Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn: The Restored Roman Republic

Is the relatively diplomatic expansion of propping up useful allies and buffer states different from OTL during this time period?

Reminds me of earlier Roman client kingdoms, but my knowledge on this time period is shaky.
 
Is the relatively diplomatic expansion of propping up useful allies and buffer states different from OTL during this time period?

Reminds me of earlier Roman client kingdoms, but my knowledge on this time period is shaky.

Yes, different. Compared to history, where the Roman Empire of this era had to deal with a much more dangerous Bulgaria, relatively speaking (due to the Romans being weaker), and where the Abbasids were still quite united. But, with the Roman state being larger, and the Islamic world totally fractured, the foreign policy of Constantinople is much more aggressive.

The most historically similar part is Armenia, if anything.
 
The Abbasid Collapse
The Abbasid Collapse

At the end of the 9th century, the rival caliphates of Islam, the Fatimids and Abbasids, continued to eye each other warily. Neither side would commit to a full war, but skirmishes and raids along their borders, and piracy along their coasts was an every day occurrence. The two great empires focused their energies primarily on other concerns. The Fatimids on pushing their influence further and further into India, extracting as much wealth from the subcontinent as possible, and the Abbasids on controlling the trade routes into the Mediterranean. However, this relative peace would not last forever, and the Fatimids presented the Abbasids with a tantalizing opportunity that ultimately fatally weakened the Egyptian-based Caliphate.

In AD 891, the Fatimid Caliphate was plunged into a bitter conflict, as two rival claimants vied for control of the realm. Mansur, the son of the previous Caliph, was challenged by his uncle, Nuh. The conflict began with brutal court intrigues, as supporters of each claimant began to drop like flies from the machinations of their opposing faction. Open fighting broke out at the end of the year, and the Fatimid Civil War began in earnest. Nuh had the support of the far eastern provinces, while Mansur had the support of the west. The Persian heartland and Arabia was more mixed in their loyalties. The Oghuz Turks that were a crucial part of the Fatimid military machine stayed out of the war, for the most part, using the opportunity to consolidate their homelands and weaken Fatimid control over them.

The Abbasids showed remarkable restraint as they saw their enemies go to war with themselves, but, eventually, after two years of fighting, they could not resist the opportunity. An Abbasid army marched into Mesopotamia in AD 894, while another marched to take Mecca. Baghdad was placed under siege, and Medina fell to the invaders. Meanwhile, the Indian kingdoms had organized an alliance against the Fatimids and began to push back the Caliphate's borders. Seeing enemies on all sides, Nuh and Mansur agreed to a truce, and united their armies to be able to repel their attackers. The combined army was joined by the Turkic allies, now happy to be certain to be in the employ of the 'proper' side of the Fatimid regime.

The Fatimids marched first to relieve their capital from the attackers, and they won a significant victory outside Baghdad, which enticed the southern Abbasid army to withdraw from Arabia and come to the relief of its northern counterpart. More important for the Fatimid cause, however, was Nuh's brutal murder of his nephew during the battle. A paper-thin claim that Mansur was intending to betray the Fatimid cause was offered as an excuse, but Nuh did not shy away from what he had done, and the army fell in line behind him. He marched into Syria and defeated the Abbasids again, before turning around, taking the bulk of his army to confront the Indian kingdoms that were attempting to push his borders to the mountains. The remainder of his army stayed to guard the border between Mesopotamia and Syria, but the Abbasid army was no threat to anyone but their own government by this point.

Over the prior century, the Abbasids had relied increasingly on soldiers from Nubia and Ethiopia, and those recruits and slaves have performed quite well. However, their ultimately loyalty was not necessarily to the Abbasid Caliphate itself, but to their commanders and their paymasters. One such less than perfectly loyal soldier was an officer named Yousab. He was of Ethiopian ancestry, but had actually been born in Egypt itself. Yousab's father had been a cousin of the ruler of Ethiopia that sought his fortune in Egypt. As a relative of that royal house, he and his son claimed descent from the ancient king Soloman.

