An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
It's fair to say a coalition would be absolutely justified if the Triunes were making moves on Scotland this early. Spain, Aragon, Arles, the Bernese League, and Norway-Scotland would immediately jump the gun on them if they do so much as breathe on their northern neighbor. Spain and the Arles only allowed them to annex Lotharingia because they desperately needed their help in forcing Rhomania to concede. With the Romans out of the way and probably busy with their dealings in the East, Western European nations are now able to be more vigilant in how they will deal with the UK, since they are the top dog. Regardless, top dogs don't last forever and inevitably they will be knocked down a peg.
Agreed. Henri has been a godlike ruler so far for the Triunes. However, I think Louis will be the portent of what's to come with the Triple Monarchy. As I said, considering how he is treated by his own father, he could easily end up being more despotic and paranoid than his predecessor. Even if not, the possibility of him being less capable is also there regardless, which is obviously negative for the state as a whole. Worst case scenario is if he's both incompetent and unlikeable, although I don't think B444 would make Louis like that if he's going to move POV to the Triunes. Lastly, if he dies without an heir, then the Triple Monarchy could collapse into a pretty severe succession war since the kingdom's power is pretty much predicated on a mess of dynastic unions. It'd be a very chaotic time for Western Europe, for sure.
Didn’t stop Alexander from marching into Paris, and something tells me the Russians could afford to march an army through the HRE without it getting decimated if Rhoman logistics are anything to go by. Of course, the question is still getting them to actually want to do so, which in and if itself is a considerable challenge. I highly doubt anything short of the Triunes making a move on the HRE as a whole is going to kick the Russians (or Rhomania... convincing them) to do something about it.
I’d much rather prefer a competent heir who just simply has too many problems on their plate to an heir who just ensures an already weak structure goes up in flames. It’s more interesting and allows for more narrative choices than “Bad leader results in everything going to shit until the next competent leader fixes things.”
That's
Maybe its too early for the revolution to happen but by no means the war with the Triunes will be over immediately as alliances change so frequently.
So basically a free for all in western/central europe, I'm happy to see just how deadly this war will occur. How will it upset the nations on the west as their war drags on and on, until they basically have their own sort of "revolution" in their backyard.
Maybe its too early for the revolution to happen but by no means the war with the Triunes will be over immediately as alliances change so frequently.
I’m not sure the fact that southern England may be seen as a core part of the overall empire would mitigate as much against an English clamour for independence as it may seem. Yes, we’re a long way past 1066 and yes, the mediaeval tension between the French—speaking Norman ruling class and the English-speaking peasantry is often understated. But in OTL the monarchy remained more or less francophone until the early years of the Hundred Years War. If the same applies here, we would have a culturally French ruling class of England taking possession of most of France for basically French cultural reasons.
Under these circumstances we may we’ll see an increasing wedge between the English population and an increasingly French ruling class which is culturally different. Or not. But I wouldn’t necessarily make assumptions of cultural integration at the ground level.
Maybe, but I am pretty sure the Rhomans thought the same thing twenty years ago.
IIRC, England wins the war at the final stages of the conflict, so the monarchy might have initially started out as being more culturally English than French. Regardless, I think we're at that point where English and French are fading away as culturally distinct identities when the English and French people are this closely intertwined into the Triple Monarchy centuries after the POD, especially at the English Channel.
Perhaps, but geography, previous history, and time do make a good case for cultural integration, especially under a government that has lasted for centuries after the fusion of the English/French kingdoms (B444 could totally make this not canon though, we'll just have to see). Still, I don't think this cultural mixing would be uniform evenly across France and especially England, which is why Northumbria is such an interesting region to look at for the Triple Monarchy, in my eyes.
Same. Hopefully Louis ends up being marginally competent, but not good enough to keep the bloated empire together, because that makes for a good narrative and shows the weaknesses of the Triple Monarchy without making him stupid. You can make a character despotic or unlikeable but not an idiot, although all three traits do tend to appear quite often in many rulers throughout history sadly. We'll just leave it to chance to see how Louis turns out though, because it could decide the fate of the Triunes as a whole.
