Hey there. Currently in the late Uther period of the campaign, but I've been reading a fair way ahead just to get an idea of how events are going to line up and plan well in advance to account for consequences of the players' actions.

One thing that's been needling at me a bit is the sudden re-emergence of the Roman Empire in the conquest period. In Salisbury family history generation, Rome is invaded by the Huns and sacked by the Vandals, elsewhere it is implied to now be ruled by the Visigoths, and in the early campaign the last seat of Roman power in Gaul falls to the Franks. It seems to be set up that Rome is gone now - confined only to the borders of Italy and truly Roman in name only.

Which is why I was surprised when a never before mentioned Emperor Lucius sends his troops and diplomats from all over the known world to demand tribute from Arthur. I may have missed it, but no piece of news in the GPC seems to explain the presence of Rome as a major political entity once more.

I thought of a few reasons this may have occurred, and plan on foreshadowing the Roman war quite some time before it happens in my game. Here are the theories I've been juggling around:
A) The Byzantines in Pendragon marched west and at some point reclaimed the western Empire.
B) Rome spreads its power now not through conquest, but through the growing influence and popularity of Roman Christianity, through which it seeks to reclaim its old Empire. The Pope is a puppet of Lucius. Or vice versa.
C) The Visigothic people who now rule Rome have adopted the customs of their conquered foes and wish to become as great as the Romans once were. Lucius is Roman Emperor in name only, more of a foreign warlord with a lot of political power (though this doesn't explain the grand array of vassals at the beck and call of the Romans.

As I said, I may well have missed the real exposition on this while storming through the book, but I figured rather than fumble about with guesswork I'd ask people who might be more in the know. How and when did Rome make its brief but glorious comeback?

Cheers.

I remember that in the first edition of "Pendragon", Emperor Lucius was identified as the historical Theodoric the Great, who died in 526 - around the time the Roman War takes place on the Great Pendragon Campaign timeline.

The Eastern Roman Empire *did* briefly reclaim Rome in the 6th century A.D. (though a bit later in real history than Arthur's Roman war in GPC), in which case Lucius might have been installed by its forces (though his actually bearing the title "Emperor" would be unlikely, in that case. In Geoffrey of Monmouth, who gives the earliest version of the story, Lucius is not actually the Emperor of Rome, but an official reporting to the Emperor, with the title "Procurator of the Republic"; his superior is an Emperor Leo - perhaps the historical Emperor Leo I of Constantinople, who reigned from 457 to 474 - though too early for the GPC timeline).

I would humbly like to suggest a mixture of the second and third option. I don't think given the large number of successor States and rump States that the people who are part of the Western Roman Empire necessarily stop considering themselves Roman for potentially as long as three generations or so. I don't have specific sources but when I was reading about the Late Antiquity and fall of Rome for my other thread regarding Roman cities I got the impression that people cling to the idea even if they are no longer part of an actual Roman Empire. I think there's also a large number of rulers that are smart enough to claim to route to their power in Roman tradition.

So then a combination of Trinitarian Christianity rump States and self-important leaders and Nobles are largely responsible for the vassals maintained by the Roman empire in KAP

The Visigothic "Roman Empire" covered parts of Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, some France, and other spots.

Now notice the quotes around "roman empire". The people considered themselves part of the "empire" even though it had failed them for quite a long time, and having a "touch of rome" gave multiple kings (including of course "Charlemagne" - who was crowned "Holy Roman Emperor" in Rome in 800ce) more legitimacy.

As for the multiple non-Italian forces in the "Roman" army - paid auxilleries were a part of the roman army for hundreds of years. Even Ceasar himself had some Gaulish forces when he attempted to conquer Britain. Rome still has money, even in her decayed state, and thus can pay mercenaries.

I looked at the original question and thought "buy why explain it?" If the players really want to do some research, they might find that "Emperor Lucius" has been sending these ambassadors to multiple places trying to get their money, and most have thumbed their nose at him. The difference with Arthur is that he thumbs his nose at them, and then goes and conquer's them.

I don't think that the French knights and cities he fights are loyal to this Lucius. They are simply not willing to let Arthur pass by freely, and thus he has to conquer them in order to keep going to Italy.

Remember, it is YOUR GPC. Do what feels best for you and your players.
(smiles)

Ave Arthur!

I looked at the original question and thought "buy why explain it?" If the players really want to do some research, they might find that "Emperor Lucius" has been sending these ambassadors to multiple places trying to get their money, and most have thumbed their nose at him. The difference with Arthur is that he thumbs his nose at them, and then goes and conquer's them.

I don't think that the French knights and cities he fights are loyal to this Lucius. They are simply not willing to let Arthur pass by freely, and thus he has to conquer them in order to keep going to Italy.


That is pretty much how I run it, too. Not too bothered by the historical accuracy of having pila-throwing legionnaires from 200 AD fighting side by side with cataphracts of 550 AD, who, by the way, are much too tough (Lance 28?! These guys are tougher than most named Round Table Knights!).

I see the heterogenious nature of the 'Roman' army a reflection of the splintering of the Western Roman Empire. 'Emperor' Lucius is actually a (puppet-) ruler of the Ostrogoths, and manages to get up this alliance by painting Arthur as an invader and hence a threat to everyone else. Arthur's surprise attack on Barfleur makes it easier for him to do, and hence why there are all of these other foreigners in the army. An alliance of the day, kind of like the Visigoths and the Romans united against Attila a century earlier. Of course, then there still was a rump Roman Empire to do the allying, but still.

I just found this note amid my million bits

A Note about the Romans

Do not look to history for the truth about the Romans in KAP. Those pompous claims of imperial dominance and possession are the lies of brains softened by the unmanly weather and soft food of the Mediterranean diet. Look to the History of the Kings of Britain for the truth.
According to the erudite and knowledgeable author of that learned tome the Romans came to the island several times. They sometimes defeated the courageous native kings, but in truth the worst was that some of the kings paid regular tribute to the empire. Certainly settlers came from there to the pleasant land of Britain, and some were even allowed to settle in cities. Their customs and architecture influenced the natives of Logres too, and many of their gods were worshiped alongside British ones.

In maybe the weakest of her five "take a Malory legend and put it in a more 'historical' dark ages* Britain" stories, Mary Stewart had a pretty pilgrim travel through the France of Clovis I, Frankish founder of the Merovingian dynasty/arguably the person who transitions modern day France and Germany to a unified Christianity that Charlemange can use then to ally with the Pope and create a Holy Roman Empire.

Still an enjoyable book to me but really what I was getting at is you could have Clovis as the person making demands of Britain, a neighbor across such a narrow sea, who takes the mantle of Roman Christianity for a time. This came into play years ago in a previous edition when we had a foreign knight in our group (I forget if he was Frankish or Gaulish or whatever.)

The Theoderic option is good as well and well covered in the thread. He did work to have cultural "romans" and his own people unite within the kingdom and to a Briton, that may be close enough, despite the fact inter-cultural marriage was outlawed.

*I realize the term "dark ages" is somewhat in historian disrepute now (see the inheritance of rome, et al.) But it works for fiction still, especially that wonderful intersection of mostly legend and a little history that is so much a part of the matter of Britain.