An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
When the quotes say “Romance of the The Kingdoms.” Does they mean that the Triunes, Romans, and Germans are the three kingdoms ITTL? OTL quotes are taking about China.
Thanks for clearing that up. By the way, does Arles have any colonies in the New World?
Arles controls Cuba and Hispaniola (known IOTL as Greater Antilla and Lesser Antilla)
I think you meant TTL.
Also Arles has closer ties to Mexico than any other non-Roman power.
Deleted member 94708
I don't see it, sorry. This isn't European states invading a Roman ally, it's them seeking closer alignment. Unless this is a world in which North America, Russia, India, and China are all hopelessly fragmented, the logic of a pan-European alliance and confederation is going to override the Romans whining. Even if that's the case, it may still win out. It's not as if they'll nuke anyone over it, and if tensions really are as high as the Romans seem to think, then I expect that the global economic and technology ecosystems are at least as fractured as they were in the Cold War and are looking to become ten years down the line between the US and China. That leaves Rhomania with very little leverage short of "we'll go to war if you go forward with this," which is unlikely at best.
How French are the Triune Emperors, Henri is the French spelling so does that means he’s French?
French culture permiates everywhere in the Triple Monarchy, just as English culture permiates everywhere within RL UK. They're the demographic and economic juggernaut that holds everything together.
We don't know what TTL's modern world will look like. For instance the Great War might not have fragmented the Colonial Empires ITTL unlike OTL's WW2. Some European nations could've taken after the Roman model and uplifted and integrated the native peoples as one of their own, making large swaths of the world "European" in a sense. Or else a much more concerted effort on the part of the Western European nations to counteract Roman/Russian demographic advantages, leading to much stronger pronatal policies and greater population controls on natives to create a White-world. If either of this is the case a "European Union" might turn into the seed of a world government.
Last edited:
You know what, whatever. I don't feel like dealing with this. I've edited the update. Nothing changed prior to the "So the Great Latin War is well remembered, but what does it mean for Rhomania, going into the future?". Afterwards the section regarding Roman brutality got moved up, a good chunk got deleted, and another part took its place. No reference to the EU, no clear look at far-future/present day events, which I've now learned to never do ever again. That bit is gone and non-canon.
The original update got edited. Here's the new text (first paragraph appeared originally but the end of said paragraph got axed).
It is hard for Romans to trust Latins. Now an individual Latin may be trusted, even befriended. The Venetian friend of Niketas Choniates who protected the historian’s family during the sack of Constantinople in 1204 is well known. But just as much of modern Roman political theory rests on the idea that a person is smart but people are stupid, a Latin can be trusted, but Latins cannot be trusted. They can be worked with, and oftentimes it is for the best to do so, but always keep at least one eye open and a hand on the sword pommel.
This is partly because of the way Rhomania views the Latin West. Romans know that Latins are divided into various different nations and peoples, but there is a strong tendency to lump them all into an amorphous mass, a single entity known as ‘Latins’. This is a trend that goes back centuries even before the Great Latin War. It was the growing contact just prior to and during the early Crusades that saw the formerly rather nuanced Roman view to morph into a notion of a united Latin west. [1] There are frequent exceptions to this monolithic view of course, but it is a facet that can only be ignored at great peril.
The Great Latin War also makes clear the danger of a united Latin Europe. From the Roman perspective there have been repeated spurts of Latin unity, and far too often they seem created for the purpose of bringing fire and sword to the Romans. The Great Latin War is the most obvious example. But there are also the Crusades, and surely those must be counted as an effort to unite Latin Europe in a common cause? The Fourth and the Tenth naturally stand out the most in this narrative, but it is noted that the First Crusade, before it had even seen a Muslim, had already taken Roman provincial towns and even attacked Constantinople herself.
No matter what face the Romans present to the west, no matter the power of the Empire, there is always that element of fear, perhaps out in the open, perhaps buried beneath the surface, but it is always there. There are too many dead to overlook, too many traumas to forget, too many scars to ever truly heal.
