An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
Yah this has been something gripping me a lot about the story where the roman lose alwasy and it gotten to the point where often the other guys win bassicily cause of du ex machina where a monsooon hits, or a great ariterlty shot, or diease hit exc and when they do win, it often at huge astronmincial loss with some of the emeny getting away, I still like the story and everythign and still really well done I just hope it changes soon
This...may not end as well as you might think it will. Look at most of the hypercompetent military strongmen history has produced. In the words of the Korean remake of Designated Survivor, "none of [these men] died beautifully". I would not be surprised if Odysseus was "Niketas Doux: Elektrik Bougalou" in the Heartland for like 30 years and Kalomeros was the same out east for a decade or two. And then Ody dies of old age, Leo bites it in an ill-advised campaign against the Zeng, shit goes down hard, and all of western Eurasia goes up in flames--and so does the Pacific Rim...
We could seriously get a serious demographic stumbling block ITTL in the 1600s and early 1700s that produces a global hegemon in the Americas years ahead of the USA's ascent in OTL. Or in East Asia depending on if the Jurchen, Koreans, or some northern section of China escapes the aftermath of the War of Wrath/Great Crime/Kalomeros relatively unscathed.
Last edited:
I just hope that the next ottoman war there will be no such thing as a miracle victory for them. The ottomans will surely concentrate their forces against the romans in the plains northern Mesopotamia. If they somehow won--- i'd be too shock to even react about it.
That being said what will the roman and arletian court think about this spanish invasion? What would be they're response? Will the romans be up in arms and take italy for good? Or will they stay to the old roman republic border? Will arles invade italy or stay neutral?
Yeah I fear that may be all to likely but as a Roman patriot I will always put all of my faith in the emperor
I’m personally hoping for a return to Tajans borders in the East after the next war, Even if a large part of that is some sort of Rhoman Muslim client state. And this time there’s no Hadrian to give It up. So yeah if the Ottomans make this a real war I’m gonna be disappointed.
Personally I imagine this makes the Rhomans ignore their agreement with the Spanish. Maybe to make it up to Arles agree to a defensive alliance against both the Spanish and the Triunes with a promise post Eastern war for “volunteers” if the Arletians want to take back Catalonia.
I’m gonna try to derail this “why does Rome have to suck” bandwagon here.
I must have gone through it 20 times during the Great Latin War itself but I cannot stress enough that Rome did not suffer a single strategic defeat in the entirety of the war. A war that encompassed all of their neighbours simultaneously invading it. 2 great powers, 2 regional powers all backed by a 3rd great power and they could only score tactical victories against Rome.
In addition look how that war ended. In 4 years Rome came to completely dominate all of Europe between Germany and “Russia” and the entire Central and Eastern Mediterranean while destroying TO THE LAST MAN the largest army Western Europe had put together at that point. In the Middle East Rome got the entire fortress belt and gave up a patch of land that could be retaken in the next war using 3 guys riding donkeys. Roman armies literally went further west than they had in 1000 years and further East than any Greek based power had gone in 2000years.
As for the lack of flashy victories I seem to recall multiple ones in Northern Mesopotamia and Thessaloniki and the Roman navy literally wiped out what was the 2 or 3rd largest Mediterranean navy at that time. Like I’m sorry the German army didn’t suffer a Cannae on the 2nd day of the war but come one lets be reasonable here.
The Roman army and navy is designed to be meritocratic. It gives both services a redundancy that other nations forces just don’t possess. The downside is that when other nations get good commanders they get really good commanders because they becomes commanders at like 20 and get to practice being that for decades. In Rome everyone starts as a whatever Rome calls a Lieutenant. B444 even dedicated an entire update explaining exactly why the Roman army is like it is and what is being done to fix it.
On to the current kerfuffle. Yes Spain got the drop on RIE by using a relatively newly discovered current that Rome would have no reason to be well versed in. Than he won a victory against a blockading fleet and ruined Roman plans for Java. Oh wait no he didn’t because the siege still ended in victory it just took longer. The Maharaj May have a bitter taste but he is unlikely to bail completely because Rome lost one naval battle.