What's the financial situation like in King's Harbor at the moment? It was my understanding that the war in Rhomania was heavily subsidized by the Triunes. Then they had the major conflict in Lotharingia, and the additional deployment to Italy. Sure some of those costs could be offset by looting the low countries, but the more looting they do the harder it will be to integrate the territory. What are the chances we see heavy taxation throughout the three kingdoms and the people of Ireland or Northumbria wondering why they are paying for all these continental excursions?
They should pull a big brain move and tax their north American colonies without representation.
Sounds good to me, Triune thinking be like: I want those [̲̅$̲̅ (̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅ $̲̅].
Yeah, Demetrios III isn’t going to be around for much longer. In a way, I’m both looking forward to his ‘death update’, which has been practically fully formed in my head for months already, but also not.
Looks right to me, although to be honest on a map scale of this size, I have a hard time seeing clear detail for just Italy.
I’m sure someone will suggest it. Fortunately for Rhomania, the War Room doesn’t need OTL to know that’s a bad idea.
That’s a good analogy, one I wish I’d thought of first.
Yeah, this is still a good setup for Rhomania. With better earlier diplomacy they might have gotten some more and more cheaply, but this worked out well for them. Even if they had seized all of Northern Italy, there’s no way they wouldn’t be challenged for it repeatedly. It’s prime real estate well placed to be attacked by the Accord and the Triunes and a revived HRE.
Despotates and Romanization: I think some sort of Federalization is the only way to keep things from blowing up at some point. Both Sicily and Egypt have regional identities that need to be respected. If the Romans tried to force Romanization on them, they’ll get angry and violent. At this point in time, the two key points of Romanization are Greek-speaking and Orthodox-believing. The second is completely out of the question for the Copts, as their Coptic faith is the key part of their identity. If Constantinople starts messing with the religious question again (this is Monophysite vs. Chalcedonian all over again) this will get very ugly very fast. Also remember that Ethiopia follows the Coptic faith if this becomes a religious issue, and it would because Romanization involves identity, and religious faith at this time is a key part of identity.
Sicily is somewhat easier on the one hand because the religious issue isn’t there. A lot of Sicilians are already Orthodox. On the other hand, the Sicilians have bad experience of direct Roman rule which makes them automatically suspicious if Constantinople gets pushy. The Sicilians are doing some Romanizing on their own, but they’re doing it on their own terms. If the Romans started trying to push it, it would only create a backlash.
Roman Latium: It is small. It’s Rome inside the walls, Civitavecchia inside the walls, and the road between them with some clearance (which is measured in meters). There also won’t be any concern about it outgrowing those bounds anytime soon. Rome doesn’t have any substantial industry of its own even by 1600s standards, and without the Papacy and all the cardinals there the only thing Rome has going for it is pilgrim traffic. Now some of the relics could be for those saints that both the Orthodox and Catholic venerate, but most are going to be Catholic-specific. Catholic pilgrim traffic per the treaty is protected, but Roman Latium isn’t going to have much of an economy.
Roman Diplomacy West Split: It’s a split between Mediterranean West (plus Mexico) and the rest of Latin Europe.
North Africa: As some have pointed out, a Marinid toppling by the coalition powers isn’t happening. The last time someone (the Romans) tried a big land grab in North Africa, the Marinids raised an army 3 times bigger than the Roman-Sicilian force and wiped it out. To grab anything more than a few coastal enclaves that can be seized from the sea, the invader would have to field, deploy, and supply at least 50,000 men in North Africa, because anything less the Marinids will squish. Even 1637 Rhomania, prior to the depression, couldn’t do this. (For example, if the Romans did, that means 40% of the peacetime army is committed to North Africa, while still having to deal with all other Roman commitments.)
Furthermore, the fact that it is a coalition deters land grabbing. A coalition can get along long enough to seize Algiers, but to keep it means putting it in the hands of a coalition member. Que arguments over who which probably end up breaking the coalition. (This is why coalitions are inherently brittle instruments.)
