Thirteenth century Roman Empire (map)

[burgoynewulfe]

The year is 1257. Europe is a flame, from Hispania to Anatolia and Alexandria to Parisiorum, the rebirth of classical antiquity has changed the world. The ancien regime that lasted for over twelve hundred years, since the time of Augustus, ended with the rebirth of republican ideals, and with one man Henricus Dandulus, general and consul. "My lord the consul, most serene prince of Rome."

Henricus Dandulus gave Rome everything; glory, justice, art and science, nothing was untouched and his code of laws made justice a reality for everyone. From the overthrow of Rome's last emperor in 1144, to the civil wars that followed, the old enemies plotted against him; Germania, Neustria, Aegyptus, Carpathia, and their vassals. Dandulus was to be removed, a flame extinguished from the world, and replaced with barbarous darkness.

In the east a new empire emerged from the steppes of Mongolia, an empire stretching from China to Persia and Sarmatia. They wait for opportunity, to fight for the scraps of past glory, left over from a continent in flame.

Any thoughts or comments for this timeline?

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Must have been really hard to draw this map.

Though, if you wish a revival of republican ideals, I would remove the ☧.
Revolutions mostly overthrow religion.

 

[Agricola]

Great map!

Would you be so kind to explain, how the roman empire could keep these borders shown in this map until the 13th century? It seems the romans became feudal?

And how these surrounding kingdoms were established?

Without using ASBs, of course.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Emperor Enrico Dandalo is the stuff of nightmares to an ERE lover like myself.

But that aside, that's a well done map.

 

[Agricola]

Hhhm, I am afraid, I fully misunderstood the borders of the "Roman Empire" on this map.

 

[burgoynewulfe]

I'll explain the borders a little more as this map is a bit low res and confusing. Regnum means kingdom in Latin, so Regnum Germania is Kingdom of Germania. Now the Roman Empire (republic) in my timeline controls three kingdom titles; Kingdom of Greece, Kingdom of Anatolia, and Kingdom of Serbia (powerful foederati of serbs)

R. is not short for Regnum however, it is short for Regiones (Regio is Latin world for Region), and a Regione is basically a western Latin equivalent of the Byzantine Theme system developed in 6th and 7th centuries in real life. A Regione is ruled by a Praetor, equivalent to a hereditary duke and historical Strategos of Byzantine empire.

The provinces not designated as Regiones are imperial provinces, run by a governor appointed by the Emperor, there are generally traditional provinces, not under threat from forces outside the empire.

It is also worth noting that many of the Regiones (duchies) originated as foederati territory within the Roman Empire during the fifth and sixth centuries. And the nations of Armenia, Georgia, Mauretania, and the Bosporan Kingdom were released as vassal nations to Rome. The two kingdoms in northern Spain are rebellious, former foederati territory, that the Romans never manged to reconquer.

Now a little about "Regnum Albania"... the Kingdom of Albion, as it appears anglicized, is a nation that emerged following the Roman withdraw from Britain in the early fifth century. The kingdom was established by Ambrosius Aurelianus and remained a stronghold for Romano-British culture, developing its own sub-Roman imperial system in the absence of direct Roman rule, spending its first few centuries of existence fighting of numerous incursions of Saxons, Angles, and Jutes and fighting to keep disparate Celtic tribes within its borders.

 

[burgoynewulfe]

I should say, in retrospect, that as I develop this timeline more and more I will have much more of western Europe under Roman control, as i wish to avoid re-writing history with different circumstances. I do not wish for there to be many squabbling northern European nations as that is what happened in real life, only difference is Rome is thrown into the mix. I plan on Britain and the Scandinavian nations to remain independent, as well with Germania and possibly Frisia.

If you have any suggestions please feel free to suggest!

 

[burgoynewulfe]

Emperor Enrico Dandalo is the stuff of nightmares to an ERE lover like myself.

But that aside, that's a well done map.

I just read a book about the Byzantine Empire and your comment is pure gold. By the way the fourth crusade was possibly the worst thing to happen during the middle ages.. seriously Byzantium was great, cultured, educated, and then these Venetian crusaders come in and ruin everything. To add injury to insult they elected a Frenchmen to be the new emperor of Constantinople but its hardly a surprise, the french sure love being heretics.

 

[Amelikite]

I just read a book about the Byzantine Empire and your comment is pure gold. By the way the fourth crusade was possibly the worst thing to happen during the middle ages.. seriously Byzantium was great, cultured, educated, and then these Venetian crusaders come in and ruin everything. To add injury to insult they elected a Frenchmen to be the new emperor of Constantinople but its hardly a surprise, the french sure love being heretics.

