Yeah again want to apologise, to give context i was thinking of reading the tl but its reallly massive so before i just wanted to find out what happened to the muslim world (don't want to read something where they are fucked) the page i clicked on people were giving some complex posts on arab muslims, so i assumed everyone knows alot here so i could take your answers on face value. Again sorry didn't mean to cause a pain.
An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
Cryostorm
Donor
Well the basic answer is that Rhomania essentially is in the same position as OTL Ottomans and with the Ethiopians have almost split the Muslim world in two and while they have issue with Arab Muslims due to historical uprising and rebellion they actually have decent relations with Turkish and Kurdish Muslims along with most of the minor sects such as the Alawites and Ibadi. They also have a large measure of respect for their Sunni opponents since they have largely been honorable enemies, this is also helped by the fact that that same opponent is Persian/Turkish which has its own deep and complicated history with the Greek/Roman people that has made the relationship transcend that of mere enemies and rivals.
As to the Muslim world the west is dominated by the Marinids who have manged to keep the Maghreb as major player instead of just a coastal annoyance, going so far as to keep a presence on Iberia till the 17th century and becoming overlord of a large section of West Africa, including it gold mines. I can definitely see a future where European colonization is all but stopped on the coasts in West Africa as the tribes are backed by the Marinids who focus more on their continental borders, which would make one scary state.
To the East are the Ottomans whose current territorial boundaries are the height any Persian power has had since the Muslim conquest even after their losses in the east and west and to a certain extent rule over the majority of Muslims east of the Levant. If the next war goes as we think it might the Ottomans may lose some territory in the west but if they can accept it and allow that border to stand they could focus on the east in both Central Asia and India to consolidate their power there.
Further east the Majapahit had a resurgence and broke the back of a lot of the Muslim city-states in Indonesia and after the inclusion of the Europeans, particularly the Triunes, Rhomanians, and Spanish, the whole area is a polyglot of several faiths and languages though I believe the Hindu Javanese are still the largest group at the moment.
T/L-D/R: In short while Islam certainly is different and in some ways geographically smaller this isn't an outright Islam screw and may have the seeds of stopping Islam from having its century or two of humiliation.
A thought, instead of the idea of creating a depotate of S. Meso. imagine how far set back the Ottomans would be if the described area, and the Persian Gulf coast were almost completely sacked, pillaged and burned. Imagine the amount of treasure sent back home through soldiers liquidating, officers claiming and mailing back, their spoils. The jump in wealth in the east alone could offset the cost of resettling the levant/N.Meso, and the new fortifications of the new border. Those have to be two of the richest regions in the whole of the Ottoman empire, it would be one the largest short term infusions of monies into the Empire. And the Ottomans would be screwed for at least two generations, more likely three to start to break even on the reinvestment the area left to them would have needed.
It would fuel the hate on for Rhomania like something fierce for sure. But by the point where the Ottomans are stable again, Rhome would have passed them economically and administratively so far, they would be only an opportunistic threat.
It would fuel the hate on for Rhomania like something fierce for sure. But by the point where the Ottomans are stable again, Rhome would have passed them economically and administratively so far, they would be only an opportunistic threat.
That would make the Mongols look positively tame, and for a nation that's this timeline's clear protagonist that would make me feel pretty uncomfortable.
Given all the talk about Roman intervention in Mesopotamia and trying to set up Roman hegemony over the region in some manner to deny it to the Ottomans, I have to say... I hope the Romans crash and burn if they try that. Both from a narrative perspective (the more the Romans trounce their neighbors with the power to check their advances, the more they start to seem like an unstoppable bulldozer), and also from a general "hoping the good guys win." Not to cast the Ottomans as an absolute good and the Romans an absolute bad, but rather because this TL's readership seem to be more willing to sweep Roman war crimes and humanitarian disasters (See: Egyptian genocide, mass enslavement of Venetian POWs, Venetian genocide, desecration of holy sites, etc) while not granting the same leniency to other nations (the Triunes being the most notable example, though the Germans and Ottomans also qualify). If the Romans go into Mesopotamia with the intention of using mass destruction to economically ruin it for the Ottomans, or to encourage ethnic and sectarian violence to act as a fifth column for the Romans, or to engage in all-out genocide - like they already have in Egypt - I really, really hope the Ottomans bloody them worse than they did at Nineveh.
