An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
Damn, guess Demetrios II actually made a sound long term decision. But wouldn't a Despotate be enough for the Serbs? Still a fairly autonomous arrangement, much better than Hungarian rule.
How kind of Poland to underestimate the Russians and Prussians who are no doubt looking to get some revenge.
Looks like this war has turned into a matter of life of death for the Vlachs, I expect them to fight even harder than the Romans.
On second thought, Poland is screwed, if they march South their flanks are easy pickings given their small army and recently conquered territories.
Neither the Arletians or the Milanese can really do much to oppose this. If they even attempt to object they will be rolled over by the two northern allies.
The Spanish are not a single country but an alliance, so they can be either played off each other or threatened into compliance.
The only ones that could trouble this unholy alliance are the Scandinavians (write off Denmark but the sea is open for raiding) and Russia (too damn big to occupy). Sicily won't be of much help (too easy to pick off the mainland) and Egypt will have to take care of the Indian Ocean by itself with the Roman eastern colonies, so Constantinople stands alone.
The Spanish are not a single country but an alliance, so they can be either played off each other or threatened into compliance.
The only ones that could trouble this unholy alliance are the Scandinavians (write off Denmark but the sea is open for raiding) and Russia (too damn big to occupy). Sicily won't be of much help (too easy to pick off the mainland) and Egypt will have to take care of the Indian Ocean by itself with the Roman eastern colonies, so Constantinople stands alone.
Castile and Portugal are in a personal union, and they recently subjugated most of Al Andalus. Aragon is a non-entity and IIRC is ruled by a Castilian puppet.
Correction: Castile and Portugal did in fact unite into Spain, capital Lisbon.
The Lombard's can definitely hold their own and will require any of the big boys to commit completely to beat. Something not possible since the main theatre will be in the Balkans. Although I think that they'll more likely aide against the Romans, perhaps Theodor can promise them free reign in Sicily in return.
If either Spain or Lombardia side with the Germans, Arles will be cowed into compliance, if the reverse is true they can distract the Triunes.
Last edited:
I've been reading some past updates and I get the sense that the Spanish will intervene to prevent the Triunes from exploiting this war too much. They know the Romans are going to be distracted and in for a massive fight, preventing them from strengthening their Asian possessions. But the Triunes are clearly becoming a much bigger threat, especially with this Ottoman Alliance. They need to take them down a notch before it is too late.
Spanish might be interested in intervening, IIRC they recently lost Bengal (Viceroyalty of Sutlej) to Triunes. On the other hand there is also bad blood beetween Portuguese and Rome.
However, if Ethiopians assist (and they should be interested in it, Triunes will push them out if Romans aren't there to support them) Romans should be able to take control of Indian Ocean and East Indies, since HRE, Hungary and Poland don't really help in naval theather.
Lots of naval fun ensues whether that's right or not and I'm really excited to read about it
However, if Ethiopians assist (and they should be interested in it, Triunes will push them out if Romans aren't there to support them) Romans should be able to take control of Indian Ocean and East Indies, since HRE, Hungary and Poland don't really help in naval theather.
Lots of naval fun ensues whether that's right or not and I'm really excited to read about it
I just finished reading upto 1549, and I'm in equal measure impressed and disappointed/dissatisfied.
On one hand, each section, on its own, is superb, and very plausible. Your writing is excellent.
However... While I love Byzantium, evidenced by the fact that my most played nation in CK2 is Byzantium, I feel like it's done far too well. It seems to have many great leaders in every generation, wheresw, for example, the Ottomans have had barely any. When it came to the time of troubles I was happy - finally, Byzantium would be curved, at least for a while... And when the Mad Empress had the fifth restriction against Muslims placed, I was ready for everything to erupt, and Byzantium to probably lose Syria, Palestine and Egypt in the ensuing wars. And then... They didn't, Copts achieved ascendancy by committing a massacre of Muslims (and sure, all Muslims in the empire are going to ignore this - I would expect a Jihad to be launched even by Al-Andalus because of the second sack of Cairo, but they do not, and everyone seems fine with it); the Ottomans were smashed, whereas I think they should have been successful, it would have been more interesting had they taken Syria and Palestine IMO. The Milanese acheivement success but only limited, and though the ERE effectively lost Egypt and Italy as well as truly losing Serbia, it's only come out slightly worse - people can be replaced, even if it lost some, and it's armies are still space marines.