Did your reading a extend as far as the massacre of the Latins, under Emperor Andrikos Komnenos, that was cultured in a Greek way and the Italians would have found it very educational, albeit a very short education in many cases.

 

[LordKalvan]

Emperor Enrico Dandalo is the stuff of nightmares to an ERE lover like myself.

But that aside, that's a well done map.

I would strongly recommend to read some serious books about the history of the Most Serene Republic. ED was not a powerful doge (for a given value of "powerful": the checks and balances of Venice governance system were pretty strict): while a Dandolo, he did not belong to the main family line, did not have a power base in Venice, was very old when he got the ducal crown and anyway his blindness was certainly an obstacle. In other words he became doge as compromise, short-term candidate: an exercise of political compromise between the patrician bankers and the merchants. Unsurprisingly his Promissio (i.e. what he had to swear at the coronation) is both the oldest to survive as well as the strictest in the history of Venice.
The legend of ED single-handedly turning the IV Crusade from Egypt to Constantinople, fighting on the walls of the City and in general baying for the blood of Byzantium is quite old-fashioned and has been de-bunked for many years. Two more tidbits are quite telling: the electors who chose the first Latin emperor of Constantinople were 30 - 15 of whom were Venetians - but Dandolo did not get a single vote. When he died (June 1205) he was buried in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia and the idea of bringing his body to Venice and bury him there was never considered. The main reason is that both the main patrician families and the "popolo minuto" of Venice were not at all happy about the way Dandolo and the merchants' faction managed things during the crusade and in particular in Constantinople. The biggest formal grievance was that the lands in the share of Venice after taking Constantinople had sworn fealty to the doge of Venice (rather than to "the doge and the comune of Venice": it was not just a formality, since it went against the entrenched tradition of the republic. If ED had survived, he would have certainly been tried in the Senate as a traitor). However there were two real fears in Venice in 1204: the first that the Venetian polity could break up (Venice the city and a Venice-in-the-East) and this was certainly unacceptable; the second one was that Venice was a conservative and risk-averse society: they never wanted to topple the ERE and replace it with something else, they wanted to manage it.

Did your reading a extend as far as the massacre of the Latins, under Emperor Andrikos Komnenos, that was cultured in a Greek way and the Italians would have found it very educational, albeit a very short education in many cases.

Unfortunately, "acute EREphilia" is very common among AH members: logic and reason will never tame it.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Unfortunately, "acute EREphilia" is very common among AH members: logic and reason will never tame it.

We're like zombies Once the Byzantophiles get their teeth into you, you have no hope.

I would strongly recommend to read some serious books about the history of the Most Serene Republic. ED was not a powerful doge (for a given value of "powerful": the checks and balances of Venice governance system were pretty strict): while a Dandolo, he did not belong to the main family line, did not have a power base in Venice, was very old when he got the ducal crown and anyway his blindness was certainly an obstacle. In other words he became doge as compromise, short-term candidate: an exercise of political compromise between the patrician bankers and the merchants. Unsurprisingly his Promissio (i.e. what he had to swear at the coronation) is both the oldest to survive as well as the strictest in the history of Venice.
The legend of ED single-handedly turning the IV Crusade from Egypt to Constantinople, fighting on the walls of the City and in general baying for the blood of Byzantium is quite old-fashioned and has been de-bunked for many years. Two more tidbits are quite telling: the electors who chose the first Latin emperor of Constantinople were 30 - 15 of whom were Venetians - but Dandolo did not get a single vote. When he died (June 1205) he was buried in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia and the idea of bringing his body to Venice and bury him there was never considered. The main reason is that both the main patrician families and the "popolo minuto" of Venice were not at all happy about the way Dandolo and the merchants' faction managed things during the crusade and in particular in Constantinople. The biggest formal grievance was that the lands in the share of Venice after taking Constantinople had sworn fealty to the doge of Venice (rather than to "the doge and the comune of Venice": it was not just a formality, since it went against the entrenched tradition of the republic. If ED had survived, he would have certainly been tried in the Senate as a traitor). However there were two real fears in Venice in 1204: the first that the Venetian polity could break up (Venice the city and a Venice-in-the-East) and this was certainly unacceptable; the second one was that Venice was a conservative and risk-averse society: they never wanted to topple the ERE and replace it with something else, they wanted to manage it.

Now this is certainly interesting - any books you recommend?

This is confusing though. It starts with saying Dandolo didn't really force the crusade, but then suggests that the conservative Venetians in Venice weren't pulling the strings behind, but the merchants were.

So is it fair to say that the underhanded actions of the Venetian Merchants were the ones controlling the crusade in the end?

 

[LordKalvan]

We're like zombies Once the Byzantophiles get their teeth into you, you have no hope.

How very true

Now this is certainly interesting - any books you recommend?