Edit: the comment above seems to have summed up my feelings a lot more succinctly.
Edit: the comment above seems to have summed up my feelings a lot more succinctly.
So currently we have
1) Annexation - I don't think anyone expects it to work
2) Despotates - Possible, debatable stability, for sure damage, requires local allies
3) Buffer State - Possibly the least devastating, and might well lead to the best long-term peace and denies the Romans and Ottomans Mesopotamia
4) Slash and Burn - Terrifying. Like, legit terrifying.
(Not that I ever stop) I'd like to suggest another, perhaps a hybrid of 1 and 4.
Annexation to and including Baghdad, a new border along the Nahr Diyala, to Baghdad, across to some small town on the Euphrates nearby (Sippar?) and then across to Razzaza Lake and the Wadi Al Ubayyid.
THEN burn the rest. It doesn't quite shatter the Persians, and like in Egypt, if a few local groups can be brought on side, preferably the Assyrians and Kurds - Assyrians are Christian, which makes them arguably easier to win over, especially if they become powerful locally, and the Kurds are based largely in the areas of Mesopotamia the Romans already rule. If the Romans can pre-negotiate an alliance with those two groups as a form of Fifth Column (Kurds optionally, Assyrians would be a must), then the Romans and Assyrians can both rake in the loot, with the Assyrians escaping it with extra dosh and going north.
Further, if you can make an alliance with the Marsh Arabs, effectively leaving them alone, and granting them some support post-invasion to make life difficult for the Ottomansas AFAIK, they've never really been a problem historically, throwing them for a loop.
All in all, you've got one hell of a nightmare going on if that can all happen, not an eternal nightmare, but one that is a real short-term vengeance, and medium term boost, with long term consequences.
there is no way they are going to be able to absorb major parts of Mesopotamia the most they are going to get is northern iraw mosul and that it they are not going to be able to hold on to any other parts. it would bring in very very little money and there be an constant gurrlie campain agasint them and constant revolts and the second war was declared count on every roman garrison being killed and at a minium ten of thosuands of troops would rise up to support the otttmaans,and the list goes on it would be a massive drain on everything. the roman don't want to and can't afford an investment as large as that for very little gain. They are to take re conquered land taken by the ottmamans and maybe mosul and a little more. Then the rest they are going to destroy.
puppets wouldn't work because they would at the first chance they could get they would rejoin the ottomans and murder every roman they can find.
puppets wouldn't work because they would at the first chance they could get they would rejoin the ottomans and murder every roman they can find.
That's the thing, the Triunes are the only real power in Europe to 'help' the Ottomans. Spain has it's views in the W. Med, and New World. Given the ramp up of Triune attention in the lowlands, would they be willing to throw resources into a losing battlefield. The only other power of standing would be Vij who would look to capitalize and move on the N.Indian holdings. As to unstoppable 'dozer, no one said they were headed to the Indus. Then again if the Ottomans had half a clue, they would have moved as many civilians out that would be useful to less exposed lands by the time the truce ran out. A system of militarizing the lands would also be a good initiative. Would a grandee have read of Fabian or Scipio?
Sacking and Pillaging down to the Straits of Hormuz, is well within the logistical means of the 'modern roman army'. I have been of the camp of holding only N.Meso, because I couldn't make sense of controlling the south anymore, without controlling Arabia and both Straits. Which is frankly impossible.
I said nothing of hegemony, but Ody did say he would be a Timur. I also said nothing of keeping the area and setting up a puppet, which would be a worse situation, because it would be susceptible to becoming the new entity becoming the heart of something new and remembering old injuries. With a hard eye, it could actually help stabilize the greater empire, because it would lessen the power of the Turkish population by sheer loss of wealth, creating a parity with the Persian eastern feudal lords. But come the turn of the truce, they will be facing a peoples with a centuries old axe to grind, and a leader from the seed of their most feared enemy. The first year of the war is going to be just a little one sided, I'd be willing to wager. After that and the first pound of flesh paid? Well... maybe the Shadow knows.
You have Islam doing way better in the west, the Marinids aren't going away any time soon and arguably are very well set to end up dominating all of west and central Africa in due time, think of the French colonial empire plus Nigeria, but instead being a Muslim power ruled from Morocco. Less well in the east. The Mamelukes were going to be destroyed by the first gunpowder empire that showed up to invade Syria... and this time round it was the surviving Byzantines in the role of the Ottomans. Then you have the ATL Ottomans as Safavids on steroids... and the have already had their version of Nader shah show up marching all the way to Delhi. His successor will probably lose his war with the Byzantine in Mesopotamia the way things go (Murad IV et all in OTL) but to Persia's east I won't be surprised at all if we see Persia dominating most of India.
