An Age of Miracles: The Revival of Rhomanion

[Trevayne]

Originally Posted by cimon

I have no problem with Byzantium holding Gibraltar,and by holding the straights of Dardanelles it has effectivelly sealed the Mediterranean along with Gibraltar;
My scepticism is the following:assuming that Byzantium doesn't have an extensive empire ,but rather a strategic one(eastern south Africa,control of the straights of Malacca,Ceylon, part of Fillipines,Borneo Azores(?) I also believe that Byzantium will have annexed Egypt and will have presented a united sea front with Ethiopia facing East,then a very strong fleet is needed due to extensive coastlines;and Byzantine colonial populations That is why I chose Eastern South Africa which had vast unpopulated ereas and included Zululand a well defined country nationalistic and homogeneous that could be very good friends with the Byzantines. Also the land holds some of the best natural harbours:Richard's bay(with whatever name they will hold it) which is next to Durban and is vast,Port Elizabeth and east London.The same applies to other places in the Indian Ocean etc.(
(by the way,regarding your name,excellent novel....)

I agree that Rhomania would like a strong navy, and under ideal conditions would like to be the dominant sea power. As you point out, they have an extensive coast line and we expect from what B444 has said they will be developing a trading empire. A strong fleet would be very useful. The question is how strong. Right now (1497), they are one of the strongest powers in Europe, and fleets are relatively cheap. However, while a strong navy is possible, it is unlikely that Rhomania will be the dominant sea power in the future. It just costs too much, and they must maintain sufficient land power.

Think of it this way. Each dreadnought and supporting vessels costs roughly the manpower and resources for an army division (somewhat less in manpower and more in resources). If Rhomania has a fleet with 16 dreadnoughts, that means its army could have had 16 more divisions, if they had not chosen to build and man those ships. If not having those divisions means that Rhomania gets conquered by another land power, building those dreadnoughts was folly, regardless of how nice it would be for them to have a strong or even dominant navy.

This was one part of the stupidity that doomed the Kaiser. It was reinforced by the fact that if Wilhelmine Germany had not built its High Seas Fleet, Great Britain would have stayed out of WW1, or maybe even fought on Germany’s side. There was an imaginary war book called “The Great War of 189-” written in 1893 which assumes that the sides are going to be Britain-Germany-Japan against France and Russia. Until Germany decided it wanted to challenge the British as a sea power, everybody expected that was how the next war would fall out. France and Britain had been fighting wars for centuries, they became allies in the decade before WW1 because of Germany’s urge to build a navy.

P.S. (by the way,regarding your name,excellent novel....) What novel?

[Elfwine]

I'm not sure its as cut and dry as "Germany built up a challenging navy, Germany provoked Great Britain into joining France, Germany lacked the military resources that were taken up on land, therefore Germany lost WWI."

Although I would like to see the basis for the one army division = one dreadnought thing.

[Trevayne]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

I'm not sure its as cut and dry as "Germany built up a challenging navy, Germany provoked Great Britain into joining France, Germany lacked the military resources that were taken up on land, therefore Germany lost WWI."

Although I would like to see the basis for the one army division = one dreadnought thing.

Yes, that is an over simplification, and ignores things like leadership. As it worked out, Germany did hold on for four years, and might well have outlasted the Allies if the US didn’t come in. However, do you think they would have still lost if the British were neutral, or allied to them? For that matter, would the French have even fought?


As for my estimate, I said it was a rough equivalence, fewer people and more money, between a dreadnought and its supporting ships, and an infantry division. I was thinking of the comparison between a modern US carrier strike group and a modern US division, where the carrier group has roughly 7,500 personnel and an infantry division has about 15,000-17,000. On checking I see I goofed.


Dreadnought era ships had smaller crews. Figuring a dreadnought era ship group as one dreadnought (1,100), 1.5 armored cruisers (760 x 1.5 = 1,140), 3 light cruisers (320 x 3 = 960), 6 destroyers (100 x 6 = 600), the total personnel count comes to 3,800, or roughly a quarter of a division. This will vary of course by the type of navy you build.