This is confusing though. It starts with saying Dandolo didn't really force the crusade, but then suggests that the conservative Venetians in Venice weren't pulling the strings behind, but the merchants were.

So is it fair to say that the underhanded actions of the Venetian Merchants were the ones controlling the crusade in the end?

I'll have to check.
However if you speak Italian (or can survive an experience with Google translator) you might try this: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/enrico-dandolo_(Dizionario_Biografico)/
It is a short biography of ED, very well researched and with referencesto primary sources. It includes also a bibliography (a bit dated,but still worth).

The story of the IV Crusade is quite confusing,so don't worry too much. I may also have been a bit cryptic concentrating it in a single short post.
There are three points:

• Venetian government and institutions worked on consensus. This is true for the city life but also for large expeditions in the east. A lot of politicking, very often the bare-knockles type
• Venice was not in peaceful terms with the ERE since the massacres of Venetians and their expulsion from Constantinople. OTOH Venice did not look so much for a war but raher for an appeasement and the regaining of the commercialprivileges in Constatinople
• The patrician families had certainly sent some of their members along the crusade to protect their interests: the stans ("those who stay in Venice", the patricians) and the mercatores (merchants) are both represented and a consensus must be reached on all important decisions. What however appears from contemporary chronicles survived up to now is that once the crusaders reach Constantinople the communications with Venice start to break down: it is the beginning of a schism, since the elite Venetians appear to be more interested in personal gains and hereditary fiefs with the only obligation of service and fealty to the emperor (but not to the republic: after the death of Dandolo, his son Ranieri will be sent from Venice to the Egean sea with the mission to bring back these new feudatories under the control of Venice)
• I said that Dandolo is not a king, cannot decide things on his own. He still is the doge, has strong family ties (and two nephews with him) and can play the different factions up to a limit. Still major decisions require a consensus

 

[Deleted member 67076]

I just read a book about the Byzantine Empire and your comment is pure gold. By the way the fourth crusade was possibly the worst thing to happen during the middle ages.. seriously Byzantium was great, cultured, educated, and then these Venetian crusaders come in and ruin everything. To add injury to insult they elected a Frenchmen to be the new emperor of Constantinople but its hardly a surprise, the french sure love being heretics.

Well, they weren't done for after the Fourth Crusade- its the invasion of Charles of Anjou and the Civil Wars in the early 1300s that really broke the empire's back.

The Frankish Crusaders are more to blame than the Venetians however- they didn't know how to run a state. At all. And just did nothing but 60 years of infighting and mismanagement (without having the decency to allow Bulgaria or Epirus to take Macedonia and Thrace quickly enough).

I would strongly recommend to read some serious books about the history of the Most Serene Republic. ED was not a powerful doge (for a given value of "powerful": the checks and balances of Venice governance system were pretty strict): while a Dandolo, he did not belong to the main family line, did not have a power base in Venice, was very old when he got the ducal crown and anyway his blindness was certainly an obstacle. In other words he became doge as compromise, short-term candidate: an exercise of political compromise between the patrician bankers and the merchants. Unsurprisingly his Promissio (i.e. what he had to swear at the coronation) is both the oldest to survive as well as the strictest in the history of Venice.
The legend of ED single-handedly turning the IV Crusade from Egypt to Constantinople, fighting on the walls of the City and in general baying for the blood of Byzantium is quite old-fashioned and has been de-bunked for many years. Two more tidbits are quite telling: the electors who chose the first Latin emperor of Constantinople were 30 - 15 of whom were Venetians - but Dandolo did not get a single vote. When he died (June 1205) he was buried in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia and the idea of bringing his body to Venice and bury him there was never considered. The main reason is that both the main patrician families and the "popolo minuto" of Venice were not at all happy about the way Dandolo and the merchants' faction managed things during the crusade and in particular in Constantinople. The biggest formal grievance was that the lands in the share of Venice after taking Constantinople had sworn fealty to the doge of Venice (rather than to "the doge and the comune of Venice": it was not just a formality, since it went against the entrenched tradition of the republic. If ED had survived, he would have certainly been tried in the Senate as a traitor). However there were two real fears in Venice in 1204: the first that the Venetian polity could break up (Venice the city and a Venice-in-the-East) and this was certainly unacceptable; the second one was that Venice was a conservative and risk-averse society: they never wanted to topple the ERE and replace it with something else, they wanted to manage it.

Huh, interesting. I've only read City of Fortune when it comes to the Serene Republic, and that books focus leans more towards the 1000s, 1100s and 1300s.

But this really goes to hammer down just how much of a fluke the Fourth Crusade was.

Unfortunately, "acute EREphilia" is very common among AH members: logic and reason will never tame it.