An Age of Miracles: The Revival of Rhomanion

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Though what exactly can the nobles do to provide support? That can't be requisitioned, I mean.

They could provide monetary support to a militarily weak pretender in order for him to hire a mercenary army and thus stand far more of a chance, merchants could transfer their ships into military service, their main power is their money which is fairly important in a civil war where the imperial treasury is going to be bled dry even if it is left with Basil II levels of surplus at the beginning of the time of troubles.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

They could provide monetary support to a militarily weak pretender in order for him to hire a mercenary army and thus stand far more of a chance, merchants could transfer their ships into military service, their main power is their money which is fairly important in a civil war where the imperial treasury is going to be bled dry even if it is left with Basil II levels of surplus at the beginning of the time of troubles.

Some people - Basileus444 at times included - seem to forget the whole "bureaucratic system + absolute monarchy" thing. What the state wants, the state gets.

Up to a point, but it is something anyone with control of the imperial treasury can use (and by all reason would use) more rigorously than anyone else this side of China can get away with.

So raising taxes is going to be not only considered - because we're looking at early modern states that lacked the modern American conservative attitude that taxation is just plain wrong - but something that can actually bring in all that sweet, sweet cash.

As Theodoros IV would probably agree, a man not willing to be called greedy and miserly by his enemies is not fit to be Emperor.

[Mathalamus]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And I thought we all knew what the Byzantine solution to needing money was.

Raising taxes!

Some people - Basileus444 at times included - seem to forget the whole "bureaucratic system + absolute monarchy" thing. What the state wants, the state gets.

Up to a point, but it is something anyone with control of the imperial treasury can use (and by all reason would use) more rigorously than anyone else this side of China can get away with.

raising taxes woudl increase the resentment of the peasants. didn't something similar happen in OTL? laskarids increasing taxes, to the point of them preferring ottoman rule over Roman rule?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

raising taxes woudl increase the resentment of the peasants. didn't something similar happen in OTL? laskarids increasing taxes, to the point of them preferring ottoman rule over Roman rule?

OTL the Laskarids didn't have to worry about the Ottomans, and the Palaelogians had other problems (like the rich not liking to pay).

And the peasants being resentful?

Let them grumble, as long as they obey.

Not to mention that increased taxes are falling on the backs of those who can afford it - that's the whole point.

Basil II may be an extreme example, but all the good emperors were quite willing to squeeze to get taxes. Begging the nobility for financial support is the resort of weaker states.

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Basil II may be an extreme example, but all the good emperors were quite willing to squeeze to get taxes. Begging the nobility for financial support is the resort of weaker states.

My point being it may not be a very good emperor after the time of troubles. Its entirely possible that we could leave the Time of Troubles with another Angelos (not specifically the current Angelos claimant given how hes actually cool, just on that level of competence). The beaurocrats may also not always be trustworthy. Its important to remember all the times where 444 said that the current system is easily corruptible when in poor hands and the Dynatoi (I probably shouldnt say nobles since the merchant families hold far more power) may be able to increase their control over the state in that way.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

My point being it may not be a very good emperor after the time of troubles. Its entirely possible that we could leave the Time of Troubles with another Angelos (not specifically the current Angelos claimant given how hes actually cool, just on that level of competence).

I hope not. But someone like that might easily wind up compromising imperial power to get what he (personally) wants.

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

I hope not. But someone like that might easily wind up compromising imperial power to get what he (personally) wants.

I hope not too but given the way the empire is now I suspect that is how it will turn out, or some later crisis it doesnt have to be now.

[Excubitor]

The map is not the territory, the emperor's actual authority is not always equal to his prerogatives. The Roman aristocracy ITTL is largely mercantile and even if they can't bare their fangs at a tax raise done by a powerful emperor ( which will not always be the case), they could help the threatened state with a large capital infusion, similar to the "popes" bond system and "request" some actual political power in the process. From that to a proto-constitution of some sort is a slippery slope.

