That kind of resource reliance on the Ottomans is unacceptable in the long term though.
Here's hoping the Romans dump money on nuclearization of the Grid while fleecing the West with oil tariffs.
An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
Here's hoping the Romans dump money on nuclearization of the Grid while fleecing the West with oil tariffs.
I don't think the Romans are reliant on the Ottomans for oil. They probably have their own resources. I think the Ottoman are reliant on pipelines through Roman territory to reach European markets. As long as the Romans are not trying to jack prices too high, the Europeans will not want to rely on tankers.
Keep in mind they also have good relations with Georgia, which controls modern-day Azerbaijan's oil reserves if I am not deeply mistaken. Also, Russia is a major oil producer as well. If push came to shove, the Romans would have plenty of options.
Though nuclearization is still a good idea, as long as you keep it out of earthquake zones. Also, I believe Anatolia has some good hydropower potential, so on the whole I think the Romans will be just fine long-term as far as energy resources go.
Evilprodigy
Donor
Why bother with the terminals? Send the pipeline right through the Balkans and Sicily into Western Europe. Cheaper that way.
At a guess, Spain may not want the Triunes or France/Arles controlling the pipelines that run to them. they would probably be happier sending tankers to Rhomania to mover the oil through the Med by sea. Granted, they might also be getting oil from North Africa.
Plus the countries that can hook up to Ottoman oil pipes via the Romans will probably be served by natgas pipes from Russia instead. It's a giant plain from Russia to Central Europe, whereas it's an endless slog through mountains to get across Anatolia and the Balkans.
It's the Southern European nations like anyone in Italy or Iberia that'll go for oil tankers.
It's the Southern European nations like anyone in Italy or Iberia that'll go for oil tankers.
Rhomania's General Crisis, Part 1: A Matter of Timing
When I made that oil comment, I was mainly doing it so the Shah could make a Palpatine reference... But one of the more established 'future facts' is modern Rhomania being a pioneer in nuclear and green power sources, initially largely to avoid resource dependence on others for fossil fuels, and later for environmental reasons.
Historians sometimes speak of the General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century, a period of great upheaval and turmoil across Eurasia. Nowadays the General Crisis is typically linked with the Little Ice Age as a crucial, perhaps decisive, contributing factor, but the term predates the rise in environmental history. Other historians criticize the term, noting that wars and rebellions and turmoil are hardly rare phenomenon, and so the period is not really that unique. But even the naysayers do not argue that the mid-1600s were not a period of upheaval.
From the Highlands of Scotland to the Kanto Plain, the middle of the seventeenth century would see popular uprisings shuddering state structures. All of these areas were inflicted, in one way or another and in varying degrees, by the rigors of the Little Ice Age. Whether or not those by themselves would’ve triggered these explosions is hotly debated by scholars, but most agree they were important but not decisive. Even under the much more benevolent climate of the 1550s, it is doubtful Germany could’ve sustained the armies crashing through it during the last phase of the War of the Roman Succession.
As one historian of the period put it, “all explosions were alike in the sense that all were explosions, but each exploded in its own unique way”. Persia did not explode at all, even though the fuel was there, but it smoldered. The Rising of the North in Vijayanagar, in its bid to resurrect the Bahmani Sultanate, would have made absolutely no sense to an angry fishmonger in Naples named Masaniello. The Army of Suffering and the Edo Regime both appealed to a vision of an Emperor, but they imagined quite different Emperors.
Rhomania’s General Crisis is an excellent example of this. The way its crisis played out was profoundly shaped by the contexts of Roman society and the personal decisions Romans made in those contexts, and the ensuing reactions.
Rhomania in 1659 was at a similar state to what the Ottoman Empire would be throughout this whole period, a state of smoldering tension due to climate problems, with frequent flare-ups but nothing big and catching. However, Rhomania in 1659 was not the Ottoman Empire of 1659. There was much greater communication and flow of information between the various regions (even if paltry by latter standards), meaning that the average Roman in, say, Attica, was more likely to hear of grain riots and food shipment hijackings in Pontus than their Persian equivalent. That information might very well inspire that Attica-dweller to partake in similar actions.