As for the charges of deux-ex-machina suddenly being thrown around. Shit happens. Monsoons come early sometimes. Especially in the 17th century when weather forecasting consisted of looking at the sky and hoping that the blue continued. It gets tiring when every single time something happens people start saying deux-ex-machina as though these are impossible things that are being inserted just to screw with Rome. Remember in OTL when the Mongol invasion of Japan got ruined by a typhoon....TWICE. Or when the entire course of the US civil war changed because the confederates literally lost a copy of their battle plans that were found by the Union. Here Rome had one siege abandoned and suddenly has lost gods favour.
Also I don’t see why Spain winning these victories will make Vijiyanagar ally them. Britain spent centuries deliberately allying the weaker powers in Europe just to make sure a hegemon did not arise. Why do we think Vijiyanagar would do the opposite and help Spain be a hegemon? If anything I see them looking at; what I truly believe is temporary; Roman weakness and allying with them with an eye of making Rome indebted to them only realizing too late that it was actually Spain that was weak and they’ve now helped to creatRoman hegemon completely by accident.
It is the start of what will be a multi-year campaign in Island Asia. Rome’s strength in the East lies in their infrastructure. Spain’s lies in a momentary advantage of warships that are irreplaceable. We know by 1638 that Pygros is turning out at a minimum of 24gun frigates. We also know Taprobane has the facilities and expertise to build ships the size of a first rater. If anyone really thinks that Spain has irredeemably gained control they really need to calm down. This is going to be a multi-year thing that I would guess still has 4-7 updates left so mayyybe just let the entire campaign unfold before you go screaming to the heavens that god is Catholic.
Finally to all those saying Rome has been uniquely getting screwed come on....
Ottomans: have lost all their Indian possession, parts of Afghanistan, and are more or less putting all their money into fortifying Mosul because even they know they are screwed in the next war. All in span of 1generation.
Poland: went from strong regional power to Roman client in 5 years
Hungary: Regional power to Roman client with Roman troops in Vienna in 5 years
Lombardy: Strong regional power to not existing. Literally there is no more Lombardy.
Germany: I mean....
Spain: fought a multi year war and gained Granada. Also just lost a 30,000 man army in France and a Prince.
Lotharingia: I vaguely recall something bad befalling them in the last European updates but can’t recall and can’t be bothered to go double check. I’m sure
Triunes: okay they’ve been blessed lately. But even they had a colony sacked by Rome
Vijiyanagar: having a good run lately. Let’s see though.
Zeng: New dynasty so still swinging up but they did lose an entire army and their navy.
So lots of places have had a worse time than Rome and a bunch are having a better time. The fact that in 400 years Rome has gone from a western Anatolian splinter state to a Hegemon encompassing Italy, the Balkans, Anatolia, Egypt, Libya, Coastal Levant, Caucasuses, Ukraine, and Austria within its sphere would strongly suggest that things have generally have gone pretty good.
-end rant-
On a cultural note I do wonder how Spain doing this is going to affect Roman perceptions of Latina. Will this be seen as an Eastern Affair or will it be seen as yet another example of Latin perfidy. We know Rome has a reputation for around 30 years of brutality and we are only 5 years in. Looking at this I don’t think it will just be the Ottomans feeling that wrath in the 1640s and 1650s.
Though this is “beyond the line” might an Emperor Odysseus send his own ambassador to Spain and Arles and make it clear that if Pahang or New Constantinople burns anymore than so will Marseille and Valencia.
I must have gone through it 20 times during the Great Latin War itself but I cannot stress enough that Rome did not suffer a single strategic defeat in the entirety of the war. A war that encompassed all of their neighbours simultaneously invading it. 2 great powers, 2 regional powers all backed by a 3rd great power and they could only score tactical victories against Rome.
In addition look how that war ended. In 4 years Rome came to completely dominate all of Europe between Germany and “Russia” and the entire Central and Eastern Mediterranean while destroying TO THE LAST MAN the largest army Western Europe had put together at that point. In the Middle East Rome got the entire fortress belt and gave up a patch of land that could be retaken in the next war using 3 guys riding donkeys. Roman armies literally went further west than they had in 1000 years and further East than any Greek based power had gone in 2000years.