Oddly enough, this does not exist when Romans look at the Muslim world. A more nuanced look is more likely here and while there is always awareness of the need for security and vigilance, there is not this underlying constant fear, despite the clear threat various Muslim rulers and states have posed throughout the Empire’s history. Partly it because of who the Muslims are. The Muslims, simply put, are expected to act as an Other, and so when they do, it is viewed as reasonable. The Latins though were supposed to be brothers in the faith, fellow Christians. That the Muslims be enemies is expected, but the betrayal of their brothers cannot be forgotten.
Another reason is that Muslim aggression, despite its dangers, makes sense to the Romans. Simply looking at a map, no Roman wonders at the hostility between the Empire and the Caliphate or the Turkish Sultans or the Ottoman Shahs. But it is hard to understand that from the Latins. Doesn’t a Frenchman have better things to do then march thousands of kilometers to assault a people who’ve done nothing to them? Yet Demetrios III Sideros brings up the several issued threats of the French monarchy to invade Rhomania in the 1300s and restore the Latin Empire, [2] which the Romans found to be entirely random and unprovoked. Historians believe such proclamations to have been made for the sake of internal French propaganda and were never acted upon, but the Romans cannot help but be disturbed by these actions anyway.
Many have said that the Romans need to learn to forgive and forget. There is certainly an argument for that, and it is quite clear the Romans have made little effort to do so. But no one is blameless in this. It is just as clear that Latins have generally failed to take Roman concerns in consideration, or to even acknowledge them, and often belittle those concerns when raised.
Or when Latin states raise security concerns vis-à-vis Rhomania, these are legitimate issues. But if the Romans do the same vis-à-vis Latin states, the Romans are treated as if they are fearmongering or paranoid or acting out. Now hypocrisy between states and peoples is to be expected; the idea that X is only bad when other people do it is far from exclusive to Latins, and Romans are certainly guilty of the same sin. But still this does nothing to allay said concerns, and frequently confirms Roman suspicions.
Niketas Choniates wasn’t entirely against Latins. His Venetian friend has already been mentioned. He praised some Latins, noticeably Frederick Barbarossa, and there were times where he felt that Latins were in the right and the Romans in the wrong. That is in his history. But also in his history are slaughters and savageries. And so his pen also wrote these words:
[1] See Alexander Kazhdan, “Latins and Franks in Byzantium: Perception and Reality from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Centuries” in The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. Edited by Angeliki E. Laiou and Roy Parvis Mottahedeh, Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2001, pg. 86.
[2] This happened IOTL.
The original update got edited. Here's the new text (first paragraph appeared originally but the end of said paragraph got axed).
----------------------------------------
That is also the reason why Romans, looking back at this time, are rather unapologetic about the darkness. They acknowledge, but do not apologize. Horrible things were done, but they were done to survive, and the Romans are not about to apologize for not rolling over and dying, especially to the descendants of those trying to make them die. That is the Roman view then, and the Roman view now.It is hard for Romans to trust Latins. Now an individual Latin may be trusted, even befriended. The Venetian friend of Niketas Choniates who protected the historian’s family during the sack of Constantinople in 1204 is well known. But just as much of modern Roman political theory rests on the idea that a person is smart but people are stupid, a Latin can be trusted, but Latins cannot be trusted. They can be worked with, and oftentimes it is for the best to do so, but always keep at least one eye open and a hand on the sword pommel.
This is partly because of the way Rhomania views the Latin West. Romans know that Latins are divided into various different nations and peoples, but there is a strong tendency to lump them all into an amorphous mass, a single entity known as ‘Latins’. This is a trend that goes back centuries even before the Great Latin War. It was the growing contact just prior to and during the early Crusades that saw the formerly rather nuanced Roman view to morph into a notion of a united Latin west. [1] There are frequent exceptions to this monolithic view of course, but it is a facet that can only be ignored at great peril.
