Yes, theoretically the whole continent of Africa is under the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The establishment of an Orthodox national church in Africa could lead to an independent jurisdiction but I think Alexandria would be the See which would have to grant a tomos of autocephaly for that to happen.
An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
Canon 28 of Chalcedon gives the Ecumenical Patriarch the status of #2 after the Patriarch of Rome/the Pope. The Papacy later unilaterally rejected Canon 28, but it is in effect on the Orthodox Church so: 1) Patriarch of Rome 2) Ecumenical Patriarch 3) the other Patriarchs are effectively equal in that they are highest authority in their jurisdiction but Antioch, Alexandria & Jerusalem receive pride of place based on tradition. Practically speaking though the Patriarch of All Rus will have far more power and influence than Jerusalem, Antioch & Alexandria because he has a much larger church.
Edit to the end of previous update based on above comment:
There is a coda to this, although no one is surprised. The Japanese Orthodox Church is autocephalous but in communion with the ‘main’ Orthodox Church, like the much older Georgian Orthodox Church. Unlike the Georgian Church, which is led by a Patriarch (because of the autocephality, the Georgian Patriarch doesn’t count for matters that are internal to the main Orthodox Church), the Japanese Church is headed by the Metropolitan of Aira.
When the autocephality was established, the Japanese had initially wanted a Patriarch but had been convinced to go with a Metropolitan. However with the Russians getting a Patriarch, their sense of honor and pride demands the Japanese have a Patriarch as well. Technically they don’t need the main church’s approval for the promotion, but for diplomacy’s sake they request it, and for diplomacy’s sake the main church promptly approves said promotion.
In terms of eastern affairs, the promotion doesn’t change anything. Given that the Japanese Church was already autocephalous beforehand, Antioch’s purview isn’t shrunk in the slightest. (It’s highly likely that Antioch’s support of a Russian Patriarch to curb Constantinople was revenge for Constantinople’s earlier support for an autocephalous Japanese Church to curb Antioch.)
The Russian Patriarch is somewhat different. Technically all of the Patriarchs are equal, with ceremonial precedence at most. In that manner, the Patriarch of the Rus is the most junior, on the grounds that it is much newer than the other five. However real power, as opposed to titles and procedures, can follow different rules. The Patriarch of the Rus, after all, has a comparable number of parishioners as the Pentarchy, Georgian, and Japanese Patriarchs combined.
Japan: The state religion is Orthodoxy and it’s working on its way to becoming the majority religion, although I’d give it another 2 generations.
Korea: People saying Korea is Orthodox are really jumping the gun. Orthodoxy just got its foot in the door less than a decade ago, and unlike Japan it doesn’t have a practicing ruler actively pushing the faith and crushing anyone who objects. So while there are some Korean converts, they number in the dozens or low hundreds, not the thousands. And these are via the Japanese Church.
More Patriarchs: Very unlikely to happen. Russia and Japan are both strong enough to force the creation of their equivalent of national churches, while Georgia has a preexisting one. But the ‘main’ Orthodox Church is much stronger ITTL than IOTL, so smaller states like Serbia and Vlachia can’t get away with that sort of thing. Having the Metropolitan of Ohrid (a see in Roman territory) but who has subordinate Serbian bishops can be a handy diplomatic tool. Furthermore having more Patriarchs in the Far East would be weakening their connection with the metropole, which is not helpful in terms of keeping them in the Imperial orbit.
Any merchant in Arabia wants to do business in Medina and Mecca, because that’s where the money is from the hajj and all the madrasas. Which means being a Christian is right out.
I figure there is one Vlach metropolitan (Targoviste most likely), with some bishops, and who is very low down on the metropolitan pecking order.
Don’t think I’ve gone into specifics, and if so not at great length, just generic ‘tolerated but second-class status’.
Obviously subject to change, but I think a protectionist Rhomania wouldn’t change much. Most of the world was protectionist when Adam Smith started writing. Any ‘workshop of the world’ is going to want to push free trade for self-interested reasons (see Opium Wars). Any Roman success could be handwaved away with 1) Roman internal market is big enough to support a lot anyway and 2) it could do even better if they would allow free trade and give our corporations access to their market space, really it’d be for their own good, too bad they’re too strong for us to use our cannon to make them see reason like [insert hopelessly outmatched African group].