That was greatGenuinely really interesting turn of events to see the rise of a counter to the war hawks rising at the right moment. It'll be interesting to see the further evolution of the influence of public writings going forward.
That is a solid peace considering what was considered - I wonder what ideas will be born in the aftermath of Genoa - I don't think that particular conflict is over, I think it will return, and could be the hotbed of anti-oligarchal thought, some sort of popular or even communal/communist republic doesn't seem outlandish to me. Hardly the Soviet Union but an interesting note alongside OTL idea of the Levellers in the UK for sure.
I am interested in the size of Roman... Rome. Roman Latium? Handing over a swathe to Sicily was a good call but it'll be interesting to see how feasible the city will be in terms of growth. I can't imagine it'll suffer for Sicily next door, but it might have issues if it tries to expand beyond the Roman limits. That'll be an interesting scenario for sure.
I am surprised at the results of the war games though, I'd have expected a fortified Italy to frankly do better, but that might be simply an assumption of the fortifications. I do like how that was broken down - and it really starts to sell a not-just-anti-latin justification for the general siege mentality for the Romans in the future. Its the geopolitical realities of it.
That diplomatic reform is gooooooood, I like how its essentially 5+1, that could be really interesting. I'm curious as to the split for the West that took it from 4+1 to 5+1 - was that to accommodate the New World? I appreciate that it isn't that important for the Romans, but last I checked the Mexicans were a Roman ally in the New World, and that's a very different field to the rest of the world diplomatically.
All in all, it's great to see things appearing to return to some sense of calm, Spain and Arles being more on side is good, and I'm genuinely shocked that Henri didn't try to stir the pot in some way to prevent that outcome. Sure he has an ally/partner in Genoa, and probably Lombardy I expect in the longer-term, but letting those relationships return to normal isn't really in his interest. Perhaps we've seen via omission Henri actually not get what he wants in diplomacy?
I do hope at some point Ody and Chapuys (or maybe Athena and Chapuys) can have a nice session to patch things up though. It'd be funny if "No More Chapuys" becomes a byword in the Roman Foreign Office, for never creating that situation, ever again. Maybe a small statue.
I like the idea of federalisation personally - I endorse it, but my concern would be why - especially for Sicily. Short of an economic crisis that, like in Egypt, effectively forces Sicily to come to the Romans for help, I'm not sure what advantages it gives. I can see Egypt more easily,
The main approach I could see which COULD work would be dependent on how it worked for Egypt - if its essentially that Egypt becomes a subservient state, I doubt it'd be useful - but if you had some sort of structure where Egypt isn't so much a vassal as an equal partner, but that the Emperor resolves ties, that might have legs - crisis in Sicily that the price tag is membership of this structure? Crisis in Serbia might open the door as well for them.
But I'll admit I'm not entirely sure at the moment what powers the Romans have in Sicily. The idea of enforcing dual-language schools is a good idea for it, but I think the first aspect would be to push a sort of SuperCulture - As British is to English and Scottish, Roman becomes to Sicilian, Greek, Melkite, etc. Now that is easier to do via simple propaganda, and has precedent with the concept of Romanitas. Now I'm unsure how that has evolved in the Empire but if we assume that it could, "independently" of the Emperor push that idea, but as the concept of a Federation Romanitas with the Empire as a member, alongside Egypt, Sicily, Serbia, Vlachia (feel free to cross out any), that serves as a way to formalise the idea as a political entity.
Basic model as I'd see it - headed by the Emperor of the Romans. It has it's own budget and obligations to its members, and in effect would serve as a significant reform of the relationship between the Romans and the Despotates and maybe even other allies - nothing says that a FR needs to be single-tiered structure
I'd expect the Romans to be T1, with the most obligations, benefits, and restrictions.
T2 would be Egypt - essentially where foreign policies get deeply restricted.
T3 Sicily (T2 after a crisis perhaps), and Carthage (it actually makes sense unless Africa changes for the Carthaginians to have relative freedom diplomatically on the ground at least)
T4 being allies who want to be a little closer - something like Serbia, or Vlachia.