The Great Latin War also makes clear the danger of a united Latin Europe. From the Roman perspective there have been repeated spurts of Latin unity, and far too often they seem created for the purpose of bringing fire and sword to the Romans. The Great Latin War is the most obvious example. But there are also the Crusades, and surely those must be counted as an effort to unite Latin Europe in a common cause? The Fourth and the Tenth naturally stand out the most in this narrative, but it is noted that the First Crusade, before it had even seen a Muslim, had already taken Roman provincial towns and even attacked Constantinople herself.
No matter what face the Romans present to the west, no matter the power of the Empire, there is always that element of fear, perhaps out in the open, perhaps buried beneath the surface, but it is always there. There are too many dead to overlook, too many traumas to forget, too many scars to ever truly heal.
Oddly enough, this does not exist when Romans look at the Muslim world. A more nuanced look is more likely here and while there is always awareness of the need for security and vigilance, there is not this underlying constant fear, despite the clear threat various Muslim rulers and states have posed throughout the Empire’s history. Partly it because of who the Muslims are. The Muslims, simply put, are expected to act as an Other, and so when they do, it is viewed as reasonable. The Latins though were supposed to be brothers in the faith, fellow Christians. That the Muslims be enemies is expected, but the betrayal of their brothers cannot be forgotten.
Another reason is that Muslim aggression, despite its dangers, makes sense to the Romans. Simply looking at a map, no Roman wonders at the hostility between the Empire and the Caliphate or the Turkish Sultans or the Ottoman Shahs. But it is hard to understand that from the Latins. Doesn’t a Frenchman have better things to do then march thousands of kilometers to assault a people who’ve done nothing to them? Yet Demetrios III Sideros brings up the several issued threats of the French monarchy to invade Rhomania in the 1300s and restore the Latin Empire, [2] which the Romans found to be entirely random and unprovoked. Historians believe such proclamations to have been made for the sake of internal French propaganda and were never acted upon, but the Romans cannot help but be disturbed by these actions anyway.
Many have said that the Romans need to learn to forgive and forget. There is certainly an argument for that, and it is quite clear the Romans have made little effort to do so. But no one is blameless in this. It is just as clear that Latins have generally failed to take Roman concerns in consideration, or to even acknowledge them, and often belittle those concerns when raised.
Or when Latin states raise security concerns vis-à-vis Rhomania, these are legitimate issues. But if the Romans do the same vis-à-vis Latin states, the Romans are treated as if they are fearmongering or paranoid or acting out. Now hypocrisy between states and peoples is to be expected; the idea that X is only bad when other people do it is far from exclusive to Latins, and Romans are certainly guilty of the same sin. But still this does nothing to allay said concerns, and frequently confirms Roman suspicions.
Niketas Choniates wasn’t entirely against Latins. His Venetian friend has already been mentioned. He praised some Latins, noticeably Frederick Barbarossa, and there were times where he felt that Latins were in the right and the Romans in the wrong. That is in his history. But also in his history are slaughters and savageries. And so his pen also wrote these words:
“But because the land which was our allotted portion to inhabit, and to reap the fruits thereof, was openly likened to paradise by the most accursed Latins, who were filled with passionate longing for our blessings, they were ever ill-disposed toward our race and remain forever workers of evil deeds. Though they may dissemble friendship, submitting to the needs of the time, they yet despise us as our bitterest enemies; and though their speech is affable and smoother than oil flowing noiselessly, yet are their words darts, and thus they are sharper than a two-edged sword. Between us and them the greatest gulf of disagreement has been fixed, and we are separated in purpose and diametrically opposed, even though we are closely associated and frequently share the same dwelling.”
-Niketas Choniates, O City of Byzantium (translated by Harry J. Magoulias) p. 167
“…separated in purpose and diametrically opposed, even though we are closely associated and frequently share the same dwelling.” That seems as good an epitaph as any.-Niketas Choniates, O City of Byzantium (translated by Harry J. Magoulias) p. 167
[1] See Alexander Kazhdan, “Latins and Franks in Byzantium: Perception and Reality from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Centuries” in The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. Edited by Angeliki E. Laiou and Roy Parvis Mottahedeh, Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2001, pg. 86.