Carthaginian Orthodox answer to Alexandria, but there aren’t many of them. Carthage is a glorified city-state after all. As for expanding efforts, Alexandria’s in the Catch-22 of ‘it takes money to make money, and you don’t have any money’.
South Africa is the only feasible place for colonization for the same reason it was the only place Europeans colonized in sub-Saharan Africa prior to the mid-1800s. Everywhere else tropical diseases kill your people, and kill them quick.
Ethiopia to the Roman sees and patriarchs: “Heard you was talking shit. Africa’s OUR turf.”
While I'm happy to see a powerful native African state, they can't hope to control the whole continent.
African Christian Polities: "What if we pooled, like, all our heavy cavalry into like one big horse-shit-scented tarpit and told them to start passing around Bibles? We Africans are really good at putting shiny guys on horseback and pointing them at others."
Ethiopia: "Yeah, that might work. Shame about the Saharans and Idwaits, though, they are/were Muslim."
Invincible Uber-Bantu version 1453.0 because I have no idea what's actually down there ITTL: "Will this help us get the Triunes bent?"
ACPs and Ethiopia: "fuck yeah."
Bantus: "fine, then, pass me whatever version of that motel desk drawer book y'all are using."
Last edited:
The Algiers Expedition
East Africa is Ethiopian/Omani turf and they would not appreciate the competition. Meanwhile Atlantic Africa has nothing of interest to Rhomania; anything it can provide can also be provided by East Africa, which is closer.
The Algiers Expedition
In the west, the Regency of Athena was extremely quiet in foreign affairs, with the one exception of the Algiers expedition. This was not a popular move in the halls of the White Palace. The expense was something that the exchequer very much wished to avoid while the benefits of any success would accrue mostly to the Latins and Sicilians. Since Roman shipping rarely went west of Sardinia anymore and Roman shores were far away with Sicily in the way, corsairs were not a notable problem.
The Roman contribution was solely because of commitments made in the negotiations over Italy, but the feeling was that Latin problems should be dealt with by Latins using their own men and money. As for the Sicilians, there was animus against them because of their perceived betrayal over the matter of Italy, which only irritated the Sicilians who were not impressed by Roman sour grapes over what the Sicilians considered the reasonable defense of their legal rights and interests.
The expedition is set for 1642, with the various allied fleets to rendezvous in Minorca, the island holding of the Hospitaler Order. However due to delays of raw material shipments needed for maintenance, the Roman contingent is delayed in departing Rhomania and further slowed by contrary winds in making its journey across the Mediterranean. As a result, when the Romans finally arrive in Minorca, the ships of the Order, Spain (which includes some Aragonese vessels), Arles, the Kingdom of the Isles, and Sicily all have been there for at least three weeks.
Thus the various allies are not in a particularly good mood when the Romans arrive. The enforced three weeks of idleness has been a voracious pit devouring their limited supply of moneys and victuals. Furthermore the crowded conditions are inevitably unhygienic, with disease outbreaks beginning to affect the crews.
The Romans try to explain the delay away by the material factors, but they fail to mollify the allies for various reasons. One is that the Roman contingent is somewhat underwhelming, not justifying the delay. The Spanish provided 22 ships, the Arletians 14, the Sicilians 16, the Order 6, and the Islanders 4 (the Order and Islander ships are combined into one squadron for tactical and administrative purposes). The Romans bring 15 ships to the armada.
Another reason is the behavior of the Roman commander, Navarchos Andronikos Platanas. Historians are divided on the question of whether Platanas was ordered by the White Palace to try and sabotage the expedition, or if the tensions were the result of his personality.
(Leo Kalomeros has been transferred to the Mediterranean by this point, but is not part of the expedition. Some historians argue that this was because it was felt that given his recent battle experiences with the Spanish, he would be a poor choice as part of a fleet that was operating with Spaniards. However there is no direct evidence of this and if that was the rationale for excluding Kalomeros, it makes the inclusion of Platanas even more puzzling. It should also be noted that at this point Kalomeros was still a junior officer with no ability to demand assignments, and so his inclusion or absence was not a matter of priority.)
