RogueTraderEnthusiast: The sack of Buda after Mohacs was a ‘sneak preview’ of this mentality. How much the Romans could get away with is up in the air, but the Latin West overall has gotten off rather lightly (with the exception of Venice) for its attacks on the Romans.
RogueTraderEnthusiast: Short answer, if he could get away with it: yes.
Remember the phrase ‘Holy Roman Empire’ is an insult to the Romans. To them, it is literally a false empire. For diplomatic reasons they keep their mouths shut, but if it came into their power they’d wipe it out, although what they’d do with the various component states would be up in the air.
One (and definitely not the only) reason why I think that America is in general more militaristic than Western Europe is that the world wars did barely any internal damage to the states. To an American, war is something that happens ‘somewhere else’, which makes it easier to contemplate waging it. For Latins outside of Italy and Hungary, war against Rhomania is something that happens ‘over there’, which makes it easier to contemplate.
A note on the Carpathians: the Vlachs should be holding a good chunk of that mountain range and from the Roman perspective they’re being a perfect buffer state. There hasn’t been any invasion down from Poland directly into Bulgaria and while the Vlachs didn’t hold the Banat, they are keeping the north shore of the Danube secure as far upstream as Vidin, an important advantage.
I don’t really have anything to say, but thank you for your detailed analysis/commentary. It’s very helpful. I also like that this TL fosters such analysis/commentary.
*blushes* you flatter my ravings. Especially since I forgot the extent of the Vlachs as a buffer state, which does quite nicely counter the poor behaviour of Serbia.