An Age of Miracles: The Revival of Rhomanion

[Elfwine]

Well with the industrial revolution you will have an influx of growth to the cities and an increase in pay as well as the creation of a middle class and an economy that likes to trade with other parts of the world, be it foreign countries or an empire they build with colonies, note that this would be over time, not immediate.

A middle class likes the idea that things can stay the way they are and would like stability, absolute monarchy does not give you that when one guy can decide to go to war or not, not to mention when you have a middle class that means they most likely have spare time and excess income (hence why they are a middle class) and that helps to drive the creation of organizations with governmental influence in the form of corporations and unions.

Absolute monarchy very much does give you that. More than (and I'm deliberately using the phrasing of a monarchist) government by the whims of the uneducated mob, with no sense of the issues at stake.

Eventually hereditary land owners in the countryside lose influence to a more meritocratic upper class made by the industrial capitalist. I feel all of this stuff together leads to a population that wants a government that is looking out for their best interest and can be replaced if they don't do a good job or doesn't serve them properly with the idea that a government's power is given to them by the people and not by right of birth or by that of god. With technology advancing (and atheism along with it) as well as the loss of a hereditary upper class the idea of the divine right to rule just stops. The only reason to keep the monarchy would be tradition, which would gain a bit of traction and is the reason Britain and many commonwealth nations still have a monarchy, among other things.

And the argument that democracy is superior objectively rears its ugly, ugly head.

 

[Alexandria Eschate]

I don't exactly see why Rhomania needs a French-style Revolution to transition to a constitutional monarchy.

 

[Evilprodigy]

Absolute monarchy very much does give you that. More than (and I'm deliberately using the phrasing of a monarchist) government by the whims of the uneducated mob, with no sense of the issues at stake.

I understand what you mean but I will refer you to my comment on the idea that one guy can declare war whenever he wants to. Take the USA method for example where there needs to be a vote or Canada in WWII which had a referendum.

I also doubt that a bad monarch would end up being replaced with the maintenance of stability that a democracy with regularly cycling leaders does. Having 4 years of a bad leader, 16 years of decent leaders, and then 8 years of good ones is way better than 28 years of a bad leader you cant replace because his power is absolute.

And the argument that democracy is superior objectively rears its ugly, ugly head.

Odd, I wasn't trying to make that argument, just that it's inevitable. I like the constitutional monarchy where the monarch has limited power to intervene in government encase the elected one is doing a bad job or is incompetent.

 

[Elfwine]

I understand what you mean but I will refer you to my comment on the idea that one guy can declare war whenever he wants to. Take the USA method for example where there needs to be a vote or Canada in WWII which had a referendum.

And this isn't "more stable". This is just "with more popular imput".

I also doubt that a bad monarch would end up being replaced with the maintenance of stability that a democracy with regularly cycling leaders does. Having 4 years of a bad leader, 16 years of decent leaders, and then 8 years of good ones is way better than 28 years of a bad leader you cant replace because his power is absolute.

The idea that the leader having absolute power means he's irreplacable would amuse Nicephorus II if he had a sense of humor.

Odd, I wasn't trying to make that argument, just that it's inevitable. I like the constitutional monarchy where the monarch has limited power to intervene in government encase the elected one is doing a bad job or is incompetent.

Well, the idea that democracy provides more stability and monarchy only exists because of tradition because there's no justification for it works out as leaning there, in my reading.

 

[Ze Kaiser]

I don't exactly see why Rhomania needs a French-style Revolution to transition to a constitutional monarchy.

Unless he does it totally voluntarily, I don't see any Emperor giving up the absolute power the Roman Throne has held since the Caesars. Someone or something with more power would have to force it to happen.

 

[Mathalamus]

To be fair, i want a Roman Constitutional monarchy.

the Emperor would still be powerful, but the senate would be there, having *just* enough power to make sure the Emperor doesn't get too far.

also, the senate will gain or lose power on an Emperor by Emperor basis, and can govern a country by itself, if there was a need.

 

[Dominic]

However the Roman government looks by 2012, I'm sure it'll be done in a most interesting and culturally appropriate manner appropriate. We still have half a millennium of development to look forward to!

 

[eliphas8]

The main thing about nationalism is that the idea of identifying yourself as - for instance - Breton - as if that gets in the way of your loyalty to or lies behind your loyalty to a given polity is not a given.

Meanwhile, its arguable that democracy has a less than credible history looking at the classic models.

You could say the same thing about France. And it should be mentioned Venice isn't that bad an example outside of Rhomania, it managed to credibly oppose them for years through thick and thin, hell their defeat only came because of the sheer tenacity of the foe they ran into and the plans of a crazy pope who did more harm than good.