Equipment costs are difficult. I had remembered hearing that the dollar costs of a modern division and a carrier strike group were roughly equivalent. After a fair amount of googling, it looks like that isn’t really so. I managed to find an 1982 cost for a US armored division slice at $8.3 billion in 1992 dollaras ($5.7 billion in 1982 dollars x 1.45) and a carrier strike group cost at $15.2 billion in 1992 dollars, so it looks like the carrier group costs roughly twice the cost of the armored division in terms of procurement. The life cycle costs may be closer because the division has twice as many people and those paychecks add up.


Technology improvements have made things more expensive, but I don’t know if the cost relationships stay the same. I had figured that a WW1 vintage division costs less than a dreadnought and its associated ships. I can find some ship costs, but I don’t know the cost of a WW 1 German infantry division. I expect it is cheaper than the ships, since there was so little tech.

The ship costs are as follows:
Dreadnought (Kaiser class) $11 million
1.5 armored cruisers (Scharnhorst class) $6.9 million (1.5 x $4.6 million)
3 light cruisers (Magdeburg class) $5.4 million (3 x $1.8 million)
6 destroyers $3.6 million (6 x .6 million (estimated at 1/3 of a CL)
Total $26.9 million


Does anyone know where I can find the equipment cost of a 1914 vintage German infantry division? I would be happy with the cost for any WW1 era division, but the ship costs are German.

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Trevayne

I agree that Rhomania would like a strong navy, and under ideal conditions would like to be the dominant sea power. As you point out, they have an extensive coast line and we expect from what B444 has said they will be developing a trading empire. A strong fleet would be very useful. The question is how strong. Right now (1497), they are one of the strongest powers in Europe, and fleets are relatively cheap. However, while a strong navy is possible, it is unlikely that Rhomania will be the dominant sea power in the future. It just costs too much, and they must maintain sufficient land power.

Think of it this way. Each dreadnought and supporting vessels costs roughly the manpower and resources for an army division (somewhat less in manpower and more in resources). If Rhomania has a fleet with 16 dreadnoughts, that means its army could have had 16 more divisions, if they had not chosen to build and man those ships. If not having those divisions means that Rhomania gets conquered by another land power, building those dreadnoughts was folly, regardless of how nice it would be for them to have a strong or even dominant navy.

This was one part of the stupidity that doomed the Kaiser. It was reinforced by the fact that if Wilhelmine Germany had not built its High Seas Fleet, Great Britain would have stayed out of WW1, or maybe even fought on Germany’s side. There was an imaginary war book called “The Great War of 189-” written in 1893 which assumes that the sides are going to be Britain-Germany-Japan against France and Russia. Until Germany decided it wanted to challenge the British as a sea power, everybody expected that was how the next war would fall out. France and Britain had been fighting wars for centuries, they became allies in the decade before WW1 because of Germany’s urge to build a navy.

P.S. (by the way,regarding your name,excellent novel....) What novel?

The novel..."Trevayne" by R.Ludlum(deceased)

I think that I must extend some thoughts here:No matter the fact that we deal with AH I think that we argue in terms of OTL;You discuss about costs of a USA division or US battlegroup.Some times I am amazed by this.We discuss about a country that has grown and developed ahead of the other European countries,it has just defeated their combined strength,BUT we refuse to realise that being ahead means its R&D is way ahead of the others,ditto about its finances and administration.
And then ...we put that country following the progress of others like it consists of retarded people who cannot think anything better than the miserable 1914 division which is armed mainly with rifles,an extension or a brainchild of a Napoleonic division carrying rifles and marching with the speed of the army of Darius I and acting an mass(masses are psychologically impressive,they also give a sense of security to the infantryman...!),a pittyful site to say the least, or the cost of an American infantry division now or an American carrier group...
So an at least 2000 year old empire curring the military and naval knowledge and the inherited backround beyond these 2000 years,of Greeks and Romans can't do better than yesterday born Europeans.
Sounds amazing.
I think that with its naval backround,this empire should know how to use innovations Trevayne,like the frigate need not curry 28 main guns of 12 pounders in the upper deck and some secondary ones but 8 of 45 pounders as its main artillery(Lord Cochrane's innovation in the Greek Independence war against the Ottomans) and such frigate savaged an entire Turkish squadron,or that a division is basically a cumbersome organization and the brigade with equal or more fire power is much more
effective than the division etc...what is your opinion Trevayne?

