Why did Odoacer choose to be king Instead of emperor?

Why did Odoacer choose to be king Instead of emperor?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

After deposing Romulus Augustulus in 476 AD, Odoacer became the king of Italy. Why did he choose not to be the next emperor of the Roman Empire? The Roman people were still around, and the Senate still existed. In fact, he had the backing of the latter to rule Italy.

The basic problem is that to be a Roman emperor, you had to be Roman. Odoacer wasn't.

The background here is that in the Imperial era, it was fairly typical when an emperor died for the armies to "appoint" the next emperor. Most likely this would end up being the leader of the biggest and best legions, for obvious reasons. Either way, being emperor required at least the acquiescence of the Army.

The obvious issue here is that once the mercenary Germanic cavalry forces became the core of the army, this meant the real power in the Roman Empire often became non-Roman German military leaders, who could not themselves actually become Emperor. In those instances the typical solution had been for the "barbarian" to hand pick a suitably pliable and well-placed Roman citizen to be their puppet emperor.

Odoacer was a military leader of the Germanic mercenary foederati. Likely he was German himself, but in any case its agreed he was not Roman, so he could not be Roman Emperor. The Eastern emperor Zeno was willing to acknowledge Odoacer's authority in the Western domains, since he was willing to in turn acknowledge Zeno's theoretical authority, and there wasn't really a thing Zeno could really do about it if he didn't like it. However, Roman legalities required Zeno to consider the rightful Emperor to be Nepos, an emperor who Odoacer's armies had just finished deposing only the year before.

Nepos was no puppet, and Odoacer wasn't just going to hand the Purple back to him (Machiavelli's first rule of betrayal is if you do it to a superior, you can not leave him standing). So he chose this strange middle ground, where he had full authority in the West (minus Dalmatia, which Nepos still held). He was free to call himself King when it suited his purposes, and to pretend he was a mere patrician for Zeno when coddling imperial sensibilities was deemed necessary.

I would like to ask BJ Peter DeLaCruz and other members of this forum what evidence is there that Odoacer in 476 to 493 used the title of rex or konig (king) and if Odacer used a royal title what evidence is that Odoacer used a territorial title instead of an ethnic title or instead of a plain royal title.

During the Dark Ages and early middle ages rulers usually used ethnic titles.

The Anglo-Saxon kings of England from 927 to 1066 often used strange and fanciful titles but their most common title was Rex Anglorum "King of the Angles" or "King of the English". And this was continued by the Norman kings until the reign of of Henry II (1154-1189) the first Plantagenet King.

Henry II called himself "by the grace of God, King of England, Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine, Count of Anjou".

Henricus, Dei gratia rex Angliae, dux Normaniae et Aquitaniae, comes Andegavensis


The early Frankish kings in Gaul called themselves "Kings of the Franks".

For example Childebert I in 515:

Childebertus rex Francorum

Kings of the West Franks from 843 to 916 used the simple title of "King".

Charles the Bald, 844:

Karolus Dei gratia rex

http://eurulers.altervista.org/franks.html 2

The title of King of the Franks continued to be used at lest as late as 1573 in Latin versions:

Carolus, Dei gratia Francorum Rex

The title of "King of France" was used as early as 1223 in Latin:

Ludovicus, Dei gratia Francie rex

And as early as 1308 in French:

Philippe, par la grace de Dieu Roys de France

An inscription found at Chichester in 1723 has the following inscription:


to Neptune and Minerva, for the welfare of the Divine Temple, by the authority of Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus, great king of the Britons, the guild of smiths and those in it gave this temple at their own expense… ens, son of Pudentinus, presented the forecourt.

So in the 1st century AD a client king in Britain used the title of "great king of the Britons" which is an ethnic and not a territorial title.


So I have to wonder what is the evidence of the use of the title Rex Italiae in late antquity and early medieval times?

Wikipedia says that Odoacar was proclaimed king of Italy.


But the source that it uses, J.B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, volume 1, page 406 says:

The soldiers had proclaimed Odovacar king.76

And note 76 says:

76 He is styled rex Herulorum in Cons. Ital. (Chron. Min. I p313, cp. p309).


There is a difference between Rex Herulorum, "King of the Heruls" and Rex Italiae "King of Italy".