 

[Elfwine]

You could say the same thing about France. And it should be mentioned Venice isn't that bad an example outside of Rhomania, it managed to credibly oppose them for years through thick and thin, hell their defeat only came because of the sheer tenacity of the foe they ran into and the plans of a crazy pope who did more harm than good.

What about France?

And yes, Venice was a stubborn foe.

 

[eliphas8]

What about France?

And yes, Venice was a stubborn foe.

I meant during the OTL French Revolution.

 

[cimon]

I like this idea but I would prefer something that's similar to the English monarchy where power slowly descends to the lower classes, mostly because the French version of government means loads of internal problems and revolutions while the British model seems to run smoothly and I really want a powerful surviving Byzantium and that seems more likely with a constitutional monarchy where internal unrest is minimal.

As to the normal ascension to power of lower classes,Gibbon may disagree with you;he throws enough(and valid) accusations of 'avarice' and 'venality'
of the ruling class and the condition of the people was abysmal until almost recently...don't give England OTL as an example,the people of Byzantium had different standards of living and level of progress.

 

[cimon]

A question in a..small detail BG:
How is it possible that people who had only known a fishing boat in all their collective memory like Vlachs and Russ of that time became sea-wolves to contest the seas from Byzantium especially in the Black sea which was only
for expert navigators due to its difficult climatic conditions for sailing? and in conditions of numerical inferiority?

 

[eliphas8]

A question in a..small detail BG:
How is it possible that people who had only known a fishing boat in all their collective memory like Vlachs and Russ of that time became sea-wolves to contest the seas from Byzantium especially in the Black sea which was only
for expert navigators due to its difficult climatic conditions for sailing? and in conditions of numerical inferiority?

The Black Sea has been a Christian lake for over a century, its become a very important trade source for everyone involved in the Partition of the Blue Horde and with that came a massive investment in naval power for the Vlach's, Russians, and Georgians.

 

[elkarlo]

The general concept is how big does Rhomania's navy need to be? Look at the Navies OTL after WW1. The only major players were the US, Great Britain, and Japan. The next biggest naval power was France, roughly a quarter the size of the British Fleet.

The real problem with battlefleets is that unless you are in the top two or three, or have one as an ally, they are a very expensive luxury. What is the point of spending billions to be the number 4 naval power, if you can have the same ranking and only spend millions.

For example, France could have spent 2-3 times as much on its navy, and gotten one that had say 6 modern capital ships (instead of the 2 they had for most of the 20s and 30s - Strasbourg and Dunkerque). They still would have been crushed by any of the big three, and those ships would have done nothing to slow down the Germans in 1940.

Actually, they would have done worse than nothing, because France's Army would have been even weaker without the resources put into those ships. Although it was outflanked, does anybody really think the French would have done better without the Maginot line (everything else staying the same - defensive attitude, sclerotic C2, etc)?

Remember, a big fleet is a luxury for a land power.

i would say that an AH sized fleet it about right. Maybe a bit larger, as the Rhomans have more coast line to protect.

One thing about capital ships, is that they are a prestige item. Makes you feel good, and as Alcibiades said they look more impressive than even a large army.

Sorry for posting so far back,

 

[Arrix85]

To be fair, i want a Roman Constitutional monarchy.

the Emperor would still be powerful, but the senate would be there, having *just* enough power to make sure the Emperor doesn't get too far.

also, the senate will gain or lose power on an Emperor by Emperor basis, and can govern a country by itself, if there was a need.

I agree on the constitutional monarchy and the emperor keeping an executive function as being a good solution, but if it is constituional the senate's power wouldn't change emperor by emperor.

B444, thanks for the map! I eagerly await the coming battles... I suspect that this round won't last until the 30's.

 

[Mathalamus]

I agree on the constitutional monarchy and the emperor keeping an executive function as being a good solution, but if it is constituional the senate's power wouldn't change emperor by emperor.

B444, thanks for the map! I eagerly await the coming battles... I suspect that this round won't last until the 30's.

well, what if the Emperor in question is basically a mentally retarded person, or is in some way unable to the normal duties normally required by the Emperor?

 

[Basileus444]

The map does not include vassals, and Venice does not exist . The Italian vassals are neutral, and Venetia is on Nikephoros' side but is extending feelers to Andreas Angelos.

Some sections are near complete entirely, but all of the walls are up at least to a third of their planned height/width, with 50% total progress towards completing the thing. Keep in mind that Constantinople has quite a large labor pool that can make a lot of dirt fly on short notice.

Rhomania in 2012 will most likely look like the Kaiserreich, in the sense of having both a strong monarch and legislature at the same time. I'm envisioning constitutional monarchies ITTL not meaning what they do IOTL, a monarch who is merely a figurehead, but having the literal meaning of a monarch+constitution. The exact distribution of powers would vary from country to country, but it'd be much closer to an even distribution, rather than the very lopsided OTL ratio.

