An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania

[Gman]

Hi there. New reader here (Well first time commenting, I have read through the entire TL about 3 times now). This TL is bloody awesome, because we get to see how a luckier and surviving Roman Empire might have gone about interacting with the world had it not fallen. Going forward, I wonder what the territorial consequences of the war will be?
I imagine that Rhomania may acquire some more of northern Mesopotamia (centered on the Tigris and Euphrates with any Assyrian populations in the area) and the return of the portion of the Levant it lost in the 1630s. Although, considering the multiple rebellions that came out of the latter region, they may just re-annex the areas with an Orthodox majority or plurality, and sent up a Despotate for the remainder ala Egypt, Carthage and Siciliy with the Muslim population no longer a problem of Constantinople.

 

[E_x_c_u_b_i_t_o_r_e]

Hi there. New reader here (Well first time commenting, I have read through the entire TL about 3 times now). This TL is bloody awesome, because we get to see how a luckier and surviving Roman Empire might have gone about interacting with the world had it not fallen. Going forward, I wonder what the territorial consequences of the war will be?
I imagine that Rhomania may acquire some more of northern Mesopotamia (centered on the Tigris and Euphrates with any Assyrian populations in the area) and the return of the portion of the Levant it lost in the 1630s. Although, considering the multiple rebellions that came out of the latter region, they may just re-annex the areas with an Orthodox majority or plurality, and sent up a Despotate for the remainder ala Egypt, Carthage and Siciliy with the Muslim population no longer a problem of Constantinople.

Despotate immediately on Syria-palastinea? Or giving lands tp the egyptian despotate (those backstabbing bitches)?

Either way doing those things immediately after the war in my opinion is being too hasty and stupid. Those are free land that you can give out to to your people. Besides giving up those lands means you have even less of a hold on the way to the red sea.

Mesopotamia is a tricky thing since there is probably a still big assyrian minority living on those lands. A despotate there is out of the question or else it will be another repeat of the disasterous 5th to 6th century roman-persian wars. Better to fully subdue and integrate the region with actual Roman citizens, whilst simultaneously making sure a slow methodolical death of the local culture.

Its time for the Romans to redo the old ways of holding territories wholesale. The centuries of war on the middle east needs to be permanently end. A lasting peace with the persians and death of resisting local culture in the middle east is the way to go.

 

[EvilJam]

I think Rome should push for:

A) All territories lost over the past decades (obviously)
B) Plus the Assyrian majority areas in Northern Mesopotamia

Assyrian people being Christian and not too culturally far removed from the rest of Rome's Asia territories should be easy to integrate if the people are treated fairly.

I think it's been said that Syria is practically depopulated by now (?) so Rome should push for loyal subjects to move there.

 

[Daylight Savings]

Hi there. New reader here (Well first time commenting, I have read through the entire TL about 3 times now). This TL is bloody awesome, because we get to see how a luckier and surviving Roman Empire might have gone about interacting with the world had it not fallen. Going forward, I wonder what the territorial consequences of the war will be?
I imagine that Rhomania may acquire some more of northern Mesopotamia (centered on the Tigris and Euphrates with any Assyrian populations in the area) and the return of the portion of the Levant it lost in the 1630s. Although, considering the multiple rebellions that came out of the latter region, they may just re-annex the areas with an Orthodox majority or plurality, and sent up a Despotate for the remainder ala Egypt, Carthage and Siciliy with the Muslim population no longer a problem of Constantinople.

All indications we have is that they'll be solving the Arab question in the Levant in a more horrific fashion sadly. They may be the heroes of the story, but the Romans are no angels.

 

[Gman]

So the Romans might well commit genocide in the Levant?

 

[Daylight Savings]

So the Romans might well commit genocide in the Levant?

There has been talk for some time about the "Great Crime". It's been a little while since it came up I think, but I believe the current consensus is that there will be a good amount of forced relocations along with the depopulation we're seeing in the war.

Edit: In their minds they tried to be benevolent rulers in the area, but the Arab Sunni population resisted all overtures of civility. It is not a matter of religion since they have integrated Turkish Muslims in the heartland and view the Persians as an equal. It comes down the idea of civilizationism, that some cultures are more worthy than others and that the majority Arab population in the Levant is less than that of Rome. That is not to justify any of their actions, but to establish the mindset.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

So the Romans might well commit genocide in the Levant?