A small note about the alliance of France and England:That started with the Crimean War and continued with the opium wars(both being colonial powers etc) and they became closer forming a united front when watching the German colonial empire growing...England new that Germans could never come up to their level of maritime readines and power especially if the French fleet threw its power with them...don't look how things turned out in WWI;you also have to acount for wrong decisions,bad diplomacy and wrong mentality...

[Trevayne]

Originally Posted by cimon

The novel..."Trevayne" by R.Ludlum(deceased)

I think that I must extend some thoughts here:No matter the fact that we deal with AH I think that we argue in terms of OTL;You discuss about costs of a USA division or US battlegroup.Some times I am amazed by this.We discuss about a country that has grown and developed ahead of the other European countries,it has just defeated their combined strength,BUT we refuse to realise that being ahead means its R&D is way ahead of the others,ditto about its finances and administration.
And then ...we put that country following the progress of others like it consists of retarded people who cannot think anything better than the miserable 1914 division which is armed mainly with rifles,an extension or a brainchild of a Napoleonic division carrying rifles and marching with the speed of the army of Darius I and acting an mass(masses are psychologically impressive,they also give a sense of security to the infantryman...!),a pittyful site to say the least, or the cost of an American infantry division now or an American carrier group...
So an at least 2000 year old empire curring the military and naval knowledge and the inherited backround beyond these 2000 years,of Greeks and Romans can't do better than yesterday born Europeans.
Sounds amazing.
I think that with its naval backround,this empire should know how to use innovations Trevayne,like the frigate need not curry 28 main guns of 12 pounders in the upper deck and some secondary ones but 8 of 45 pounders as its main artillery(Lord Cochrane's innovation in the Greek Independence war against the Ottomans) and such frigate savaged an entire Turkish squadron,or that a division is basically a cumbersome organization and the brigade with equal or more fire power is much more
effective than the division etc...what is your opinion Trevayne?

A small note about the alliance of France and England:That started with the Crimean War and continued with the opium wars(both being colonial powers etc) and they became closer forming a united front when watching the German colonial empire growing...England new that Germans could never come up to their level of maritime readines and power especially if the French fleet threw its power with them...don't look how things turned out in WWI;you also have to acount for wrong decisions,bad diplomacy and wrong mentality...

Thanks for the tip about the book. I have read a fair amount of Ludlum, but I don’t remember that one. Did he write it under a pseudonym?

I agree that some innovations can be accelerated, but (big but here) it needs to be done carefully. While I also agree that Rhomania has an advantage in that it can draw on a thousand years of history, sometimes that just means that everybody knows that something is done a particular way because that’s how we have done it for a thousand years.


The real problem with accelerating innovation is that overdoing it can damage credibility. The Drakaverse is perhaps the classic example of this. While most of the advances in Marching through Georgia are plausible by themselves (most involve tech from the late 40s thru mid 50s showing up in 1942), the nearly universal superiority of Draka tech severely impaired the reader's ability to suspend disbelief, especially since everybody else seemed to have the same tech as OTL WW2.


To comment on your examples, I hadn't known about Cochrane's exploits in the Greek War of Independence, but fewer larger guns is what you need if you are going up against armor, since if you don’t penetrate it you are not accomplishing much of anything. Larger guns are also important when shells come in, because I don’t think smaller guns will have useful bursting charges. Beyond that, if you have poor fire control, you may be better off with more, smaller guns, since they will give you more chances to hit.


As for divisions and brigades, it depends on the war you are fighting. The US Army is currently using a brigade based organization because it is fighting counter-insurgency campaigns over a long period, and it is easier to rotate brigades in and out of theater. Brigades are also easier to move over strategic distances and there are not a lot of land opponents that merit full divisions.


