Isaac's Empire

[Basileus Giorgios]

SF, thanks again for your reasonable explanations of what's going on- yet again, you articulate my thinking better than I do myself.

DU, please leave this thread and do not return until you have some criticism that is actually constructive. Everything I've seen from you tonight is petulant and immature whingeing from a grown man, that things haven't developed in a way that suits his own ideological standpoint. If you continue to keep spouting this entirely unhelpful and spiteful nonsense, then I'll be very happy to report you to a moderator.

[MNP]

I was pretty nonplussed that industrialization didn't do anything to dent the monarchy myself.

[DusanUros]

Originally Posted by Basileus Giorgios

DU, please leave this thread and do not return until you have some criticism that is actually constructive. Everything I've seen from you tonight is petulant and immature whingeing from a grown man, that things haven't developed in a way that suits his own ideological standpoint. If you continue to keep spouting this entirely unhelpful and spiteful nonsense, then I'll be very happy to report you to a moderator.

So report me.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by MNPundit

I was pretty nonplussed that industrialization didn't do anything to dent the monarchy myself.

It's definitely something I'll be reviewing in the "Director's Cut", some of these things do seem a little ASB with hindsight. Regarding industrialisation though, it mostly happened under a very strong dynasty of Emperors, the Syrians, in the 15th and early 16th centuries, which stopped its effects being too massively dangerous to the monarchy. Once the Syrians lost power following Anna's death, Emperors started to lose their power quite rapidly, with only a couple of rulers who were entirely on top of the Senate for the next century.

Are you "starting again" with the TL now I'm reposting over at CF.net with a key? You'd better be, the key is designed specifically for you. . I must confess that I seriously need to catch up with the Raptor of Spain...

[Archangel]

Good to see you back, BG!

[Saepe Fidelis]

Originally Posted by DusanUros

In OTL the only nation that is united under a single person are the americans, and that says something about them. Since details might change, but the bigger picture is always the same, i doubt the world is any different in this TL either. Unless of course he americanizes (people with 300 years of history) the romans (people with 3000 years of history) which should earn the thread a move to the asb.



The only excuse so far to this is that the world is at a late stage victorian era mentality..... otherwise all these would be sent to the carmagnole.... "should be" its a better verb, but you never know in here....



Circumstances are never different. But i kinda understand that thing. The people, illiterate, idiotic, all kinds of ideals and liberal thought suppressed before it even existed, it is logical that these kind of sheep follow the corrupted imperial system and the church, licking their feet, thanking them every day because things arent worse.



So far everything that happened in OTL happened here. The times are ripe, the circumstances are who they are, i dont see "why not", or anything advocating a Roman emperor and a zombie empire "because thats what happened with the British Empire". First and foremost, English morals dont apply in this part of world, and secondly, he ought to remember that after Victoria, the British empire had less than a century life, so no matter how he flips it, his Empire will end up a small land around Constantinople. Well, unless of course the alien space bats come and change all that....and they didnt change few things.



Not at all, i see the same things pretty much. And i doubt even culture changes.



Who is the Emperor?



if it doesnt have actual power, it shouldnt exist.



And it worked.



Greeks are not English.



Rebels could.



Another example that the system is corrupt and rotten.



Who cant be an Emperor? Oh and i raise my glass for the short lived and despised Republic. Remarkable and unbelievable. Even in OTL times where democracy has some MAJOR EPIC FAILS, people still dont want monarchy..... imagine the world in this ATL.



Yeah, the Imperial kindergarden and the millions who follow them. Unimaginably awesome.



Well NOT NOW, that is. Just wait until movements like nationalism, fascism, democracy etc knock the door and..... oh shit i forgot, the Roman Emperor has the magic wand, these things just dont happen in the Roman Empire.