So I ask for evidence of the use of the title of King of Italy by Odoacer or by his Ostrogothic successors.


Monarchy rests on the practice of dynastic succession, in which the monarch’s child or other relative inherits the throne. Contested dynastic succession produced chronic conflict and warfare in Europe. In the eighteenth century, well-established monarchs ruled most of Europe and, according to tradition, were obligated to protect and guide their subjects. However, by the mid-1770s, many American colonists believed that George III, the king of Great Britain, had failed to do so. Patriots believed the British monarchy under George III had been corrupted and the king turned into a tyrant who cared nothing for the traditional liberties afforded to members of the British Empire. The disaffection from monarchy explains why a republic appeared a better alternative to the revolutionaries.

American revolutionaries looked to the past for inspiration for their break with the British monarchy and their adoption of a republican form of government. The Roman Republic provided guidance. Much like the Americans in their struggle against Britain, Romans had thrown off monarchy and created a republic in which Roman citizens would appoint or select the leaders who would represent them.

While many now assume the United States was founded as a democracy, history, as always, is more complicated. Conservative Whigs believed in government by a patrician class, a ruling group composed of a small number of privileged families. Radical Whigs favored broadening the popular participation in political life and pushed for democracy. The great debate after independence was secured centered on this question: Who should rule in the new American republic?

What happened to the city of Rome after the fall of the Empire?

I know a lot about how Rome was during the Empire. But I can't find a lot of info on Rome after 476 CE (when the empire is said to have collapsed) Like, what happened to the people living in Rome when it was sacked? Who took it over? Was there resistance to the new king? When did it become the home of the Papacy? Mainly the time frame of 476 CE to 1000 CE

Towards later Antiquity, Rome's importance had largely declined on an administrative level (much to the chagrin of the Patricians and the Senate, who felt they were not involved enough in politics). The Tetrarchy had notably many capitals, all 4 of the major ones NOT being Rome (they were Trier, Milan, Nikomedia and Antioch), all of which closer to the borders and allowing a swift response from one of the Emperors. Constantine, of course, built his own. The East having always been richer than the West, much of the affairs were localized there. Once the Empire was divided after Theodosius' reign, the capital of the West was not even Rome, it was first Milan, then Ravenna (because it was much easier to defend).

However, with that said, Rome remained the most populous city and a great symbol of Roman splendour and power. It had roughly a million people living there prior to the 5th century. It retained the benefits it had before. Through power struggles and incompetence at the top, Rome would eventually be sieged and sacked by a foederati rebel named Alaric, king of the Goths. His group would eventually be settled in Souther Gaul and form the kingdom of the Visigoths, which would be at times a loyal ally of Rome and a rival. However, the sacking of Rome would cause some long-term damage as the city would start depopulating (going back to the countryside). Eventually it would be sacked again by the Vandalic kingdom of Africa and by that time the Western Roman empire was in shambles. Without the grain shipments from Carthage (Africa was held by the Vandals) and having lost much control over its territories outside Italy, Rome could not sustain its massive size and greatly depopulated (I forget the numbers, but it lost well over 50% of its size), with large sections being uninhabited, creating the image of a group of villages within the walls of Rome. Like just about everywhere in Western Europe, the urban population flocked to the countryside to live off of the land.

Since the days of Stilicho (i.e. the split of the Empire), the Emperor was essentially a puppet to the the Magister militum (general of the empire). Stilicho, Constantius and Aetius were all Romans intent on preserving the integrity of the Empire, but eventually, ➺rbarians' (settled and Romanized Germanics) were named. The dependence on foederati (mostly loyal to their leaders) meant the Roman emperor had no authority or power. The last one, Odoacer, decided that the Emperor was unnecessary and pledged allegiance to the Emperor in Constantinopolis, reigning as king in Italy. He also decided to reign independently later, which led to the Emperor of the East to push the Ostrogoths to Italy. Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths and consul of Rome, took Italy from him and ruled Italy for the Emperor.

