An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania

TBH I think Rome got a better deal. They keep the wealthier coastal possessions, removed a disloyal populace, AND got Northern Mesopotamia, a region with a good many Christians and lots of wealth.
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
I do wonder what will happen to Damascus now that it will be rather cut off for the next twenty to thirty years with the Palmyra route east and the route south to the Hejaz the only friendly ways for trade. Good chance this will kill Damascus almost as well as if it was sacked.
 
It would be nice for the Rhomans to conquer the rest of Kurdistan along with Mesopotamia (or most of it) in the next war. This would allow the isolation of interior Syria and its recovery in the same war. And it would give a lot of strategic depth to the Empire.
 
Is there any natural defences left in Mesopotamia? Because the forts have fell right?

If no,that means the numerical inferior ottomans will be swept aside without defense.
 
Rome can't support ~200,000 in a single theater in the East the way they can in the Aegean basin because of logistics but I don't see why they can't have two ~90,000 man armies - one in Syria and the other in northern Mesopotamia. Theodoros Laskaris had roughly 80-90 thousand men in Syria and Gabras had 90,000 at Nineveh in northern Mesopotamia. That doesn't count any raiding forces from the Georgian border either. Won't be easy but it is doable especially with a couple years to build up supply depots in the areas.

If after the truce ends Rome launches not one but two 90,000 man offensives in two separate theaters at the same time the Ottomans are pretty screwed. They have neither the natural defenses nor the manpower to stop those attacks. They also (probably) can't rely on European powers to distract the Romans this time around as Latin Europe will be either fighting its own battles and/or be far too war-weary to fight Rome so soon after this current war ends.

Not to mention that D3/Theodoros Laskaris have already begun revamping officer training in the Army. The biggest drawback that Rome faced in this war (besides horrendous luck) was that her upper-tier officers (OTL colonels and above) weren't very good early on. The new officer training mentioned before D3 moved the eastern armies to Europe will pay dividends in the war vs the Ottomans once the truce ends.
 
Rome can't support ~200,000 in a single theater in the East the way they can in the Aegean basin because of logistics but I don't see why they can't have two ~90,000 man armies - one in Syria and the other in northern Mesopotamia. Theodoros Laskaris had roughly 80-90 thousand men in Syria and Gabras had 90,000 at Nineveh in northern Mesopotamia. That doesn't count any raiding forces from the Georgian border either. Won't be easy but it is doable especially with a couple years to build up supply depots in the areas.
I think the biggest issue with it, is that the logistics required are effectively lugging the supplies overland, and if we're ensuring 100% secure logistics, we're looking at via the highlands. This is different if a Syrian campaign can rapidly secure the lowland route, but at least initially, we're going to need large stockpiles in northern Mesopotamia which will really give the game away, moreso than the arrive of 90,000 men. But I do agree it is likely within the capacity of the Romans ports.

If after the truce ends Rome launches not one but two 90,000 man offensives in two separate theaters at the same time the Ottomans are pretty screwed. They have neither the natural defenses nor the manpower to stop those attacks. They also (probably) can't rely on European powers to distract the Romans this time around as Latin Europe will be either fighting its own battles and/or be far too war-weary to fight Rome so soon after this current war ends.
Seperate? Maybe, but certainly sympathetic theatres. As highlighted above, if a Syrian campaign can ensure the lowland route is secure, a Mesopotamian campaign can be far more aggressive. This is the poison pill that Ibrahim was scared of, perhaps not the scale of two invasions, but the ability for the Romans to effectively force him into a two-front war. Personally, I think the Romans would do well to make this a three front war. 100k in Mesopotamia, 40k in Syria to clean up when Ibrahim inevitably withdraws, or at least to prevent Ibrahim from cutting off the Mesopotamian force - and then another 40k alongside support from Georgia in the highlands, essentially more interested in strategic positions and disruption than outright capture of territory. If Georgia is able and willing to provide more than 40k, then maybe shuffle 20k back to Syria, but that forces Ibrahim to fight in three theatres, in such a way that ignoring ANY of them, will likely mean disaster.

