Evilprodigy
Donor
The war that killed like, 1/3 of Germany's population? Including 1/2 of the total male population? The war whose damage was not surpassed until 1945?
I doubt the damage will be anywhere near that severe.
An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
I doubt the damage will be anywhere near that severe.
I think you (and HanEmpire) are both on the money, pun intended. I wonder if the HRE gets shattered much like how it did as a result of the Thirty Years War and I wonder how long it takes for Germany (or whatever it is called ITTL) to pull itself back together again.
I admit it would tough to too OTL, but there are a lot of factors will contribute to the carnage.
Armies and military tech are larger and more advanced compared to OTL.
The breadth of the war will be much larger, the Triunes and Romans are active participants.
The Imperial Army has been severely weakened but not completely shattered. Just enough for the Wittelsbachs to put up a fight against those who will capitalise on their weakness.
Evilprodigy
Donor
Ok but, keep in mind this was devastating population loss through battle, famine, disease, and the rampage of armies for pretty much 30 years straight. Better tech just means more deadly battles, which could paradoxically make the war less deadly since it ends more quickly.
Fair enough, we’ll see.
Maybe there’s a good reason D3 is “forgotten”, lets see what Emperor Odysseus does to the barbarians.
You know I've been thinking for awhile now that Demetrios and Odysseus could become another Theodoros and Andreas. Demetrios can't end this war meekly, he needs to extract a blood toll to make the Latins remember the war. It's a good time for Odysseus to come into his own.
Evilprodigy
Donor
Didn't Demetrios in the concept of Latin aggression say that blood was needed to keep the Latins away? I think he has it in him to do it.
If the war goes bad for the Allies, it would be Hungary (and maybe Serbia) who would suffer a Roman counterattack. Germany would sue for peace (well, maybe not Theodor, but he'll probably be either deposed or fighting a civil war by that time if he insists to persist) before the Romans reach more than the HRE's peripheries.
See, I think this is a more likely defection than Blucher, especially because he shares a Roman disdain for Templars and Inquisitors. I absolutely loved this line, and the Archibishop is one of my favorite characters in the war.
The Romans just absolutely shattered the Allied Danube fleet, and rolled back every hard-fought inch of Bulgaria that the Allies bled for during a year in what seems like a week. Demetrios is no less a "Mary Sue" character than you allege Blucher is just because his unparalleled talent lies in administration rather than tactics.
He's a brilliant administrator...who's let huge chunks of Roman territory either fall into revolt or get occupied by foreign armies. If he was to the level of Iskander his enemies would, despite occupying Roman territory, not only give all that territory back but cede some of their own territory for good measure. This actually happened ITTL by the way, I'm not being hyperbolic.
Not to mention we've gotten tons of characterization about D3's flaws - he's not at all ambitious, is admittedly useless on the battlefield (however he's smart enough to realize that as opposed to trying to be a warrior-king) and was pushed into the throne by his wife in the first place.
(Side note: The D3-Mrs. D3 [I forget her name at the moment] relationship intrigues the shit out of me. He clearly loves her, and her him, but he's got no problem having a long term, live-in mistress. Does she have her own affair? I don't remember. I'll have to read those sections again as it has been a while so I may be remembering it all wrong.)
Anyway, side note over: D3 is far more flawed (and therefore real) than Blucher is. Much harder to run an empire than "only" an army however, so that's to be expected. Blucher is so good at his job that he breaks the Golden Rule Of AAoM Warfare: Morale is to the material as three is to one.
(Emphasis mine). Not to mention that he laughs in the face of the Second Golden Rule Of AAoM Warfare: Coalition armies aren't as effective as homogeneous armies, due to mistrust between the various leaders and/or troops. We saw Andreas Niketas exploit that vs the 10th Crusaders. We saw Iskander exploit that to ruthless effect vs the Roman-Georgian and various South Asian coalitions who faced him. We saw Blucher himself exploit that vs the Roman-Serbian coalition a few updates ago. Yet when it is time for the shoe to be on the other foot...Blucher still manages to withdraw in good order and bloody the Romans along the way. At this point he's a better general than his OTL namesake, or at least more successful.