A few years later, Justinian gets an idea to re-unite the old Empire and goes on to conquer Africa and Italy, with Rome coming back into the Imperial lands. It would later fall to the Lombards, who would then lose it to the Franks. It never was much more than the seat of the papacy and a memento from Antiquity, though this still made it incredibly relevant and important.

Where does the Papacy come in? The Pope was always one of the Pentarchs (the only one in the West). The Pope always seemed to feel special and tried to accrue political power in many ways. One of which was to gain the support of the Franks, whose king granted them many lands to hold (the Papal States, of which only the Vatican remains today). However, he was always inferior in the Church to the Emperor. Only by crowning Charlemagne did he gain the authority and dissociated himself from the rule of Constantinopolis.

Why did Odoacer choose to be king Instead of emperor? - History

A man who could have ruled the Roman Empire but instead returned to his small farm to be with his family.

This man, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus lived 2500 years ago, at the rise of the Roman Empire, and over the ages, he&rsquos been considered an outstanding example of a person who would humbly surrender power for the good of his fellow citizens.

Cincinnatus&rsquo story especially touches us now when we see presidents and dictators grab more power but it has been true throughout history as leaders have always lusted to rule.

In 458 BC, Rome was under such a severe military siege, its very existence was threatened. In desperation, the Senate pleaded with Cincinnatus to become dictator and rule the city/state and defeat Rome&rsquos enemies.

At first Cincinnatus hesitated, knowing that if he didn&rsquot sow his crops, his family could struggle to survive. But seeing how dangerous the situation was for all the Roman people, he quickly made arrangements to take care of his family and accepted the throne.

Just 15-days later, under Cincinnatus&rsquo brilliant leadership, the Roman army defeated its enemies and the Roman people could live in peace and prosperity.

But rather than rule the Roman Empire, or even accept the military honors due him, Cincinnatus tendered his resignation and returned to his small farm, grateful to have been of service.

In 439 BC a revolt took place in Rome and the Senate again asked Cincinnatus to rule and to put down the revolt. Again he was given absolute authority. At 80-years of age he put down the revolt and as before, resigned his office to return to his small farm to live in peace.

More than 2000 years later, George Washington would remember Cincinnatus&rsquo example when in 1783, he refused his Army&rsquos desire to make him a dictator and instead surrendered power to the Congress and returned to his home. Years later a grateful public elected him the first President of the United States and today he is an American hero.

Often leaders who have held enormous power hope to be remembered throughout history. Few of them are. Today you may recognize Cincinnatus&rsquo name from the Ohio city of Cincinnati or from the New York town of Cincinnatus or the Italian community of Cincinnato.

But if you are a serious student of history, you may already recognize his name and be aware of the wonderful influence he&rsquos had on many humble leaders throughout the ages.

Success Tip of the Week: If today&rsquos political turmoil concerns you, take heart. It just may be that a Cincinnatus is waiting in the wings ready to lead honorably in a democratic society or help restore one to its prior stature.

Why would a king ride a donkey instead of a warhorse (Zechariah 9:9-10)?

Many have wondered why the king mentioned in Zechariah 9:9-10 would ride a donkey into Jerusalem rather than a warhorse. It seems an odd choice for royalty. Kings ride chargers, don’t they?

In the ancient Middle Eastern world, leaders rode horses if they rode to war, but donkeys if they came in peace. First Kings 1:33 mentions Solomon riding a donkey on the day he was recognized as the new king of Israel. Other instances of leaders riding donkeys are Judges 5:10 10:4 12:14 and 2 Samuel 16:2.

The mention of a donkey in Zechariah 9:9-10 fits the description of a king who would be “righteous and having salvation, gentle.” Rather than riding to conquer, this king would enter in peace.

Zechariah 9:10 highlights this peace: “I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the war-horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Note the many details symbolic of peace:
- “Take away the chariots”: an end to the main vehicle of war.
- “Take away . . . the war-horses”: no need for horses used in war.
- “The battle bow will be broken”: no need for bows or arrows for fighting.
- “He will proclaim peace to the nations”: His message will be one of reconciliation.
- “His rule shall be from sea to sea”: the King will control extended territory with no enemies of concern.

