I mean, there is always time for another Roman-Latin war. That could settle the title, especially if the Romans destroy the HRE institution and take all of the memorabilia and insignia
An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
I mean, there is always time for another Roman-Latin war. That could settle the title, especially if the Romans destroy the HRE institution and take all of the memorabilia and insignia
It's a term used in Roman historiography. To quote B444 from the previous thread:Is Fifth Empire a common term to refer to this empire?
I watched a video on the French having a Fifth Republic recently so honestly this could be a neat parallel to show off Rhomania as being a distinct but connected state to Rome. The Fifth Roman Empire. Latins might even be willing to grudgingly accept it.I could see it being used by them somewhat officially.
The Roman Empire from the accession of Helena (in 1548) through to the current time of the TL is known as the Fifth Empire. Whether this term was actually used by the Romans of that time or was coined in the future, I an not sure.
The French republics aren't that good a parallel, since there are primarily political divides between each of the five republican eras (somewhat different constitutions, for instance). The five 'empires' are more complex in the division, since they're meant to mark more differences than just political changes.
Evilprodigy
Donor
IIRC the French Republics are also a re-introduction of democratic principles after a period of monarchy. First republic gives way to first empire and the bourbon restoration, second appears afterwards and dies with the second empire, third appears after the empire, fourth after Nazi occupation and Vichy France. Only really the fourth to fifth transition was a concerned constitutional and political change, the rest were entire regime changes out of a new form of government.
In that regard you get something similar with the third reich. The first was the HRE, the second the Prussian empire, and the third Nazi Germany. Each is punctuated by a period of democracy. Between first and second was the German Confederation rather than an empire, and between the second and third was the Weimar Republic.
The Roman Empires don't seem to be all that punctuated by anything. Just dynasty changes. It's still a continuous empire, much like the HRE was despite constant dynasty changes. I think it'd make more sense to see Augustus until Constantine as the First empire, since after Constantine the fundamental nature of the Roman Empire changed to a very real hereditary system organized by Christianity. It's an actual change in government rather than just a dynastic one. In the same regard I don't think Basil II would be a real shift either. The Nicenean Empire restoring native rule would be a better demarcation for the start of a third empire. The Ascention of Helena Drakina I also don't think is a real shift either for the same reasons but I can recognize that this is the point when the empire is reorganized into a more early modern state than a medieval one. But that wouldn't really be a new 'empire' but instead more akin to the difference between medieval and early modern England
Good points, but I do feel that the political changes, especially between the first, third, fourth and fifth republics were more significant than the cultural changes, since there were many immediate changes in the way politics worked in France between these eras, while the cultural shifts were more gradual, though still driven by the political changes.
I'm kinda putting the two empires and the occupation aside here, which is somewhat not-good, but then I'm just comparing the individual periods, not looking at the evolution of France in total.
Exactly: I'm saying that France is a *bad* comparison, and Germany is even worse.
I would disagree. The empire as an institution, as an idea, was indeed continuous. But what it is, what it stood for, what it means to the average Roman, what it means to the imperator: that changed. Not sharply, yes; but it changed, and that change is easily perceived.
My personal opinion is that the Romans see this period as the classical empire: the time when the empire was Latin and revolved around the actual city of Rome.
Well, from Basil II the empire went nowhere but down. Nothing changed inside the empire politically, but remember that this demarcation is being made in the future ahead of 1025, which remembers most clearly that from Basil to Theodoros the general direction of the empire was down. Turkish invasion, Crusader pillaging, bloody Bulgarians, damned-to-hell Old Venetians, the whole lot pillaged the empire in this time, after Basil.
I don't actually remember what happened in the reign of Helena Drakina, so... *shrug*
“There’s always time for another Roman-Latin war” sounds like the Roman Equivalent of the “And then it got worst” joke about OTL Russian history.