Yousab was a middling officer at the beginning of the war, but proved himself on the field of battle and quickly amassed a following of his fellow soldiers. Many of whom were disenchanted with the Abbasid decision to attack the much larger Fatimids, with their fears of easy defeat being proven quite prescient. The Nubian and Ethiopian regiments in the army were still largely intact, and Yousab rallied several thousand to his cause, and took his modest army and marched on Egypt, rather than Mesopotamia. This rebellion quickly took on the air of a war of religious liberation, since the army was predominantly Christian, as was Yousab, and they were Miaphysites, just like the majority Copts of Egypt. Whether this was Yousab's original intention is unknown, but the Abbasids had not given the Copts too much reason to resent their rule, beyond the usual resentment any ruled people feels towards their overlords. Some histories suggest that Yousab had been bought off by the Fatimids, and others suggest that he saw an opening to make himself the power behind the Caliphal throne.

Whatever the truth may have been, Yousab took advantage of the upswell of support and marched on Alexandria, rather than the capital, hoping to present himself as a pious Christian by liberating one of the key Patriarchates of Christianity. The city opened its gates to him and slaughtered the soldiers in the garrison that did not instantly surrender, and Yousab declared that Alexandria would be restored to its rightful place as capital of Egypt. He then marched down the Nile, gathering followers as he went. Yousab's army reached Fustat by the end of AD 896, and invested it. It would hold out through the winter, but, come spring, the city fell, and the army ransacked it. The palace of the Caliph was relieved of all of its material wealth, with much of it eventually going to adorn a new palace in Alexandria.

The entire male line of the Abbasid Caliphs was wiped out when the city fell, or shortly after, though Yousab proclaimed that he would be the guardian of the daughters of the last Caliph, Muhammad. Officially, he took the most beautiful as his queen, after she converted to Christianity, and the others were encouraged to also become Christian and take vows as nuns. The more likely story was the Yousab rather liked the idea of having a harem of his own, as the Caliphs had, but could not officially have one, as a Christian.

After securing Egypt, Yousab - now King Yousab I of Egypt - intended to turn back to Syria and include it in his new Kingdom, much as it had been part of the Abbasid realm. However, in the time that Yousab had spent in Egypt, the local Muslim governors of Syria and Palestine had had time to recruit their own armies and see to their own defenses. Edessa, Aleppo, Damascus, and Jerusalem were united against Yousab and he had no chance of taking them. Forced to accept merely ruling over the fantastically wealthy Nile valley, Yousab marched back to Alexandria.

The Fatimids under Nuh had not been idle during this time, of course, and finally crushed the Indians that had dared to invade their land. However, even in victory, Nuh was uneasy. He looked over his victorious -mostly Turkic - army and wondered what stopped the Oghuz from toppling his own dynasty as the Africans had the rival Abbasids. His only solution was to keep them happy and rich, and, to that end, he decided to sweep in and take the Syrian territory that Yousab could not. But, in this, Nuh would be frustrated, as the Roman Republic had the same idea, and they had not just had to fight three separate wars on totally opposite ends of their territory. Finally, the Fatimids and Romans were going to come to blows, and it would happen almost accidentally.

End

Happy Thanksgiving!
 
Dear author,

Indian kingdoms during this period were mostly the three empires of the Gurjaras in Northwest India the Rashtrakutas immediately to the south of Malwa (A Gurjar territory) and the Palas in Bengal. And these three empires were at the height of their power around this time and they fielded quite substantial and the finest armies of the period, and yet you say that the Persians just defeated them? Even with overextended supply lines over the Hindu Kush and with the supply lines of the Indians being shorter? Seems quite unrealistic. And if you did mention an alliance between Indian "kingdoms", then the armies they can field are quite vast and well equipped with the capacity to field more (much like the Romans during their Republic) as reinforcements.

If you check up on the military history of India during this period, you will find my claims of sufficient credence.
 
Dear author,

Indian kingdoms during this period were mostly the three empires of the Gurjaras in Northwest India the Rashtrakutas immediately to the south of Malwa (A Gurjar territory) and the Palas in Bengal. And these three empires were at the height of their power around this time and they fielded quite substantial and the finest armies of the period, and yet you say that the Persians just defeated them? Even with overextended supply lines over the Hindu Kush and with the supply lines of the Indians being shorter? Seems quite unrealistic. And if you did mention an alliance between Indian "kingdoms", then the armies they can field are quite vast and well equipped with the capacity to field more (much like the Romans during their Republic) as reinforcements.