Jesus fulfills this prophecy of Zechariah. The worldwide peace proclaimed by this humble King will be a fulfillment of the angels’ song in Luke 2:14: “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” (NKJV). Significantly, Jacob’s blessing on his son Judah includes a reference to a donkey and a donkey’s foal (Genesis 49:11). Jesus is from the tribe of Judah.

Zechariah 9:9 was fulfilled by the triumphal entry as Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the first Palm Sunday (Matthew 21:1-11 Mark 11:1-11 Luke 19:28-44 John 12:12-19). Verses 10 and following refer to a future time when the Messiah will reign after defeating His enemies at the second coming.

1b. Types of Government

Louis XIV, the King of France from 1643 until 1715, is the definition of an absolute monarch. His famous phrase, "I am the State," is an illustration of the power he wielded in France. Louis ruled through a mixture of fear and admiration, but in every case the law extended from himself.

This is a favorite story line to show how cruel a king (or a sultan or emperor) can be. The rules in this type of government are pretty clear. Whatever the ruler says, goes. Of course, many people have had different ideas about how the ruler should govern, and those beliefs support totally different types of government. The rules shape the government's legitimacy , or the degree to which the people accept the authority of the government.

Rule by Man

Countries whose citizens are governed by the absolute decisions of the ruler have not necessarily been unhappy. A government whose king or queen rules justly and wisely may enjoy a great deal of legitimacy as long as the ruler's authority is accepted. Sometimes people may accept their leader because they are afraid of the consequences if they don't. In the words of Machiavelli , "It is better to be feared than loved." As long as the feared ruler is seen as bringing about prosperity or protecting the lives of his subjects, it is entirely possible that his people will be happy.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote political works during the Renaissance. In The Prince, Machiavelli advised his audience that in a system of Rule by Man it was "better to be feared than loved."

An absolute ruler may be accepted because the people believe or accept the idea that God gave him/her the right to rule. This belief is known as divine right, which often has been associated with a monarchy , a form of government in which the power of the king or queen is hereditary. A similar idea legitimized the Chinese emperor, whose rule was threatened if his subjects perceived that he had lost the "mandate of heaven."

Rule by man can also take the shape of an oligarchy , or rule by a few elites whose right to rule is based on possession of wealth, social status, military position or achievement. A little more broadly based rule is by aristocracy (literally, "rule of the highest"), but if the type of government is "rule by man", their decisions are still arbitary and absolute.

Rule by Law

Rule by law exists in any political system in which those with power cannot make up all their own rules, but must follow an established code of law . In ancient times a Byzantine emperor established Justinian's Code , a set of laws named after him that lived on long after he died. We still follow parts of that code today. The Romans were also known for codifying laws, as was Napoleon , Emperor of France, many centuries later.

Napoleon revised the French laws into a single unified code, known as the Code Napoleon. Under the French Empire, the code was implemented throughout Europe. Napoleon is seen in this painting standing next to a copy of the Code written on a scroll.

Today most governments at least claim to be ruled by law. The most common indication is the existence of a written constitution, but the most important question to ask is whether or not the constitution actually is the "blueprint" that determines how and what policies are made. For example, Nigeria officially is a democracy with a written constitution that one dictator after another has ignored. On the other hand, Great Britain has never had a constitution as a single written document, but has for centuries been governed by law. For much of their history, the English had a limited monarchy, or a king or queen who has followed rule of law.

So whether a king can order "off with his head!" depends on the type of government that is accepted in his country. If he sets the rules (rule by man), or if the accepted outside rules allow (rule by law), the victim doesn't have a chance.

Why did the Manchus choose to settle in the Chinese build Forbidden City?

are you mad, son? your answer already inside your question.

how you can rule china from grass plain in manchuria?

you must rule it from center of china, which is in china capital palace in forbidden city, and they as you have say semi-barbarian, barbarian can not build something as grandeour like forbidden city.

sorry for my bad english, but you get my point.


Chinese did NOT settle in Mongol built Forbidden City.

A Chinese general who conquered Dadu on 14th of September, 1368, boasted that trading on the markets was not interrupted for one day.

