An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania

A daunting task in rewriting the early Laskarids part Basileus, but one I have enjoyed reading so far, I've been meaning to get to studying the Byzantine empire more than the usual stuff I read in wikipedia, so reading parts of OTL here have broadened my horizon. You'd think we'd get a Byzantine show in our time especially with all the political backstabbing that occurred. But I suppose the West isn't ready for such a thing yet, no matter how many are seem interested in this tragic remnant of the Roman Empire.
 
Dang @Basileus444, you already have a huge burden in planning and mapping out the 17th century to modern times, its probably gonna be really hard to partake in another project while you're are at it, do you plan to put the current story in hiatus to focus on reworking the 1st parts of the story? You have a schedule for this?

My plan is for the main focus to remain the regular TL. So far I’ve been doing 3 regular updates a month and then 1 special update per month exclusively for Megas Kyr patrons. I’d like to keep that schedule, just that now the special update for Megas Kyr will now exclusively be sections of Not the End: A History of the Empire under the Laskarids rather than the mix it was earlier.

The first Komnenoi gets more attentinon that the Laskarid? That's really interesting to hear given that the Laskarid's literally brought the Empire back from the brink. It's obvious that Theodoros II and Alexios I probably get all the attention but who else in the 2 dynasties gets coverage? And when will Theodoros II get his TV show TTL?

That mainly has to do with the prominence of the Second Komnenoi. They’re very much the Roman version of the Tudors hogging all the public attention, and the First Komnenoi because of their familial connection get a boost. The Laskarids were much more prominent in the historical mind prior to 1635, but as the Empire enters a “post-Laskarid” phase their significance has dwindled.

Manuel I Komnenos comes in for a lot of attention, but with mixed reviews. Andronikos I is a…character. For the Laskarids, Theodoros II comes in for a lot of praise, while his father Ioannes III is also a saint (IOTL he’s St Ioannes the Merciful). Anna I is getting more attention lately too.

There’s a pitch at Sinope Studios for a movie about Theodoros II and the Nobles’ Revolt, but it’s competing for one about the 717 siege of Constantinople. If I had to choose I’d go for the 717 one since I’d love to see the debut of liquid fire on the big screen.

In comparison, that year's "Cannonball Classic" between Imperial Constantinople and FC Trebizond "only" drew 29 million viewers despite being the retirement game of IC legend Christos Ronalditos.

Ronalditos was a big fan of the show. I loved that bit where he plays an aide to Giorgios Laskaris and is promptly killed by a cannonball.

Looking forward to these special updates! Didn’t realise there was such much OTL on the early Laskarid period, Wikipedia is sorely lacking.

It’s hard to get sources on the post-1204 period. There were several books I would’ve like to have gotten but I’m not shelling out $60+ for a single book.

What would have been the series finale? Ioannes VI’s abdication would be the official end of the dynasty, but Alexeia I’s last stand would be ending with a bang.

Will follow this with interest!

The crowning of the Triumvirate should work. It marked the end of the endless wars and the start of the recovery under the Fifth Empire, and coincided with Lady Theodora (the last Komnenos with a good dynastic tie to the last proper Komnenoi on the Imperial Throne) formally relinquishing her claims and giving it to the Drakids. A fitting conclusion to the time of the Komnenoi.

The penultimate season finale was the death of Alexeia I. The final season was the Time of Troubles as seen through the eyes of Theodora Komnena. The final scene is the coronation of Helena I Drakina, but in the last moments the camera pans from Helena I to her right, where stands Theodora.

Instead of Despotates they should be reformed back into something akin to the Roman Dominate System that Diocletian implemented. This worked well for the Empire until the Arabs invaded. I see this as more of the natural course than an EU type thingy. A tight federal Empire was basically what the late Antiquity Empire essentially was. There were Praetorian Prefects, Diocese run by Vicars, Provincial Governors, and then the local government. Voting power is ridiculous for the Romans especially since the Senate has been so far removed from power for so long. The collective memory of Venice and the Old Republic's failure would make such as system seem ridiculous to the average Roman. This idea would be anachronism for the Romans of this era. They've been an absolute monarchy for nearly 2,000 years and have survived as one of the oldest continuous states in the history of man rivaled by only China in this regard.


Are ttl's Lotharingian's basically a successful Burgundy that managed to unify into an actual Kingdom?