The various allies have not been completely idle while waiting for the Romans. While the Commander-in-Chief of the combined fleet is to be the Hospitalier Grandmaster, Pierre de Monte, as agreed upon beforehand, he is not to become autocratic commander of all units. National pride won’t allow that. So the allies draw up Articles of War to govern the conduct of the combined fleet.
Tactically the fleet is divided into national squadrons to be commanded by their own officers, with the Grandmaster having complete command authority during battle. The various officers recognize the need for a clear and simple chain of command when shot is flying. However all important strategic decisions are to be made by a Council of War. The Council is to be comprised of the three senior officers from each national contingent, Hospitalers & Islanders, Spanish, Arletians, Sicilians, and Romans. Voting is to be done publicly and in rotation, with the senior most officer of each contingent voting first, to be followed by the second-most of all contingents, and then the third, although voting will cease once a majority is reached. The Hospitaler & Islander contingent, because it contains the Commander-in-Chief, gets first vote in the rotation. The order of the others is determined by lot, with it going Sicilian, Arletian, and Spanish. The Romans, because they are not present when all this is decided, are given the last slot.
Platanas is outraged that Articles of War have been drawn up that will govern the Romans without Roman input, and he wants new ones drawn up. However the other allies just want to get the expedition going already. For the sake of expediency, Platanas says he will agree to the Articles but demands that the Romans take the second slot after the Hospitalers & Islanders. This is rejected since in neither hulls nor weight-of-shot can the Romans justify preeminence; if that determined precedence as opposed to chance, the Spanish would take it. Eventually, after much argument and time during which at least a hundred allied sailors die of disease, Platanas agrees to the Articles provided the precedence-determining lots be cast again. This is accepted with the lots cast. The Romans still get the last slot, much to the amusement of the allied officers and the rage and fury of Platanas.
Finally the fleet sets sail, after a meeting that determines its target. For all the disputation over how the war council was to operate, the first meeting is quick for the target is obvious: Algiers. Corsairs operate from many ports along the North African coast, and are not restricted even to the Mediterranean, with the rovers of Sale on Morocco’s Atlantic coast raiding as far away as the Grand Banks.
But Algiers is by far the greatest of the pirate ports. In 1640 it has around 60,000 inhabitants, with ten to fifteen thousand of them slaves, mostly European although some are Africans purchased from the Sahara trade. That same year 61 corsair vessels put out to sea, hitting targets from Brittany to Crete. In the last case the corsairs seized 31 people, fishermen and sailors working small coaster trading vessels; Rhomania suffers much less than the western Mediterranean but is not immune.
Many of the corsairs are of North African stock, but many are not. The exceptions are European renegades, many (but not all of whom) have converted to Islam. Some were drawn to the lifestyle and opportunities for riches and advancement offered by the corsair lifestyle. Others are captives who when taken prisoner were offered the choice of being a slave or a corsair and took the latter course.
Algiers is nominally subject to the Marinid Sultan, but were he to abolish piracy, he would be ignored. It is vital to the prosperity of Algiers and the elite of the city are too invested in the practice to give it up. While there is a governor of the city, there is also a guild of captains, comprised of the senior corsairs, that is a major locus of power in Algiers. They are not going to give up their way of life, and the profits from it, easily.
The commander of the coastal artillery, Mohammed Pasha, an Arletian renegade and convert to Islam (he was captured on his family’s fishing boat as a boy), makes that quite clear when the Grandmaster makes his demands. He straps an elderly Spanish priest to the muzzle of one of his guns and threatens to blow him, and more prisoners, from his cannon if the allies attack. The allies are not dissuaded, with the first shot of the battle killing the priest. At least twenty more Algerian prisoners are murdered in similar fashion. [1]
The battle of Algiers (1642) is a fierce gunnery duel between the allied fleet and the coastal defenses of Algiers. The allies are restricted to naval options as they have little in the way of army units save for sharpshooters posted on vessels for additional firepower. The last serious incursion into North Africa, a Roman venture, was demolished by a Marinid army 50,000 strong. The allies don’t have the sealift capacity to move an army big enough to challenge that, so they don’t even try. It is just as well. Considering the supply and sanitation situation on Minorca, adding soldiers to the mix would just have increased the death toll.
