Map Update (Detailed Map of the HRE)
Z7v7A79.png

Sorry about the lack of update guys. Though I am still at work on this tl. I've been doing quite a bit of research for this tl, and I started creating a more detailed map of the HRE in the early 13th Century. It's not complete yet, but I've completed 80% of Italy and about 75% of Germany. As for Arles, I'm still a bit unsure about some of the borders for the Duchy of Zahringen/Burgundy.

What do you guys think of this map?​
 
Updated Map of the Roman World New

qAKVXY6.png

Here's a map of the Roman World during early parts of the 13th Century Anarchy. The map here is more detailed, than the other maps I've posted, thanks to the research I've done during the hiatus period of this tl which I was forced to go on due to irl circumstances. I've added some other post-Roman successor states and corrected some of the errors I made on the old map. Some of this research has led me to re-evaluate the direction of where I was going with this tl, and as a result I have a much clearer picture of how to develop this tl, without it breaking plausibility.

I now have a much more clear vision of where exactly I want to end this tl now which probably will occur sometime during the end of what we consider the Renaissance in otl. I might consider doing a sequel after that, or at least a series of epilogues, but right now I'll be focusing on writing towards where I had that end date in mind.

Some of the corrections include that of Trebizond, which whose borders weren't exactly the most accurate. Another correction I added was in the Aegean islands where I drew added in the Duchy of the Archipelago. I also added the areas in Morea that historically were in control of Leo Sgouros who led a resistance against the Crusaders from within his stronghold: the Acrocorinth.

As for the Venice's holdings, I added in Gallipoli which the Venetians did briefly hold, until it was later reconquered by the Empire of Nicaea in otl. I also added illustrated the situation in Crete which the venetians despite being purchasing it from Boniface of Montferrat, only partially controlled as the Eastern and Central portions of the island were held by the Genoese. Venetian Crete was also which was ruled as the Kingdom of Candia was quite unstable as it faced numerous Roman revolts. I also removed Negroponte (Euboea) from Venetian control as this region during the Early 13th Century was actually under the control of Boniface of Montferrat. Bonficace divided the land here among three barons who were sworn to him as their feudal lord. Its for this reason that Negroponte would be referred to as the Triarchy of Negroponte.

I added in the lordship of Rhodes and the Cyclades as that was an other 13th Century Roman splinter state which emerged after the fall of the Constantinople in 1204. It was ruled by Leo Gabalas and nominally swore fealty to the Nicaean Emperors, though it for all intents and purposes was an independent polity with its ruler Leo Gabras adopting the title of Caesar for himself.

Another addition I made was the County Palatine of Cephalonia and Zakynthos. This polity was technically given to the Venetians but they weren't able to really assert control over it until much later. Its ruler after the Fourth Crusade instead, recognized Pope Innocent III as his overlord to legitimize his rule.​
 
Last edited:
Nice work.
Thanks!

How Basil II would have wept had he seen this.
Oh yeah. He would have probably been pissed though seeing how his niece Zoe mismanaged things so poorly by being a vain and corrupt fool. Though he'd probably give Theodora props for stabilizing everything again.

He'd probably hate Constantine X for his sheer idiocy. He literally gutted the Roman defenses in the middle of the Turkic invasion. The entire Doukas dynasty's tenure over the throne of Constantine is in some way worse than the Angeloi's reign. He literally gutted the military (the one Basil and his predecessors had painstakingly built up) and replaced them with mercenaries, he disbanded the 50,000 strong Roman garrison in Armenia while the Seljuks were literally marching westwards towards Roman territory, and he then fostered corruption in the military administration (part of the reason why it was so inept by the time of Manizkert).

Basil II literally setup the Empire to run smoothly if left alone for decades without much issue, and Constantine X still managed to screw that up. In another era he would have been poisoned.

Constantine X was nearly assassinated in 1061 by Issac I Komnenos' supporters and the military establishment who hated what he did to the army. As he had already died in 1059, we could have potentially had the Komneian dynasty take power much earlier as they were a prominent family in Anatolia. Constantine X later earned the hatred of the public after he raised taxes to pay for the buildup of a new army now that the consequences of his actions were catching up to him.

Constantine X was literally the definition of a man who kept failing upwards in life.

So are you planning on updating the story soon.
Yeah I'm aiming to do it late January or early February after I take my GRE's.

I and a lot of people are very excited how the story will turn out. Good luck with writing it.
Thanks for the support! I appreciate it!

Especially at the fact that the Bulgaria he so painfully made pilant to Roman rule is once again threatening Roman control of the Haemus.
True. Though Bulgaria's gonna be up for some wild times in this period of anarchy.
 