They already are and have been for some time now. Let us open our hymnals to "1633 - The Guns Of Syria."

​

In a way, Demetrios’ long-term plans are already starting to be implemented. Theodoros has not been completely idle since the fall of Arra. Raids basing from that retaken city, plus several of the larger coastal garrisons, chief of which is Gaza now hosting a sizeable Ethiopian contingent, are striking deep and hard into interior Syria and Palestine.

Their first goal is to bring any remaining loyalist garrisons and populaces back to the coast; in this wide and not heavily-populated country people are more important than land. In a way, this is abandoning the interior to the rebels and Ottomans. But this also means that after this phase is complete, the Roman raiders are now free to kill or enslave anyone they encounter without a second thought. Owais, Haddad, and remnant Anizzah riders eager for revenge happily participate, rounding up Syrian-Palestinian peasants and hauling them to the coast in chains. If they resist, they are killed on the spot.

Merchants from Arles, the Kingdom of the Isles, and Aragon (who sell to the Spanish market) buy up the slaves. This is an easy way to bolster relations with all those kingdoms and make some money at the same time. The loss of manpower to the rebels weakens them and also make agriculture more difficult, increasing Ibrahim’s supply problems. Plus the removal, either through extinction or enslavement, of some of the rebel populace means they’re less of an issue in any negotiations with Ibrahim. In some of the Shah’s earlier proposals, he suggested evacuating Roman lands but taking the rebellious populace with him. Demetrios wants the rebels gone, but does not want to strengthen Ibrahim at the same time. The current situation helps with the former, but does not do the latter. That suits Demetrios just fine.

 

[Gman]

Yikes! By modern, non-bigoted OTL standards this is abhorrent, But by 17th century ITTL standards, mixed with some civilizationism, two way Muslim-Christian hatred (between the Muslim populations of Syria/Palestine/Egypt and the Orthodox Roman population) and overall poor relations, it appears to be somewhat standard fare.

 

[Denliner]

Going forward, I wonder what the territorial consequences of the war will be?

In my opinion, it's very likely that the Romans will have northern Mesopotamia centered around Mepsila/Mosul while the Persians retain the south around Basra for the sake of peace. To be honest, taking the Levant back and restoring the Pentarchy would've made Odysseus a hero in the eyes of the Romans, but northern Mesopotamia is a bonus and one that is most desirable for peace and for security for Rhomania. Taking all of Mesopotamia wouldn't benefit them as it would strain their relationship with Persia while also overextending their Empire when they're at their complete limit.

I'd like to suggest that Baghdad be the dividing line between Roman Mesopotamia and Persian Mesopotamia. While it is the central city of Mesopotamia, with the War of Wrath and the Sack of Baghdad, it's virtually in ruins and has lost its value. However, it will probably mean the end of Baghdad ITTL if the divide does take place.

---

As for the Levant and Mesopotamia, it's probably inevitable that the Romans are going to continue their policy of displacement against the Arabs in horrific fashion. If the "Great Crime" is going to happen, it will most likely happen in these regions, full stop. The Arabs are going to easily chafe again under the racist policies of the Romans and their attempts at resettling both regions with Romans, Melkites, and Assyrians like how they did so many times before under Roman occupation. Something's gotta give and it will end up being really ugly once it does.

I can see the Levant becoming part of Rhomania proper while Mesopotamia becomes an Assyrian despotate over the centuries, though it will be the result of centuries of genocide towards the existing Arab population.

 

[HanEmpire]

Huh, in that case the Kurds will stay united in an autonomous nation under the Roman aegis.

 

[Daylight Savings]

This is more of a fantasy in Odysseus's mind (or me imagining him having this fantasy) than a practical solution, but imagine a divided Mesopotamia with Baghdad as a free city between the two powers. As the empires recognize each other as equals and promise friendship going forward they let it exist as a trading and diplomatic site between them. A true Alexandrian mixing of cultures.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

This is more of a fantasy in Odysseus's mind (or me imagining him having this fantasy) than a practical solution, but imagine a divided Mesopotamia with Baghdad as a free city between the two powers. As the empires recognize each other as equals and promise friendship going forward they let it exist as a trading and diplomatic site between them. A true Alexandrian mixing of cultures.

Belgium on the Tigris. Indeed it is fantasy but I also like it.

 

[Donald Reaver]

Belgium on the Tigris. Indeed it is fantasy but I also like it.