BTW, you aren't wrong about the Archbishop, he's good people - for a Latin invader that is
I believe that it's just that the cracks haven't fully opened. I believe the Archbishop sending Alexandros Drakos a new sabre after his broke on the Polish King's helmet is one of those cracks showing themselves to the Romans.(Emphasis mine). Not to mention that he laughs in the face of the Second Golden Rule Of AAoM Warfare: Coalition armies aren't as effective as homogeneous armies, due to mistrust between the various leaders and/or troops. We saw Andreas Niketas exploit that vs the 10th Crusaders. We saw Iskander exploit that to ruthless effect vs the Roman-Georgian and various South Asian coalitions who faced him. We saw Blucher himself exploit that vs the Roman-Serbian coalition a few updates ago. Yet when it is time for the shoe to be on the other foot...Blucher still manages to withdraw in good order and bloody the Romans along the way. At this point he's a better general than his OTL namesake, or at least more successful.
BTW, you aren't wrong about the Archbishop, he's good people - for a Latin invader that is
Basileus444 said: ↑
Both sides are battered, the Allies taking thirteen thousand to ten thousand Roman casualties. Michael had hoped poor morale from defeat in battle would’ve enabled him to carry the camp fortifications. Having failed in that, he doesn’t want to charge in now with the Germans somewhat recovered and also covered by Nikopolis’ guns, although he still maintains a long-range bombardment.
(Emphasis mine). Not to mention that he laughs in the face of the Second Golden Rule Of AAoM Warfare: Coalition armies aren't as effective as homogeneous armies, due to mistrust between the various leaders and/or troops. We saw Andreas Niketas exploit that vs the 10th Crusaders. We saw Iskander exploit that to ruthless effect vs the Roman-Georgian and various South Asian coalitions who faced him. We saw Blucher himself exploit that vs the Roman-Serbian coalition a few updates ago. Yet when it is time for the shoe to be on the other foot...Blucher still manages to withdraw in good order and bloody the Romans along the way. At this point he's a better general than his OTL namesake, or at least more successful.
Michael Laskaris is being cautious. At this point he knows the Germans cannot win the battle but he can still lose it. So why risk an army trying to overcome fortifications. Also by Nikopolis recall that many of the green troops of the allies have deserted so what is there is the veteran core of the army. The Roman army meanwhile though still having a large veteran core is also still getting reinforcements of green troops who just won't be effective.
And I have to be honest I'm just not seeing how Blucher is some kind of god tier general on par with Andreas or Iskander. He's a decent general no doubt but as previously shown he has not won a single STRATEGIC victory despite routinely having more men and artillery than the Roman army. Perhaps, and this is just a thought, because he has a coalition force that does not allow him to be as efficient on the battlefield as the more homogenous Roman Army. As a result in a single campaign season he has had to withdraw from virtually all of his conquests and is now sitting at near the pre-war border. How is this Mary-Suish???
Both sides are battered, the Allies taking thirteen thousand to ten thousand Roman casualties. Michael had hoped poor morale from defeat in battle would’ve enabled him to carry the camp fortifications. Having failed in that, he doesn’t want to charge in now with the Germans somewhat recovered and also covered by Nikopolis’ guns, although he still maintains a long-range bombardment.
(Emphasis mine). Not to mention that he laughs in the face of the Second Golden Rule Of AAoM Warfare: Coalition armies aren't as effective as homogeneous armies, due to mistrust between the various leaders and/or troops. We saw Andreas Niketas exploit that vs the 10th Crusaders. We saw Iskander exploit that to ruthless effect vs the Roman-Georgian and various South Asian coalitions who faced him. We saw Blucher himself exploit that vs the Roman-Serbian coalition a few updates ago. Yet when it is time for the shoe to be on the other foot...Blucher still manages to withdraw in good order and bloody the Romans along the way. At this point he's a better general than his OTL namesake, or at least more successful.
