alternatehistory.com
17
Re: Bulgaria, its an option and we'll see how it goes.
Anyways, going to try something new. Timeline's going to flash forward to the mid 1370s after this next set of posts as that's when the initial phase of recovery will have paid off and John V will be actually wielding power. Therefore, since it'll be around 30-40 years after the POD I feel like I should talk about what's been going on around the rest of the world and how the butterflies have been kicking in. Most of the time these should be short, one page or so summaries that don't go into much detail if that's alright. I want to give a sense of whats been going on but at the same time the last thing I need is to be bogged down in one corner of the world trying to iron out specific details when broad strokes will do the same. This is Eastern Rome's story, not anyone else's.
-----
While Romania fell into a period of rest and reorganization following its war with Venice, not all had that luxury of peace and quiet. All around, the nations of the world were undergoing a state of flux; with some waxing and others waning. It is a time of violent clashes and tense struggles, as the cusp of a new age dawns. Let us take a moment to bring you up to speed on how things have changed in the brief, fleeting moment the empire is at peace.
If there is a word to describe the situation of the Southwest Europe during the latter half of the 1350s and the 60s, it was detente. The previous clashes that had so characterized centuries of policy between the 3 majors states (Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania) of the region had given way to a mutually agreed sentiment of peace. All 3 sides, despite their intense rivalries with each other had felt that it was more beneficial to keep the peace and turn their energies to other matters.
Now you know that the elites in Romania were very wary of spending valued blood and treasure on wars for some uncertain prize of land and fortresses. But that leaves Serbia and Bulgaria? Why did they remain at peace with their each other, and Romania? The simple answer is that there were more pressing matters to attend to, either at home or abroad that made the prospect of warring unwise. For Serbia, there is the looming threat of Hungary, growing stronger each year by the leadership of their young king Louis. Coming on the scene at the head of a shattering realm, Louis returned the level of centralization that his father’s reforms had started, working hard to cement royal authority along with rebuilding the depleted army. By the 1360s, his work had been mostly completed, and Serbia was increasingly worrying over another round of invasion, this time far larger and more brutal than the previous. Now, it was time to placate her neighbors and ensure the Serbian military was at a state of constant readiness in the event of a sudden invasion.
But what about Bulgaria? During the latter half of the reign of Bulgaria, the tsardom came to deal with the problems of an increasingly independent minded Bolyar class that had started to resent royal authority and were making trouble for Ivan Alexander. This wasn’t helped by the policy of creating what Romania would call ‘despotates’, in which a viceroy under the Tsar’s permission would exercise considerable amount of authority. The amount varied depending on person of course, but it had a noticeably corrosive effect on the power of the central government.
Obviously, such a thing had to be dealt with, but such a thing would inevitably be costly and expend much political will and likely lead to revolts. Common sense dictates that in order to go about your costly centralization efforts you need a conductive environment and, of course, the easiest way to do so would be to eliminate the risk of having those who would try to stir the pot. Alliances had been made with Serbia and Romania in the 1330s-40s, but they were confirmed later in order to buy Bulgaria enough time to hopefully reform. And in this there was success. Ivan Alexander, as the last main accomplishment of his long reign had brought back the tsar’s power. Wasn’t easy, wasn’t fast, but ultimately it was successful.
Now what of the other states in the [Balkans] you ask? Epirus and Achaea? The former is in the process of having its economic integrity destroyed as the Romans continue to dump cheap manufactured goods and grain from the Black Sea and Bulgaria into the region. This doesn’t sound like much as most of the population would be subsistence farmers, but it does hurt the state’s economy and makes it more dependent on her neighbors and imports.
As for Achaea, it continues to be a source of quasi-exile for Neapolitan nobles.
[1] Without the Ottomans, what we know as the Balkans wouldn’t be called that. Instead lets use the nice, neutral name of Southeast Europe, that can conveniently be stretched to include anything south and east of Germany.