Wrong, the 3 major Western powers in the Eastern Seas is Spain, Triple Monarchy, and the Roman Empire, all more or less equal to one another. There are Spanish Galleons galore in the east. If the 3-way deadlock swings towards the Romans the Spaniards are going to fight the Romans no question, and even if the Persian Gulf operations doesn't go well for the Romans it's a golden opportunity to smash a rival. A Spanish/Triune/Coalition task force could lock the Romans inside the Gulf and then force them to fight without proper support. There's no way the Roman navy can gain sustenance or supplies from the Ottoman ports in the area and the Omanese are a distant second to all the powers that'd get involved in such a conflict. The Romans would get screwed.
On the land side, the Ottomans won't retreat from the Mesopotamian plains since that's their richest province, their largest agricultural centre. They know that if they let the Romans pillage it and destroy its intricate irrigation networks a la the Mongols then their empire's future will get fucked. As such they'll likely run a desperate and hellish raiding campaign on the Roman supply lines coming down the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. There's no way for the Romans to sustain any invasion force of sufficient size without using the rivers (or the naval convoys, which could trigger aforementioned coalition), and a single disruption point could mark the starvation and death of every single Roman downstream of that point. It's far too expensive and risky for an Empire that just came out of a massive war at home, undergoing radical administrative reforms.
In short: Raids in force, yes. Destruction of Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf, no.
Also I don't know why you mentioned anyone in India. The Vijayanagarans won't offer much help to anyone either since they have crap force projection capacity. They're still a defacto feudal state playing at modernity at this point, and any attempt to mount a major invasion will just cause massive uprisings at home. They're not a factor in this war.
Last edited:
My Mistake on Spain, I was remiss of it's Portuguese inherited commitments, thanks, had a moment of OTL. That does change a lot, and I agree with Spanish/Triune coop to cut Roman Indian trade down. But this isn't a conquest beyond inner syria and a slightly better N.Meso, plus Georgia's old Aras lands. Maybe the whole of the northern coast is ambitious, but an organized pillaging of wealth, and scattering of cities to disrupt the stability of economy of the lower Mesopotamian and Bushehr area is not too. It does give an out for the Romans as well, with the disloyal Syrian population. What better spot to send them, the Turkish population there would be mostly the land working poor and few who were left in the cities by fate or fortune. The rest would probably have moved towards inner Iran, or the coast, away from the Romans. They would disrupt the Ottoman logistics even more, creating a chaos on the home front. As to the security of the Roman logistics, how much could the Ottomans have available to harass said lines' security, while having to deal with an army able to fight multiple Ninvena scale battles? While not at all the same as the Macedonian campaign, the means are there to supply a Viking'ing not been seen. What I think will screw with them is what to next after they get to Basra and really can't go much further. Would that be the sour note? Bushehr was pushing it, and they got a bloodying at a clever trap baited by ambition?
Would they (Spain/UK) mind if Ottoman infrastructure is ruined, and would they be drawn into a war over it? Would their traders not be the first ones to want to build bigger quarters in Ottoman ports to make good the now lack of native harbour infrastructure?
As to India, that would be the perfect time for Vijayanagarans to make a move on Delhi, the Ottomans are fighting for their lives in the west. It could work too if the Ottomans were reaching deep into their reserves. It doesn't have to be a good plan to do something, it just has to sound right. Theodor did throw a lot more on a lot less. It would also play into D3s play book with the unexpected.
Evilprodigy
Donor
Today I learned, and something perhaps worth shifting discussion here to something less genocide-related, that England employed a graduated income tax in 1436 and 1450, though it was never repeated and was generally replaced by voluntary grants paid by the largest landowners. The fact that it was voluntary was basically a bribe to get English kings to not get actual tax laws obliging them to pay passed in parliament. England didn't see another graduated income tax until 1798 to fund the Napoleonic Wars. (Taxation Under the Early Tudors 1485 - 1547 by Roger Schofield is where I got the information on income tax later than 1450)
Here's some information on the 1436 tax which is quite interesting from the article I'm reading.