Divisions have traditionally been the miniature army where all of the arms combine. IMHO they are needed if you are doing conventional force on force operations. Note, the move to a brigade based force came after the Gulf War in 1991. At that point it became pretty clear that very few armies would want to go up against a US division.


As for firepower, given advanced technology, a high tech brigade can have an old tech division’s fire power. What it will not have is its resiliency. A division with 9 infantry battalions that loses a battalion is has lost about 10% of its strength and is still combat-effective. A brigade that loses the same battalion has lost a third of its strength, is crippled, and heading for ineffectiveness.


IMHO, if you are going up against a comparable army that has divisions, you need your own divisions. I don’t think brigades will cut it.

Re the French and English alliance, while they did fight together in the Crimea, they were rivals for most of the later 19th century, and came very close to war at the Fashoda crisis in 1898. In addition, France and Russia were allies, while great Britain and Russia were the competitors in the "Great Game". The alliance formed IIRC because the French were looking for assistance against Germany, and the German naval build up was starting to make great Britain wonder just who it was aimed at. It was formalized in 1904 with the Entente Cordiale.

[SavoyTruffle]

Originally Posted by Trevayne

Re the French and English alliance, while they did fight together in the Crimea, they were rivals for most of the later 19th century, and came very close to war at the Fashoda crisis in 1898. The alliance formed IIRC because the French were looking for assistance against Germany, and the German naval build up was starting to make great Britain wonder just who it was aimed at. It was formalized in 1904 with the Entente Cordiale.

Napoleon III was also quite Anglophilic. Republican France was more wary of the British but Germany forced their hand.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Trevayne

Yes, that is an over simplification, and ignores things like leadership. As it worked out, Germany did hold on for four years, and might well have outlasted the Allies if the US didn’t come in. However, do you think they would have still lost if the British were neutral, or allied to them? For that matter, would the French have even fought?

I think that that would change the situation as of c. 1914 so significantly we can't just have "OTL, but with Britain changing sides".

(snip.)
Technology improvements have made things more expensive, but I don’t know if the cost relationships stay the same. I had figured that a WW1 vintage division costs less than a dreadnought and its associated ships. I can find some ship costs, but I don’t know the cost of a WW 1 German infantry division. I expect it is cheaper than the ships, since there was so little tech.

The ship costs are as follows:
Dreadnought (Kaiser class) $11 million
1.5 armored cruisers (Scharnhorst class) $6.9 million (1.5 x $4.6 million)
3 light cruisers (Magdeburg class) $5.4 million (3 x $1.8 million)
6 destroyers $3.6 million (6 x .6 million (estimated at 1/3 of a CL)
Total $26.9 million


Does anyone know where I can find the equipment cost of a 1914 vintage German infantry division? I would be happy with the cost for any WW1 era division, but the ship costs are German.

Even if that's not equal to a division, that's a substantial enough sum to prove your point for Rhomania, IMO. And it gets worse the more Rhomania goes with Cimon's "Rhomania needs to be a colonial empire" direction - since that means it can't just treat places outside the heartland as ultimately secondary but they will become, like India or Singapore, in need of major investment in their defense.

It's not a big deal if Iceland is lost for Norway, by contrast. An extreme example, but still.

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Trevayne

Thanks for the tip about the book. I have read a fair amount of Ludlum, but I don’t remember that one. Did he write it under a pseudonym?

I agree that some innovations can be accelerated, but (big but here) it needs to be done carefully. While I also agree that Rhomania has an advantage in that it can draw on a thousand years of history, sometimes that just means that everybody knows that something is done a particular way because that’s how we have done it for a thousand years.


The real problem with accelerating innovation is that overdoing it can damage credibility. The Drakaverse is perhaps the classic example of this. While most of the advances in Marching through Georgia are plausible by themselves (most involve tech from the late 40s thru mid 50s showing up in 1942), the nearly universal superiority of Draka tech severely impaired the reader's ability to suspend disbelief, especially since everybody else seemed to have the same tech as OTL WW2.


