An Age of Miracles: The Revival of Rhomanion

[Dragos Cel Mare]

As I'm bored, I'm going to summarize this argument:

Cimon: Byzantines are Greeks, not Romans! Go look up my superior modern sources (adds insult to opponent's intelligence for good measure)!

Elfwine and other opponents: The Byzantines' own writings refer to them as Romans.

[Basileus444]

Elfwine: Still a really long nickname . A vassalized Serbia wouldn't just have two dukes like Bulgaria, there it'd be more like twelve. Makes a lot of Serbian nobles but also keeps them weak; if they're focused on each other that is a bonus. Spot-on analysis about the HRE. The German princes want the Bavarian Wittelsbachs to back now, and some of them, the Duke of Saxony chief among them, are willing to resort to desperate measures.

Regarding prefects buying land, it would be difficult at best to enforce, but I think Constantinople needed to at least try. The goal is to make the prefects economically dependent only on their pay, and prevent rebellious generals from manipulating prefects by taking over country estates.

And Rhomania without interesting times isn't Rhomania. Geography alone would dictate that.

Dragos Cel Mare: Thanks. The Second Komnenid Dynasty is certainly going to be a colorful one. Regarding the Gana Sangha, I don't think so, sorry. The Swati may be a nice centralized monarchy, but it's still a centralized monarchy. At most you might see something similar to the Roman urban councils. Perhaps if the Swati collapsed and Kashmir fragmented but remained independent.

That's a really good idea about Bavaria which I hadn't thought of. It'd be a good way to export the Renaissance, especially since the great Imperial princes (Burgundy/Lotharingia, Bohemia, and Saxony) would probably start trying to outshine Munich.

Grouchio: There's only Theodoros' sister, the wife of Demetrios and the current Dowager Empress. If there had been any others, they would have made a move during the War of the Five Emperors.

thekingsguard: Thanks. There's the Timurid interlude, which will either be one big or two normal-sized update, than a special update on the army reform I alluded to, and then there will be the beginning of Part 6.

Arrix85: Thanks. The result of that hardening of Islamic attitudes toward Rhomania (in certain circles) is not going to be pretty. As for the Romans and Mamelukes, the last century has been largely one of the peace. The next will decidedly not be.

SavoyTruffle: Co-emperors would be pretty cool. As for Demetrios, I think he deserves it. With him passes the generation of heroes, the age that sired Manuel Doukas, Demetrios Komnenos, and Dragos cel Mare, the men who stood against the Lord of Asia, and won.

cimon: Georgia's solidly in the Roman Empire's sphere of influence, even there's no trace of any political subordination. Georgia's strong enough that even Russia would think twice of attacking it, but it is strong enough to keep Georgia close to the Empire. Tbilisi and Constantinople have no conflicts of interest (as of now), while the future will certainly see Tbilisi and Novgorod arguing over tolls on Don/Volga traffic. As for Byzantium-Venice, one of them is going to kill the other; after the events of the past two hundred years it can't go done any other way.

As the Byzantines=Greek, no. They referred to themselves as Rhomaioi (Greek word for Romans). Through nearly all the Byzantine period, the word Greek (Hellenes) gave connotations of classical Greece, which means paganism. The Romans, who were viewed as Christian, were far better in Byzantine eyes. In fact if one was a medieval leader and wanted to insult the Byzantine Emperor, one called him Emperor/King of the Greeks. Charlemage was granted the title Basileus, true, but not Basileus of the Romans, which remained only in Constantinople in Byzantine eyes. The Byzantines called 'Romans', the West, Latins/Franks/barbarians/pond scum.

Derekc2: Ah, a convert, good. I personally don't like ERE just because it's so clunky. And if one went back in time and said ERE to a Byzantine/Greek/Roman, their response would be "Eastern? We're the Roman Empire, period. You don't like that, well let me introduce you to my Varangian friend." This is the reason why I've never used Byzantine in the actual TL, but only in response posts.

Evilprodigy: No Shi'ite Persia is certain if the Ottomans conquer it all. As of now, the strongest Shiite power is the Emirate of Oman, which isn't saying much. However the ATL Ottoman Empire actually has a large shiite minority, concentrated in southern Mesopotamia. But an analogy of Shiism as the equivalent of Muslim Judaism is pretty apt.

eliphas8: I don't think you can prove your view as Romans more thoroughly than calling your state the Empire of the Romans. Plus Empire of the Greeks just isn't correct. The OTL Byzantine/Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic state, at least pre-1204, and this ATL Empire is the same. The Greeks are the majority, but there are huge communities of Turks, Armenians, and Vlachs, along with Albanians, Bulgarians, Kurds, Arabs, and Italians of southern Italy (although they're Catholic, so everyone hates them), not to mention the Jewish communities of southern Greece.

frozenpredator: That's one of many reasons I love MEIOU. The Byzantine Empire there is called the Roman Empire (in the first version I got it was Basileia ton Rhomaion), and your ruler is the Basileus ton Basileon. If you're not an empire, but in the Byzantine culture group, you get Byzantine titles, such as a simple Basileus or Despotes.