If you check up on the military history of India during this period, you will find my claims of sufficient credence.

Well, its 200 years into an alternate history. While I have not gone into any detail on whats going in in India, I'm visualizing that we're not talking these major empires, but small ahistorical states in the west.

I won't pretend to be an expert on Indian history, but the Fatimids here are pretty powerful, not too far off the mark from the historical Abbasids at their height.
 
Well, its 200 years into an alternate history. While I have not gone into any detail on whats going in in India, I'm visualizing that we're not talking these major empires, but small ahistorical states in the west.

I won't pretend to be an expert on Indian history, but the Fatimids here are pretty powerful, not too far off the mark from the historical Abbasids at their height.

Yup got you Dominus. And except that the Abbassid were beaten back by the Gurjaras all by themselves speaks in large volume of what I want to say. And anyways I can understand that we are two centuries beyond the POD a lot of things might have changed, but I don't think I have caught something yet that can make the butterflies affect the course of Indian history from its OTL path, if you will elaborate on changes elsewhere in the world in some of your future updates it will be helpful to avoid any misunderstandings.

And anyway I too don't wish to shift your focus from the Republic to anywhere else for now, because we can't ever have enough of Rome ! Your TL has been quite an interesting and quality read thus far and hoping you will live up to the standards you have set yourself and keep on giving us some quality work to read. Best of luck for your updates. Awaiting your updates eagerly.

Cheers.
 
Yup got you Dominus. And except that the Abbassid were beaten back by the Gurjaras all by themselves speaks in large volume of what I want to say. And anyways I can understand that we are two centuries beyond the POD a lot of things might have changed, but I don't think I have caught something yet that can make the butterflies affect the course of Indian history from its OTL path, if you will elaborate on changes elsewhere in the world in some of your future updates it will be helpful to avoid any misunderstandings.

And anyway I too don't wish to shift your focus from the Republic to anywhere else for now, because we can't ever have enough of Rome ! Your TL has been quite an interesting and quality read thus far and hoping you will live up to the standards you have set yourself and keep on giving us some quality work to read. Best of luck for your updates. Awaiting your updates eagerly.

Cheers.

Thanks! I'm not going to focus too much on India at any point in the mear future of this timeline, simply to keep the narrative moving. They, along with China, will generally get a more cursory overview, due to the degrees of separation from Rome.

Insofar as India gets some love and attention, you've made one grave blunder: by demonstrating your expertise in the topic, I will bug you for guidance on what to do with the subcontinent in the future. Gotta put my readers to work.

That said, I think the best explanation of the situation in Northwestern India is that that the Gurjara Pratiyayas were weakened in the early phases of the Fatimid incursions into India, a century prior, with the Turks doing the heavy lifting of those campaigns. Their realm fractured, to the point of nearly breaking entirely, and it was these subsections of the Empire that banded together to strike back at the Fatimids.

How reasonable does that sound?
 
Thanks! I'm not going to focus too much on India at any point in the mear future of this timeline, simply to keep the narrative moving. They, along with China, will generally get a more cursory overview, due to the degrees of separation from Rome.

Insofar as India gets some love and attention, you've made one grave blunder: by demonstrating your expertise in the topic, I will bug you for guidance on what to do with the subcontinent in the future. Gotta put my readers to work.

That said, I think the best explanation of the situation in Northwestern India is that that the Gurjara Pratiyayas were weakened in the early phases of the Fatimid incursions into India, a century prior, with the Turks doing the heavy lifting of those campaigns. Their realm fractured, to the point of nearly breaking entirely, and it was these subsections of the Empire that banded together to strike back at the Fatimids.

How reasonable does that sound?

Quite possible. As the Gurjara-Pratiharas fought numerous wars with the Rashtrakutas as well as the Palas of Bengal for the control of Kannauj during the period of their coexistence, and it is quite possible that one of the wars proceeds in a different way and they end up weakened from that. Especially if the Fatimids are invading India in the later part of the 9th century then, you could have the Rashtrakuta king Amoghavarsha I (814-878) invade the Gurjara-Pratiharas and hastening the process of disintegration of the Gurjara-Pratiharas into the Parmaras of Malwa, Chandelas of Bundelkhand, the Chauhans of Rajputana, the Tomaras in the region of present day Haryana, etc.(all these clans were feudatories of the Gurjara-Pratiharas). But that would involve wide ranging changes in the way early years of Amoghavarsha I 's reign proceed.