I have two points in this post and I hope to keep it at a reasonable length, at least shorter than my previous two.
The first point is the issue of historical developement and political ideologies. This will also take up the bulk of my rebuttal to you so I shan't preface this with any sort of direct reposte.
My second point will be less directly to do with your arguments, and more in support of my previous posts and especially my comparison of Rhomania with Britain and the British Empire. In this area I don't think I'll be retreading old ground too much, so if BG or any of the management has any quibbles with this then consider it non-canon.

So first my main point: historical developements. Now DU, I hate to genealise about you or your ideology so pelase don't think it patronising when I determine what your ideology is. You're pretty much a communist-fine by me but there is one problem with communism, especially Marxism, on this board and that is the isue of historical inevitability.
Now to those who aren't great communist theoreticians, thern I'll give some background. Marxism holds that history can be seen by a movement from warlordism towards communism. This is usually in the prgression of a slave society to a feudal one to a capitalist one to a socialist one to a commuist one (if I'm missing any out please do tell). Now, DU's point is that this world is seemingly stuck in a feudalist/capitalist world that shows no movement towards socialism or any sort of similar ideology.
Well, to refute your point I shall have to refute the entire point of historicism and to do this I shal have to draw exxtensively on the works of Karl Popper, one of the 20th century's greatest philosophers. In his work, The Poverty of Historicism he attacks historicism by saying that, because of history's almost infinite possiblities and nuances then any sort of prediction accurate enough to base an ideology off is impossible.

Furthermore, he says that historicism runs counter to the progress of science, this in a settign where 'scientific socialism' was being trumpeted in the DDR and elsewhere. he says that scientists are like sleepwalkers, groping at anything in their way that might support them yet not knowing what they are reaching for. If we consider it the metaphor is apt-did Newton already know the results of his experiments with prisms? He had a hunch, but he couldn't predict the result accurately-that is in essense the scientific method i.e. first and foremost not entering into science with any preconceived ideas of causality.
If science is blind, and Marx claimed there is a science of history, then this science must, by its very nature, be a pesudo-science, one that is unprovable and unobservable. Many Marxist historians point out various progressions-they say that Europe went from slavery (Rome) to feudalism (Medieval Period) to capitalism (industrial revolution) and then to socialism (social democracy and communism, although this is debatable). However, they ignore things like the Southern State sof America, which kept slaves well into hte industrial period, or things like advanced capitalism in the Medieval Period pioneered in Florence, Venice and the Netherlands. As Popper said, given history's infinite nuances, it is impossible to look upon it as a science.

If we accept that history has no preset patterns, and this board itself proves that without reference to philosophers, and we abandon the dead weight of Marxist historicism, then what are we left with? We are left with the conclusion that probability and reasonability are the only ways we can assay and in any manner predict history. Therefore, I can say it is likely that China will eclipse America ecnomically by 2100, but I cannot say it for certainty. What I definitely cannot say is that the 22nd century will see the universal dawning of communism in Europe, as this is the next historical step beyond social democracy which is so prevalent here today.

Now, if we are left with reason andprobability, then we can surely have alternate history; probability is never certain, everything is ultimately random, and so a whole plethora of points of divergence exist within out world or indeed in these hypothetical worlds we create. Now, the Isaac's Empire timeline may be somewhat indulgent towards the Roman Empire and I hope BG doesn't mind me sayign that, but it is conceivable, it is plausible.

You are not really contesting the existence of this TL, either you would be arguing about the possibility of an early Komnenid takeover and defeat of the Turks rather than the growth of the proleteriat 700 years after the POD. What you are arguing for is a system of historical pseudo-science that is not only incongruous with this world, but impissible within our own. So therefore, although this TL may be somewhat far fetchd or improbably (all good AH is)it is still possible and by no means bound by Marxist law.


Now, in acompletely different frame of mind nad context, I would like to defend my comparison between Great Britain and Rhomania. I alluded to the similiarities in constitution between Britain and the Empire especially when it came to the Royal house. Here I believe I am on fairly firm ground, given that the view of a benevolent constitutional monarchy and a fairly conservative government that respects the views of the people yet usually knows what['sbest for them is fitting with BG's good old Tory beliefs, and so therefore I feel I can expect some modicum of support here.

