So far I've been surprised by the aftermath of the War of Wrath. While I initially expected Odysseus to perish at some point during the war with Ibrahim, that sort of thought kind of lulled at the tail end of the campaign until I was hit with the notion that yes, he did die at the end. Ody truly shined brightly, perhaps moreso than Andreas Niketas (that much is debatable), yet his light was cut short, though of his own volition. I suspected that he would die or even kill himself because at that point, he would have nothing to live for after exerting so much of his time and energy trying to fulfill all of his promises, and I suppose that he drank the goblet for those reasons. It's an incredibly tragic life hidden behind all the veneer, although I doubt the Romans would even notice or care.
The Kingdom of Mesopotamia is an interesting solution for both Rhomania and Persia, as it does bring in a neutral state into the affairs of both countries while having a vested interest in maintaining its sovereignty. Plus, Baghdad is saved and not under threat of dissolution had the territory been divided between Rhomania and Persia, which is nice. Although, I also suspect that this peace is merely temporary as its existence does provide an avenue for some dumb ruler in either Rhomania or Persia to violate the peace and eventually wage war in Mesopotamia once again. We'll see how that conflict pans out, but the possibility of a permanent Roman-Persian peace is within reach.
Makes me wonder if the remaining Arabs who survived the Great Crime will be fleeing to Mesopotamia to escape possible extermination, as the neutral kingdom is the only option for them to escape with no Iskander to give them a hand. Alexandros might be facing a crisis on his hands if that's the case.
As to the great crime I wonder how much of it will actually fall on Odysseus. I know we say the future historians will often overlook it when praising him, but I'm curious how much was the result of policies he actively endorsed or commanded versus the neglect of being away on campaign for the entirety of his reign.
I think most of it was neglect, as he was focused on overthrowing Ibrahim as soon as possible while in Mesopotamia (we should note that the Mesopotamian campaign was depicted to be quite brutal anyways). That makes him complicit in The Great Crime, although not the main architect, in my opinion. It'd probably be enough for his role in the Great Crime to be ignored by the Romans, although not for everyone else.
I have this feeling Herakleios is going to be massively screwed up. Think about this, your father who has been absent from your life since you were a child is a famed conqueror who you're in the shadow of and your mother just abandoned you to be with the sons from her previous relationship.
Hopefully, Athena and Alexandros Drakos are something of a parent figure to this kid.
I don't think Herakleios will be that much of a screw up, since he does have very competent figures within his life like Athena and Alexandros Drakos to guide him. While I agree that the possibility of him comparing himself to his father is a big concern, it really just depends on his personality for how badly he wants to prove himself to be as comparable to Odysseus, perhaps to the point of recklessness. Still, I guess that's a natural occurrence when you have a larger-than-life figure looking over your head.
I believe that Louis, though, he will undoubtedly become a monster. He lives alone with a father that actively detests him and curses his existence. If he's incompetent, then the Triunes will be in a world of hurt as the different kingdoms might pry themselves apart from the Triple Monarchy. If he's more competent than his father, then he might actually be the Antichrist predicted in Nostradamus's prophecy, which is much worse.
As for the Lord of the East,
No one shall know where he sleeps.
But his seed shall journey west,
Where there shall be Antichrist.
