[“Agreed,” Sophia said. They were now behind their own gun lines. Both sides were still staring at each other, waiting for the other to start withdrawing first.
Somewhere, a musket went off. “Wait, who fired?”
Alexeia’s eyes were clenched tight. “It doesn’t matter,” she whispered. She opened her eyes and looked at Sophia. “Thank you for trying.”
Sophia could barely hear her second sentence. The crash of musketry from both sides was simultaneous.]
I see that there is some confusion about where exactly people were at the very end. Please note the bolded sentence. Alexeia’s response is emotional, because as soon as that gun goes off, she knows what is going to follow.
I must admit that Napoleon parallel did not occur to me at all… It’s a bit different when it’s a woman in her mid-20s as opposed to a late-middle-age man though.
The gun going off is going to be one of those historical mysteries.
Ah, but you see we’re not fighting over who gets to be the autocrat. We all agree on that. We’re fighting over who gets to control the autocrat. Completely different.
Personally, I think laws against grooming and big-age-gaps-in-marriages would be a really good idea. But ITTL, they’d run into the roadblock that a 40-year-old man marrying a 14-year-old girl would be viewed as relatively normal. From the perspective of people ITTL, Herakleios’s relationship with Anastasia is only problematic because of Herakleios’s political position and that, here, the genders are reversed with the woman being older.
Of the listed ideas, it would be the first. The other two seem to focus too narrowly on the capital, and the 97% of the Romans that live in the provinces would find that a little…irritating.
It would be in Greek, whatever it turns out to be. They don’t have a hangup with the Latin language, but it doesn’t have the gravitas that it does in western Europe.
Absolute monarchy and its future in Rhomania: I’d argue that Rhomania is an absolute monarchy right now. I do hold that there is no such thing as a 100% pure absolute monarchy, because there will always be at least some sources of power that the autocrat can’t ignore all the time. But Louis XIV is held up as the poster child for absolute monarchism, but ITTL Roman Emperors don’t have to deal with provincial parlements or regional privileges like he did. Therefore, I’d argue that Herakleios III is more of an absolute monarch than Louis XIV. (Louis obviously had a much stronger personality.)
Rhomania is running into a variant of the issue of absolute monarchy, namely what happens when the monarch is a dunce. Note all the issue with monarchial favorites throughout history. These can sometimes work, if said favorite is a Richelieu, but less well if it’s a Piers Gaveston.
As for how the Roman government system develops in the future, I don’t want to commit myself in stone to anything especially specific, but here are my thoughts on the matter.
I want a system that, on the one hand, doesn’t map precisely onto any OTL setup. I don’t want a Greek version of a British parliamentary system. That is boring. But more importantly, I want a setup that flows logically and organically from events ITTL, even though the end result, if ISOTed into OTL, would really confuse people.
I do have some semi-solid concepts that I want to have, even though the particulars are left up in the air. I do want the office of Basileus to endure to the present day (if I were starting the TL now, I would likely feel differently, but I feel that I have committed myself to this from past statements over the years). Yet I also want it to retain at least some degree of political power, and not just be a ceremonial/constitutional monarch, which runs into my ‘you don’t actually do anything, so why are you here?’ issue. Exactly how much political power is one of those things that is up in the air, but the Basileus would have at least something. It may be no more than a ‘can veto laws once, but if they get passed again in the next legislative session, tough cookies’, but there would be at least a little something to the position.
As for the democracy/republic hangups, that can be gotten around by just calling it something else.
Somewhere, a musket went off. “Wait, who fired?”
Alexeia’s eyes were clenched tight. “It doesn’t matter,” she whispered. She opened her eyes and looked at Sophia. “Thank you for trying.”
Sophia could barely hear her second sentence. The crash of musketry from both sides was simultaneous.]
I see that there is some confusion about where exactly people were at the very end. Please note the bolded sentence. Alexeia’s response is emotional, because as soon as that gun goes off, she knows what is going to follow.
Was I the only one waiting for her to rip open her shirt exposing her breast in front of the Thracian tagma and shout "If any man would shoot his empress let him step forward now" and than they all join her. To go with a good Napoléon parallel. Just me? that's fine. Still a great update looking forward to more.