Michael Laskaris is being cautious. At this point he knows the Germans cannot win the battle but he can still lose it. So why risk an army trying to overcome fortifications. Also by Nikopolis recall that many of the green troops of the allies have deserted so what is there is the veteran core of the army. The Roman army meanwhile though still having a large veteran core is also still getting reinforcements of green troops who just won't be effective.
And I have to be honest I'm just not seeing how Blucher is some kind of god tier general on par with Andreas or Iskander. He's a decent general no doubt but as previously shown he has not won a single STRATEGIC victory despite routinely having more men and artillery than the Roman army. Perhaps, and this is just a thought, because he has a coalition force that does not allow him to be as efficient on the battlefield as the more homogenous Roman Army. As a result in a single campaign season he has had to withdraw from virtually all of his conquests and is now sitting at near the pre-war border. How is this Mary-Suish???
I fail to see how being simultaneously invaded by 3 great powers (Germany, Poland, Ottomans) is him "allowing" chunks of Roman territory to be invaded. It is a credit to his administrative skill that despite this the core territories are all safe and within 2 years of the war starting the Romans have been able to defeat and push back 2 of the powers and we still haven't seen what is happening in the Levant in 1633 but by end of 1632 the Ottomans were already checked in their advance. We are only 2 years into a war that is likely going to be going for 5-7yrs. So how about we wait until the treaties are negotiated to complain about what the Romans did and did not get in them.
Last note on this subject because I find that I'm both repeating myself and detracting from the point of this thread but IMO Laskaris' problem is that he's cautious when he should be aggressive (the battle where he inflicted 2.5 times as many casualties but withdrew anyway; not attacking the night of Sept 6 when Blucher retreats under cover of darkness because he was wary of a non-existent ambush) and aggressive when he should be more cautious (launching a full frontal assault in tandem with the naval action which lost him twice as many men, all for a feint). That doesn't mention how he got schooled by the Archbishop in the first place at First Ruse.
I don't think this war lasts 5-7 years personally. I think all sides - especially the HRE/Western Alliance - will be far too broke to keep fighting that long on any large scale. Given how Rome hasn't looked good at all vs the Ottomans (and Ethiopia has been "Italy in WW2" levels of incompetent vs the Ottomans) I'm not holding out hope for them in the Levant, but we'll see.
I can respect that. Ill just say Laskaris is being cautious because he thinks this war is merely about forcing everyone out of Roman territory. In that case he doesn't need to be aggressive he just needs to outlast, which he has. The sole time he was aggressive was the naval action and it was necessary because he needed ALL allied eyes focusing on him for the Roman fleet to sneak past the allied lines. It cost him less than 3 Tourmai total and set the stage for the complete collapse of the allied line. And 1st Ruse literally had a total of 2800 casualties (not dead; casualties)...it is at most a large skirmish that only gets mentioned in history because it was the first engagement around Ruse.
I'd also say its too early to count Ethiopia as WW2 Italy. They fought one battle and unless I'm mistaken it was their first taste of fighting first rate armies in Ethiopian history. Now they'll gotten a taste of it and can adjust. They won't be to the level of Romans or Ottomans but I can see improvement on them.
I'd give WW2 Italy status personally to ironically Lombardy. They attack at a time and place of their choosing but forget that Rome has a large unused fleet currently and they inhabit a kingdom that is pretty much nothing but coastline. True geniuses in charge there
I'd give WW2 Italy status personally to ironically Lombardy. They attack at a time and place of their choosing but forget that Rome has a large unused fleet currently and they inhabit a kingdom that is pretty much nothing but coastline. True geniuses in charge there
This is a really good point - I wouldn't put the guys running Lombardy in charge of a lemonade stand.
I believe that once the Lombards are no longer a threat, the Roman-Sicilian forces will use Venetia as a base to strike in Hungary or in HRE itself . After that, maybe the Triunes will stab Theodor in the back...