Anyway you are intending to keep India on the periphery of your TL, which is right given the large distances involved between the Roman Republic and India. So I will now stop diverting your attention from the focal point of the TL and let you continue with your awesome work, after all, Roman timelines involved in the early middle ages (and also without breaking with plausibility, as the opposite happens with many Roman TLs) , are hard to find.

And if you have found me to be an expert in Indian history it's not the case. I am more of a enthusiastic reader who happens to know quite a few things, a part of which I shared with you. I am by no means an intensive history researcher or anything like that.
 
Last edited:

Red Orm

Banned
I realized that I could use Europa Universalis 4's custom mode to create relatively nice looking maps. So, to test the idea out, I created a map of the growth of the Roman Republic thus far.

An easier way if you're doing this route is to go into the actual map files of the game, copy the map and paste wherever, and paint in the provinces in Microsoft Paint or equivalent. Much less work in the long run, no reloading needed, etc.
 
The Beginning of the Roman-Fatimid War
The Beginning of the Roman-Fatimid War

In AD 898, the Roman Republic made the decision to conduct an invasion down the Eastern Mediterranean coast, to secure the wealth of Syria and the holy city of Jerusalem. It was the first major military expansion of the Republic since the reconquest of Northern Italy, in AD 826. Since that time, the Republic had been very cautious with its wars, but a prize of this size could not be ignored. The region was divided among local strongmen, who were attempting to hold together the remains of the Abbasid Sunni realm, against the Copts in Egypt and the Shi'ite Fatimids, as well as against the Romans themselves. There would never likely be a better time to invade.

The Senate and the Hypatoi had been keeping an eye on the ongoing war in the region, and had already began to gather supplies and reposition the Thematic armies in preparation. To their nervous neighbors, the Roman diplomats assured them that they were more interested in guarding their own borders, in case their war spilled over into their land. Nobody believed them, of course, and, in point of fact, Roman envoys and spies were pouring through the disputed territories, looking for any excuse to launch a pre-emptive invasion. It was in Edessa that they found - or manufactured - a cause.

The Emir of that city had been stockpiling grain for fear of a coming invasion, and wanted to be able to keep his modest army fed. However, that meant depriving the citizens of the city, and unrest began to grow. A riot broke out in one of the Christian districts of Edessa, and the army put it down violently. The Roman Republic declared that the Christians were being persecuted, and the Thematic armies began to invade. Their first objective was the fortifications at Tel Bashir, which were between Edessa and the rest of Syria. A series of skirmishes were fought before the Romans were able to lay siege to the location, but the garrison eventually retreated for the capital, after they saw that the Roman force was sizable, but hadn't completely enveloped their location.

As the Romans began to bolster the fortifications, they received news that the Emir of Aleppo had decided to come to the aid of his beleaguered ally in Edessa, and was marching on their location. The Roman commander, Markos Aineidas, divided his army so as to enable the fortifications to last as long as possible before supplies would run low. He then began to launch hit and run attacks against the attacking Aleppan army, hoping to wear them down before their attack on the fortifications. The Romans also harassed the enemy supply lines and ravaged the land wherever they could, to deny the Emir of Aleppo the opportunity to live off the land. All of this, however, did not stop the Emir, and his army soon invested the Romans in Tel Bashir, and all involved settled in for a long siege, with Aineidas doing his best to make the besiegers as miserable as he could, without risking his field army, which was slightly smaller than the besieging army.

All of this maneuvering was done with one overriding goal in mind, on the part of the Romans: tie down the opposing army. Aineidas' army was not the main Roman army, but was the first of a two pronged invasion. The remainder was still in Antioch, under the command of one Symeon Kamateros, and this army, now with word that the army of Aleppo was out of their territory, had already begun to invade from the west. They laid siege to Aleppo, and the initiative was now with the Romans. The army from Aleppo, having just now settled into their siege, with their lines shored up in proper fashion, had to abandon Tel Bashir and march back to the defense of their city. All the while, the Roman army under Aineidas harassed them. The only bright side for the Aleppan army was that the Emir of Edessa had sent reinforcements to the siege of Tel Bashir, so the siege continued without much interruption.

