An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

That just means it makes more sense to me for the Romans to make the Zagros mountains as the border then. If the Ottomans break through them then have to march through the Syrian desert or go along the path the Romans can be assured you’ll take so can make a string of fortress cities that can slow down any potential invaders coming that way while you march forces that way. The Russians have General Winter, the Romans can have Stratagos Sandstorm. Or something appropriately Greek. Make the Ottomans turn East anytime they’re in the mood for war because they don’t feel like killing themselves in the desert.

The problem his that you'd have to take all the cities in the Zagros themselves, and that's a big hit on the viability of an Iranian state, taking cities like Kermanshah, Hamadan, Shiraz. Alternatively if you aren't taking the big cities, you're taking and fortifying smaller locations like Yasuj, Kazerun and Bandar Bushehr (and others) scattered through Zagros. For an idea of how big a deal that is (and how defensible these locations would need to be made) - Yasuj is 200 km from Isfahan, one of the great cities of the Ottomans, and less than that from Shiraz. Those are "if the Romans attack, its existential" borders, even accounting for some defensive advantage from finishing the journey to the Zagros.

I doubt we'll see that sort of border though, since we're talking about basically annexing Mesopotamia and a bit. It'd probably include Kermanshah to guard the central passes, and then follow the Kharkeh river to the Tigris, leaving Basra as the southern focal point of the defence. That's still be one hell of a victory.

I really hope he doesn’t. I don’t want the next 50 years to just be Khosrow the second 2, electric boogaloo. I actually think it would be more interesting if the Ottomans and Romans decided to try and make a lasting Alliance out of this situation with the Romans funneling then equipment and men for some Eastern conquests. Ottoman Uyghurs would be pretty awesome if the got far enough into the North East

"Great Crime", "He is my vengeance" - I'm not sure that it'll be a long-term alliance, especially since B444 said he likes the Ottomans as a constant foil. I agree it'd be nice though, and potentially plausible if it didn't leave the Persians and Turks humiliated and with a deeply wounded pride.

I think what we're likely to see is a sort of D3-without-war leader, especially as a listener. Romans take substantial parts of Mesopotamia, and then let Iskandar loose on a fractured and weakened Iran to perpetuate the war as a civil war, and then Iskandar wins and starts applying the military and economic reforms of D3 to Iran, essentially creating a fiscal military state there. At best the Romans have bought a generation or two before revanchism becomes too much to ignore and the Romans find out how brutal it is to fight on that border I described above (basically hard to defend, harder to attack from, hard to attack it - see the war between Iraq and Iran for context).

 

[E_x_c_u_b_i_t_o_r_e]

I just want to say I still don't believe how in the hell the Ottomans will even be on par with Romans in terms off... pretty much everything. Pls bear with me, here are some of my reasons:

European Front:
Firstly the Roman incursion into western Germany was highlighted as the last known major Roman intervention in the "west". Just by this statement alone you can see that for a foreseeable future the Romans will concentrate entirely on their eastern front, and the far east. Even if they do intervene on the west I'd think that, the system Demetrios III implemented will pretty much help lessen the problem with the west.

By that I mean the latin west pretty much borders only their despots, allies and the Belgrade pact. Not to mention the fact that Poland won't ever dare attack Russia, Prussia and the Belgrade pact. Scandanavia's control of the Russian territories won't be held for long when another war starts to 'Liberate' the orthodox land. Russia at this time should be united even if it isn't a full on Monarchy.

Spain's economy is basically 'gone' and won't dare to intrude against the Romans for a foreseeable future especially not when they have such a fierce reputation for fighting numerous fronts.

Arles won't do anything especially not when the Triunes are so near and powerful. HRE is a massive mess and the Triunes are on a world of hurt even if they win the war against them.

That leaves only Italy, if the people there even 'rebels' considering its a peninsula the revolt will easily be crushed. The leftover remnants of the Kingdom of Lombardy is pretty much all around weak and have no position to even attack the Roman Despots.

Middle East Front:
The Romans, Georgians, Omani, and Ethiopia will certainly invade the Ottomans in full force maybe even the Russians but even without them, crushing them should be easy. I can only imagine what kind of damage will it wrought upon the Ottomans, but my best guess is that it will be so devastating like Timur, only that it's infinitely worse. Odysseus will most likely take everything on Mesopotamia, with the Georgians taking every land on the Azerbaijan Highlands and possibly a route into Gilan. The Omani will take everything that they want and leave the status quo as it is.

I fail to see how the Ottomans will recover central and southern Mesopotamia without bumping heads into the Trifecta Powers without being attacked on the north and south of the Iranian Plateau. Especially so when they are so weakened from the invasion and have to spent their time rebuilding or fighting off civil wars.