Furthermore, with the many printing presses and university-educated men, there was much more articulation of ideas that were not state-approved. Elites who identified with the state apparatus were simply not the only game in town when it came to the dissemination of ideas.
These alternative ideas had greater traction in Rhomania compared to Persia because the former was, to put it one way, more ‘modern’ than the latter. The growth of a market economy with its effects on wider society were significantly more advanced in Rhomania than in Persia. Farmers who raised for the market rather than for subsidence were much more heavily impacted by economic downturns, and there were more of the former in Rhomania.
Producing for the market undermined traditional peasant support mechanisms, where surpluses were feasted out on the neighbors to create ties of obligations for times of need. If the surplus grain went out to market, it couldn’t be gifted to neighbors. Now the money from market sales could be gifted out in an effort to create those ties of obligation, but peasants had no banks or investment opportunities. And in times of food scarcity, food prices went up, meaning that the money would be worth less precisely when it was needed most.
Roman society was thus in a very awkward position when the height of the Little Ice Age struck. The growth of a market economy had destabilized some of the traditional support mechanisms and disoriented people, but since this was all still prior to the Agricultural and Industrial Revolution, there were none of those massive production increases that could’ve made up for the loss of those support mechanisms. Traditional society certainly wasn’t all roses. It had its own inequalities and abuses and famines, but at least they were familiar. Now there were new inequalities and abuses, and there were still famines.
None of this was especially unique in kind in Rhomania, although perhaps in degree. But while the Roman state faced this pressure from below, there was also a threat from within, with a dissident element within the broader elite of Roman society. These were the war hawks.
By the end of the 1650s, they were getting more and more frustrated. The cession of Malta to Sicily and the concessions to Spain in the Treaty of Saluzzo bothered them. The end of war in Germany made their ideas for expansionism in Europe more dangerous. They felt that opportunities were being squandered.
Some of the war hawks’ ardor had cooled over the decade as the rigors of the Little Ice Age hit. Given agricultural difficulties, engaging in foreign adventures seemed like a bad idea. With this argument, some acolytes from the earlier 1650s began to fall away. Time had also helped to heal old wounds; it was now over twenty years since the Roman phase of the great war had ended, so for some these issues no longer mattered as much.
But this did not apply to all, and in the manner of these things, the loss of some acolytes tended to make those who remained more determined in their belief. The remaining war hawks acknowledged that material factors made foreign wars more difficult, but that was immaterial. The foreign wars were necessary. The Romans had been snubbed by not being invited to Cologne; it was clear the Latins did not respect or fear them. It was required to change their attitudes. The mutilated victory, as they viewed the end of the Roman phase of the War of the Roman Succession, was not enough.
Many also argued that renewed war with the Latins was inevitable. Based on Latin success in the last war, bigger buffer zones were needed. Now the better time to secure those buffer zones would’ve been 5-10 years earlier when the Latins were smashing each other to pieces in Germany. But the next best time would be now, when the Latins were only starting to recover from their bloodletting. Since war was inevitable, better sooner rather than later.
An addendum to this argument asserted that a smaller war now might actually nullify the inevitability of a bigger war. A victorious smaller war now, if it was successful enough, might elevate Roman prestige and military reputation enough to scare off the Latins. But Thessaloniki had not been enough per this argument.
To be fair to the war hawks, Roman historiography even at this time pointed to a long history of Latin aggressions against the Empire, going back at least to the Normans in the mid-eleventh century. Clearly the Romans did need to guard their western borders well. The flaw was that their worldview presented the Latins as a monolithic bloc, constantly and implacably hostile to the Romans. This was not the case. The Romans had suffered from Latin aggression in the past, but the motivations and contexts of Norman, Venetian, and Theodor’s attacks had all been quite different from each other, even if all of them had been Latins in the Roman terminology.
