Napoleon will destroy them all
Those numbers are a bit... really freaking large.The tax reform hinted about is probably much more important as it completes the creation of a fiscal-military state. Within the next few decades the empire will be able to field armies in the 300-400,000 range plus the navy...
Well to be fair France OTL fielded somewhere in the vicinity of that during the rule of Louis XIV. IIRC Rhomania already has almost 200,000 soldiers so it's not that big an increase.Those numbers are a bit... really freaking large.
Nah the Germans did suffer a couple of bad civil war since then, and the UK has been robbing them just for the hell of it for a while now.The Germans have had it even better and longer (since Andreas I wiped them at Cannae), all it takes is a streak of brashness to get the ball rolling.
Nah the Germans did suffer a couple of bad civil war since then, and the UK has been robbing them just for the hell of it for a while now.
A civil war that ended with almost no losses, they beat back the UK (shattering them at Antwerp even harder than the Romans did to the Hungarians at Mohacs) and snagged Austria as well, reducing Hungary to an almost client state.
Contrast that to the Roman's ToT, their military was almost completely destroyed, and they effectively lost Egypt and Sicily.
I really love the idea that the War of Roman Succession ends up being less about who inherits from Andreas III and more about which state is the rightful successor to the Roman Empire.
Theodor von Wittelsbach, neatly enough, would be Theodoros V & I if he sidestepped his sister and dominated - the Charles V & I of this world, ruling an empire (however briefly) that's way too big to last. The Germans have had a long run of success and in their eyes the Greeks are choosing to be ruled by the descendants of some murderous Mongol instead of the heirs to Charlemagne (and Helena I).
And then there's Kalomeros. Napoleon dismantling the Holy Roman Empire (to be replaced by a less offensive German state) feels appropriate. Rhomania may be overshadowed in the coming centuries as other powers rise, but this conflict solidifying its status as the heir to Rome would be pretty awesome. Plus Athena Siderina being based on Napoleon III's wife suggests the guy is going to do very well wherever he ends up.
To cement the accord, a dynastic marriage is arranged. Friedrich had been quite disappointed by the birth of Andreas III, who blocks a Wittelsbach claim on the Roman Imperial line. Here is an opportunity to ‘address’ that. Friedrich and Kristina’s eldest son Manfred has two children of his own, a boy Theodor born in 1604 and a girl, Elisabeth, born in 1605, just two weeks before Andreas himself. Andreas and Elisabeth are to be married.
There is concern in many Roman circles over this; the Wittelsbach desire to have blood sitting enthroned in the White Palace is well known. But Friedrich is insistent and for all Kristina’s desire to secure peace between her brother’s and her husband’s realms, her ambition to see a granddaughter as Roman Empress also cannot be denied.
Perhaps that is how to prevent a complete stomp by the Romans, tying a substantial part of their armies east. The Romans have naval supremacy and the only land route isn't exactly easy.
I seem to remember Andreas Niketas empaneling a commission to rediscover it, but largely not funding it, in favor of concentrating on gunpowder. I don't recall any mentions of its use, which leads me to the conclusion that it remains lost.I won't lie the whole "Romans attacked on both sides" trope is getting a bit old now. Don't get me wrong, I can see it happening, and it makes total sense - but it'd be less "Oh noes disaster" and more, "Well. Of Course".
But just like the Latins got their lambasting because of Hungary, I can see the Roman populace getting VERY angry if the Ottomans invade them. As in "salt the fields, burn their cities to the ground, screw you all" angry. Would be good for enlistment, but terrifying for the people on the receiving end. It'd be suitably Siderosi/Timur-like in horror.
(Side note - do these Romans still have the recipe for Greek Fire? The idea of going for broke by setting the Euphrates and Tigris aflame with it up river, flowing downriver, would be a ruthless horror that I think would epitomise the anger the Romans would likely feel at this constant two-sides warfare. Producing that much Greek Fire on that scale would be impressive, and could later be used to make it more readily used at sea, but God above the Siderosi would make their mark. Again.)
I seem to remember Andreas Niketas empaneling a commission to rediscover it, but largely not funding it, in favor of concentrating on gunpowder. I don't really any mentions of its use, which leads me to the conclusion that it remains lost.