Catconqueror: There’s usually a plot twist… Although right now I’d prefer a cinnamon twist myself.
ImperatorAlexander: Theodor’s with the army during active campaigning (during the winter he’s usually back up in the home front). Because it’s a coalition force, Theodor is the de jure commander because of his imperial status. After all, why should a king (Casimir) take orders from a not-king? That said, Blucher is the de facto commander and the brains and everyone knows it, but Theodor’s presence is a way of saving face diplomatically for Casimir and the more pretentious Imperial princes.
Hungary and Bohemia are both considering options, but with the bulk of their armies right there with the field army in Bulgaria, their options are limited. If they try to withdraw their forces and botch it, there’s every chance Blucher could smash them right there (at which point Michael could then smash Blucher, but that’s cold comfort to Ottokar and Andrew).
Khaine: Theodor’s too invested to call it quits so ‘easily’.
HanEmpire: “never got past the starting line” is a bit harsh. I picture it as Belgrade-starting line and Ruse-halfway mark (that’s where he’d have to break away from the Danube and take the highway to Varna). So not even ‘halfway’ there.
Regarding Rome, that’s going to be coming up shortly.
I don’t know what each party’s exact interest rate would be; I need OTL figures for comparisons which I don’t currently have. But a lot of Fugger-equivalents and Imperial Free Cities are screwed. Interestingly, in one way this actually helps Theodor. He owes Ottokar a lot of money, which is one incentive for Ottokar not to stab Theodor in the back.
And Henri II is rubbing his hands with glee. This is why he’s willing to back Theodor so heavily. Henri might lose 10,000 men, but it’s worth it if Theodor loses 100,000 at the same time. Henri still comes out ahead.
Lascaris: Yeah, you’re right. Still like the idea though. Might save it for a coastal defense vessel fifty years down the road.
I didn’t think about the Swedish fleet; thanks for the suggestion. Based on that, I’ve rewritten the section as follows:
There are also five new ships included amongst the regular designs. Three-mast vessels with oar banks in-between broadside gun-ports, they run much more heavily armed than is usual amongst the riverine galleys. The two largest mount twenty ten-pounders and twelve three-pounder cannons. Given the Allied practice of festooning their river ships with lots of heavy muskets shooting a pound-ball, to protect the crews of the deck bow guns thick wood-plank mantlets are placed surrounding the guns, with an opening through which the weapons can be aimed and fired. From the side these are said to look somewhat like rhino horns, from which comes their name- rhino galleys.
So essentially a gun-pram.
Curtain Jerker: [Responding to your posts in order of appearance in thread]
Second Ruse goes to the Allies because they held the field at the end of the ‘day’, which is the textbook definition of battlefield victory going back into ancient times. Laskaris withdrew because it doesn’t matter how many casualties he inflicted on Blucher. At the end of the day Blucher was maneuvering so he’d have a better chance of outflanking him and pinning him against the Danube. Even if Blucher has only a 2% chance of pulling that out, Michael can’t risk it. Better to lose this battle than risk losing the army out of stubborn attachment to this field.
As for the retreat, retreating armies are usually faster than pursuing armies. They’re more highly motivated to move and can abandon stuff on the road, lightening their load while also creating obstacles for the pursuers. Furthermore Laskaris was trying to destroy Blucher; the rearguard took 135% casualties. But it’s hard to pin and destroy an army; there’s a reason effective pursuits in battle are rare.
And focusing on Third Ruse, Blucher retreated but his force was obviously unbroken with honors and casualties both even. Not the best condition for a pursuit, and Romans are painfully aware of the effectiveness of the ‘feigned retreat’ tactic. And why risk a major and bloody battle if he’s expecting to annihilate the enemy logistics soon? Casualties at Third Ruse were even percent-wise; casualties during the retreat from Ruse to Nikopolis were, provided one includes the soldiers-turned-brigands which one should, were massively lopsided in the Romans’ favor.