This flaw was pointed out at the time by opponents of the war hawks. Most war hawks took this at first to be a sign of naivete, even though the actions of Joao I regarding Roman Imperial titling clearly illustrated that Latins did not all think alike when it came to Romans. But as they grew more urgent and feeling that time was not on their side, many war hawks viewed such counter-arguments as cowardly, perhaps even treacherous. If the Imperial glory and prestige was to be revived as they felt it must be for imperial survival, those cowards and traitors needed to be removed.
The Ottomans occupied an ambivalent state in war hawk mentalities. There was much less rancor with the situation in the east than in the west, but there were concerns of a Persian spoiler. The War of the Roman Succession had been made appreciably harder for the Romans because of Ibrahim’s assault on Syria. A Roman campaign in Europe would have much better chances if there were no distractions in Asia. Persia had been left too strong and would need to be neutered. Here too the feeling was that time was not on the war hawks’ side, as Iskandar was clearly doing too good of a job as Shahanshah. Every year that passed, it would be harder to force the Persians to submit to the castration.
The use of the terms ‘neuter’ and ‘castration’ are deliberate. Much war hawk rhetoric had a highly masculine component. There were concerns over the Latins viewing the Romans as effeminate, which encouraged Latin assaults on Rhomania. (There was much historical evidence for this.) Thus, Romans needed to show manly vigor and prowess, with some war hawks making far too many references to the size of cannons. That it was a woman, Athena, who blocked them and pursued a path of peace and diplomacy, only encouraged this mentality.
Initially, the war hawks had hoped and expected that when Herakleios III came of age, he would take power from Athena, and he would be much more sympathetic and supportive of their goals. But on December 12, 1658, he had turned twenty-six years old and showed no signs of asserting his authority. Athena, meanwhile, was a healthy forty-two-year-old who showed no signs of going anywhere.
On February 9, 1659, Athena is returning to the White Palace from the theater, a regular practice of hers. Her carriage is forced to stop because the road up ahead was blocked; a cart had overturned and spilled its contents, barrels of pickles, all over the street, blocking it. Her cavalry escort moves ahead to help clear the obstacle while Athena’s carriage waited. The carriage windows are covered, to help retain heat, but the only occupants are Athena, seated on the right, and Alexeia Kukuritzia, one of those women who’d dressed up as men to fight in the War of the Roman Succession and who had made Athena’s acquaintance during the Siege of Thessaloniki, entering her service after the war, sitting next to Athena.
A man emerges from the crowd, pulls out a wheel-lock kyzikos from under his coat, and fires at the footman still at the right door of the carriage, shattering the man’s left ribcage. Dropping the gun, he then pulls out a dirk, yanks open the carriage door, and while screaming “Death to the Whore of Babylon!” stabs Athena three times. Alexeia, finally managing to get her own weapon free in the confined space of the carriage, then stabs the man in the face, who is then apprehended by the cavalry escort.
Athena is stabbed once in the neck and twice in the upper chest, one strike barely missing her lung. Athena loses a great deal of blood but fortunately Alexeia’s battlefield experience gives her the knowledge she needs to stop the loss in time before it becomes fatal.
Athena does not die, but her recovery is promptly hampered since in her weakness she contracts a bad case of pneumonia. She manages to recover from that as well, but it is clear to all, and especially herself, that her health has been radically undermined. Out of weakness, she has to delegate more authority to the Emperor Herakleios III, who despite himself is forced to properly begin ruling.
The would-be assassin is subject to all the tortures the Romans can imagine, but to the end he persists in claiming he acted alone and of his own accord. Given the context of the age, people then and now are highly suspicious of that.
It'll be a little while, but that stuff that gets him to being a big name in the history books is coming up. It's what he does as Admiral that makes him famous; so far, he's just been a junior officer up to Captain. In 1656 he turned 40.
* * *
Rhomania’s General Crisis, part 1-A Matter of Timing:
Rhomania’s General Crisis, part 1-A Matter of Timing:
Historians sometimes speak of the General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century, a period of great upheaval and turmoil across Eurasia. Nowadays the General Crisis is typically linked with the Little Ice Age as a crucial, perhaps decisive, contributing factor, but the term predates the rise in environmental history. Other historians criticize the term, noting that wars and rebellions and turmoil are hardly rare phenomenon, and so the period is not really that unique. But even the naysayers do not argue that the mid-1600s were not a period of upheaval.
From the Highlands of Scotland to the Kanto Plain, the middle of the seventeenth century would see popular uprisings shuddering state structures. All of these areas were inflicted, in one way or another and in varying degrees, by the rigors of the Little Ice Age. Whether or not those by themselves would’ve triggered these explosions is hotly debated by scholars, but most agree they were important but not decisive. Even under the much more benevolent climate of the 1550s, it is doubtful Germany could’ve sustained the armies crashing through it during the last phase of the War of the Roman Succession.
As one historian of the period put it, “all explosions were alike in the sense that all were explosions, but each exploded in its own unique way”. Persia did not explode at all, even though the fuel was there, but it smoldered. The Rising of the North in Vijayanagar, in its bid to resurrect the Bahmani Sultanate, would have made absolutely no sense to an angry fishmonger in Naples named Masaniello. The Army of Suffering and the Edo Regime both appealed to a vision of an Emperor, but they imagined quite different Emperors.
Rhomania’s General Crisis is an excellent example of this. The way its crisis played out was profoundly shaped by the contexts of Roman society and the personal decisions Romans made in those contexts, and the ensuing reactions.
Rhomania in 1659 was at a similar state to what the Ottoman Empire would be throughout this whole period, a state of smoldering tension due to climate problems, with frequent flare-ups but nothing big and catching. However, Rhomania in 1659 was not the Ottoman Empire of 1659. There was much greater communication and flow of information between the various regions (even if paltry by latter standards), meaning that the average Roman in, say, Attica, was more likely to hear of grain riots and food shipment hijackings in Pontus than their Persian equivalent. That information might very well inspire that Attica-dweller to partake in similar actions.
Furthermore, with the many printing presses and university-educated men, there was much more articulation of ideas that were not state-approved. Elites who identified with the state apparatus were simply not the only game in town when it came to the dissemination of ideas.
These alternative ideas had greater traction in Rhomania compared to Persia because the former was, to put it one way, more ‘modern’ than the latter. The growth of a market economy with its effects on wider society were significantly more advanced in Rhomania than in Persia. Farmers who raised for the market rather than for subsidence were much more heavily impacted by economic downturns, and there were more of the former in Rhomania.
Producing for the market undermined traditional peasant support mechanisms, where surpluses were feasted out on the neighbors to create ties of obligations for times of need. If the surplus grain went out to market, it couldn’t be gifted to neighbors. Now the money from market sales could be gifted out in an effort to create those ties of obligation, but peasants had no banks or investment opportunities. And in times of food scarcity, food prices went up, meaning that the money would be worth less precisely when it was needed most.
Roman society was thus in a very awkward position when the height of the Little Ice Age struck. The growth of a market economy had destabilized some of the traditional support mechanisms and disoriented people, but since this was all still prior to the Agricultural and Industrial Revolution, there were none of those massive production increases that could’ve made up for the loss of those support mechanisms. Traditional society certainly wasn’t all roses. It had its own inequalities and abuses and famines, but at least they were familiar. Now there were new inequalities and abuses, and there were still famines.
None of this was especially unique in kind in Rhomania, although perhaps in degree. But while the Roman state faced this pressure from below, there was also a threat from within, with a dissident element within the broader elite of Roman society. These were the war hawks.
