Renovation: An Eastern Roman Timeline

[Valin Arcadius]

The popes most certainly does see them as Christians and even thought that the Fourth Crusade was a complete disaster.

HA! the pope thinking it was a disaster, if I recall correctly that train of thought only lasted until the treasure and holy relics looted from Constantinople started pouring in.

The entire dispute's pretty stupid as it's more about who should have control over the church as opposed to a difference in doctrine like Lutheranism vs Catholicism.

This might have been true at the beginning of the schism, but after almost 300 years there were definitely some doctrinal differences.

 

[Avrorrange]

HA! the pope thinking it was a disaster, if I recall correctly that train of thought only lasted until the treasure and holy relics looted from Constantinople started pouring in.

There's nothing the pope could have done about it after the sack.He has no choice but to accept the fait accompli.The damage was already done.He did realize that it's going to be a hell lot harder if not impossible for a reconciliation from then on.

 

[Nagisaki]

But the opinion of Neapolitan Greeks is irrelevant since few if any are part of the nobility.

I think the most important thing would be why would Joanna want to marry the Emperor.What could she gain out of it.From the perspective of the Emperor and his advisors,a union most certainly is attractive,but what can Joanna gain out of it?Co-rulership(I think it's acceptable for John and his advisors,but will the Greeks accept this?)?Security(Joanna's hold on the throne isn't really secure,she needs protection,but can the empire provide it?)?Prestige(most certainly,the throne of the ERE is most certainly one of the most prestigious thrones one can get)?

The Neapolitan Greeks probably wouldn't get a say, you are right on that

I honestly would think prestige and/or co-rulership. Being consort of the ERE is a very prestigious position, and being co-ruler would 1. Give even more prestige, and 2. Give a better incentive for the marriage. Although the whole co-rulership thing is probably a little out of the park.

 

[Avrorrange]

The Neapolitan Greeks probably wouldn't get a say, you are right on that

I honestly would think prestige and/or co-rulership. Being consort of the ERE is a very prestigious position, and being co-ruler would 1. Give even more prestige, and 2. Give a better incentive for the marriage. Although the whole co-rulership thing is probably a little out of the park.

Yes,but I don't think the Queen would be content with being a mere consort.She will probably want some control over the empire,a bit like Theodora during Justinian's reign.

The most important thing that impedes the whole union would be why would she surrender control of her kingdom?Prestige alone won't make her marry John.Joanna I seems to be a pretty independent woman,with no desire just to be the wife of a ruler.

 

[sarahz]

Take away the republic part; the Byzantines hated that government like the Nazis hated Communism. Even the Zealots were fiercly loyal to the monarchy as they were skewering nobles for fun.

Yep. The self awareness was very deliberate too.

yeah mention republics and they will think Venice(snarl)

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

The most important thing that impedes the whole union would be why would she surrender control of her kingdom?Prestige alone won't make her marry John.Joanna I seems to be a pretty independent woman,with no desire just to be the wife of a ruler.

Won't that be a deal-breaker, then?

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Whilst I appreciate the debate on the marriage with John and Joanna, I have to say that, unfortunately it will happen right now. Every time I mull over what could happen the possibility of a revolt against Joanna motivated by aristocratic fear trumps anything else. That's something that I highly doubt would be crushed as those nobles make up the bulk of the army, and especially the most well trained troops. Rome has nothing to counter that.

It would be just as Louis I co-reign with Joanna, except with a Greek monarch and without Hungarian invasions.

 

[othyrsyde]

Whilst I appreciate the debate on the marriage with John and Joanna, I have to say that, unfortunately it will not happen right now.

You mean this, right?

 

[Scorpius72]

You mean this, right?

I hope so.

Anyway when will the next part be posted?

 

[Avrorrange]

BTW,what happened to Koron,Corfu and Modon?Did the ERE retake them during the last war?

 

[ByzantineLover]

BTW,what happened to Naxos ,Koron and Modon?Did the ERE retake them during the last war?

Not sure about the last two, but Naxos was taken by the Aydinids.

 

[Avrorrange]

Not sure about the last two, but Naxos was taken by the Aydinids.

I miswrote,I actually meant Corfu.

 

[ByzantineLover]

I miswrote,I actually meant Corfu.

Corfu should still be under Angevin control, via Naples or Achaea.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

You mean this, right?

Probably.

I hope so.

Anyway when will the next part be posted?

Hopefully in a week or so at the latest, been busy doing some applications.

BTW,what happened to Koron,Corfu and Modon?Did the ERE retake them during the last war?

Genoa owns Corfu. Modon would return back to the Romans.

 

[Komnenos002]

On the topic of diplomatic integration, a far more useful one would be Bulgaria.

I can maybe see it happening in the medium to long term. Rome far more clearly in the ascendant as a "Gunpowder Empire" and well-developed institutions of governance. Business, trade links, and dynasties between Bulgaria and Rome intertwine over time, and then dynastic issues in Bulgaria lead to the Emperor/Empress also being King/Queen of Bulgaria.

That I can see eventually leading to a unified nation.

