An Age of Miracles: The Revival of Rhomanion

[Basileus444]

Originally Posted by Sang

Wow... this is awesome! I love it!

Thanks! That means a lot.


As for Maria, she got out by the skin of her teeth. If Basil had been any further away from Constantinople and those tourmai had entered the city and joined with the archontate there's no chance she would have made it. He's the only thing keeping her up now, so if anything happens to him she's doomed.

[Basileus444]

Due to reader replies I have done some edits to the Patriarch Incident. The outcome is still the same, but hopefully the expanded narrative will have that outcome make more sense. The edited section is outlined by [Begin edit]...[End edit].

[eliphas8]

This timeline is amazing! Going by the dates though Manuel is going to have a huge oppurtunity since Timur is going to die very soon.

[SavoyTruffle]

Rhomanion's history repeating itself? Totally expected, but done in a way that makes it interesting.

Also, a shift to more industrially-based tagma rather than agricultural may prove to be useful once TTL's Industrial Revolution happens.

[Elfwine]

Nicely done, even (especially) the economic bits.

Boring? Maybe. But a good illustration of this whole "sophisticated economy and administration" thing that makes the Byzantines so strong.

And the civil war continues. (Well written, but civil wars are always bad news) Maria is doomed - even if she remains on the throne (literally), no one is going to join a diehard Latin female.

[frozenpredator]

i'd like to support Elfwines comment about the economic bits.

normally i would have found those updates boring, but instead they were an interesting read, and gives a solid base for Rhomanions financial strength.

Was also enlightened by the updates about the army and fleet, both good reads.

now just a cultural update to see if it holds my interest ()

[Basileus444]

eliphas8: Thank you very much! And Timur turned 69 at the end of the last update, which was the age he died OTL. But he still has a role to play in the story before he goes.

SavoyTruffle: I hadn't thought of that. I just came with the industrial based tagma to explain how Epirus would be able to support one. I'm not sure yet how I'm going to have TTL's Industrial Revolution pan out. Right now I'm figuring out how TTL's Protestant Reformation and Age of Exploration are going to go.

Elfwine: I couldn't think of a way to make the economy update gripping, but I'm glad it was informative. And Maria is definitely doomed; her only form of native support after the Patriarch Incident is Strategos Basil, and she mainly has that because they're lovers.

frozenpredator: If I do a cultural update, no promises, I'll post it after the civil war is over. I already have an interlude planned, so it would go in nicely. The nice thing about the supplemental updates is that they not only flesh out the TL, but it also gives me material for future updates as I can now show how individuals tweak and adapt the existing systems to suit their needs.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

Elfwine: I couldn't think of a way to make the economy update gripping, but I'm glad it was informative. And Maria is definitely doomed; her only form of native support after the Patriarch Incident is Strategos Basil, and she mainly has that because they're lovers.

There's only so many ways to present the information, I think you did it in a reasonably interesting way. Still one of the least interesting updates in the timeline, but that's because you set a standard for being a fun read and not merely a lecture (in the academic sense).

Poor Maria. If only she'd kept that belief to herself, she could have used this to her advantage - somehow. Or at least postponed her doom.

I'm not exactly on her side, but no one deserves the wrath of the Constantinoplean mob. Not even a Latin.

[Mathalamus]

is Rhomanion the proper name of the Empire? if so, what is the short form, besides Rome or Romans?

(thinking about taking that name for my Byzantine Empire)

i must admit that your timeline is so good, i'm considering to start over on mine. for what seems to be the 9th time. i hate starting over.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

is Rhomanion the proper name of the Empire? if so, what is the short form, besides Rome or Romans?

(thinking about taking that name for my Byzantine Empire)

i must admit that your timeline is so good, i'm considering to start over on mine. for what seems to be the 9th time. i hate starting over.

R(h)omania.

Rhomanion is "of the Romans", I think.

[Sang]

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

(thinking about taking that name for my Byzantine Empire)

It was never called "Byzantine Empire" during it's existence.
In Latin, it was called "Imperium Romanum Orientalis" (Eastern Roman Empire), or just simply "Imperium Romanum" (Roman Empire)
In Greek it was either called "Anatolikí Romaïkí Aftokratoría" (Eastern Roman Empire) or just "Romaïkí Aftokratoría" (Roman Empire). It was also called Rhomanion.

[Basileus444]

I realized that I made a typo in the thread title. I was meaning to say Revival of Rhomaion, a shortened form of Basileia ton Rhomaion-Empire of the Romans, and accidentally stuck an extra n in. Apparently I got the Greek words for 'of the Romans' and 'Romania' mixed up. Is there any way for me to edit the thread title? The search engine is not cooperating.

Mathalamus: The proper form I'm familiar with is Basileia ton Rhomaion (only one n). The shortened form would be Rhomania-Romania (which was a popular Italian term for the Aegean region in the Middle Ages).

