I wonder what adana would look like in ttl empire.
Yeah, the tough part.That’s the key, and the stumbling block. The Roman model says you need to speak Greek and practice Orthodoxy. The Copts of Egypt are 0 for 2 for that, and trying to turn the Copts into Orthodox would likely go about as well as the English trying to forcibly convert the Irish to Anglicanism.
Maybe that’s how the purple will eventually position to appease both of extremes.Seems to me the best way forward for Rhomania would be somewhere between the positions of the Tourmarchs and the Defensivists. Middle of the line is rarely the most popular option though, so I doubt they'd win out in the end. Curious to see which way Rhomania will tilt.
Interesting contrast. If this were a Paradox game the defensivists would be the ones building tall while the war hawks are the ones building wide.
So I agree with the defensivists but EU4 me would be a diehard War Hawk
Let me put it in some numbers if I may. The core empire is a believe 16.5 million based on earlier of your posts as of now, I'll assume it as the 1650 population and try some projections (using numbers from Maddison). Now Maddison's figures are for 1600 and 1700 but the 1600-1650 period wasn't exactly good for Europe demographically, populations in 1650 were at levels similar or even somewhat lower than 1600 so I think we are safe to go this way. By Ottoman core in the table with base data I'm adding the populations of Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria and Albania, as it is roughly comparable to the imperial core territory. For the Balkans it is te same sans Turkey.
I think we can easily discount both the worst and best cases here beyond saying that the core imperial population can be somewhere between 30 and and 88 millions. But the projections to the early 19th century and the early industrial revolution are pretty interesting I think. At worst we should be talking about a core imperial population of ~23 million if the empire does no better than the Ottomans. At population growth rates comparable to France or the southern Balkans which seem to me reasonable we get a population in the 27-28 million range. Why these numbers are significant? Because they mean that at a minimum the empire would be comparable to Germany in population and more likely comparable to France.
Post that and the industrial revolution the question is more one of whether demographic transition French style hits the empire or not. I suppose it could but it looks to me quite unlikely, the whole rest of Europe, Ottomans included did not. If the empire is growing at average European levels which seems to me reasonable and is only a little higher than what the core territory under the Ottomans did, we get to ~46 million. ~40 million if you are doing as bad as the Ottomans. Both numbers are pretty respectable, putting the core empire at the same level with France and Britain...
Yeah, the tough part.
Honestly I think since despotates are mostly independent since Time of Troubles (BTW what would be Greek term for that?) the ship has already sailed for US style "federation but pretty much a unitary state" or some other form of unitary government. Since they are more or less independent for a long time I don't see why would they agree to something dominated by Constantinople (by which I mean something approaching control Washington has over US states).
Some sort of early EU / Imperial Federation is more likely, if imperial states have something to fear or see other states outpacing them. So a voluntary federation (more confederation honestly) with some coordinated military and foreign policy, which perhaps unifies more and more with the passage of time (like EU). Some NATO/EU hybrid.
That's why I was sad to see despotates go in Time of Troubles - I think there are much more mechanisms to keep realm united if it is a unified state during all that time.
Firstly, inertia and loyalty to the Emperor - if the same regime rules you for centuries (even if it's an exploitative rule) you will get some sort of inherent loyalty in population. Habsburg even at the end had a lot of people loyal to them just because they ruled so long, even though it was pretty obviously rule in favor of Germans/Hungarians. People can be inert and unwilling to disturb something that works for centuries.
Second, co-option of ruling classes. There is often a class loyal to a ruler that they don't share language/ethnicity with. Compare it with Baltic Germans (loyal to Tsar even while Russia was at war with Germany) or various "loyalist" families in Habsburg Empire. For example, part of my girlfriends family was a noble family in former Habsburg empire that produced an continuous line of Habsburg generals and marshals - they had a deep loyalty to the Empire and were unwilling to switch that to new states formed after WW1. All such classes of course knew the proper "ruling" language.
Other example can be the buy-in of Scots in the British Empire. I'm not that sure about that, but I've read on several places that many many administrative/ruling positions opened in British colonies had an effect of tying Scots into a wider state - since they had a piece in the pie it obviously made them more loyal to the pie owner. I've read a nice timeline where such thing was used to somewhat tie even Irish into the empire.
Of course, tying ruling/administrative class to you only works before mass democratization. But since that comes only in 20th century and there are indications that Rome will not be a traditional democracy, that is something that we can worry about when we come there. And even then despotates would have centuries of tradition being part of empire and would have a some layer of loyal administrative/higher class.
Too much pacifism from them, it wasn't through peace and diplomacy that saved Rome countless times. It was through sheer determination of the Romans that has kept the empire alive for a thousand years.
More than usually this was done through blood and steel. I agree the need for peace but this collective thought of being passive defence will never work out. They can't just rely totally on that.
Though I don't fully agree with the tourmarch faction, I see that it is necessary to have total control on the east of mediterranean to protect the core territory of the empire. Going west though, is another quagmire they shouldn't bash their head in. Better to go east and control that area.
Seems to me the best way forward for Rhomania would be somewhere between the positions of the Tourmarchs and the Defensivists. Middle of the line is rarely the most popular option though, so I doubt they'd win out in the end. Curious to see which way Rhomania will tilt.
Maybe that’s how the purple will eventually position to appease both of extremes.
Mogadishu is absolutely essential, you need to control that East African trade!Yeah, if this was an EU4 game I’d be all about going out and conquering. My last playthrough ended with a list of Roman provinces including Jamaica, Mogadishu, Samoa, and Osaka…
Well, at the end of the Time of Troubles the Empire’s reputation and abilities were completely shot. If Egypt and Sicily had decided to just up and walk, Constantinople would not have been in a position to stop them. So to keep them even nominally Roman, they had to be given lots of autonomy to convince them to stick around.
I think it’s called the ‘security dilemma’ but that is going back to my IR days at uni.Roman security more than the gain from the buffer. (I’m pretty sure there’s a political science term for this, where a state does A, triggering a response from B that ends up undermining the reason A was done in the first place, but I can’t remember it.)
I agree here! My favourite borders personally are the Basil II borders (with Sicily) with maybe the odd vassal chucked in. Makes a far more interesting narrative (as you have nailed down).Frankly, I don’t think Rhomania needs more territory around the heartland
I don't think my projection of a population of ~40-42 million breaks this? That puts the empire at about the level of OTL France in a world of multiple powers at this or much higher levels...Interesting. Thanks for the information.
For OOC reasons though, I want ‘modern Rhomania’ to be one of the great powers, but one of the smaller ones demographically. This is for stylistic reasons; I find this concept much more interesting to write about when it comes to Roman foreign affairs. A too powerful Rhomania I find frankly boring to write about.
Frankly, I don’t think Rhomania needs more territory around the heartland,
Mogadishu is absolutely essential, you need to control that East African trade!
Yeah, they were lucky to keep anything at that point. I hope you don't see these comments as a criticism of timeline or something, when I'm saying stuff like "I'm sad they didn't keep despotates" I'm only commenting as a sports fan - "if only they drafted/traded..." sort of way, not saying something is implausible.
I still hope that eventually the Despotates and Rhomania will unite in a UK type deal. We were actually so close to it a few decades ago. If you remember, Andreas III was also the heir of Sicily. Had that union held who knows what might have happened...
I think it’s called the ‘security dilemma’ but that is going back to my IR days at uni.
I agree here! My favourite borders personally are the Basil II borders (with Sicily) with maybe the odd vassal chucked in. Makes a far more interesting narrative (as you have nailed down).
I wonder whether the Tourmarches will end up with a Napoleon figure whom will have immediate success until it all unwinds catastrophically. Historically Rome has had its fair share of hopeful Alexander’s resulting in despair for all involved.
I don't think my projection of a population of ~40-42 million breaks this? That puts the empire at about the level of OTL France in a world of multiple powers at this or much higher levels...
I'm partial to Sicily to the extend it is ethnically Greek, at least to a large degree but that's just me.
The thing that will in the end determine the power of the roman state in the ittl modern era is the economy..i mean if you look at turkey and france today while turkey has a larger population than france but no one will say that turkey is more powerful than france..
Wanted to write the same thing.I see a lot of OTL Russians here, with the West characterizing them as The Other, a part of Europe but also Asian, standard bearers of a different type of Christianity, and the Romans/Russians walking around with their scars and bearing the slings and arrows of numerous wars and invasions.
Excellent series - assuming it is done, this felt like a coda.
When you put it this way, Roman society must have gone through generations of whiplash. I guess right now they're going through a (superficial) high with Odysseus's campaigns still in fresh memory - I'm guessing once Athena is out of the way and Herakleios III is ruling in his own right we'll see the military faction get out of control and knock the Roman's down a peg.One who in their youth saw the splendor of Justinian could in their old age see the disasters of Phokas. The triumph of Herakleios over the Sassanids was followed by the humiliation of Herakleios under the Arabs. One who in their youth saw the might of Basil II could live to see the Turks conquer most of Anatolia. Their grandchildren could see the glory of Manuel I Komnenos, commanding Hungarians and Turks and Crusaders, and then in their old age see the Venetians storming over the sea walls of Constantinople. Andreas Niketas was followed by the Time of Trouble.
Same here. It's a level of detail and love for the story unseen even in this site, one that does have dozens of really good ATLs.I see a lot of OTL Russians here, with the West characterizing them as The Other, a part of Europe but also Asian, standard bearers of a different type of Christianity, and the Romans/Russians walking around with their scars and bearing the slings and arrows of numerous wars and invasions.
Excellent series - assuming it is done, this felt like a coda.