To comment on your examples, I hadn't known about Cochrane's exploits in the Greek War of Independence, but fewer larger guns is what you need if you are going up against armor, since if you don’t penetrate it you are not accomplishing much of anything. Larger guns are also important when shells come in, because I don’t think smaller guns will have useful bursting charges. Beyond that, if you have poor fire control, you may be better off with more, smaller guns, since they will give you more chances to hit.


As for divisions and brigades, it depends on the war you are fighting. The US Army is currently using a brigade based organization because it is fighting counter-insurgency campaigns over a long period, and it is easier to rotate brigades in and out of theater. Brigades are also easier to move over strategic distances and there are not a lot of land opponents that merit full divisions.


Divisions have traditionally been the miniature army where all of the arms combine. IMHO they are needed if you are doing conventional force on force operations. Note, the move to a brigade based force came after the Gulf War in 1991. At that point it became pretty clear that very few armies would want to go up against a US division.


As for firepower, given advanced technology, a high tech brigade can have an old tech division’s fire power. What it will not have is its resiliency. A division with 9 infantry battalions that loses a battalion is has lost about 10% of its strength and is still combat-effective. A brigade that loses the same battalion has lost a third of its strength, is crippled, and heading for ineffectiveness.


IMHO, if you are going up against a comparable army that has divisions, you need your own divisions. I don’t think brigades will cut it.

Re the French and English alliance, while they did fight together in the Crimea, they were rivals for most of the later 19th century, and came very close to war at the Fashoda crisis in 1898. In addition, France and Russia were allies, while great Britain and Russia were the competitors in the "Great Game". The alliance formed IIRC because the French were looking for assistance against Germany, and the German naval build up was starting to make great Britain wonder just who it was aimed at. It was formalized in 1904 with the Entente Cordiale.

The book,as far as I can recall, was published under his name.
Now I take it you agree about the fewer but heavier guns for greater results on a smaller vessel(the examples are many especially on French privateers or frigates of 44 or 48 guns to curry 24 pounder guns like english fourth rates and cause havoc among English escort ships).
The American brigade was the standard subdivision of WWII armoured divisions but it was called Combat Command,a very flexible unit although I think it was weak in armour and should have a regiment instead of a battalion of tanks allowing for a regimental recon company.
What I mean in a more detailed fashion is that in WWI if a heavy mashingun was in a company it tipped the balance,but if a section in a brigade had its mashingun and the platoon has a mortar section then you understand what brigades I am talking about.Now the big question(still debated in in French staff circles) is what happened to the battalion guns; existed in 18th century and disappeared the next.Unfortunately my collection on artillery and other books on the subject are not with me but think that three small guns in the battalion would give it a wide berth of independent action... as well as motorcycle mashingun companies and battallions that could be organic elements in WWI and they weren't.

I am sorry but I am not with you on that Draca...whatever,I would be grateful if you were to make it clear for me...

about the losses of 10%.In modern armies(post WWII-or even during WWII) the above losses are considered heavy losses.Usually in a battle the division will not lose these men from one battalion but frm three;in such a case these battalions will not be capable of despensing with offensive duties/operations and their defensive front would not be adequetly covered unless they substitute the lack of manpower with an increased firepower umbrella which of course will be missed from the sectors of other battalions.The situation that a battalion is entirely lost would be...ideal in a battle,but I don't know it to happen,must be very rare...
Especially in colonial areas for protection of supply lines,escorts,special missions etc heavily armed small organic units are indespensable(think of the English 'Jock' command structure).

As someone thinks,I never advocated a colonial empire,I leave that to other nations but strategic points and only one or two colonies that would depend on their own imperial populations,not enslavement of locals.SA East was largelly unpopulated would make a
perfect colony,and with close relations with Zulus they would be secure and highly productive and an a big base for the Indian Ocean Fleet that could project real power and extend light/medium squadrons to the more advanced bases.

[Basileus444]

Originally Posted by Tongera

If he is infertile, then why is he even considered. That would be bad in those times, but particularly in Byzantium.