This is something that the Romans took so long to realize. This almost happened under Maurice and Anastasius I. The Roman Persians wars if seen as a continuous struggle would be 742 years of conflict. Maybe instead of the 100 Years War, people will be studying the 750 Years war between the Romans and Persians.

How exactly is Heraclius and Maurice remembered by the Romans? How come there has been no Heraclius II? How is the legacy of Augustus taught in Rhomania? Is there a tv show like ROME that depicts the rise of the Empire? What kind of role does the Orthodox Church play in Byzantine Society?


This is kind of funny since Ancient Greece is considered one of the foundations of Western Civiliation. And Ethiopia is one of the oldest civilizations in history. Who exactly do the Romans think are Latins? Are they the Romance speaking peoples of the post Roman Kingdoms in Western Europe?

How Frenchified is England? France historically was wealthier and had a larger population. The King and the nobles were Norman’s who spoke French as well. So is the center of power in England-France in France due to its larger population and resources?

The “Roman EU” idea was an analogy I thought of literally as I was typing up the response, so it’s not even remotely close to being fully-thought-out or set in stone.

One thing that is set in stone is that any kind of Roman popular vote will be subjected to some level of educational requirement. The grounds would be that in any field, one must show a certain level of education to be allowed to practice in said field, whether that’s being a professional welder or a professional physician. Why would government be any different?

Lotharingia was originally a Burgundy-made-good, although as @HanEmpire pointed out, the Low Countries are becoming much more dominate (the current King is Albrecht III), with large parts, including the original Burgundy, now part of the Triple Monarchy.

Maurice is viewed as a real person whose life was an ancient Greek tragedy. Herakleios is viewed very highly as the savior of the Empire from the Persians, with his defeats at Arab hands blamed on general Imperial exhaustion and old age, although many will agree that it would’ve been better for him if he’d died a few years earlier than he did.

There was a Herakleios II, Andreas I’s successor. Because of his bad health, questionable religious opinions, and his father being an impossible act to follow, in historical memory he’s not well regarded. But Odysseus’ son is a Herakleios, and he’ll be Herakleios III.

Augustus is viewed as the savior of the Roman state, creating a stable empire to replace a fractious, corrupt, and broken republic.

The Orthodox Church is still a very major force in Roman society. The Church is a major landowner; mention was made a few updates back of villages that have their landlord being a monastery. The Patriarch of Constantinople is the senior figure on the “Imperial Cabinet”. Many clergy are important patrons of culture and science, participating in creation themselves in some cases. The two key elements of being considered Roman is Orthodox belief and Greek-speaking.

Well, the Latins were willing even IOTL to deny the Byzantines’ Roman heritage. Why not be consistent and deny them their Greek heritage too? The argument would be by denying a true connection between ancient and modern Greeks (something *6th century Slavic invasions* something *Turkish interbreeding*). If one jumps back to the early 1400s, there are repeated instances where the Latins portray the Romans as Turks (OOC reason was so I could use Ottoman pictures for the Romans).

Latin, in Roman parlance, is a lazy shorthand for Catholics and the TTL-equivalents of Protestants (Bohmanists, Anabaptists, etc.) which they view as derived from Catholicism.

I’ll be getting more into the layout of the Triple Monarchy in an upcoming update.

man i finished reading the timeline binge reading it , i still love it by the way good work

Thank you. Glad you’re enjoying it.

A daunting task in rewriting the early Laskarids part Basileus, but one I have enjoyed reading so far, I've been meaning to get to studying the Byzantine empire more than the usual stuff I read in wikipedia, so reading parts of OTL here have broadened my horizon. You'd think we'd get a Byzantine show in our time especially with all the political backstabbing that occurred. But I suppose the West isn't ready for such a thing yet, no matter how many are seem interested in this tragic remnant of the Roman Empire.

Yeah, I don’t see a Byzantine show airing in the West anytime soon. Most still have never heard of it, ‘byzantine’ is an insult, and even on this site people will still deny the Byzantines’ Roman identity, even though the “Byzantines” never called themselves that; they called themselves Roman.

I’m really enjoying the re-write, it adds so much detail.

Thank you.



The next part of Not the End: The Empire Under the Laskarids has been posted for Megas Kyr patrons on my Patreon page. It’s still mostly OTL, covering the period from 1222-46, but some divergences are starting to appear (make sure to read the footnotes). It concludes with the arrival of the Mongols, the formation of the pivotal alliance between the Houses of Hohenstaufen and Vatatzes/Laskaris, and the watershed year of 1246, considered by Roman historians ITTL to be the start of the Age of Miracles proper.
 
This last update was the first time I’ve been seriously tempted to get the Megas Kyr level on Patreon. I’m usually just fine with the timeline but the depth and breadth of this timeline has me now wanting more. If I can see a deeply more detailed version of the first 200 years or so that’s just a bonus.
 
The penultimate season finale was the death of Alexeia I. The final season was the Time of Troubles as seen through the eyes of Theodora Komnena. The final scene is the coronation of Helena I Drakina, but in the last moments the camera pans from Helena I to her right, where stands Theodora.

That’s be a monster of a TV series. If phase 3 of the ToT is one season, that’d at least 30 episodes a season.
 
Do you have access to a good academic library?
Even a shit one could be fine.

I don't know what it's like where b444 lives but universities are pretty much uniform now with their organization so maybe my experience could be applicable. At my uni you don't need a card to enter the library, just to check out, and you can use their computers to access the library's catalogue of online material and academic articles (JSTOR, Taylor & Francis, etc.) even without an account. You can use the library website remotely to find out if the materials you want are there and basically just make a shopping trip to read some books. You could also bring a USB to DL any articles or web sources for later reading.

The benefits of library membership is checking out material, renewal, remote access, and in my case Interlibrary Loans. You can still get to the books as a member of the general public. Even public libraries tend to have some good academic material that can be borrowed and a system to order books from other libraries.
 
How stable do you all think the Triunes will be in the long-term? I'm of the opinion that the cultural differences between the three kingdoms might cause issues down the line.
 
How stable do you all think the Triunes will be in the long-term? I'm of the opinion that the cultural differences between the three kingdoms might cause issues down the line.
It depends more on what the update b444 said is coming on Triune organization is like but we've had centuries of unified cross-channel rule and even more cross-channel engagement long before England conquered France. I'm not even expecting there to be that much 'English' in the way we understand it to remain. English for example only became a language you could use use to plead in court in 1362 and, during that same year, parliament for the first time deliberated in English. Government written documents remained written in Law French or Latin until 1419, when the king started to use Middle English which would develop into the Chancery Standard based around the London Dialect of Middle English. This became prototype of Early Modern English which came into common use when this particular dialect was chosen for printing the Great Bible, which Henry VIII ordered be read in his new Protestant Church of England which brought specific pronunciations, grammar, spelling, and other linguistic conventions to the national scale and set the standard for written English. The bible invaded the lives of every peasant in the country.

ITTL there is both no need for an English-language bible in this Catholic country nor is English a language of any particular prestige. French retains its supremacy ITTL in England, for there was never any proton-nationalist need to self-identify the English as English and rise up the subjects of the English Crown to fight the French. Self-identification of the English ruling class is likely the exact same identification as that in France and Ireland and the prestige of French ensures the language of anything written for widespread use among the upper class would be in French. English and Irish have likely been standardized but it is important to note that, as explained in the previous paragraph, they have likely been standardized due to the printing press in a very very different form due to the way TTL has developed. There is no Chaucer Standard based on a London Dialect to give Middle English some limited use in Government. Standardized Early Modern English ITTL is likely far more francophone in nature due to cross-channel trade, culture, and family ties. I won't go far as to say that English is a romance language but it is probably incomprehensible to OTL English speakers.

Uniformity of the Ruling Class and the long period of English rule by the French without any period which would uplift the English language to levels of prestige in government, culture, and science likely makes the Triune state a considerably more stable body than it may otherwise appear. Additionally the heavy utilization of maritime trade and infrastructure will ensure that there is no shortage of cross-cultural communication, as was the case IOTL. London's port probably speaks French to trade with Normandy, Picarde, Britanny, and Poitou as much as it speaks English to trade with the coastal counties and the Midlands. However do keep in mind that this goes both ways, as the Triune court is based in King's Harbour, Normandy. Significant English interchange with Coastal French dialects will probably shape them a bit, though not much because of population differences and prestige. But even more importantly Triune Standardized Early Modern French is most likely going to be based on the King's Harbour dialect of French, which is a Norman one. Meanwhile Lyonesse standardized is definitely going to be influenced by Occitan, likely based on whatever dialect is prominent in Lyons. Centuries of divergent linguistic development will likely mean a much reduced ability of North and South French to communicate and perceive national identities across the border. Triune French, based on Norman Dialects, and Lyonesse French, based on dialects without Norse influence but with Occitan, will absolutely be different languages in the vein of Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian or English and Scots. So don't expect the French population of the Triune state to feel any particular cultural pull away from the said state while the English are likely barely English anymore.

