True. And it may not change how they feel about the empire.
An Age of Miracles III: The Romans Endure
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
Having the Catholics be dispersed into RITE sounds like a very bad idea, even if they ended up as minority communities. It's precious money and resources that they're spending trying to deport them from Sicily when Rhomania is in no position to do that (plus Sicily is actually an important Despotate compared to lands like Syria so Rome can't even push that "eliminate heretic religion button" nonchalantly) while this will only foster unrest if a critical population of Catholics forms in an increasingly Orthodox RITE.
I think Constantinople is forced to make some concessions to the Catholics post-Tourmarches, at least they get their bearings in order and the Orthodox Church will attempt to do conversion efforts in cities like Naples, though whether that will be effective remains to be seen.
Even if they managed to deport them, that doesn't eliminate their resentment towards Rhomania for what they did. They're either angry or they are dead.
Last edited:
Essentially Rome needs to stop seeing Sicily as a subject part of its empire and treat it as "us". So, interests of people in Naples matter the same as those in Antioch, and no exploiting Sicilian economy to bolster heartland.
How realistic is that - I think very little unless Sicily is also ruled directly from Constantinople, meaning direct taxation and recruitment. No ruler in Constantinople will prioritise essentially foreign land to his own, even if he values it as an ally. To paraphrase a former emperor, "gratitude is worth its weight in gold".
Long term Montana matters more to US than Australia to United Kingdom - just cultural and commercial ties will only take you so far.
How realistic is that - I think very little unless Sicily is also ruled directly from Constantinople, meaning direct taxation and recruitment. No ruler in Constantinople will prioritise essentially foreign land to his own, even if he values it as an ally. To paraphrase a former emperor, "gratitude is worth its weight in gold".
Long term Montana matters more to US than Australia to United Kingdom - just cultural and commercial ties will only take you so far.
The turmoil in the Despotate of Sicily is making me wonder how things are in Rome the city. Its directly administered by the empire and for cultural/sentimental reasons I doubt they'd let it fall to crap. Maybe a bit unrealistic short term but I hope in the future of this timeline the Romans put in some effort to restore the eternal city to at least some of its former glory, should be easier as well because iirc there was no renaissance papcy so alot more of the ancient city should survive + rhomania still knows how to make roman concrete
Alas, I find the phrase more than a little ominous: it would be a tragic irony that the linchpin to Athena's plan to nip the Tourmarches' power in the bud would die trying to salvage the very debacle that sent him into the arms of Athena.
Empress Sophia? With her Cousin as regent, and Athena in the back acting as consigliere? Nah he is too good, he will get picked up by enemies of the Tourmarchs, and then get un-alived through intrigue or happenstance. I could see young Sophia having hero-worshipped her Aunt, so this would harken to Helena days, only with a lot more steel.
What I will be curious to see unfold is the veterans of this war and how that will tint the narrative, this is a war just for war's sake. The peace that coming is not the peace the Romans had in mind when they started this venture, so it will be a double blow to the Armies stature. The newpapers will have been proven right, and they still lost the war. Imagine having your life on the line for the state in said war, where you won many of the many battles, and coming home to that. Either they turn on the people, which I don't see happening with how the tagma are raised, or they turn on the leaders who put them in the situation to fail.
What I will be curious to see unfold is the veterans of this war and how that will tint the narrative, this is a war just for war's sake. The peace that coming is not the peace the Romans had in mind when they started this venture, so it will be a double blow to the Armies stature. The newpapers will have been proven right, and they still lost the war. Imagine having your life on the line for the state in said war, where you won many of the many battles, and coming home to that. Either they turn on the people, which I don't see happening with how the tagma are raised, or they turn on the leaders who put them in the situation to fail.
I may be very late to the party and you probably answered this in past threads, but I'm a new reader so I must ask:
Since this Rome is very Greek and associates with Greek culture and speaks Greek while demonizing the western European descendants of the Germanic barbarian tribes (Franks, Alemanni, Saxons, Lombards, Visigoths, etc) as "Latin," is there any sense of disconnect between the modern Romans and the fact that their ancestors and culture were Latin-speaking residents of Italy? Do they actively dislike their past and ignore classical Rome like Caesar and Camillus and Scipio and Augustus and Trajan in favor of post-Constantine, and even so post 1204 with the Laskarids and second Komenians?