Also, what sources did you use for the Byzantine economy?

There were suspicions that he was infertile, but nothing definite. Herakleios proved those suspicions wrong.

As for sources, Treadgold's work, plus:

Laiou, Angeliki E. “The Byzantine Economy in the Mediterranean Trade System: Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 35

Nicol, Donald M. Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.


Regarding colonial empires, they are very nice, bringing in resources not available at the homeland. But they do have a disadvantage in requiring powerful navies (or the implicit consent of major sea powers).

[Grouchio]

If the power of Colonial Empires is based off it's navy, then when will Byzantium's ships reach Caravel and Galleass sizes?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Grouchio

If the power of Colonial Empires is based off it's navy, then when will Byzantium's ships reach Caravel and Galleass sizes?

When they need to.

[Trevayne]

Originally Posted by cimon

The book,as far as I can recall, was published under his name.
Now I take it you agree about the fewer but heavier guns for greater results on a smaller vessel(the examples are many especially on French privateers or frigates of 44 or 48 guns to curry 24 pounder guns like english fourth rates and cause havoc among English escort ships).
The American brigade was the standard subdivision of WWII armoured divisions but it was called Combat Command,a very flexible unit although I think it was weak in armour and should have a regiment instead of a battalion of tanks allowing for a regimental recon company.
What I mean in a more detailed fashion is that in WWI if a heavy mashingun was in a company it tipped the balance,but if a section in a brigade had its mashingun and the platoon has a mortar section then you understand what brigades I am talking about.Now the big question(still debated in in French staff circles) is what happened to the battalion guns; existed in 18th century and disappeared the next.Unfortunately my collection on artillery and other books on the subject are not with me but think that three small guns in the battalion would give it a wide berth of independent action... as well as motorcycle mashingun companies and battallions that could be organic elements in WWI and they weren't.

I agree that well armed organic small units are very useful, but I question just how practical they are before motor transport. For example, I have served in a military unit where every group of three Soldiers was equipped with 2 M4 assault rifles, an M4/M203 grenade launcher combination, an M249 squad automatic weapon, and either an M2 .50 cal machinegun or a Mk19 40mm automatic grenade launcher. Believe me, without a vehicle we would be hard pressed to lift all our gear at once, let alone move with it. Attaching it all to a HMMWV makes life much easier.

However, before motor vehicles, that becomes trickier. Artillery is just not that light. While having light cannons in each battalion helps that battalion, it makes it much harder to concentrate fire. Having your artillery concentrated in batteries makes it easier to develop real expertise, and to apply the expertise you have to more of your artillery. It also makes it easier to support and maintain, if your artillery technicians can concentrate on a few batteries with 6-8 guns each than having to visit 3 gun sections in every infantry battalion.

Originally Posted by cimon

I am sorry but I am not with you on that Draca...whatever,I would be grateful if you were to make it clear for me...

S.M. Stirling wrote a series of three novels for Baen books about an alternate history where a group known as the Draka settled in South Africa after fighting on the losing side in the American Revolution. From there, they proceeded to conquer the world. AFAIK, he saw them as a imagined “anti-americans’ their really evil mirror image. The first book was called Marching through Georgia and it concerns combat in that timeline’s version of WW2, the Eurasian War. Everybody has WW2 gear except the Draka, who have weapons from the late 40s to mid 60s, including assault rifles, light tanks like the AMX 13, heavy tanks like the British Conqueror, and automatic medium mortars like the Soviet Vasilek. None of it was utterly impossible, but the idea that the Draka have made all of these advances and nobody else seemed to have made any (the Germans were still using bolt action mausers), seriously strained the suspension of disbelief.

Originally Posted by cimon

As someone thinks,I never advocated a colonial empire,I leave that to other nations but strategic points and only one or two colonies that would depend on their own imperial populations,not enslavement of locals.SA East was largelly unpopulated would make a
perfect colony,and with close relations with Zulus they would be secure and highly productive and an a big base for the Indian Ocean Fleet that could project real power and extend light/medium squadrons to the more advanced bases.