Not to mention that D3/Theodoros Laskaris have already begun revamping officer training in the Army. The biggest drawback that Rome faced in this war (besides horrendous luck) was that her upper-tier officers (OTL colonels and above) weren't very good early on. The new officer training mentioned before D3 moved the eastern armies to Europe will pay dividends in the war vs the Ottomans once the truce ends.
Competence and Veterans. I feel somewhat bad for Ibrahim. It'd be like fighting his fathers army.
 
I think the biggest issue with it, is that the logistics required are effectively lugging the supplies overland, and if we're ensuring 100% secure logistics, we're looking at via the highlands. This is different if a Syrian campaign can rapidly secure the lowland route, but at least initially, we're going to need large stockpiles in northern Mesopotamia which will really give the game away, moreso than the arrive of 90,000 men. But I do agree it is likely within the capacity of the Romans ports.
I think the game is pretty much given away when Rome insisted on holding Duhok and the rest of Northern Mesopotamia. Ibrahim can read a map - he knows that Mosul is squarely in the bullseye and he knows that once this truce ends the Romans are coming with a fury. Both sides know that the war is going to resume in 1641 once this truce ends - I don't think Rome building supplies is going to be a surprise

Seperate? Maybe, but certainly sympathetic theatres. As highlighted above, if a Syrian campaign can ensure the lowland route is secure, a Mesopotamian campaign can be far more aggressive. This is the poison pill that Ibrahim was scared of, perhaps not the scale of two invasions, but the ability for the Romans to effectively force him into a two-front war. Personally, I think the Romans would do well to make this a three front war. 100k in Mesopotamia, 40k in Syria to clean up when Ibrahim inevitably withdraws, or at least to prevent Ibrahim from cutting off the Mesopotamian force - and then another 40k alongside support from Georgia in the highlands, essentially more interested in strategic positions and disruption than outright capture of territory. If Georgia is able and willing to provide more than 40k, then maybe shuffle 20k back to Syria, but that forces Ibrahim to fight in three theatres, in such a way that ignoring ANY of them, will likely mean disaster.
Yeah, this makes sense. We're in agreement that Rome can field a total number of troops exceeding the Ottomans. The question really isn't where the hammer will fall hardest (Mosul) but rather how bad the blows will be everywhere else.

Competence and Veterans. I feel somewhat bad for Ibrahim. It'd be like fighting his fathers army.
Like an unholy combination of Alexander's veterans and the Old Guard. I also feel bad for Ibrahim - demographics, geography, and time are combining to put him squarely behind the eight-ball.
 
Map-September 1634
Here is the completed map I have been working on !



There are a number of lands that are marked with the colors of two countries.
Poland and Prussia : Ostpreussen, Polish conquest under Casimir.
Poland and Lithuania : From Volhynia to Suwalkija, Polish conquests under Casimir.
Prussia and EAN : Estonia, Northern losses in the Great Northern War
Novgorod and EAN : Archangelsk, Northern losses in the Great Northern War.
Georgia and Ottomans : Trans-Aras lands. Currently in Ottoman hands, but have repeatedly changed hands.
Spain and Andalusia : Spanish end of the Reconquista.
Near East : The Demetrian Agreement, see minimaps.
 
The dashed zones look odd on the map and make it unclear who owns what. You should probably instead reflect current owner and recognized borders, regardless of current debate. Just use the normal 'claims' method of outlining the land in a claimed country's colour. That look much nicer and be clearer. Also why even show it on places where treaties have been signed and borders recognized? It doesn't matter if land recently changed, or even often changes, hands. This should be a snapshot of the world at the current moment.

Despotates should probably use a colour or other indication that shows they are Rhoman puppet states/vassals for clarity as well.
 
These map changes I feel put into perspective just how much this war threw TTL's Syria out of whack. That's a vast amount of land under completely new management, and a lot of it just went through a deliberate razing campaign; given the fairly low population density and thus slow growth in those areas (plus the inevitable post-truce Round II between the Romans and Ottomans), one wonders how long it is going to take that region to put itself back together from near anarchy.

On the other half of the coin, I am also wondering how differently the status of the Aramaic populations of the area fares ITTL. Going way back, I don't think it was elaborated on as to whether this timeline's Tamerlane massacred the Christian populations of his territories as the OTL one did. Whether or not this is the case, the populations of those areas under Roman rule seem likely to at least have fared better than OTL, albeit still as heretics in the eyes of the state. In the same vein, they also seem liable to benefit from the Roman plans for expansion towards Mosul and the Zagros.

In contrast, the status of the populations in the Levant seems a lot harder to predict - most of them seem likely to have been among those evacuated to the coast as part of the Demetrian campaign, but what remains in interior Syria really depends on who ends up holding the region long-term after the current state of flux.

On another note, is there any appreciable difference in TTL's distribution of Kurds? They seem to have benefited substantially from Ottoman presence in east Anatolia as settlers in frontier regions.
 
Awesome map, solid colours. As to the dashes, it makes sense to me; lines to the right, Ottomans control, to the left, Rhome control.

Once things settle in the west for Rhome and the atlantic trade powers, foodstuffs are going to be a good investment in the coming years. A Rhome at war with conviction in the east means they will be buying anything a man/beast can eat eventually. Tobacco, and sugar made fortunes for plantations, but farmers grew grain for their money in the colonies as much as the homelands. The rise in the price of grain, outside of government tools to rectify past shortages and runs. Lesser quality lands could see cultivation, it is the rhythm of the wartime farm. The trick is to get more mid sized landowners, their crops are more diverse and more likely to experiment with money crops, and are steady grain growers. The smaller owners end up in the pockets of larger entities, and larger the plot the more they will lean to plantation crops due to processing vs profit. It could lead to more cooperatives showing up, it looks to me the more competitive the farmer, the more they ban together.

Rhome has an advantage above the other powers, the Great Survey; the atlas is a 17thC wikipedia for them. Think of the data available for the departments, this could be part of what they are talking about when we hear about D3 creating the modern Rhomania. A censored copy could even be released as well, in schools and libraries, making a good propaganda tool too. I know there are few things named after him in the grand scheme of things, but what about the day to day, within the empire? The Siderian Atlas sounds more like a title he would give.
 
Last edited:
Here is the completed map I have been working on !
Awesome and detailed map! Would be even more awesome if there is a global version for the map too so I can sneak a peek on what is going on in Asia and the new world.

I assume the Ethiopian and Egyptian gains in Upper Egypt and Sudan (Hejaz and Yemen too maybe?) are going to continue to increase after the flooding season so they aren't indicated on the map yet?;)

Was the Southern Anizzah Confederation depicted on the 1625 map conquered by the Howeitats sometime in between the 2 maps?
I'm assuming the Dark Brown in Western Africa is the Mali Empire (possibly subjugated by the Marinids as part of their sub-Saharan hegemony?) Marinids would make a nice juicy target for the 3 Johns Alliance and Rhomania in the future BTW.

Is the Emirate of Darfur, Emirate of Nejd and the Hadhramaut state (Kathiris?) neutral? Hejaz was an Ottoman vassal according to the 1625 map. Is there any progress with the Ethiopian siege of Yanbu and Jeddah? They successfully stormed Aden together with the Romans so I assume the Imamate of Yemen has a similar status of subservience to the Ottomans. If the Demetrian Agreement didn't include Ethiopian gains, maybe Yemen is independent?
 
Vlachia is considerably larger than I realised - I thought it was more akin to Wallachia's borders in EU4.

