There's a lot going for an Arletian-Roman alliance: there are historic dynastic and political ties, there's very little overlapping and competing interests, there's no overlap of territorial ambitions, and there's a lot of overlap in terms of rivals to their interests. I don't remember too clearly if Arles has a major presence in the Indian Ocean, but even those interests would be better served by cooperation with Rome rather than allow for the Triunes, the Spanish and the Romans muscle out all the other interests.
An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
Considering Avignon is the friendlier church an alliance would be an excellent idea.
It's weird when you find yourself managing to mirror the alliance of France and the Ottomans for the Arletians and Rhomans.
I do think there would be a significant problem if the Romans had control over the Strait of Gibraltar. At that point the Romans basically control all Mediterranean affairs for Arles. If they went for Spain in that scenario I could imagine Arles bring all "let's break them up into members of the Accord!"
Evilprodigy
Donor
I actually mentioned this previously that the France-Ottoman Alliance and England-Safavid Alliance are neatly replicated ITTL by Arles-Rhomania and Tiune-Ottoman relationships. The reasons of course are largely geopolitical as the only meaningful constant is geography, it is natural that a country with the territories of these states would consider each other allies.
It's a sort of 'every other neighbouring country' kind of thing that lets you get this leapfrog of alliances. Scotland and France are friends because they both don't like England, who is between them, so naturally England sought allies in the form of people who bordered France and thus didn't like them either. It found this in a series of alliances and marriages in the HRE (Anglo-Austrian Alliance, Anglo-Prussian Alliance, Empress Matilda, Anne of Bohemia), Spain (Berengaria of Navarre, Katherine of Aragon (And Queen Mary I and her husband Philip II of Spain), Queen of Castile Eleanor of England, Queen of England Eleanor of Castile (confusing right?), Joan of Navarre, Anglo-Portugese Alliance), and France's periphery territories (Anglo-Flemish Alliance, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Anglo-Burgundian Alliance, numerous other marriages in the medieval period from Provence to Champagne to Blois). Naturally France, fighting its neighbours, found alliance further afield which is most notable with the Ottomans and the Russians both of which were in counter to the Habsburgs and other Germans in the form of Austria, Spain (especially due to their Italian holdings), or Prussia, depending on the period. Naturally, the English then didn't think too highly of the Ottomans and so went to help the Safavids and Egyptians who became their key allies and/or power bases in the Middle East. Naturally too the Ottomans, not liking the Safavids, armed the early Mughals with gunpowder weapons, military advisors (Notably Ustad Ali Quli and Mustafa Rumi), and other intangible aid such as diplomacy which led them to establish their empire in India.
Phew. Finally caught up with both threads. Wow.
I realise I’m hardly the first person to say this, but this TL is a superb piece of work, one of the finest on the forum. It’s not just the historical scholarship (which is very obvious) or the prose, or even the superb characterisation and dialogue in the narrative bits, but the structure of the whole thing somehow manages to work both as historical narrative and as a highly addictive story full of twists and turns, dramatic reversals and characters you care about.
The only bad thing is I’m now reduced to following in real time!
I realise I’m hardly the first person to say this, but this TL is a superb piece of work, one of the finest on the forum. It’s not just the historical scholarship (which is very obvious) or the prose, or even the superb characterisation and dialogue in the narrative bits, but the structure of the whole thing somehow manages to work both as historical narrative and as a highly addictive story full of twists and turns, dramatic reversals and characters you care about.
The only bad thing is I’m now reduced to following in real time!
I'd say Second Cannae, where Andreas kicked the Tenth Crusade in the balls and destroyed it in one afternoon.
Thanks, and I do wonder if the Romans are gonna be big fans of romanticism, they do have a pretty glorious past, Ancient Greece, Rome, pillars of civilization and all that, so I'm guessing that Romanticism's glorification of the past is gonna strike a chord with the Romans.
Modern Roman political spectrum will probably turn out so heavy on romanticism that it spans between fascism and integralism.
I believe B444 said that modern roman political theory is the idea that an individual is better than a collective for governing too.
Hm, how so? I know they are big on centralization, but I have no idea how they can be considered fascist or integralist, rather unsure on how integralism can be considered acceptable in Rhomania, they have a long history of keeping the nobility in line, so I'm not sure how modern feudalism would be olay with them.
I've no idea, I was just making an off-hand comment that the Romans will likely stay focused on the right side of the political spectrum. For instance, secularization might be so demonized that Labour movements could end up spearheaded by the Church instead, in the help thy neighbour and be charitable like Jesus sort of way.