And Fourth Ruse was deliberately timed to be a distraction so that the Romans could sneak warships past the Allies in the night. I made it quite clear he was in close communication with the garrison and that he made this attack after hearing news “for which he has been waiting since before Second Ruse.” Yes, it failed to break the Allied lines. But it wasn’t meant to do so; it was a giant feint.
Regarding Laskaris’ comment on Blucher, he’s a professional remarking on the conduct of another professional. He’s probably saying this in a report to the Emperor, where accurate intelligence is needed. We’re approaching the period IOTL where a French king looking at enemy soldiers attacking his own lines would point at them and say “look, those are brave men!” and the enemy soldiers in question would then take that line and adopt it as their motto. Your opponent respecting you doesn’t make you a Mary Sue. By your argument, Rommel is a Mary Sue because his British adversaries respected his capabilities as a general.
If Blucher can do no wrong, why did he launch a flank attack that got ambushed and mauled, and then launch a center attack that also got blasted back, taking heavy casualties in the process? Yes, he held the field at the end because Laskaris withdrew to prevent a risk of being pinned against the Danube (which is a rather important detail that you seem to be completely ignoring), but that’s not ‘doing no wrong’.
Regarding First Ruse, that is based off an OTL battle between 5000 Confederates and 15000 Union soldiers, which the Confederates won. That’s because the Union troops were too far apart to support each other properly and got beaten in detail. This was in 1865, near or at the end of the siege of Petersburg, meaning that the Union troops were part of the army commanded directly by Grant. Good generals can still have incapable subordinates, or bad luck, or face skilled opponents.
Laskaris did pursue Blucher; he mauled the rearguard. But close pursuits are easily said than done, and I detailed the reasons why he wasn’t able to keep up a close pursuit and destroy Blucher on his retreat. None of those reasons seem extraordinary or unrealistic to me.
I don’t want to get back into Iskandar since I admit I messed up with him, but he was also holding the crown prince of Rhomania captive during the whole negotiations. Rather large bargaining chip, that is.
Demetrios’ Empress is Jahzara, and she is having an affair with Andreas III’s commander of the Vigla, who carried over the position into Demetrios III’s reign. Demetrios knows about it but feels it’s only fair since he has his own affair.
Regarding coalition armies at Nikopolis, at that point Laskaris is attacking Allies defending an entrenched camp that is supported by the guns of a major fortress. The Allies have a Roman army barreling down on them; right then it’s ‘stick together or die’.
You criticized Laskaris for “not attacking the night of Sept 6 when Blucher retreats under cover of darkness because he was wary of a non-existent ambush) and aggressive when he should be more cautious (launching a full frontal assault in tandem with the naval action which lost him twice as many men, all for a feint).”
How in the world was Laskaris to know that there was no ambush?
The full frontal assault was supposed to distract the Allies from the fleet slipping by them. He needs to be loud and distracting; light skirmishing might not cut it. Considering how important it is to retake the Danube, better safe than sorry.
Evilprodigy: I am planning at least two, maybe three, narrative scenes that have Blucher in it, the first of which will be set in autumn 1633, probably just a few weeks after this one ended, a couple of months later at most.
Demetrios did say that to get the Latins to stop invading, the Romans need to make the Latins pay in blood, a lot of it. A good analogy might be Anglo-Saxon England and the Vikings. Paying a Danegeld is all well and good, but at some point you need to prove that you can stab them in the face too, otherwise the Viking will just keep extorting you and extorting you some more. Gold AND Iron, not just one. Demetrios’ argument is that the Latins are well acquainted with Roman gold, but need some serious reminders of Roman iron.
Viciosodiego: Yeah, the Romans are taking heavy losses. The Allies are too numerous and powerful to go down cheaply.
JSC: “Welcome to the Imperial Museum of Art. This wing, the largest of our exhibitions, is dedicated to the Papacy for its generous-cough-donations…”
The Ethiopians have been fighting mostly rebels or other African states; they’re not used to going toe-to-toe with major powers on land, not since the Mamelukes fell. Although blaming them for Aabdeh when they made up less than 1/5 of the army seems unfair.