Loved the update myself, even if I have no idea how plausible it would be. What does "IRV" stand for, Imperial Roman Vessel?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Excubitor

The map is not the territory, the emperor's actual authority is not always equal to his prerogatives. The Roman aristocracy ITTL is largely mercantile and even if they can't bare their fangs at a tax raise done by a powerful emperor ( which will not always be the case), they could help the threatened state with a large capital infusion, similar to the "popes" bond system and "request" some actual political power in the process. From that to a proto-constitution of some sort is a slippery slope.

Loved the update myself, even if I have no idea how plausible it would be. What does "IRV" stand for, Imperial Roman Vessel?

The problem is that his actual authority is pretty broad - which is the reason I'm raising the issue. People are forgetting that - I think the "popes" and all are cool ideas, but it obscures that the Emperor really does wield a lot of power unless he's lazy or stupid. Look at Roman/Byzantine history and show me how many emperors had to compromise those prerogatives.

More than enough to raise taxes and let those who have a problem with it find out what happens when you break imperial law - y'know, the stuff that a state with a system equal or better to anything in 18th century Europe OTL would have available.

[Excubitor]

The problem with taxes is that it takes time for them to reach the imperial treasury, time an exhausted Empire faced with a new crisis might not have. No matter how strong the emperor he can only confiscate estates and step on the dynatoi so much before he winds up with a dagger in his back and is replaced, a very Byzantine thing to do.

An emperor faced with such a crisis, or better yet a pretender in a weaker position, might have to choose between surrendering some of his prerogatives or loosing his throne and, politics being what they were, his life. Anna gave Crete to the Venetians and Theodoros imperial claim recognition to the Milanese when faced with unexpected crisis. It doesn't seem very outlandish for something similar to happen with imperial authority. The Senate giveth and the Senate taketh away.

I like this idea because I don't see the Roman Empire successfully entering the 20th century with an autocrat at its head and a social upheaval smelling of guillotine and grapeshot would be too... crude, not Byzantine at all.

[Basileus444]

Originally Posted by Excubitor

The map is not the territory, the emperor's actual authority is not always equal to his prerogatives. The Roman aristocracy ITTL is largely mercantile and even if they can't bare their fangs at a tax raise done by a powerful emperor ( which will not always be the case), they could help the threatened state with a large capital infusion, similar to the "popes" bond system and "request" some actual political power in the process. From that to a proto-constitution of some sort is a slippery slope.

Loved the update myself, even if I have no idea how plausible it would be. What does "IRV" stand for, Imperial Roman Vessel?

Yes, that's what IRV stands for. Couldn't think of anything else so I'm open to suggestions.

Imperial authority drops a lot during the penultimate stage of the Time of Troubles, which is when I envision the Senate beginning to make some (small) moves. My current favorite idea is as would-be Emperors battle in the provinces, the Senate ends up taking over the de facto (although not de jure) administration of Constantinople. When a winner finally emerges, he has to recognize the Senate's de jure authority (in Constantinople, not the Empire as a whole) before he can gain entrance in the Queen of Cities.


Due to reader comments, here's a revised version of the attack. If the two accounts contradict each other, this is the 'correct' one. If they do not, they are both 'correct'. Again, I reserve the right to change any or all of the below. After this, I'll resume the original narrative.

From A Prelude to War: The Far East

‘The port of Keelung is not a fit naval base for battleships. To station the bulk of the Far East fleet there is to invite disaster,’-Tourmarch (Vice Admiral) Andronikos Laskaris, June 3, 1905.

The prophetic words were ignored. For centuries Singapore had been the primary naval base of the Roman Far East fleet, and was extremely well fortified, with ten 14.4in guns and a host of smaller batteries. Keelung had been the base of a light cruiser squadron, but its only defenses were two batteries of three 5.5in guns each. However in the views of the Senate, Singapore was too isolated and far away from the Chinese coast. Also there were fears that Shimazu, the premier naval power in Japan (although Shimazu possessed only one battleship, Roman-built, its light cruisers were some of the finest in the world), might bow out of the new alliance if there were not signs that Rhomania took her security seriously.

Thus the relocation of the Far East fleet to Keelung was done for political, not military reasons. There was space in the naval budget for upgrading Keelung, but then Spain laid down the first of the Santissima Trinidad-class battleships, mounting ten 16.2in guns and rendering at a stroke the Despotes and Konstantinos Megas-class battleships, the bulk of the Imperial fleet battle line, obsolete. The money earmarked for Keelung instead went to laying down the Demetrios Megas and Manuel Doukas, 27-knot battleships with ten 16.7in guns.