As for the lack of flashy victories I seem to recall multiple ones in Northern Mesopotamia and Thessaloniki and the Roman navy literally wiped out what was the 2 or 3rd largest Mediterranean navy at that time. Like I’m sorry the German army didn’t suffer a Cannae on the 2nd day of the war but come one lets be reasonable here.
The Roman army and navy is designed to be meritocratic. It gives both services a redundancy that other nations forces just don’t possess. The downside is that when other nations get good commanders they get really good commanders because they becomes commanders at like 20 and get to practice being that for decades. In Rome everyone starts as a whatever Rome calls a Lieutenant. B444 even dedicated an entire update explaining exactly why the Roman army is like it is and what is being done to fix it.
On to the current kerfuffle. Yes Spain got the drop on RIE by using a relatively newly discovered current that Rome would have no reason to be well versed in. Than he won a victory against a blockading fleet and ruined Roman plans for Java. Oh wait no he didn’t because the siege still ended in victory it just took longer. The Maharaj May have a bitter taste but he is unlikely to bail completely because Rome lost one naval battle.
As for the charges of deux-ex-machina suddenly being thrown around. Shit happens. Monsoons come early sometimes. Especially in the 17th century when weather forecasting consisted of looking at the sky and hoping that the blue continued. It gets tiring when every single time something happens people start saying deux-ex-machina as though these are impossible things that are being inserted just to screw with Rome. Remember in OTL when the Mongol invasion of Japan got ruined by a typhoon....TWICE. Or when the entire course of the US civil war changed because the confederates literally lost a copy of their battle plans that were found by the Union. Here Rome had one siege abandoned and suddenly has lost gods favour.
Also I don’t see why Spain winning these victories will make Vijiyanagar ally them. Britain spent centuries deliberately allying the weaker powers in Europe just to make sure a hegemon did not arise. Why do we think Vijiyanagar would do the opposite and help Spain be a hegemon? If anything I see them looking at; what I truly believe is temporary; Roman weakness and allying with them with an eye of making Rome indebted to them only realizing too late that it was actually Spain that was weak and they’ve now helped to creatRoman hegemon completely by accident.
It is the start of what will be a multi-year campaign in Island Asia. Rome’s strength in the East lies in their infrastructure. Spain’s lies in a momentary advantage of warships that are irreplaceable. We know by 1638 that Pygros is turning out at a minimum of 24gun frigates. We also know Taprobane has the facilities and expertise to build ships the size of a first rater. If anyone really thinks that Spain has irredeemably gained control they really need to calm down. This is going to be a multi-year thing that I would guess still has 4-7 updates left so mayyybe just let the entire campaign unfold before you go screaming to the heavens that god is Catholic.
Finally to all those saying Rome has been uniquely getting screwed come on....
Ottomans: have lost all their Indian possession, parts of Afghanistan, and are more or less putting all their money into fortifying Mosul because even they know they are screwed in the next war. All in span of 1generation.
Poland: went from strong regional power to Roman client in 5 years
Hungary: Regional power to Roman client with Roman troops in Vienna in 5 years
Lombardy: Strong regional power to not existing. Literally there is no more Lombardy.
Germany: I mean....
Spain: fought a multi year war and gained Granada. Also just lost a 30,000 man army in France and a Prince.
Lotharingia: I vaguely recall something bad befalling them in the last European updates but can’t recall and can’t be bothered to go double check. I’m sure
Triunes: okay they’ve been blessed lately. But even they had a colony sacked by Rome
Vijiyanagar: having a good run lately. Let’s see though.
Zeng: New dynasty so still swinging up but they did lose an entire army and their navy.
So lots of places have had a worse time than Rome and a bunch are having a better time. The fact that in 400 years Rome has gone from a western Anatolian splinter state to a Hegemon encompassing Italy, the Balkans, Anatolia, Egypt, Libya, Coastal Levant, Caucasuses, Ukraine, and Austria within its sphere would strongly suggest that things have generally have gone pretty good.
-end rant-
On a cultural note I do wonder how Spain doing this is going to affect Roman perceptions of Latina. Will this be seen as an Eastern Affair or will it be seen as yet another example of Latin perfidy. We know Rome has a reputation for around 30 years of brutality and we are only 5 years in. Looking at this I don’t think it will just be the Ottomans feeling that wrath in the 1640s and 1650s.