Boa: It’s a quarter of the Danube river valley population, not Bulgaria in its entirety. Sorry for not making that clear. I’ve edited that bit.
The Byzantines IOTL were very much not down with holy warriors or the like, so ‘battle nuns’ would be ASB. That said, I do like the idea of Roman women getting renown for their valor in battle.
Hungary and religion could be very interesting. It went largely Protestant during the Reformation and only went back to heavily Catholic under Hapsburg rule.
JohnSmith: Yeah, Germany’s going to be regretting this for a while…
More advanced/bigger armies mean that the war can be more destructive, but if that pushes things to a conclusion more quickly, that may very well lessen the overall devastation. A big reason why the Thirty Years War was so bad was because it lasted for thirty years before finally exhausting the Imperials. (And it turns out Evilprodigy said this in the next post.)
Kimo: Demetrios and Odysseus definitely could be another Theodoros and Andreas, the great administrator followed by the great general.
SirOmega: I’ve been using the OTL Ottomans as a guideline for what the TTL Romans are capable of. Going with that, I consider that basing from the Balkans, the Romans have the potential to take Vienna and hold it, but that’d be the farthest limit of territory they could hold. The amount of time it takes for an army based in Bulgaria/Macedonia/Thrace just to march to Vienna means that grabbing territory further away just isn’t feasible.
Note that this is different from a ‘raiding distance’. If you’re only there to break things rather than take and hold, you can range further afield.
Minifidel: I’m having fun with the Archbishop too. Regarding defections, remember that he is the Archbishop of a city on the west side of the Rhine, so the Triunes are a big concern of his.
Aristomenes: Venetia is going to be important down the road.
ImperatorAlexander: Theodor’s with the army during active campaigning (during the winter he’s usually back up in the home front). Because it’s a coalition force, Theodor is the de jure commander because of his imperial status. After all, why should a king (Casimir) take orders from a not-king? That said, Blucher is the de facto commander and the brains and everyone knows it, but Theodor’s presence is a way of saving face diplomatically for Casimir and the more pretentious Imperial princes.
Hungary and Bohemia are both considering options, but with the bulk of their armies right there with the field army in Bulgaria, their options are limited. If they try to withdraw their forces and botch it, there’s every chance Blucher could smash them right there (at which point Michael could then smash Blucher, but that’s cold comfort to Ottokar and Andrew).
Khaine: Theodor’s too invested to call it quits so ‘easily’.
HanEmpire: “never got past the starting line” is a bit harsh. I picture it as Belgrade-starting line and Ruse-halfway mark (that’s where he’d have to break away from the Danube and take the highway to Varna). So not even ‘halfway’ there.
Regarding Rome, that’s going to be coming up shortly.
I don’t know what each party’s exact interest rate would be; I need OTL figures for comparisons which I don’t currently have. But a lot of Fugger-equivalents and Imperial Free Cities are screwed. Interestingly, in one way this actually helps Theodor. He owes Ottokar a lot of money, which is one incentive for Ottokar not to stab Theodor in the back.
And Henri II is rubbing his hands with glee. This is why he’s willing to back Theodor so heavily. Henri might lose 10,000 men, but it’s worth it if Theodor loses 100,000 at the same time. Henri still comes out ahead.
Lascaris: Yeah, you’re right. Still like the idea though. Might save it for a coastal defense vessel fifty years down the road.
I didn’t think about the Swedish fleet; thanks for the suggestion. Based on that, I’ve rewritten the section as follows:
There are also five new ships included amongst the regular designs. Three-mast vessels with oar banks in-between broadside gun-ports, they run much more heavily armed than is usual amongst the riverine galleys. The two largest mount twenty ten-pounders and twelve three-pounder cannons. Given the Allied practice of festooning their river ships with lots of heavy muskets shooting a pound-ball, to protect the crews of the deck bow guns thick wood-plank mantlets are placed surrounding the guns, with an opening through which the weapons can be aimed and fired. From the side these are said to look somewhat like rhino horns, from which comes their name- rhino galleys.