Long-term post development of Nationalism the Triune state is 100% doomed. National identities will appear, they will demand rights, they will cause problems for the government, and they will have to eventually grant independence or concessions in some form. There are simply too many English and Irish for that and they are too geographically concentrated to be a minority that must toe the line due to being so outclassed like the Bretons, Welsh, Sorbs, Basques, Frisians, and other small minority groups within larger countries. However the form that this independence takes does not necessarily mean the end of the Triune state. The Romans will be developing a federal empire of sorts based around the framework of the despotates so there is no reason that the Trinues cannot do the same with England, France, Ireland, and their independent colonies. The resulting empire of one crown and many autonomous kingdoms/dominions could likely be perceived as one 'empire' in the modern TTL sense of the word. We IOTL may consider it many closely aligned independent countries but with a theoretical precedent of this sort of imperial power bloc presented by the Romans and Triunes this sort of inter-state compact could simply be perceived by TTL people as the modern expression of empire in a post-national age.
 
I'm pretty sure the Triunes are Bohmanist. If so they celebrate Mass in the vernacular which means there may be different language Bibles for each distinct language in the Triple Monarchy.
 
Triunes are Bohamist. So it is a state church. It has also been said that the 3 kingdoms are still separate entities legally speaking.

In regards to the church does each “nation” have their own national church or is it one empire wide church. The answer to this question could go a long way towards explaining how integrated each of the components are.

I think this war is going to sow the seeds of a major crisis for the Triunes. I don’t doubt they are going to win this war. There’s nothing in Germany/Lotharingia that can stop 200k soldiers. I think overall on land it will be a relatively straight forward victory for the Triunes complicated some when they try to overreach.

On sea however is a different story. The Lotharingia navy combined with the Hansa will give the Triunes a very bloody nose and raids on the English coast and damage to the trade networks will be severe. I don’t doubt in the end the Triunes will win but it will be far more expensive and bloody than the land battle.

And here is where the issue will come up. “France” will get the contiguous territories on the continent and gain populous rich territories that will greatly strengthen the “French” kingdom. Meanwhile “England” will get nothing/very little despite the considerable loss of ships, trade, and men that they suffered. The outposts overseas will be a welcome boost but will not compensate for the loss of treasure and will pale in comparison to what the French gain.

Here in lies the problem. Unless it’s changed drastically the Triune army is overwhelmingly French while the navy is overwhelmingly English. This means the overseas trade is likely overwhelmingly in the hands of English as well. For two wars in a row now it has been the English trade and navy that have taken the bulk of the pain while now the French are getting a massive boost.

Also “England” will lose out on the tax/tariff revenue if Antwerp, Rotterdam, and the other great Low country ports all come under the administration of “France” because it is no longer and external tariff but is instead an internal one which will be lower.

All of this combined and I’m sure there will be quite a few English nobleman who will be wondering who exactly is benefitting from the Triunes. And if England rebels good luck putting it down without the English navy.
 
I'm pretty sure the Triunes are Bohmanist. If so they celebrate Mass in the vernacular which means there may be different language Bibles for each distinct language in the Triple Monarchy.
Yeah scratch that it's my bad, B444 even described it as 'sort of Anglicanism' which means honestly it's a bigger argument for unity assuming it finds widespread adoption. A central state church under the crown is going to be one hell of a unifying factor and could potentially encourage greater cross-channel connections.

English bishoprics in the medieval period were effectively appointed by the Crown and given to royal clerks who would also be endowed with parishes before episcopacy. Election by local monasteries or papal appointment served as simply a rubber stamp to candidates put forward by the king.1 Endowment of royal clerks with episcopacy was so commonplace in England after the conquest that “by the time of The Conqueror's death over half the English bishoprics were filled with royal clerks; by the middle of Henry I’s reign the proportion was over three-quarters.”2 In a Bohmanist state even if they aren't all former royal clerks the king is still going to appoint all his bishops since the token oversight of Rome and priories would be removed. English kings also had a habit of picking bishops with “no previous vested interest in the [bishopric]."3 This was done to prevent the growth of local power blocs, force bishops to work for the king and not prominent local families, and to ensure that the bishops didn't get bogged down with existing connections to their diocese.

In England during the middle ages there was an expectation of 'good lordship' where lords and bishops would have light and fair hands. It is telling that, at least in the Diocese of Durham, the only bishop who was not one of the ‘good lords’ instead prioritized his family’s power, wealth, and prestige over good government was not a well-chosen clerk. Bishop Robert Neville (episcopacy 1438-57) was "the only clear example in the later middle ages of a clerk who secured the bishopric of Durham because of his aristocratic origins rather than for administrative or diplomatic work on behalf of the royal government. More precisely still, he was the only holder of the northern see between 1333 and 1476 who did not serve, at some time of his life, as Keeper of the Privy Seal."4 Bishop Neville was uniquely bad at working with others in his diocese and ran into significant trouble in promoting family interests against those of his diocese. Bishops were expected to serve the king as good lords and maintain operation of his government as well as secure tax income at Convocations of Canterbury or York to help fund the royal agenda.

It is likely that, to keep the church from becoming intensely local, that English and Irish born clerks will be granted French bishoprics and French clerks granted English and Irish bishoprics. This cross-channel communication and interaction with parishioners (as this would likely also occur on a lower level as well) would only enhance the ability of the Triune state's cultures to amalgamate somewhat. There is no way that they would merge completely but the adoption of linguistic conventions in spoken English and Triune French is likely. The shared faith provides a unifying point that differentiates the Triune from his neighbours as well so it too could work as an anchor in later developments of a Triune federal state. The creation of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States during the American Revolution is a great example. It's creation was specifically to make an Anglican church that was non-Anglican so that Americans could be American and not English without giving up their way of faith. Unless there a violent and radical separation of the various regions of the Triune state the church, with the king at its head, would remain a common unifying factor globally. Linguistically you would certainly see preaching in local vernacular but with a full co-opt of the religious institution the Triunes have a full capability to maintain a long lasting state into the age of nationalism if they are willing to provide some concessions and so long as they maintain their state church.

1: Richard B. Dobson, Durham Priory 1400-1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 226.
2: John Oswald Prestwich, “The Career of Ranulf Flambard,” in Anglo-Norman Durham: 1093-1193, ed. David Rollason, Margaret Harvey, and Michael Prestwich (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1994), 300.
3: Richard B. Dobson, “The Church of Durham and the Scottish Borders, 1378-88,” in War and Border Societies in the Middle Ages, ed. Anthony Goodman and Anthony Tuck (London: Routledge, 1992), 130.
4: Dobson, Durham Priory 1400-1450, 224.
 
Triunes are Bohamist. So it is a state church. It has also been said that the 3 kingdoms are still separate entities legally speaking.

In regards to the church does each “nation” have their own national church or is it one empire wide church. The answer to this question could go a long way towards explaining how integrated each of the components are.

I think this war is going to sow the seeds of a major crisis for the Triunes. I don’t doubt they are going to win this war. There’s nothing in Germany/Lotharingia that can stop 200k soldiers. I think overall on land it will be a relatively straight forward victory for the Triunes complicated some when they try to overreach.

On sea however is a different story. The Lotharingia navy combined with the Hansa will give the Triunes a very bloody nose and raids on the English coast and damage to the trade networks will be severe. I don’t doubt in the end the Triunes will win but it will be far more expensive and bloody than the land battle.

And here is where the issue will come up. “France” will get the contiguous territories on the continent and gain populous rich territories that will greatly strengthen the “French” kingdom. Meanwhile “England” will get nothing/very little despite the considerable loss of ships, trade, and men that they suffered. The outposts overseas will be a welcome boost but will not compensate for the loss of treasure and will pale in comparison to what the French gain.

Here in lies the problem. Unless it’s changed drastically the Triune army is overwhelmingly French while the navy is overwhelmingly English. This means the overseas trade is likely overwhelmingly in the hands of English as well. For two wars in a row now it has been the English trade and navy that have taken the bulk of the pain while now the French are getting a massive boost.

Also “England” will lose out on the tax/tariff revenue if Antwerp, Rotterdam, and the other great Low country ports all come under the administration of “France” because it is no longer and external tariff but is instead an internal one which will be lower.

All of this combined and I’m sure there will be quite a few English nobleman who will be wondering who exactly is benefitting from the Triunes. And if England rebels good luck putting it down without the English navy.

Most of what you're describing is an incredible boon to English traders actually. Access with low tolls to the Rhine and the high population zones of the Low Countries? Who cares if the land is directly a part of the French side when you can now probe far deeper into European trade than previously thought possible?

Do keep in mind as well that the affairs of the nobility are very very different than those of the merchant class. Nobles still very much derive their sources of revenue from land and only recently might you see some invest in trade due to the joint stock company. They won't be so integrated that they could suffer extraordinarily much and even if they did, the benefits of borderline unrestricted trade into Lothairingia would more than satisfy those Englishmen who do suffer in the war by a temporary loss of trade.
 
I suspect that the Triunes aren't nearly as unified as they like to pretend. On the other side of the sneering mask they wear when dealing with outsiders I suspect that the French and English are at each others' throats on many issues, starting with administrative language, trade policies, tax allocation, royal marriages, courts (civil vs common) and micro-sectarianism, while the Irish are stewing off to the side getting ignored. After all much of their realm was created with slapdash compromises after swallowing a much larger French component and keeping Ireland happy so as to focus on the Arletian Invasion, so I imagine that their system is full of contradictions and exceptions with people jumping around royal jurisdictions to play the system. Hell, might turn out that their succession system isn't uniform.

A civil war or two should straighten out the system and make people desire conformity. Perhaps a not!Darien Scheme or two to straighten out people's reservations on centralization.

On a side note, how is the various law codes of TTL Europe organized? Justinian Code screams Roman and I can't imagine many Latin monarchs keeping to it.
 
Gotta point something out here.

I suspect that the Triunes aren't nearly as unified as they like to pretend. On the other side of the sneering mask they wear when dealing with outsiders I suspect that the French and English are at each others' throats on many issues, starting with administrative language, trade policies, tax allocation, royal marriages, courts (civil vs common) and micro-sectarianism, while the Irish are stewing off to the side getting ignored.
administrative language: French, and it's not a problem that it is. English Parliament was held in French and Latin until 1362, it's not hard to keep it longer and English didn't become an administrative language until 1419 and wasn't formally adopted until around 1430.

trade policies: England and France OTL both wanted Mercantilism, not hard to keep that here.

tax allocation: This'd be a big issue. English-style taxation required consent of Parliament to tax the peers of the realm and its commons (fifteenth and tenth, wool tariffs, income taxes, etc.), or the consent of Convocation to tax the clergy (King's tenth) at least until 1539. France didn't have a central tax until the Taille in the 14th century, formalized in 1439, which was a tax on quantity of land, and the fouage adopted in the 1340s on each family unit. France had a horrid and decentralized tax system and it is likely that Triune monarchs have done everything in their power to annihilate it in favour of a more centrally-managed tax system in the English style. However the notable issue is the lack of a parliament or convocation being necessary to tax the French first and second estates. The king's an absolute monarch in France most likely due to the precedent set by Philip Augustus in the early 13th century that the King could and would (and did) become the only real landlord in France of Count level or higher. Centralization of noble titles under the monarchy oriented France towards absolute monarchy historically and promoted centralization. As king and duke and count the kings of France during the reign of Francis I (And especially after succession of Henry II incorporated the Duchy of Brittany into the French Crown) enacted a perception that the territorial extent of France was the domain of the crown and that they were coterminous. Thus as the only real landlord the King possessed wide powers of taxation without checks on his power in the same way as English monarchs did. Dissatisfaction with representation in a parliament in England but no equivalent institution with taxation powers in France will likely cause discontent in the Triune state.

royal marriages: Wouldn't cause any greater issues than IOTL between constituent regions of a kingdom or empire. A Roman Emperor with an Balkan Wife isn't going to be seen as upsetting by those in Eastern Anatolia unless they had something to lose because of it. Same would be true in the Trinues with, say, the King having a French wife over an English one. These sorts of frictions always exist, the nature of the Triune state wouldn't necessarily enhance that sort of friction.

courts (civil vs common): Civil law is an invention of the French Revolution, although it had origins in the Code of Justinian as well as canon and Germanic law. Friction between Common and Roman law (what civil law was called before the French Revolution) likely wouldn't occur unless B444 wants it to. Development of Roman law took a great deal of time during which France would be under English rule. Legal developments likely crossed the channel in ways that they didn't IOTL either through the English not adopting a jury system or by said system crossing to France. However friction is possible if narrativly desired. A case can be made either way as legal developments in Medieval England were particularly strange. They could remain, or they could brexit from the Roman law system like IOTL.

micro-sectarianism: Unlikely to be particularly different from OTL religious friction within England and France. Which is to say we will probably see eight wars of religion in France. Although without religious difference between England and France the two halves likely wouldn't have any reason for faith to pry them apart. It could unite them in Bohmanism against the Crypto-Catholics abound them.

Irish stewing: Keep in mind the entire Irish ruling class was derived from an Anglo-Norman and English stock as native Irish landowners were annihilated as a class. The Irish remained more or less subservient until the 19th and 20th centuries. It is entirely possible that the Triunes will be more effective at integrating the Irish than the OTL English were but as long as they aren't any worse than OTL there's a long horrible time of exploitation facing the Irish.

After all much of their realm was created with slapdash compromises after swallowing a much larger French component and keeping Ireland happy so as to focus on the Arletian Invasion, so I imagine that their system is full of contradictions and exceptions with people jumping around royal jurisdictions to play the system.
Sounds like the border reivers to me. They only caused local issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_reivers

Hell, might turn out that their succession system isn't uniform.
Only difference would probably be salic law, which would disqualify women from inheriting the French crown while such a thing was not imposed in England.

A civil war or two should straighten out the system and make people desire conformity. Perhaps a not!Darien Scheme or two to straighten out people's reservations on centralization.

On a side note, how is the various law codes of TTL Europe organized? Justinian Code screams Roman and I can't imagine many Latin monarchs keeping to it.
They'd almost certainly keep to the Justinian Code. Medieval development of Roman Law was instrumental to the development of absolute monarchy. Iit provided legal justification for some of the weird laws present across continental Europe like the unilateral right of kings to own all mineral resources under the ground (even if you have the land above it) and you have to pay them for the privilege to mine it. Canon Law, germanic law, and other legal systems that derive from it likely wouldn't vanish and it'd been a part of European legal theory since the 11th century and expanded until the French Revolution. Roman law isn't necessarily Rhoman if you get what I mean.
 
I'm wondering if there is a sense of English superiority in the Triune kingdom, after all, its kings were almost all British, and I'm wondering if any French people are pissed at being ruled by a bunch of Englishmen.
 
I'm wondering if there is a sense of English superiority in the Triune kingdom, after all, its kings were almost all British, and I'm wondering if any French people are pissed at being ruled by a bunch of Englishmen.

Said British kings probably speak French as their mother tongue and might not even speak English at all, so that probably tempers it a lot...
 
I'm wondering if there is a sense of English superiority in the Triune kingdom, after all, its kings were almost all British, and I'm wondering if any French people are pissed at being ruled by a bunch of Englishmen.
The English ruling class is made up of wholely Norman stock who came after the conquest. I don't have my book with me but land owned by Anglo-Saxons was reduced to under 5% by the end of the 11th century in addition to all high church titles and positions in royal government.

Kings were absolutely not derived from royal stock, many were raised on France and spoke French as their first language, including many an English noble as well. Keep in mind that The Conqueror also made it a point to grant estates to his people in both England and Normandy in order to split up noble power and prevent the rise of power blocs. Normandy and Anjou's ruling class is going to be formed of families with both English and Mainland branches. They won't see themselves as French or English, just servants of the Triunes. Those of France or England without Cross-channel property ownership are the ones who would have any sort of resentment but given the capital is in Normandy and kings speak French it's unlikely they have any issue with being ruled by Normans. They aren't Englishmen, they're French-Speaking Normans you can ride a horse to.

England militarily conquered France but the establishment and government apparatus are all focused on and in France. Except for laws which only affect England of Ireland of course. If England had not been completely reshaped by the Norman Conquest to impose a French ruling class for centuries I couldn't see the Triunes being stable but, as OTL shows, English monarchs were entirely capable of spending their lives in France barely touching England and still see support coming from their kingdom.
 
Top