rome is still alive, no one would consider calling a nation a third or fourth Rome. That would just be silly. The "Byzantine Empire" was hailed far and wide as the Roman Empire (Imperium Romanum) until its fall, because indeed it was the Roman Empire. It never truly fell. Also, remember that Constantinople was originally New Rome (Nova Roma), after it was renamed from Byzantium of course.
Edited by Sedulius, Oct 26 2009, 08:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Sedulius
 
Remember, Russia isn't the Third Rome, Moscow is. :P


Technically Russia (as a whole) is the Third Rome, not just the city of Moscow. Strange but true.

Telosan
 
I wanted to be the third Rome... Guess I'll have to settle for fourth.

Can the second, third, and fourth Rome all exist at the same time?


According to the rules, there can only be one Rome at a time. But you can surely throw your hat into the mix, especially if you usurp the Roman pope.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Oct 26 2009, 08:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
So for Venice to be the third Rome, I have to destroy Constantinople/Nova Roma and prevent Moscow from rising. :gnarkgnark:

I'll return the title of Rome to the Italians!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Telosan
Oct 26 2009, 08:23 PM
So for Venice to be the third Rome, I have to destroy Constantinople/Nova Roma and prevent Moscow from rising. :gnarkgnark:

I'll return the title of Rome to the Italians!
Westerners don't really recognize Rome as being replaced.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
And Rome itself would still technically be the First Rome.

TC, I must respectfully disagree. We are both right, but it started with Moscow being styled the Third Rome. Moscow is the Third Rome in respect to the city. Russia is the Third Rome in respect to the empire. But without a city to be the Third Rome, the empire cannot be the Third Rome.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

wikipedia
 
The idea crystallized with a panegyric letter composed by the Russian monk Philoteus (Filofey) in 1510 to their son Grand Duke Vasili III, which proclaimed, "Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth. No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom!" Contrary to the common misconception, Filofey explicitly identifies Third Rome with Russia (the country) rather than with Moscow (the city).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
I disagree with the claim that Russia cannot be the Third Rome if there is no specific Russian city to be the Third Rome. Imo that argument would parallel the position of the Judaizers who claimed Christianity cannot exist without the Herodian Temple.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Wikipedia
 
Within decades after the Fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453, some were nominating Moscow as the "Third Rome", or the "New Rome".[1] Stirrings of this sentiment began during the reign of Ivan III, Grand Duke of Moscow who had married Sophia Paleologue. Sophia was a niece of Constantine XI, the last Eastern Roman Emperor and Ivan could claim to be the heir of the fallen Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire).


From the same page. Again, I suppose we do talk of two different concepts. I do agree that Russia is the Third Rome as an empire, but I still say Moscow is the Third Rome as a city, and that it was the Third Rome first, for it was it and its holdings that were first the Third Rome, not the whole of Russia.

But this is a silly argument. We are arguing on tiny details of something we more or less agree upon.

That said, the root of the argument stands. No more Romes till the Second Rome falls. And this will likely not happen... this time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
Sedulius
Oct 27 2009, 03:14 PM
That said, the root of the argument stands. No more Romes till the Second Rome falls. And this will likely not happen... this time.
:gnarkgnark:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
No! Bad Venice! We will build better ships than you! No more breaking our harbor chains!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
Actually, at the time the Byzantines had very ships of their own, relying on Venice for a navy.

They sacked it once, they can do it again!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Sedulius
Oct 27 2009, 03:14 PM
Wikipedia
 
Within decades after the Fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453, some were nominating Moscow as the "Third Rome", or the "New Rome".[1] Stirrings of this sentiment began during the reign of Ivan III, Grand Duke of Moscow who had married Sophia Paleologue. Sophia was a niece of Constantine XI, the last Eastern Roman Emperor and Ivan could claim to be the heir of the fallen Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire).


From the same page. Again, I suppose we do talk of two different concepts. I do agree that Russia is the Third Rome as an empire, but I still say Moscow is the Third Rome as a city, and that it was the Third Rome first, for it was it and its holdings that were first the Third Rome, not the whole of Russia.

But this is a silly argument. We are arguing on tiny details of something we more or less agree upon.

That said, the root of the argument stands. No more Romes till the Second Rome falls. And this will likely not happen... this time.
You know what they say about heresies and iotas. The details are what matter.

The pertinent sentence from that article immediately following your passage is: "At the beginning, the notion of 'Third Rome' was not necessarily imperial in nature, but rather apocalyptic."

The city of Moscow is not in any way analogous to the cities of Rome or New Rome in terms of splendor and greatness, which even Russians would acknowledge. The transmigration from Second Rome to Third Rome was of a different metaphysical quality than the transmigration from Old Rome to New Rome, so the process did not involve a Rome-like "caput mundi" city.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Oct 27 2009, 05:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · 1452 General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply