An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania

[Blaze]

One might point to a handful of "minor" incidents prior to that

1. First Norman invasion of Byzantium
2. Violation of the treaty between the crusaders and Alexios in the 1st crusade on Bohemund's instigation and Antiochan war against the empire.
3. Second Norman invasion of Byzantium by Bohemund, backed by France (and likely pope Paschal II) in 1108.
4. Venetian attack against Byzantium when Ioannis II came to the throne.
5. Looting and attacks during the second crusade leading to open fighting between the imperial army and the Germans.
6. Third Norman invasion of Byzantium in 1147.
7. Sacking of Cyprus by Renault de Chatilon
8. Venetian war against Byzantium in 1172

And all of them involved unruly armies, military leaders, diplomacy . Things that both byzantines and latins would point out that were bad but at the same time would understand, there were tensions before and there were tensions tereafter with peace treaties and resumption of relations, that while bad, where nowhere near abysmal, and varied if they were venetians, genoese, french, germans...

The Massacre of the Latins was however large scale massacre of civilians, with the accent or at very least acquienscence of imperial authorities in Constantinople that was a major factor in furthering the crusaders hostility and perception of the byzantines they had, that helped to lead to the Fourth Crusade. So, yeah, i have to point that the moral high ground the byzantines have is a bit shakier that what they may claim.

 

[Basileus444]

This was bad timing for a Christmas post, but it ended up being next in the queue, and so it goes.

The Romans have their point of view; the Germans (and Latins) have theirs. They both have their own priorities and agendas and foci. They both have blood on their hands and the shit of both stinks. Their analyses and views of the other are often seen through a lens of self-righteous self-justifying hypocrisy and bigotry. Both have legitimate grievances against the other because both have committed atrocities on the other. (This goes back before the POD.)

The Roman POV naturally gets by far the most focus (the name of the TL makes that obvious), but that doesn’t mean said POV is always right and righteous, or that counter-POVs don’t have a point when they criticize it.

This should be the end of any ‘preaching’. I think I’ve gotten it out of my system. I’m not sorry for it though. But the Romans aren’t always going to be in the right, their enemies won’t always be in the wrong, and when the Romans shit I will point out that it stinks. And I refuse to be sorry for that either.

 

[Stark]

However, it would be hard for any Roman to not separate the actions of the HRE/Germany and the German people with whatever stuff they will do against Romania because their response is directly tied to the ideas of revanchism and anti-Roman hatred currently seeping up from nobleman like von Nimitz as well as the lower classes.

Rome should not have any worry about German revanchism from the moment Triunes annexed entire left bank of the Rhine. As Alsace and Lorraine have showed us, having what you perceive as a core part of your state occupied tends to focus the mind. It would take crazy turn of events for Germans to focus on Rome due to one massacre in a history full of massacres while the French occupy half of Rhineland. Sack of Magdeburg was probably part of the inspiration for Ulm, and German Catholics and Protestans did not kill each other en masse in the following centuries.

And all of them involved unruly armies, military leaders, diplomacy . Things that both byzantines and latins would point out that were bad but at the same time would understand, there were tensions before and there were tensions tereafter with peace treaties and resumption of relations, that while bad, where nowhere near abysmal, and varied if they were venetians, genoese, french, germans...

The Massacre of the Latins was however large scale massacre of civilians, with the accent or at very least acquienscence of imperial authorities in Constantinople that was a major factor in furthering the crusaders hostility and perception of the byzantines they had, that helped to lead to the Fourth Crusade. So, yeah, i have to point that the moral high ground the byzantines have is a bit shakier that what they may claim.

True, I think state orchestrated murder of civilians is level up nastiness.

Plus, all this previous "Latin" incidents were done by different states, nations and people. Unlike Demetrios's statements in his book, there is no grand Latin agenda to destroy Byzantium. Although there is less respect for schismatic Greeks than for proper Catholics. But proper Catholics can also feel the Latin wrath, ask people of Zara.

I understand Byzantines would be pissed by all of this, but a lot of these invasions are kinda natural for states looking to expand.

 

[Denliner]

Rome should not have any worry about German revanchism from the moment Triunes annexed entire left bank of the Rhine. As Alsace and Lorraine have showed us, having what you perceive as a core part of your state occupied tends to focus the mind. It would need a crazy turn of events for Germans to focus on Rome due to one massacre in a history full of massacres while the French occupy half of Rhineland. Sack of Magdeburg was probably the partly the inspiration for Ulm, and German Catholics and Protestans did not kill each other en masse in the following centuries.

That is certainly true, which is probably why the pan-German crusade idea will most likely fizzle out (unless revived a few decades later) since the Triunes are a far larger threat to the Germans than the Romans who aren't even invited to negotiations and we all know what would happen if the Germans actually try in the 1640s.

Still, I can't help but think that if any German leader decided to poke the Roman bush again in the late 17th/18th centuries, the Romans might assume that it is because of irrational notions of revanchism against them and not because of some nuanced political decision like in other Latin countries, which could become a rather complicated matter...to say the least.

 

[Stark]

That is certainly true, which is probably why the pan-German crusade idea will most likely fizzle out (unless revived a few decades later) since the Triunes are a far larger threat to the Germans than the Romans who aren't even invited to negotiations and we all know what would happen if the Germans actually try in the 1640s.

Still, I can't help but think that if any German leader decided to poke the Roman bush again in the late 17th/18th centuries, the Romans might assume that it is because of irrational notions of revanchism against them and not because of some nuanced political decision like in other Latin countries, which could become a rather complicated matter...to say the least.

Yeah, I agree. Especially since one of Byzantine national traits seems to be siege mentality. I won't take much to take this stuff personal.

 

[Execubitor168]

I'd expect any coordination against the Triune's as too difficult between Rome and any German successor state.

What are people's thoughts on a Triune and Rome alliance? It sounds like a good fit if spheres of influence can be agreed upon.

 

[Frame]

I'd expect any coordination against the Triune's as too difficult between Rome and any German successor state.

What are people's thoughts on a Triune and Rome alliance? It sounds like a good fit if spheres of influence can be agreed upon.

I think it's possible however the Triunes and the Ottomans are close so in the foreseeable future i don't see it happening but after some time has passed i can totally see it happening

 

[Curtain Jerker]

I'd expect any coordination against the Triune's as too difficult between Rome and any German successor state.

What are people's thoughts on a Triune and Rome alliance? It sounds like a good fit if spheres of influence can be agreed upon.

We had a French-Ottoman alliance OTL that lasted on and off for a couple centuries so why not?

 

[Denliner]

What are people's thoughts on a Triune and Rome alliance? It sounds like a good fit if spheres of influence can be agreed upon.

I think it's fairly likely, since the Triunes are less of a threat to Roman interests in the East than Spain or Arles so there could be a degree of cooperation there. However, it's unlikely the Triunes would make moves against the Ottomans since they are also their friends.

Therefore, I'd only see this alliance happening if their interests align in Europe or in Nusantara.
----
On a lighter note, I saw some posts about what sort of dinosaurs Odysseus would be obsessed with, and I saw Spinosaurus being an option. I tend to agree on this assessment since Egypt is probably the most common source for fossils. However, I would like to add one more dinosaur that he could be a fan of: Carcharodontosaurus.

I mean come on, it's a huge freaking theropod that would be the T-Rex of Rhomania if it was popular enough with Roman paleontologists (perhaps due to Odysseus? ). Honestly, I think Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus could be played as the biblical Leviathan and Behemoth in modern dino media if the Romans correctly assessed Spinosaurus as the aquatic-loving creature that it is early.

 

[Evilprodigy]

I'd expect any coordination against the Triune's as too difficult between Rome and any German successor state.

What are people's thoughts on a Triune and Rome alliance? It sounds like a good fit if spheres of influence can be agreed upon.