[2] This happened IOTL.
I thought the old version was cool, people underestimate how tense the world situation was until
Quite recently. If South America wanted to unite into a single communist block in 1970 how would the USA have reacted ? They would have threatened war if becessary
Also, just want to mention again how fabulous this timeline is. I’ve re read the whole thing at least 3 times , this is the thing which brought me to the site and the thing that keeps me here. Bravo!
Quite recently. If South America wanted to unite into a single communist block in 1970 how would the USA have reacted ? They would have threatened war if becessary
Also, just want to mention again how fabulous this timeline is. I’ve re read the whole thing at least 3 times , this is the thing which brought me to the site and the thing that keeps me here. Bravo!
I personally liked the older version, though this one is nice as well. Fits in better with the historian POV of the other updates.
@Basileus444 can you post the older version here again so that we can read it if we want to?
@Basileus444 can you post the older version here again so that we can read it if we want to?
Last edited:
I have a few questions about TTL.
1. What's the status of education in Rhomania? Rhomania is the home land of major educational milestones, first university, homeland of great philosophers, etc, I'm wondering if the people of Rhomania would put a lot of stock on education.
2. How are the old Greek gods and stories viewed by Rhomania? Obviously, no one would be caught dead worshiping Zeus or Hades, but I'm wondering if anyone in Rhomania ever read the Odyssey, or the Iliad, do they produce plays on the trials of Heracles, the love of Psyche and Cupid or the voyages of Odyssey?
1. What's the status of education in Rhomania? Rhomania is the home land of major educational milestones, first university, homeland of great philosophers, etc, I'm wondering if the people of Rhomania would put a lot of stock on education.
2. How are the old Greek gods and stories viewed by Rhomania? Obviously, no one would be caught dead worshiping Zeus or Hades, but I'm wondering if anyone in Rhomania ever read the Odyssey, or the Iliad, do they produce plays on the trials of Heracles, the love of Psyche and Cupid or the voyages of Odyssey?
1. Education runs in a triple layer approach, with primary education (5-10ish) available almost universally, but not exactly free. The primary level teacher would be a middling graduate of the secondary system, and the parents would pay for the basics of reading writing and arithmatic. Secondary is where you see the start of specialization and preparation for University. Most Romans are literate, and take pride in their libraries, to the point where they will openly mock a person for having a large library but not read much of it. Or use a phrase of calling someone a "three book man".
2. As to the pagan hellens I can't speak to, but I assume the classics are used in the secondary and university levels, and private reading. Plays and the theatre I imagine would be popular, thespians run in both Rome and Greek cultures.
Last edited:
To differentiate themselves from the Latins they might be more zealous in regards to their history.
To be fair, I think that the Romans/Rhomans/Byzantines have the unique advantage (comparable to only Iran, China, and India) in being able to reference a truly Ancient history, with links all the way back to the Mycenae and Minoans. That probably would change their approach to understanding and teaching it, simply with the sheer breadth of history they can claim is theirs. (Compare that to say, modern England which really can reference to Caesars invasion, and only archaeology creating a lens to see further back.)
Actually, that makes me curious as to the Roman practice on maintaining historic structures. The Romans at many points recycled old monuments, but is this universally the case? Are we in a world where the Romans are repairing the Parthenon? Is it repurposed? Is it only maintained as a sort of park?
This makes me curious, especially with the Great Palace in Constantinople not being the palace used by the Emperors - what does Constantinople and its environs look like at this point in the timeline?
Evilprodigy
Donor
You just put into my mind the mental image of that golden statue of Athena and some greek christians saying it's the virgin mary.
Well it's was transported to Constantinople...and it was destroyed because some morons thought it was beckoning the crusaders(how the f... Could think something like this is out of my league..)