I must admit that Napoleon parallel did not occur to me at all… It’s a bit different when it’s a woman in her mid-20s as opposed to a late-middle-age man though.
Sitting on a horse right between the firing lines is a bad place to be. I think someone might be in trouble here. I wonder whether we'll be informed who fired first, or if this will just be one of those events left to historical guesswork.
The gun going off is going to be one of those historical mysteries.
Here we go again.
Ah, but you see we’re not fighting over who gets to be the autocrat. We all agree on that. We’re fighting over who gets to control the autocrat. Completely different.
Whatever else, I think the Imperial Family will start very strongly vetting any affairs that the family members have. And maybe start pushing for harsh laws against grooming and marriages with significant gaps in age.
Well, the grooming part at least. And perhaps some anti-abuse laws stemming off of that.
The significant age gap thing isn't as easy though. 50 and 30 is not as bad as 25 and 15, assuming 'typical' upbringing.
Personally, I think laws against grooming and big-age-gaps-in-marriages would be a really good idea. But ITTL, they’d run into the roadblock that a 40-year-old man marrying a 14-year-old girl would be viewed as relatively normal. From the perspective of people ITTL, Herakleios’s relationship with Anastasia is only problematic because of Herakleios’s political position and that, here, the genders are reversed with the woman being older.
So if the Senate ever comes back as a serious institution what do you think it would be refered as?
Senate and people of Rhomania: Σ.Κ.λ.Ρ (Σύγκλητος και λαός των Ρωμανία)
Senate and people of Constantinople: Σ.Κ.λ.Κ (Σύγκλητος και λαός των Κωνσταντινούπολης)
Senate and people of New Rome: Σ.Κ.λ.Ν
(Σύγκλητος και λαός των Νέα Ρώμη)
Or will nostalgia win out and they just use the old Latin SPQR. After all they have a problem with Latin Christianity and politics mainly, not the language
Of the listed ideas, it would be the first. The other two seem to focus too narrowly on the capital, and the 97% of the Romans that live in the provinces would find that a little…irritating.
It would be in Greek, whatever it turns out to be. They don’t have a hangup with the Latin language, but it doesn’t have the gravitas that it does in western Europe.
Absolute monarchy and its future in Rhomania: I’d argue that Rhomania is an absolute monarchy right now. I do hold that there is no such thing as a 100% pure absolute monarchy, because there will always be at least some sources of power that the autocrat can’t ignore all the time. But Louis XIV is held up as the poster child for absolute monarchism, but ITTL Roman Emperors don’t have to deal with provincial parlements or regional privileges like he did. Therefore, I’d argue that Herakleios III is more of an absolute monarch than Louis XIV. (Louis obviously had a much stronger personality.)
Rhomania is running into a variant of the issue of absolute monarchy, namely what happens when the monarch is a dunce. Note all the issue with monarchial favorites throughout history. These can sometimes work, if said favorite is a Richelieu, but less well if it’s a Piers Gaveston.
As for how the Roman government system develops in the future, I don’t want to commit myself in stone to anything especially specific, but here are my thoughts on the matter.
I want a system that, on the one hand, doesn’t map precisely onto any OTL setup. I don’t want a Greek version of a British parliamentary system. That is boring. But more importantly, I want a setup that flows logically and organically from events ITTL, even though the end result, if ISOTed into OTL, would really confuse people.
I do have some semi-solid concepts that I want to have, even though the particulars are left up in the air. I do want the office of Basileus to endure to the present day (if I were starting the TL now, I would likely feel differently, but I feel that I have committed myself to this from past statements over the years). Yet I also want it to retain at least some degree of political power, and not just be a ceremonial/constitutional monarch, which runs into my ‘you don’t actually do anything, so why are you here?’ issue. Exactly how much political power is one of those things that is up in the air, but the Basileus would have at least something. It may be no more than a ‘can veto laws once, but if they get passed again in the next legislative session, tough cookies’, but there would be at least a little something to the position.
As for the democracy/republic hangups, that can be gotten around by just calling it something else.