Could Ming have used Mongol built Imperial Palace?

It is said that they did not - they set the Yuan Imperial Palace on fire. And decades later built their own. Apparently on the same grounds, but different design and layout.

Also, did Manchu HAVE a Forbidden City to use?

Remember, Li Zicheng was, after his defeat at Shanhai Pass, in Beijing from 31st of May till 4th of June, 1644. Enough time to set fire on buildings, if that was what he wanted.

So: of the Forbidden City as it stands today, how much of the timbers were in place on 23th of April, 1644? How much of the timbers were in place on 13th of September, 1368?

Alfonso VI

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Alfonso VI, byname Alfonso the Brave, Spanish Alfonso el Bravo, (born before June 1040—died 1109, Toledo, Castile), king of Leon (1065–70) and king of reunited Castile and Leon (1072–1109), who by 1077 had proclaimed himself “emperor of all Spain” (imperator totius Hispaniae). His oppression of his Muslim vassals led to the invasion of Spain by an Almoravid army from North Africa (1086). His name is also associated with the national hero of Spain, Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (El Cid), who was alternatively his enemy and indifferent supporter.

Alfonso was the second son of King Ferdinand I and his wife Sancha he was educated by Raimundo, later the bishop of Palencia, and by Pedro Ansúrez, the count of Carrión. On his death in 1065, Ferdinand left to Alfonso the kingdom of Leon together with tribute paid by the Muslim kingdom of Toledo. These possessions aroused the envious hostility of Alfonso’s elder brother, Sancho II, who had inherited the kingdom of Castile and the tribute of Zaragoza (Saragossa). Alfonso was defeated by his brother in two battles after the defeat at Llantada (1068) he managed to retain his kingdom, but after that at Golpejera (1072) he was captured and exiled, living for a short while at the court of his vassal Maʾmūn, the Muslim king of Toledo. Soon Alfonso’s sister Urraca stirred up a rebellion in Leon, and Sancho besieged her in the walled city of Zamora. During the siege, he was killed, perhaps at Urraca’s instigation. She was clearly on Alfonso’s side, and some modern historians have even suggested that they had an incestuous relationship.

With Sancho’s death, Alfonso recovered his own kingdom of Leon and inherited (1072) that of Castile. He also occupied Galicia, which Sancho had kept from their younger brother García Alfonso kept García in prison until his death. A late story, in which it is alleged that Alfonso took an oath in St. Gadea’s Church, Burgos, that he had had no share in Sancho’s murder, probably reflects Castilian reluctance to accept him as king.

Alfonso’s reign now entered on a period of success. He seized the Rioja and the Basque provinces and received the feudal homage of Sancho Ramírez for the region of Navarre to the north of the Ebro River. By 1077 he had assumed the title imperator totius Hispaniae, in which role other Christian kings accepted him. He then began the conquest of Toledo and, after a long siege, occupied it in May 1085. This was a vital conquest, which recovered for Christian Spain one of the most important historical, strategic, and cultural centres of the peninsula, one that had been in the possession of the Muslims since the early 8th century.

During this period Alfonso regularly exacted parias, heavy financial tributes, from the Muslim ṭāʾifah kingdoms in return for protection against their other enemies. By thus depriving them of their wealth, he hoped to weaken them so that they would eventually cede their independence without fighting. As a result of his exactions, Christian Spain was flooded with Muslim gold, which was spent on warfare and donations to shrines, churches, and monasteries. The demand for tribute caused the ṭāʾifah kings to tax their subjects heavily, producing popular discontent and disturbances and contributing to the weakness that caused the surrender of Toledo. The Muslim ruler al-Muʿtamid of Sevilla (Seville) took a desperate decision and called for the help of Yūsuf ibn Tāshufīn, the Almoravid (Berber) emir of North Africa, and his Saharan tribes. The emir disembarked in Algeciras at the end of July 1086 and a few months later, on October 23 at Zallāqah, near Badajoz, inflicted a terrible defeat on Alfonso VI. Alfonso appealed for help to the rest of Christendom, and a small Crusade was organized as a result the Crusaders did not reach Alfonso’s lands but wasted their energies and resources in an unsuccessful siege of the Muslim outpost of Tudela.