He'd probably hate Constantine X for his sheer idiocy. He literally gutted the Roman defenses in the middle of the Turkic invasion. The entire Doukas dynasty's tenure over the throne of Constantine is in some way worse than the Angeloi's reign. He literally gutted the military (the one Basil and his predecessors had painstakingly built up) and replaced them with mercenaries, he disbanded the 50,000 strong Roman garrison in Armenia while the Seljuks were literally marching westwards towards Roman territory, and he then fostered corruption in the military administration (part of the reason why it was so inept by the time of Manizkert).

Basil II literally setup the Empire to run smoothly if left alone for decades without much issue, and Constantine X still managed to screw that up. In another era he would have been poisoned.

Constantine X was nearly assassinated in 1061 by Issac I Komnenos' supporters and the military establishment who hated what he did to the army. As he had already died in 1059, we could have potentially had the Komneian dynasty take power much earlier as they were a prominent family in Anatolia. Constantine X later earned the hatred of the public after he raised taxes to pay for the buildup of a new army now that the consequences of his actions were catching up to him.
He was probably amongst the worst Emperors in the 1,480 year history of the Roman Empire. Honestly, Caligula and Nero were small peanuts in terms of damage to the broader empire/state compared to the likes of Honorius, Valentinian III, Petronius Maximus, Phocas, Constantine X, and Alexios III/IV.
 
So glad to see this back! Can't wait to see a new update.
He'd probably hate Constantine X for his sheer idiocy. He literally gutted the Roman defenses in the middle of the Turkic invasion. The entire Doukas dynasty's tenure over the throne of Constantine is in some way worse than the Angeloi's reign. He literally gutted the military (the one Basil and his predecessors had painstakingly built up) and replaced them with mercenaries, he disbanded the 50,000 strong Roman garrison in Armenia while the Seljuks were literally marching westwards towards Roman territory, and he then fostered corruption in the military administration (part of the reason why it was so inept by the time of Manizkert).
You know, this might be a bit controversial, but sometimes you have to look at things from a different perspective. There was this one book (i'll have to look at the title again) focused on the roman military from the X century to Mantzikert, and apparently all these measure from Constantine X were part of a wider reform to make the army more professional and less reliant on land ownership. Now I don't remember the details and I am not saying it is 100% true, but it might be worth a look just to get a fresh perspective on the period.
Sometimes I fell like trying to explain everything in history by just saying "that ruler was an idiot and the other one was as well" is just too simplistic and wrong.
He was probably amongst the worst Emperors in the 1,480 year history of the Roman Empire. Honestly, Caligula and Nero were small peanuts in terms of damage to the broader empire/state compared to the likes of Honorius, Valentinian III, Petronius Maximus, Phocas, Constantine X, and Alexios III/IV.
I agree on all of them except Valentinian III. That guy gets more hate than he truly deserves (probably because everyone likes to think of Aetius as the last Saviour of Rome, something he was not). I for one think he did great in getting rid of Aetius when he did (not a year too soon nor late) and how he did it, and had a sound succession plan (were people truly aware of Majorian's skills at the time though?). Too bad he did not take into account what would happen immediately after Aetius' death.
 
Last edited:
He was probably amongst the worst Emperors in the 1,480 year history of the Roman Empire. Honestly, Caligula and Nero were small peanuts in terms of damage to the broader empire/state compared to the likes of Honorius, Valentinian III, Petronius Maximus, Phocas, Constantine X, and the Angeloi Dynasty.
Fixed that for you. :)
 
"that ruler was an idiot and the other one was as well" is just too simplistic and wrong.
I mean as much as many historical figures are maligned, certain figures rightly earned their reputation in the history books. As for him dissolving the garrison in the Armeniacon theme was largely because he was trying to pay for his more extravagant lifestyle. And as crisis reached Rome's borders, the Emperor instead of responding ignored in favor of domestic matters with most of his time being spent on a futile effort to try and mend the schism between the Orthodox Church and the Armenian Orient Orthodox Church.

onstantine X were part of a wider reform to make the army more professional and less reliant on land ownership.
I mean the Theme system was already irrelevant which was why Basil II already made steps to address this by creating a much more centralized army based around the tagmata instead.

I agree on all of them except Valentinian III. That guy gets more hate than he truly deserves (probably because everyone likes to think of Aetius as the last Saviour of Rome, something he was not). I for one think he did great in getting rid of Aetius when he did (not a year too soon nor early) and how he did it, and had a sound succession plan (where people truly aware of Majorian's skills at the time though?).
Really? I've never heard of this perspective before. Pretty much everyone from history professors to youtubers present Aeitus as on the of the so-called "Last Romans."
I know Aeitus was looking to tie his dynasty to the throne via marriage, so I guess perhaps Valentinian had Aietus assassinated because he thought Aeitus would remove him from power once he had an heir born into the imperial family via marriage whom he could rule through as a puppet emperor.
 