I hate starting over too. This is actually a remake of a rather poor version I wrote a year and a half ago which covered the post-Timurid civil war in less than a page. It basically boiled down to 'there were cataphracts, and cannons, and Constantinople...and assassins.'

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

I realized that I made a typo in the thread title. I was meaning to say Revival of Rhomaion, a shortened form of Basileia ton Rhomaion-Empire of the Romans, and accidentally stuck an extra n in. Apparently I got the Greek words for 'of the Romans' and 'Romania' mixed up. Is there any way for me to edit the thread title? The search engine is not cooperating.

Mathalamus: The proper form I'm familiar with is Basileia ton Rhomaion (only one n). The shortened form would be Rhomania-Romania (which was a popular Italian term for the Aegean region in the Middle Ages).

I hate starting over too. This is actually a remake of a rather poor version I wrote a year and a half ago which covered the post-Timurid civil war in less than a page. It basically boiled down to 'there were cataphracts, and cannons, and Constantinople...and assassins.'

I think mods can change thread titles. Seems its happened before with other typos.

[Mathalamus]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

Mathalamus: The proper form I'm familiar with is Basileia ton Rhomaion (only one n). The shortened form would be Rhomania-Romania (which was a popular Italian term for the Aegean region in the Middle Ages).

i could name it Romania, but then id have to figure out a new name for the other Romania. would Dacia work? i hear it was called that at one time.

I hate starting over too. This is actually a remake of a rather poor version I wrote a year and a half ago which covered the post-Timurid civil war in less than a page. It basically boiled down to 'there were cataphracts, and cannons, and Constantinople...and assassins.'

Seems simple enough actually. Timur was invading from anatolia, not both sides, so obviously, the city would win the siege.

my first ever timeline had a PoD at 1204, when the crusaders badly failed in the invasion of constantinople. then they ruled most of the world, after exterminating the natives. it wasnt too good. Constantinople had a hundred million people!

my current timeline starts in 985, when the Esteemed emperor got an heir. it was fine, up until the mongols reached Byzantium. after that, i have doubts as to if its really an accurate portrayal.

(note: i have two other timelines branching off of this one, all from the outcome fo the mongol war. one involves Constantinople erased from the map, one involves Byzantium retreating to Cyprus and staying there.)

[Basileus444]

Dacia was the name given to modern Romanian during the classical Roman era, the time of Caesar and Trajan. You could have the locals, if they built a state there, consciously try to recreate the pre-Roman Dacian state as a way of commemorating past glory and name it Dacia.

Another possibility could be to take one of the principalities that merged to form Romania in the OTL 1800s and name the area after it. The main ones were Moldavia, Wallachia, and later Transylvania (these all existed in the late Middle Ages although Transylvania was part of Hungary). Then you could have the Greater Transylvanian Empire ruled by the Emperor Vlad Dracul.

Personally I'm just going with Vlachia, named after the Vlachs. It's not very creative, I admit, but I like the name.

Your 985 timeline sounds interesting. What's it called? I think the key with Byzantine-Mongol interactions is that it'd be unrealistic to not have the Mongols cause a lot of damage, but it does not have to be a fatal amount. Would the 'relocate to Cyprus' branch by any chance happen to be inspired by M2TW? That seemed to happen every time I didn't play as the Byzantines.

[Mathalamus]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

Your 985 timeline sounds interesting. What's it called? I think the key with Byzantine-Mongol interactions is that it'd be unrealistic to not have the Mongols cause a lot of damage, but it does not have to be a fatal amount. Would the 'relocate to Cyprus' branch by any chance happen to be inspired by M2TW? That seemed to happen every time I didn't play as the Byzantines.

there's no name, but a version of the 985 timeline is posted here. Byzantine Empire Enduring.

the question of the mongols causing too much/not enough damage to Byzantium is a very difficult question. Byzantium at that time owns Greece proper and thracia in Europe, and Anatolia up to lake van in Asia.

one version lead to the mongols making it to Ankara (and losing to a huge Roman army), while the mongols in Europe just went straight for Constantinople, ignoring Greece altogether. is that acceptable damage or too much?

and actually... yes it was inspired by that game. its hard cause you cant just give your territory away, and the enemy dont seem inclined to capture them. eventually things got overcrowded cause i kept letting family members in.

[Basileus444]

I'll take a look at it. One timeline I saw on another website had the Mongol invasion of Europe get wrecked by a combined Byzantine-Hungarian-Cuman army somewhere along the Danube. The Anatolian invasion was able to ravage Anatolia pretty thoroughly, but then the Mamelukes defeated the Mongols in a bigger version of Ain Jalut.

Your scenario seems pretty realistic, although I'm somewhat skeptical about the Mongols being able to take Constantinople without a fleet or treachery (if they have either of those I wouldn't have a problem). Trying to bludgeon your way through the Theodosian Walls without cannon is pretty much the medieval equivalent of 'Don't fight a land war in Asia.' As for Anatolia, I'd still have Mongol raids attempting to stir up trouble and cause problem even after Ankara, but have that battle spell the end of any Mongol attempts to take the area.