IMHO the main problem with Rhomania as a colonial empire is that it lacks the same incentives. Look at the countries that acquired large colonial empires. Generally they had closed frontiers and secure enough borders that their energies got channeled into overseas ventures. This was true for the Netherlands and Portugal. Spain was Portugal on a larger scale. Great Britain had a different perspective, since once the larger island is unified, getting anywhere involves a voyage.

From Rhomania’s perspective, they have some stable land frontiers and some that are more malleable. I think they are happy with their European borders in the Balkans, but they could expand further into Egypt. More to the point, they seem to be a relatively satisfied power. Conquering Venice satisfied Andreas’ equivalent of the Samarkand oath and they don’t seem to have the conquering for the sake of conquest urge.

They do have a thriving trading sector, and that could push them into expansion. However, I don’t really see the Rhomanian equivalent of the British Empire, which according to one account was acquired by absent mindedness. I just don’t see a Rhomanian emperor always backing up his traders as a matter of course (the way the British did). Instead, I think he would react more like “You idiots did what!?! If you can’t give me a damn good set of reasons why I should help you, I am hanging you out to dry. If you are unlucky, you will be drying on an impaling stake. And no, I don’t give a crap that the blank will have a bigger empire. Nobody will ever have an older one, so I just don't care."

Note, this doesn't mean they will never have any colonies, it just means that those colonies will have to be well thought out and not just some idiot's bright idea.

[Elfwine]

And settler colonies are chancy enough that trying to found them is going to take a lot more than "I the writer know that gold and diamonds exist in south Africa."

It took until the late 19th century for that to be discovered. Now, that doesn't mean it would necessarily take that long OTL, but the point is that there was a European presence there for a long time before it sunk in. Even just counting the Boer Trek, that was two generations ago if I remember right.

And its not as if Rhomania has too many people for its land area.

[Basileus444]

Purxiphoi now are already bigger than caravels (which are pretty small), but full-fledged galleons are still at least a few decades down the road.

August 19, 1593:

Emperor Alexios VI shot up. There was someone in his room! He felt the cool steel of his dirk, calming down slightly.

"That won't help you, boy." An old man, dressed in poor black silks and crowned with silver hairs, sat down at the end of his bed. The man shimmered, fluttering slightly like a curtain in the breeze.

"Who are you?"

"I am the ghost of Christmas Past." Alexios scrunched his face in confusion. "Oops, wrong reality. I am the ghost of Theodoros IV."

"Uh, okay, yeah. What do you want?"

"Your soul." Alexios cringed, Theodoros howling with laughter. "Nah, just kidding. It's a buyer's market for souls right now, what with all the people dying. So depressing. It's cutting into my profit margin. Anyway, that's not why I came. I've come to tell you to conquer South Africa."

"Why?"

"Because it looks good on a map. Why do you think? It's me here. There be shinies."

"And if I don't?"

"Archangel Michael, Thor, and Shiva are all on my payroll. And if you don't, someone else will visit you tomorrow, someone much less pleasant." Theodoros grimaced.

"Who?"

"The ghost of Christmas future. The Bloody Emperor." Two seconds. Theodoros beamed. "Anyway, good night. And remember, conquer South Africa. And don't forget to invest in Microsoft."

"What? Huh?"

"Aaagh, damnit. Wrong reality and century. Forget the last bit." And Theodoros was gone.


And so South Africa gold and diamonds were discovered ITTL.

[Avitus]

Well now I know for sure that the imperial family is crazy, since they are either coming back as ghosts to haunt their relatives, or frequently halucinating Theodoros IV ad his dealings in the afterlife.

Seriously, you will have to move mountains to make a character equal in awsomeness to Theodoros IV, if such a thing is even possible.

[Elfwine]

Theodore hit all the right buttons to be a great emperor and a man for all of us with dry senses of humor.

"And if we add the 'Fuck you for making me fight a stupid fucking war' charge, that comes to . . ."

And frankly, dying like a Roman didn't hurt at all.

