An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania

No idea about the lack of population in SE Asia, thanks for answering. One of the (many) fun things about this timeline is how wide-ranging it is - let's me learn about things I knew nothing about.
 
No idea about the lack of population in SE Asia, thanks for answering. One of the (many) fun things about this timeline is how wide-ranging it is - let's me learn about things I knew nothing about.
It was new information to me.

Makes sense though, most places had population explosions from the 19th century onwards due to advancements in agricultural labour saving devices, land use, and importation of better crops (mostly potato).

To put some numbers to what B444 said here's some for SE Asia courtesy of the census records at Populstat.info
Numbers in millions.
Generally you see that between 1820ish and 1990 the populations grew by around tenfold except for the Philippines, which floundered for a time then exploded for more than double that

Indonesia
1820: 17.0
1900: 42.7
1930: 60.7
1960: 92.7
1990: 179.3 (about 100 million of this is only on Java)

Philippines
1830: 2.5
1900: 7.4
1930: 13
1960: 27.3
1990: 60.7

Vietnam
1900: 13.5
1930: 17.5 (1936 census gave all of French Indo-China as 23 million)
1960: 34
1990: 66.2

Thailand
1820: 4.6
1900: 6.3
1930: 11.8
1960: 26.2
1990: 54.5

Apparently the Khmer Empire had 2 million in 1150 and at it's maximum extent in the 15th century had around 4 million people before population collapse and the end of their empire. Around 1500 all southeast asia may have had as little as six million people. B444 brings up an excellent point about labour being more important than land in this region of the world. Control of existing labour pools and importation of slaves would be a venue to tremendous proportional wealth in the region which likely had less people living in it than maybe even Spain.

There's a similar story in Africa too, which hovered around 100 million from the 17th century to the turn of the 20th before it experienced rapid population growth.
 
So it can be said that Rhomania is rather like China in a sense? It seems that Rhomania's legitimacy comes from their own version of the Mandate of Heaven, and less like the Divine Rights theory, in the sense that according to @Basileus444, the state is like a father, they can punish their children but if they don't provide they're not worthy of being a father, seems pretty similar to the mandate of heaven concept.
 
So it can be said that Rhomania is rather like China in a sense? It seems that Rhomania's legitimacy comes from their own version of the Mandate of Heaven, and less like the Divine Rights theory, in the sense that according to @Basileus444, the state is like a father, they can punish their children but if they don't provide they're not worthy of being a father, seems pretty similar to the mandate of heaven concept.
It just seems to me to be a revival of Caesaropapism. It has the divine right element to it with a sort of Christian paternity. There likely will never be a perfect OTL comparison to the political apparatus and culture present ITTL's Roman Empire because no other state has had such a long continuous existence of empire other than China.
 
@Basileus444 if multi-quote is too time consuming, I'm perfectly fine with the old model of copying and pasting from a work document.
I personally like being able to see what the question actually was instead of having to go back and wonder what he was responding to.
Same, same. I only suggested it because I thought you perhaps didn't notice it. Old system made multiquoting a real drag.
We’ll see. If it’s not too much of a bother on my end I’ll do the multi-posting; I know it’s more readable. But I reserve the right to switch back if it’s taking too much time.

No idea about the lack of population in SE Asia, thanks for answering. One of the (many) fun things about this timeline is how wide-ranging it is - let's me learn about things I knew nothing about.
It was new information to me.

Makes sense though, most places had population explosions from the 19th century onwards due to advancements in agricultural labour saving devices, land use, and importation of better crops (mostly potato).