The Battle of Aleppo would commence soon after the relieving army reached the city and attempted to break the Roman siege lines. They were unsuccessful, and settled in for sieging the Romans themselves, building lines around the besieging army, which also built their own outward facing lines, mirroring the classical battle of Alesia to some degree. Similar to that battle, this was also a Roman victory, as Aineidas' army now attacked the army of Aleppo in force, focusing on key sections of their lines. The Aleppans pulled their army to face this threat, but that only allowed the inner Roman army to break out of their own lines and begin rolling up the repositioning enemy army. Trapped between two Roman armies, the army of Aleppo disintegrated outside of its city, which negotiated a surrender within a week of the defeat.

Now, the bulk of the combined army marched north, and relieved the hungry soldiers in Tel Bashir, before pushing onward to Edessa. The Edessans, however, had not wasted their strength at Tel Bashir, and held their army and supplied in their citadel, waiting for the inevitable Roman attack. It came, and the Romans set up their siege, with Aineidas' army taking the point on this attack, while Kamateros worked to secure the territory of Aleppo and scout for any other threats in the region. The year ended, with the Romans hopeful that Edessa would fall in early AD 899.

The year started out with optimistic news for the Republic, as negotiations with several of the coastal cities, backed by aggressive dromon diplomacy, resulted in peaceful surrenders. Tripoli, Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, and Tyre welcomed Roman garrisons in quick succession, securing most of the coast without a single blade being unsheathed. These cities depended on trade above all else, and sensed that the winds were blowing in a decidedly Roman direction. However, if they had held out a little longer, they may have been less certain of their decision, as the Fatimid army had marched into the region and was attempting to assert their own authority over the cities of Syria and Palestine. Invited by the Emir of Damascus, Nuh, the Fatimid Caliph, led a large army against the Romans outside Edessa. Aineidas attempted to extract his army, but the Fatimids were able to outpace the retreating the Romans and inflict a sizable defeat, forcing the Romans to withdraw into Tel Bashir, which the Fatimids sieged.

Kamateros lead a counter attack against the Fatimid force, with the Fatimids getting the better of the battle, and forcing the Romans to abandon their attempt to relieve Tel Bashir. The defenses fell to a night attack shortly after, and the Roman garrison was wiped out. The Roman Republic's forces in the field were decimated, and the Romans scrambled to hold onto their gains, rushing forces to the defense of Aleppo. There, the Fatimids were unable to secure a victory, and the Romans continued to pour troops into the garrisons of the surrounding territories they had so recently won.

End
 
Seems like Rome managed to move a bit too early, despite having been waiting for the opportune time after everyone else was bled dry. Instead it's been the Fatimids rolling into Roman operations and causing chaos.

Which of the two powers is stronger by this point in time?
 
Seems like Rome managed to move a bit too early, despite having been waiting for the opportune time after everyone else was bled dry. Instead it's been the Fatimids rolling into Roman operations and causing chaos.

Which of the two powers is stronger by this point in time?

Excellent question...

The Romans are better economically and have better infantry, but the Fatimids have better cavalry. Basically, your usual Rome v Persia dynamic (though the Fatimids are better off than every Persian dynasty since the Achaemenids). Politically, the Romans can absorb losses better, but the Fatimids have the benefit of religious legitimacy tied directly into their dynasty.
 
The Conclusion of the Roman-Fatimid War
The Conclusion of the Roman-Fatimid War

In the wake of the series of Roman defeats against the Fatimid invasion, the Roman Republic retrenched itself and braced for a long, protracted war, as opposed to the relatively quick affairs their recent engagements had been. Aleppo was exposed to the Fatimid army, and, along the coast to the south, the Republic’s authority did not extend even a day’s march from the city walls of the major port cities. The main Roman army still in the field focused on defending Aleppo, while the Romans hoped the ports that had just so recently thrown their lot in with Rome would hold out.