[Avitus]

My favorite Theodore IV line was when he said that the gratitude of the west is worth its weight in gold. If ever there was a witty and backhanded thing to say, that was it.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Avitus

My favorite Theodore IV line was when he said that the gratitude of the west is worth its weight in gold. If ever there was a witty and backhanded thing to say, that was it.

It is the perfect insult.

[Arrix85]

Theodoros is becoming increasingly awesome, love his sense of humour

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Trevayne

I agree that well armed organic small units are very useful, but I question just how practical they are before motor transport. For example, I have served in a military unit where every group of three Soldiers was equipped with 2 M4 assault rifles, an M4/M203 grenade launcher combination, an M249 squad automatic weapon, and either an M2 .50 cal machinegun or a Mk19 40mm automatic grenade launcher. Believe me, without a vehicle we would be hard pressed to lift all our gear at once, let alone move with it. Attaching it all to a HMMWV makes life much easier.

However, before motor vehicles, that becomes trickier. Artillery is just not that light. While having light cannons in each battalion helps that battalion, it makes it much harder to concentrate fire. Having your artillery concentrated in batteries makes it easier to develop real expertise, and to apply the expertise you have to more of your artillery. It also makes it easier to support and maintain, if your artillery technicians can concentrate on a few batteries with 6-8 guns each than having to visit 3 gun sections in every infantry battalion.



S.M. Stirling wrote a series of three novels for Baen books about an alternate history where a group known as the Draka settled in South Africa after fighting on the losing side in the American Revolution. From there, they proceeded to conquer the world. AFAIK, he saw them as a imagined “anti-americans’ their really evil mirror image. The first book was called Marching through Georgia and it concerns combat in that timeline’s version of WW2, the Eurasian War. Everybody has WW2 gear except the Draka, who have weapons from the late 40s to mid 60s, including assault rifles, light tanks like the AMX 13, heavy tanks like the British Conqueror, and automatic medium mortars like the Soviet Vasilek. None of it was utterly impossible, but the idea that the Draka have made all of these advances and nobody else seemed to have made any (the Germans were still using bolt action mausers), seriously strained the suspension of disbelief.




IMHO the main problem with Rhomania as a colonial empire is that it lacks the same incentives. Look at the countries that acquired large colonial empires. Generally they had closed frontiers and secure enough borders that their energies got channeled into overseas ventures. This was true for the Netherlands and Portugal. Spain was Portugal on a larger scale. Great Britain had a different perspective, since once the larger island is unified, getting anywhere involves a voyage.

From Rhomania’s perspective, they have some stable land frontiers and some that are more malleable. I think they are happy with their European borders in the Balkans, but they could expand further into Egypt. More to the point, they seem to be a relatively satisfied power. Conquering Venice satisfied Andreas’ equivalent of the Samarkand oath and they don’t seem to have the conquering for the sake of conquest urge.

They do have a thriving trading sector, and that could push them into expansion. However, I don’t really see the Rhomanian equivalent of the British Empire, which according to one account was acquired by absent mindedness. I just don’t see a Rhomanian emperor always backing up his traders as a matter of course (the way the British did). Instead, I think he would react more like “You idiots did what!?! If you can’t give me a damn good set of reasons why I should help you, I am hanging you out to dry. If you are unlucky, you will be drying on an impaling stake. And no, I don’t give a crap that the blank will have a bigger empire. Nobody will ever have an older one, so I just don't care."

Note, this doesn't mean they will never have any colonies, it just means that those colonies will have to be well thought out and not just some idiot's bright idea.

So we are in agreement since I mentioned strategic bases and only a couple with a small colony,like in SA.You notice I chose SA East and nothing else.Its border would be in the Drakensberg mountains and as a result it won't have GOLD since that is west of the Drakensburgs in Transvaal and Orange Freestate as for the diamonds,they are in the other side of Africa,in SWA now called Namibia;but the bases in Indian Ocean and probably Phillipines(no occupation but a base with some land around it) again without harassing natives,just expanding commerce and hold a strategic base.What Britain wishes to do with its natives is a story that doesn't concern me...