"...was a supplementary tax on incomes from 'Maners, Londes, Tenementz, Rentis, Annuitees, Offices or any othir Possessions temporell [held] as of Frehold in Ingeland', payable at the quinzaine of Easter next. The minimum taxable income was fixed at £5 as it had been in 1431; but the new tax, unlike its predecessors, was graduated. On incomes of from £5 to £100 inclusive the rate was fixed at 6d. in the pound, as it was also for the first £100 of incomes ranging from £101 to £399. On this second group of incomes any excess over £100 was to be taxed at 8d. in the pound. The rate thus rose from 2-5 per cent. to over 3 per cent. Finally, incomes of £400 or more were to pay 2s. in the pound on the entire income, i.e. 10 per cent.1 The last sharp increase in the rate put an unusually heavy burden upon large incomes.
Since a new assessment was necessary, parliament provided that commissioners designated by the council should in the several counties summon before them men whose incomes might prove to be taxable. In the case of persons of 'the astate of Baron and Baronesse and of every estate above', however, examination of incomes should be made 'afor your Chlauinceller and Tresorei for the tyme beyng'.2 "
Gray, H. L. "Incomes from Land in England in 1436." The English Historical Review 49, no. 196 (1934): 607-39.
The source the author sites is Parliamentary Roll iv. 486, which I presume to be this one:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/e179/notes.asp?slctgrantid=155&action=3
I find this fascinating, as Rhomania's recently passed income taxes are quite a bit more comprehensive (as befitting 200 years more social and administrative development) but still effectively the same as a universal tax on income where more is paid the higher your income. That it is graduated is especially surprising, as the first £100 of income has a different tax rate than the next £101-399 yet decides to backtrack and spike the taxes on all income for anyone making above £400. The author notes that in this period it was unlikely that English nobility engaged in trade or business and so this tax which generally affected feudal landholdings, personal property, and office most likely represented the entire income of an English lord. That being said the records survive and there are such people as mercers, grocers, goldsmiths, and sheriffs who all presumably held little land which were taxed as their annual incomes were over £5. That being said, such non-landholding people were subject to the fifteenth and tenth, the normal form of medieval English taxation, which was also granted to the king for the same fiscal year. It was a fractional tax on assessed wealth which became a direct tax upon counties and towns with a fixed valuation from 1334 of 1/15th the wealth of counties and 1/10th the wealth of towns. The town of Kingston-upon-Hull or the County of Oxfordshire, for example, were due upon the imposition of a fifteenth and tenth to pay that specific amount to the king after parliamentary approval. How they got that money was typically through their own assessors and apportioned among local inhabitants especially on movable goods and not land. Parliament could also multiply or divide the tax, offering half a fifteenth and tenth or two of them or whatever combination they pleased because of the fixed nature of what was owed as assessed in 1334. It could be quite flexible in that regard.
A combination of these two taxes was quite a potent force and the income tax provided a powerful bumper to the traditional fifteenth and tenth, especially by taxing people who normally did not have their wealth taxed.
Here's some information on the 1436 tax which is quite interesting from the article I'm reading.
"...was a supplementary tax on incomes from 'Maners, Londes, Tenementz, Rentis, Annuitees, Offices or any othir Possessions temporell [held] as of Frehold in Ingeland', payable at the quinzaine of Easter next. The minimum taxable income was fixed at £5 as it had been in 1431; but the new tax, unlike its predecessors, was graduated. On incomes of from £5 to £100 inclusive the rate was fixed at 6d. in the pound, as it was also for the first £100 of incomes ranging from £101 to £399. On this second group of incomes any excess over £100 was to be taxed at 8d. in the pound. The rate thus rose from 2-5 per cent. to over 3 per cent. Finally, incomes of £400 or more were to pay 2s. in the pound on the entire income, i.e. 10 per cent.1 The last sharp increase in the rate put an unusually heavy burden upon large incomes.
Since a new assessment was necessary, parliament provided that commissioners designated by the council should in the several counties summon before them men whose incomes might prove to be taxable. In the case of persons of 'the astate of Baron and Baronesse and of every estate above', however, examination of incomes should be made 'afor your Chlauinceller and Tresorei for the tyme beyng'.2 "
Gray, H. L. "Incomes from Land in England in 1436." The English Historical Review 49, no. 196 (1934): 607-39.