[Evilprodigy]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

Evilprodigy: No Shi'ite Persia is certain if the Ottomans conquer it all. As of now, the strongest Shiite power is the Emirate of Oman, which isn't saying much. However the ATL Ottoman Empire actually has a large shiite minority, concentrated in southern Mesopotamia. But an analogy of Shiism as the equivalent of Muslim Judaism is pretty apt.

Right now Persia (And southern Iraq) are majority Sunni and IOTL didn't become Shia until the Safavids did an inquoisition and forced them all to convert. So how would they be Shia in your TL? Did someone else do that?

And Oman Isn't Shia, they are Ibadi, it's a different sect from Shia and Sunni.

[Derekc2]

Originally Posted by Dragos Cel Mare

As I'm bored, I'm going to summarize this argument:

Cimon: Byzantines are Greeks, not Romans! Go look up my superior modern sources (adds insult to opponent's intelligence for good measure)!

Elfwine and other opponents: The Byzantines' own writings refer to them as Romans.

Hey how come Eflwine get's his name on it when I started the argument in favor of Eastern Roman Empiren name! That's not fair.

[Dragos Cel Mare]

Did you point out that the Byzantine's own writings referred to themselves as Roman?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

Elfwine: Still a really long nickname . A vassalized Serbia wouldn't just have two dukes like Bulgaria, there it'd be more like twelve. Makes a lot of Serbian nobles but also keeps them weak; if they're focused on each other that is a bonus. Spot-on analysis about the HRE. The German princes want the Bavarian Wittelsbachs to back now, and some of them, the Duke of Saxony chief among them, are willing to resort to desperate measures.

Regarding prefects buying land, it would be difficult at best to enforce, but I think Constantinople needed to at least try. The goal is to make the prefects economically dependent only on their pay, and prevent rebellious generals from manipulating prefects by taking over country estates.

Makes sense on Serbia. Now that Bulgaria is properly within the Roman sphere, I'm going to worry about the other things like Crete - although "The Guy Whose Romans Let Venice Keep Crete" and such would get old, you do know that's in a strategic spot.

As for the prefects:
I agree. It's not great, but given the salaries, it should be at levels that are more "corruption" and less "system collapse".

Once again, thank God for the plebe-loving Laskarids.

And Rhomania without interesting times isn't Rhomania. Geography alone would dictate that.

I'm not sure this is a true absolute, but it's certainly a near-impossibility to eliminate. Sooner or latter, Bad Things happen, and when Bad Things Happen . . . the Empire is not so positioned as to be able to ignore Central and Eastern Europe's squabbles, even if it isn't the target for those Bad Things.

To use an example of OTL: There's no way the Byzantines could ignore the European Axis powers. Byzantium's security needs an attention to keeping things from getting there almost as badly as Britain's does.

Derekc2: Ah, a convert, good. I personally don't like ERE just because it's so clunky. And if one went back in time and said ERE to a Byzantine/Greek/Roman, their response would be "Eastern? We're the Roman Empire, period. You don't like that, well let me introduce you to my Varangian friend." This is the reason why I've never used Byzantine in the actual TL, but only in response posts.

Say hello to my VERY LARGE friend.


Derekc2: Because he knows me better? I dunno, I give you the credit for this thread, personally.

I use Byzantines because I like the sound - it has such a nonFrankish sound to it. Let them envy that the heirs of Augustus know more than swordwork.

Personally, I think the term Byzantine should be used in the spirit of the Rhomanoi themselves - the empire ruled from Byzantion. Horribly archaic classicalism for the win!

[Mathalamus]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

To use an example of OTL: There's no way the Byzantines could ignore the European Axis powers. Byzantium's security needs an attention to keeping things from getting there almost as badly as Britain's does.

in that situation, i think the Romans would just be neutral, and enforce the neutrality unless dragged in the war. more so if the Romans still have a bad opinion of the people.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

in that situation, i think the Romans would just be neutral, and enforce the neutrality unless dragged in the war. more so if the Romans still have a bad opinion of the people.

