Enjoyed the update. Just curious, could any tensions erupt between the Greeks and Germans to make them stop co-operating?
Easily. The question is more how to keep them from doing so than anything else.
Enjoyed the update. Just curious, could any tensions erupt between the Greeks and Germans to make them stop co-operating?
Easily. The question is more how to keep them from doing so than anything else.![]()
Other global trends in this TL for the period 1180-1220:
1.Almohad advances in Iberia leading to a stronger Moorish presence in that region and a far more important "western" Islamic world in the long run. I do not want this a be a Roman TL in which the Islamic world's influence excessively wanes.
Quick question before I send in my next update tonight, is there a consensus on what the medieval Romans called Hungary and Hungarians in the 12th and 13th centuries?
Nice update, but a few things:
1. Spelling for some words needs to be looked at again.
2. Would Frederick still drown in this TL?
2. It makes just as much sense as it did in OTL, even with butterflies. Frederick's still hot, thirsty, and tired, crossing a river on an uncertain horse, wearing heavy armor . . . the works.
I think it's unlikely to happen in all possible timelines, but it's not by any means unlikelier to happen in this one than OTL.
And nice to see that the sheer workload of rebuilding the Roman position on the plateau is acknowledged by the update.That's one thing that really plagues writing Hohenstaufen or Byzantine timelines in this era - possibilities exist, but the effort is considerable.
And it's way too easy to make light of it.
I can agree with the drowning part. When you say rebuild the Central Plateau, you mean reconquer it and then...? One final question, how can someone make easy light of it?
And it's all treated as if it would just happen as a matter of course, with no need for military campaigns to reimpose control, to swat brigands and raiders, no great investment in fortifications or roads or the Akritai - it just happens.Greek Christians are still a majority in the former Seljuk lands, the minority Turks blend into the population, Hellenizing and Christianizing by about 1300 except for those who leave for Muslim states.
Reconquer it and then hold it. Whether you let the Turks people it or move populations around, you need it populated by by tax payers, not brigands.
And convincing the Turcomen that the former is better than the latter (one way or another) is going to be time consuming. Not impossible, but their wild and unruly way of life is profitable to them, they're not going to abandon it just because the cities are in Rhomanian hands.
As for making easy light of it, here's an example:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=34282
And it's all treated as if it would just happen as a matter of course, with no need for military campaigns to reimpose control, to swat brigands and raiders, no great investment in fortifications or roads or the Akritai - it just happens.
Now, I'm reasonably sure the author didn't intend for it to taken as if it was a mere matter of marching - the description of the stuff leading up to the final fall of Iconium seems sound enough, although I'm not sure of the description of that particular siege.
But the way the follow up is presented - that's how to make light of it.
Even if the Turks are a minority, they're a troublesome minority.
How did the Ottomans convince the Turcomans to give their formerly Nomadic life? Surely the Byzantines can do something similar? Possibly a matter of population transfers and crushing the occasional Turcoman band that starts to cause trouble?
One final question, if the Byzantines conquer the Central Plateau and Eastern Anatolia (for the sake of argument, let say Trebizond-Kars-Van-Edessa etc) in the 1180s-1240s, then how could the demographic info of those areas be in 1900, taking into account conversions, assimilation etc?