I would like to see Baghdad as a hold for the Romans, close to the front line. A neutral zone with i.e. an independent state beholden for its survival on both sides, with Basra a open city for trade for all.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I am also in favour of a Free Baghdad, but I can't see it happening.

1) It creates a politically independent centre in Mesopotamia. The Romans don't want that because they want to keep their share, and for the same reasons the Persians don't want it.
2) It would undermine trust between both powers, as both could see Baghdad as a method to undermine the other, and be undermined in turn.

Better to have the Kurdish North in Roman territory, and Shia south in Persian territory. I've already advocated for Roman control of Baghdad, as it anchors Roman control, but the idea of a split Baghdad hadn't occurred to me before - North in Roman control, with nothing more than a guard in the city, and Persia in the south, with the same rules.

 

[Denliner]

I am also in favour of a Free Baghdad, but I can't see it happening.

1) It creates a politically independent centre in Mesopotamia. The Romans don't want that because they want to keep their share, and for the same reasons the Persians don't want it.
2) It would undermine trust between both powers, as both could see Baghdad as a method to undermine the other, and be undermined in turn.

Better to have the Kurdish North in Roman territory, and Shia south in Persian territory. I've already advocated for Roman control of Baghdad, as it anchors Roman control, but the idea of a split Baghdad hadn't occurred to me before - North in Roman control, with nothing more than a guard in the city, and Persia in the south, with the same rules.

This is exactly why I don't agree with a free Baghdad. It's utterly nonsensical for both nations that don't really care for Arab sovereignty while it just creates a scenario where both nations can potentially undermine each other and thus ruin the newly gained friendship between the two nations. Peace in Mesopotamia is possible, but it can be done simply by creating a permanent border that is accepted by both parties.

In fact, why are people so interested in bringing Baghdad back? The city is in ruins, practically depopulated, and the prestige of the city is trashed ever since the fall of the city at the hands of the Mongols and now again with a comparable sack by the Romans. Odysseus and Iskandar are better off just leveling the entire city together and use it to foster new "Baghdads" like Mepsila and Basra in a divided Mesopotamia. Bury the hatchet and let Baghdad fall into the sands like Ctesiphon, Seleucia, and Babylon before.

 

[Daylight Savings]

I think people like the idea because they like to see things that would be unexpected, or unlikely. The very reason it wouldn't happen is the reason for its appeal. I prefaced this at the beginning with the statement that it's more of a romantic fantasy than a practical solution. Of course the best thing to do to foster peace is destroy anything of value near the border. If there's nothing to take, there's no reason to invade. Just three hundred miles of enemy farms and villages on the way to a fortress city of either Mosul/Mepsila and Basra.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

This is exactly why I don't agree with a free Baghdad. It's utterly nonsensical for both nations that don't really care for Arab sovereignty while it just creates a scenario where both nations can potentially undermine each other and thus ruin the newly gained friendship between the two nations. Peace in Mesopotamia is possible, but it can be done simply by creating a permanent border that is accepted by both parties.

In fact, why are people so interested in bringing Baghdad back? The city is in ruins, practically depopulated, and the prestige of the city is trashed ever since the fall of the city at the hands of the Mongols and now again with a comparable sack by the Romans. Odysseus and Iskandar are better off just leveling the entire city together and use it to foster new "Baghdads" like Mepsila and Basra in a divided Mesopotamia. Bury the hatchet and let Baghdad fall into the sands like Ctesiphon, Seleucia, and Babylon before.

I like keeping Baghdad because its such an important strategic position. The fact its depopulated is advantageous to the Romans because then its a prime location to settle some Greeks or other Christians to effectively bulwark their control on this furthest frontier. Plus being on the border (as I have described before) makes it a great place for cultural exchange in the Post-War world. If an alliance persists beyond "the Great Crime" then as a previous place of multicultural learning historically its a symbolically perfect place to do so again - nowhere else has quite that sample strategic location or cultural legacy. Sure Mosul/Mepsila will be important (I expect for Kurds more than anyone else), and Basra too, but they won't have that combination of factors that Baghdad has.

 

[Denliner]

I think people like the idea because they like to see things that would be unexpected, or unlikely. The very reason it wouldn't happen is the reason for its appeal. I prefaced this at the beginning with the statement that it's more of a romantic fantasy than a practical solution. Of course the best thing to do to foster peace is destroy anything of value near the border. If there's nothing to take, there's no reason to invade. Just three hundred miles of enemy farms and villages on the way to a fortress city of either Mosul/Mepsila and Basra.