Though this is “beyond the line” might an Emperor Odysseus send his own ambassador to Spain and Arles and make it clear that if Pahang or New Constantinople burns anymore than so will Marseille and Valencia.
Thank you so much - I wanted to say something similar but you laid out the evidence wonderfully. B444 has done a fantastic job at not making the Romans a world-conquering force and instead placing them in a far more interesting multipolar world, and this TL is much stronger for it. I’m all for wars in the future where the Romans unambiguously lose, as I’m certain B444 will write them interestingly
I'd first say its mostly a morale thing - whether it is accurate isn't the same as how it feels. This isn't to fault the writing IMO - it's more of a damn, give them a bit of a break universe. It also stands much in contrast of the earlier timeline and the rule of Andreas Niketas - its a much less woo vibe atm.
However, they certainly did suffer a number of strategic defeats.
1) Belgrade is taken in the opening
2) Drenovac forces the Romans of Serbia and allows them install a new Serbian ruler (for however long)
3) Vidin, Nikopolis, Svishtov, Almus, Kozioduy - they can be painted as useful delays, but were still strategic defeats in exposing Bulgaria.
Thats just from before Ruse - I'd certainly not say you can exclude the situations in the Middle East
1) The Iskandar the younger gambit fails
2) The obliteration of the southern anizzah.
3) Arrah and Homs.
4) Aabdeh?
5) Damascus?
I get that overall the Romans one, and the Battles for Ruse were *chefs kiss* but it isn't like there are plenty of strategic defeats, and that's from the first few updates of the war. Unless you have a much higher bar for strategic defeat than I do. Overall it was a geopolitical win, which is the silver lining, but lets not pretend that people are grumbling that it isn't a wank.
Though I do have to thank you - I forgot about a small comment about Indonesian settlement in the Levant that I made ... 1.5 years ago (blimey). I wonder if a Roman victory overall might actually tie the Core and Indonesian regions together more. Any reforms in that region of the Empire could be really interesting, and might lead to a weird situation institutionally - Sure Constantinople is in charge, but if they centralise overseas, I can see that raising Egypts profile even more, considering the Romans will be relying on them for maintaining lines of communication towards Ethiopia. It wouldn't surprise me if when Ody takes the throne, that Yemen is targeted, and the Romans look to reorganise Arabia in their favour, especially with the siege mentality the Romans are developing, they hardly want to be relying on anyone else, even Ethiopia, to connect their two Empires together. It could afford the Romans the potential to consider East African objectives, though I don't recall anything about the state of East Africa ITTL, I can't see the Romans complaining about access to the gold and the source of the raw materials Zeng China, and certainly Vijayanagar import.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a strategic defeat. The only one I would consider reaches the bar for possibly strategic would be Belgrade and Drenovac. In hindsight losing all of Serbia in the opening months when it was considered a linchpin would rise to that level.
As for Vidin, Nikopolis, Svishtov,Almus and Koziioduy; I just can't see how these are strategic defeats. Tactical defeats of course; but exposing territory doesn't make something a strategic defeat. Before all of those battles the Allies were fighting an intact Roman army that they needed to destroy to reach Constantinople. At the end of them they still had the same Roman army between them and Constantinople.
As for the Middle East:
1) this isn't even a tactical defeat. It was an intelligence gambit that failed. It was a long-shot that even Rome was hedging against. Hence why they sent a body double.
2) Not a Roman defeat per-se but their ally
3) Not strategic. Definitley hurt but it wasn't their main army
4) Roman ally
5) Again, not strategic really. Damascus is useless without controlling the roads to it. Hence why Rome didn't push too hard to get it back in the peace. Because they know come the next war they will be able to walk right in. It is a valuable city but not a critical city. As long as Rome holds Antioch they can flood the Levant with troops at a level that the Ottomans cannot hope to match.
I see most of these defeats in the same vein as Napolean beating the Russian army at Smolensk. He undoubtedly won the battle and it undoubtedly prolonged the war for months and opened up the Russian interior but in the end without destroying the army Smolensk didn't matter. It is the same here.