So essentially a gun-pram.
Curtain Jerker: [Responding to your posts in order of appearance in thread]
Second Ruse goes to the Allies because they held the field at the end of the ‘day’, which is the textbook definition of battlefield victory going back into ancient times. Laskaris withdrew because it doesn’t matter how many casualties he inflicted on Blucher. At the end of the day Blucher was maneuvering so he’d have a better chance of outflanking him and pinning him against the Danube. Even if Blucher has only a 2% chance of pulling that out, Michael can’t risk it. Better to lose this battle than risk losing the army out of stubborn attachment to this field.
As for the retreat, retreating armies are usually faster than pursuing armies. They’re more highly motivated to move and can abandon stuff on the road, lightening their load while also creating obstacles for the pursuers. Furthermore Laskaris was trying to destroy Blucher; the rearguard took 135% casualties. But it’s hard to pin and destroy an army; there’s a reason effective pursuits in battle are rare.
And focusing on Third Ruse, Blucher retreated but his force was obviously unbroken with honors and casualties both even. Not the best condition for a pursuit, and Romans are painfully aware of the effectiveness of the ‘feigned retreat’ tactic. And why risk a major and bloody battle if he’s expecting to annihilate the enemy logistics soon? Casualties at Third Ruse were even percent-wise; casualties during the retreat from Ruse to Nikopolis were, provided one includes the soldiers-turned-brigands which one should, were massively lopsided in the Romans’ favor.
And Fourth Ruse was deliberately timed to be a distraction so that the Romans could sneak warships past the Allies in the night. I made it quite clear he was in close communication with the garrison and that he made this attack after hearing news “for which he has been waiting since before Second Ruse.” Yes, it failed to break the Allied lines. But it wasn’t meant to do so; it was a giant feint.
Regarding Laskaris’ comment on Blucher, he’s a professional remarking on the conduct of another professional. He’s probably saying this in a report to the Emperor, where accurate intelligence is needed. We’re approaching the period IOTL where a French king looking at enemy soldiers attacking his own lines would point at them and say “look, those are brave men!” and the enemy soldiers in question would then take that line and adopt it as their motto. Your opponent respecting you doesn’t make you a Mary Sue. By your argument, Rommel is a Mary Sue because his British adversaries respected his capabilities as a general.
If Blucher can do no wrong, why did he launch a flank attack that got ambushed and mauled, and then launch a center attack that also got blasted back, taking heavy casualties in the process? Yes, he held the field at the end because Laskaris withdrew to prevent a risk of being pinned against the Danube (which is a rather important detail that you seem to be completely ignoring), but that’s not ‘doing no wrong’.
Regarding First Ruse, that is based off an OTL battle between 5000 Confederates and 15000 Union soldiers, which the Confederates won. That’s because the Union troops were too far apart to support each other properly and got beaten in detail. This was in 1865, near or at the end of the siege of Petersburg, meaning that the Union troops were part of the army commanded directly by Grant. Good generals can still have incapable subordinates, or bad luck, or face skilled opponents.
Laskaris did pursue Blucher; he mauled the rearguard. But close pursuits are easily said than done, and I detailed the reasons why he wasn’t able to keep up a close pursuit and destroy Blucher on his retreat. None of those reasons seem extraordinary or unrealistic to me.
I don’t want to get back into Iskandar since I admit I messed up with him, but he was also holding the crown prince of Rhomania captive during the whole negotiations. Rather large bargaining chip, that is.
Demetrios’ Empress is Jahzara, and she is having an affair with Andreas III’s commander of the Vigla, who carried over the position into Demetrios III’s reign. Demetrios knows about it but feels it’s only fair since he has his own affair.
Regarding coalition armies at Nikopolis, at that point Laskaris is attacking Allies defending an entrenched camp that is supported by the guns of a major fortress. The Allies have a Roman army barreling down on them; right then it’s ‘stick together or die’.