As for Integralism it doesn't necessarily require nobility/dynatoi to function. Since Integralism calls for political structures that fit the histories and cultural conditions of the nation in question, Roman Integralism might see local governments being formed based around councils composed of the local grandees from all social classes. Romans have no problem giving power to people who are too weak individually to rebel against the Empire and profit too much from its well-being. People like the local ranking Orthodox priest, heads of local industries/guilds, representatives of local labour unions, ranking local judiciary, and Imperial representative(s) sent to oversee due process and prevent abuse/overreach. A theoretically perfect merger of state and people, an Organic Empire where trained locals knowledgeable about conditions on the ground interpret and carry out Imperial dictates coming down from above, sent down by an Emperor who can focus on greater things without needing to oversee minute details of everything.
Last edited:
I don't know about Secularism being demonized, imo, I would see it as something like the situation in Italy, most would identify as Christian, but they personally wouldn't be all that religious, barely anyone goes to church.
I don't know if things would turn out like that with the Romans unless the Orthodox Church does something really stupid like try to fight a well-liked Emperor's authority. Being Orthodox is such a strong part of the Roman identity that I don't think it's going to be dropped any time soon.
Italians tend to be anti-clerical because Italian Nationalism started off on a very strong anti-Church stance. Stopping a nation from unifying itself by occupying its capital city and shit-talking at it constantly will piss that nation off, who knew?
There was a battle between the Mamluks and Theodoros IV that was considered the pinnacle of military science as well.
I think Rome might develop a secularist streak, but it'll likely do so for the same reason that conservative statists gravitated towards secularism in the late 19th century OTL: as the state becomes more powerful and gets involved in more things, the church becomes an obstacle instead of an ally at the local level, and the only way to remove that obstacle is to remove it at once for the whole country. I don't know if the Orthodox Church has a monopoly on birth and marriage records that were the source of the conflict IOTL, but if yes, as the state centralizes more and more information in its archives, it'll inevitably want to wrest control over those two events as well.
I don't think fascism is even possible in Rome, its authoritarianism is more likely to resemble the PRC than, say, Mussolini. I imagine state capitalism will be popular, as the Imperial government has always been a major stakeholder in the economy and a huge source of investment and innovation, but its politics will be rather unpredictable until we get a sense of what sort of civic society Rome develops.
I don't think fascism is even possible in Rome, its authoritarianism is more likely to resemble the PRC than, say, Mussolini. I imagine state capitalism will be popular, as the Imperial government has always been a major stakeholder in the economy and a huge source of investment and innovation, but its politics will be rather unpredictable until we get a sense of what sort of civic society Rome develops.
And of course no one will forget the battles against Timur and his heirs which show that Rhomania and the Ottomans can join forces when they need arises.
They really need to do that again. The War for Asia was so cool. I would watch the hell out of that miniseries.
Regarding the idea of the Roman political trajectory, I think a lot of it will come down to how stable it can become, and the challenges it faces. Much of the time politics can be formed in reaction. Does the Triune system become emblematic of evil? Then maybe a Free Trade system is Bad.
Plus, we've also got a huge political continuity for the Romans to refer to. It makes as much sense for a revolutionary movement to be Neo-Republican, harking back to the times long ago when the Romans conquered the known world of its time (regardless of its actual truth).
I think realistically, with the Despotates as they have been, and the system of buffer states and allies, it slowly developing into a multi-tier Federal Absolute Monarchy isn't implausible, later becoming Constitutional as it begins to chafe.
But with the Roman xenophobia, and siege mentality, it could be that simply because an idea arises in the Latin West, it is rejected. I think it's really up in the air as to what it could be, with one exception.
We aren't going to see a Roman Anarchist Federation, not ever.
Plus, we've also got a huge political continuity for the Romans to refer to. It makes as much sense for a revolutionary movement to be Neo-Republican, harking back to the times long ago when the Romans conquered the known world of its time (regardless of its actual truth).
I think realistically, with the Despotates as they have been, and the system of buffer states and allies, it slowly developing into a multi-tier Federal Absolute Monarchy isn't implausible, later becoming Constitutional as it begins to chafe.
But with the Roman xenophobia, and siege mentality, it could be that simply because an idea arises in the Latin West, it is rejected. I think it's really up in the air as to what it could be, with one exception.
We aren't going to see a Roman Anarchist Federation, not ever.
No matter how else it falls I also can't see Rhomania ever going down the laissez faire economic theory. It is both too paternalistic in it's view of being there for the people of the empire as well as the lack of willingness to give up that much control so I expect a decent sized welfare state, bread and circuses keeps the mobs away, and extensive regulatory apparatus.