Do they have any love for the old "Eternal City" or do they only view it as a Papist stronghold not worthy of remembrance in the same way as Constantinople (for example keeping the Hagia Sophia or Bucelon Palace clean and secure while ignoring the Forum Romanum or Colosseum). I'm curious how the ITTL modern Romans see their past
Since this Rome is very Greek and associates with Greek culture and speaks Greek while demonizing the western European descendants of the Germanic barbarian tribes (Franks, Alemanni, Saxons, Lombards, Visigoths, etc) as "Latin," is there any sense of disconnect between the modern Romans and the fact that their ancestors and culture were Latin-speaking residents of Italy? Do they actively dislike their past and ignore classical Rome like Caesar and Camillus and Scipio and Augustus and Trajan in favor of post-Constantine, and even so post 1204 with the Laskarids and second Komenians?
Do they have any love for the old "Eternal City" or do they only view it as a Papist stronghold not worthy of remembrance in the same way as Constantinople (for example keeping the Hagia Sophia or Bucelon Palace clean and secure while ignoring the Forum Romanum or Colosseum). I'm curious how the ITTL modern Romans see their past
From what I recall, there’s some acknowledgment of the pre-Christian Rhomania Empire, but much greater affinity for pre-Roman Greece, and for the most part they identify with the post-Constantine Empire.
One thing I could see changing that culture would be a rise of Italian nationalism. The government and intelligentsia in Constantinople might respond that that by very consciously emphasising the Empire’s Roman-ness to legitimize their rule of Italy.
I feel that it is more likely that nationalism as we know it doesn't exist ITTL. It arose in the 18th/19th Centuries as a result of some pretty specific set of circumstances that (most likely) won't occur here.
I remember from the time of either Demetrios Megas or Andreas Nikitas that they were attempting to make it a "Greco-Roman" civilization that combined the two. That Roman civilization made Greek civilization better while the Greeks helped civilize the warlike Romans, but that the two were in a continuum.
The issue is that these Romans call themselves Roman but seem to reject Classical Rome in terms of classification. They deride "Latins" when their entire civilization started as Latin. That could be done away with by associating the Germans, Triunes, Spanish, etc as "Frankish/Goth Barbarians" but they don't do that. I'm curious as to the disconnect here. Do they hate their own past and history for being Latin and Italian in origin? Do they feel no kinship to the Eternal City itself? Cause Constantinople always prided itself as the continuation of the Roman Empire of Augustus and Trajan.
My understanding of the litearture on the origins of nationalism point to the idea that, while national identies are constructed and highly contextual, some form of national consciousness seems almost inevitable as a result of moderization[1]. Rhomania is extremely unlikely for example to have problems with orthodox minorities in their borders, because there's very little reason for them to form distinct national characters from Constantinople.
Roman Italy though, as was shown above is majority catholic and non-greek speaking, and faces significant discrimination from that fact by the greek orthodox elite, which is a major factor that lead to political activation of ethnic/religious minorities in the OTL Ottoman Empire and the 19th century European colonial empires. Now, it's significantly less likely that this "Italian" nationalism would be of a pan-Italian character, but there's a lot of potential for issues; the political autonomy of Italy might itself be a double edged sword, in the same way that lead to the formation of a distinct identity in Britains colonies.
1. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-101841
I imagine that if any nationalism comes up in Rhomania it'll be more territorial and cultural (Roman heritage, Orthodox Christianity) than ethnic.
Most likely yes, which is why I'd put the majority Catholic Italy and Coptic/(whatever sect the Arab Christians there belong to) Egypt as the biggest risks as far as nationalist movements within Rhomania go. That’s not to say they’d necessarily result in the breakup of the current Empire, but keeping it going long term will likely require extensive repression or a fundamental change in the power dynamic of the relationship (right now they’re basically colonies).
If there's enough Orthodox Christians in Syria and Egypt, Rhomania can easily use that as a rallying point for unity. Catholic Italy would be the most difficult and most likely the one that'll want independence the most.
Maybe we'll see a Kingdom of Egypt in a personal union with the Romans, or ruled by a cadet branch? And I'm guessing the Sicilies are going to be in for an absolute mess once the 20th century rolls around, if not earlier. Can't wait for the Romaic Republic of Eastern Sicily.
And for that Sicily to conquer the rest of Italy.
But anyways an Egypt that’s either with Constantinople or on its own will be interesting. But based on what I’ve read I imagine it’ll be a part of Rhomania.
Catholics and Sicily: The last time I posted a population figure for the Despotate of Sicily is what 3+ million. That number is out-of-date, but going with it for now, that would mean Sicilian Catholics are currently around 2+ million. Trying to move that population with mid-1600s transportation isn’t feasible, if the goal is to have them be alive at the end of the journey. And transporting them to RITE is definitely out. I believe the transatlantic slave trade, over 450 years, moved something like 12 million people, just to put things in perspective.
This is effectively Great Crime 2.0, and, let’s be honest, it would be doing it to a population that Latin Europe is much more likely to care about. Not that 17th century Europe was big on humanitarian interventions, but think about how much Louis XIV’s treatment of the Huguenots did to French reputation abroad. And this would be with a much larger population.
And it would utterly wreck the Sicilian economy. The Great Crime did wreck the Syrian economy (which is still a mess, hence why it is not able to support this Roman war effort like previous ones). The Romans were willing to pay that price, but there was that price. It’s hard for Sicily to produce food if all the farmers have been deported.
Finally, and on the Doylist level, there is the moral aspect. While in some ways I like Rhomania being precocious, imitating the twentieth century’s go-to solution of ethnic cleansing to ‘tidy up’ populations is decidedly not one of them. This period is meant to be “the nadir of the Roman soul”, and I consider it a plausible and logical development from events before, the constant fear and hate-mongering of the Latins, the insecurity of feeling constantly under siege. But while I find it interesting to explore for a time, there is a part of me that is looking forward to the Rhomania of the late 1600s and beyond, which is much less hate and fear filled, and frankly more likable. (Hardly perfect-looks at Java, but less dark.)
“The Emperor is unwell. That is why I and my daughter, I mean the Empress, are taking charge and ruling in his stead.”
It is a weakness in her position. It’d be much easier if her son Ioannes was still alive to add that masculine face.
Can’t get into this much because of spoilers. But Doukas is a soldier, not a politician. He’s not really an intriguer. As of right now, there is a war on the eastern frontier and as Domestikos of the East, it is his job to wage it. Period. Once peace is achieved, then he is free to act otherwise. But his job is to make war, not make peace.
This. And it is a catch-22. Constantinople won’t truly treat Naples as an integral and equal part unless it is directly controlled by Constantinople. But Naples won’t consent to be directly controlled unless it is already treated as an integral and equal part.
The ancient sites of Rome do have the advantage of no Renaissance Papacy looting them for building material. But sentiment can only go so far. Rome the city right now is rather small and run down because with the Papacy gone, it has lost its economic motor. It doesn’t have a commercial or industrial sector like Firenze or Genoa or Milan, or a rich agricultural hinterland like Naples does with Campania. Catholic pilgrimage is down massively and it doesn’t have the draw for Orthodox pilgrims, who will go to Constantinople. So while there is some will to at least not let the place fall into ruin, there just isn’t the money. The priorities are closer to home.
It’s complicated. But then it was complicated IOTL. Ioannes III Doukas Vatatzes claimed the mantle of Emperor of the Romans, but made disparaging remarks about the Latin language in letters to the Pope, which rather confused the Pontiff. But then his son Theodoros II in his writings drew on classical Roman figures such as Caesar and Cato and Trajan as models of statesmanship. And at the same time he referred to himself and his subjects as Hellenes and his realm as Hellas. (This is all OTL.)
There is this constant schizophrenic tension. They definitely assert that they are Romans, but they are ambivalent about the Latin and pagan aspects of their past. Sometimes they’re willing to get closer to these aspects, and sometimes they back away, but they’re not willing to sever that connection, because again they identify as Roman. But this is why they prefer to focus on the Greek aspects of their past, because then that annoying cognitive dissonance goes away.
So there isn’t a straight answer. I’m confused about the relationship, because I think the TTL Byzantines were confused about the relationship themselves.