You criticized Laskaris for “not attacking the night of Sept 6 when Blucher retreats under cover of darkness because he was wary of a non-existent ambush) and aggressive when he should be more cautious (launching a full frontal assault in tandem with the naval action which lost him twice as many men, all for a feint).”
How in the world was Laskaris to know that there was no ambush?
The full frontal assault was supposed to distract the Allies from the fleet slipping by them. He needs to be loud and distracting; light skirmishing might not cut it. Considering how important it is to retake the Danube, better safe than sorry.
Evilprodigy: I am planning at least two, maybe three, narrative scenes that have Blucher in it, the first of which will be set in autumn 1633, probably just a few weeks after this one ended, a couple of months later at most.
Demetrios did say that to get the Latins to stop invading, the Romans need to make the Latins pay in blood, a lot of it. A good analogy might be Anglo-Saxon England and the Vikings. Paying a Danegeld is all well and good, but at some point you need to prove that you can stab them in the face too, otherwise the Viking will just keep extorting you and extorting you some more. Gold AND Iron, not just one. Demetrios’ argument is that the Latins are well acquainted with Roman gold, but need some serious reminders of Roman iron.
Viciosodiego: Yeah, the Romans are taking heavy losses. The Allies are too numerous and powerful to go down cheaply.
JSC: “Welcome to the Imperial Museum of Art. This wing, the largest of our exhibitions, is dedicated to the Papacy for its generous-cough-donations…”
The Ethiopians have been fighting mostly rebels or other African states; they’re not used to going toe-to-toe with major powers on land, not since the Mamelukes fell. Although blaming them for Aabdeh when they made up less than 1/5 of the army seems unfair.
Boa: It’s a quarter of the Danube river valley population, not Bulgaria in its entirety. Sorry for not making that clear. I’ve edited that bit.
The Byzantines IOTL were very much not down with holy warriors or the like, so ‘battle nuns’ would be ASB. That said, I do like the idea of Roman women getting renown for their valor in battle.
Hungary and religion could be very interesting. It went largely Protestant during the Reformation and only went back to heavily Catholic under Hapsburg rule.
JohnSmith: Yeah, Germany’s going to be regretting this for a while…
More advanced/bigger armies mean that the war can be more destructive, but if that pushes things to a conclusion more quickly, that may very well lessen the overall devastation. A big reason why the Thirty Years War was so bad was because it lasted for thirty years before finally exhausting the Imperials. (And it turns out Evilprodigy said this in the next post.)
Kimo: Demetrios and Odysseus definitely could be another Theodoros and Andreas, the great administrator followed by the great general.
SirOmega: I’ve been using the OTL Ottomans as a guideline for what the TTL Romans are capable of. Going with that, I consider that basing from the Balkans, the Romans have the potential to take Vienna and hold it, but that’d be the farthest limit of territory they could hold. The amount of time it takes for an army based in Bulgaria/Macedonia/Thrace just to march to Vienna means that grabbing territory further away just isn’t feasible.
Note that this is different from a ‘raiding distance’. If you’re only there to break things rather than take and hold, you can range further afield.
Minifidel: I’m having fun with the Archbishop too. Regarding defections, remember that he is the Archbishop of a city on the west side of the Rhine, so the Triunes are a big concern of his.
Aristomenes: Venetia is going to be important down the road.
Hey I can't believe I didn't catch this part. Casimir and Ibrahim are gonna get killed by women, possibly Roman women in this very war.
@Basileus444 what's Elizabeth's view on this war? Does she actually care about her brother's claim to the Roman Throne, or is she just in it to hurt the Romans?
At a certain point Blucher and the other commanders are going to have to put their foot down. Theodor isn't his grandfather, he's a young brat whose delusions of grandeur have lead them to ruin, he doesn't command any respect. Why should they follow him for any longer? Many have rebelled for less, couldn't they coerce Theodor into committing to a full retreat?