General model - closer to the top tier, more power in decisions, lower tier, less restrictions on their own actions.
The big question for me is where do the various parts of the Exarchate in the East fall in this? Sure they aren't a Depotate, and in real terms are part of the Empire proper, but I can see in such a system it could be reorganised into a T2+. Essentially a T2 member, but it doesn't have any potential rights of withdrawal. It raises questions as to whether that is enough.
That's a model I can see, and for a good while the Romans would essentially dominate it but at the same time there are benefits - see Vlachia for example, probably the best example for why someone might choose to join. A T4 relationship could involve subsidies, not something that'll happen TODAY (and with the Roman economy as it is, that entire issue may end for Vlachia) but if the economic pattern continues, a pattern of subsidies and free movement could be of benefit for them, partly to reflect reality, but also to ensure they can take those subsidies to change that pattern without indebting themselves to anyone.
On the topic of Vlachia, I can't recall - who is dominating merchant activity on the Danube at the moment? Are the Vlachs in a position to take advantage of that quiet in the next decade or so?
Couple factors with the forts to consider. Firstly, the Romans were just on the receiving end of Vauban, so the stopping power of fortifications is not something they rate really highly. Secondly, if the garrison of a besieged fort knows there’s no chance of a credible relief army (because they’re in Italy and the bulk of the field army is deployed in Syria) it makes sense to surrender earlier, because they’ll have to surrender or die anyway, so might as well do it when they can get better terms. So the transfer of field armies away from a fortress belt area actively weakens the fortress belt, even if none of the garrisons lose a single soldier.
Regarding Henri and Italy, I figure that Italy just isn’t that high on his priority list. His goals were 1) get recognition of his conquests in Rhineland/Lotharingia and 2) Get the Romans out of northern Italy so they can’t be a threat to said conquest. He got both already so why continue to mess around and risk blowback.
Roman power in Sicily is that Sicilian foreign relations with the Ottomans are managed by Constantinople (irrelevant because of geography) and that Sicilian foreign relations with the Holy Roman Emperor are managed by Constantinople (irrelevant because of recent events). That’s it.
Romans are the main merchant presence on the lower Danube, although Belgrade and up it’s much more of a mixed Serbian/Hungarian affair. The Vlachs just don’t have the capital to be big merchant players. The ones with the money are the big landowners who sell produce to feed Constantinople.
Yeah, the War Room games are, once you remove the proper nouns, an encapsulation of Rhomania’s geopolitical situation, namely that it stinks (a fact even Liutprand of Cremona in the mid-900s, a Latin bishop and ambassador who was not a fan of the Byzantines, acknowledged). The Romans absolutely have to plan for two-front (or worse) conflicts. I’d argue that based on OTL Byzantine and Ottoman history, them not having to worry about dogpiles would be rather unrealistic.
One of the big reasons Demetrios III is largely forgotten, even though really he is very important, is that if you look at his reign solely on the basis of how much purple is on the map, he looks absolutely terrible. None of his big accomplishments translate well into pop culture. You can’t show administrative or tax reform on a map and it doesn’t make for interesting reading. Historians will rate Demetrios III very highly; nobody else will.
There will be some Japanese-Romans in the future, with some already moving that way now. They’ll be the descendants of the ronin that entered Roman service in the Katepanate of Pyrgos. (See Tokugawa Ieyasu for example.)
Genoa, as the key issue that started this whole affair, is the area where the Arletians and Spanish are most sensitive and least inclined to negotiate. Any Roman concessions here, even very minor ones, would’ve been extremely costly in terms of goodwill. Which means that even a minor concession in Genoa would entail giving up a major concession elsewhere (the appointee for the new ruler of the Romagna? The ownership of Rome?).
No subsidies for the Triunes.
Nope. Not a chance. The Roman heartland has about 16.5 million now, while Sicily + Egypt is around 6.5-7 million.