Two years later, both the Santissima Trinidads and Demetrios Megas-class battleships were well on their way to being completed. Meanwhile Keelung had gained the logistical infrastructure to maintain the Far East fleet, but the only improvements in defense were three searchlights and two 6.5in guns. Retired by this point, Andronikos Laskaris continued to speak out against Keelung. ‘This continued use of this base, even while absolutely no efforts are made to secure the safety of the fleet, is criminal. China has no need to ally itself with Spain and the United States. It already has all the allies it needs in the Roman Senate’.

He was ignored. Sickly Emperor Demetrios IV, who would collapse from a stroke just four days before the attack on Keelung, had no strength to assert his imperial prerogatives against Senator Matthaios Doukas, the charismatic and very loud proponent of Keelung. Given the poor performance of the Chinese military in the Second Manchurian War, and the need to keep an eye (and a hundred divisions) watching the Russians, many in Constantinople did not believe that the Chinese would resort to war if Rhomania made it clear she could and would defend her interests.

Beijing deliberately fostered this sentiment. Saber-rattling, though still present, significantly quieted after the move to Keelung, encouraging the lack of urgency regarding Keelung’s defensive upgrades.

On December 2, the 3rd Battle Squadron of the Far East fleet put out to sea on a goodwill visit to Nan. Despite the fact that it only contained a fourth of the fleet’s capital ships, it took half of the screening vessels to be a more impressive and encouraging sight for the Wu. Thirty destroyers were left behind to cover nine battleships.

At 5:10 on December 7, the Chinese fleet struck. Destroyers blasted their way into the harbor, loosing three of their number, but eleven more made it inside and launched a total of forty seven torpedoes. Most missed or were caught in torpedo nets, but fourteen struck. Ironically the main targets, the warships, were almost completely unscathed, taking only three hits, which sunk one light cruiser, moderately damaged an armored cruiser, and punching a hole in the side of the battleship IRV Alexios Komnenos through which flooded 1200 tons of seawater.

The remaining eleven hit support vessels, and sunk them all, although four settled slowly enough that the crews escaped with no casualties, while three more ships took no more than five casualties each.

Overall the surprise attack had been a failure, but it had made Strategos Zeno Monomakos mad and spoiling for a fight. By 9:30 the Far East fleet was steaming out, when it was met unexpectedly by the bulk of the Chinese battle line under the command of Admiral Zheng Jing, who had eleven (out of a total of thirteen) battleships to the Roman eight. Despite the disparity in numbers, the Roman battleships gave a good account of themselves, and in the first thirty minutes hit the Chinese battleships eighteen times, compared to thirteen hits on Roman warships.

It was at 10:03 that Zheng Jing committed his light forces. The Chinese naval shipyards still were not well equipped to produce battleships, but despite their technical backwardness compared to Roman yards, their sheer size meant they could churn out huge numbers of lighter ships. Sixty five destroyers and twenty two light cruisers sallied out, facing eight Roman light cruisers and thirty destroyers. The Roman battleships, having a harder time of it now as Chinese warships found the range, could not help.

The Chinese light cruisers, most armed with twelve rapid-fire 6in guns designed for killing Roman destroyers, smashed apart the Roman screen, losing one, along with three destroyers, but twelve Roman destroyers and five light cruisers went down as well. Four hundred and ninety torpedoes leapt out at the Roman battle line.

The flagship Basileia Helena was the first to die, as six torpedoes struck her starboard side almost simultaneously. One second she was rolling out volleys, hitting the Chinese flagship Tianjin four times in ninety seconds, and the next she heeled over and sank with the loss of all but two of her crew. Both Chinese and Roman naval historians think it was her final volley that ripped away Tianjin’s signal halyard and obliterated her D turret. The only reason the ship itself did not follow was due to the dying words of a gunnery lieutenant who ordered the ship’s magazines flooded.