If the section on the time of troubles was taken on its own, then I think it would be plausible, but taken with the rest of the story it's ridiculous. The only state with equivalent luck is the USA, who had a very special geographical position to explain it. At this point, I am expecting some more low level disasters, and some high level victories, with 90% of the Roman Emperors continuing to be amazing - there have only really been two bad ones that I can think of from the start, the Mad Empress and the Merchant who offered to ship the Ottos across the Aegean. Even Nikephoros, the Bloody Emperor, only failed IMO because he had syphilis and because apparently the guy who looked after animals was great at concealing the fact that he actually had an anime-level level of ridiculous background.
I'm still enjoying it, but at this point I'm treating it more as a fantasy than a vaguely realistic scenario.
On one hand, each section, on its own, is superb, and very plausible. Your writing is excellent.
However... While I love Byzantium, evidenced by the fact that my most played nation in CK2 is Byzantium, I feel like it's done far too well. It seems to have many great leaders in every generation, wheresw, for example, the Ottomans have had barely any. When it came to the time of troubles I was happy - finally, Byzantium would be curved, at least for a while... And when the Mad Empress had the fifth restriction against Muslims placed, I was ready for everything to erupt, and Byzantium to probably lose Syria, Palestine and Egypt in the ensuing wars. And then... They didn't, Copts achieved ascendancy by committing a massacre of Muslims (and sure, all Muslims in the empire are going to ignore this - I would expect a Jihad to be launched even by Al-Andalus because of the second sack of Cairo, but they do not, and everyone seems fine with it); the Ottomans were smashed, whereas I think they should have been successful, it would have been more interesting had they taken Syria and Palestine IMO. The Milanese acheivement success but only limited, and though the ERE effectively lost Egypt and Italy as well as truly losing Serbia, it's only come out slightly worse - people can be replaced, even if it lost some, and it's armies are still space marines.
If the section on the time of troubles was taken on its own, then I think it would be plausible, but taken with the rest of the story it's ridiculous. The only state with equivalent luck is the USA, who had a very special geographical position to explain it. At this point, I am expecting some more low level disasters, and some high level victories, with 90% of the Roman Emperors continuing to be amazing - there have only really been two bad ones that I can think of from the start, the Mad Empress and the Merchant who offered to ship the Ottos across the Aegean. Even Nikephoros, the Bloody Emperor, only failed IMO because he had syphilis and because apparently the guy who looked after animals was great at concealing the fact that he actually had an anime-level level of ridiculous background.
I'm still enjoying it, but at this point I'm treating it more as a fantasy than a vaguely realistic scenario.
You should continue reading, story changes Part of timeline that was a bit wankish was the immediate start (the Age of Miracles) and wars with Timur. After that the expansion and brilliance of Roman arms settles down. And don't worry about Ottomans, they do just fine.
Also, I think you're a bit too critical regarding the general success of the empire. History does not have to be balanced, and great powers usually aren't crushed regularly. They are great precisely because they win most of the time. What traditional great power lost so much of it's territory in outright war? They lost direct control of Egypt, Italy and Serbia and core of the Empire was ravaged. Look at the history of UK, Russia, France, Spain... It's unusual for great powers to be essentially dismembered and survive. Your critique seems more inspired by your storytelling preferences then by historical plausability.
Just compare them to the real life Ottomans, they share the starting core territories. When was Istanbul attacked from 1453 to 1918? Never, even while facing wars with great powers like Russia, Austria, Afsharid Iran, British Empire... Constantinople ITTL? It has to be 3 or 4 times by now?
On the contrary, I think the Empire is too constrained by desire for plausibility from ToT and beyond. With the level of sophistication and wealth the possess ITTL, they should fare much better.
Part of timeline that was a bit wankish was the immediate start (the Age of Miracles) and wars with Timur. After that the expansion and brilliance of Roman arms settles down. And don't worry about Ottomans, they do just fine.Also, I think you're a bit too critical regarding the general success of the empire. History does not have to be balanced, and great powers usually aren't crushed regularly. They are great precisely because they win most of the time. What traditional great power lost so much of it's territory in outright war? They lost direct control of Egypt, Italy and Serbia and core of the Empire was ravaged. Look at the history of UK, Russia, France, Spain... It's unusual for great powers to be essentially dismembered and survive. Your critique seems more inspired by your storytelling preferences then by historical plausability.
Just compare them to the real life Ottomans, they share the starting core territories. When was Istanbul attacked from 1453 to 1918? Never, even while facing wars with great powers like Russia, Austria, Afsharid Iran, British Empire... Constantinople ITTL? It has to be 3 or 4 times by now?
On the contrary, I think the Empire is too constrained by desire for plausibility from ToT and beyond. With the level of sophistication and wealth the possess ITTL, they should fare much better.
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply, and thanks for the hint (I don't know if that's the right word for this but whatevs), this reassures me.You should continue reading, story changes
Also, I think you're a bit too critical regarding the general success of the empire. History does not have to be balanced, and great powers usually aren't crushed regularly. They are great precisely because they win most of the time. What traditional great power lost so much of it's territory in outright war? They lost direct control of Egypt, Italy and Serbia and core of the Empire was ravaged. Look at the history of UK, Russia, France, Spain... It's unusual for great powers to be essentially dismembered and survive. Your critique seems more inspired by your storytelling preferences then by historical plausability.
Just compare them to the real life Ottomans, they share the starting core territories. When was Istanbul attacked from 1453 to 1918? Never, even while facing wars with great powers like Russia, Austria, Afsharid Iran, British Empire... Constantinople ITTL? It has to be 3 or 4 times by now?
On the contrary, I think the Empire is too constrained by desire for plausibility from ToT and beyond. With the level of sophistication and wealth the possess ITTL, they should fare much better.
I consider Russia to be a very lucky state, and more importantly, an incredibly resilient one. Moscow itself was attacked many times, and during the Time of Troubles, after Ivan Grozny died, a polish king was almost placed upon its throne. Much territory was lost, much of which was regained IIRC by Pyotr Veliky, who was about a century after. That is the only state I can think of (maybe slightly biased lol) that faced very similar tribulations and survived and Russia had its bad moments, for example the revolutions of 1917.
Regarding great powers being smashed, the only two I can think of that weren't invaded and completely wrecked for a time are the UK and USA (I think Byzantium is occupying the niche of the USA TTL), and surprise surprise they became the most powerful nations in turn. But, though Germany, France, Russia, China were invaded and ravaged they survived, as did, to a lesser extent, Spain, A-H, and the Ottos. I guess that fits with the narrative, but all had to recover for a long time afterwards - just see WW2, WW1, or to a lesser extent the Napoleonic wars.
Istanbul was often almost attacked and the Ottos had to rely on foreign powers to save them (France + Uk).
One of the most (potentially) aggravating things was how each bad event was hyped by the previous thread, and then they all seemed a let down - for example the Black Day, which was bad, of course, but IMO wasn't that bad.
Of course, I'm rooting against ERE TTL now, because of the fact that they commit the most egregious war crimes (or encourage others to do so, though they make it look like they didn't (Cairo • 2) TTL and get away with it, as well as being too snobbish.
Realistically, I think much of Europe would war against the ERE in an effort to maintain balance... Although some countries may backstab and betray the attackers...oh wait. The 10th crusade, which IMO should have ended with Italy being reclaimed by the crusaders, ended in a smashing Byzantine victory!
TBH, due to the great writing, I still love this TL and it is probably my favourite pre 1900 TL, but I was just tired of these (IMO) slightly egregious breaches of realism.
I apologise, that was a bit of a rant (oops).
Derekc2: Yeah, Henri II will be known as the Spider for a reason. The HRE and Roman Empire are the only two powers in the West that can pose a challenge to the Triple Monarchy. Anything that gets them fighting is a good thing in Henri’s book.
HanEmpire: It’s not backstabbing, that would be rude and wrong. No, it’s pragmatic diplomatic initiatives undertaken in a complex and chaotic multipolar political climate. Nobody can object to that…
Yeah, the Triune navy is going to focus on the east. That’s where the opportunities are.
AvatarOfKhaine: Do you remember that Demetrios was willing to blow up part of the White Palace? If Theodor were to take the throne away from Demetrios, he might find it to be a bit of a hot seat…
MarshalofMontival: How dare you malign the good name of the Triunes! They’ll back up their German allies to the best of their abilities. And no, really, I’m not being particularly specific in my word choices, honestly.
ImperatorAlexander: Triunes have merchant vessels active in the western Mediterranean, but no bases for fleet operations. So sending fleets to the Mediterranean is an option but maintaining them there would be nearly impossible. And challenging the Roman navy in its home waters would prove to be highly…uncomfortable.
The Romans, Spanish, and Triunes are the three big western powers in eastern waters. They’re all closely matched and they all have beefs with each other.
Arles and Lombardy are both in awkward spots. Either the Triple Monarchy or the HRE getting too powerful is really bad news (the Romans, being off to the side and further away, are less of an issue). But if they side with the Romans, they’ll be the first target since they’re closer. And Arles in particular is really exposed.
Deploying Roman naval assets to the east is a real pain. Any ship has to be broken up (the canal can only accommodate flat-bottom barges, and not big ones at that), carted overland, and reassembled at a Red Sea port. And the Red Sea is not nice to sailing ships (winds and currents do not cooperate) so there’s a good chance that after all that effort the ship gets wrecked. The reason Aden is such a big port is that the galleons port there and transfer their goods to merchant galleys for the run to Suez. This is a key reason why the Romans, despite being around longer, have been having difficulties. The Latins have a much longer sail to get there, but a war-galleon can go ‘direct’ from one of their naval yards.
Kimo: Cackling has been clinically proven to be therapeutic (not really, but I think so).
Soverihn: The East is where the Triune efforts will have the most punch, since there the Triunes will be completely sincere. (The next update will help show why.)
JohnSmith: Why are they still playing pretend Roman Emperor? Because for some reason they keep calling a polity, most of which was never a part of the Roman Empire, the Holy ROMAN Empire. (It should be noted that in Roman correspondence they’re always referred to as the Emperor of the Germans, because they think the claims are equally stupid, although they’re usually polite enough not to say so.)
Babyrage: With Demetrios II, well a stopped clock is still right twice a day. A Despotate might work, but Serbia’s main value in Constantinople’s eyes is as a buffer state. Economically a Despotate of Serbia wouldn’t be worth that much, not enough to justify potential damage to its effectiveness as buffer. It should be noted that when the Hungarians originally annexed Serbia, the Romans took Novo Brdo and its silver mines and that area is still Roman.
Spain’s rather busy at the moment. Al-Andalus has been reduced to OTL Emirate of Granada borders, but there’s a reason the Emirate IOTL was able to last 200+ years. Grinding through mountains forts really isn’t fun. With that going on, Lisbon doesn’t have much spare money or manpower to throw around.
Luis3007: Spain, Arles, and Lombardy are all big enough that they could hurt, although not stop the Triple Monarchy or HRE but the effort would derail an attack on Rhomania, which requires full strength. But because of geography they’d be the first to be attacked and are disinclined to fall on their sword for Constantinople. After all, it’s quite possible the Roman reinforcements would unfortunately be unable to arrive in time to prevent the, say, Lombards from being crushed, although still able to fall on the battered Germans before they can recover and rout them.
Stark: The Ethiopians will back the Romans. The Spanish are a definite wild card as they have equal reason to hate both the Romans (in the east they’re been rivals for much longer than they’ve been fighting the Triunes) and Triunes.
Divefr: Much of your arguments for realism would make the OTL Ottoman Empire unrealistic. They had a string of good to great sultans from Osman I to Suleiman the Magnificent, 250+ years (just look at how much their domains increased in that span). And that could’ve kept going if harem intrigue hadn’t killed the capable heir and ended up replacing him with Selim the Sot. And even then when Sultan quality started to fluctuate, there were extremely capable viziers to make up the shortfall. It’s only at 1683 when things really started going downhill, four centuries after Osman I. And the Ottomans never faced a pan-European effort to cut them down to size in the name of maintaining balance. (there were some big alliances against them, Nicopolis, the Holy League that fought Lepanto, the alliance that fought the 1683 war, but there were too many gaps for those to be considered ‘much of Europe’).
HanEmpire: It’s not backstabbing, that would be rude and wrong. No, it’s pragmatic diplomatic initiatives undertaken in a complex and chaotic multipolar political climate. Nobody can object to that…
Yeah, the Triune navy is going to focus on the east. That’s where the opportunities are.
AvatarOfKhaine: Do you remember that Demetrios was willing to blow up part of the White Palace? If Theodor were to take the throne away from Demetrios, he might find it to be a bit of a hot seat…
MarshalofMontival: How dare you malign the good name of the Triunes! They’ll back up their German allies to the best of their abilities. And no, really, I’m not being particularly specific in my word choices, honestly.
ImperatorAlexander: Triunes have merchant vessels active in the western Mediterranean, but no bases for fleet operations. So sending fleets to the Mediterranean is an option but maintaining them there would be nearly impossible. And challenging the Roman navy in its home waters would prove to be highly…uncomfortable.
The Romans, Spanish, and Triunes are the three big western powers in eastern waters. They’re all closely matched and they all have beefs with each other.
Arles and Lombardy are both in awkward spots. Either the Triple Monarchy or the HRE getting too powerful is really bad news (the Romans, being off to the side and further away, are less of an issue). But if they side with the Romans, they’ll be the first target since they’re closer. And Arles in particular is really exposed.
Deploying Roman naval assets to the east is a real pain. Any ship has to be broken up (the canal can only accommodate flat-bottom barges, and not big ones at that), carted overland, and reassembled at a Red Sea port. And the Red Sea is not nice to sailing ships (winds and currents do not cooperate) so there’s a good chance that after all that effort the ship gets wrecked. The reason Aden is such a big port is that the galleons port there and transfer their goods to merchant galleys for the run to Suez. This is a key reason why the Romans, despite being around longer, have been having difficulties. The Latins have a much longer sail to get there, but a war-galleon can go ‘direct’ from one of their naval yards.
Kimo: Cackling has been clinically proven to be therapeutic (not really, but I think so).
Soverihn: The East is where the Triune efforts will have the most punch, since there the Triunes will be completely sincere. (The next update will help show why.)
JohnSmith: Why are they still playing pretend Roman Emperor? Because for some reason they keep calling a polity, most of which was never a part of the Roman Empire, the Holy ROMAN Empire. (It should be noted that in Roman correspondence they’re always referred to as the Emperor of the Germans, because they think the claims are equally stupid, although they’re usually polite enough not to say so.)
Babyrage: With Demetrios II, well a stopped clock is still right twice a day. A Despotate might work, but Serbia’s main value in Constantinople’s eyes is as a buffer state. Economically a Despotate of Serbia wouldn’t be worth that much, not enough to justify potential damage to its effectiveness as buffer. It should be noted that when the Hungarians originally annexed Serbia, the Romans took Novo Brdo and its silver mines and that area is still Roman.
Spain’s rather busy at the moment. Al-Andalus has been reduced to OTL Emirate of Granada borders, but there’s a reason the Emirate IOTL was able to last 200+ years. Grinding through mountains forts really isn’t fun. With that going on, Lisbon doesn’t have much spare money or manpower to throw around.
Luis3007: Spain, Arles, and Lombardy are all big enough that they could hurt, although not stop the Triple Monarchy or HRE but the effort would derail an attack on Rhomania, which requires full strength. But because of geography they’d be the first to be attacked and are disinclined to fall on their sword for Constantinople. After all, it’s quite possible the Roman reinforcements would unfortunately be unable to arrive in time to prevent the, say, Lombards from being crushed, although still able to fall on the battered Germans before they can recover and rout them.
Stark: The Ethiopians will back the Romans. The Spanish are a definite wild card as they have equal reason to hate both the Romans (in the east they’re been rivals for much longer than they’ve been fighting the Triunes) and Triunes.