I'm not sure. In the Byzantine position, Germany cannot be allowed dominance of what (in German terms) is Mitteleuropa.

That's too threatening.

Even if the Byzantines don't particularly care about Western Europe.

Italy is less problematic, but would you trust Mussolini?

Naturally this ignores butterflies, I'm using it as a political situation.

[Mathalamus]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

I'm not sure. In the Byzantine position, Germany cannot be allowed dominance of what (in German terms) is Mitteleuropa.

That's too threatening.

Even if the Byzantines don't particularly care about Western Europe.

Italy is less problematic, but would you trust Mussolini?

Naturally this ignores butterflies, I'm using it as a political situation.

that's true, but the Roman Empire is going to be hard pressed to fight the Germans, especially of Germany decides to wipe out the Romans before the Russians.

im willing to bet everything i have that the deciding battle will be at Constantinople.

Italy isnt a very sigificent factor. it badly failed against Greece, imagine how bad they do against the Roman Empire.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

that's true, but the Roman Empire is going to be hard pressed to fight the Germans, especially of Germany decides to wipe out the Romans before the Russians.

im willing to bet everything i have that the deciding battle will be at Constantinople.

Not sure how hard pressed honestly. Certainly Romans alone, but Rhomania is not going to stand alone here.

Italy isnt a very sigificent factor. it badly failed against Greece, imagine how bad they do against the Roman Empire.

[Dragos Cel Mare]

Originally Posted by Arrix85

Good update! nothing good can come from this islamic hatred towards the Roman Empire.

It's not just the Romans, what about Swati Kashmir?

[Tapirus Augustus]

Originally Posted by Dragos Cel Mare

It's not just the Romans, what about Swati Kashmir?

There's a lot of land in between Kashmir and the Levant.

[Dragos Cel Mare]

The new creed could spread to the Delhi Sultanate, which may attack Kashmir - oh, wait, Khorasan. I hope that the Indian Timurids are too busy consolidating their empire to pay attention to Kashmir.

[Basileus444]

Evilprodigy: My understanding was that at this time OTL, Southern Iraq had at least a decent sized Shia minority. I thought the Safavids had to actually bring in Iraqi Shia ulema because of the lack of native Persian Shia ulema, which suggests that southern Mesopotamia was a center for Shiism. That was the basis of my comment on Shiites in the Ottoman Empire; even so they're still a minority (possibly supplemented by immigrants from Azerbaijan fleeing the Georgians). As for Oman, my bad. I knew they weren't Sunni and assumed that meant they were Shia. Thanks for the correction.

Elfwine: Crete is a high priority target now that the Empire is at full strength. In Constantinople, the current conversation is "Let's go punch some Venetians...Wait a minute, the Sultan has how many battalions?!!!"

For reference, the ATL history of Crete.
1) Reclaimed in the late 1270s with the support of a native Greek revolt
2) Claimed by Venice in 1376 in exchange for naval aid during the Laskarid Civil War
3) The Venetian war of 1414-15 sees a few raids on Crete. However Demetrios needs land to make more theme-tagmata, and southern Italy is much better in that regard than Crete. So he lets Venice keep Crete so he can invade Naples earlier.

So Crete is one of those problems that is recognized needs to be fixed (unlike Bulgaria which the Emperors have just tried to ignore in the hopes it'll go away), but the Empire keeps getting distracted.

Mathalamus: The Romans would likely try to remain neutral, but would be working diplomatically to make sure Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Romania stay out of the German sphere, as well as maintaining an alliance with Russia. That'd provide a buffer against Germany, and a Roman-Russian alliance might even be enough to make Hitler think twice. As for Mussolini's Italy vs. the Roman Empire, how do you say 'squish' in Greek?

Tapirus Augustus: Swati Kashmir is pretty well insulated from jihads, partly from good defensive terrain (mountains and the rivers of the Punjab) and distracted enemies. The Persian-Indian dynamic would have to change significantly for Kashmir to be under threat from that quarter. Actually the biggest threat to Kashmir is Shah Rukh, but he has different priorities.

Dragos Cel Mare: Since I'm not feeling serious right now, let me put the current (pre-Timur) Indian-Kashmir situation in a bad imitation Hetalia form.

Delhi: Ah, such a sunny day. I feel like being productive today. Hmm, I know, I'll beat up Kashmir. Nobody gets to move out of the House of Islam...punks.

Kashmir: Delhi, why you troll us?

Delhi: Because I like it; it's fun. All your carpets belong to us.

Kashmir: "twitches" Asshole. But before you do, look behind you.