All of the Roman battleships save for the oldest, the Theodoros I, were hit. Four more, besides the flagship, went down in a matter of minutes. The remaining three peeled away, racing back for the harbor. For seven crucial minutes, the Chinese fleet did not pursue as it awaited orders from her commander, who could not signal due to battle damage. Because of that delay, all but the Sebastokrator made it. That battleship, the newest in the fleet, had been hit by three torpedoes and was riding low with eight thousand tons of seawater in her bilges. It ran aground on approach to Keelung, its crew abandoning ship.

When Zheng Jing once again had command of the situation and fleet, it was too late. Storming Keelung now would be prohibitively expensive, as the eighteen surviving Roman destroyers had full torpedo magazines. He contented himself with setting the hulk of the Sebastokrator ablaze before withdrawing.

In exchange for six destroyers and one light cruiser, damage on fifteen more light ships and six of his battleships, and 750 casualties (a fifth of them on Tianjin), Zheng Jing had sunk six Roman battleships, damaged two more, and sent eighteen light Roman warships and eleven support vessels to the bottom, killing or wounding over 6500 Roman sailors and marines.

IRV Aghios Giorgios sinking after being hit by four torpedoes, 10:26.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Excubitor

The problem with taxes is that it takes time for them to reach the imperial treasury, time an exhausted Empire faced with a new crisis might not have. No matter how strong the emperor he can only confiscate estates and step on the dynatoi so much before he winds up with a dagger in his back and is replaced, a very Byzantine thing to do.

And an emperor trying to get loans is hardly going to get them faster.

And again, we're not even looking at "so much", we're looking at raising taxes instead of this "Let's barter privileges for ready cash because we've forgotten we have actual imperial authority instead of being barely acknowledged as first among equals like the kings in the West"

Not even confiscating estates or anything actually drastic. Just the behavior of early modern states, with the benefit of a much stronger state to actually get what it wants when raising funds and men.

If the kings of France could get away with it, the Emperors of Rome can.

An emperor faced with such a crisis, or better yet a pretender in a weaker position, might have to choose between surrendering some of his prerogatives or loosing his throne and, politics being what they were, his life. Anna gave Crete to the Venetians and Theodoros imperial claim recognition to the Milanese when faced with unexpected crisis. It doesn't seem very outlandish for something similar to happen with imperial authority. The Senate giveth and the Senate taketh away.

I like this idea because I don't see the Roman Empire successfully entering the 20th century with an autocrat at its head and a social upheaval smelling of guillotine and grapeshot would be too... crude, not Byzantine at all.

I don't like this idea, because it smells of "I don't want to see an actually successful autocracy" type decisions. Russia, a state with far less infrastructure to support imperial will, managed up until the end of a horrible, nasty war (1917). Why Rhomania would fare worse than Russia is a mystery I want explained.

So if the choices are "An Emperor acting like an aurocrat" or "B444 writing like I(Elfwine) play most strategy games", we're overdue to have this timeline remind people what #1 can get away with. There isn't the attitude that the emperor actually exercising aurocratic authority is the same as tyranny even among the nobility.

I don't mind our author preferring a less aurocratic result - emperors might choose to give stuff away - but I'd like to at least see the Theodoroses and such try the methods at their disposal rather than it being played as if the usual business of early modern states is either inconceivable or unacceptable.

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

More than enough to raise taxes and let those who have a problem with it find out what happens when you break imperial law - y'know, the stuff that a state with a system equal or better to anything in 18th century Europe OTL would have available.

Yeah but most of OTL Roman history was in a period where the mercantile power base and aristocrats hwere not on the same level that they are now. As time goes on and the dynatoi become more sophisticated they are going to start wanting more control of the state to serve their interests rather the imperial head. There is a reason that the last Autocracy was the least develloped in Europe. Course this doesnt mean it has to be soon, it could very well have some sort of French revolution style event that essentially broke imperial power and even after restoration once the idea of government being chosen by the people is out of the bag it can never be put back.

[Basileus444]

I lean towards a more autocratic Rhomania myself, something like a constitutional monarchy where the Emperor isn't absolute, but still very powerful, not even close to a figurehead. I like the idea of disproving the 'Monarchy automatically means backward, freedom-less, destined to die state'. My main problem at the moment is that at the moment, TTL's equivalent to the 1800s is completely blank. But it's very likely that the political developments seen here will be substantially revised. These are not set in stone.

