Idwaits in Sudanese Brown, Howeitats in Jordanese Pink, Northern Anizzah in Syrian Purple, and Nejd in Daesh Black.
Those are some wacky hue names.
Edit: is the light purple in Bahrain the Omani and green the Sharifate of Hejaz?
Idwaits in Sudanese Brown, Howeitats in Jordanese Pink, Northern Anizzah in Syrian Purple, and Nejd in Daesh Black.
Indeed. Omani Pink and Random Arabian Green.Those are some wacky hue names.
Edit: is the light purple in Bahrain the Omani and green the Sharifate of Hejaz?
Indeed. Omani Pink and Random Arabian Green.
I described the colors using the name of the primary country that owns it in TACOS.
Rome can't support ~200,000 in a single theater in the East the way they can in the Aegean basin because of logistics but I don't see why they can't have two ~90,000 man armies - one in Syria and the other in northern Mesopotamia. Theodoros Laskaris had roughly 80-90 thousand men in Syria and Gabras had 90,000 at Nineveh in northern Mesopotamia. That doesn't count any raiding forces from the Georgian border either. Won't be easy but it is doable especially with a couple years to build up supply depots in the areas.
If after the truce ends Rome launches not one but two 90,000 man offensives in two separate theaters at the same time the Ottomans are pretty screwed. They have neither the natural defenses nor the manpower to stop those attacks. They also (probably) can't rely on European powers to distract the Romans this time around as Latin Europe will be either fighting its own battles and/or be far too war-weary to fight Rome so soon after this current war ends.
Not to mention that D3/Theodoros Laskaris have already begun revamping officer training in the Army. The biggest drawback that Rome faced in this war (besides horrendous luck) was that her upper-tier officers (OTL colonels and above) weren't very good early on. The new officer training mentioned before D3 moved the eastern armies to Europe will pay dividends in the war vs the Ottomans once the truce ends.
I think the biggest issue with it, is that the logistics required are effectively lugging the supplies overland, and if we're ensuring 100% secure logistics, we're looking at via the highlands. This is different if a Syrian campaign can rapidly secure the lowland route, but at least initially, we're going to need large stockpiles in northern Mesopotamia which will really give the game away, moreso than the arrive of 90,000 men. But I do agree it is likely within the capacity of the Romans ports.
Seperate? Maybe, but certainly sympathetic theatres. As highlighted above, if a Syrian campaign can ensure the lowland route is secure, a Mesopotamian campaign can be far more aggressive. This is the poison pill that Ibrahim was scared of, perhaps not the scale of two invasions, but the ability for the Romans to effectively force him into a two-front war. Personally, I think the Romans would do well to make this a three front war. 100k in Mesopotamia, 40k in Syria to clean up when Ibrahim inevitably withdraws, or at least to prevent Ibrahim from cutting off the Mesopotamian force - and then another 40k alongside support from Georgia in the highlands, essentially more interested in strategic positions and disruption than outright capture of territory. If Georgia is able and willing to provide more than 40k, then maybe shuffle 20k back to Syria, but that forces Ibrahim to fight in three theatres, in such a way that ignoring ANY of them, will likely mean disaster.
Competence and Veterans. I feel somewhat bad for Ibrahim. It'd be like fighting his fathers army.
Here is the completed map I have been working on !
This is long before oil.Vlachia is considerably larger than I realised - I thought it was more akin to Wallachia's borders in EU4.
They basically comprise modern day Romania, which means they have the potential to be a prosperous regional power. In OTL Romania was referred to as France of the East and Bucharest as the Paris of the East, before the World Wars and Communist rule had income levels in Europe massively diverge.
Take away those calamities, add in a powerful economic partner and defender, mix in some sweet oil income; and Vlachia has good prospects. Their relationship with Rhome will probably end up similar to the shared Anglo special relationship between the USA and UK.
Vlachia lacks Crisana and Maramures compared to OTL Romania, but compensates with having all the Banat and Podolia and Yedisan West of the Southern Bug.Vlachia is considerably larger than I realised - I thought it was more akin to Wallachia's borders in EU4.
They basically comprise modern day Romania, which means they have the potential to be a prosperous regional power. In OTL Romania was referred to as France of the East and Bucharest as the Paris of the East, before the World Wars and Communist rule had income levels in Europe massively diverge.
Take away those calamities, add in a powerful economic partner and defender, mix in some sweet oil income; and Vlachia has good prospects. Their relationship with Rhome will probably end up similar to the shared Anglo special relationship between the USA and UK.
Not yet, took me six weeks to have the Euromediterranean region done due to conflicting time zones. But it is definitely in the cards.Awesome and detailed map! Would be even more awesome if there is a global version for the map too so I can sneak a peek on what is going on in Asia and the new world.
There hasn't been any official exchange of territory. Once there will, ie once peace is reached with the Idwaits, it will show up on the map.I assume the Ethiopian and Egyptian gains in Upper Egypt and Sudan (Hejaz and Yemen too maybe?) are going to continue to increase after the flooding season so they aren't indicated on the map yet?
I believe it was at some point. Can't remember when exactly, though. And yes, dark brown is Marinid Mali.Was the Southern Anizzah Confederation depicted on the 1625 map conquered by the Howeitats sometime in between the 2 maps?
I'm assuming the Dark Brown in Western Africa is the Mali Empire (possibly subjugated by the Marinids as part of their sub-Saharan hegemony?) Marinids would make a nice juicy target for the 3 Johns Alliance and Rhomania in the future BTW.
Is the Emirate of Darfur, Emirate of Nejd and the Hadhramaut state (Kathiris?) neutral? Hejaz was an Ottoman vassal according to the 1625 map. Is there any progress with the Ethiopian siege of Yanbu and Jeddah? They successfully stormed Aden together with the Romans so I assume the Imamate of Yemen has a similar status of subservience to the Ottomans. If the Demetrian Agreement didn't include Ethiopian gains, maybe Yemen is independent?
Maps are not necessarily instant snapshots of the world, I have met other types in the fact.The dashed zones look odd on the map and make it unclear who owns what. You should probably instead reflect current owner and recognized borders, regardless of current debate. Just use the normal 'claims' method of outlining the land in a claimed country's colour. That look much nicer and be clearer. Also why even show it on places where treaties have been signed and borders recognized? It doesn't matter if land recently changed, or even often changes, hands. This should be a snapshot of the world at the current moment.
Despotates should probably use a colour or other indication that shows they are Rhoman puppet states/vassals for clarity as well.
I still think it mostly just looks confusing.Maps are not necessarily instant snapshots of the world, I have met other types in the fact.
I tend to treat the minimaps as snapshots and the greater map for people to have an idea of "what land has changed hands recently".
Without subtext, yes, but it kinda is the reason I have added an explanation under the map.I still think it mostly just looks confusing.