WI Alexandria is the capital of the eastern Roman empire?

[Lt.Gen 767]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

1) The problem is that as of Constantine, the concept of "the WRE" as a separate polity doesn't exist.

2) See above.

3) If Antioch was the capital, it would likely have been taken in the Last War, with unpleasant consequences.

1/2. By the time of Constantine the empire was divided culturally between a greek speaking east and a latin speaking west. Furthermore Diocletian's division of the roman empire was similar to Constantines and set a precedent.

3. If Antioch had been the capital the Persians would likly not have got as far during the Last War. Also when Constantine was choosing the eastern capital he wouldn't know that the Persians would ever get so far west.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Lt.Gen 767

1/2. By the time of Constantine the empire was devided culturally between a greek speaking east and a latin speaking west. Furthermore Diocletian's devision of the roman empire was simular to Constantines and set a precedent.

3. If Antioch had been the capital the Persians would likly not have got as far during the Last War. Also when Constantine was choosing the eastern capital he wouldn't know that the Persians would ever get so far west.

1/2: IT had been culturally divided since Rome conquered the East, but Constantine ruled both halves, so his choice needs to keep both halves in mind.

Also, that precedent was not set in stone - so basing a decision on that would not necessarily be on his mind. It might be, but I don't think it was inevitably one.

3) If Antioch had been the capital, with an Emperor as bad as Phocas, it would have fallen. They wouldn't need to get as far to threaten the capital.

And again, Byzantium is well located to watch both eastern half frontiers (and the West), Antioch is not.

[Avitus]

What if, for whatever reason, Constantine's decisive victory in the east comes at a different location? Would that be enough to convince him that his capital must be at the victory site, or was the attatchment to the strait too strong? I must say it seems quite coincidental that he happened to win his great victory at what is perhaps the best spot in Europe to have a capital (not untrue, just coincidental)

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Avitus

What if, for whatever reason, Constantine's decisive victory in the east comes at a different location? Would that be enough to convince him that his capital must be at the victory site, or was the attatchment to the strait too strong? I must say it seems quite coincidental that he happened to win his great victory at what is perhaps the best spot in Europe to have a capital (not untrue, just coincidental)

What victory did Constantine win at Byzantium?

Looking at wikipedia (as a quick reference) and I don't see anything.

Although it would be interesting to see him pick his victory site - OTL's or an ATL's - as the site of a new capital, and not implausible - founding cities at the site of one's wins has at least some precedence.

Doesn't mean it would be a good idea, but it might happen anyway.

[Basileus Giorgios]

My two cents are that a capital around the Marmara is pretty much inevitable. Diocletian set the precedent with Nicomedia, and the location is pretty much ideal for a roving court that wanders between the Balkans and Syria, and wishes to "enfranchise" a primarily Anatolian and Balkan elite. Alexandria is just too distant and far from the action to be able to do this. Antioch is too distant from the Danube, though it's worth mentioning that Antioch remained an important imperial capital alongside Constantinople for several decades after the latter's foundation.

Other capitals are possible- Byzantion, with its poor water supply, is not as obvious a choice as we Byzantinists perhaps like to think. I can see a capital developing elsewhere in the area quite easily. Perhaps at Nicaea, or Cyzicus, or Rhaidestos. But, if a new capital is going anywhere, that region would be the place for it to go.

[Elfwine]

Well, how much better is the water supply for old Rome? Or any of the other cities?

I'm not saying its ideal in this regard, even in the region - just trying to get a basis for comparison.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Well, how much better is the water supply for old Rome? Or any of the other cities?

I'm not saying its ideal in this regard, even in the region - just trying to get a basis for comparison.

Well, old Rome at least has the benefit of a large river flowing through it- the old town of Byzantion was perched on a rocky promontory into the sea. IIRC correctly, Constantinople only really started to balloon in terms of population once its aqueducts were completed. And it seems likely to me that the population growth of the city after its eighth century nadir began after Constantine V restored its water supply in 767.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Basileus Giorgios

Well, old Rome at least has the benefit of a large river flowing through it- the old town of Byzantion was perched on a rocky promontory into the sea. IIRC correctly, Constantinople only really started to balloon in terms of population once its aqueducts were completed. And it seems likely to me that the population growth of the city after its eighth century nadir began after Constantine V restored its water supply in 767.

That makes sense. Although Old Rome heavily depended on aqueducts as well.

Still, a close by water supply would be a biggie.