Truth be told, I just wanted Roman battleships and didn't want to wait four hundred years.

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

I lean towards a more autocratic Rhomania myself, something like a constitutional monarchy where the Emperor isn't absolute, but still very powerful, not even close to a figurehead. I like the idea of disproving the 'Monarchy automatically means backward, freedom-less, destined to die state'. My main problem at the moment is that at the moment, TTL's equivalent to the 1800s is completely blank. But it's very likely that the political developments seen here will be substantially revised. These are not set in stone.

Truth be told, I just wanted Roman battleships and didn't want to wait four hundred years.

That kind of works if you go with the idea I had of a permanent July Monarchy.

[Derekc2]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

I lean towards a more autocratic Rhomania myself, something like a constitutional monarchy where the Emperor isn't absolute, but still very powerful, not even close to a figurehead. I like the idea of disproving the 'Monarchy automatically means backward, freedom-less, destined to die state'. My main problem at the moment is that at the moment, TTL's equivalent to the 1800s is completely blank. But it's very likely that the political developments seen here will be substantially revised. These are not set in stone.

Truth be told, I just wanted Roman battleships and didn't want to wait four hundred years.

But please keep the Eastern Roman Emporer absalute ruler. Also I don't want the senate to gain any power in Constantinoble eathier. Becouse if they do then they are more likely to want more power and will have some (very small way but a way) to get it but if they are powerless than they can't do that.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

Yeah but most of OTL Roman history was in a period where the mercantile power base and aristocrats hwere not on the same level that they are now. As time goes on and the dynatoi become more sophisticated they are going to start wanting more control of the state to serve their interests rather the imperial head. There is a reason that the last Autocracy was the least develloped in Europe.

And the problem is that the Emperor is still at a position that autocrats like Louis XIV were at.

The dynatoi have wanted more control of the state since their reemergence in the 9th(?) century. Doesn't mean that they have anything they can do about it, especially with the Laskarid policies strengthening the middle class but not creating a true upper class - the merchants fit awfully comfortably into the 18th century House of Commons, only without Parliament having authority.

Basileus: Makes sense to me. Something where the senate has some real powers within a narrow sphere, but ultimate authority remains in the hands of the Emperors in a "The Commander in Chief has the power to declare a state of emergency, based on what he sees as an emergency." and such powers.

That seems like the direction Rhomania will evolve assuming it doesn't have someone (writing) trying to gimp the monarchy - the emperor is too powerful to be eliminated but the wealthy classes are too relevant to be dismissed (the downside of the Laskarid "Burghers? WE WANTS THEM!" development of the economy -you can't have their benefits without their complaints, sadly*).


* Spoken ironically as a monarchist of that social origin (more or less). I think monarchy tempered with burgher meddling is the best of both worlds. Keeps all but the craziest aware that their position ultimately depends on being accepted as having it.

[eliphas8]

Again my opinion is that absolute monarchy really cant sustain itself in the long run because of innumeral factors. The best you could really get is "Strong King Weak Parliament" Prussian style constitutionalism.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

Again my opinion is that absolute monarchy really cant sustain itself in the long run because of innumeral factors. The best you could really get is "Strong King Weak Parliament" Prussian style constitutionalism.

Or not, because the idea that monarchy is somehow inevitably backward and democracy is inevitably progressive is a delusion of the Anglosphere that other countries have picked up.

Speaking as a lefitst and a monarchist, the only real problem with absolute monarchy is that its dependent entirely on the monarchs.

On the other hand, and this is a significant issue - democracy (or a republic, amounts to the same thing for this discussion) can easily be as much an oligarchy as if it was de jure aristocratic, with corruption and abuse and pork barrel projects and all sorts of other crap.

[Derekc2]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

Again my opinion is that absolute monarchy really cant sustain itself in the long run because of innumeral factors. The best you could really get is "Strong King Weak Parliament" Prussian style constitutionalism.

"sigh" Well if (and that's a big if) we are destined to have a constintutional monarchy I hope it's Prussia style constitutionalism.