I think it's possible however the Triunes and the Ottomans are close so in the foreseeable future i don't see it happening but after some time has passed i can totally see it happening

We had a French-Ottoman alliance OTL that lasted on and off for a couple centuries so why not?

I think it's fairly likely, since the Triunes are less of a threat to Roman interests in the East than Spain or Arles so there could be a degree of cooperation there. However, it's unlikely the Triunes would make moves against the Ottomans since they are also their friends.

Therefore, I'd only see this alliance happening if their interests align in Europe or in Nusantara.

Frankly it's borderline impossible. The Franco-Ottoman alliance is a false comparison. Long-term politics in this era has an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality to it. Alliances and enemies tend to leap frog. Countries threaten those that they border, because they can expand there, and ally with those who do not. If that country borders multiple states then you have natural allies. England bordered France and Scotland, so France and Scotland allied against England. In response England sought allies against France, finding them in Iberia be it Castile or more famously Portugal, but also in the Netherlands an Austria.

So now France has two enemies on its borders, so it looks at who borders Austria and allies with them. That would be the Polish, Hungarians, Prussians, and most famously the Ottomans. The Ottomans had a state they bordered called The Safavids who they got along with poorly, and so allied with the Persians' neighbours further east. This founded the the Mughal Empire's gunpowder skills under Babur, the first of the dynasty, via direct Ottoman involvement. Famously too an English group under Robert Shirley and his brother Thomas came to Persia to arm the Shah with modern military technology. Because the Ottomans were allied with the French to counter the Habsburgs and the English didn't like the French the English saw the Persians as natural allies to fight an ally of their enemy.

ITTL the same things have occurred and the same politics somewhat exist because Geography has not and will not change. The Triunes fill the geopolitical role of the English and are foes of Arles. Arles fills the geopolitical role of France and are foes with Hungary, who fill the role of the Habsburg Empire. Hungary is a foe of Rhomania, who fills the OTL Ottoman role. Rhomania is foes with TTL's Ottomans, who fill a Safavid role. The Ottomans in turn are foes with Vijayanagar, which fills (somewhat) the OTL Mughal role.

It's better to think of the Triunes as geopolitically more similar the OTL English than the OTL French. That being said, they do have some OTL French foreign policy objectives such as the Rhine border and economic competition with the Low Countries (OTL Franco-Habsburg conflicts were focused there) but ultimately the Triunes would see the Hungarians as allies against the Germans and Bohemians rather than the Rhomans who have, and will, fight more against the Hungarians or some other Danube State more than they would some North or South German one. The 1630s HRE developments are, frankly, unusual and that is sort of the point for the story that the geopolitical order of previous decades was flipped and tossed about but once the dust settles the shores, rivers, mountains, and others will still be where they are and fundamentally borders have not changed enough to invoke real serious change on the geopolitical landscape which could invoke a Franco-Ottoman style relationship between the Triunes and the Rhomans.

 

[Lascaris]

It's better to think of the Triunes as geopolitically more similar the OTL English than the OTL French. That being said, they do have some OTL French foreign policy objectives such as the Rhine border and economic competition with the Low Countries (OTL Franco-Habsburg conflicts were focused there) but ultimately the Triunes would see the Hungarians as allies against the Germans and Bohemians rather than the Rhomans who have, and will, fight more against the Hungarians or some other Danube State more than they would some North or South German one. The 1630s HRE developments are, frankly, unusual and that is sort of the point for the story that the geopolitical order of previous decades was flipped and tossed about but once the dust settles the shores, rivers, mountains, and others will still be where they are and fundamentally borders have not changed enough to invoke real serious change on the geopolitical landscape which could invoke a Franco-Ottoman style relationship between the Triunes and the Rhomans.

