All seems pretty reasonable, the new energy and dynamism within the Roman government can only accomplish so many things at once. The army largely falling to the wayside makes sense, and you've given them enough lucky breaks for it to work out.
And now it's going to be 1940s Yugoslavia for any invader. A spear behind every blade of grass
You'd be surprised at how effective soft power can be even in this time period.All seems pretty reasonable, the new energy and dynamism within the Roman government can only accomplish so many things at once. The army largely falling to the wayside makes sense, and you've given them enough lucky breaks for it to work out.
In terms of expansion, Anatolia seems like the easiest option. Something along the Megali idea borders, including Trebizond and maybe minus Crete and Cyprus. I'd reckon the best time would be Timur's invasion.
The duchies of Athens and Achaea are under the crowns of Aragon and Naples respectively but could be annexed in time. Bulgaria has made it long clear the Romans aren't welcome and might be better served as a buffer state. Serbia, if not an ally after or near the end of Uros IV's reign, could be scavenged for Albania and modern-day Macedonia, if Uros V comes to power. Taking Cyprus, the last of the Levantine Crusader States, that could stir up a hornet's nest.
Still, it's your TL, Sov, and it's not my place to tell you where you want it to go.
Hmm, why don't the Byzantines expand into the Caucusus area? Ottomans and powerful opponents are less of a problem there. It's not exactly easy to take control of, but once control is established it could be a sizeable asset.
Perhaps even expand north into Crimea/ Russia?
Ok that's cool. I need to look into each of these movements now (especially Hussites, need to see if cross pollination of ideas is possible)Not only in Mazdakism, but Bogomils and Lollards and Waldensians and Hussites all had similar elements. It's a common enough human impulse and just about the right timeframe for it.
Crimea is doable, and in fact a good place to go to, but the Caucasus is very unlikely unless Anatolia is retaken. The Caucasus would make an attractive border primarily because of its defensive terrain, which makes invading the Anatolian heartland that much more difficult.Hmm, why don't the Byzantines expand into the Caucusus area? Ottomans and powerful opponents are less of a problem there. It's not exactly easy to take control of, but once control is established it could be a sizeable asset.
Perhaps even expand north into Crimea/ Russia?
Its an interesting prospect I'll note, but its unlikely at this point (getting a border at the Don, not reabsorbing Trebizond).That is an interesting idea, personally I have always been fond of the idea of the Roman north eastern boarder on the Don and Volga Rivers. Perhaps not Immediately, but reabsorb Trebizond and find someway to acquire Georgia and it becomes more plausible.
All caught up. Great analysis on the reforms.
Thanks! This means quite a lot as I'm often unsure of my writing skills.Enjoying! You're getting more polished as you go, too.
I agree with you on that, I envisioned that boarder as more of a long term goal, not one to be taken right this minute.Its an interesting prospect I'll note, but its unlikely at this point (getting a border at the Don, not reabsorbing Trebizond).
frustratingly large navy. (To the standards of the Genoa and Venice in this war, Genoa could barely field 100 galleys and here was Rome with a fully stacked ~40. Isn’t it wonderful to have a relatively large population?)
Dun, dun dun! Good going, Sov!
Dammit. These have been fixed. Ugh, I hate how no matter how many times I proofread mistakes like that somehow don't get noticed.I think you forgot footnotes and some sentences are wrong.
Example fo both:
"Venice and Aragon moved their fleets to the Aegean and seized the colony of Galata, near Constantinople was burned down and the Crimean colonies were put under siege [2]"
Besides that, looking good. I like Roman intervention in Genoese favor, I've never liked Venice.
Hmm... Maybe if there's a desire to push and fortify borders in the long term (this is assuming the entirety of Anatolia has been retaking and security is needed)I agree with you on that, I envisioned that boarder as more of a long term goal, not one to be taken right this minute.
Excellent update by the way.
Lets go genoa and rome! Kick some venetian asses!
No, its meant to be approximately 40. In the aftermath of the Black Death where manpower was scarce in the Merchant Republics (we need to remember that Venice had less than 50,000 people at this time and Genoa around 20-30,000, making them unable to field fleets like they used to.) there were so many undermanned ships that any increase would be viewed as a valuable asset. For example, historically in mid 1351 Genoa sent in what was recorded to be a 'huge fleet' into the Aegean to protect their interests and citizens- but closer examination reveals that the fleet was only 67 galleys. A number like 40, that's almost doubling the size of this fleet, that's a big increase.Is this meant to be only ~40?
I'm confused if this is meant to appear intimidating. Is it meant to be ~140?
Yup. Venice just makes a more attractive target then Genoa, even disregarding the whole avenging the Fourth Crusade angle.Although, certainly interesting times - Athens, trade concessions, and brutalisation of Venice on the horizon.
Nope. Venice went in with that blatant violation of sovereignty and the same amount of bullheadedness that Venice was prone to. I mean these are the same people who burned down towns in the Golden Horde to undermine Genoese trading and then were surprised for being kicked out of the Azov Sea for a decade. Rome simply didn't do anything because of fear of getting into another war- that is until a big, decisive battle happens at your doorstep where both fleets would suffer heavily, giving you extra bargaining power.They raided Galata? Surely that would need Rome's active approval, given that the settlement faces the Golden Horn, 400-500 metres across the water.