Prior to my group rolling characters I presented a fair bit of backstory for them to browse including a timeline of the British Isles from Caesar's first invasion up until circa AD400 when the Pendargon (KAP5) timeline takes over. I based most of this information on timelines I pieced together from Wikipedia and the like, including the sacking of Rome by the Huns and it's eventual fall circa 476.

One of my player's has chosen to play a Roman knight, and when I informed him that one of his starting Passions was Love (emperor) he said "but the Roman empire has fallen" and this got me thinking. Have I screwed up here? In King Arthur's mythical timeline does the Empire not fall? (I'm aware that Arthur himself becomes Roman Emperor sometime later in the tale). Or is it merely the Eastern Roman Empire that we're now refering to?

One of my player's has chosen to play a Roman knight, and when I informed him that one of his starting Passions was Love (emperor) he said "but the Roman empire has fallen" and this got me thinking. Have I screwed up here? In King Arthur's mythical timeline does the Empire not fall? (I'm aware that Arthur himself becomes Roman Emperor sometime later in the tale). Or is it merely the Eastern Roman Empire that we're now refering to?


I meant the Emperor of Britain, whoever that might be. At the start, that is Uther. Who is not really emperor, or really high king...
Or the theoretical emperor, if there was one in Britain...
Hmmm...

Well, I was just trying to use some Roman terms instead of English one, like equites rather than knight.

Also, in the mythical time line, there IS a (western) Roman Empire. It just happens to be run by the Deitrich of Bern, the Ostrogoth super hero.

--Greg

I meant the Emperor of Britain, whoever that might be. At the start, that is Uther. Who is not really emperor, or really high king...

ah I see, well that clearrs that up.

With regard to the Western Roman Empire, I take it it continues as before then? Ie does NOT fall as in did in real history.

Actually, later in GPC, around 540, the eastern emperor, Justinian, retook Italy from the Ostrogoths, although holding it was a huge cost in blood and treasure. Even at the beginning of the GPC, the Roman departure from Britain in 410 is at the edge of living memory (or would be, if the PCs' grandfathers hadn't all been killed at the Night of Long Knives...), and the "fall" of the Western Empire (when the last figurehead emperor, the child Romulus Augustulus, was deposed without his successor in Italy, Odacer, taking the title of emperor) was just 9 years before the start of the campaign. And Syagrius manages to hold off the Franks for the first few years of the campaign, meaning that there's still a Roman presence across the Channel. So, at the beginning of the GPC, Roman knights might still have some sense of loyalty to "Rome," and the resurgence of the empire under Justinian later in the campaign might stir those feelings.

I played a roman knight once and I just assumed that it was the my loyalty to the Emporer of Rome. I assumed that like a lot of Britishmen we were waiting for the Empire to strengthen and then It would come back accross and re-settle britian. So I just had it as an extra loyalty and bragged up my Roman heritage a lot and secretly hoped we would become part of the empire one day. But until it happened I kept loyalty to my current Lord and was proud to do that as well. Also.. my loyalty Emporer was less than my current Lord so deep inside I knew that I wanted the emporer back, but also knew that the Glory days of Rome were over and If it came down to it I would side with my current Lord because of the admiration and respect I have for him. That is how I justified both. I did not think of it simply being loyalty Lord. I took it literal as well.

I'd never realised it was to the emperor of Britiain either - oops.