Having the Empire remain absolutionist (de facto, although it could be de jure) permanently doesn't seem feasible. People like power, and will try to muscle in on monarchial prerogatives, and a monarch who is personally weak can't stop them. And strong Roman monarchs for 500 years straight is ASB.

One possible issue to resolve the 'need to remove bad emperor without coup/civil war' could be the concept of retirement. In my original draft Andreas Niketas lived into his 90s, but in his mid 70s retired. He retained all the ceremonial trappings of being an Emperor but his heir had all the power. If something like that became a tradition, perhaps bad emperors could be retired on grounds of incompetence rather than the original factor of age. The concept of co-emperorship is perfect for this. Obviously one issue with this is that it requires a heir to fill the slot of the retiree.

Free speech is more difficult, since no monarch is going to tolerate lese-majesty. Now something like a free speech edict that says you can say whatever you want, so long as you don't 1) advocate treason 2) insult the Emperor as a person (meaning you can say, Act 42 is stupid, but not the Emperor who wrote it is stupid) and 3) threaten the life of the Imperial family. That'd provide a good pressure release valve, although the fuzziness of #2 could definitely be an issue.

Democracy and nationalism are two hot-button topics, and I certainly don't want them to appear just like OTL with only cosmetic differences. I've given more thought to nationalism than democracy, but I do plan for the concept of the nation-state to be much less in vogue. Possibly viewed as the option of ethnicities too annoying/stupid to get along with others, whilst civilized people form Federal Empires.

Democracy is more thorny since I don't see de facto absolutionism as sustainable (all it takes is one idiot monarch to break the system). But at the same time having everybody go republican with maybe a figurehead monarch I find both lazy and boring since it's a copy of OTL, just with different borders. Having Kaiserreichs being a viable modern government I think is a good compromise.

Roman nationalism at this point isn't saying 'I'm a Roman', it's saying 'You're not a Roman, so bugger off.'

Rhomania doesn't need a French Revolution to become a constitutional monarchy, but the only way it would pioneer OTL democracy would be a Revolution.

The Vlachs, Russians, and Georgians were only able to contest the Romans because 40% of the Imperial Navy defected to Venera/Alexios, and even then the Allied and Nikephorean fleets were evenly matched. Odessos could've gone either way, but went to the Allies. Even so, the Imperial fleet and Roman mariners are making it impossible for the Allies to secure the Black Sea, which is why the Army of the North is having such supply troubles.

If just 6-10 less ships had defected, Nikephoros would control the Black Sea.

About Roman capital ships, keeping in mind that that section is non-canon, I can't see Rhomania settling for less than an Italian level battleline. It's got a lot of coast, and nearly all of its major cities are on the coast. If you add overseas colonies, the need for a large fleet grows.

 

[Arrix85]

well, what if the Emperor in question is basically a mentally retarded person, or is in some way unable to the normal duties normally required by the Emperor?

The constitution set the power of everyone, it may more or less elastic, but you're talking extreme situation.

Anyway, If a substitute can be selected (in whatever way) then it would be so, if not if the parliament has already a good chunk of power it's a motive to get some more.

 

[Tongera]

Basileus, an question to the Roman Nationalism: Wouldn't any differences even between "Romans" cause trouble and ethnic strife?

 

[Elfwine]

Rhomania in 2012 will most likely look like the Kaiserreich, in the sense of having both a strong monarch and legislature at the same time. I'm envisioning constitutional monarchies ITTL not meaning what they do IOTL, a monarch who is merely a figurehead, but having the literal meaning of a monarch+constitution. The exact distribution of powers would vary from country to country, but it'd be much closer to an even distribution, rather than the very lopsided OTL ratio.

Having the Empire remain absolutionist (de facto, although it could be de jure) permanently doesn't seem feasible. People like power, and will try to muscle in on monarchial prerogatives, and a monarch who is personally weak can't stop them. And strong Roman monarchs for 500 years straight is ASB.

The one thing that might happen is that monarchical prerogatives are never permanently eroded, in the sense of how constitutional monarchy in our world essentially means figurehead monarchy.

And if that occurs, there's likely to be - how smoothly depending on circumstances - ebbing and flowing of just how much authority monarchs wield. Strong ones will be able to stretch the power of the office, weak ones won't.

Makes for some interesting politics.

Free speech is more difficult, since no monarch is going to tolerate lese-majesty. Now something like a free speech edict that says you can say whatever you want, so long as you don't 1) advocate treason 2) insult the Emperor as a person (meaning you can say, Act 42 is stupid, but not the Emperor who wrote it is stupid) and 3) threaten the life of the Imperial family. That'd provide a good pressure release valve, although the fuzziness of #2 could definitely be an issue.

I think it's feasible, but it would take an enlightened and tolerant monarch to push it through.

Doable, but there's a reason it never happened OTL. Overcoming that won't be universal.