The main purpoes of this point, however, is to address the issue of why Rhomanian, or indeed British, dictatorships are rarely taken seriously. Te fact is that both share the view that politicians are dull bureucrats who need to be treated as such-Royal doormats who are only there so that the Queen can watch Jeremy Kyle instead of answer PMQs.
If one looks at America, we can see that the President is treated specially and like some sort of royalty, his swearing in is done with a lot of pomp and circumstance, cannons are fired and enormous crowds cheer. In Britain, as has been seen recently, there is no such elaborate process. The New Prime Minister asks to form a government, the Queen accepts and he moves into Number 10 the very same day.
Much, indeed, like the Grand Logothetes, as so wonderfully illustrated by Megas in his recent story on CoJ. As per my previous point, Rhomanian pageantry and pomp as well as national affection is centred on the Emperor and the ruler, not the politicians, so the population is far less likely to indulge in things such as triumphal processions (Thatcher just about got away with it) or flashy uniforms and titles (Duke of Wellington only got to do this because he beat Napoleon).

You want the kind of dictator that might conceivably arise under British or Rhomanian law, look at Mussolini. He was always Prime Minister, nothing more, and it was only the peoples' sickness of the old regime of coalition governments and corrupt politicians centred not in Rome but in Piedmont that ket him in office, besides his flair and charisma. Now, given that very few politicians can do that and the culture is completely different in both Britain and Rhomania (see previous paragraph) then suc ha dictator is highly unlikely.

So therefore, to conclude, some sort of non-Imperial executive is unlikely or impossible because the people would never respect it and for a politician to acrue such dignitas and following that he may remove an Emperor would be so enormous that, given the Empire's very divergent interests within (different faiths, ethnicities, classes etc. etc.) would be next to impossible.

[Legosim]

Good to see you back BG, always a great read!

[MNP]

Originally Posted by Basileus Giorgios

It's definitely something I'll be reviewing in the "Director's Cut", some of these things do seem a little ASB with hindsight. Regarding industrialisation though, it mostly happened under a very strong dynasty of Emperors, the Syrians, in the 15th and early 16th centuries, which stopped its effects being too massively dangerous to the monarchy. Once the Syrians lost power following Anna's death, Emperors started to lose their power quite rapidly, with only a couple of rulers who were entirely on top of the Senate for the next century.

Are you "starting again" with the TL now I'm reposting over at CF.net with a key? You'd better be, the key is designed specifically for you. . I must confess that I seriously need to catch up with the Raptor of Spain...

Yes actually I am. Much easier to follow with the key.

[DusanUros]

SF, you DO realise that all these, for a person who's English is the 4th language in his life, are kinda hard to understand right? And unfortunately, googletranslate makes it even worse. You mind PMing me a simpler version before my brain explodes?

[ByzantineCaesar]

Originally Posted by DusanUros

And i doubt even culture changes.

Yes, culture changes a lot. Lets look at nowadays culture. Do you really think it would be the same without soccer? Soccer changed the worldwide culture. But if you want a minor example, lets look at the Brazilian culture. It was formed by the mixture of the Portuguese and African cultures and the outcome was Brazil; in other words, the Portuguese culture changed.

Originally Posted by DusanUros

Well NOT NOW, that is. Just wait until movements like nationalism, fascism, democracy etc knock the door and..... oh shit i forgot, the Roman Emperor has the magic wand, these things just dont happen in the Roman Empire.

These movements hadn't a chance to develop in IE world. For example, in the Balkans there is no nationalism and everyone consider themselves Roman. Why? No Turks and since the Balkans were Roman territory since Basil II they do consider themselves Romans.