The defeat at Zallāqah seriously lessened Alfonso’s influence over the ṭāʾifah kingdoms. It also led to a reconciliation with El Cid. Their relationship had been difficult from the start, because El Cid had taken a prominent part in the campaigns of Sancho against Alfonso although El Cid at first attended Alfonso’s court, suspicions deepened, and since 1081 he had been in the service of the Muslim king of Zaragoza. Alfonso entrusted El Cid with the occupation and defense of eastern Spain, and Rodrigo carried out this task with great success. Between 1086 and 1109 Alfonso suffered constant defeat by the Almoravids in the last battle, that of Uclés in 1108, he lost his only son, Sancho. It was characteristic of his indomitable spirit that he at once arranged for his daughter, Urraca, to marry Alfonso I of Aragon so that the war against the Almoravids should be continued after his death, even though it meant that Leon and Castile would be ruled by an Aragonese prince.

Though his reign was politically unsuccessful, Alfonso VI carried out an important cultural task by Europeanizing his dominions. Alfonso married Constance of Burgundy, and influences from across the Pyrenees showed themselves in the introduction of the Romanesque style in art, the adoption of the Roman instead of the Mozarabic liturgy, the replacement of Visigothic by Carolingian script, and the energetic support that Alfonso gave to Cluniac monasticism, as well as in his reconstruction and safeguarding of the pilgrim road to Santiago.

Early life

Abū al-Fatḥ Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad Akbar was descended from Turks, Mongols, and Iranians—the three peoples who predominated in the political elites of northern India in medieval times. Among his ancestors were Timur (Tamerlane) and Genghis Khan. His father, Humāyūn, driven from his capital of Delhi by the Afghan usurper Shēr Shah of Sūr, was vainly trying to establish his authority in the Sindh region (now Sindh province, Pakistan). Soon Humāyūn had to leave India for Afghanistan and Iran, where the shah lent him some troops. Humāyūn regained his throne in 1555, 10 years after Shēr Shah’s death. Akbar, at the age of 13, was made governor of the Punjab region (now largely occupied by Punjab state, India, and Punjab province, Pakistan).

Humāyūn had barely established his authority when he died in 1556. Within a few months, his governors lost several important places, including Delhi itself, to Hemu, a Hindu minister who claimed the throne for himself. But on November 5, 1556, a Mughal force defeated Hemu at the Second Battle of Panipat (near present-day Panipat, Haryana state, India), which commanded the route to Delhi, thus ensuring Akbar’s succession.

At Akbar’s accession his rule extended over little more than the Punjab and the area around Delhi, but, under the guidance of his chief minister, Bayram Khan, his authority was gradually consolidated and extended. The process continued after Akbar forced Bayram Khan to retire in 1560 and began to govern on his own—at first still under household influences but soon as an absolute monarch.

FAQ [ edit ]

In case you have questions that are not answered here, please ask them on the FAQ/Quick Questions- Quick Answers thread.

Which modules should I activate? [ edit ]

Currently there is one required module (the main one named "WTWSMS") and five optional sub-modules which should be activated based on the portraits pack you own. The sub-modules have names that correspond to the required DLC's, so for example if you own the Norse portraits DLC, use the module entitled WTWSMS_NorsePortraits. All of the modules are inter-compatible, so you can run them all at once if you have all of the relevant portrait packs. In addition to that there is a sixth, purely graphical module, named "WtWSMS_Font" which activates or deactivates the text font.

Where can I find the latest official version? [ edit ]

In the mod sub-forum, look for the sticky latest release thread, labelled something like [WtWSMS] Release x.x.x.

Does the mod require any DLC? [ edit ]

No. The optional modules require the face-packs (see #Which modules should I activate?). That being said, playing some countries requires certain DLC's, just like in vanilla. See #Recommended DLCs for a list.

Is the mod compatible with all DLCs? [ edit ]

Yes, it is compatible with every DLC (as with any mod that is updated for the latest patch). However, even if it is recommended to run all the DLC's you own with it, the content of said DLC may not be adequate to the new setting of the mod, a consequence of the fact that we are still in beta.