[Grey Wolf]

The key would be a different division of empire - if the "East" was allowed to stretch along the N African coast, maybe to Carthage, then it becomes more viable to create Alexandria as a capital. With an empire from Anatolia, Syria, the Levant, Egypt, Libya and Carthage etc

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Consul Arrianus]

1. The concept of a WRE did never exist.

2. I'm just saying that in the last war the emperors could stay clam for a long time and didn't react in the right way to the Persian invasion. If Antioch had been the capital they wouldn't be able to ingnore the invasion for such a long time.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Consul Arrianus

1. The concept of a WRE did never exist.

2. I'm just saying that in the last war the emperors could stay clam for a long time and didn't react in the right way to the Persian invasion. If Antioch had been the capital they wouldn't be able to ingnore the invasion for such a long time.

1: Yes, it did, if you mean what I think you mean.

2) The problem isn't that they ignored the invasion, the problem is that Phocas was incompetent and Heraclius - well, either he was rebuilding the army or also underwhelming in his early years on the throne. Either way, putting the capital at Antioch risks the capital falling, not secures the East.

[Velasco]

What if Anatolia and Syria was left in the hands of client-kings, with real Imperial power focusing on Egypt/Libya? Would that make things better?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Velasco

What if Anatolia and Syria was left in the hands of client-kings, with real Imperial power focusing on Egypt/Libya? Would that make things better?

Too late by this point, though it would be interesting to see a Roman Empire that treats Anatolia and Syria like that.

[Consul Arrianus]

1. The Romans never saw their empire divided like we do. They always thought of it as ONE empire.

2.WI Diocletian was more succesful and the the empire gets organianized in three parts? If there is this orient part of it, it would set it's capital in Alexandria or far more likely in Antioch.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Velasco

What if Anatolia and Syria was left in the hands of client-kings, with real Imperial power focusing on Egypt/Libya? Would that make things better?

No. Again, there's the matter of controlling the recruiting areas for the army.
Anatolia > (Egypt + Libya)

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Consul Arrianus

1. The Romans never saw their empire divided like we do. They always thought of it as ONE empire.

2.WI Diocletian was more succesful and the the empire gets organianized in three parts? If there is this orient part of it, it would set it's capital in Alexandria or far more likely in Antioch.

1: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/romans.html

"Theodosius divides the Roman empire in the Western and Eastern Empires, with Milano and Constantinople as their capitals "


2: Why would he organize it in three parts? The area around the Marmara is close enough for all useful purposes.

[Consul Arrianus]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

1: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/romans.html

"Theodosius divides the Roman empire in the Western and Eastern Empires, with Milano and Constantinople as their capitals "


2: Why would he organize it in three parts? The area around the Marmara is close enough for all useful purposes.

But Theodosius never expected he would be the last emperor who ruled over both parts.

2: The question isn't whether Diocletian would probably do this, because he did it. He was the father of the tetrarchy.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Consul Arrianus

But Theodosius never expected he would be the last emperor who ruled over both parts.

2: The question isn't whether Diocletian would probably do this, because he did it. He was the father of the tetrarchy.

1: So why did he give one half to each son? He might have expected that there would be more unity or eventual "only one emperor over both halves again", but I'd say this definitely marks a WRE and ERE as Siamese twins, one of which died less than a century later.

2: Which is rule by four, not three: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tetrarchy_map3.jpg

So why would he do it in three pieces?

[Avitus]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

What victory did Constantine win at Byzantium?

Looking at wikipedia (as a quick reference) and I don't see anything.

Although it would be interesting to see him pick his victory site - OTL's or an ATL's - as the site of a new capital, and not implausible - founding cities at the site of one's wins has at least some precedence.

Doesn't mean it would be a good idea, but it might happen anyway.

Not at Byzantium exactly, but he defeated Licinius right near there at Chrysopolis (I believe that the battlefield was within 5 miles from the city, but I'd have to check to be certain). If Licinius had chosen to fall back as a tactical measure, and was still defeated, I'm curious as to weather Constantine would have emphasized that region. If the battle, for whatever reason, was to take place in Egypt, Alexandria is the largest city at the time, so I could see Constantine remaking it in his own image. Same if the battle was in Syria with Antioch. But then maybe the notion of the east being administrated from the Bosporus was already too great, or the new capital wouldn't have stuck like Constantinople did, so I'm curious. Maybe if his victory was less conveniently placed Constantine would have settled for making a trophy city in the area rather than a new imperial capital.

[Basileus Giorgios]

I think C.A. is right about the division, Elfwine. The Theodosian Code refers only to "the Empire" in singular, I think. The idea was a unified Empire that just happened to be run by two courts for reasons of administrative convenience, rather than two separate allied states.