[Saepe Fidelis]

Originally Posted by DusanUros

SF, you DO realise that all these, for a person who's English is the 4th language in his life, are kinda hard to understand right? And unfortunately, googletranslate makes it even worse. You mind PMing me a simpler version before my brain explodes?

Sure no problem. Hopefully htis is good practice for my English GCSE tomorrow.

[DusanUros]

Originally Posted by ByzantineCaesar

Yes, culture changes a lot. Lets look at nowadays culture. Do you really think it would be the same without soccer? Soccer changed the worldwide culture. But if you want a minor example, lets look at the Brazilian culture. It was formed by the mixture of the Portuguese and African cultures and the outcome was Brazil; in other words, the Portuguese culture changed.

And on the other hand in my places nothing changed for about 1500 years. People are still christians, they do the same things, they eat the same things, they practically speak the same way, so what changed? That we added the action of kicking a ball in a field? Or that we ride a car instead of a donkey? Thats no cultural change. Of course, the Balkans were the center of the world for quite long. Brazil on the other hand was an empty space, empty enough to create something new.

Originally Posted by ByzantineCaesar

These movements hadn't a chance to develop in IE world. For example, in the Balkans there is no nationalism and everyone consider themselves Roman. Why? No Turks and since the Balkans were Roman territory since Basil II they do consider themselves Romans.

Yeah it doesnt work that way, not here.

Originally Posted by Saepe Fidelis

Sure no problem. Hopefully htis is good practice for my English GCSE tomorrow.

Yeah you are responsible for my headache. Thanks a bunch.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by Saepe Fidelis

Sure no problem. Hopefully htis is good practice for my English GCSE tomorrow.

Good luck with it, SF, my brother has his English GCSE tomorrow too. Is this the creative writing one?

[Saepe Fidelis]

Originally Posted by Basileus Giorgios

Good luck with it, SF, my brother has his English GCSE tomorrow too. Is this the creative writing one?

Think so, although it's more latin in the afternoon that I'm worried about. One and a half hours of starin gat a page wondering why the hell Cincinattus didn't just make himself Emperor.

[Calamus]

Originally Posted by Saepe Fidelis

Think so, although it's more latin in the afternoon that I'm worried about. One and a half hours of starin gat a page wondering why the hell Cincinattus didn't just make himself Emperor.

Oooh, latin GCSE, I remember that. Needless to say, not fondly.

As to Cincinattus, he is proof that every timeline, even ours, has ASB moments.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by Saepe Fidelis

Think so, although it's more latin in the afternoon that I'm worried about. One and a half hours of starin gat a page wondering why the hell Cincinattus didn't just make himself Emperor.

Bloody hell, you do Latin? What are you, a private school boy?

[Megas Dux ton Kypraion]

Well, I suppose I ought to say something about the discussion we have just been graced with.

SF: I couldn't agree with you more. That is exactly the world, history, and how history works as I see it. I need not elaborate further because you have covered all the angles admirably well.

I fear DU is not a historian, or anywhere even close to one. I am one, or at least something akin to one as the term is understood in the western world and - who knows - maybe even in parts of the impenetrable, and ever-exotic, East (of Europe) as well. But perhaps I have been deluded, and my mind brainwashed, by the tyrannical liberal-capitalistic educational consensus, which conspires to hide "truths" which only right-thinking Balkanites can understand.

The one thing that seems to have been forgotten is how deeply the Christian view of the world would have shaped peoples' view of an Emperor. From Constantine I onwards, the Christian Church preached the existence of, in effect, a Cosmic Order: God-Jesus was at the top in Heaven, underneath him were the Heavenly Host, then the blessed Saints. The Heavenly Order was reflected on Earth: the Emperor was God-Jesus' representative on Earth: the symbol of God's power, majesty and the promise of redemption. Under the Emperor were lesser rulers, Kings, princes and dukes and - in the East Roman/Byzantine system (which was rejected by the Catholic Church IOTL) - Popes and Patriarchs.