By the end of the 1650s, they were getting more and more frustrated. The cession of Malta to Sicily and the concessions to Spain in the Treaty of Saluzzo bothered them. The end of war in Germany made their ideas for expansionism in Europe more dangerous. They felt that opportunities were being squandered.
Some of the war hawks’ ardor had cooled over the decade as the rigors of the Little Ice Age hit. Given agricultural difficulties, engaging in foreign adventures seemed like a bad idea. With this argument, some acolytes from the earlier 1650s began to fall away. Time had also helped to heal old wounds; it was now over twenty years since the Roman phase of the great war had ended, so for some these issues no longer mattered as much.
But this did not apply to all, and in the manner of these things, the loss of some acolytes tended to make those who remained more determined in their belief. The remaining war hawks acknowledged that material factors made foreign wars more difficult, but that was immaterial. The foreign wars were necessary. The Romans had been snubbed by not being invited to Cologne; it was clear the Latins did not respect or fear them. It was required to change their attitudes. The mutilated victory, as they viewed the end of the Roman phase of the War of the Roman Succession, was not enough.
Many also argued that renewed war with the Latins was inevitable. Based on Latin success in the last war, bigger buffer zones were needed. Now the better time to secure those buffer zones would’ve been 5-10 years earlier when the Latins were smashing each other to pieces in Germany. But the next best time would be now, when the Latins were only starting to recover from their bloodletting. Since war was inevitable, better sooner rather than later.
An addendum to this argument asserted that a smaller war now might actually nullify the inevitability of a bigger war. A victorious smaller war now, if it was successful enough, might elevate Roman prestige and military reputation enough to scare off the Latins. But Thessaloniki had not been enough per this argument.
To be fair to the war hawks, Roman historiography even at this time pointed to a long history of Latin aggressions against the Empire, going back at least to the Normans in the mid-eleventh century. Clearly the Romans did need to guard their western borders well. The flaw was that their worldview presented the Latins as a monolithic bloc, constantly and implacably hostile to the Romans. This was not the case. The Romans had suffered from Latin aggression in the past, but the motivations and contexts of Norman, Venetian, and Theodor’s attacks had all been quite different from each other, even if all of them had been Latins in the Roman terminology.
This flaw was pointed out at the time by opponents of the war hawks. Most war hawks took this at first to be a sign of naivete, even though the actions of Joao I regarding Roman Imperial titling clearly illustrated that Latins did not all think alike when it came to Romans. But as they grew more urgent and feeling that time was not on their side, many war hawks viewed such counter-arguments as cowardly, perhaps even treacherous. If the Imperial glory and prestige was to be revived as they felt it must be for imperial survival, those cowards and traitors needed to be removed.
The Ottomans occupied an ambivalent state in war hawk mentalities. There was much less rancor with the situation in the east than in the west, but there were concerns of a Persian spoiler. The War of the Roman Succession had been made appreciably harder for the Romans because of Ibrahim’s assault on Syria. A Roman campaign in Europe would have much better chances if there were no distractions in Asia. Persia had been left too strong and would need to be neutered. Here too the feeling was that time was not on the war hawks’ side, as Iskandar was clearly doing too good of a job as Shahanshah. Every year that passed, it would be harder to force the Persians to submit to the castration.
The use of the terms ‘neuter’ and ‘castration’ are deliberate. Much war hawk rhetoric had a highly masculine component. There were concerns over the Latins viewing the Romans as effeminate, which encouraged Latin assaults on Rhomania. (There was much historical evidence for this.) Thus, Romans needed to show manly vigor and prowess, with some war hawks making far too many references to the size of cannons. That it was a woman, Athena, who blocked them and pursued a path of peace and diplomacy, only encouraged this mentality.