I think this time holding Mesopotamia is now fully possible with Northern Mesopotamia being the first to be totally change into a loyal Roman province. Central and Southern Mesopotamia can be slowly be integrated in due time with a series of reforms and population transfers.

Odysseus over-extension might be a different thing than we might have imagined. What do you guys think is this possible over-extension?

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Odysseus over-extension might be a different thing than we might have imagined. What do you guys think is this possible over-extension?

My first thought would be conquering Persia and/or North African/Arabian campaigns. Militarily, I reckon you make a good argument as to the Roman capacity to TAKE that land, holding it is another question.

Persia - I can see this being something that would probably cause Iskandar to defect - destroying the Ottomans (besides some rebels in the frontier) and having the realm he was meant to rule be made to suffer could have him "sit and listen" to those stories, and then act. I can somewhat imagine him allying with Pashtuns and other groups east of the Iranian plateau to rebel and throw out Ody's son/daughter.

Arabia - that is just hard. In every measure. All a rebel force has to do is disappear into the Empty Quarter and then regroup. Trying to take and hold Arabia would likely lead to a rebel force that has popular support, especially if it ties itself to the idea of a Muslim Arabia united against Constantinople.

North Africa - Its an option - technically - but its still a campaign that would essentially leave the Empire exposed to a long desert border that would regularly be exposed to raids from the desert if there are no allies. So an expensive campaign to tear apart the Marinids, to gain the Atlas Mtns and the coast, with the need to fortify a much longer border in the desert than now.

The alternative is that Ody is more international and goes crazy in East Asia, conquers a whole bunch and thinks taking China on is a good idea

 

[JSC]

Wouldn't all five have been under Andreas Niketas's control after the Tenth Crusade and the Egyptian Campaign?

It was different under Andreas since Rome was under a Duke of Latium and Alexandria and Jerusalem were under partial control of the Abbasid Caliph. In the current year all are/will be under direct Roman control.

 

[Frame]

I hope Rome can be rebuilt to at least be one of the bigger cities in the Italian Peninsula. It deserves patronage as it's the origin of our favorite glorious empire. Ody prolly won't want to revisit it because of all of the bad memories but lady Athena might start patching it up.​

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I hope Rome can be rebuilt to at least be one of the bigger cities in the Italian Peninsula. It deserves patronage as it's the origin of our favorite glorious empire. Ody prolly won't want to revisit it because of all of the bad memories but lady Athena might start patching it up.​

Depending on how Italy is administered, it could make a good candidate for governing Middle Italy, but I expect it might be better placed to be involved in all affairs in the W.Mediterranean, as a diplomatic centre and a place to host in a location that isn't the capital, especially to make a point to someone being invited - you are welcome, but only so welcome - a very Vijayanagar-esque subtext. With investment Rome, via Ostia, could work as the centre of Roman military projection, but it isn't the best site in Italy for that IMO. There are better natural harbours, but as a point of cultural prestige and intimidation it could work, a sort of "We're back, and we are not leaving again". Finally, and the most plausible IMO, is that it'll become the seat of an Orthodox Bishop of Rome, which could mean some serious money gets poured in by the church to correct and update the city.

Whatever happens, there will be a distinct subtext to a lot of Roman activity that Rome is vital, the home city of the Empire, but it is subservient to Constantinople. Never explicitly called the Second City of the Empire, but that is 100% the subtext. The Bishop of Rome is subservient to the Patriarch of Constantinople, its the Court of the West, the Birthplace of the Empire, etc. Almost certainly an Eparchate that leaves it administratively separate from the rest of Italy, and tied directly to the Emperor. It has over 1000 years of bad behaviour to make up for, it doesn't get to play regional power centre with autonomy, thats how Popes and Venices happen.

 

[Duke of Orlando]

My first thought would be conquering Persia and/or North African/Arabian campaigns. Militarily, I reckon you make a good argument as to the Roman capacity to TAKE that land, holding it is another question.

Persia - I can see this being something that would probably cause Iskandar to defect - destroying the Ottomans (besides some rebels in the frontier) and having the realm he was meant to rule be made to suffer could have him "sit and listen" to those stories, and then act. I can somewhat imagine him allying with Pashtuns and other groups east of the Iranian plateau to rebel and throw out Ody's son/daughter.

Arabia - that is just hard. In every measure. All a rebel force has to do is disappear into the Empty Quarter and then regroup. Trying to take and hold Arabia would likely lead to a rebel force that has popular support, especially if it ties itself to the idea of a Muslim Arabia united against Constantinople.