Yeah, the tribute is embarrassing, but that golden grease is so often necessary to make the wheels of diplomacy move.
Dalmatia and Istria is a regular vassal state of Rhomania (so not a Despotate, which has more autonomy vis-à-vis Constantinople), with the current ruler Demetrios III’s elder sister.
One of the reasons I enjoyed playing around in the east so much was because there Rhomania is nowhere near the top dog. It made things so much more interesting rather than having the Romans being a dominant superpower, master of all they survive. This is also why I’ve been emphasizing lately the agency of non-Romans surrounding Rhomania. It is more interesting if the Romans can lose, or at least know that if they play certain games, they will lose said games.
I don’t have any plans for Serbia right now.
I’m not so sure about that. A Rhomania actively involved in Europe is able to pose a direct threat to Spain and Triune metropoles, while one focused on colonial affairs is less of a threat to the metropoles. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that a reason why Bismarck didn’t want to take any French colonies in 1871 was that he figured if the French were busy mucking around in Africa or Vietnam they’d have less energy for giving Germany problems in Europe itself.
There may be some immigration to Carthage from Genoa once things settle down. Genoa is not going to be the economic power it was pre-war.
Another reason I’m skeptical of the defensibility of a Roman northern Italy is that looking at OTL Italy from 1494-1814, even with the Alps it gets invaded every Tuesday.
Become, yes. Stay, that’s a lot harder. The power base is in northern France. Southern England is right next door, but even northern England is starting to stretch things. Scotland is even further away geographically and culturally. At some point the juggling act of too many personal unions becomes too much and either you do like Charles V and split it up amongst family members, or irritated and alienated subjects will split it for you. Geographical compactness helps; the Austrian Habsburgs had a lot of different personal holdings, but at least they were all next to each other, and even then look at the problems they had. This Union would be a long string of territories. If a Triune Emperor is faced with a Scottish rebellion at the same time as an angry Holy Roman Emperor with 100,000 Germans is smashing at the eastern frontier, Scotland is never a priority.
Tibet has been a regional power which was taking the opportunity to raid the Chinese border territories next to it while China was disunited, although a united China has stopped the raids. Conquering Tibet is not feasible though. The Gurkhas meanwhile have recently started serving the Vijayanagara Emperors as soldiers.
Egypt has a tighter Despotate arrangement which gives the Romans more involvement in Egyptian affairs, but even those are clearly and specifically spelled out. Sicily and Carthage are completely autonomous internally (except they can’t put tariffs on Roman goods, but then the Romans can’t put tariffs on their goods either) with only some limits on foreign policy that have to be managed through Constantinople. Sicily’s relationship with Constantinople would be like Rhomania’s with Georgia if the two had a formal free trade agreement and mutual defense pact.
I’d quibble with that analogy. I picture Henri II as Louis XIV if the Ottomans had taken Vienna in 1683 and broken the Habsburgs while the Stuarts remained on the English throne. Henri II has the material might of Louis XIV but without the powerful enemies Louis XIV faced later in his reign.
Incidentally, Louis XIV wanted the Ottomans to take Vienna in 1683, encouraging the Ottomans to do so. He hoped that would break the Habsburgs, at which point Louis could swoop in as the defender of Christendom, rally the Germans to his banner, and then beat down the Ottomans.
Sound familiar?
The Scandinavians would have a claim. Peter II is married to Henri’s sister (one-line reference). That’s all I’ve lined out foreign-wise.
The financial situation is ‘taxed but bearing up’. A lot of the Roman economic innovations of recent years have Triune counterparts, such as a central bank and stock exchanges. If the fighting keeps dragging on or starts being a losing rather than winning war (victory covers a multitude of sins) it’ll start being a real problem, but it’s not there yet in 1638.
Dutch.
The Triunes: Lots of very good discussion. Don’t have anything I can think to add that wouldn’t involve either cooking some of my currently half-baked ideas or revealing the fully baked ones.
I think the best analogy (in broad scope, don’t get too specific with the details) is the Triunes are OTL France in early years of Louis XIV’s reign. The pushback will eventually come, but these are the years of glory.