To put some numbers to what B444 said here's some for SE Asia courtesy of the census records at Populstat.info
Numbers in millions.
Generally you see that between 1820ish and 1990 the populations grew by around tenfold except for the Philippines, which floundered for a time then exploded for more than double that

Indonesia
1820: 17.0
1900: 42.7
1930: 60.7
1960: 92.7
1990: 179.3 (about 100 million of this is only on Java)

Philippines
1830: 2.5
1900: 7.4
1930: 13
1960: 27.3
1990: 60.7

Vietnam
1900: 13.5
1930: 17.5 (1936 census gave all of French Indo-China as 23 million)
1960: 34
1990: 66.2

Thailand
1820: 4.6
1900: 6.3
1930: 11.8
1960: 26.2
1990: 54.5

Apparently the Khmer Empire had 2 million in 1150 and at it's maximum extent in the 15th century had around 4 million people before population collapse and the end of their empire. Around 1500 all southeast asia may have had as little as six million people. B444 brings up an excellent point about labour being more important than land in this region of the world. Control of existing labour pools and importation of slaves would be a venue to tremendous proportional wealth in the region which likely had less people living in it than maybe even Spain.

There's a similar story in Africa too, which hovered around 100 million from the 17th century to the turn of the 20th before it experienced rapid population growth.
If you’re curious, my source for that is Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450-1680 (2 volumes) by Anthony Reid. He estimates 23 million for 1600 and 33 million for 1800 (Volume 1, pg 15). I recommend the books if one is interested in the time and place in question. It’s not really a narrative history, but takes a broad look at the culture and society of the time, and while Europeans are prominent at points, the focus is on the peoples of Southeast Asia themselves.

So it can be said that Rhomania is rather like China in a sense? It seems that Rhomania's legitimacy comes from their own version of the Mandate of Heaven, and less like the Divine Rights theory, in the sense that according to @Basileus444, the state is like a father, they can punish their children but if they don't provide they're not worthy of being a father, seems pretty similar to the mandate of heaven concept.
What Evilprodigy said. Although I think a contemporary Chinese would have an easier time understanding Rhomania than any other European state (not necessarily easy, but comparatively easier).
 
The Wooden Walls
Safe Shall the Wooden Walls Continue: Navies in the mid-1600s

“They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; These see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep.”-Psalm 107: 23-24 (KJV)​

To a modern viewer, used to nuclear-powered submarines and interplanetary spacecraft, sailing ships seem hopelessly primitive. Yet just as black-water vessels mark the pinnacle of technological achievement today, the great blue-water ships of the mid-1600s marked the summit of human knowledge and ingenuity of their day.

Building and maintaining the great battle-line ships that were the backbones of war fleets required assembling mass resources and constructing them into technically varied and detailed apparatus, necessitating large numbers of skilled laborers. Many of the materials needed long-distance transportation and special storage; the best ship timbers needed to be seasoned literally for years before being used in construction. It is not a coincidence that the first industrial-level project in the history of the Greater West, the Arsenal of Venice, was a shipyard, as were the great projects that followed, the Arsenal of Constantinople and the shipyards of Trebizond, Chatham, and Brest.

Just as armies grew greater in size and organization in the 1600s, so did the navies. The mid-1600s are dotted with titanic naval struggles that would’ve been unimaginably vast to the contenders’ grandparents, and still stupendous compared to conflict on land. The Roman field armies at Thessaloniki fielded roughly 600 cannons, most of which were twelve-pounders or lighter. The battles between Triune and Lotharingian fleets frequently saw eight thousand cannon being used, most of which were twelve-pounders or larger. Even the much smaller battle between the Romans and Lombards at Palmaria included nine times more artillery than the combined Roman field armies at Thessaloniki. A single large Roman battle-line ship threw more cannon weight-of-shell than a couple of tagmata.

Feeding such gargantuan monsters required a tremendous amount of organization, material, and wealth.

In 1635 the three main naval powers of the Greater West were the Triunes, Romans, and Lotharingians, with the Spanish, Scandinavians and Arletians occupying a second-tier but still significant level.

All six have naval administrations overseeing naval yards, some of which include dry docks. The administrators are salaried, although corruption and graft is extremely common given the low pay involved. Construction and procurement is a mix of government and private, varying from state to state. Typically the biggest warships are constructed in government yards such as the Arsenal of Constantinople, while smaller warships are ordered from private shipyards.

Supply contracts, whether for shipbuilding materials or victuals, on the other hand usually go to private contractors who bid for the orders. Here is where much of the serious graft takes place as administrators ensure the contracts end up in the hands of their friends/family or even their own hands. This naturally generates incentive to skimp on the cost and thereby qualities of the materials/victuals concerned to ensure maximum profit. Governments are well aware of this issue; for the Romans they can look all the way back to Belisarius’ Vandal expedition which was delayed when sailors got sick from substandard biscuit. However the private sector is the only way of guaranteeing the necessary volume for maintaining these huge fleets.

Efforts are made so that certain requisitions come from government stockpiles to help ensure quality. The Roman navy’s weaponry, including cannons, muskets, powder, and shot is typically provided by government metal works, assembly shops, and powder mills. These are operated specifically to serve the military’s need and not to generate a profit for the government, in an effort to keep costs low. This usually works in peacetime, but in war even in this field the Roman government must resort to private contractors to ensure the needed volume.

The Roman navy of 1635 is a professional structure, with prospective officers having to spend three years as midshipmen at sea and pass Academy training, with everyone paid in cash. Unlike the army though, it is disjointed from the theme system. Even with the fully professional army, the theme is the basis for supply and recruitment. The Thrakesian theme still supplies, mans, and pays for the Thrakesian tagma. The difference is that now it does not provide plots of land for pay; coin from taxes on the local inhabitants provides the pay. This is also why some themes could support much larger tagmata than others during the Great Latin War.

During the Laskarid and Second Komnenid dynasties, the Roman navy was supported on a similar basis as the tagmata. Its theme consisted of Kibyrrhaiotai and the various islands, those territories providing the land plots and recruits. However in these times those territories cannot provide nearly enough cash to support the war fleets, although most sailors and naval officers are still drawn from those lands. Their taxes contribute to the upkeep of the navy, but are supplemented significantly from the Imperial treasury. Otherwise Rhomania would not be one of the great naval powers.

While all the naval powers use purpose-built warships, armed merchantmen can still make up large percentages of war fleets. They have the virtue of being comparatively cheap, especially since there’s no peacetime upkeep. Rhomania has a Merchant Reserve system. Ships and their crews on the list have to maintain certain gunnery proficiency levels and can be called up for military service, but in exchange the owners get noticeable tax exemptions. Lotharingia has a similar system, in which all Indiamen have to be assigned; as a rule these Lotharingian Indiamen, large and comparatively heavy-built for commercial vessels, are the best armed merchantmen of any of the powers with the exception of the largest Roman Ship Lord vessels.

During the Great Latin War this proved a quick way to supplement the navy and much of the blockade of the Lombard coast was conducted by these reserve merchantmen. However one often gets what one pays for. While cheap, they are not particularly effective; their best service during the war was serving as naval auxiliaries, particularly in supplying Roman armies.

With the growth in number of larger battle-line ships, the armed merchantmen lack the toughness to slug it out. Furthermore, while the number of guns they carry may be comparable to battle-line warships, typically said guns are lighter. Also the proliferation of light warships, brigs, sloops, and fregatai make things even more hazardous. Merchantmen are built for cargo hauling, not speed. This makes them poor blockaders or scouts, while the lighter weight of their guns make all but the largest vulnerable to a skillfully handled light warship. While all naval powers still use armed merchantmen to buff up their numbers at the beginning of the 1600s, their use in combat operations fades away well before the end of the century. The Roman and Lotharingian merchant reserve systems continue, but solely as a way to easily gain auxiliaries in times of war, within no intention to use them in combat save possibly as convoy escorts. (Privateers looking for loot rather than a fight will typically shy away from well-armed merchantmen, even if regular light warships might not be so easily deterred. However privateers are, due to their much higher numbers, the main threat to commercial traffic.)

Naval strength is usually measured in terms of battle-line ships. The approach is anachronistic for the beginning of this period, as the sharp delineation between battle-line and light warships wasn’t as clear-cut back then. Also the rating system wasn’t fully established. However both the rating system and dividing line were clearly established by the latter third of the 1600s, and while altering in detail, would be followed through the end of the Age of Sail. One major change in the future would be that smaller warships still considered battle-line warships in the mid-1600s would not be considered such a century later.

The naval ratings in 1650 were as follows:

First-rate: 90 guns or more.
Second-rate: 76-89 guns.
Third-rate: 61-75 guns.
Fourth-rate: 50-60 guns.
(First through Fourth are considered battle-line ships in the mid-1600s, although fourth-rates would eventually drop out in later years.)
Fifth-rate: 37-49 guns. (Sometimes called a poor-man’s battle-line ship. They often function as such in far-flung waters.)
Sixth-rate: 25-36 guns. (Fregatai of the time are all considered sixth-rates, with larger ones later moving up into the fifth-rate.)
Seventh-rates: 13-24 guns. (Usually known as sloops. Over the course of the seventeenth century, there would be a trend to the upper end of this scale.)
Eighth-rates: Less than 12 guns. (Brigs are the eight to eleven gun ‘big boys’ of this group and are what are typically referred to when referencing an eighth-rate, although technically even a two-gun ketch would fall into this category.)

There is, of course, more to a warship than just her number of guns. Sea handling ability, thickness of planking (armor), and the weight of the individual guns matter too. As a general rule, the more cannons a warship carried, the heavier the guns were. Thus a larger warship might have a throw-weight much higher than a smaller one far out of the proportion one would expect just by looking at the number of guns. A ninety-gunner might have a throw-weight twice that of a seventy-gunner.

Most battle-line ships of the era were fourth and third rates. This is because although they were weaker than second or first-rates, they were much cheaper. Cannons require gun crews and bigger guns require bigger crews. Across the board, the naval powers could build and maintain two 70-gunners afloat for the cost of a single first-rate.

The weakness though is that a single third-rate would be at a disadvantage against the first-rate. The third-rate’s lighter guns could fire faster, theoretically making up some of the disadvantage of fewer pieces. However first-rates, which were very expensive and also prestige symbols, were built to be very tough with thick planking. Firing faster does little good if cannonballs can’t penetrate the hull.

That said, while first-rates were a terror to any of their smaller foes, there never were very many of them. Even after fourth-rates stopped being considered battle-line ships, third-rates still made up the vast majority of battle-line ships right up to the age of steam.

In 1635 only two states in all of the Greater West had first-rate ships, Rhomania and the Triunes. The Romans only had three, the 98-gun Andreas Niketas and the 92-gun Theodoros Megas and Konstantinos Megas. The Andreas Niketas, considered the first true three-decker, is already over thirty years old in 1635. Despite having slightly less guns, the newer Theodoros and Konstantinos are considered better warships. Slightly bigger and longer, they handle better at sea than Andreas Niketas, and because of that they’re fitted with a few more big guns so the throw weights of all three are comparable.

The Triunes have seven. Although none are as old as Andreas Niketas, they suffer from similar problems. Over-gunned for their size, they are poor ship-handlers, restricted to summer operations in the Channel and North Sea. The Atlantic and further waters have to be covered by smaller warships. However these first-rates are designed specifically for slugging it out with Lotharingian warships in the Channel and North Sea, where their toughness and firepower give them a significant advantage. Due to the shallow depths of their coast, Lotharingian warships are on average smaller than those of the other powers, although they help to make up that with sheer numbers.

Of the naval powers, Rhomania has the most battle-line ships at 91 hulls. (On paper, that is; ready for active service is often a different matter as ships laid up regularly deteriorate despite efforts and are not necessarily ready for battle.) Of these, there are the three aforementioned first-raters, seven second-raters, twenty eight third-raters, and fifty three fourth-raters. Of those fifty three, thirty nine are 50-gunners, putting them just above the line. The ratios are comparable for the other major sea powers.

Those numbers include the Sicilian fleet, the only one of the Despotates to muster battle-line ships, although both Egypt and Carthage have some fifth-rates. The Sicilian contribution is four small third-raters and fourteen fourth-raters and their numbers were included in the totals of the Roman fleet unleashed on Lombard Italy. The Roman and Despotic navies are used to close cooperation and the services get along very well, with joint exercises, identical training regimens and doctrines, and ships designed to the same pattern.

Seven of the Roman fourth-raters are stationed in the East, all but one 50-gunners. They are reinforced by twelve fifth-raters, all 40 or 44-gunners, which are usually big enough to face any threats while being relatively economically. Most have Malay, Taprobani, or Digenoi crews and officers, bearing the brunt and winning much of the glory at the battle of the Lingga Islands against Aceh in 1633.

Armed merchantmen from the Ship Lords still play a much larger role in Roman fleets in the East, comprising the bulk of the combatants in the various naval battles against the Triunes during the Great Latin War. They suffer from the same weaknesses as armed merchantmen in the west, but Latin fleets here also are mostly armed merchantmen. Latin battle-line ships can sail directly from their home waters, unlike the Romans who have yet to circumnavigate Africa, but they lack the naval yards of Taprobane that are responsible for the locally built fourth, fifth, and sixth rates that made the Lingga Islands and the Java campaign possible. Also the wealthier Ship Lords possess some very large and tough merchantmen, built from teak and displacing over 1000 tons. When fully outfitted for war, these ships have a throw-weight comparable to a fourth-rate.

The Triunes are slightly behind at 88 battle-line ships, but because of their seven first-rates and fifteen second-rates, their combined throw-weight is higher than the Romans. The Lotharingians have 86, but nothing bigger than a third-rater and most of those are on the smaller side, although they also possess more large fifth-raters than any other power.

The Spanish meanwhile have 56 battle-line ships, three of which are second-raters. Partly making up for the fewer number of hulls is that their third-raters are generally on the larger end of the scale, ten of them fine 72-gunners that are considered, size-for-size, the best warships of their day for all-around quality. Most of these ships are new, built for the Andalusi war, playing a vital part in dominating the waters between Iberia and Africa.

The_HMS_Prince_Before_the_Wind.jpg

The Triune first-rate Oriflamme, mounting 102 guns, making her the most powerful warship in the world based on throw-weight at the time of her construction.
[By Jan Karel Donatus van Beecq - http://www.amysartgallery.com/SamplePaintings/ShipBoat/S1901.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21629813]​

Scandinavia meanwhile has 43 and Arles 41, although both, particularly the former, can reinforce with large numbers of fifth-rates. That was how the Scandinavians were able to field a comparable fleet to the Lotharingians at the battle of Kronborg in 1633.

The immediate aftermath of the battle of Palmaria, with the addition of the Lombard prizes, marks the relative peak of the Roman navy. Building and maintaining battle-line ships, especially as the size of them steadily increases over the course of the seventeenth century, is expensive, especially so for Rhomania.

Laws and Inspectors to protect forests in order to guarantee a supply of naval timber have been in place in Rhomania since the early 1400s. Despite such efforts, timber shortages are a serious problem by the early 1630s, even with the boost provided by the Istrian and Dalmatian forests taken from Hungary, the reason those lands were valued by the White Palace in the first place.

Warships have grown massively in size since the 1400s, with a single battle-line ship consuming hundreds, even thousands, of trees in her construction. And not any odd piece of lumber will do. They have to be of the right shape and size for their purpose. Especially difficult to procure are good mast timbers as ideally the mast should be from a single straight tall tree. Given the lack, many Roman masts consist of smaller timbers bolted together to form a larger spar. It works but makes said mast more vulnerable to breakage, which is why so many Roman vessels lost their masts during the battle of Jamaica.

The Romans import naval stores, including hemp, canvas, pitch, and turpentine, from Russia and Georgia, but these can’t compare in volume to the Scandinavian and North Terranovan sources of naval stores. Even with the eventual completion of the Don-Volga canal, making the shipment of large timbers and other bulky naval goods much easier, the Triunes for example can produce a similar-sized warship for cheaper than the Romans. While on the scale of a single ship, it isn’t significant, but over the course of a fleet it makes for substantial extra expense for the Romans compared to the Triunes.

The Romans try to compensate for this, and not just with the Don-Volga canal. Warships are designed at the Constantinople Arsenal with blueprints, with efforts made to standardize construction and create proper ship classes. There is always some variation because of the pre machine tool era, but the Guard-class fregatai and Belisarios-class third-rates are considered to be marvels of the Age of Sail, admired both then and now.

Due to the cost, the Romans build very few first or second rates during the Age of Sail. As ship sizes increase the mainstay of the Roman fleet becomes the third-rate, typically mounting 70-74 guns, with a few second and first rates added in as prestige symbols and squadron flagships. Other navies have the same pattern; even for the Triunes, a first-rate is a massive expense. However the proportion of first and second to third rates remains lower in the Roman navy after 1650 compared to the other major players.

In 1635 however, that is in the future. The Roman navy may rest proudly on its laurels. Its honor has been restored on the Danube, and its service around Italy and particularly at Palmaria recognized with respect across the Greater West. But great as Palmaria was, it quickly pales in comparison to the battles to come as the Triune and Lotharingian fleets put out to sea.
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
It is a good thing that while Rhomania can't field a fleet the same way the Triunes can, though no one else really can either, while in the Age of Sail they don't really have too. The Mediterranean makes the usage of the smaller third rates a better proposition in the first place and you will likely see Rhomania look more into ways of making their ships hit harder for their size to make up for the lack of first rates. With local manufacture of ships in Island Asia Rhomania in the East can probably match, and possibly out match, whatever the Triunes or other western powers can send over, which usually can't be the best ships since those need to stay close to home.
 
Last edited:
Great update. I'm really enjoying the break from the more linear/narrative sections of the timeline. These last half dozen or so updates have been very well done.

As far as replying to our posts, why not go back to the old system but just copy our questions/comments into your message before you reply? You can bold/italic/underline your answers so they stick out. That way people are still tagged so they get the alert.

For example:

@Curtain Jerker My comment is in standard type. Your answer/reply is in bold.
 
Philippines
1830: 2.5
1900: 7.4
1930: 13
1960: 27.3
1990: 60.7
If you’re curious, my source for that is Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450-1680 (2 volumes) by Anthony Reid. He estimates 23 million for 1600 and 33 million for 1800 (Volume 1, pg 15). I recommend the books if one is interested in the time and place in question. It’s not really a narrative history, but takes a broad look at the culture and society of the time, and while Europeans are prominent at points, the focus is on the peoples of Southeast Asia themselves.
OTL Spanish Population of part of the Philippines, lowland Luzon and lowland Visayas, according to Relacion de las encomiendas, was 166,903. Spanish multiplied this by 4(Family of 4) to get 667,612. The count does not include highland Luzon, highland Visayas, whole of Mindanao, or people in the lowland Luzon/Visayas refusing to pay tribute to Spain.

The OTL Spanish migrants to the Philippines from 1570s to 1590s were around 14,000 with 13,000 dead by 1590s. Deaths blamed on climate/weather. Istanbul to Manila is around 7.1k nautical miles via Suez/13.5k nautical miles Via cape of Good hope. Acapulco to Manila is around 7.7k nautical miles. Alexandria to Manila via Suez is around 6.5k nautical Miles. So it is possible to have 1,000 Romans alive in 1590s in TTL Pyrgos on top of that 166,903.

Laws and Inspectors to protect forests in order to guarantee a supply of naval timber have been in place in Rhomania since the early 1400s. Despite such efforts, timber shortages are a serious problem by the early 1630s, even with the boost provided by the Istrian and Dalmatian forests taken from Hungary, the reason those lands were valued by the White Palace in the first place.

Warships have grown massively in size since the 1400s, with a single battle-line ship consuming hundreds, even thousands, of trees in her construction. And not any odd piece of lumber will do. They have to be of the right shape and size for their purpose. Especially difficult to procure are good mast timbers as ideally the mast should be from a single straight tall tree. Given the lack, many Roman masts consist of smaller timbers bolted together to form a larger spar. It works but makes said mast more vulnerable to breakage, which is why so many Roman vessels lost their masts during the battle of Jamaica.

The Romans import naval stores, including hemp, canvas, pitch, and turpentine, from Russia and Georgia, but these can’t compare in volume to the Scandinavian and North Terranovan sources of naval stores. Even with the eventual completion of the Don-Volga canal, making the shipment of large timbers and other bulky naval goods much easier, the Triunes for example can produce a similar-sized warship for cheaper than the Romans. While on the scale of a single ship, it isn’t significant, but over the course of a fleet it makes for substantial extra expense for the Romans compared to the Triunes.
The OTL Spanish did have shipyards built in Philippines, hired locals. Wood can be gathered from there or even ships(Manila Galleons) built from that area as early as 1589, report to Philip 2 about Philippine shipyards.

I stated this since the Romans can probably gather wood from the East not only from OTL Philippines but from the rest of Roman Asia. Or even build the ships from there and be sent to Constantinople since Manila galleons were going around Acapulco and Manila. Romans in TTL were more efficient at least vs OTL Spanish same time period. Plus, there is no racial discrimination in the Roman system vs the OTL Spanish Caste system that affects productivity and willingness to die/serve for the state.
 
How developed is taprobane compared to the imperial heartlands? Is it comparable to syrian tagma? Also is it the most developed part of the roman and by extension colonial far east?
 
OTL France is probably a reasonable role model for what one should expect the imperial navy to look like, as it was roughly comparable in size with a similar need to maintain large land armies. By the end of the 18th century the French were going for a significant number of 80s along with the 74s, technically these were second rates but in reality were between a sencond and third rate and not that larger than a 74 in overall size, Sane''s standardised 80 of the Tonnant/Bucentaure class with 29 completed ships was 2,000 tons burden to the 1,900 tons of his Temeraire class of which 107 were built. By comparison his 118 gun first rates of the Ocean class were 2,750 tons burden, fully 50% more than a 74. Then of course the empire can be also building ships in India and the Philippines, the British were building anything up the the 84gun HMS Asia in Bombay in addition to a large number of frigates, to the extend that there was political backlash at home over yards in Britain being antagonised, I suppose there is less of that here with the arsenals being state run...
 
Looks like the Western Europeans may pull ahead in the naval arms race, probably due to their access to North American timber.

Rhomania's best way to catch up would probably be through Russia, and trade should be easier once the canal is complete. On the Asian side if they're able to take over more of Indonesia, specifically Borneo that may enough to sustain an advantage locally.
 
Arsenal of Venice
Is Venice still considered a major shipbuilding center?

Of the naval powers, Rhomania has the most battle-line ships at 91 hulls.
How is the chain of command re: Rhomania's hulls? Are they organized into various independent fleets capable of independent operations under the strategic purview of the Megas Doux?

Constantinople Arsenal
Are other friendly nations like Georgia and Vlachia able to place orders for warships at the arsenal if they so desired?

Speaking of which, how fares the naval power hierarchy of the Eastern powers like the Zeng, Ottomans and Vijaynagar?
 
Its honor has been restored on the Danube
Does Rhomania have the strongest riverine naval force in Europe?

P.s. are the combined corsair forces of the Marinid Empire sufficient to stop a concerted campaign by either Spain or Rhomania?

P.p.s. are the knights hospitaller less navally oriented ITL since they are able to stick to their original purpose more?
 
Last edited:
Oh, if you guys don't mind, why exactly would technology and science be more advanced ITTL?
Here the Roman Empire's terminal decline did not happen, so Constantinople's centres of learning similarly did not undergo terminal decline and stagnation that it did OTL. This means more funding for the scholars of Constantinople, who were some of the most advanced of their kind in the Western World during their days, and thus earlier advancements than OTL.
 
And that, along with north western India, should really become Persia's focus after the War of Wrath wrecks their ambitions to the west.
I think that the romans will not leave persia/ottomans with enough structure, resources or even population to have any of those kinds of ambitions. In much the same way the ottomans destroyed Byzantium as they diminished and then tried to become the "third Rome", in a sense of dramatic irony maybe the same could happen to the ottomans ITTL. I imagine Rome will seriously cripple the ottomans and take the ottomans islamic legitimacy and somehow subvert it into a formal imperial institution in the far off future, after they have pacified and integrated all of the developed territories and resources that is possible from the ottomans.
 
Top