The source the author sites is Parliamentary Roll iv. 486, which I presume to be this one:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/e179/notes.asp?slctgrantid=155&action=3
I find this fascinating, as Rhomania's recently passed income taxes are quite a bit more comprehensive (as befitting 200 years more social and administrative development) but still effectively the same as a universal tax on income where more is paid the higher your income. That it is graduated is especially surprising, as the first £100 of income has a different tax rate than the next £101-399 yet decides to backtrack and spike the taxes on all income for anyone making above £400. The author notes that in this period it was unlikely that English nobility engaged in trade or business and so this tax which generally affected feudal landholdings, personal property, and office most likely represented the entire income of an English lord. That being said the records survive and there are such people as mercers, grocers, goldsmiths, and sheriffs who all presumably held little land which were taxed as their annual incomes were over £5. That being said, such non-landholding people were subject to the fifteenth and tenth, the normal form of medieval English taxation, which was also granted to the king for the same fiscal year. It was a fractional tax on assessed wealth which became a direct tax upon counties and towns with a fixed valuation from 1334 of 1/15th the wealth of counties and 1/10th the wealth of towns. The town of Kingston-upon-Hull or the County of Oxfordshire, for example, were due upon the imposition of a fifteenth and tenth to pay that specific amount to the king after parliamentary approval. How they got that money was typically through their own assessors and apportioned among local inhabitants especially on movable goods and not land. Parliament could also multiply or divide the tax, offering half a fifteenth and tenth or two of them or whatever combination they pleased because of the fixed nature of what was owed as assessed in 1334. It could be quite flexible in that regard.
A combination of these two taxes was quite a potent force and the income tax provided a powerful bumper to the traditional fifteenth and tenth, especially by taxing people who normally did not have their wealth taxed.
Last edited:
Another question. Who were the kings of England-France and when did they come to power (or first mentioned)?
The Plantagenets won the Hundred Years War (Ninety Years War in this timeline) and control northern and central France.
Edward VI:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ival-of-rhomanion.217912/page-46#post-5678635
I think he was called "the Victorious" or something like that, earned after spending the entirety of his reign beating the crap out of the French.
And then I think it was Henry IV (Contemporary of Thedoros IV), Edward VII (Contemporary of Andreas Niketas), and then Arthur I.
Rhomania already has many allies active in the Persian Gulf i.e. Ethiopia and Oman. The Ottomans control more than 70% of the Persian Gulf coast whereas Oman, the only other power in the Gulf, is at best a second-rate naval power who can barely project influence overseas. If Rhomania manages to secure the waterways of Iraq, that gives it only around 50km of coastline, while a blow to the Ottomans is hardly enough to tip the scales of hegemony in the seas. Here, Rhomania would be overextended and other nations like Spain would be more likely to join in to grab a piece of Ottoman than view Rhomania as a threat. France, England, Portugal and the Dutch didn't team up against OTL Ottomans despite them controlling ALL of the Red Sea and the main parts of the Gulf.
I present option 5, give S. Mesopotamia to Oman. If OTL Sultante of Oman could effectively control Zanzibar thousands of km away, a territory which is thousands of km nearer and of similar culture and religion wouldn't be too much of a burden to them.
Let's talk about how far Ody can penetrate into the Ottoman heartland. After OTL Battle of Chaldiran, the Ottomans managed to capture Tabriz, Eastern Anatolia and N. Mesopotamia. 2 decades later, they captured Tabriz again and managed to get Iraq, Khuzestan and Luristan too. TTL Rhomania well poised to capture Iraq and Georgia can easily sweep into its Trans-Aras territories and Mazandaran. Khazaria and the Cossacks can open up a new front and raid Khorasan and Afghanistan. The Omanis can serve to draw away forces from the main fronts with naval harassment and even mount a land offensive into Qatar and Al-Dammam. I'm not sure Iskandar at his peak would be able to deal with so many fronts and I'd say a sacking of Eastern Vienna (Hamadan) or even further wouldn't be implausible.
That's actually a really good idea - Oman somewhat turns the idea of an Arab buffer state on its head, and is far more useful for the period than anything near Syria. S.Mesopotamia to Oman gives it some serious taxes to earn, and assuming that it can grab some of the islands in the Gulf, secure naval routes, both of which are enough to really allow it to expand its fleet and boost it as an allied naval power.
Do you think Oman might be a good contender to unite Arabia?