True, but Rhomania is in a situation similar to Britain's after the Napoleonic wars where they could put most of their focus on overseas and consolidate their gaines for the metropole's benefit. In OTL this is largely how Britain gained all of India and South Africa, and Egypt, with influence everywhere while the continental powers bickered.
Here Rhomania pretty much is secure in the west and will mostly secure the east, outside of possible overextension, so that means she can put more focus on Island Asia and supporting her allies on the mainland, and Japan. A Spain, Arles, Lotharingia, and Triunes worried about each other at home, and in Terra Nova, won't be able to put as much focus on the Asia for quite a while. And Rhomania isn't treating their conquests as colonies but as parts of an expanding metropole which is going to be important down the road.
The Latins may have secured the metropole from Rhomania's attention but they have likely sacrificed most of the colonies in Asia, at least the island ones.
That's probably how I'd view Demetrios III in future Roman history: Someone that is obviously a pivotal figure in Roman history, but would most likely be found in media that's akin to obscure documentaries or alt-YouTube channels/podcasts run by Romanophile Ph.D historians, not something highlighted in ordinary HS textbooks or pop history media. Actually, I wonder if an ITTL Turtledove would've liked this guy
.Also I'll give a huge thumbs-up for Japanese-Romans because literally any depiction of them in the future will turn out to be super awesome: a Japanese ronin in Roman military garb with a katana/tanto and a musket? Sign me up!
I think that Rhomania would defiintely be in a much greater position to contest Spanish and Triune interests in Asia once they kick the Ottomans out of the Levant, as they don't need to worry about continental European politics for a while. But where would they go in East Asia?
I suppose Nusantara or the OTL Philippines could be a start, but annexing Taiwan might also be a good plan for Rhomania. Even adding more warships or supporting merchant fleets to the east would be a great improvement towards Roman power projection in the Far East. The more they gain control of the spice trade, the better.
Perhaps the Romans could establish a formal protectorate out of the Cham if the looming threat of China becomes more and more serious kind of like what they did with Al Andalus during Andreas' reign once the Romans truly beef up their presence in the regionThat's probably how I'd view Demetrios III in future Roman history: Someone that is obviously a pivotal figure in Roman history, but would most likely be found in media that's akin to obscure documentaries or alt-YouTube channels/podcasts run by Romanophile Ph.D historians, not something highlighted in ordinary HS textbooks or pop history media. Actually, I wonder if an ITTL Turtledove would've liked this guy
Also I'll give a huge thumbs-up for Japanese-Romans because literally any depiction of them in the future will turn out to be super awesome: a Japanese ronin in Roman military garb with a katana/tanto and a musket? Sign me up!
I think that Rhomania would defiintely be in a much greater position to contest Spanish and Triune interests in Asia once they kick the Ottomans out of the Levant, as they don't need to worry about continental European politics for a while. But where would they go in East Asia?
I suppose Nusantara or the OTL Philippines could be a start, but annexing Taiwan might also be a good plan for Rhomania. Even adding more warships or supporting merchant fleets to the east would be a great improvement towards Roman power projection in the Far East. The more they gain control of the spice trade, the better.
Would it be possible to inherit Sicily like another Andrean 3rd (?) Scenario through intermarriages?
Is China even going to be a major player in East Asia? If they're as xenophobic and insular as they were before, then they might be the Ming on steroids and be super isolationist, which would be a huge benefit for the European powers. Otherwise, why aren't they enforcing their rule on Taiwan, at the very least?
I always figured that was more a function of Northern Italy being so disunited and heavily feudalized. If you can place a standing army in Northern Italy and fortify the passes through the Alps, invading by land is practically impossible outside of treachery or luck.
Then the issue becomes naval dominance.
In any case I won't argue for it too much since the situation in the region is settled for the time being.
Edit: I should say; from the North and West it is practically impossible. From the Northeast I believe it is easier, hence the importance of ancient Aquileia, but with so many allies in that direction that is not too much of a threat.
Last edited: