An Age of Miracles III: The Romans Endure

[Basileus444]

[“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.

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.

https://imgur.com/AYAOSpB

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.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

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.)

I can imagine some Rhomanian monarch building his equivalent of the Versailles Palace right now lol.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

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.

That's pretty creative, not gonna lie.

 

[EmperorSimeon]

I can imagine some Rhomanian monarch building his equivalent of the Versailles Palace right now lol.

Can offer up these as choices

 

[SB4]

There was an update you did near the very beginning of the timeline where there was a (now non canon) flash forward to a future 20th century with the emperor declaring war on China after a pearl harbour equivalent on the Roman Pacific fleet in Singapore. Iirc the emperor could only do this because it was also the will of the Senate and People but he was also still the commander in chief of the military. That suggests a US president level of authority and checks and balances which I think is a good level for the office to not feel useless while also having a way to be put in check if he/she decides to do something crazy. The main hangup for me in a modern context for me would be a mandate better than "my dad was emperor and God laid out this destiny for me" which is fine if you're luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan but will quickly lead to unrest if you're Phocas or Alexios III. My idea would be a lifelong term (it's the emperor lifetime service just feels right), until said emperor is displaying signs of mental decline or is "impeached" at which point the sitting emperor's designated heir takes over (said heir would gave been approved by the elected Senate before hand), in cases where the Senate forcibly removed the sitting emperor they would suggest and vote on their own candidate. Basically you have the Basileus as a powerful office but one that serves at the pleasure of the Senate and through them the people, rather than everyone in government serving at his pleasure as we have now.

 

[Aristomenes]

There was an update you did near the very beginning of the timeline where there was a (now non canon) flash forward to a future 20th century with the emperor declaring war on China after a pearl harbour equivalent on the Roman Pacific fleet in Singapore.

The attack by China was in the Roman Pacific Fleet base in Taiwan in this non-canon update, if I remember well. It was done by using "Long Lance" equivalent torpedoes.

 

[Basileus444]

That's pretty creative, not gonna lie.

It's similar to the type of veto Louis XVI would have had if he'd been willing to be a constitutional monarch, although I think he would have been able to delay things longer, but I'd have to check to be sure.

There was an update you did near the very beginning of the timeline where there was a (now non canon) flash forward to a future 20th century with the emperor declaring war on China after a pearl harbour equivalent on the Roman Pacific fleet in Singapore. Iirc the emperor could only do this because it was also the will of the Senate and People but he was also still the commander in chief of the military. That suggests a US president level of authority and checks and balances which I think is a good level for the office to not feel useless while also having a way to be put in check if he/she decides to do something crazy. The main hangup for me in a modern context for me would be a mandate better than "my dad was emperor and God laid out this destiny for me" which is fine if you're luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan but will quickly lead to unrest if you're Phocas or Alexios III. My idea would be a lifelong term (it's the emperor lifetime service just feels right), until said emperor is displaying signs of mental decline or is "impeached" at which point the sitting emperor's designated heir takes over (said heir would gave been approved by the elected Senate before hand), in cases where the Senate forcibly removed the sitting emperor they would suggest and vote on their own candidate. Basically you have the Basileus as a powerful office but one that serves at the pleasure of the Senate and through them the people, rather than everyone in government serving at his pleasure as we have now.

I agree wholeheartedly with your issue about the mandate. It's something that might be able to squeak by if monarchial powers are minor (can veto laws for one legislative session, but no more, for example), especially if you add in the weight of historical tradition. (Yet in the end, that didn't save the Chinese imperial monarchy.) But the more substantial monarchial power is, the greater this issue is. At this stage, I don't have clear answers or solutions. (Maybe something Polybius-commentary-on-mixed-government something, IDK.)

* * *

Rhomania’s General Crisis, part 12.0-Choosing Sides, Part 1:​

The battle of Likodromio is a brief affair, quickly going to the Macedonians, who have artillery support, unlike the Thracians. Compared to the recent bloodbaths in the east, casualties are minuscule, with 39 Macedonian and 146 Thracians. With the Thracian tourma thrown back, the Macedonian units all retire west of the Nestos River, the border between the Macedonian and Thracian themes.

But the small size doesn’t matter. Powder has been burned and blood has been shed; there is no going back down. Certainly, the prospects of a peaceful compromise between Athena/Sophia loyalists and the Tourmarches had been small beforehand, given that both want to control the center of power exclusively, but even that small chance has gone up in smoke. The issue, for better or for worse, will be settled with the sword. Or a bomb.

Yet there is little overt action immediately following the battle of Likodromio. People across the Empire are too busy trying to figure out what the hell just happened (confusion is not helped by time lag). Romans are trying to ascertain what exactly is at stake and whose side they should be on. The time after Likodromio is for forming the battle lines. The battles will come later.

Sophia’s legal position is shaky, and that is being generous. She claims loyalty to Herakleios III, recognizing him as the legitimate Emperor of the Romans. To be a treasonous wife is a look she would much like to avoid. But she claims that Herakleios III is incapacitated and his will has been illegally usurped by the Tourmarches and their clique. She is fighting to free her husband, not depose him.

Yet this argument raises certain questions. What is the definition of an Emperor’s incapacity? Who gets to determine that? The hold of the Tourmarches on power is entirely personal, based on their connection to Herakleios III via his mistress. This has led to many irregularities, with orders and appointments issued personally by the Emperor (with much “advice”) rather than through the normal bureaucratic channels. This is considered poor form, but it is not illegal. The same cannot be said for raising provincial forces and firing on Imperial forces carrying out orders.

Athena’s plan to circumvent this issue had been simple: move with overwhelming force, which tends to override such technicalities. That was why the support of Domestikos Doukas had been so important. Athena had been worried that if she moved without such an array of force, the legal weakness might lead waverers to abandon her ship.

The events at Mosul, Constantinople, and near Likodromio though have obviously upended such plans. But the Romans are not sure what to make of those events. Did Athena kill herself? If so, why? Was the prospect of imprisonment at the hands of the Tourmarches that terrible? And if so, what does that say about them? What if the Tourmarches killed her instead?

There is also the question regarding the previous assassination attempt on Athena. Was it really the work of a lone madman? In the confusion, whispers also begin spreading, asking questions about the death of her son Ioannes. Was it really from illness, or something more sinister? Furthermore, Athena was said to be under arrest for fomenting treason, as proven by correspondence with Domestikos Doukas. Except the Domestikos’s death is also quite sudden and suspicious. Clearly something around here is rotten.

Fortunately for the Tourmarches, there is no one in Constantinople who can take all this murmuring and harness it into a weapon that can be used against them. Sophia had needed to flee from the city for her own safety, but her absence means there is no clear rallying point for a challenge to the Tourmarches. The civil bureaucracy, by temperament and long training, trends to following proper procedure and the chain of command, which favors the status quo, meaning the Tourmarches.

That hardly means the Tourmarches can rest on their laurels. It is here that Plytos really comes into play. In person, he can be extremely charming and persuasive, which he uses to great effect, particularly on the Megas Logothete and the Eparch of Constantinople. The latter is of particular importance since he commands the Teicheiotai, the civic militia of the capital and the only other military force other than the guard tagmata, which are firmly under Tourmarch control.

A month after Sophia’s flight, a group of mid-ranking officials and other prominent citizens try to send a petition to Herakleios III. They request that the Emperor suspend the Tourmarches’ commissions and put them under house arrest until a proper investigation (what this would entail is admittedly vague) can be conducted of recent events and claims. Herakleios never even sees the petition while the signatures provide the Tourmarches with a handy list of ‘persons of interest’.

While the petitioners’ efforts fail, they had identified the weak point of the Tourmarches’ position, the need for the personal support of the Emperor to legitimize their efforts. Even with Anastasia’s influence over Herakleios, they had not dared to move directly against Athena (his aunt) and Sophia (his cousin and wife) until they had clear evidence of conspiracy and treason. While many are suspicious of the supposed evidence from Doukas’s files, Herakleios accepts the word of Anastasia that these are genuine.

One possible center of resistance to the Tourmarches in the capital is the Patriarch, who still refuses to allow Herakleios III into the Hagia Sophia, but by this point the denial has become old news. His old age and declining health (it is probable Adam II has suffered at least one stroke in the summer) has prevented the Tourmarches from moving actively against him. Bullying a sick old man, much less the leading cleric in the Emperor, hardly makes for good public relations. Yet this ill health, while protecting Adam II in his position, makes it impossible for him to use it to do anything.

There is one much stronger who could act on Adam’s behalf, the charismatic and popular Father Andronikos Hadjipapandreou. He has already been active on the Patriarch’s behalf. Just in case the Tourmarches try something, the Father has used some old contacts. His boxing days are long past him, but he still does a practice round from time to time with the young boxers of Constantinople, and he has arranged for a special guard of strong man entertainers, boxers, and wrestlers to keep the Patriarch safe.

These groups are popular entertainers with some being quite famous, performing acts in the Hippodrome in between chariot races. Probably the most famous are a duo. The first is Kyriakos the Midget, a joke stage name, since he is at least 213cm (7 feet) tall and lifts massive rocks and logs as feats of strength. More prominent though is his wife, who goes by the stage name Deianeira. She is a comparatively petite 185 cm (6 feet, 1 inch) tall, but is famous for her own act where she’ll lift normal-sized men above her head with one hand. [1] Considering that she is married, and to whom she is married, it is surprising the number of marriage proposals she gets.

Such a group, no matter how colorful, could not stand up to soldiers in full kit, but they would slow them down, preventing a quick nab. And if the Tourmarches did use a gang of street toughs to try and obscure their actions, the likes of Kyriakos and Deianeira would make quick work of them.

But while Hadjipapandreou has made these security precautions for the Patriarch, he has not done the same for himself. He still lives in his spartan apartment near the Neorion Harbor in an area where most of the inhabitants are poor dockworkers and sailors and those who cater to them. The Tourmarches had hesitated to move against him earlier for fear of a popular backlash, but now they act swiftly. Just a few hours after Athena’s bomb detonates, a group of men nab Hadjipapandreou in the middle of the night and bundle him away. His sudden disappearance sparks more fear, confusion, and rumor, but these just add to the swirling mix with no one able to give them shape or focus.

While the confusion regarding Athena’s death prevents it from being a rallying cry for a mass movement against the Tourmarches, it is not without impact. It is a useful boon for Sophia, who otherwise might not have been able to keep together the coalition of supporters her mother had managed to arrange even without Doukas prior to her death. Waverers who might have abandoned ship if she had just been arrested and Doukas dead are galvanized to instead continue their support, this time with her daughter.

Athena’s death also helps clear the political air. Except for the last few years, Athena has been at the center of power since the death of Demetrios III twenty years earlier. Many of those who might oppose the Tourmarches also have irritations of their own with Athena; such things are inevitable when one is in power for that length of time. But now Athena is a martyr, a symbol of Tourmarch depravity and cruelty, and her daughter Sophia is a clean slate. That is an attractive combination.

There is not much fighting over the winter of 1661-62, as the Romans decide where their allegiances lie. The result is a near-even divide. The Tourmarches have the advantage of clearer legality and legitimacy, while their recent foreign policy debacles can now be ascribed to treachery. For those concerned and confused, the attraction to just stick with the current system and to not shake the boat is strong. Those loyal to Athena and now Sophia and opposed to the Tourmarches (and willing to actively do so, a key distinction) are able to rally many, but not enough to overbalance this tendency.

The rough breakdown is as follows. Of the European themes, the Macedonian and Helladikon declare for Sophia, with her setting up a court in Thessaloniki. Meanwhile the Bulgarian and Thracian themes side with the Tourmarches. This favors the Tourmarches because all of the guard tagmata are with them as well.

In western Anatolia, both the Optimatic and Opsikian themes go for the Tourmarches while the Thrakesian declares for Sophia. For the eastern themes, the Anatolikon and Syrian go for Sophia with the Armeniakon and Chaldean are for the Tourmarches. Here things are evenly matched, as while the Armeniakon is still a mess from the disaster of Baghdad, the southern Anatolikon is the scene of the Army of Suffering.

One of the major immediate fallouts is the breakup of the army at Mosul. Nobody is quite sure how the war with the Ottomans is supposed to go now. Sarantenos is senior in commander, but he is a hesychastic lodge brother of the Shahanshah and an ardent Athena/Sophia loyalist. Next after him in command is the Chaldean Strategos, who is a Tourmarch supporter. Reluctant to start carnage in such close quarters and just after the bloodbath in Mesopotamia, under a flag of truce the army breaks up, with units returning to their home districts. Western Anatolian soldiers unable to do so because of the rebellion in Isauria go with the eastern Anatolian themes that match their political alignments. The operation is bloodless, but everyone knows that come the spring, that will certainly change.

[1] She’s copied from OTL Katie Sandwina.

 

[HanEmpire]

For the eastern themes, the Anatolikon and Syrian go for the Tourmarches with the Armeniakon and Chaldean are for the Tourmarches.

I think you mislabeled one of these factions, they're both going for the Tourmarches.

 

[Grammar Kaiser]

Is there any precedent in history for a wife to lead a rebellion against her husband like this? If not then that might itself lend credence to the claims of incapacity.

 

[Machiavelli Jr]

Is there any precedent in history for a wife to lead a rebellion against her husband like this? If not then that might itself lend credence to the claims of incapacity.

Eleanor of Aquitaine? And there's Catherine the Great who deposed her husband to rule an empire she had no claim to whatever. Of course the latter hasn't happened TTL yet (I'll be very disappointed if no analogue of Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst turns up).

 

[HanEmpire]

Is there any precedent in history for a wife to lead a rebellion against her husband like this? If not then that might itself lend credence to the claims of incapacity.

Catherine the Great got started like this. Her husband was an imbecile who actively sabotaged Russia because he was a fan of Frederick the Great of Prussia, so she led a palace coup against him and took over.

 

[Denliner]

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.

It was a sad remark. Tragedy can only follow in its wake.

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.

A parliamentary system along the lines of British government seems hard to establish in Rhomania, especially in the short term. It took centuries of conflict and concessions between the nobility and the king to the point where it is today where the monarch is functionally a figurehead. Considering the central position the Emperor is placed in Roman society compared to Britain, I'm not sure if anyone is willing to take away any portion of the Emperor's absolute power for the sake of political stability.

While I've always imagined the modern Roman government to resemble Prussia or the German Empire in some way, where the monarch retains a measure of political power while there remains a strong legislative, judicial, and executive body, that might not be satisfactory for the Romans, given their large distrust of plutocrats (especially under Konon's eyes) and of democracy/republics. Even if the Senate is elevated in the aftermath of the Tourmarches, it should always be subservient to the Emperor.

What's funny is that Konon's idea of a non-hereditary monarchy could be the way to go, where the position is elected based on merit (perhaps among the Senate, but still maintains near absolute power). In a way, we would be going full circle, as the Roman Kingdom millennia ago elected kings from the Senate. It would be absolutely hilarious to see this kind of system be realized in Rhomania, but how that would work for the modern day is going to require a lot of thought to make that government function.

The rough breakdown is as follows. Of the European themes, the Macedonian and Helladikon declare for Sophia, with her setting up a court in Thessaloniki. Meanwhile the Bulgarian and Thracian themes side with the Tourmarches. This favors the Tourmarches because all of the guard tagmata are with them as well.

In western Anatolia, both the Optimatic and Opsikian themes go for the Tourmarches while the Thrakesian declares for Sophia. For the eastern themes, the Anatolikon and Syrian go for the Tourmarches with the Armeniakon and Chaldean are for the Tourmarches. Here things are evenly matched, as while the Armeniakon is still a mess from the disaster of Baghdad, the southern Anatolikon is the scene of the Army of Suffering.

I suppose this civil war is going to hinge on the existing Roman army's success against the Ottomans, which is honestly quite grim. I'm sure the Ottomans will want an alliance with the Loyalists if they are able to reach Sophia, but we will see if that materializes.