Can save-games be exported to Europa Universalis IV? [ edit ]

As mentioned in #Mod compatibility it is compatible. On the mod sub-forum, there is a thread where you can help out to expand it.

Is the mod compatible with any other mod? [ edit ]

What languages is the mod available in? [ edit ]

Currently the mod is fully localised in English and French (français). Furthermore, there are plans for also providing Spanish (español) localisation in 1.0.0. If you think you can contribute to any of the existing translations or provide a translation in German (Deutsch), post a message in the Paradox forums and we will discuss it. Other languages could also be done, but that would require the base game to also get an integral translation from scratch.

The flags are weird, black and mixed up, what should I do? [ edit ]

You need to clear your flag cache. Do it by deleting any files stored at Documents/Paradox Interactive/Crusader Kings II/WTWSMS/gfx.

Why do I get the old Mediterranean Portraits? [ edit ]

Since the old Mediterranean Portraits are available freely, they are used by default for users who do not have the Mediterranean Portraits DLC and the dedicated sub-mod. If you own the DLC and activate the sub-mod, the new Mediterranean Portraits are used. See #Recommended DLCs and #Which modules should I activate?

Why are a lot of "Smiths" being generated/appearing for certain cultures? [ edit ]

This is an issue that we are aware of, and is caused by lacking dynasty names for certain cultures. It happens due to vanilla defaulting to the name "Smith" when too few dynasty names are available.

What is "East Welsh" and why is it in this mod? [ edit ]

East Welsh is a culture that was created by Enlil after an odd event in his first AAR. It is a melting-pot that is used to represent the mix between Welsh and a steppe culture that occurred in it. It is an unique case that will not be removed from the main mod, but similar cases won't be made as it would result in a too wide scope and implausible results. The nature of East Welsh makes it unlikely for it to appear in game.

What areas does the "Imperium Romanum" region required to restore the Roman Empire correspond to? [ edit ]

The Imperium Romanum is a custom region, covering the respective two halves of the empires from 395. All regions on which the Imperial Reconquest CB is available are thus needed to restore the Roman Empire.

How do I reconquer areas outside the region of my half of the Roman Empire? [ edit ]

In order to have access to Reconquest CBs covering the entire "Imperium Romanum" region the other half of the Roman Empire needs to have fallen and you need to use the "Last Roman Empire" decision once that has happened.

Where are the Roman legions located? [ edit ]

The legions are spread across the Mediterranean and the Roman world. A map of the locations is available on our forum.

Why do Isaurian rulers like Emperor Zeno not have access to the Roman legions? [ edit ]

The only characters who can hire and use the legions are those of the Romance group. The reasons for why the Isaurian culture doesn't have access to the legions were explained previously by Erik W.

Why are Hellenic rulers not able to rebuild the Circus Maximus? [ edit ]

The Circus Maximus decision in its current form was designed with a Christian rebuilding in mind, as the original conditions were written without the possibility for them to do it. In the future this could change if there are grounds to modify it.

Why is there a Republic of Pisa? [ edit ]

Pisa never declined like many other Roman towns, so it retained its Decurion Senate, 2 Duumvirs, and republican nature while the rest of the municipium declined into hereditary institutions. Even under the Lombards, it was the only city to not be ravaged, and became the dominant trade center.

Why do the kings of Vandalica also hold the kingdom of Alania? [ edit ]

This is for historical reasons, as the Alans migrated westwards with the Hunnic pressure and ended up integrating the Vandalic coalition that migrated to North Africa. The Alan crown was granted to the Vandal kings and they called themselves kings of both the Vandal and Alan kingdoms.

Why is the Hellenic religion present in Italy and Greece at start? [ edit ]

The Eastern Roman Emperor Leo I still had to post laws in 472 to deal with the large number of pagans in the empire. In Italy, the laws regarding the closing of temples were ignored, as there were too many pagans to enforce and laws against them in many regions of Italy.

How come "Ashurism" is still present at start? [ edit ]

The Assyrian Pagan religion is still present in a few provinces, representing the polytheistic groups that partially survived in the area.