They basically comprise modern day Romania, which means they have the potential to be a prosperous regional power. In OTL Romania was referred to as France of the East and Bucharest as the Paris of the East, before the World Wars and Communist rule had income levels in Europe massively diverge.

Take away those calamities, add in a powerful economic partner and defender, mix in some sweet oil income; and Vlachia has good prospects. Their relationship with Rhome will probably end up similar to the shared Anglo special relationship between the USA and UK.
 
Vlachia is considerably larger than I realised - I thought it was more akin to Wallachia's borders in EU4.

They basically comprise modern day Romania, which means they have the potential to be a prosperous regional power. In OTL Romania was referred to as France of the East and Bucharest as the Paris of the East, before the World Wars and Communist rule had income levels in Europe massively diverge.

Take away those calamities, add in a powerful economic partner and defender, mix in some sweet oil income; and Vlachia has good prospects. Their relationship with Rhome will probably end up similar to the shared Anglo special relationship between the USA and UK.
This is long before oil.
 
Vlachia is considerably larger than I realised - I thought it was more akin to Wallachia's borders in EU4.

They basically comprise modern day Romania, which means they have the potential to be a prosperous regional power. In OTL Romania was referred to as France of the East and Bucharest as the Paris of the East, before the World Wars and Communist rule had income levels in Europe massively diverge.

Take away those calamities, add in a powerful economic partner and defender, mix in some sweet oil income; and Vlachia has good prospects. Their relationship with Rhome will probably end up similar to the shared Anglo special relationship between the USA and UK.
Vlachia lacks Crisana and Maramures compared to OTL Romania, but compensates with having all the Banat and Podolia and Yedisan West of the Southern Bug.
Awesome and detailed map! Would be even more awesome if there is a global version for the map too so I can sneak a peek on what is going on in Asia and the new world.
Not yet, took me six weeks to have the Euromediterranean region done due to conflicting time zones. But it is definitely in the cards.
I assume the Ethiopian and Egyptian gains in Upper Egypt and Sudan (Hejaz and Yemen too maybe?) are going to continue to increase after the flooding season so they aren't indicated on the map yet?;)
There hasn't been any official exchange of territory. Once there will, ie once peace is reached with the Idwaits, it will show up on the map.
Was the Southern Anizzah Confederation depicted on the 1625 map conquered by the Howeitats sometime in between the 2 maps?
I'm assuming the Dark Brown in Western Africa is the Mali Empire (possibly subjugated by the Marinids as part of their sub-Saharan hegemony?) Marinids would make a nice juicy target for the 3 Johns Alliance and Rhomania in the future BTW.
I believe it was at some point. Can't remember when exactly, though. And yes, dark brown is Marinid Mali.
Is the Emirate of Darfur, Emirate of Nejd and the Hadhramaut state (Kathiris?) neutral? Hejaz was an Ottoman vassal according to the 1625 map. Is there any progress with the Ethiopian siege of Yanbu and Jeddah? They successfully stormed Aden together with the Romans so I assume the Imamate of Yemen has a similar status of subservience to the Ottomans. If the Demetrian Agreement didn't include Ethiopian gains, maybe Yemen is independent?
Darfur is neutral, cannot remember for the others. Will have to check the updates for that.
The dashed zones look odd on the map and make it unclear who owns what. You should probably instead reflect current owner and recognized borders, regardless of current debate. Just use the normal 'claims' method of outlining the land in a claimed country's colour. That look much nicer and be clearer. Also why even show it on places where treaties have been signed and borders recognized? It doesn't matter if land recently changed, or even often changes, hands. This should be a snapshot of the world at the current moment.

Despotates should probably use a colour or other indication that shows they are Rhoman puppet states/vassals for clarity as well.
Maps are not necessarily instant snapshots of the world, I have met other types in the fact.
I tend to treat the minimaps as snapshots and the greater map for people to have an idea of "what land has changed hands recently".
 
Top