I mean as much as many historical figures are maligned, certain figures rightly earned their reputation in the history books. As for him dissolving the garrison in the Armeniacon theme was largely because he was trying to pay for his more extravagant lifestyle. And as crisis reached Rome's borders, the Emperor instead of responding ignored in favor of domestic matters with most of his time being spent on a futile effort to try and mend the schism between the Orthodox Church and the Armenian Orient Orthodox Church.
Even I would go as far as calling Constantine X a misunderstood genius. His main concern was to keep himself on the throne and enjoy the perks of being at the top of the empire. But I believe there was some sort of rational reasoning (flawed or not) behind his measures and not just destruction for the sake of destruction itself.
Overall I still think he was a bad emperor (even worse considering the relatives he was able to place in position of power) but one that, like many others, needs to be better "interpreted".
Really? I've never heard of this perspective before. Pretty much everyone from history professors to youtubers present Aeitus as on the of the so-called "Last Romans."
I know Aeitus was looking to tie his dynasty to the throne via marriage, so I guess perhaps Valentinian had Aietus assassinated because he thought Aeitus would remove him from power once he had an heir born into the imperial family via marriage whom he could rule through as a puppet emperor.
I think people like to think of Aetius as the new Stilicho and Valentinian III as the new Honorius. The comparison apparently works well, but I am pretty sure Valentinian also had another such comparison in mind: that of his homonymous predecessor Valentinian II and Arbogast. Aetius was after power: he showed so at the time of Honorius' death and again during his power struggle against Bonifacius (a struggle that was detrimental to the empire). He wanted a tighter grip on the emperor (to the point of exiling Majorian) and even failed to do his job in Italy against the Huns. Valentinian choose the right moment to get rid of him (after the Hunnic thread had waned) and unlike Honorius, he did not embark on a general purge of the army. His reason for getting rid of Aetius was also not flimsy, unlike what Stilicho was accused of. The subsequent collapse of the empire had more to do with his death and Petronius's usurpation instead of Aetius' own assassination.
 

pls don't ban me

Monthly Donor
Immagine (1).png

i've decided as usual to add my personl touch to your image.
As a Bulgarian myself, i would have the same expression plus the "free real estate" meme orbiting my head 24h
 
Gods, the Fourth Crusade really makes me irrationally angry. So much could have been avoided had literally any other dynasty other than the shit stains that is the Angeloi were Emperors. Its telling when every emperor from the Angeloi all rank as being some of and the worst emperors in Byzantine and even Roman times.

Was it some sort of genetics thing? Likes its so unbelievable that a dynasty could be this bad and ruin one of the most advance nations of its time for over 100 hundred years.
 
His main concern was to keep himself on the throne and enjoy the perks of being at the top of the empire.
Constantine VIII has entered the chat.

But I believe there was some sort of rational reasoning (flawed or not) behind his measures and not just destruction for the sake of destruction itself.
Oh no I don't doubt that, but they were so ridiculously short-sighted its almost comical.

to the point of exiling Majorian) and even failed to do his job in Italy against the Huns. Valentinian choose the right moment to get rid of him (after the Hunnic thread had waned) and unlike Honorius, he did not embark on a general purge of the army.
Honestly if I were Valentinian I would have tried to play both Majorian and Aetius against each other by perhaps granting Majorian a posting further away from Aetius, or at least not directly under his command.

i've decided as usual to add my personl touch to your image.
As a Bulgarian myself, i would have the same expression plus the "free real estate" meme orbiting my head 24h
Lol! Bulgaria is gonna be in for a wild ride under Tsar Kaloyan

Angry noises in Emperor Theodosius I intensifies...

the Fourth Crusade really makes me irrationally angry.
I remember my teacher literally teaching about this through memes. He used the Palpapatine ironic meme to convey how much of a failure that Crusade was.

Was it some sort of genetics thing?
I mean Issacc II deserves some credit for actually trying to rule well despite failing at it.

Likes its so unbelievable that a dynasty could be this bad and ruin one of the most advance nations of its time for over 100 hundred years.
Laughter in Kantekuzenoi intensifies
 
Honestly, Caligula and Nero are overhated as they didn't do much damage in the long-term, unlike Emperors who accelerated the downfall of the Roman Empire.
 
Last edited:
Top