Saving Your Disaster Campaign - Byzantine Empire 300,000 Debt 

xD underrated comment

Wait what? Justinian did damn good without the plague. Lol

Plague, what plague? I'll just ignore the whole thing and then tax the dead later, problem solved. Truly a wholesome emperor that cared for his people

​@@LordVader1094Do you mean Belisarius? Justinian didn't do jack and actively hampered beligoat down

The only way we’ll be able to move on is a great medieval 3. So basically we’ll never be able to move on.

Feel you bro. The best part was the sieges.

@@gumbyshrimp2606 personally I used to think CA would make us a medieval 3 until they decided to make thrones of Britannia

will do

Maybe it would be better for Byzantines if he was there in 1204.

@@mackmasters325 venetians are water jews

"I just want do as much damage as possible" - LoTW, 1453 AD

@@rkeykey Whenever I read LoTW, I imagine somebody with a lisp trying to say Lord of the Rings

@@liamwalton4183 cool

Yes!

I think your thinking of the video entitled. One frank left. Its player in a mode. Its my fav video of his

Basilis Tselios yes he does but nothng was happening there XD

warhammer is fucking garbage this is a real total war medieval ii

@@powderedwiglouis1238 Hey don't be so hard on warhammer. At least they tried!

@@LichlordKazam they failer and now vecause of them theres fkin hero garbage in three kingdom

Underrated comment

Plus you cud make them yourself

I like to imagine the Emperor went on campaign to Rome and a pretender took control of the home territories.

This person is absolutely not smart enough to play this game. 300k debt? They should just play a different game because they've already got brain damage

Drag the unit cards of the army? Is that it?

@Scarface Kritikos debatable to say the least. They were the leftovers of the Roman Empire, they called themselves Roman, were called Romans by everyone at the time. What's more, if you try defining what it means to be "Roman." Greek will ultimately be one sub-classification of Roman (along with Italian, Egyptian, Gallic, Iberian, and - in some cases - even Germanic). Sorry if you're Italian, but they lost the monopoly on being Roman when they expanded and assimilated all the cultures of those they conquered.

@Scarface Kritikos Then why was Greek the second language across the entire empire for its entire history? Why did the Romans use a pantheon massively associated with Greek culture across its entire empire? Why was Latin the language of the eastern half's court up until Justinian I? The cultural and linguistical factors were common across more than just the eastern half and I only grant the ethnic element to the extent that your framing is fundamentally (as I referred to when I said to define what it means to be Roman) semantics, and I don't say that to be dismissive of your point. Before the Roman Empire was Christian, it followed a Greek oriented pantheon, meaning your definition of tying "Roman" to a specific religion doesn't hold up. If it did, then the Romans weren't Roman until they adopted Christianity under Constantine I. Furthermore, you can't define Roman ethnically, because it encompassed and included several ethnicities (as I mentioned before, this includes Italians, Gauls, Greeks, Egyptians, Middle Easterners, Iberians, North Africans, Britannians, and Germanic peoples), so trying to claim that the Byzantine Romans weren't Roman because they were Greek is kind of silly. Additionally, there's also the fact that Christianity had several schisms before the 11th century (council of Nicea and all that), which then means you can't even define the Byzantines on Greek Orthodox because you had Monophosites and Arianism (I could be wrong on which doctrines Justinian I and Theodora were there, but the fact that these were both around during the period when historians apply the term "Byzantine" remains). TLDNR: Fix your definitions and give a better explanation for how the Romans were ONLY Italian and ONLY Roman Catholic, when the history of the Roman Republic and later Empire (from 509 BCE to 1453 CE) debunks what you've given so far.

@Scarface Kritikos I learned that it was Justinian in the early 6th century (500s) that changed the language from Latin to Greek. Maybe that was just for the court and not the state's official language though. But I did say that Greek was the SECOND language, not the main one. Greek was used throughout the Mediterranean. And if you really need, then we can point out that Greek has been a dominant element of Roman identity going as far back as when Rome was a tiny shit hole of a Greek colony in the middle of Italy. And yes, Rome was a mixed pot of different peoples. One of those people was Greek. You haven't provided an argument as to how the Greeks weren't a part (and I would argue, a pretty large one) of Roman culture, especially with religion, language, geographical location, and ethnicity. I never said that the councils had bearing on the ethnicity of the Romans/Greeks. What I did say is that they were one of the many schisms that showed the empire wasn't all Roman Catholic. That - literally - means that the Romans (and Byzantines for that matter) can't be defined by one religion, Greek Orthodox or otherwise. Why were the Byzantines not Catholic? Some of them were (mostly Italians from areas reclaimed by Justinian I for the empire, alternatively, mercenaries like the Normans and Anglo-Saxons who settled in Roman/Byzantine lands as late as the 11th century). I have serious doubts about the papacy having nationalist thinking, but they most CERTAINLY had political interests (and for the record, not a fan of the Roman Catholic church, particularly its history).

Again, please answer my questions: How the Romans were ONLY Italian and ONLY Roman Catholic, when the history of the Roman Republic and later Empire (from 509 BCE to 1453 CE) when the history of them says otherwise? How are Gauls born a hundred years after Julius Caesar not Roman? How were Britainnians born under the reign of Hadrian no Roman? How were the Egyptians under Justinian not Roman? How was the Roman Empire under Diocletian (still following the same pantheon of gods the Greeks had) not Roman? These are implications from you hammering on the religion. So I'm asking you, PLEASE, if you genuinely think I'm wrong, define what the term "Roman" means in a way that applies to everyone from Londinium to Jerusalem, from the Republic in 509 BCE to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, or the fall of Rome in 476 if you prefer.

@Scarface Kritikos Man, you're pretty bad at definitions and history. If we assume that only the Italians were ethnically Roman (which when has Roman ever been an ethnicity?), then that would have been stomped out when they were dominated by the Germanic Ostrogoths, the later Lombards, the Franks, under Charlemagne, then sandwich fucked between the German Holy Roman Empire (or do you think that was actually Roman too? Lol) and the Normans of Sicily. Any idea of an Italian peoples didn't really come about until the end of the medieval period (15th to 17th centuries), as Spain, France, the HRE, and the Papal States' lost their sovereignty and influence on the Italian people. So, once again... Define what the term "Roman" means in a way that applies to everyone from Londinium to Jerusalem, from the Republic in 509 BCE to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, or the fall of Rome in 476 if you prefer.