 

[Scorpius72]

Once the Byzantines master gunpowder they're quickly going to be a serious threat to the surrounding powers and it's a sure bet they'd use that to totally destroy the Ottomans.

 

[Avrorrange]

On the topic of diplomatic integration, a far more useful one would be Bulgaria.

I can maybe see it happening in the medium to long term. Rome far more clearly in the ascendant as a "Gunpowder Empire" and well-developed institutions of governance. Business, trade links, and dynasties between Bulgaria and Rome intertwine over time, and then dynastic issues in Bulgaria lead to the Emperor/Empress also being King/Queen of Bulgaria.

That I can see eventually leading to a unified nation.

If Naples is hard to control,Bulgaria is probably worse.The nobility of Bulgaria was ten times worst than the Neapolitan one.Just look at the list of Bulgarian Emperors,more than half of the Bulgarian Emperors from the second empire were murdered or deposed.Of all nobles,these ones definitely need a purge.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Re: Bulgaria, its an option and we'll see how it goes.

Anyways, going to try something new. Timeline's going to flash forward to the mid 1370s after this next set of posts as that's when the initial phase of recovery will have paid off and John V will be actually wielding power. Therefore, since it'll be around 30-40 years after the POD I feel like I should talk about what's been going on around the rest of the world and how the butterflies have been kicking in. Most of the time these should be short, one page or so summaries that don't go into much detail if that's alright. I want to give a sense of whats been going on but at the same time the last thing I need is to be bogged down in one corner of the world trying to iron out specific details when broad strokes will do the same. This is Eastern Rome's story, not anyone else's.

-----

The World Around Rome​

While Romania fell into a period of rest and reorganization following its war with Venice, not all had that luxury of peace and quiet. All around, the nations of the world were undergoing a state of flux; with some waxing and others waning. It is a time of violent clashes and tense struggles, as the cusp of a new age dawns. Let us take a moment to bring you up to speed on how things have changed in the brief, fleeting moment the empire is at peace.

Southeast Europe [1]​

If there is a word to describe the situation of the Southwest Europe during the latter half of the 1350s and the 60s, it was detente. The previous clashes that had so characterized centuries of policy between the 3 majors states (Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania) of the region had given way to a mutually agreed sentiment of peace. All 3 sides, despite their intense rivalries with each other had felt that it was more beneficial to keep the peace and turn their energies to other matters.

Now you know that the elites in Romania were very wary of spending valued blood and treasure on wars for some uncertain prize of land and fortresses. But that leaves Serbia and Bulgaria? Why did they remain at peace with their each other, and Romania? The simple answer is that there were more pressing matters to attend to, either at home or abroad that made the prospect of warring unwise. For Serbia, there is the looming threat of Hungary, growing stronger each year by the leadership of their young king Louis. Coming on the scene at the head of a shattering realm, Louis returned the level of centralization that his father’s reforms had started, working hard to cement royal authority along with rebuilding the depleted army. By the 1360s, his work had been mostly completed, and Serbia was increasingly worrying over another round of invasion, this time far larger and more brutal than the previous. Now, it was time to placate her neighbors and ensure the Serbian military was at a state of constant readiness in the event of a sudden invasion.

But what about Bulgaria? During the latter half of the reign of Bulgaria, the tsardom came to deal with the problems of an increasingly independent minded Bolyar class that had started to resent royal authority and were making trouble for Ivan Alexander. This wasn’t helped by the policy of creating what Romania would call ‘despotates’, in which a viceroy under the Tsar’s permission would exercise considerable amount of authority. The amount varied depending on person of course, but it had a noticeably corrosive effect on the power of the central government.

Obviously, such a thing had to be dealt with, but such a thing would inevitably be costly and expend much political will and likely lead to revolts. Common sense dictates that in order to go about your costly centralization efforts you need a conductive environment and, of course, the easiest way to do so would be to eliminate the risk of having those who would try to stir the pot. Alliances had been made with Serbia and Romania in the 1330s-40s, but they were confirmed later in order to buy Bulgaria enough time to hopefully reform. And in this there was success. Ivan Alexander, as the last main accomplishment of his long reign had brought back the tsar’s power. Wasn’t easy, wasn’t fast, but ultimately it was successful.

Now what of the other states in the [Balkans] you ask? Epirus and Achaea? The former is in the process of having its economic integrity destroyed as the Romans continue to dump cheap manufactured goods and grain from the Black Sea and Bulgaria into the region. This doesn’t sound like much as most of the population would be subsistence farmers, but it does hurt the state’s economy and makes it more dependent on her neighbors and imports.

As for Achaea, it continues to be a source of quasi-exile for Neapolitan nobles.

[1] Without the Ottomans, what we know as the Balkans wouldn’t be called that. Instead lets use the nice, neutral name of Southeast Europe, that can conveniently be stretched to include anything south and east of Germany.

 

[Samuel Von Straßburg]

Southwest Europe [1]​

Don't you mean Southeast...

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Don't you mean Southeast...

Shit that's embarrassing.