Three of the Spanish vessels are bomb ketches which have proven their worth in the Andalusi war, their high-angle long-range heavy mortars wreaking havoc on the city while the conventional ships engage the coastal batteries. Firing is hot and thick, both sides taking heavy losses. The Great Mosque of Algiers is damaged by the bomb ketches and many harbor guns are put out of action. But those harbor guns did not go down quietly, the batteries along the Grand Mole proving particularly dangerous. The Spanish flagship alone is hit over two hundred times. Both sides distinguish themselves, with the conspicuous exception of the Romans who stand off and engage in an ineffectual long-range cannonade. Three Roman vessels break from this pattern, moving in closer to fire more effectually; they are reprimanded and recalled by Platanas.
At dusk the duel ends, both sides licking their wounds. The mood in the council of war is ugly. Losses are heavy, much powder and shot has been expended, supplies are running low, disease is still raging in the crews, and everyone is utterly fed up with Platanas. To his face, the Spanish admiral (whose nephew, serving as an aide, lost a foot that day to a shot from one of the mole batteries) tells him that if Platanas was his subordinate, he’d have him hanged from a yardarm for cowardice in the face of the enemy.
The Algerians rub salt in the wound the next morning by offering, as a gesture of goodwill, to release thirty five captives gratis. They are all Romans, which confirms in the eyes of practically all of the allied officers that Platanas is in league with the Algerians.
Combined with all these issues, it is late in the season and many an expedition against Algiers has met bloody ruin by the wrath of Mother Nature in these waters. Thus the expedition breaks up with bitter recriminations. Despite the expenditure and effort and the thousands of shot fired into Algiers, it would seem that this attack on Algiers, like the many before it, is a bloody failure.
But it is not a total failure. Unlike those earlier attacks, this one did inflict serious harm on Algiers and cause many casualties amongst the mariner population that crews the corsair ships. In 1643, thirty five put out to sea. And in another way this is different from earlier assaults, as the 1642 attack is not a one-shot but is followed up by renewed effort.
In 1644 a fresh allied force puts out to sea, with Spanish, Aragonese, Hospitalier, Islander, Arletian, and Sicilian contributions. The Romans are not invited. (Platanas returns to Constantinople and faces neither commendation nor condemnation, giving no hint as to whether he was acting on orders or if his personality was just spectacularly unsuited for the task.)
This fleet sets sail much earlier, in much better health and provisions, and with more shot and powder. Again the guns sound, both sides taking heavy losses, but the allies keep up the attack and after three days of shelling they are clearly getting the better of the exchange. The city of Algiers is finally forced to come to terms.
Surrender is not unconditional and the Algerians are stubborn bargainers. But they are forced to relinquish a thousand captives and allow three thousand more to be ransomed. Allied efforts to get more run into the stumbling block that many of the captives are private property, not slaves of the state, and their masters are reluctant to part with them. So while many slaves are freed, many more remain in bondage.
The Algerians are also forced to sign pledges not to attack the shipping of the allied powers. Again this is difficult to enforce because corsairs tend to ignore orders they don’t like, and piracy and slavery are essential for maintaining Algiers’s economy at its current level of development. Still it is a success, even if not a complete one. Corsairs still put out from Algiers, but in 1645 their ships only number twenty three, and they never again attain the numbers or reach that they held before 1644.
[1] This is from the OTL French bombardment of Algiers in 1683.
Starting with this because I want to make it clear I loved the update if not the Romans behaviour. Great writing and depressingly believable.
But God above that was embarrassing and a terrible show by Platanas and the White Palace. I appreciate nobody wanted to pay but this was meant to be part of making up for the diplomatic disaster at the end of the war and just makes the Romans look bad. Sure the material problems were an issue but could they have chosen a worse officer?
It just makes the Empire look childish and petty after looking like warmongers and butchers. I feel bad for the ambassadors the Romans send west. Any work they'd done is flushed down the pan, at least in this sort of matter. Here's hoping Leo and the future can turn this around.
Heck, in some ways it could only have been worse if they'd actually reneged on the agreement, or had been working with Algiers. They've certainly further alienated Sicily.