While I don't doubt there will be more Roman-Latin wars (hell, we've got one right now vs Spain) I think that with the Hungary-Serbia-Vlachia cordon of Roman-backed buffer states the days of the Latins being an existential threat to the Empire died on the field of Thessaloniki.
I mean, you aren't wrong. Its also got a better ring than the arguably more true "There's always time for another Roman-Persian War". The syllable count just feels off.
Certainly. Honestly, I don't see the value for the Romans any time soon trying to force a conflict with the Latins. With their borders, there is only one place of interest - and that's Italy. Is completing a conquest of Italy worth a war against a load of Europe? Nope. At best it'd be a prize to win if it happens.
I can see two scenarios that are plausible IMO. First is against the Triunes - and that seems pretty likely atm, but exactly HOW that conflict starts is still up in the air if it hasn't already. I'd expect that it'd involve some sort proxy conflict in Germany potentially if it isn't direct. Second, the wake of the last war against Germany leads to any one of the potential rivals doing something stupid like attacking Hungary, which would almost certainly require a punitive campaign that would spin out of control.
If that happens, I can see the Romans having a few interests with Germany, one being the potential to end the HRE in favour of recognising someone as Emperor or Great King of Germany, which would settle the Roman question I think. The other is simply ensuring they have an ally in the region rather than an enemy. Better to see parts of Germany tying itself to the Roman sphere, than the Triune sphere. If they can't set up a true HRE/Germany, better to have say, Bohemia and Bavaria on side.
I feel like forcefully trying to remove the title of holy roman emperor would only make the germans galvanize around it and adopt it as a national identity. Much better to support states trying to leave it and it will dissolve naturally. Perhaps the Raven king rebellion could be a solution to this
They migrated to the Volga in the 1600s OTL, so they're not here yet.
I really don’t see many Indians coming to Mesopotamia for a simple reason. Rome at this point has zero tolerance for large minorities in their borders and having just committed genocide against one they aren’t going to invite another to take their place
There’s also the simple reason and it applies to why you won’t see Romanized Malays, Indonesians, etc coming to Mesopotamia; until steamships it costs a lot to move people. Especially from East Asia when you are reliant on the monsoon winds.
The population for the Levant and Mesopotamia will come from traditional sources:
1) Demobilized soldiers and their family’s. Given the scale of Roman mobilization that should be good for a couple hundred thousand people right off the bat.
2) The great Aegean and Mediterranean cities. Expect Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Antioch and others to give up 10-20% of their population in sweeps of the slums to be sent to re-populate the cities and countryside
3) I would expect 2nd,3rd and so on sons for the next couple generations to be given land grants by the government on the condition they marry and improve the land.
4) Good old European immigration. Serbs, Vlachs, Russians, Georgians are all going to be present in numbers.
5) Sudanese slaves. They gave a centuries long history of faithful service once freed at this point and a ready supply line. Rome could very well increase its yearly orders by an extra 5000 half male and half female and settle then with in villages with a priest. Doesn’t sound like much but in 25 years that’s 125000 people.
I would be shocked if in 1700 the combined population of Indians,Malays and Indonesians in the new provinces was more than 10,000 and even that would be high i
Could they? Yes. Should they? I don’t think so. At least not in large numbers. Otherwise they just move the rebellion risk from Italy to Mesopotamia, which is much much more exposed and likely to garner support from the neighboring countries. You might think that the Latins would be predisposed to support Italian rebels in Italy and you’d be right. That said it’s not likely to be followed up with a mass invasion like a Persian backed Mesopotamian rebellion would be. The Alps are as much a shield against the Romans as they are for the Romans as well, so the Latin west would likely leave Italy alone after a generation or two. Not sure the ottomans would ever stop trying for Mesopotamia.
On the coffee production discussion. Rome will never have a domestic production, in that the heartland can't. But RitE very much, as well, while Yemen is a major producer, the largest supplier of coffee to Rome is Ethiopia by simple logistics and history.