Anyways, going to try something new. Timeline's going to flash forward to the mid 1370s after this next set of posts as that's when the initial phase of recovery will have paid off and John V will be actually wielding power. Therefore, since it'll be around 30-40 years after the POD I feel like I should talk about what's been going on around the rest of the world and how the butterflies have been kicking in. Most of the time these should be short, one page or so summaries that don't go into much detail if that's alright. I want to give a sense of whats been going on but at the same time the last thing I need is to be bogged down in one corner of the world trying to iron out specific details when broad strokes will do the same. This is Eastern Rome's story, not anyone else's.
-----
The World Around Rome
While Romania fell into a period of rest and reorganization following its war with Venice, not all had that luxury of peace and quiet. All around, the nations of the world were undergoing a state of flux; with some waxing and others waning. It is a time of violent clashes and tense struggles, as the cusp of a new age dawns. Let us take a moment to bring you up to speed on how things have changed in the brief, fleeting moment the empire is at peace.
Southeast Europe [1]
If there is a word to describe the situation of the Southwest Europe during the latter half of the 1350s and the 60s, it was detente. The previous clashes that had so characterized centuries of policy between the 3 majors states (Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania) of the region had given way to a mutually agreed sentiment of peace. All 3 sides, despite their intense rivalries with each other had felt that it was more beneficial to keep the peace and turn their energies to other matters.
Now you know that the elites in Romania were very wary of spending valued blood and treasure on wars for some uncertain prize of land and fortresses. But that leaves Serbia and Bulgaria? Why did they remain at peace with their each other, and Romania? The simple answer is that there were more pressing matters to attend to, either at home or abroad that made the prospect of warring unwise. For Serbia, there is the looming threat of Hungary, growing stronger each year by the leadership of their young king Louis. Coming on the scene at the head of a shattering realm, Louis returned the level of centralization that his father’s reforms had started, working hard to cement royal authority along with rebuilding the depleted army. By the 1360s, his work had been mostly completed, and Serbia was increasingly worrying over another round of invasion, this time far larger and more brutal than the previous. Now, it was time to placate her neighbors and ensure the Serbian military was at a state of constant readiness in the event of a sudden invasion.
But what about Bulgaria? During the latter half of the reign of Bulgaria, the tsardom came to deal with the problems of an increasingly independent minded Bolyar class that had started to resent royal authority and were making trouble for Ivan Alexander. This wasn’t helped by the policy of creating what Romania would call ‘despotates’, in which a viceroy under the Tsar’s permission would exercise considerable amount of authority. The amount varied depending on person of course, but it had a noticeably corrosive effect on the power of the central government.
Obviously, such a thing had to be dealt with, but such a thing would inevitably be costly and expend much political will and likely lead to revolts. Common sense dictates that in order to go about your costly centralization efforts you need a conductive environment and, of course, the easiest way to do so would be to eliminate the risk of having those who would try to stir the pot. Alliances had been made with Serbia and Romania in the 1330s-40s, but they were confirmed later in order to buy Bulgaria enough time to hopefully reform. And in this there was success. Ivan Alexander, as the last main accomplishment of his long reign had brought back the tsar’s power. Wasn’t easy, wasn’t fast, but ultimately it was successful.
Now what of the other states in the [Balkans] you ask? Epirus and Achaea? The former is in the process of having its economic integrity destroyed as the Romans continue to dump cheap manufactured goods and grain from the Black Sea and Bulgaria into the region. This doesn’t sound like much as most of the population would be subsistence farmers, but it does hurt the state’s economy and makes it more dependent on her neighbors and imports.
As for Achaea, it continues to be a source of quasi-exile for Neapolitan nobles.
[1] Without the Ottomans, what we know as the Balkans wouldn’t be called that. Instead lets use the nice, neutral name of Southeast Europe, that can conveniently be stretched to include anything south and east of Germany.