I disagree. The Triunes are very much in the geopolitical place of France not England. Arles is a beast of its own, one more relatively powerful Mediterranean power to the south of France sorry the Triunes that was not there in OTL, although frankly I have my doubts over its long term survival prospects. it's probably next in the Triune target list. As for the Hungarians they are about as valuable as the Serbs and Vlachs, a minor power sandwiched between the Germans and the Greeks.

 

[Deleted member 94708]

I disagree. The Triunes are very much in the geopolitical place of France not England. Arles is a beast of its own, one more relatively powerful Mediterranean power to the south of France sorry the Triunes that was not there in OTL, although frankly I have my doubts over its long term survival prospects. it's probably next in the Triune target list. As for the Hungarians they are about as valuable as the Serbs and Vlachs, a minor power sandwiched between the Germans and the Greeks.

Seconded.

The Triunes face a much more challenging geopolitical environment than Britain did before 1800 IOTL.

They have significantly more resources to meet the challenge, but many of those resources are consumed maintaining a large and capable standing army. IOTL, Britain was able to weigh heavily in Continental warfare by using its Navy to secure its homeland and freeing its ground forces to intervene only when necessary, and by providing extensive subsidies to allies to do its bidding, more or less. Its objective was almost always to prevent France or the Hapsburgs from dominating the continent, little more.

Here, it's one of the key players in continental politics, with long frontiers to defend, economically crucial lands not far behind those borders, multiple powerful enemies, and wide-ranging ambitions. If it sets itself against Germany, the Romans are a logical ally, especially if the Hungarians find themselves pulled into the orbit of the HRE. No one would mistake such a relationship for one based on trust, but they are too far apart to be true enemies for long. Their interests simply don't conflict enough.

We know the Romans are entering a period when they pay less attention to Europe, but they still exist, and merely acting as an ally-in-being to the Triunes may allow both to deter Germany if and when it embraces revanchist politics.

I don't know why everyone is so obsessed with the Romans having made a grievous mistake in clearing the way for the Triunes to break Lotharingia. It's not as if the Triunes are ever going to threaten the Roman heartland, whereas the Germans could be ready for round two in three decades' time. If their attentions and anger are instead drawn towards France, and their resources trimmed, this isn't a bad thing for Constantinople. In a sense, they've pulled King's Harbor into the same situation they face, and divided Germany's attention and hatred by doing so.

Rhomania's recent misadventures in Italy were a mistake; incidentally allowing King's Harbor to break the HRE in the west, not clearly so, I believe.

 

[luis3007]

That attitude is what will allow the Latins to sort themselves out and bring unification into an European Union 300 years later, to the wails of Constantinople

 

[Deleted member 94708]

That attitude is what will allow the Latins to sort themselves out and bring unification into an European Union 300 years later, to the wails of Constantinople

That entire episode was stupid.

An EU, as Constantinople would understand damn well, is more likely to see most of its members restraining whoever wants to get into a pissing contest with Rhomania today than the opposite.

It reduces the threat posed by any individual European state without really dialing up the threat posed by all of Latin Europe.

 

[Bronze]

I'd expect any coordination against the Triune's as too difficult between Rome and any German successor state.

What are people's thoughts on a Triune and Rome alliance? It sounds like a good fit if spheres of influence can be agreed upon.

I believe that the Triunes and Romans fit best as rivals.

Frankly it's borderline impossible. The Franco-Ottoman alliance is a false comparison. Long-term politics in this era has an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality to it. Alliances and enemies tend to leap frog. Countries threaten those that they border, because they can expand there, and ally with those who do not. If that country borders multiple states then you have natural allies. England bordered France and Scotland, so France and Scotland allied against England. In response England sought allies against France, finding them in Iberia be it Castile or more famously Portugal, but also in the Netherlands an Austria.

