Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Basileus444, Apr 30, 2015.
We can wait, as long as it won't take more than 15-20 days.
I don't care how rich and well off someone is. Getting kneed in the balls so many times is going to leave permanent damage.
B444 a question about the Empire after all these centuries what is the acceptance of the name “Roman” and the Roman Legacy towards it by the east but MOST importantly the west.
We saw a hint after the sack of Mecca the Pope in Rome refer to Demetrius as “Augustus” etc. but what about the regular and “high” class of Europeans citizens do they think it is a continuation of classical Rome thus they are Romans or it’s still the Empire of the Greeks or even better they mention the state as the Byzantine Empire (how popular is or will become the name in the TL).
Is there going to be a naming dispute between the Holy Roman Empire and Rhomania in the future or even now? That would be fun
You mean aside from the one ongoing till Charlemagne?
I suppose you mean "from" Charlemagne?
Fake News. There is only One Roman Emperor.
Yes, and he's the Emperor of Mexico too.
Now THAT would be a twist in the civil war
Emperor of Mexico and Rome, (rules from Mexico, leaving the Roman Empire in the hands of Odysseus).
Constantinople - City of the Old Worlds Desire, Mother of All Cities
Tenochtitlan - City of the New Worlds Desire, Father of All Cities
Rome - The Eternal City
The grandiose titles write themselves. Who needs to defeat the Peacock Throne when you have the Throne of Caesars and Throne of the Living Sun!
Well what else is the Throne of Caesar going to eat? Roasted by the Throne of the living Sun, peacock is quite tasty, the lazy buggers they are.
I don't wish to comment on either the succession or Roman reform speculation as I'll either be repeating myself once I post updates or giving stuff away which I'd rather not do. Hope that doesn't bother anyone.
In the Orthodox and Muslim worlds, the Rhomaioi are definitely the Romans. There's no question there (nor was there IOTL; that's why the Seljuk Sultanate was the Sultanate of Rum). They're still the Empire of the Greeks or the Byzantine Empire (term has been coined although not too widespread yet) although they know not to say that to Constantinople's face. In diplomatic correspondence or when attempting to butter the White Palace up they'll refer to it as the Roman Empire but it's considered a diplomatic courtesy not supported by 'facts'. In correspondence between the Roman and Holy Roman Emperors, they just refer to themselves and the other as 'Emperor' and never specify 'of what'. Each one knows the other claims the Roman mantle but for the sake of diplomacy they'll work with 'out of sight, out of mind'.
General progress update: So I have a cultural interlude update written that will be posted before the giant narrative update; some of the elements there pop up in the narrative so it needs to go first. That interlude and the giant narrative update are now written, although I still need to run the latter through some proofreads. So I just need to write one more normal update to restore my usual lead between what's posted and what's written (see my previous post-my decision to combine the narrative into one big as opposed to several small updates threw this off) and then updates will resume.
I actually wouldn't mind if Byzantine Empire enters common usage, it's the name I first new it as and it is still pretty cool.
Eurgh, but it is so anachronistic. It hurts.
Empire of Constantinople, or Empire of the East - or even Rhomanion, but not Byzantine. It is great in terms of an insult term, but think about it.
Byzantine comes from Byzantion. The city explicitly refounded to form the capital. You call the Roman Empire the Byzantine to a proud Romans face, you're going to get lamped. It ignores all the history of the city since. It is a belittling name in context - in a way akin to 'Little England', or 'Perfidious Albion'.
Great for antagonising them though.
Nicaean Empire might work though, in terms of not calling them Roman, but not being anachronistic.
An easier 'solution' to Western angst would be to refer to the Romans in the actual words they use themselves i.e. Romaioi or some such. Both technically correct while reserving the word 'Roman' for references to the West.
I'm not sure it is angst so much as an opportunity to 'thumb the nose' at them.
Why not both?
I know, but it still sounds cool to me Brings the right vibe as well (scheming, indirect warfare, sophistication proper smugness).
A bit surprising there. On equal footing in strength maybe this would happen. But the last time both HRE and Rhomania fought a battle, HRE along with all her allies just got clobbered by Andreas Niketas in the fight to defend Rome and the Pope. Of course there is no next round yet nor do I think HRE has the finance nor resources to fight the Romans at the present moment. And after smashing Hungary, considering how Andreas brushed aside every Catholic before that, every Catholic monarch or emperor must be terrified of Rhomania.
After Andreas defeating HRE for the fight to save the Pope/Rome, I thought it was foregone conclusion Rhomania was already recognized as the Romans by that time at least straight at their face. HRE can probably call them Greeks behind Rhomania's back.
This. I can easily see Westerners calling it the "Rhomaic Empire", its people the "Rhomaioi" or "Rhomaics", whenever they don't simply call them "[schismatic, effeminate, etc.] Greeks".
How about Rhomanians? I mean it sounds better than Rhomaioi or something else, and it is partially grounded
The Westerners aren't going to call the Romans Roman-anything. They've spent centuries yelling at the Romans for calling themselves Romans, and have built up a ton of their legitimacy, religious authority, and prestige on the basis of the fraudulent claim that they're the heirs of Constantine. They're not going to give that up, especially when the TTL Catholics have grown a pathological need to one-up their Orthodox rivals.
Separate names with a comma.