I see a strategic defeat as something that needs to fundamentally change the course of the war. Belgrade and Drenovac arguably does that in that it changes the fighting from occurring in Serbia in prepared fortress belts to Macedonia and Bulgaria. Vidin etc. does not change the war in such a fundamental way it just slowly moves the frontline. Compare all the battles leading up to 4th Ruse with the aftermath of 4th Ruse. The Romans more or less get to walk back most of the territory with nothing more than rearguard actions. That is a strategic victory. The war changed after that. It went from a grinding Allies advance to a hurried; though controlled; allied retreat.
TLDR: Though I respect your definition I will have to disagree with it.
Great summary JSC, I have to agree.
And it is of course a much different experience when you don't know the ending (look how 7 years war started for Britain - no one cares because we know it ended in triumph). So I don't think it is unrealistic, though it can be frustrating when you read it chronologically and Roman fuck-ups pile up without us knowing how will it end (and we treat Romans as our home team).
Regarding "cool" factor of earlier updates, old AoM was definitely more spectacular, but it got there by being less plausible than current iteration. War for Asia is for example great, great fun to read, but the amount of troops there is probably impossible. I like both styles, but I admit I prefer current hyper realistic writing.
And it is of course a much different experience when you don't know the ending (look how 7 years war started for Britain - no one cares because we know it ended in triumph). So I don't think it is unrealistic, though it can be frustrating when you read it chronologically and Roman fuck-ups pile up without us knowing how will it end (and we treat Romans as our home team).
Regarding "cool" factor of earlier updates, old AoM was definitely more spectacular, but it got there by being less plausible than current iteration. War for Asia is for example great, great fun to read, but the amount of troops there is probably impossible. I like both styles, but I admit I prefer current hyper realistic writing.
I think what people are saying, is that during last year where the great latin war started. Most Roman generals seems outright blown apart by their opposing enemy. Although they weren't defeated strategically because they still have their army, the enemy was allowed to push into the heartland. Which allowed the latins and turks to invade deeper causing great chaos onto the populace. That chaos of course involves alot of violence and death, but that's part of how war works. The problem like many people have stated before (like me) is that Rome is being limited in punishing those who invade them, they always suffer more than the invading nation before they push them back outside and inevitably merit their repisote. They are also being outright contradicted by neutral powers who should have no place to object when they're not invaded. Which btw is now and are actually threatening Roman interest, of course in our OTL other nations also do this thing.
On the latest thread mark this is another sore point for a lot of people (I think?), mainly because its the same thing again or rather "feeling". Rome gets invaded and loses alot of its **** early stage, then fallback to reform and organize a counterattack the blows the enemy out of the water. Then when they blow the enemy so hard, other factions steal or outright tells them to stop their rightful vengeance. I wouldn't be suprise if the next update shows exactly what I just described. But that's to be expected after all this wonderful story is truly realistic in its approach to cause and effect in history.
People just want Rome to really put the torch to its enemies who deserve it, while taking their entire **** and saying to the entire world to not fuck around them anymore. People do know that the reformation is indeed coming, but until then, this rather depressing feeling will stay up. Until the Roman flame burns its enemies alive for upcoming years of brutality.
And thats about it, I hope this help if there are any wrong things I say pls point it out.
I think the main point is that Rhomania's enemies tend to all be this highly skilled people while Rhomania wins because as a nation it is far more advanced than anyone, to the point of stretching plausibility IMHO, so that it doesn't matter that commanders commit blunder after blunder with occasional one merely being mediocre.
The TL's focus remains on individuals instead of nations so it looks pretty bad, even if on the national level it is doing good, because other nations' characters fail despite their best efforts simply because Rhomania is too powerful while Romans succeed despite their best efforts.
I do feel it is very fitting though given the ERE's worst enemy was the ERE(to a far greater degree than the usual self-screwing of Empires), so Rhomania is just following tradition like fifteen centuries old.
The TL's focus remains on individuals instead of nations so it looks pretty bad, even if on the national level it is doing good, because other nations' characters fail despite their best efforts simply because Rhomania is too powerful while Romans succeed despite their best efforts.
I do feel it is very fitting though given the ERE's worst enemy was the ERE(to a far greater degree than the usual self-screwing of Empires), so Rhomania is just following tradition like fifteen centuries old.