To keep those ports secure, the Romans took advantage of theirnear total control of the sea; the only other power in the region with any navy to speak of was the new kingdom of Egypt, and they were not interested in antagonizing Rome. In fact, the now-Christian court in Alexandria sought close ties to Constantinople, hoping to profit greatly from the key role Egypt had always played in the greater Roman trade network as the breadbasket of the capital. The true naval threat that the Romans face was the increase in piracy, now that the Abbasid Caliphate was no more. Many of the warships in the Caliph’s fleets were now without a government, and with much of Syria and Palestine in pure chaos, they quickly turned to piracy.

In point of fact, it was largely concerns about these pirates that compelled the cities along the coast that had invited the Romans in to do so; they hoped that the Roman fleet could protect them far more than they could on their own. Their calculation was correct, and the Roman fleets did, indeed, focus their efforts in the region on fighting the pirates. They also maintained convoys to the cities to supply their new garrisons, and the merchants were quick to take advantage of the free protection offered by these convoys.

Though the coast was largely out of play for the Fatimids, the interior regions were not so tough a nut to crack. The Fatimid Caliph, Nuh, was able to isolate Aleppo and maintain a force in the region around the city, stymieing efforts by the Romans to relieve it. Meanwhile, he sent a large portion of his army south, to accept the submission of the cities in the region. Cities such as Hama, Jerusalem, and Aqaba on the Red Sea all bowed to the Caliph. Envoys were sent to the remaining neutral coastal cities, but they showed little inclination in choosing a side, worried that they would become a bloody battleground between the two titans. Nuh, wary of pushing those cities into the Roman camp, did not press the issue, and returned his attention to Aleppo.

The siege was a drawn out affair, but the Fatimid army was able to breach the walls and storm the city, ravaging it much as the Romans had before them. The Fatimids then had a continuous front all throughout the region, with the Romans forced even more to the coastline. Antioch was Nuh’s next target, and he was hopeful that he could take the city and then secure peace with the Roman government, with the Fatimids in control of the entire area. However, the attempts to invest the city were frustrated by the Roman control of the nearby ports, such as St. Symeon. Reinforcements and supplies were brought in at a steady rate, and the Romans had fortified the port into little more than an armed supply depot. Any mistakes on the part of the Fatimids were quickly exploited, and, even though Antioch was nominally under siege, food and soldiers continued to arrive, with little to stop them.

Nuh decided that the best solution was to distract the Romans, and, so, he sent a massive raiding party, largely composed of his Turkic cavalry, into Anatolia. His logic was that, though the Roman Themes in the border regions were highly defended and full of citizen soldiers, the inner Themes were not as militarized as they used to be. If his men could get through the outer region, he could cause havoc in the Roman heartland. Particularly since the defenses of the border Themes were not at full strength, after the defeats the Romans had suffered so far. His gamble of splitting his army from his steppe cavalry paid off, with the Oghuz Turks smashing through the Roman fortification lines and plundering the Anatolian Plataeu, a region that had finally started to recover from the centuries of Arab raiding. The locals, however, were not quite as easy targets as the Turks had hoped, as they, themselves, had adopted a pastoral lifestyle in response to the history of raids, and the peasantry had most of their wealth tied up in livestock that could be hidden easily. The greatest success of the raid was an attack on the city of Ancyra, with the Turks sacking much of the city’s outer region. The raiding group didn’t linger, however, knowing full well that they could be cut off and picked to pieces before making it back.

However, they likely could have stayed longer, as the Republic was utterly shaken by the incursion. The government in the capital had staked much of its political legitimacy on the idea that their system was successful in defending the territories of the Republic, and such a vivid display of their impotence in that regard did not go over well at all. Further complicating matters were that the Magyars were stepping up their raids in the southern Balkans and even straight through the string of Roman allies into Roman territory itself. Bolstering the Magyar threat were the VarangianRus, the semi-slavicized Scandinavian raiders from further north, equally dangerous on land and at sea. Meanwhile, in far off Africa, the local Berbers were growing more assertive in their dealings with the Romans, consolidating into larger blocs despite the Republic’s hope that the region could be kept weak and divided. On all fronts, it seemed that the Roman power was waning yet again.