When DU argues that the "people" don't need the Emperor, he is unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly) saying that the "people" don't need their God and their Faith. Probably you believe this too, DU; I know I pretty much believe in something fairly close to that myself. But the problem is that this is a very modern belief. If you tear away an Emperor from a structure that contains God-Christ at the top, and ordinary people down at the bottom, the whole edifice collapses. You end up with no Uniate Church - or perhaps successor sects of Christianity like the Methodists, Evangelicals or other Protestant denominations, which don't put such a great emphasis on ritual, Saints Days, ancient creeds and dogmas and the whole architecture of a universe with God-Angels-Saints-Emperors-rulers-Men.

DU: think on this: if you take the Emperor out of the Uniate Christians' way of thinking you turn their thought world upside down and strip away their hopes and Faith in Salvation.

And yes: the Orthodox Churches did survive the demolition of the Imperial office IOTL, but the transition was a deeply painful one, achieved over many centuries, and it arguably involved (in its early phase) a catastrophic melt-down in the self-confidence of the Orthodox-faithful nations, most of which, as you know only too well, fell under Ottoman control with the sole exception of Russia, which provided some hope for the Orthodox, but only by the Russians reinventing themselves as a new Byzantium, a Third Rome, which lasted until 1917 and was sort of reborn again after 1990.

If nothing else persuades you of the power of the imperial idea, dressed up in new, Republican, Putinesque, clothes admittedly, which BG and SF have defended so often on this thread, hold onto this notion: that the imperial system you despise so much lived strongly in Russia until the Bolshevik Revolution - and is around even today in a slightly adapted form.

Byzantine Imperialism zi kai basilevi* as we say in Greek.

Or do you want me to put that in simple language for you too?
__________________________________________________ ___

*'Lives and Dominates'.

[037771]

Originally Posted by Megas Dux ton Kypraion

DU: think on this:...

Byzantine Imperialism zi kai basilevi* as we say in Greek.

Or do you want me to put that in simple language for you too?

Nerdiest argument ever.

Anyway, thought the update was quite good BG. Can we trust to see any more allusions to recent British political history? I do enjoy spotting the references is all.

[Megas Dux ton Kypraion]

Originally Posted by 037771

Nerdiest argument ever.

Ha. Well if by nerd you mean 'historically perspicacious arguments displaying cognizance with the medieval religious mindset and developments in current affairs' then guilty as charged.

[Konstantin Paleolog]

Originally Posted by Megas Dux ton Kypraion

I fear DU is not a historian, or anywhere even close to one. I am one, or at least something akin to one as the term is understood in the western world and - who knows - maybe even in parts of the impenetrable, and ever-exotic, East (of Europe) as well. But perhaps I have been deluded, and my mind brainwashed, by the tyrannical liberal-capitalistic educational consensus, which conspires to hide "truths" which only right-thinking Balkanites can understand.

I'm not a fan of DU's assertion that he represents the "Balkan mindset." There is no such thing. The Balkans are quite different from the West, I'll grant him that. Balkanites are generally more genuine and unapologetic with regard to their political views, but discrimination is certainly not inherent in the Balkan pscyhe. You probably already know this, so this is for DU.

We have a word in former Yugoslavia for DU's views - seljački. This adjective means "village-like," or more accurately, "backwards." Now I don't want to accuse DU of being a seljak, and this may all be some of the old Balkan classism showing itself, but your average middle-class Beograđanin is not going to believe that racism is an integral part of Balkan cultures.

The fact that I live in the West does not make me any less of a Balkanite than DU, I just think that we represent the views of different classes of Balkanites. Western liberalism means very little to me, my favorite political party is Edinaya Rossiya and good old Vlad is my favorite politician. Though I support same-sex rights, I strongly oppose the encroachment of Western culture on our Balkanian way of life. Our cultures are so similar that if we step back and recognize these similarities, we'll be able to coexist (and grow stronger together ).

I'd much rather live in a millet than in some sort of racist-communist state.