 

[JSC]

Absolute monarchy and its future in Rhomania:

If you are looking for something unique while still maintaining at least some temporal power for Rhomanian Emperors; and why wouldn't you want to maintain a line going back 2 millennia; a unique way would be to look at how a Pope is elevated and adapt to Rome.

1: Basilieus dies and everyone mourns the passing
2: Family of Basilieus and select other people; leader of the Senate, head of army/navy/airforce, heads of prominent families; whoever you really want; are summoned to Constantinople and locked away in the Palace.
3: Behind closed doors from amongst the Imperial family a new Emperor is selected; the exact procedures unknown to anyone who isn't present and they don't even need to be the same from election to election, let the people present at that time decide amongst themselves the exact procedures; who serves with significant temporal power for life or abdication
4: If Emperor is seen to be doing poorly some supermajority; 60%,80%,99%, whatever; of "College of Family\Prominent Citizens" is able to vote to remove him/her.

This goes a long way towards mitigating bad emperors since the winner is going to have to be someone who is established and respected already; it keeps the Empire within one family; it gives a way to remove emperors who turn out to be not up to the job; and as a little bonus it would be a tourist/media sensation every time it happens in the modern day. What you end up with is a semi-hereditary elected monarchy which is a mouthful but has no exact parallel in our world with the closest probably being the Austrian Hapsburgs.

 

[TheCataphract]

If you are looking for something unique while still maintaining at least some temporal power for Rhomanian Emperors; and why wouldn't you want to maintain a line going back 2 millennia; a unique way would be to look at how a Pope is elevated and adapt to Rome.

1: Basilieus dies and everyone mourns the passing
2: Family of Basilieus and select other people; leader of the Senate, head of army/navy/airforce, heads of prominent families; whoever you really want; are summoned to Constantinople and locked away in the Palace.
3: Behind closed doors from amongst the Imperial family a new Emperor is selected; the exact procedures unknown to anyone who isn't present and they don't even need to be the same from election to election, let the people present at that time decide amongst themselves the exact procedures; who serves with significant temporal power for life or abdication
4: If Emperor is seen to be doing poorly some supermajority; 60%,80%,99%, whatever; of "College of Family\Prominent Citizens" is able to vote to remove him/her.

This goes a long way towards mitigating bad emperors since the winner is going to have to be someone who is established and respected already; it keeps the Empire within one family; it gives a way to remove emperors who turn out to be not up to the job; and as a little bonus it would be a tourist/media sensation every time it happens in the modern day. What you end up with is a semi-hereditary elected monarchy which is a mouthful but has no exact parallel in our world with the closest probably being the Austrian Hapsburgs.

Oh that is a cool idea. It preserves a lot of the Byzantine Intrigue (tm) while providing a peaceful transition of power. It's also something I could see naturally growing out of this crisis, where an already exhausted army and state, and citizenry for that matter, demand an end to the civil strife.

Surely by this point Roman society is at its very limit of tolerance for these successive crisis.

 

[holycookie]

Hey @Basileus444 I have some questions for you from TL. I will divide by continent:

First in the new world, I don't see how the US is going to gain any supremacy on the continent the way the map presents it. ITTL Mexico+inca and brazil+argentina will not be afraid of ITTL USA because both are countries scales superior to anything done in otl. So unless something really changes I don't see how the proposal of the US as the great hegemony is going to happen without seeming forced. Nobody tried to colonize Venezuela and Louisiana? Maybe Spain considering that they have less in Asia, they will invest more in the Americas and Africa. How will the empire of mexico remain stable in the long run?

Second in Africa, the Berbers will not try to expand further into West Africa now that they cannot access Egypt? Why didn't spain colonize ITTL angola, It was an important region for Portuguese trade at OTL. What happened in relation to Spain's possessions of the cities of Ceuta, Melilla and others ? Ethiopia has expanded a lot in Africa, but has not tried to annex Yemen, a more vital region for international trade. is Congo controlled by scandinavia,If yes, how is this viable in the long run, considering that powers such as the Trinos and Spain who are stronger probably want the region?