Last edited:
Naw, thats cool. I respect that. I'm glad we agree about Serbia though
This comes down to 2 things
1) in other countries if your a high ranking noble or relative of the crown you get to just become a commander/general right at 25. In Rome if your a high ranking noble or relative of the crown you become a lieutenant. Though this has advantages in redundancy it does mean that a Roman general may only have a few years experience commanding where areas their opponent has often been doing it for decades.
2) As covered in a previous update the upper levels of the officer core need 3 things: loyalty to the emperor, courage, and competence and they needed them in that order. This meant that a lot of very loyal and very brave men were promoted over more competent me . It was a leftover of the TOT when Rome’s primary concern was preventing another general from seizing power. Let us see how Rome performs over the coming generation when loyalty isnt questioned and competence is more highly valued.
2a) Rome also deliberately handicapped their senior commanders by not training them in large scale maneuvers. Also another TOT legacy meant to prevent civil war.
In short, Rome’s army did exactly what it was supposed to do in the last 50years. It stayed loyal. Now that that loyalty isn’t questioned and it is being trained as a more modern professional officer corps let us see how it performs.
I would argue that the 1634 Thessaloniki/Lower Macedonia campaign was a strategic defeat for Rhomania because it fundamentally changed the course of the rest of the war and not all for the better for the Romans.
Let's say Theodor doesn't try his Hail Mary pass and tries something more conservative like a recreation of the 1633 Danube campaign. The campaign goes roughly the way the 1633 campaign goes. Theodor, realizing that the Rhomans aren't going to welcome him with open arms and that his treasury is empty, quits the war. He still has his army, his two best generals, his sanity, Austria, and his empire. He's significantly weaker (and broker) than in 1631 but he's still Emperor. The European front of the War of the Roman Succession is remembered much the way OTL's Cabinet Wars are remembered today. Rhomania, still fighting vs the Ottomans and in Egypt, lets the Allies off the hook more or less. Besides, in this scenario, even if D3 wanted to invade Hungary he couldn't - not with the HRE/Polish/Triune army and Hungary still in the Allied camp. Henri may still invade as the HRE is weaker but he finds far more opposition than he did in reality.
However, as a result of the escalation of the war due to the Allied successes vs Laskaris/Mouzalon the war changed on a fundamental level. You have (in no particular order) the following that is only possible because of the defeats in Upper Macedonia: The death and destruction of Lower Macedonia, the returning of Serbia to the Roman orbit, the returning of Austria to Hungary and the SHV-R agreement, the complete destruction of the HRE army and death of two of its three best generals, Theodor's line losing the throne (and him his mind), the destruction rendered to Bavaria by the Roman/Hungarian army in 1635, the cease-fire with the Ottomans, peace with the Idwaits, the death of the Spanish prince to the Triunes and his hatred of the Romans as a result leading to this Spainish fleet in Island Asia, the ending of Triune support for Semarang leading to Mataram taking over Central Java, the Triunes success vs Lotharingia/HRE proper, the Rhoman hatred of Latins getting even more crystallized in the national consciousness, and so on and so on.
You can make the argument that every single thing that happened in this timeline after the Roman defeat in Upper Macedonia (with the exception of the Viet/Champa war and the Chinese/Korean-Japanese war) was a direct result to Rhomania losing in Upper Macedonia in the spring of 1634. It may not have been the grand victory Theodor envisioned and it certainly blew up in face but it was still a defeat for the Rhomans as well given how it changed the war.
What exactly did the Spanish do to "deserve it"? This is just two colonial powers going at it. The Roman model is more inclusive than the Spanish one, but the fact remains this is a peripheral front for both powers. Spain decided to commit a bunch of resources to it, and so it's realistic they will have the upper hand for a while.
The constant failures and bad luck against the Ottomans and West definitely got old after a while, but I think this is a very different scenario.
And to paraphrase Basileus, "a bunch of resources" is still a small fraction of its combined fleet, it just happens to be a more modern and better armed flotilla than usual.
The justification made by the Spanish king for the death of his favourite son, whom he blamed the Romans for. Both sides in their respective territories in the east have been planning on attacking each other. But the key difference is what instigated it and the justifications around it.