Hope that helps, although I’m not sure it clarifies.
In Egypt, Orthodox Christians number in the low tens of thousands out of a population of millions of Copts, Nile Germans, and Sunni remainers. We’re talking literally 1-2%. Ever since the conquest of Egypt, there hasn’t been much Greek Orthodox immigration or proselytizing, and the Copt-boosting efforts there started rather early (and probably succeeded far too well from Constantinople’s long-term POV, but to fix that would involve going back to around 1500).
Syria is…complicated. It used to be dominated by Sunni Muslims, which is clearly not the case now. Now it’s a mix of different groups, Greek Orthodox, Melkites (Arab Orthodox), Assyrian Christians, Armenian Christians, Alawites, Maronites, Druzes, and Shi’a. (And it would not surprise me if I’ve forgotten groups.) It’s basically an uber-Lebanon. The Greek Orthodox also have a tendency to be very concentrated in the north and in certain coastal cities, and practically nonexistent everywhere else.
Nationalism: I feel that the rise of some form of nationalism is inevitable. Humanity has a tendency to form in-groups, and frankly sometimes the way tribalism is framed as opposed to nationalism seems to me to be rather arbitrary and designed to make nationalism seem more fancy and logical and ‘modern’ and therefore good. (In much the same way that certain behaviors and actions are labeled ‘medieval’, with the clear implication that modern people would never behave in such ways.)
The main differences I see between tribalism and nationalism are just ones of scale. Nationalism is usually on a larger scale (area and population) and is more broad throughout the population. But industrialization, with masses of people from the countrysides being concentrated in cities and likely experiencing mass literacy and education, would tend to ‘power up’ such tribalism because of greater contacts and knowledge of other people. People identify with the nation rather than their village or local province, but the concept is the same except for the scale.
That said, I don’t think nationalism has to play out exactly the way it did IOTL. It doesn’t have to always be so ethnically focused. Roman nationalism will be culturally, not ethnically, focused. There won’t be a Roman ethnicity, but there is a Roman culture (Greek). If one is willing to act in that cultural milieu, one is a Roman. If one is not, then screw you.
And even nationalism that plays out more like OTL doesn’t have to take the same course. There won’t be a Ukrainian/Russian divergence because of the vastly different history of the areas ITTL. The idea of a unifying peninsular Italian identity, questionable IOTL, will be absolutely patently absurd ITTL, with absolutely no one taking the idea seriously. But a German or French or English nationalism that looks a lot like IOTL could appear ITTL.
This is effectively Great Crime 2.0, and, let’s be honest, it would be doing it to a population that Latin Europe is much more likely to care about. Not that 17th century Europe was big on humanitarian interventions, but think about how much Louis XIV’s treatment of the Huguenots did to French reputation abroad. And this would be with a much larger population.
And it would utterly wreck the Sicilian economy. The Great Crime did wreck the Syrian economy (which is still a mess, hence why it is not able to support this Roman war effort like previous ones). The Romans were willing to pay that price, but there was that price. It’s hard for Sicily to produce food if all the farmers have been deported.
Finally, and on the Doylist level, there is the moral aspect. While in some ways I like Rhomania being precocious, imitating the twentieth century’s go-to solution of ethnic cleansing to ‘tidy up’ populations is decidedly not one of them. This period is meant to be “the nadir of the Roman soul”, and I consider it a plausible and logical development from events before, the constant fear and hate-mongering of the Latins, the insecurity of feeling constantly under siege. But while I find it interesting to explore for a time, there is a part of me that is looking forward to the Rhomania of the late 1600s and beyond, which is much less hate and fear filled, and frankly more likable. (Hardly perfect-looks at Java, but less dark.)
“The Emperor is unwell. That is why I and my daughter, I mean the Empress, are taking charge and ruling in his stead.”
It is a weakness in her position. It’d be much easier if her son Ioannes was still alive to add that masculine face.
Can’t get into this much because of spoilers. But Doukas is a soldier, not a politician. He’s not really an intriguer. As of right now, there is a war on the eastern frontier and as Domestikos of the East, it is his job to wage it. Period. Once peace is achieved, then he is free to act otherwise. But his job is to make war, not make peace.
