Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="AussieCollector, post: 4514965, member: 81093"]Great post and discussion, I enjoyed reading it, and agree with much of it. In terms of it feeling different, yes. True. But empires do evolve. I mean, did the Empire in 474 AD feel the same as it did under Augustus? Let's face it, the religion wasn't even the same, let alone the armies and so forth. Yet we still see it as Roman. And you're right, my WW2 example isn't as great as it could have been. But I think the point stands that restored is restored. Otherwise we have to start coming up with arbitrary time frames of how long you can be displaced before it's no longer restored. And yes, it was a new dynasty, but the Nicaean Empire was formed by the rightful and recognised heir to the ERE throne. And there is a clear and documented connection that the Palaiologos dynasty was a continuation of that throne in exile, as co-emperor at first, and then as ERE emperor following the restoration. And also let's not forget, ERE was not exactly the same as the western feudal states, where a royal family was established, and that was generally that (asides from different branches of that royal family making counter claims to the thonre during crisis). In the ERE, the throne switched between aristocratic families all the time. And the Palaiologos family was absolutely ERE aristocracy. Combined with the above point, it makes a pretty compelling argument.[/QUOTE]