So now France has two enemies on its borders, so it looks at who borders Austria and allies with them. That would be the Polish, Hungarians, Prussians, and most famously the Ottomans. The Ottomans had a state they bordered called The Safavids who they got along with poorly, and so allied with the Persians' neighbours further east. This founded the the Mughal Empire's gunpowder skills under Babur, the first of the dynasty, via direct Ottoman involvement. Famously too an English group under Robert Shirley and his brother Thomas came to Persia to arm the Shah with modern military technology. Because the Ottomans were allied with the French to counter the Habsburgs and the English didn't like the French the English saw the Persians as natural allies to fight an ally of their enemy.

ITTL the same things have occurred and the same politics somewhat exist because Geography has not and will not change. The Triunes fill the geopolitical role of the English and are foes of Arles. Arles fills the geopolitical role of France and are foes with Hungary, who fill the role of the Habsburg Empire. Hungary is a foe of Rhomania, who fills the OTL Ottoman role. Rhomania is foes with TTL's Ottomans, who fill a Safavid role. The Ottomans in turn are foes with Vijayanagar, which fills (somewhat) the OTL Mughal role.

This is what I think like, basically.
However, I will put Triunia as a mix of England and France, perhaps the most potent and dangerous of all.
Historically, France's strength was its immense manpower in comparison to other European states, which bore fruit not only to provide soldiers but also in money via taxes, industry etc.
Meanwhile, England had its impressive naval capacity (France was no slouch here either though) and its mercantile powers centered around the City of London.
So, now England has an immense hammer to swing around to defend its mercantile interests (for example, by defeating and incorporating its closest competitor) and France has the English money it needs to march forth and secure its impressively long borders.
Arles, then, has no parallel, actually, because it's got precisely one foe at this point (Hungary is crushed, and besides, I have a feeling that they'll be looking more towards Germany and Vlachia than a Lombardy that will be protected by half of Europe for their own reasons), which is Triunia. Rhomania must protect Arles at all costs, to prevent the Triunes from gaining a Mediterranean coast, 'cause if Triunia manages to eat Arles, it could go wild in Italy, and theoretically repeat Napoleon's invasion of Egypt (that failed in OTL, yes, but that may not be repeated TTL).

Triunia is Rome's greatest enemy in Europe. Germany could have been held in check by Hungary and Poland and itself fight to protect Lotharingia as its meatshield against Triunia, but now that it is broken, all that is just... gone. Triunia could, in fifty years, really go wild in Germany and lil Lotharingia.

If it sets itself against Germany, the Romans are a logical ally, especially if the Hungarians find themselves pulled into the orbit of the HRE. No one would mistake such a relationship for one based on trust, but they are too far apart to be true enemies for long. Their interests simply don't conflict enough.

We know the Romans are entering a period when they pay less attention to Europe, but they still exist, and merely acting as an ally-in-being to the Triunes may allow both to deter Germany if and when it embraces revanchist politics.

If Germany is the target. But, now that Germany is a tad bit broken, Henri may well decide to add a new kingdom to his realm by invading Arles, which is the real threat to Henri, really. Germany has... just itself, and Lotharingia, and maybe Poland and Hungary, to fight with against the Triunes, while Arles has Spain, Aragon, Bern, Lombardy and potentially Sicily and Rhomania as well. The Rhine is a defensible barrier, but Arles is the dagger aimed at the Triune heart, and any Triune king worth his salt should know that.
Besides, simple revanchist pride: "Arles used to be part of France; let's reclaim it!"

 

[Curtain Jerker]

We know the Triunes are going to keep campaigning in Germany because the last update alluded to the relatively good behavior of Triune armies in Germany in the 1640s. Assuming that war/expedition/raid/whatever doesn't go tits up (and it very well might!) who's going to stop the Triunes from looking at Arles and saying "finally, time to finish this?"

Is the Accord powerful enough to deter the Triunes when they can focus the vast majority of their might (now supplemented with the newly conquered and recognized Rhineland territories) on a smaller, weaker Arles? I'd say no, especially given how much of a fiasco the last time the Accord tried to stop Henry II.

The only thing stopping the Triunes from being Europe's strongest empire is the Triunes themselves. The entire edifice might very well collapse from within. It doesn't look like anyone else can do a thing about them and their ambitions.