Initially, the war hawks had hoped and expected that when Herakleios III came of age, he would take power from Athena, and he would be much more sympathetic and supportive of their goals. But on December 12, 1658, he had turned twenty-six years old and showed no signs of asserting his authority. Athena, meanwhile, was a healthy forty-two-year-old who showed no signs of going anywhere.
On February 9, 1659, Athena is returning to the White Palace from the theater, a regular practice of hers. Her carriage is forced to stop because the road up ahead was blocked; a cart had overturned and spilled its contents, barrels of pickles, all over the street, blocking it. Her cavalry escort moves ahead to help clear the obstacle while Athena’s carriage waited. The carriage windows are covered, to help retain heat, but the only occupants are Athena, seated on the right, and Alexeia Kukuritzia, one of those women who’d dressed up as men to fight in the War of the Roman Succession and who had made Athena’s acquaintance during the Siege of Thessaloniki, entering her service after the war, sitting next to Athena.
A man emerges from the crowd, pulls out a wheel-lock kyzikos from under his coat, and fires at the footman still at the right door of the carriage, shattering the man’s left ribcage. Dropping the gun, he then pulls out a dirk, yanks open the carriage door, and while screaming “Death to the Whore of Babylon!” stabs Athena three times. Alexeia, finally managing to get her own weapon free in the confined space of the carriage, then stabs the man in the face, who is then apprehended by the cavalry escort.
Athena is stabbed once in the neck and twice in the upper chest, one strike barely missing her lung. Athena loses a great deal of blood but fortunately Alexeia’s battlefield experience gives her the knowledge she needs to stop the loss in time before it becomes fatal.
Athena does not die, but her recovery is promptly hampered since in her weakness she contracts a bad case of pneumonia. She manages to recover from that as well, but it is clear to all, and especially herself, that her health has been radically undermined. Out of weakness, she has to delegate more authority to the Emperor Herakleios III, who despite himself is forced to properly begin ruling.
The would-be assassin is subject to all the tortures the Romans can imagine, but to the end he persists in claiming he acted alone and of his own accord. Given the context of the age, people then and now are highly suspicious of that.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
Considering the title Army of Suffering, something tells me this spell of aggressive militaristic adventurism does not go well.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
B444 might have something specific, but I think almost every country during this period had some sort of pro-expansion faction. Sweden, Russia, and France definitely did otl, as did the Ottomans.
God, I just hate the warhawks so much. Whatever progress Athena has made in trying to keep Rhomania afloat is going to be turned to ash if Herakleios comes to power and kicks up another costly war. Considering Herakleios's incompetence, the Army of Suffering might not be a worthy title for a situation like this. More like an Army of Starvation.
The question is which country do the warhawks have in mind in trying to "assert" dominance? Surely it can't be Persia, the nation that Odysseus spent untold amounts of Roman blood and his own life in order to keep the peace, right?
The question is which country do the warhawks have in mind in trying to "assert" dominance? Surely it can't be Persia, the nation that Odysseus spent untold amounts of Roman blood and his own life in order to keep the peace, right?
Yeah, but they feel somewhat modern regarding tactics. I'd assume usually this would be done by court intrigue, not assassinations. It would be an interesting read if there really was similar stuff.
Reading through that update my main worry was the Japan hints. Hope united orthodox Japan makes it out alive. As for Rhomania I actually think they'll be fine within a few decades at most. There's quite alot going against the war hawk faction as I see it at the moment and drastic actions like these are only going to alienate them even more.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
Well there is this nice and definitely weak nation already ruled by a Roman noble that would be easy prey, right? Surely Persia would know better than to try and interfere just to get beaten again./s
I believe this is the first time this has been mentioned. Has there a regime/dynasic change in Japan? Or did the Shimazu regime simply pack up and move shop to an up and coming political power centre? Maybe to capitalize on a growing Manila/Mexico trade with Terranova?
The war hawks should have been careful what they wished for. It seems likely they'll finally get the war they wanted so badly, just that a civil war is more likely than a war with the Latins.