North Africa - Its an option - technically - but its still a campaign that would essentially leave the Empire exposed to a long desert border that would regularly be exposed to raids from the desert if there are no allies. So an expensive campaign to tear apart the Marinids, to gain the Atlas Mtns and the coast, with the need to fortify a much longer border in the desert than now.

The alternative is that Ody is more international and goes crazy in East Asia, conquers a whole bunch and thinks taking China on is a good idea

I’ll be the devils advocate and argue that I don’t think Ody will over extend. We know he’s going to be viscous and conquer a lot but I don’t think overextension has been confirmed. I think that he’ll Make the the Zagros the border taking the appropriate cities in and around it to make it incredibly defendable border, put Iskandar on the Ottoman throne and assist him in taking north and eastern land as a recompense to his friend for the lost of the western third of his empire, and assists the Omani in gaining control of the Arabian Penisula. He ends his reign beating the Marinids and connecting their North African provinces but leaving most of the Marinid territory to them with the understanding that they will reign in the corsairs and that any pirate raids on any Roman Territory will bring him back. And he won’t be as nice that time. For the first time in centuries the Roman borders are extremely secure in the North, East, and South with a quiet west. Sounds wonderful but I did leave out the rivers of blood that were created to make it a reality.

I actually wouldn’t be surprised at most of that happening except the Marinids. I don’t see the reason why you mess with them unless they do something drastic.

 

[E_x_c_u_b_i_t_o_r_e]

My first thought would be conquering Persia and/or North African/Arabian campaigns. Militarily, I reckon you make a good argument as to the Roman capacity to TAKE that land, holding it is another question.

Persia - I can see this being something that would probably cause Iskandar to defect - destroying the Ottomans (besides some rebels in the frontier) and having the realm he was meant to rule be made to suffer could have him "sit and listen" to those stories, and then act. I can somewhat imagine him allying with Pashtuns and other groups east of the Iranian plateau to rebel and throw out Ody's son/daughter.

Arabia - that is just hard. In every measure. All a rebel force has to do is disappear into the Empty Quarter and then regroup. Trying to take and hold Arabia would likely lead to a rebel force that has popular support, especially if it ties itself to the idea of a Muslim Arabia united against Constantinople.

North Africa - Its an option - technically - but its still a campaign that would essentially leave the Empire exposed to a long desert border that would regularly be exposed to raids from the desert if there are no allies. So an expensive campaign to tear apart the Marinids, to gain the Atlas Mtns and the coast, with the need to fortify a much longer border in the desert than now.

The alternative is that Ody is more international and goes crazy in East Asia, conquers a whole bunch and thinks taking China on is a good idea

Why assume that the Romans can't hold Mesopotamia? Didn't I outline enough the problems latin europe is already facing? Besides the tigris and euphrates river make it easier to communicate and consolidate their hold on the fortresses and cities on central and southern Mesopotamia. Well the cities east of basra will be hard to control but if need be they can just abandon it and have a better defensive position on the rivers itself.

Considering that the great crime will be even greater once the war begins in earnest. I can't fathom how there will be enough 5th column will be left standing in the wake of the Roman brutality.

You can say that whilst it easy for the Turks and Persians to invade Mesopotamia the same can be of the Romans. They just need to retreat a little bit on mosul or even baghdad, they then can come back in full force. Considering their control of the rivers i'd say they'd even be faster the Ottomans in redeploying and attacking. They can do this forever but it'll be the Ottomans losing more. Thats just the Ottomans fighting the Romans not even Georgia and Oman is involved. Even if Oman doesn't help Rome, Georgia surely will, now that they've fix their shit together and have only to worry about a single front on Persia itself.

 

[Frame]

I hope we get to see a meeting between Leo Kalimoros and Ody. Two great leaders and soldiers but if Leo is anything like his otl counterpart i wonder if he'd get on the emperors nerves with his brashness

 

[Bronze]

Regarding Rome, I hope it (and Italy in general) gets a lot of settlers and TLC from Anatolia and Greece. If I remember well, the Hellenic theme and western Anatolia are overflowing with people for such small lands.

I still can't really digest the idea that the Romans will conquer and hold all of Mesopotamia. Certainly, a conquering Roman emperor could well *take* the region, but the Turks would not countenance losing their lands to the Romans twice, not to mention the vital importance of Mesopotamia to any Persian realm, and the fact that the place is pretty thoroughly Islamized by now.

Just Northern Mesopotamia, however, is far more believable. Not only would it be a more manageable number of Muslims to convert or... erm, liquidate, it would also be defensible enough to cement Roman dominance in the Middle East. Certainly, the Zagros are the best defensive boundary, but it's also a thousand miles between Constantinople and Basra, some of which is over rugged terrain. Plus, it still allows the Romans to hold the entire Ottoman realm hostage, in a more painful way and with less effort too, since there would exist ths distinct possibility of the Romans damming or diverting the Tigris or Euphrates, along with the natural easiness of invading down a river valley.

Side note, @Basileus444, have the Ottomans tried to fix the vast canal networks and irrigation systems of central and southern Mesopotamia? Given that historically, they seem to have been preoccupied with fighting Rhomania or Persia, it seems unlikely, which would be a shame.

Odysseus' eastern policy after the Ottoman conflict is going to be... interesting. What is he going to do? Given his characterization in the recent update, I think I can make some educated guesses, but I would not presume to know for sure.

 

[Bronze]

P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if Roman soldiers engage in wanton slaughter and massacre in Mesopotamia, even though I personally doubt Odysseus would take kindly to this turn of events. Indeed, I surmise that the primary prong of the Great Crime would not be liquidation, but forced conversion and exile, with all the stuffz belonging to the Muslims being kept by the Romans, of course.

 

[Duke of Orlando]

P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if Roman soldiers engage in wanton slaughter and massacre in Mesopotamia, even though I personally doubt Odysseus would take kindly to this turn of events. Indeed, I surmise that the primary prong of the Great Crime would not be liquidation, but forced conversion and exile, with all the stuffz belonging to the Muslims being kept by the Romans, of course.

See the reason I’m arguing all of Mesopotamia and a Zagros border isn’t because it’s practical. Odysseus doesn’t strike me as particularly practical when it comes to this war. This isn’t just a war. This is a message to all future Ottoman rulers. He’s the kind of person who see his enemy and wants to beat them so bad they don’t ever think about trying again. Look at Rome after all. So yes he will take that land regardless of the sensibility of it and I have a feeling he will shape it into some bulwark in the east that is absolutely hellish to attack. In the last update we’re reminded again how the 12 days changed men. A man who survived the 12 days cares nothing for dams. He does understand the brutal hell you can put your enemy through with the right terrain though. Mountainous, rocky terrain. And Iskandar would also realize the hell that attacking suck a thing would be

Any normal Roman Emperor would take northern Mesopotamia and see the value you’re mentioning. The clear logic you’re using. Because on a logical level I agree with you. But we’re not talking about a logical man. We’re talking about a man who survived the twelve days and came out drastically changed who likely has severe PTSD and possibly some depression on top of it. So he’ll take the extreme option to attempt and make sure that turning west is far to costly a proposition for the ottomans to ever seriously consider.

As for how the citizens of Mesopotamia are treated I’m expecting something very Mongol esque giving his ancestry. You surrender with no fuss you’re fine. No harm no foul. Maybe he gives you 3 days to collect everything you can and leave if you want to leave. If you make him siege your city for any significant amount of time, then every god known to man help you and yours.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Why assume that the Romans can't hold Mesopotamia? Didn't I outline enough the problems latin europe is already facing? Besides the tigris and euphrates river make it easier to communicate and consolidate their hold on the fortresses and cities on central and southern Mesopotamia. Well the cities east of basra will be hard to control but if need be they can just abandon it and have a better defensive position on the rivers itself.

Considering that the great crime will be even greater once the war begins in earnest. I can't fathom how there will be enough 5th column will be left standing in the wake of the Roman brutality.

You can say that whilst it easy for the Turks and Persians to invade Mesopotamia the same can be of the Romans. They just need to retreat a little bit on mosul or even baghdad, they then can come back in full force. Considering their control of the rivers i'd say they'd even be faster the Ottomans in redeploying and attacking. They can do this forever but it'll be the Ottomans losing more. Thats just the Ottomans fighting the Romans not even Georgia and Oman is involved. Even if Oman doesn't help Rome, Georgia surely will, now that they've fix their shit together and have only to worry about a single front on Persia itself.

Oh, I never said they couldn't hold Mesopotamia. I said Persia, specifically the Iranian Plateau, would be overextention. Y'know, that stuff the other side of the Zagros. That would be the same for the Georgians to an extent, they could probably take Mandarazan or some of the plateau, but I think the former, and some forts, would work better for them.

 

[Basileus_of_the_Hellenes]

I feel like Ody will definitely take Northern Mesopotamia at least (the whole line in the sand theme we got going on), and in the process of completing the war with the Ottoblob, turn central and southern Mesopotamia into a no man's land (the great crime), finishing things up with posting roman troops in the Zagros' fortress cities just for good measure. I don't know what else could be constituted as the great crime if the European front finishes up soon, as it seems like any roman push into Europe after Italy would constitute a coalition of Latins again, this time with previous roman allies.