 

[catconqueror]

We know the Triunes are going to keep campaigning in Germany because the last update alluded to the relatively good behavior of Triune armies in Germany in the 1640s. Assuming that war/expedition/raid/whatever doesn't go tits up (and it very well might!) who's going to stop the Triunes from looking at Arles and saying "finally, time to finish this?"

Is the Accord powerful enough to deter the Triunes when they can focus the vast majority of their might (now supplemented with the newly conquered and recognized Rhineland territories) on a smaller, weaker Arles? I'd say no, especially given how much of a fiasco the last time the Accord tried to stop Henry II.

The only thing stopping the Triunes from being Europe's strongest empire is the Triunes themselves. The entire edifice might very well collapse from within. It doesn't look like anyone else can do a thing about them and their ambitions.

Well the weakened HRE can join the accord, that should balance things up.

On other topic, I personally think Triune Roman alliance make lots of sense. Poster here seems to focus on historical parallels which does not make sense... The existence of Arles, Lombardy, Triune and a Roman Empire that have half of Italy throws any historical parallels out the window. Even if you buy that argument, the parallels are a bit wierd, with Arles : a secondary Mediterranean power as a historical counter part of France : the premier power of Europe. Not to mention someone here brought up that if Triune control Arles they are going to repeat Napoleon's Egypt expedition, because somehow they can't cross the Rhine but can cross the Mediterranean instead...

Imo the only possible tension in Europe between Rome and Triune is northern Italy, that is only if the Triune control Arles... Which they don't. In the current a status quo, assuming a German resurgence, a Roman Triune alliance works best.

Let me put it this way, when the German states recover, they will have two things they want to recover. : Rhineland and Austria, and unless the Roman want a buffer state gone, that war is going to involve both the Triune and the Romans going against whatever comes out of the HRE.

 

[Denliner]

Is the Accord powerful enough to deter the Triunes when they can focus the vast majority of their might (now supplemented with the newly conquered and recognized Rhineland territories) on a smaller, weaker Arles? I'd say no, especially given how much of a fiasco the last time the Accord tried to stop Henry II.

The only thing stopping the Triunes from being Europe's strongest empire is the Triunes themselves. The entire edifice might very well collapse from within. It doesn't look like anyone else can do a thing about them and their ambitions.

Without Rhomania or the EAN, I think the Accord would have a pretty hard time trying to fight the Triune army as they focus on Arles. On paper, the Triunes could absolutely stomp the Accord given they have a comparable army to the entire coalition with battle-hardened soldiers and officers from the Great Latin War/Lotharingian War. Henri II has been a decent general at this point so I'd say that the chances of annexing Arles proper is not that low. I think he also has designs on both the HRE and eventually Scotland so his ambitions certainly go much farther than Antwerp.

With this in mind, I'm leaning towards that conclusion as well. The Triunes are the top dog in Western Europe, but they sit on shaky ground. The Emperor is pretty much a dude that almost always rolls 20s but Louis...not so much. As I said before, I doubt he will have the talent to help maintain the delicate balance necessary between all of the nobles in his empire. He would also be living during one the worst periods of the Little Ice Age where food prices are high and famines are frequent. Those kinds of events leave openings that certain states like Arles, the HRE, or the EAN can certainly exploit.

I'm interested to see how Louis grows up in the shadow of the Spider King, where he is not showered with gifts of love and praise but of cold-hearted scorn and disgust. He could end up being a really terrible person in my eyes. Odysseus can be terrifying, yes but at least he has a heart. Louis might be devoid of that.

 

[E_x_c_u_b_i_t_o_r_e]

Triunia is Rome's greatest enemy in Europe. Germany could have been held in check by Hungary and Poland and itself fight to protect Lotharingia as its meatshield against Triunia, but now that it is broken, all that is just... gone. Triunia could, in fifty years, really go wild in Germany and lil Lotharingia.

