I don't think there would be a despotate of lombardy. I think they'll be made into two vassal state. One under parma and the other mastino I think? There would be a despotate of tuscany though, how much land they will control though is under speculation. Since Rome never gave up on their claims on Ravenna, I imagine central Italy up from Rome up to Ravenna is a Roman exclave. Or they would probably just give Ravenna to one of their Romanized Italian family that used to hold the area.
An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
If you’re gonna send a bunch of shit out into the far Pacific, ATM the Empire is far better off trying to reach, conquer, centralize the Hawaiian Islands. Why?
-Strategic control over the Central and Eastern Pacific. Claiming Maui, Kahoolawe, and Molokini, somewhat strangely, allows the Empire to rapidly reinforce Tahiti and other nearby islands due to convenient ocean currents.
-OTL Johnston Atoll is so fucking remote and obscure the Empire can and should use it as a staging ground for shadier uses of soft power and, (MUCH) later on, weapons testing.
-The Islands are small and each have several good natural harbors: Lamalapau in Lanai, Maalaea and Kahului in Maui, Pearl Harbor and Ewa in Oahu, and I’m sure I’m missing some from the other places. Imperial garrisons will be more concentrated and can mostly be comprised of naval personnel.
-Rich volcanic soils, but I’m sure NZ has those too.
-Stopping point between the Americas and Asia. I strongly suspect that the same demographic trends from OTL will be differently emphasized ITTL in Hawaii: prepare to see Japanese, Filipino, Samoan, and other immigrants to the Islands come in similar numbers—except this time they’re not laborers, they’re soldiers, sailors, merchants, and ranchers—and united under the same political banner of Rome.
I could go on, but eh
Have someone discovered Hawaii? I think the Japanese are the more likely candidate to take Hawaii. Rome could probably send a colony but expenses have tripled since there is an upcoming war against Spain and the Turks. It wouldn't be good for Rome to devote resources into an unknown territory far from their strong bases in Taprobane, and Pyrgos. Once they've dealt with the Spanish scum and Turks, then maybe they could go for it. But not now they got to consolidate their holdings in island Asia before going further, destroying their rivals in Asia is more of a priority for Rome.
Will Japan remain united under the Shimazu dynasty until the modern day?It would be interesting if Hokkaido is ruled by a surviving scion of the House of Yamato in TTL 2020.
Ravenna could also get the Venice and Alexandria treatment, and become a Roman city directly even if its hinterland doesn't. I think something similar is likely for Rome-Ostia.
Evilprodigy
Donor
The talk of Despotates needs to keep in mind the functional reason that they exist in the first place: to relieve the administrative burden upon Constantinople. They allow for local government to promote stability by delegating power to locals. They also have to be large enough to field an effective military force to respond to threats both on the borders and from within the territory. A Despotate thus must be a capable state in its own right with a large enough territory, population, and revenue to sustain itself as if it were an independent country. If it is too small then it will be unable to do the duty that Constantinople needs them to do.
Does any new despotate in Italy cannot be one of the small fractious North Italian statelets but must be a relatively large country. The former territory of the kingdom of Lombardy under Charlemagne works well for that but can of course be modified to the betterment of Constantinople and the appeasement of Sicily.
Does any new despotate in Italy cannot be one of the small fractious North Italian statelets but must be a relatively large country. The former territory of the kingdom of Lombardy under Charlemagne works well for that but can of course be modified to the betterment of Constantinople and the appeasement of Sicily.
All this talk of Italy makes me chuckle how in Henri's earnest to weaken both the HRE and ERE, he ended up creating the scenario when most of Italy is back under Roman control since what... Andreas I?
Revenna makes no sense to get the Venizia/Alex. treatment, as politically it doesn't carry much weight beyond it being the former capital of the Exarchate. I agree though with @Evilprodigy, as any Despotate of Tuscany will have to contain central Italy from the Rubicon(or relative facimile to the boarder of a conscientious central Italy) to the board or Naples with Rome-Ostia getting the Venizia/Alex. treatment.
Despotates need to have a measure of self-sufficiency. Northern Italy, that's a different kettle of fish as I believe it is 3:1 the rest of the peninsula economically. I cannot remember tbh.
Revenna makes no sense to get the Venizia/Alex. treatment, as politically it doesn't carry much weight beyond it being the former capital of the Exarchate. I agree though with @Evilprodigy, as any Despotate of Tuscany will have to contain central Italy from the Rubicon(or relative facimile to the boarder of a conscientious central Italy) to the board or Naples with Rome-Ostia getting the Venizia/Alex. treatment.
Despotates need to have a measure of self-sufficiency. Northern Italy, that's a different kettle of fish as I believe it is 3:1 the rest of the peninsula economically. I cannot remember tbh.
Evilprodigy
Donor
That's the word I was looking for, thank you! I was agonizing over what the term was and could not remember, it was bugging me so much.
I don't mean in terms of size, I mean geopolitically: it would strain relations with all of Rome's western neighbors, and it would do so to create a vassal state that will be a major drain of resources and good will for its early years. The Sicilian despotate was a major source of headaches for Roman authorities for much of its early existence, and Lombardy would be orders of magnitude more embattled; splintering the region into statelets and city states probably serves Roman interests better, and they can exact onerous conditions like privileged access to their markets (an arrangement like the Triune one in Bengal) to make it more profitable.