If the Navy aren't embarrassed I'd be shocked if the Army isn't after their great showing in the east. Heck, I'd hope the papers would make a stink, but they may well passively support such behaviour in this case. Here's hoping the Navy and White Palace get an appropriate and deserved kick up the backside.
But God above that was embarrassing and a terrible show by Platanas and the White Palace. I appreciate nobody wanted to pay but this was meant to be part of making up for the diplomatic disaster at the end of the war and just makes the Romans look bad. Sure the material problems were an issue but could they have chosen a worse officer?
It just makes the Empire look childish and petty after looking like warmongers and butchers. I feel bad for the ambassadors the Romans send west. Any work they'd done is flushed down the pan, at least in this sort of matter. Here's hoping Leo and the future can turn this around.
Heck, in some ways it could only have been worse if they'd actually reneged on the agreement, or had been working with Algiers. They've certainly further alienated Sicily.
If the Navy aren't embarrassed I'd be shocked if the Army isn't after their great showing in the east. Heck, I'd hope the papers would make a stink, but they may well passively support such behaviour in this case. Here's hoping the Navy and White Palace get an appropriate and deserved kick up the backside.
Gotta say I don't know why I feel the that the past couple updates, feel downright depressing. It didn't have the same feeling like the sideros arc where victories and loses meant something.
All I see is a Rome that's constantly losing and having no considerable lasting victory. Its allies are just... shitty allies that are taking advantage of Rome's apparent unlucky ness. Which has never left Rome since the times of trouble.
Now that I keep having that feeling, the war of the Roman succession is just totally pointless. Where there are certain Roman victories that are just outright denied by incompetence or sheer disbelief of enemy luck.
Egypt continues to be a major fuck up and Sicily while not bad, seems to be a thorn for Rome for a variety of reasons after the WoRS. And why does Rome keep having to send so much imbecilic commanders to lead their forces??
Its neighbours and allies keep having this average to godly competent men in charge of their bureaucracy and military. This latest update just keeps reeking of that roman unluckily ness that I'm seriously questioning how future updates will go.
All I'm saying is that we need some good updates where Roman sacrifice meant something. I know that realistically speaking all states suffer from the same problem, but all I see is constant fuck ups on Rome's part that any victories at this point feels absolutely nothing.
All I see is a Rome that's constantly losing and having no considerable lasting victory. Its allies are just... shitty allies that are taking advantage of Rome's apparent unlucky ness. Which has never left Rome since the times of trouble.
Now that I keep having that feeling, the war of the Roman succession is just totally pointless. Where there are certain Roman victories that are just outright denied by incompetence or sheer disbelief of enemy luck.
Egypt continues to be a major fuck up and Sicily while not bad, seems to be a thorn for Rome for a variety of reasons after the WoRS. And why does Rome keep having to send so much imbecilic commanders to lead their forces??
Its neighbours and allies keep having this average to godly competent men in charge of their bureaucracy and military. This latest update just keeps reeking of that roman unluckily ness that I'm seriously questioning how future updates will go.
All I'm saying is that we need some good updates where Roman sacrifice meant something. I know that realistically speaking all states suffer from the same problem, but all I see is constant fuck ups on Rome's part that any victories at this point feels absolutely nothing.
It's honestly very disappointing from the Romans to act this way. This was supposed to be the campaign that helped repair relations with the Latin West and in the end they really got nothing for the people they lost. No glory, no loot, and certainly no respect. The second campaign had the Latins beat the Barbary Pirates without any involvement from Rhomania, and that's honestly the biggest insult out of all of this.
The apathy from Athena is strange if this campaign was so important for the Romans after the clustertruck that was the Italian affair. I wanted Platanas punished or at least tried for incompetency due to the importance of the operation but nothing came of it.
Worsening relations with the Despotate of Sicily doesn't help either, as the campaign was also supposed to calm down the Sicilians. Guess the Romans blew that up too.
Of course, Algiers isn't the biggest diplomatic blunder that the Romans experienced (Sicily/Italy was far worse), but one that hurt Rhomania's future involvement with Latin politics by a long shot and left them hamstrung with even more trouble with their allies. Unfortunate.
The War of Wrath, anyone? That one was a slam dunk for Rhomania, even though Odysseus killed himself by the end of the war.