Delhi: Ha, you think I'm going to fall for tha-. "Trumpet blast causes Delhi to jump and then turn around."

Vijayanagar: Hi, Delhi, what do you think of my armored war elephant collection? Pretty cool, huh?

Delhi: Shit.

[SavoyTruffle]

If Mussolini had to be bailed out by Hitler every time he tried conquering something, then assuming butterfly genocide the Roman Empire (based in The City) will kick his arse so hard he'll kiss the moon.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

Elfwine: Crete is a high priority target now that the Empire is at full strength. In Constantinople, the current conversation is "Let's go punch some Venetians...Wait a minute, the Sultan has how many battalions?!!!"

For reference, the ATL history of Crete.
1) Reclaimed in the late 1270s with the support of a native Greek revolt
2) Claimed by Venice in 1376 in exchange for naval aid during the Laskarid Civil War
3) The Venetian war of 1414-15 sees a few raids on Crete. However Demetrios needs land to make more theme-tagmata, and southern Italy is much better in that regard than Crete. So he lets Venice keep Crete so he can invade Naples earlier.

So Crete is one of those problems that is recognized needs to be fixed (unlike Bulgaria which the Emperors have just tried to ignore in the hopes it'll go away), but the Empire keeps getting distracted.

Yeah. So many things to do and so few (relatively speaking) resources is a Byzantine bugbear.

And Venice isn't doing anything active enough to make it unavoidable to focus on it, which pushes it to the "Yeah, as soon as possible." pile - also known as the "When we get around to it." pile, or the "This might take a long time." pile.

Still, the island does rightfully belong to Rome, is important to the Empire's situation in the Aegean, and so on. So...soon, hopefully.

At least the Empire is secure on most of its frontiers now, with Bulgaria tamed and the Ottomans not doing anything westward so far.

ST: There's a beautiful image.

[SavoyTruffle]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Yeah. So many things to do and so few (relatively speaking) resources is a Byzantine bugbear.

And Venice isn't doing anything active enough to make it unavoidable to focus on it, which pushes it to the "Yeah, as soon as possible." pile - also known as the "When we get around to it." pile, or the "This might take a long time." pile.

Still, the island does rightfully belong to Rome, is important to the Empire's situation in the Aegean, and so on. So...soon, hopefully.

At least the Empire is secure on most of its frontiers now, with Bulgaria tamed and the Ottomans not doing anything westward so far.

ST: There's a beautiful image.

The way I see it Crete's reconquest is not a matter of if, but when.

Also, imagine it now: Roman soldiers marching in Roma after centuries!

[Mathalamus]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

Mathalamus: The Romans would likely try to remain neutral, but would be working diplomatically to make sure Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Romania stay out of the German sphere, as well as maintaining an alliance with Russia. That'd provide a buffer against Germany, and a Roman-Russian alliance might even be enough to make Hitler think twice. As for Mussolini's Italy vs. the Roman Empire, how do you say 'squish' in Greek?

why would the Romans maintain an alliance with Soviet Russia? i don't think the Romans will take what the Russians did too kindly.

and the Roman Russian alliance making even Hitler think twice, it depends on many factors, such as general education level, technology, economics, and general shape of the military.

and of course, Hitlers choice. i don't know if he hates the Romans more than the Russians.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

why would the Romans maintain an alliance with Soviet Russia? i don't think the Romans will take what the Russians did too kindly.

and the Roman Russian alliance making even Hitler think twice, it depends on many factors, such as general education level, technology, economics, and general shape of the military.

and of course, Hitlers choice. i don't know if he hates the Romans more than the Russians.

Realpolitick. These are the Byzantines we're talking about, they've believed in that longer than any of their neighboring nations have existed. There's nothing the Soviet Union could do that would make the Byzantines more hostile than Churchill, and the old bastard was willing to ally with the Devil against Hitler. Of course, a Roman-Soviet alliance will exist only so far as its convenient for both powers, but . . .

Savoy: That should be interesting. Byzantium sooner or latter is going to meddle in Italy if only for purposes of the balance of power thing where it really doesn't want anyone getting threateningly strong. It might not want any of northern-central Italy for itself (legitimate claims or no, an empire that has only just gotten around to dealing with Bulgaria is not one where Justinian's ideas on reconquest are taken seriously), but it's still a nice thought to imagine both Romes in the possession of the One True Empire.

[SavoyTruffle]

I see the Romans abetting Genoa as long as they're just Venice's biggest rival. Once the Genoese get any ideas, though...

And the Pope in Rome - apart from the HRE, Poland, and England-France, who cares about it?