Actually if the Romans want they can play Africa (at least the Eastern Side) as their own New World, and develop there colonies closer to British Rhodesia than the simple trading posts of the East
Unlikely they're going to piss off the Ethiopians, Eastern Africa is in their sphere. The way I see it, SE Asia is the romans' only chance to keep up in the future with the Ottomans (already scary now with Iran and Iraq, not even mentions any "slice" of India) and western powers like Germany or the UKs.Actually if the Romans want they can play Africa (at least the Eastern Side) as their own New World, and develop there colonies closer to British Rhodesia than the simple trading posts of the East
As other posters have indicated one of the themes in this TL has been a more rapid diffusion of advanced government forms and organisation. Rhomania in the early 16th century retains a strong lead, but this will pretty clearly be eroded over time. Long term Rhomania will fall far behind Russia, and quite possibly the HRE and France-England. The Ottomans seem quite likely to be roughly a match, perhaps a little inferior, while other regional states like Milan or Arles will be pretty respectable. Part of Rhomania's issue will be simply that other states do well, not that it does poorly.I don't know what Bas444 is planning - but I expect that there will be another great period for the Empire when line infantry starts to become a major element. Niketas had the rise of the cannon on his side, but we haven't yet seen massed gunpowder infantry (unless I've missed that).
The Romans are probably the first in the Mediterranean who would have access to this, or develop it. Once they start having line infantry to put against their neighbours, I'd expect a Niketas Reborn (if the Emperor is particularly good), or a very successful expansionist who brings North Africa and Mesopotamia into the fold as Despotates (perhaps S.Spain too, I forget who controls that, Arabia would be grand in the long run as well). After that, I expect that northern Europe, with their control over the new world, will start to outpace the Romans economically, with the Empire and the Despotates lacking access to the New World for resources. I would expect that the wars that the Romans get involved in with the new powers in Europe would be primarily defensive, rather than expansionist, turning to focus on the East Indies once again.
After that long period as a second-tier power that can project power in the Med and the East Indies, rather than additionally in the New World (and maybe India), I could see them become prominent again as those Empires start to crumble, oil becomes valuable, and they build a true Suez Canal. That would change the economic game in their favour, and add that to their touch and go control over the main trade routes in the East Indies is great for the long game.
The biggest factor IMO? The Romans have already gone through the stage of acknowledging they can't control everything from Constantinople - that respect of the need to decentralise and sophistication of governance may leave them to last, or be accepting of a federal model in the long term, which would reduce the rise of independence movements on themselves.
I don't see them as the number one power all the time, but more like a stalwart power. Sometimes eclipsed by Empires that burn brighter (like the British or Mongol Empires), but always persisting. Eventually reaching the point where it is one of the (at least 3) super powers, alongside China (potentially Indonesia), and an alt-USA (or Brazil).
So will it be possible for the Romans to develop their bank notes into a centralised legal tender that is backed by bullion?JohnSmith: Vast majority of Roman debt is internal so there’s that at least. Certificates of deposits from the Imperial Bank are well developed and commonly used for currency transfers. The Imperial Bank does operate effectively as a national bank (think early Bank of Amsterdam or England) However the concept of using paper as fiat currency, with no bullion to back it up, would probably get the person making the proposal locked up in a mental institute.
Does the Serbian King have any children/heirs? Would be a shame for Serbia if he dies during the war and the country is left drained and ravaged in the event of a Roman victory.ImperatorAlexander: The exact relationship between Rhomania and Serbia hasn’t been outlined yet; there’s a war to be fought and Serbian manpower and logistical support is needed so alienating Serbians is not a good idea. Rhomania wants Dalmatia for itself but there is a strong Serbian claim on Bosnia (the Serbian demand for Bosnia back was what prompted the Hungarian takeover in the first place). Having Bosnia would further boost Serbia and make it a better buffer from Constantinople’s perspective.
Ah, so in this scenario we're looking at a landlocked Serbia? Ok, that makes more sense I suppose. I'm glad you agree on the persistent Romans idea. It suggests my heart isn't going to break like in Rome AARisen (Old CK1 AAR if you aren't aware of it)RogueTraderEnthusiast: Romans want the coast which has a lot of timber by itself whilst having a Serbian buffer helps guards against Hungarian revanchism. Russian naval supplies are very important but it’s also nice to have more, especially under your direct control. Economic thought at this time is very mercantilist.
I like the idea of the Romans just always being there, not necessarily the greatest but continuing to endure when other civilizations blaze bright and then burn out. Even IOTL they say the heydays of the Carolingians and the Abbasids and were put in the shade by them but when those two fell Rhomania was still a going concern. “We were already old when you were young and we will be here long after you are gone.”
I wonder if the Romans can make the overtures to Vijayanagar to form an alliance in both trade and militarily. That would be the first step to improve Roman fortunes - Vijayanagar partnering with the Romans and a preferential trade partner, in exchange for a strong alliance against both the Ottomans, and any SE asian polities they both disagree with. That would probably help give the Romans an economic boost as they can get preferential treatment and pass those profits on - whilst Vijayanagar and the Romans together gain a huge amount of soft power and strategic benefits (if they can trust each other). What likelyhood is there of a relationship forming between these two?: The problem with getting a terra firma for Venetia is that I have a hard time seeing it as becoming anything but a hostage to hold against the Romans. The Lombards, Germans, and Hungarians would all have a much easier time putting troops into the area compared to the Romans. Something could be established but it would probably just end up being an Exarchate of Ravenna Mk. 2.
You’re correct that Southeast Asia (I’m including the Philippines in that BTW) is the only good option for Roman expansion in the east. It’d be nice if the Romans could expand off their bases at Surat and Taprobane to consolidate their Indian holdings but the Empire of Vijayanagar is powerful enough that even Iskandar doesn’t want to mess with that if he can avoid it.
The Mughals had already almost united India by this time and would do so only about nintey years after where we are ittl.A united India centuries before OTL by the Vijayanagar will be a terrifying power by itself. Not sure if Rhomania could keep up with them in an equal alliance.
Sorry If I wasn't clear, but I didn't mean getting Veneto or Friuli. I meant getting the whole of Dalmatia, from Zara to Ragusa as a strong waypoint to reach Venetia (with help much closer in case of need). I've never been crazy about Split and Ragusa being only clients, which in the end can be bullied around by the enormously powerful hungarians (compared to them).The problem with getting a terra firma for Venetia is that I have a hard time seeing it as becoming anything but a hostage to hold against the Romans. The Lombards, Germans, and Hungarians would all have a much easier time putting troops into the area compared to the Romans. Something could be established but it would probably just end up being an Exarchate of Ravenna Mk. 2.
You forgot the Laskarid Emperor that fought Andreas II Pistotatos after getting bad advice from the Doukid asshole.Veranius: I don’t think so but the order was Theodoros II Megas-Ioannes IV-Manuel II-Anna I-Konstantinos XI-Theodoros III-(War of Five Emperors)-Demetrios I Megas-Theodoros IV-Andreas I Niketas-Herakleios II-Nikephoros IV the Spider-Alexios VI-Alexeia I the Mad-(Time of Troubles)-Andreas II Pistotatos-Helena I (reigning with Demetrios II and Helena II).