This. And it is a catch-22. Constantinople won’t truly treat Naples as an integral and equal part unless it is directly controlled by Constantinople. But Naples won’t consent to be directly controlled unless it is already treated as an integral and equal part.
The ancient sites of Rome do have the advantage of no Renaissance Papacy looting them for building material. But sentiment can only go so far. Rome the city right now is rather small and run down because with the Papacy gone, it has lost its economic motor. It doesn’t have a commercial or industrial sector like Firenze or Genoa or Milan, or a rich agricultural hinterland like Naples does with Campania. Catholic pilgrimage is down massively and it doesn’t have the draw for Orthodox pilgrims, who will go to Constantinople. So while there is some will to at least not let the place fall into ruin, there just isn’t the money. The priorities are closer to home.
It’s complicated. But then it was complicated IOTL. Ioannes III Doukas Vatatzes claimed the mantle of Emperor of the Romans, but made disparaging remarks about the Latin language in letters to the Pope, which rather confused the Pontiff. But then his son Theodoros II in his writings drew on classical Roman figures such as Caesar and Cato and Trajan as models of statesmanship. And at the same time he referred to himself and his subjects as Hellenes and his realm as Hellas. (This is all OTL.)
There is this constant schizophrenic tension. They definitely assert that they are Romans, but they are ambivalent about the Latin and pagan aspects of their past. Sometimes they’re willing to get closer to these aspects, and sometimes they back away, but they’re not willing to sever that connection, because again they identify as Roman. But this is why they prefer to focus on the Greek aspects of their past, because then that annoying cognitive dissonance goes away.
So there isn’t a straight answer. I’m confused about the relationship, because I think the TTL Byzantines were confused about the relationship themselves.
Hope that helps, although I’m not sure it clarifies.
In Egypt, Orthodox Christians number in the low tens of thousands out of a population of millions of Copts, Nile Germans, and Sunni remainers. We’re talking literally 1-2%. Ever since the conquest of Egypt, there hasn’t been much Greek Orthodox immigration or proselytizing, and the Copt-boosting efforts there started rather early (and probably succeeded far too well from Constantinople’s long-term POV, but to fix that would involve going back to around 1500).
Syria is…complicated. It used to be dominated by Sunni Muslims, which is clearly not the case now. Now it’s a mix of different groups, Greek Orthodox, Melkites (Arab Orthodox), Assyrian Christians, Armenian Christians, Alawites, Maronites, Druzes, and Shi’a. (And it would not surprise me if I’ve forgotten groups.) It’s basically an uber-Lebanon. The Greek Orthodox also have a tendency to be very concentrated in the north and in certain coastal cities, and practically nonexistent everywhere else.
Nationalism: I feel that the rise of some form of nationalism is inevitable. Humanity has a tendency to form in-groups, and frankly sometimes the way tribalism is framed as opposed to nationalism seems to me to be rather arbitrary and designed to make nationalism seem more fancy and logical and ‘modern’ and therefore good. (In much the same way that certain behaviors and actions are labeled ‘medieval’, with the clear implication that modern people would never behave in such ways.)
The main differences I see between tribalism and nationalism are just ones of scale. Nationalism is usually on a larger scale (area and population) and is more broad throughout the population. But industrialization, with masses of people from the countrysides being concentrated in cities and likely experiencing mass literacy and education, would tend to ‘power up’ such tribalism because of greater contacts and knowledge of other people. People identify with the nation rather than their village or local province, but the concept is the same except for the scale.
That said, I don’t think nationalism has to play out exactly the way it did IOTL. It doesn’t have to always be so ethnically focused. Roman nationalism will be culturally, not ethnically, focused. There won’t be a Roman ethnicity, but there is a Roman culture (Greek). If one is willing to act in that cultural milieu, one is a Roman. If one is not, then screw you.
And even nationalism that plays out more like OTL doesn’t have to take the same course. There won’t be a Ukrainian/Russian divergence because of the vastly different history of the areas ITTL. The idea of a unifying peninsular Italian identity, questionable IOTL, will be absolutely patently absurd ITTL, with absolutely no one taking the idea seriously. But a German or French or English nationalism that looks a lot like IOTL could appear ITTL.
I wonder why the Rhomanians didn't try to get converts for their creed of Christianity. Why didn't they?