Also, @Basileus444 did you decide on a name for the Pacific Ocean? I don't remember reading one, but I also don't fully trust my eyesight.

 

[Frame]

I mean perhaps the Romans could establish a Shia is southern Mesopotamia. If the Romans give them virtual independence I bet they would be super unwilling to sit by and allow the Sunni Ottomans to come back and oppress them. It could really help back up Roman rule in the region without having to spend all the manpower to garrison all of southern Iraq

 

[Basileus_of_the_Hellenes]

That is true, a despotate of Central / Southern Mesopotamia could be done. After all, the whole reason for the despotates, to begin with, was the lack of Orthodox / Hellenic influence in Italy / Egypt wasn't it? So a Shia / Christian minority despotate of Mesopotamia could be created, with true Romans garrisoning the fortress citadels of course.

 

[Frame]

lets just hope Odysseus won't mess up and go to hard on the looting and pillaging of Shia population centers, Ideally the Romans would want to present themselves as Liberators to the Shia. However I worry that he will let his army loose on their land and they will resent the Romans more than they had to

 

[Bronze]

What I don't understand is why you seem to assume almost for granted that Odysseus will be consumed by some irrational rage. Odysseus is a veteran of the Twelve Days. He has seen rage, has been rage, and knows its effect. He has seen his comrades commit suicide, unable to cope with what remained after the rage of war. He has seen the devastation wreaked upon poor Macedonia. If, as I guess, he has spent his contemplation wisely, he knows what rage can do to him, and why he, the future Emperor, must not be enraged.

He survived the Twelve Days. If anyone can keep a cool head, it is Odysseus Sideros, Kaisar of Rhomania. Any cruelty he shall do, shall be done not in anger, but in calculation.


^Such is my opinion. The author and readers like me may well differ, and I trust I would indeed find a differing interpretation interestingly handled.

 

[Duke of Orlando]

What I don't understand is why you seem to assume almost for granted that Odysseus will be consumed by some irrational rage. Odysseus is a veteran of the Twelve Days. He has seen rage, has been rage, and knows its effect. He has seen his comrades commit suicide, unable to cope with what remained after the rage of war. He has seen the devastation wreaked upon poor Macedonia. If, as I guess, he has spent his contemplation wisely, he knows what rage can do to him, and why he, the future Emperor, must not be enraged.

He survived the Twelve Days. If anyone can keep a cool head, it is Odysseus Sideros, Kaisar of Rhomania. Any cruelty he shall do, shall be done not in anger, but in calculation.


^Such is my opinion. The author and readers like me may well differ, and I trust I would indeed find a differing interpretation interestingly handled.

I’m don’t think it’s irrational anger actually. It’s a deliberate cold malice. He is trying to build a bulwark in the East and deliver a hammer blow that will be felt for generations. Leave the Romans alone and keep the them happy or else the spirit of Odysseus Sideros will rise up and lead the demons of hell east again. He has scars that have shaped him from the twelve days and made him the cold dinosaur who will commit the great crime.

Thats my thought process.

 

[Frame]

What I don't understand is why you seem to assume almost for granted that Odysseus will be consumed by some irrational rage. Odysseus is a veteran of the Twelve Days. He has seen rage, has been rage, and knows its effect. He has seen his comrades commit suicide, unable to cope with what remained after the rage of war. He has seen the devastation wreaked upon poor Macedonia. If, as I guess, he has spent his contemplation wisely, he knows what rage can do to him, and why he, the future Emperor, must not be enraged.

He survived the Twelve Days. If anyone can keep a cool head, it is Odysseus Sideros, Kaisar of Rhomania. Any cruelty he shall do, shall be done not in anger, but in calculation.


^Such is my opinion. The author and readers like me may well differ, and I trust I would indeed find a differing interpretation interestingly handled.

You make a very good point we have not seen him act particularly unhinged with rage. I suppose I projected it on him because of what I suspect will be done to the people of Mesopotamia in "the great crime". However it may be much more calculated than I expect it to be

Additionally I see the actions of Odysseus in the east will be a continuation of the policy his father used in Germany but to the next level. It may not be driven by Rage but rational it is not. It may be in the best interest of the Empire but mass slaughter can never be rationally justified (not accusing you of justifying it of course) . Whatever Odys personal motivation may be the fighting will be rough and once the Romans enter Ottoman cites after a grueling campaign I doubt that they will care who is Sunni and who is Shia until after the dust has settled. We will see though.