What does the Punic culture represent? [ edit ]

The Punic culture is present in a few provinces at start, such as Malta and a Balearic island, representing the Punic Diaspora. This is a Romanised population, and does not represent Carthaginians of the Punic Wars. When it comes to religion, the Punic religion itself was extinct by 476, although as the Central African incorporated some Punic Gods it can be said to be the closest.

Why is Iceland inhabited by Irish characters at start when it hadn't been colonised at that point? [ edit ]

The characters in Iceland are based upon the Papars, who were Irish monks. As there is no colonisation mechanic in the mod for the Norse establishment on an inhabited Iceland and it was decided to not make it a wasteland or removing it, they were added to have some characters at start.

Why is there a de jure empire of Armenia? [ edit ]

The Empire of Armenia was added following requests for a Caucasian empire. It is based off the greater Armenian Kingdom during Antiquity.

Why do I not have access to the Holy War CB? [ edit ]

Holy wars are entirely disabled before the Rise of Islam. This does not mean that conquests necessarily ends up being restricted, as other casus bellis replace it.

Why is the Rise of Islam currently disabled? [ edit ]

The version of Islam that is present in the mod files is only for testing numbers, and is not intended for usage in a public release. Thus, it has been disabled until a more complete and satisfactory version has been implemented. You may however enable it for your own use with the specific gamerule.

Is the Great Schism in the mod? [ edit ]

Church councils in general is a feature that will be expanded upon as the mod is developed, and while the Three-Chapter Controversy and Henotikon are represented more will come. The Great Schism itself can be triggered through a different set of circumstances as of the latest version. The plans for representing the Early Christian Church can be found in the dedicated thread.

Why have you added so many provinces to the North African desert? [ edit ]

The main goal of the provinces additions was to expand the map into Africa to include the Gaetulians and Garamantes and to give better borders to the Languantan and Austorani. Smaller counties were added to give the Garamantes the power base they historically had, and to represent the hundreds of fortified, self-sufficient, and wealthy city states that made up the now unified Garamantian kingdom. This land was the home of advanced kingdoms, regional powers of fortified, advanced cities. Their irrigation skill and inventiveness made people describe the men to have little muscle or brawn, because they lived in the Sahara with ease. The Garamantian capital city, Germa, was not the first capital city, and was alone comparable to cities like Pompeii. Garam had a decent population, and so did all of their other city-states. The standard army of the Garamantes numbered at 50,000 at the lowest, and the Garamantes had excessive use large armies of nomads to bolster their already powerful forces. The city of Garam was simply one of 8 powerful cities, all of which were of similar size an population, meaning just in the major cities of their 180,000 square mile kingdom had 80,000 people. This doesn't include the large number of other settlements they also had, making their nation incredible powerful.

In the future, the map will be redone in its integrality, with the aim of lowering the province density in the area.

Is Tibet being a wasteland intended? [ edit ]

Tibet is currently a wasteland as in pre-2.8 vanilla versions. This is because the lead developer Enlil responsible for the history of the area is busy and absent elsewhere, which means he hasn't been able to contribute directly. As soon as he feels done and has time to share his content, Tibet will be added to the mod. For now however, we consider it more important to have a Tibet with full history and flavour than just adding a shallow copy without the dedication it deserves.

How do I proceed in order to join the team, contribute or test the mod? [ edit ]

Even without modding experience, it is possible to help with the development, become a tester, or make historical contributions for this mod. Simply send a PM to a member of the team over at the paradox forums and we will discuss it. You need to remember that we all started as simple players, even Enlil.

Watch the video: Odoacer: King of Italy, 476-493 CE


  1. Vladimir

    This is not exactly what I need. Who else can suggest?

  2. Brunelle

    You are absolutely right. It is about something different and the idea of ??keeping.

  3. Galrajas

    Aftar you 3 troubles

  4. Aethelhard

    Bravo, your sentence at hand

  5. Shaine

    Brilliant thought

  6. Ali

    You are not right. I can defend my position. Email me at PM, we will discuss.

  7. Alvy

    I believe that you are making a mistake. I can prove it. Email me at PM.

Write a message