Themata
Opened this issue · 17 comments
This issue is supposed to contain the discussion and research about the Themata system.
What has been said by @loup99 :
Through the themes the empire dealt with this loss, with armies in geographic sections, each having an agrarian base. This gave the sections a distinct identity and fiscal autonomy with armies being recruited locally and being regionalised as in the respective successor states in the West. The ERE did keep its bureaucracy though, and the tax-based system didn't completely disappear, so we can't speak of an equivalent proto-feudalism.
Original suggestion by @Pseudocatfish : https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/wtwsms-suggestions-ideas.827029/page-4#post-18647647
This is the earliest theme setup I have found so far: https://eaxelandersson.deviantart.com/art/Themes-of-the-Byzantine-Empire-in-the-7th-Century-563426508
I think the quite large size and the fact that they were directly under the emperor could speak for the early themes being kingdom-tier. What do you think?
This picture seems to be the original source of that, from Haldon, J. F. Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
On the matter of scale kingdom seems preferable on this basis.
I think there may be a problem with chronology in the Greek official language and Themata duo.
The emperor responsible for introducing Greek as the Roman Empire's official language was Heraclius (reign 610 – 641), while modern historians date the creation of the themes to the period from the 640s to the 660s, under Constans II (r. 641 – 668).
More on this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district)#Origins
Loss of Egypt and Oriens -> Greek -> Themes
The themes requirement was just to represent that there has been a loss of these regions and that the empire went through a system change. It can be altered as you want to follow that historical debate amongst scholars.
OK, I will try to write the conditions representing the loss of Oriens and Egypt for the Greek language decision.
What I've got so far with the dynamic de-jure:
Why are some in Greek and others in Latin? Is that a work in progress?
These are all Greek names of the themes, just one (the blue one) has a different form.
First of all, Thrakesia is "Thrakesion" on Haldon's map. Secondly, aren't the other de jure names on the map mostly English or Anglicised Latin?
Yes, it should Thrakesion.
Which thema names are English or Latin?
I'm talking about other titles, not themes. Like Thrace or Macedonia.
They haven't been edited yet, but I can create themes for the Balkans.
Yes, but all titles across the map would need editing then. I'm not questioning the borders or titles, just the Greek names since no previous title uses Greek forms. Unless this represents the empire becoming more Greek?
I think there's no problem with the Greek names, just like with the Roman names of Roman administrative titles. The Greek names are also the best to display (Anatolikon is much shorter than Anatolic Theme).
On the other names being Latin or English, the Greek language decision could make them Greek.
What do you think about adding a new "Thematic" government, given to the ERE as part of the decision effect?
I'm opposed to it, it doesn't make sense from a realism point of view. Decentralisation and regionalisation is compatible with Bureaucratic.