I don't think it will be that easy going into the quagmire that is Germany, like what @Curtain Jerker said it may very well go tits up. Lotharingia already had a treaty and its their vassal so its already done.

If Germany is the target. But, now that Germany is a tad bit broken, Henri may well decide to add a new kingdom to his realm by invading Arles, which is the real threat to Henri, really. Germany has... just itself, and Lotharingia, and maybe Poland and Hungary, to fight with against the Triunes, while Arles has Spain, Aragon, Bern, Lombardy and potentially Sicily and Rhomania as well. The Rhine is a defensible barrier, but Arles is the dagger aimed at the Triune heart, and any Triune king worth his salt should know that.
Besides, simple revanchist pride: "Arles used to be part of France; let's reclaim it!"

He still has to contend with Ottokar of HRE so invading Arles is not an immediate concern, especially if he doesn't want to enforce the accord treaty. In my opinion the accord are very weak and strong enough to fight the Triunes or Romans if the push comes to blow. However that is assuming all those nations can actually fight together cohesively. We saw just how easily the Triunes subverted all those nations (Bernese League, Arles and Spain) into having a seperate agreement one to their advantage.

We know the Triunes are going to keep campaigning in Germany because the last update alluded to the relatively good behavior of Triune armies in Germany in the 1640s. Assuming that war/expedition/raid/whatever doesn't go tits up (and it very well might!) who's going to stop the Triunes from looking at Arles and saying "finally, time to finish this?"

Is the Accord powerful enough to deter the Triunes when they can focus the vast majority of their might (now supplemented with the newly conquered and recognized Rhineland territories) on a smaller, weaker Arles? I'd say no, especially given how much of a fiasco the last time the Accord tried to stop Henry II.

The only thing stopping the Triunes from being Europe's strongest empire is the Triunes themselves. The entire edifice might very well collapse from within. It doesn't look like anyone else can do a thing about them and their ambitions.

I don't think the accord is powerful enough to fight the Triunes on equal ground, their alliance was easily subverted by having seperate deals with the Triunes. If they however became to overbearing then the a cohesive defense can be possibly maintained.

Without Rhomania or the EAN, I think the Accord would have a pretty hard time trying to fight the Triune army as they focus on Arles. On paper, the Triunes could absolutely stomp the Accord given they have a comparable army to the entire coalition with battle-hardened soldiers and officers from the Great Latin War/Lotharingian War. Henri II has been a decent general at this point so I'd say that the chances of annexing Arles proper is not that low. I think he also has designs on both the HRE and eventually Scotland so his ambitions certainly go much farther than Antwerp.

The accord can't rely on Rome or the EAN for that matter, Rome wants to focus on the East and they just got snubbed by half of europe for both legit and unlegitimate reasons. The EAN emperor is related to Henri so an alliance isn't possible, until the Triunes start fucking things up on Scotland, any allliance with the accord won't materialize. The only possible solution that I can think off, that may deter Triune attack on Arles is for the German defense on their now exposed western border to be more heavy. Still, it isn't enough to stall the Triunes but fortunately there is still Ottokar of HRE to contend with, depending on what the next updates show. The HRE-Triune war may very well last a long time, enough time that events such as the Raven king and the possible last bit of Nostradamus prophecy with the vast Russian armies storming the entire west.

That is assuming ofcourse, if the Germans can or would actually defend for a long time against the Triunes.

 

[E_x_c_u_b_i_t_o_r_e]

I don't know why everyone is so obsessed with the Romans having made a grievous mistake in clearing the way for the Triunes to break Lotharingia. It's not as if the Triunes are ever going to threaten the Roman heartland, whereas the Germans could be ready for round two in three decades' time. If their attentions and anger are instead drawn towards France, and their resources trimmed, this isn't a bad thing for Constantinople. In a sense, they've pulled King's Harbor into the same situation they face, and divided Germany's attention and hatred by doing so.

Mainly because of the updates, though I agree more on the Italy situation.