Roman economics: Roman economic performance will likely suffer in some ways since outside investments will be difficult and the state will sometimes intervene heavy-handed into the financial/economic sector. But then there is the risk of going too far on the other side and just letting the free market run wild and have crazy boom-bust cycles, which are bad for stability and faith in the system, which is not what the Roman government wants.
Once emotions calm down, the Roman government will start looking at this incident more analytically, asking how they can get the benefits of fractional reserve without creating crises like this. After all, Demetrios III didn’t eliminate it; he just wanted the common-knowledge 3:1 ratio to be kept. The crisis hit not because the ratio was breached which happened well beforehand, but because everyone knew the rules, and the crisis hit once they knew that someone was epically breaking them, which made them panic at every shock, and that was what crashed the system. The key is to maintain trust in the system, so that shocks (which are inevitable) don’t become lethal through panics, and the best way to do that is to have clear rules and make it absolutely crystal clear that everyone, and I mean everyone, has to play by them, or else. Hence the displays at the Imperial Bank; it is a reminder to everyone to play by the rules or suffer the consequences, and that no one is exempt.
Also as
@HanEmpire noted, this whole incident and that same display also creates a precedent for the Roman government to both tackle corruption in high places and also work to secure the public welfare. The Roman people expect that and know it’s been done in the past, so a current administration’s failure to do so would not go down so well with the Roman populace. A Roman chemical company poisons tens of thousands of Romans. The Roman people would expect the government to make heads roll at that company, and if the government fails to do so, the Roman people will make heads roll at the government for failing to fulfill its part of the social contract.
This is not to say that the Roman government’s fight against corruption and concern for social welfare is altruistic, far from it. But this ties into a view on economic growth expressed by Theodoros IV in the ‘A Diet of Pepper’ update which expresses general Roman policy. At the end of the update, note that Theodoros IV’s goal was not to make the pig as fat as possible just for the sake of having the fattest pig possible. He wanted the fattest pig possible, but also one that can slaughtered at the proper season. A bigger pig that escapes into the woods is useless to him.
What that means is that the Roman government won’t look at economic growth and view it as a goal, an end unto itself. Economic growth is a means to two ends. Firstly, furthering increasing the strength, vitality, stability, and authority of the Roman state. Second, securing the welfare of the Roman people, which ties into the first end, since people with full stomachs tend not to revolt. Economy growth that doesn’t support those two ends is, from their perspective, worthless. Economic growth that pushes lines on a graph up but that ends up all funneling into the coffers of the top 1% is not wanted in this system. In fact, not only is such growth worthless, it is actively unwanted. Because in such a paradigm, the 99% would naturally get angry at the situation, which threatens the stability of the Roman state. And because of the disproportionately extra resources at their disposal, the 1% in their own right pose a greater threat to the authority of the Roman state.
Now this system is by no means perfect. If nothing else, nobody keeps to the script forever. Furthermore, promoting the welfare of the general public would also include education, and a more educated populace will want more say in government and may not be satisfied with ‘join the civil service then’. There will be tensions and cracks, and probably the occasional explosion too, but that is the way of all things.
Dang, good grim update. Demetrios III is going out with a bang.
edit. Andronikos's line is dead I should think, no way his wife can remarry and basically zero chance his son will find a match.
They'll probably change their names, or leave Rhomania, probably both.
Will they be allowed to though?
Wife would certainly revert back to maiden name and son would take that name as well. Even so, they’re social pariahs. Emigration to Georgia or one of the Russian principalities would be the best for them, although good luck convincing customs to let them export any money to live on.
Demetrios III really does not mess around. He's probably the second most vindictive Emperor that we've ever laid our eyes on besides Andreas Niketas and his complete destruction of Venice. Well that just goes to show that you don't mess with a former bureaucrat, especially if they're the man in charge.
Also this probably falls into one the best quotes from this timeline, in my opinion.
WAIT WHAT.
As much as I like to see Anna and her gang back, to think that they were deliberately chosen to EAT Andronikos is absolutely insane. Even though I expected some pretty gruesome execution out of the perpetrators out of the scandal, this probably takes the cake. I just have have absolutely no words to describe my exact reaction to this.
----
So far the Romans are experiencing a severe depression after this scandal, and their inflexibility of their economy is seriously going to hamper the central government's efforts in actually recovering from this catastrophe. More importantly, this crisis is also affecting the military with warship production being cancelled and the army unsatisfied with the measures the government has to take in paying the soldiers under such a crisis. The Latins are definitely going to take note of this, as will the Ottomans, seeing that Rhomania is incapable of mounting an offensive campaign against them. We'll just have to see if they're willing to pounce at a weakened opponent, even one as formidable as the Roman Empire.
It'll be interesting to see how Rhomania's economic model will evolve in the future after the scandal, as they're far less willing to let banks or perhaps even private companies possess the same freedom that Latin countries might have in the future, which could be similar to OTL's Western countries. Some might say that the central government's control is extremely authoritarian, which it is, but considering Rome's history of centralized control and distrust of Republicanism ever since the Classical Era, citizens might just see it as normal or even justified to prevent decadence and corruption.
D3 is definitely going out with a bang with an extremely gratuitous display of violence at the aftermath of the scandal, although Odysseus's final words is quite the ominous cliffhanger. Who knows what could happen between father and son?
As a final question, how do Romans depict dinosaurs? Did they manage to draw them more closely to modern depictions today or are they more in line with what Britain thought of dinosaurs as of the 19th century?
The part in ‘The Fall of Men’ where Jahzara said “I thank a merciful God that Demetrios Sideros lacked ambition”, I was thinking of this specifically. Consider a mind that could imagine such a thing and then orchestrate it. Then have it want power.
Roman depiction of dinosaurs in comparable to more modern depictions (think Jurassic Park), although that’s solely because that is how Odysseus styled them in his paintings and that is what enters the Roman popular imagination.
Woah this update was friggin amazing, it really pulled me into the AoM universe in a way that I haven't felt in a while. So is Salzburg a Rhoman vassal still or has it lost all ties with the empire?
Once the Archbishop paid what he promised, he’s free and clear.
Is there a map for the current situation anywhere?
There’s the September 1634 map
@DracoLazarus made which is threadmarked, and
@Frame has been doing maps fairly regularly.
Theordoros IV is looking down smiling, "huh why didn't I think of that."
I don’t know if Theodoros IV would like the idea of paper money. Not shiny enough.
Haven't gotten AOM chills like this since the Night of the Tocsins, can you believe it's over 2 years?!
I'm in the camp of Rhomania being a great power, B444 himself said they'll be part of the big boys club but not the top dog.
In terms of sheer material resources they can't really compete, and China and India will be more competitive TTL so it'll be impossible to have a global superpower like the British Empire or USA dominating world affairs.
So in 2 OTL years, I’ve moved 8 TTL years. Well, I guess that means I don’t have to worry about the Industrial Revolution because at this rate I’ll die of old age before I get there…
Without Egypt, Italy, (and this is mostly because the ERE looks hideous on a map with the Levant but not Egypt) the Levant, modern Rhomania could still be a globally relevant nation with a status similar to the "big three" of West/Central Europe (France, the UK, and Germany), which despite no longer being top powers remain major developed nations.
I’m really surprised that you’re the first person to say so, because I’ve been thinking ever since Egypt became a Despotate that Rhomania is a real eyesore on the map. Either Egypt needs to be re-integrated (doubtful because culturally/socially it’s becoming its own thing) or the Levant needs to be taken off as its own Despotate, because those are ugly borders. Most of the religious minorities in the Empire are based in Syria, so that might be the springboard for a separate identity that eventually results in the creation of a Despotate of Syria.