The solution to this problem came, as Rome’s solutions so often did, from the frontier, from those that weren’t entirely Roman themselves, but who were loyal to the idea of the Republic. It was little surprise that such loyalty would exist. An institution as old as the Roman state - however it organized itself – was bound to have some gravitas behind its name. Further, the army never ceased to be an avenue of integration and assimilation into the Roman order. Thus, it was an officer from the eastern, mountainous frontier, descended from one of the more noble of Armenian families, that became the embodiment of the Roman response.

AlexiosBagratoni, though a skilled general and statesman, was likely not exceptional in his circumstances or in his abilities. Nor was his idea all that novel: if Rome’s armies were not up to the task of winning the current war, then outsource the military. There were plenty of capable peoples bordering the Republic that would make excellent mercenaries. Or, if the Republican sensibilities of the Romans were offended by that notion, Alexios presented them as axillaries. His fellow Armenians were the most obvious recruits, in early AD 901, he already had a large contingent of Armenians mountain warriors ready. Slavic hill-fighters were also quickly recruited, and Alexios, now a Hypatos and one of the main Roman commanders, began to build his army around these groups, as well as the (for this era) traditional Roman light infantry and heavy cavalry.

Alexios’ first target was the Magyars, though he didn’t want to crush the steppe raiders, just remind them who the predominant power in the region was. After tracking down and inflicting a reasonable defeat on one of the larger Magyar bands, Alexiosoffered them employment in the Republic’s army. He also sought out the Rus, very impressed with their heavy infantry. Both groups were incorporated into the army, and the unwieldy but versatile force began to make its way eastward. They arrived gradually at the still-ongoing siege of Antioch, but their numbers began to tell, as the supply route from the coast was soon totally secured, with the road into the city receiving shipments daily, rather than every few weeks or so. Nuh grew concerned, and made one final push to assault Antioch, once he learned that even more troops were on their way, but it failed, and the Fatimids had to retreat. They regrouped at Tel Bashir, but that simply gave the Romans a place to fight the Fatimids, where Alexios was able to inflict a devastating blow. The fortress fell back into Roman hands, and then it was on to Edessa again.

Here, the Romans set up yet another siege of the city, but, this time, the siege was finally successful, and the Edessan Emir not only surrendered when he saw the Caliph’s army retreat into Mesopotamia to recover, but he even converted to Christianity. Alexios marched the Roman army south, toward Aleppo, which was also put back under siege. Here, the garrison, entirely Fatimid, held out far longer than the local of Edessa had, but Aleppo fell by spring of AD 902.

Unwilling to leave anything to chance, Alexios methodically marched to every city of note in Syria and Palestine, accepting submissions from those cities that would surrender, and sieging those that would not. The army was present even for the peaceful surrenders, as a demonstration of the renewed Roman might. Meanwhile, Isaac Kamateros, the brother of the slain commander, lead half the army into Mesopotamia, to tie up the Fatimids. His successes were not as dazzling by any measure as those of AlexiosBagratoni, but they were enough to hold of Caliph Nuh (and to win Kamateros an election the following year).

It was on Easter Sunday of AD 903 that Alexios officially accepted the surrender of Jerusalem (its leaders had actually sent envoys indicating their surrender months before), just for dramatic effect. By that summer, the entire region, all the way down to the Red Sea, was totally under Roman control, and the joint commanders of the Republic met with the Caliph himself to settle on a peace. The Republic would guarantee the right of Muslims to conduct pilgrimages to the Holy Land without molestation or injurious fees, and would allow the Caliphate’s traders to use the trade routes in their new lands. Those were the only major concessions the Romans gave, and Caliph Nuh accepted them.

End
 
So the Romans are now once again own the Levant. It will prove a large boost to the Roman exchequer to control the termini of the Silk Road trade as well as guarantee their dominance of the Eastern Mediterranean through and through.

Though the Republic seriously needs to revisit it's defence policies, as such raids as the one which looted Ancyra are not bound to go down well with the people and can shake the people's confidence in the Republican institutions to protect them.

And anyway what is the composition of the Roman armies around this time? Like troop types and their numbers as well as an overview of the Roman military doctrine will do good sometime in the near future.
 
If Scandinavian Raids into the Black sea get too rough, could the Republic take the mouths of the major river ways that were used to raid the sea and basicly build defensive fortress cities around them?
 
Top