Im not sure, I think in order to avoid a repeat of them losing almost all of Italy like in the Time of Troubles I think they would need a powerful unified polity to the North of of the despotate of Sicily in order to cut the latins out of Italy for good. Also I doubt Rhome cares much about what the west thinks considering their current policy
Was it ever explained why Europe isn't going to have a huge advantage over the rest of the world in this timeline? Not that I'm complaining, I'm just curious if there's a specific divergence that's caused it.
There are many factors but primarily imo its because of Colonialism happening later and Europe being far more fractured in ttl. Individually the Formation of the Empire of mexico makes taking over the new world far more difficult and a unified south india makes it far less easy for Europe to steamroll the rest of the world
I can understand colonialism happening later, but if anything Europe seems less fractured ITTL. That India has come into European attention at the height of Vijayanagar rather than at the twilight of the Mughals definitely makes a difference, but it doesn't explain how Asia is going to keep up with Europe in technology and innovation.
I mean if you read about the rule of Iskandar the great in the middle east or the Ethiopian age of miracles itll give an in depth view of why they are competing with the west. I think mostly its just a creative choice though because it does make this universe much more interesting with a multipolar world
Evilprodigy
Donor
Butterflies of a successful Byzantines. Without the Ottomans monopolizing eastern trade through the routes of Egypt, Syria, and the Black Sea there was less impetus for exploration and expansion through colonialism, so it occurred later and at a smaller size. When the Byzantines did what the Ottomans did by monopolizing eastern trade after their conquest of Egypt it was much more palatable to western powers, but still spurred colonial exploration.
This is less "Europe doing worse" and more "the rest of the world doing better." Notably the Ethiopians have a powerful ally and more secure borders. The Ottomans, being pushed east and becoming a Persian state, have largely avoided the splintering of the Muslim World provided by the rise of the Safavids. Without a boogeyman of the Ottomans to foster some sense of common cause in eastern and central Europe they have been more free to tear each other apart instead. Byzantine meddling in the western Mediterranean in ways that the Ottomans didn't (the byzantines being more Westward focussed while the Ottomans were more Eastward focussed iotl) resulted in the survival of a Muslim state in southern Spain which largely delayed unification of the peninsula and the exploration which came after. There are other reasons too, but much of that is butterflies of butterflies.
Last edited:
Evilprodigy
Donor
My phone decided to submit before I was done, so here's more.
The lack of an ottoman power trying to fight the safavids directly lead to the absence of a Mughal state since there was no Sunni Central Asian polity to be propped up by a Sunni caliph against a Shia enemy. As a result India never faced a major invasion that would eventually result in the rise of the Mughal Empire, at least until the Ottomans tried but the circumstances were entirely different and so had very different results. Instead firearms did not arrive in India via an invasion from Central Asia but instead via European traders, of which Vijayanagar was an early adopter that put them in a better position than in OTL to survive in addition do the butterflies that resulted in the continuation of the original Dynasty, as previously mentioned.
The existence of the Rhomans also directly allowed for the conquest of Mexico and Peru by an adventure not technically beholden to a crown. This has resulted in those States attempting to become powerful and self-sufficient with modern technology, organization, and politics rather than being wholly oriented towards economic support of Spain.
The end result is that much of the world has directly benefited from the breathing space provided by the lack of colonialism to adopt new technology and modernize government administration. Instead of such things arriving at the barrel of a firearm of European conquest they instead arrive via Rhoman traders, followed later by other Europeans, which has provided the native states with greater tools to resist European encroachment upon their territorial integrity, but not enough to stop it.
The lack of an ottoman power trying to fight the safavids directly lead to the absence of a Mughal state since there was no Sunni Central Asian polity to be propped up by a Sunni caliph against a Shia enemy. As a result India never faced a major invasion that would eventually result in the rise of the Mughal Empire, at least until the Ottomans tried but the circumstances were entirely different and so had very different results. Instead firearms did not arrive in India via an invasion from Central Asia but instead via European traders, of which Vijayanagar was an early adopter that put them in a better position than in OTL to survive in addition do the butterflies that resulted in the continuation of the original Dynasty, as previously mentioned.
The existence of the Rhomans also directly allowed for the conquest of Mexico and Peru by an adventure not technically beholden to a crown. This has resulted in those States attempting to become powerful and self-sufficient with modern technology, organization, and politics rather than being wholly oriented towards economic support of Spain.
The end result is that much of the world has directly benefited from the breathing space provided by the lack of colonialism to adopt new technology and modernize government administration. Instead of such things arriving at the barrel of a firearm of European conquest they instead arrive via Rhoman traders, followed later by other Europeans, which has provided the native states with greater tools to resist European encroachment upon their territorial integrity, but not enough to stop it.
Last edited:
Does the northern alliance refer to the Treaty of Patna participants (north of Cuttack) or does it refer to the Treaty of Agra participants? (More north than Patna)
Wasn't Sutanuti still fighting against the Bhutanese?