Personally the way I would write Byzantine-Mongol interactions with a large Byzantine Empire to be similar to that of Byzantine-Arab interactions prior to 850. The Mongols take everything east of the Taurus mountains and raid Anatolia, usually but not always winning field battles, with the Byzantines using fortifications and mountain ambushes to trap Mongol forces in situations where cavalry can't maneuver well and then smashing them. While the Mongols are able to raid Anatolia frequently the Byzantines are too strong for them to actually start conquering the region. Then once the Mongols have declined for whatever reason, the Byzantines go on the offensive and retake their lost territories. A timeframe of decades, potentially a few centuries, would be expected.

[Mathalamus]

Your scenario seems pretty realistic, although I'm somewhat skeptical about the Mongols being able to take Constantinople without a fleet or treachery (if they have either of those I wouldn't have a problem). Trying to bludgeon your way through the Theodosian Walls without cannon is pretty much the medieval equivalent of 'Don't fight a land war in Asia.' As for Anatolia, I'd still have Mongol raids attempting to stir up trouble and cause problem even after Ankara, but have that battle spell the end of any Mongol attempts to take the area.

even the theodosian walls need to fall sometime. its not like its a self replicating wall of stone. in the timeline posted here, they tried, twice, to conquer Constantinople. they lost interest after that. they even brought along a nice assortment of artillery, knowing about the walls.

Personally the way I would write Byzantine-Mongol interactions with a large Byzantine Empire to be similar to that of Byzantine-Arab interactions prior to 850. The Mongols take everything east of the Taurus mountains and raid Anatolia, usually but not always winning field battles, with the Byzantines using fortifications and mountain ambushes to trap Mongol forces in situations where cavalry can't maneuver well and then smashing them. While the Mongols are able to raid Anatolia frequently the Byzantines are too strong for them to actually start conquering the region. Then once the Mongols have declined for whatever reason, the Byzantines go on the offensive and retake their lost territories. A timeframe of decades, potentially a few centuries, would be expected.

you consider modern Greece and turkey large? anyway, thank you for your suggestions, i wasnt even aware of the Byzantine mountainous defense. i can practically see the results of trapping a large mongol army on two sides. and completely wiped out.

in its current form, Byzantium is a tributary state of the mongols, even paying the mongols extra to wreck a large portion of Arabia and Egypt. the latter in a combined Byzantine/il-kahante campaign.

...i dont know if that's plausible, that idea came from Muslim Europe, a recent timeline here.

[Basileus444]

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

even the theodosian walls need to fall sometime. its not like its a self replicating wall of stone. in the timeline posted here, they tried, twice, to conquer Constantinople. they lost interest after that. they even brought along a nice assortment of artillery, knowing about the walls.

That seems reasonable. It's possible that a well motivated and large army with a good artillery train, like a high-end Mongol army, could take Constantinople without cannons. But cannons make it a lot easier.

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

you consider modern Greece and turkey large? anyway, thank you for your suggestions, i wasnt even aware of the Byzantine mountainous defense. i can practically see the results of trapping a large mongol army on two sides. and completely wiped out.

in its current form, Byzantium is a tributary state of the mongols, even paying the mongols extra to wreck a large portion of Arabia and Egypt. the latter in a combined Byzantine/il-kahante campaign.

...i dont know if that's plausible, that idea came from Muslim Europe, a recent timeline here.

For Byzantium, Greece and Turkey is enough to make it a medieval superpower. Even with just half of Greece (if that) and two thirds of Turkey the Empire was able to field an army of seventy thousand men during a campaign in Theophilus' reign (829-842). The massive Abbasid response to that campaign, eighty thousand men.

It was actually a common Byzantine tactic to let Arab raiders enter the Empire and start pillaging. Army units would shadow the raiding party and then when they try to leave and are burdened with lots of plunder, ambush them in mountain passes. It's not a strategy designed to stop raids; it's a strategy designed to kill as many Arabs as possible.

And a Byzantine-Mongol army sounds positively terrifying. I would not want to be on the receiving end of that.

[Mathalamus]

i Have several more questions.

1. is it possible for Byzantium, to slowly, and without the natives realizing it, replace the (bulgarian, croatian, serbian) culture with the Greco-Roman one?

2. if the Byzantines fully allies with the mongols, what would the diplomatic fallout be? would they be considered a heretic nation (or something) for a few centuries?

3. is it possible for Byzantium to hang on to the Balkan territories conquered in the late tenth early eleventh centuries till the modern era?

Some of my timelines have tried to above. i just want to know if its feasible. the ones with the 1025 Roman Empire results in it having a higher population, more developed, and usually considered a great power. (never-mind that the economy is second only to USA OTL, and other factors)