Third in Asia, I don't see how it will be viable in the long run for Sri Lanka, Malaysia, the Philippines and other regions to be Roman. The Triunes or Spaniards have every advantage in a dispute against the Romans in this region, the Ottomans who in the OTL were bigger and stronger than the Romans were not able to do this. Other than that I really liked Indian power but I think in the long run Ottomans will conquer OTL Pakistan. Honestly where are the Ottomans going to be one of the richest empires in the world when oil is discovered. The japanese becoming christian is interesting, but in the long run they will probably spawn their own version of christianity. The japanese will try to colonize california?

In Europe the Romans have the same problem as the Ottomans, many enemies everywhere. I see them keeping the core of the empire (part of balknas, anatolia, egypt and maybe part of italy), see Scandinavia's control of Scotland as a ticking time bomb. And Russia sooner or later will want Crimea. In the rest of Europe I don't have many doubts or questions.

PS: as always great TL.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

This goes a long way towards mitigating bad emperors since the winner is going to have to be someone who is established and respected already; it keeps the Empire within one family; it gives a way to remove emperors who turn out to be not up to the job; and as a little bonus it would be a tourist/media sensation every time it happens in the modern day. What you end up with is a semi-hereditary elected monarchy which is a mouthful but has no exact parallel in our world with the closest probably being the Austrian Hapsburgs.

I love this, probably the closest thing I would identify is Tanistry and whilst that would be a system for choosing a Kaiser in the Roman context (a habit that I find is long-missed and potentially of great value) - the rules for the candidates are broadly similar

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

First in the new world, I don't see how the US is going to gain any supremacy on the continent the way the map presents it. ITTL Mexico+inca and brazil+argentina will not be afraid of ITTL USA because both are countries scales superior to anything done in otl. So unless something really changes I don't see how the proposal of the US as the great hegemony is going to happen without seeming forced. Nobody tried to colonize Venezuela and Louisiana? Maybe Spain considering that they have less in Asia, they will invest more in the Americas and Africa. How will the empire of mexico remain stable in the long run?

Not him, but I would mention that the USA in terms of its geography would be considered OP in a strategy game.

has some really good breakdown of it - but largely it's insanely navigable, agriculturally its very strong, it has limited real threats to the north once it's established. Throw in the various resources we know the US has IOTL, those factors aren't going to disappear.

 

[holycookie]

Not him, but I would mention that the USA in terms of its geography would be considered OP in a strategy game.

has some really good breakdown of it - but largely it's insanely navigable, agriculturally its very strong, it has limited real threats to the north once it's established. Throw in the various resources we know the US has IOTL, those factors aren't going to disappear.

Yes, for sure the region is wonderful. The thing is, the other two competitors are heavyweights too. Especially ITTL Brazil which has nothing to do with OTL Brazil. The USA has the Mississippi Basin to drain the producer, Brazil has the Plata Basin; the USA has super fertile and temperate regions, TTL Brazil has the pampas (superfertile and temperate region); The USA has gas, TTL Brazil has gas Etc. The only big difference is coal, good quality coal in Brazil is smaller and concentrated in a single region. But you don't need to have infinite coal, just enough for industrialization to occur, in the long run energy can be generated in other ways. Regarding the Mexican empire, well if the country manages to use the wealth of the Incas and Aztecs to industrialize or at least strengthen itself, I think it would be difficult for the USA to be able to expand in the same way to the Pacific. Influence of the usa in south america (not in the gran colombia region) really occur after ww2 with the global hegemony of the usa.
Good quality coal in brazil

 

[SB4]

Hey @Basileus444 I have some questions for you from TL. I will divide by continent:

First in the new world, I don't see how the US is going to gain any supremacy on the continent the way the map presents it. ITTL Mexico+inca and brazil+argentina will not be afraid of ITTL USA because both are countries scales superior to anything done in otl. So unless something really changes I don't see how the proposal of the US as the great hegemony is going to happen without seeming forced. Nobody tried to colonize Venezuela and Louisiana? Maybe Spain considering that they have less in Asia, they will invest more in the Americas and Africa. How will the empire of mexico remain stable in the long run?