Divefr: Much of your arguments for realism would make the OTL Ottoman Empire unrealistic. They had a string of good to great sultans from Osman I to Suleiman the Magnificent, 250+ years (just look at how much their domains increased in that span). And that could’ve kept going if harem intrigue hadn’t killed the capable heir and ended up replacing him with Selim the Sot. And even then when Sultan quality started to fluctuate, there were extremely capable viziers to make up the shortfall. It’s only at 1683 when things really started going downhill, four centuries after Osman I. And the Ottomans never faced a pan-European effort to cut them down to size in the name of maintaining balance. (there were some big alliances against them, Nicopolis, the Holy League that fought Lepanto, the alliance that fought the 1683 war, but there were too many gaps for those to be considered ‘much of Europe’).
Looks like allies will be the determining factor in the naval race. The Romans have Ethiopians and maybe the Omanese. The Triunes (sort of) have the Ottomans. How do these 2nd tier Naval powers stack up against each other? I reckon the Ethiopians and Omanese are comfortably ahead of any of powers aside from the big 3.
IIRC having a worse than average generation of leadership for the Romans (and the opposite for the Ottomans) was what really decided the Eternal War. How does this generation of leadership compare to the previous? Demetrios III is definitely a big improvement over II, and judging by Theodor's actions so far he's definitely no Iskandar....
I suppose an economically and militarily dependent state subject to tariffs could potentially be as/more profitable than an oppressed vassal. How are the Serbs doing as a buffer state? I would assume Hungarian reprisals would be high on their priority list and started arming up as soon as they achieved independence.
What's to stop them from playing nice with the Triple Monarchy and HRE at the beginning of the war then promptly backstabbing them when their forces are tied down in the Balkans (doesn't really matter if they're winning or losing)? If it requires a full strength commitment to take out a 2nd tier power then it'll require 120% and more to even threaten the Empire.
That seems like the best case scenario, let the big powers bleed each other then pounce when they're weakened.
Easier said than done, particularly with the Triunes holding a lot of their forces back. Although, I suppose it's possible if the Triunes change sides.....
hmmm, so almost no possibilities of support in Europe. I guess the Spanish may intervene, but they'll be busy protecting their own and occasionally exploiting the situation. I'm starting to think that if Russia doesn't reunite fast, the roman isolation in the west plus rival Persian to the east will cost, in the long run, Island Asia for Rhomania (which is incidentally one of the few ways for Rhomania to remain a "superpower").
The smaller European powers can not intervene. Why should they fall on their swords to help the Romans? Because any land gain they may achieve in the war will be swiftly crushed by the returning Germans or Triunes. And it is highly likely that the Triunes will keep most of their army back precisely to guard against backstabbing. The Germans may be surprised but even then attrition would doom such an attack.
The Eastern Roman colonies in Asia OTOH are in real danger of destruction if the Triunes, the Ottomans and the Chinese gang on the Romans. Hell, even the Spanish would attack them only there to take a piece of the pie before their enemies gobble up all of it.
The Eastern Roman colonies in Asia OTOH are in real danger of destruction if the Triunes, the Ottomans and the Chinese gang on the Romans. Hell, even the Spanish would attack them only there to take a piece of the pie before their enemies gobble up all of it.
Fair enough; I mainly was just worried about the fact that, IIRC, the ERE had an almost unbroken string of victories - I believe the Ottos suffered some reverses, although I'm no expert - and was getting off lightly with its rebellion inducing behaviour but the next few wars assuaged my fears (with Ottos and the Malik)
Anyways, suberb writing!
Now, three questions:
1. How are Lithuania, Novgorod, Pronsk and Scythia doing?
2. Do we have an approximate comparison of great powers navy wise?
3. Any plans for Russia to reunite?
Oops, forgot one question: How important is Moscow, as I thought it's well geographically placed, and so would still grow to be important?
Last edited:
I don't see why anyone in Europe or even away from Europe would want to see the unholy not Roman emperor become basileus. Not even his own allies in the coming war. If Louis XIV gaining Spain was bad this is even worse. Which means the smaller European powers have the option of backing Constantinople now, or getting hanged separately later.
Joining here. Do you perhaps have some rough comparison in galleon/fregatai strenght for main combatants?