Mid-level power: Middle-level power is relative. For modern Rhomania, picture it as a great power, but in a world that also has a couple of superpowers too.
Egypt: Rhomania wouldn’t willingly give away Egypt. It’d be like the loss of North Africa to the Western Roman Empire. It wasn’t done willingly and is a sign that things are going wrong elsewhere, and this is one of the symptoms.
That said, Egypt is definitely culturally and socially distinct from the Roman heartland, to a degree that Sicily isn’t. Being kept by force under centralized control from Constantinople would not go well, and even if Rhomania had the power to do so long-term it’d be a constantly simmering source of trouble. Giving them some level of autonomy while keeping them in the Imperial framework (sort of like a Despotate, fancy that) is the best and cheapest long-term solution.
Roman Democracy, Autocracy, and Revolution: Roman political developments in the coming centuries could be quite interesting, and no I have decided how it’s going to play out quite yet. Democracy will have a harder sell because of its cultural baggage, but that doesn’t make it impossible. Just picture if an Emperor does let the dynatoi screw over the common folk, especially after the precedent just set. How long before the commoners decide if that’s the case, what’s the point of having an Emperor at all? A French-style revolution could be on the cards (the Zealots are a possible inspiration from OTL). If it ended in a Napoleonic monarchy that endured to the present day, that’d still leave Rhomania as a monarchy.
Autocracy of the current 1630s variety though definitely can’t last forever. That will have to change in some way or another, and if the Basileus tries to resist it kicking and screaming, he’ll end up like the Tsars.
Succession System: Yeah, the Roman/Byzantine succession system was ‘we don’t have a system’. Often times it functioned as a de facto hereditary succession. The Macedonian dynasty is a good example of that. But then you have the Palaiologoi, which lasted two centuries but with constant infighting between family members for the throne. Probably no official system will be put into writing until if and when a ‘Roman Constitution’ appears and this is one of the areas it covers.
Honestly this seems excessive. We are talking about a 22 year depression which is quite literally an entire generation. The longest one I could think of was appropriately called "long depression" in 1873 which lasted 65 months or about 5.5 years. A quick google search also shows the UK had the post-Napoleonic depression which lasted 9 years. I guess the question I would have here is..is this entire period marked by economic contraction (the definition of depression/recession) or was it meant more as "the economy did not regain the dynamism of the 1630's until 1660 though the depression itself was over by 164X" as that is very different things. 22years of contraction would leave Rome a husk by the end of it. A period of sharp retraction followed by a prolonged period of stagnation/minimal growth on the other hand would still leave Rhome in a powerful position.
Point taken. The section has been revised as the following:
The longer-term effects play out over years, well past the end of Demetrios III’s reign. When the depression ends is uncertain, and depends on the metrics one uses. Latin economists typically date the end as 1644-45, when some growth appears after the collapse and stagnation of the preceding years. Roman economists on the other hand use 1660 as the earliest end date of the depression, since that is the earliest point when it can be argued that the Roman economy regains its 1630s level. In Roman economic theory, a depression is defined as the period of contraction as well as the time needed to regain the lost ground as ‘just because one has started the process of climbing out of the hole doesn’t mean one isn’t still in the hole’.
Whoo, what an update. That was quite... exciting. I wonder when the Green Ships will bite the Romans at the most inconvenient point...
By the way, the canal in question between the Mediterranean and Red Seas kinda already exists, going from the Red Sea to the Nile at Marienburg am Nil. While its military application is quite limited at this point, it is still the most powerful economic vein that Rhomania controls.
Considering that this canal joins the Nile, and not the Mediterranean directly, I'd say that Lower Egypt at the very least will be remaining under Roman oversight for a good few centuries.
Hmm... given that this canal already exists, would the Romans, in the 19th century, still build a direct Red-to-Med connection, or follow the old canal to the Nile?
They’d build a direct connection. Trying to sail a battleship down the Nile to Cairo to reach the Canal would not end well.