Second in Africa, the Berbers will not try to expand further into West Africa now that they cannot access Egypt? Why didn't spain colonize ITTL angola, It was an important region for Portuguese trade at OTL. What happened in relation to Spain's possessions of the cities of Ceuta, Melilla and others ? Ethiopia has expanded a lot in Africa, but has not tried to annex Yemen, a more vital region for international trade. is Congo controlled by scandinavia,If yes, how is this viable in the long run, considering that powers such as the Trinos and Spain who are stronger probably want the region?

Third in Asia, I don't see how it will be viable in the long run for Sri Lanka, Malaysia, the Philippines and other regions to be Roman. The Triunes or Spaniards have every advantage in a dispute against the Romans in this region, the Ottomans who in the OTL were bigger and stronger than the Romans were not able to do this. Other than that I really liked Indian power but I think in the long run Ottomans will conquer OTL Pakistan. Honestly where are the Ottomans going to be one of the richest empires in the world when oil is discovered. The japanese becoming christian is interesting, but in the long run they will probably spawn their own version of christianity. The japanese will try to colonize california?

In Europe the Romans have the same problem as the Ottomans, many enemies everywhere. I see them keeping the core of the empire (part of balknas, anatolia, egypt and maybe part of italy), see Scandinavia's control of Scotland as a ticking time bomb. And Russia sooner or later will want Crimea. In the rest of Europe I don't have many doubts or questions.

PS: as always great TL.

There hasn't been any outright statement that the US analogue is going to be as dominant as otl US especially with a strong Mexico and Russia which will limit their access to the Pacific coast but even if they just control the east and the mississipi they're almost unfairly overpowered as other people have already talked about.
As for Africa, the Marinids who control Morocco have actually been expanding in West Africa, it was touched upon a while ago that they came in to fill a power vacuum left by the Mali empire collapse. Spain didnt get those cities. Ethiopia controls the port of Aden in Yemen and Socotra Island that's pretty much all they need to control trade, any more and they're just inviting problems with hardly any benefits. Kongo is a fairly powerful independent kingdom that is coptic Christian after a long history of contact with Ethiopia.
I don't see your point with Rhomania in the east indies. They are basically the only European presence in the area after they took over Spanish malacca and destroyed triune bengal. They also have massively better institutions than otl colonial ventures that treat the natives as equal which will have a massive boost in fostering goodwill and building a sustainable power base and loyalty to Rome AND they have a strong local ally in Japan . I kinda agree on Scotland/scandanavia being a ticking time bomb but I hope it lasts and hopefully the Scottish aren't stupid because the second they become independent they become significantly easier pickings for the triunes. Russia won't engage in an extremely large scale war with a long time and close ally over somewhere that doesn't do much for them unless they want a black sea naval presence which they don't need

 

[holycookie]

Kongo is a fairly powerful independent kingdom that is coptic Christian after a long history of contact with Ethiopia.

Ethiopia which is on the other side of the continent? It doesn't make much sense, the kongo did coastal trade above all else, it makes more sense to be the religion of Spain, the Triune or even of Morocco than of Ethiopia.

I don't see your point with Rhomania in the east indies. They are basically the only European presence in the area after they took over Spanish malacca and destroyed triune bengal.

That's the point, they beat Spain and Triunes in Asia. It is not viable either in the short or long term. The Roman navy is primarily Mediterranean, not Oceanic. It makes more sense that Ethiopia has these lands than the Romans. The first time they have a problem at home, these regions will be abandoned or placed as a secondary priority. Which allows either the natives to gain independence or other European powers to return.

loyalty to Rome

They're too far gone to really force anything, so it makes sense. But that's a double-edged sword, the moment the natives get mad at them, say goodbye to the region.

AND they have a strong local ally in Japan.

yes, which in my opinion in the long run will create a new strand of Christianity. And will probably want to invade Korea (it's the most logical thing to do)

hopefully the Scottish aren't stupid

Stupidity is endless

Russia won't engage in an extremely large scale war with a long time and close ally over somewhere that doesn't do much for them unless they want a black sea naval presence which they don't need

I don't know if it's feasible for the Russians to travel half of Europe just to fight with the triunes and the Russian navy shouldn't be able to fight with the triunes.