Yup, if Baghdad is gone then there's less of a reason for Rhomania and Persia to desire more land since it's essentially just villages, farms, and wetlands.

I'd have to concede that I would've believed in such a dream had Baghdad survived intact. But no, B444 makes it clear that Baghdad was crushed under the Roman boot, so rebuilding it wouldn't make sense under a divided Roman-Persian ownership of Mesopotamia.

I like keeping Baghdad because its such an important strategic position. The fact its depopulated is advantageous to the Romans because then its a prime location to settle some Greeks or other Christians to effectively bulwark their control on this furthest frontier. Plus being on the border (as I have described before) makes it a great place for cultural exchange in the Post-War world. If an alliance persists beyond "the Great Crime" then as a previous place of multicultural learning historically its a symbolically perfect place to do so again - nowhere else has quite that sample strategic location or cultural legacy. Sure Mosul/Mepsila will be important (I expect for Kurds more than anyone else), and Basra too, but they won't have that combination of factors that Baghdad has.

For me, I don't think that is worth restoring Baghdad. The Romans could easily establish garrisons in cities that are less depopulated or destroyed like Tikrit or Samarra in order to maintain control while the region can easily be populated by migrating Kurds, Assyrians, and Romans. The cake and saw campaign practically devastated the Arab population, so control over the region should be easy, as much as it pains me to say it. Settling and developing a city on the furthest edge of the border like Baghdad is inevitably going to cause tension between Rhomania and Persia, regardless of its good intentions. They don't need bulwarks (that's an aggressive move for a supposed conciliatory war), but instead foster communication and trade in the Euphrates and Tigris.

Mesopotamia can be a place of cultural exchange after the War of Wrath, but it doesn't need to be centered in a city like Baghdad. A network of cities and towns from Mepsila to Basra can produce the same results as long as there is peace, growth, and stability.

 

[EvilJam]

In my opinion, it's very likely that the Romans will have northern Mesopotamia centered around Mepsila/Mosul while the Persians retain the south around Basra for the sake of peace. To be honest, taking the Levant back and restoring the Pentarchy would've made Odysseus a hero in the eyes of the Romans, but northern Mesopotamia is a bonus and one that is most desirable for peace and for security for Rhomania. Taking all of Mesopotamia wouldn't benefit them as it would strain their relationship with Persia while also overextending their Empire when they're at their complete limit.

I'd like to suggest that Baghdad be the dividing line between Roman Mesopotamia and Persian Mesopotamia. While it is the central city of Mesopotamia, with the War of Wrath and the Sack of Baghdad, it's virtually in ruins and has lost its value. However, it will probably mean the end of Baghdad ITTL if the divide does take place.

---

As for the Levant and Mesopotamia, it's probably inevitable that the Romans are going to continue their policy of displacement against the Arabs in horrific fashion. If the "Great Crime" is going to happen, it will most likely happen in these regions, full stop. The Arabs are going to easily chafe again under the racist policies of the Romans and their attempts at resettling both regions with Romans, Melkites, and Assyrians like how they did so many times before under Roman occupation. Something's gotta give and it will end up being really ugly once it does.

I can see the Levant becoming part of Rhomania proper while Mesopotamia becomes an Assyrian despotate over the centuries, though it will be the result of centuries of genocide towards the existing Arab population.

"Chafe again under the racist policies of the Romans"

To be fair to the Romans, for centuries (?) at this point they've been following a "stay loyal and you can be what you want" policy. Arab Muslims had it (comparatively to other minorities in the world, and what was expected) very good.

They still didn't like being part of Rome, which I can obviously understand - but it isn't as if the Arab Muslims have been living under cruel oppression.

Obviously what comes next ('The Great Crime') is completely wrong, but prior to this Rome was ok to them.

In terms of something having to give - I'm pretty sure it already has. Rome at the highest levels of government have come to agree with the idea that 'removing' the Arab Muslims entirely is the best way to secure their land. From the descriptions of Syria and the like as already quite depopulated - well, I imagine there is little that could be done to stop Rome... dark times.

 

[ImperatorAlexander]

It's becoming increasingly clear that Persia is screwed, does that mean states that have been recently subdued by Ibrahim or his father on the Northern and Eastern fringes will get ideas? Seems like a real good opportunity to break free.