Maybe Rhomania will find more success in the Orthodox sphere or in the East, but I believe that with the failure of Algiers, Rhomania has no reason or motivation to involve themselves in the West anymore, lest some apocalyptic prophecy get in the way of that.
@E_x_c_u_b_i_t_o_r_e
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. We've just seen the Romans effecitvely install an allied leader on the Persian throne (yes, not on their own, but they were the driving force) and then make a mockery an Indian power. That's pretty good! Plus the Indonesian conflict did work out in the Romans favour in the end.
I'll admit that I also would love to see a Roman campaign that juat kicks ass, like making the Marinids collapse and establishing Roman authority, just to make a wish. That doesn't make what is in some ways a very realistically pointless war of succession (and in many ways it really was, especially with the diplomatic screw ups) any less realistic.
If we had a map that showed changes in Roman favour vs changes against them, I'm pretty sure the Romans come out on top, barring the economic crisis. Sure Latim Europe is shit but Central Italy and the whole of SE Europe is secure, and Persia is flipped from enemy to ally with a buffer state.
Though I will pay actual money to see the Romans burn Triune cities and loot them. They still havent really paid for trying that on as far as I'm concerned and I'm pretty sure the treasures of NW Europe (not to mention the region is the home of the crusaders of 1204) would kickstart the Roman economy. Not exactly going to win them any friends, not unless they dismantle the Triunes with local allies that accept the looting. Lotharingia might even appreciate being freed.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. We've just seen the Romans effecitvely install an allied leader on the Persian throne (yes, not on their own, but they were the driving force) and then make a mockery an Indian power. That's pretty good! Plus the Indonesian conflict did work out in the Romans favour in the end.
I'll admit that I also would love to see a Roman campaign that juat kicks ass, like making the Marinids collapse and establishing Roman authority, just to make a wish. That doesn't make what is in some ways a very realistically pointless war of succession (and in many ways it really was, especially with the diplomatic screw ups) any less realistic.
If we had a map that showed changes in Roman favour vs changes against them, I'm pretty sure the Romans come out on top, barring the economic crisis. Sure Latim Europe is shit but Central Italy and the whole of SE Europe is secure, and Persia is flipped from enemy to ally with a buffer state.
Though I will pay actual money to see the Romans burn Triune cities and loot them. They still havent really paid for trying that on as far as I'm concerned and I'm pretty sure the treasures of NW Europe (not to mention the region is the home of the crusaders of 1204) would kickstart the Roman economy. Not exactly going to win them any friends, not unless they dismantle the Triunes with local allies that accept the looting. Lotharingia might even appreciate being freed.
Actually, the best thing would simply be to see the Romans have a bit of vision, and carry it out. I appreciate we've got the low point of the Little Ice Age coming up, and I slightly dread how grim that's going to be. I just hope that somehow, in some way the Romans can work it to some advantage, or at least the consequences of the shakeup. As mentioned above if it can cause the Triunes a whole mess of issues it'd be incredible to see the Romans just push a staggering Triunes down and make out like bandits. Even just solo, a big ambitious geopolitical play, perhaps with some backing from Russia to topple a monster and prove that whilst the Romans haven't been great recently, they can at least show they stood by their rhetoric of "The Triunes are the bad guys" and make the rest of Europe if not fond of them, at least passingly grateful and impressed.
This has been pretty par for the course with how the White Palace has been acting in regards to Rome's western "Allies", and plays into the divide Europe has with Rome in later years.
A great update as always B444.
A great update as always B444.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
Yep, Rhomania has so many other commitments and objectives elsewhere and to an extent they are done with Europe. If Europe wanted Constantinople to not be involved they are getting their wish, so long as it doesn't intrude on the western borders it isn't Rhomania's problem.
A persian ally that will likely betray Rome according to updates that hint another romano-persian war. If that isn't another fuck up I dont know what to call it.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
From the hints it sounds more like Rhomania is the one that fucks up the alliance temporarily for one more go around.
Why is that a bad thing, honestly? Rhomania has suffered, but they've also won some hard earned victories as well. That's a common theme for practically every society on Earth.
Plus it's possible that this situation only happens a long time after Odysseus, Athena, and the rest of the people that we know are long dead. People often tend to forget the promises and deals done by their ancestors.
Last edited: