Sicily and Rhomania: Pretty much see Evilprodigy’s post. Sicily derives a lot of benefits from its high-autonomous-but-connected-to-Rhomania status. There’s a bit of a drift westward, but the Sicilians wouldn’t want to break the connection even if they’re loosening it some.
The issue comes if ‘something like the status quo’ option leaves the table. If Rhomania tries to reduce its autonomy, the Sicilians if presented with the choice between centralization and independence will prefer the second. They have a tradition going back to the Sicilian Vespers of not taking kindly to irritating foreign overlords.
Germany: Yeah, Germany is not pretty. It’s not as bad as the OTL 30 Years War because the active fighting isn’t as long, but saying it’s not as bad as the OTL 30 Years War is like saying it’s not as painful as being soaked in gasoline and lit on fire.
I'm somewhat curious now as to the impact that the loss of a 1/4 of the population is going to have on Sicily - it was mentioned that the Greek Orthodox population is overrepresented in leadership roles, and my expectation is that the 1/4 that died were almost certainly the poorest 1/4, or at least trend that way, which I expect the Greek Orthodox community are underrepresented in. 1/4 of the population is a significant shift if its primarily the Latins, so it could really transform the demographic balance if my assumptions are correct.
Disasters can heighten or soften tensions via blame or conciliation, but if the Greek Orthodox community seem to be getting out just fine, the Latin Sicilians might well bear a grudge.
As to Rome, I'd be shocked if it stays that small very long (or at least, the territory of Rome). With Sicily in doubt in the White Palace, and Rome effectively sleepy, it could be a good project next time the Romans have some money and population to drain the swamps near Rome and end the malaria threat, and then rebuild the city as a Greek Orthodox one, effectively the base of Roman power in Central Italy. Effectively insurance in case the tolerance for Roman-imposed rulers ends, a check on Sicily, and a good place to base an "Thema Italia" so that if there is war in Italy again, the Sicilians and Italians don't feel like they're facing it alone.
The Greek Orthodox population of Sicily still has mass populations which are going to be in the poor demographic, in eastern Sicily, Apulia, and Calabria. They’re going to be hit hard. So while the mass death might tweak the proportions, it wouldn’t majorly shift them.
I love that the anti-Venetian sentiments have transformed into a cultural suspicion of the rich. While the West will have wild monopolies and boom-bust economic funtimes, the Romans will plot a nice and steady course of placid growth. Of course this will mean that the modern Roman Empire will have issues with economies of scale (unless the Imperial family and the dynatoi go into venture capitalism), but it will also have a much more healthy middle class and a smaller wealth gap minus the Imperial Family.
Yeah, I’m having fun with that. Romans won’t have such big billionaires and corporations, but a more stable and orderly and equitable economy.
It wouldn't surprise me if we see a HUGE role for the state in the economy. I'm talking Red Sea Transport Company, big state departments that directly interact with farmers, etc.
Basically, the only place wealth can concentrate is in the Roman State, not outside it. Which would probably make it closer to Egypt I'd say in terms of economic model, but that's not particularly close.
This is definitely not even close to being fully thought and developed, but I’m liking the idea of state-run departments/companies for the likes of public necessities (health care, basic transportation, utilities) on the grounds of efficiency. It makes sense to have one trash disposal and one power company per city, and basic essentials shouldn’t be run on a for-profit basis anyway. Even thinking about the idea of a state-run grocery chain as a means to avoid food deserts and to provide cheap healthy food to the Roman public. This is because making a healthy diet easy would save money in the long run from the state health care system, because apples and carrots are cheaper than doctors.
And with something that isn’t labeled a public good, perhaps the government has to be a shareholder of a certain size (20%? To list the first number to pop into my head) once corporations get so big.
As someone that has previously been part of the crowd that's criticised some story choices (Roman Incompetence), I really must say...
1. It has definitely gotten out of hand of late.
2. A bungled expedition is both normal for this time period and doesn't take away from Rome's incredible success.
They've recently managed to reorder both their frontiers to settlements that are broadly to their liking. They've turfed their strongest competitors out of Asia and held the line against the Spanish.
Basileus wants Rome to be a great power but not the global superpower, because that would be boring to write. I think that would be boring to read eventually, so I understand the sentiment entirely. I will quibble and say that I would enjoy Rome waxing and waning, so I would like to see periods where it's arguably the greatest power alongside periods where it's the Sick Man of Europe.
And on that note, I am entirely on board with Roman power waning/relative decline now. The Little Ice Age, shifting global trade patterns, and the opening up of the Americas were all things the Ottoman Empire couldn't escape from. Rome is perhaps better positioned to deal with them, but they cannot escape either. Let the Triunes become an absolutely monstrous hyperpower in the first wave of industrialisation, if Rome can maintain its strong bureaucracy, education, and state cohesion, they can totally have a their time in the Sun once technology moves past total dependence on coal.
Edit: I would like all of Italy to eventually be in the Roman orbit purely because those borders look very pretty, but I understand why that hasn't happened.
Yeah, the issues you mention that hit the Ottoman Empire are something the TTL Romans can’t escape, because they occupy the same geographical and ecological space. But they don’t have to decline as far as the Ottomans. There’s a big difference between going from the 16th century superpower to the Sick Man, to going to an equivalent of 1913 France-indisputably a great power and major player, although not the biggest one.
And sometimes I do wish that I hadn’t been so enamored of having Roman colonies in the east. Because then I would’ve had an Andreas-goes-west instead of conquering the Mamelukes, and when the dust finally settles the Roman Empire is something like Anatolia + Balkans (south of Danube) + Italy (possibly something like Italy after the end of the Italian Wars with Rhomania replacing Spain). Borders would’ve been so pretty, unlike whatever this is.
Love the update. I don't see Sicily going completely independent though for the obvious reason of why would they leave the strongest Mediterranean block (Rome) to be buddy buddy with the 2nd strongest block (Arles, Spain) when there is not real strategic reason to do so. Any war between Arles, Spain and Rome would still mostly be a naval affair with the bulk of the land fighting taking place in the Italian Peninsula with one side or the other needing to secure it and the other side needing to deny it. Better to be on the side that can drop 30,000 men in a fortnight in Bari; with the support of the local population to boot; than the side that would take a couple months to reach you.
I actually see Sicily striking out on its own like this as a positive development for Rome. Sicily can essentially become the "western face" of Rome. Sicilian diplomats can sign treaties and make contacts that their Roman counterparts wouldn't be able to giving Rome a vital window into Latin Europe. Long term Rome needs relations to normalize at least to an extent if it is to be truly secure in Europe and Sicily can go a long way to establishing that.
There is also the added bonus that a state that is within the Roman sphere but is considered only lightly in the sphere can be an excellent place for negotiations between Rome and Latin Europe to occur. A Spanish, Arletian, Triune, or German diplomat in Messina could make concessions that the same diplomat in Constantinople would be honour bound to reject. By the same token Roman diplomats in Messina could do the same thing that diplomats is Madrid, Marseille, or Kings Landing would likewise be honour bound to reject. Sicily can give both sides breathing room in the guaranteed frictions that are going to occur between major powers; a place where Rome feels secure; even when they are in an isolationist phase; but also a place that isn't within Roman borders.
It is important to remember that an allied or integrated Sicily though a nice bones for Rome is not a strategic necessity. All that is necessary is that Sicily not be used as a base for enemy operation in the Adriatic and Eastern Mediterranean. Even a Sicily that that moves more towards true neutrality will not jeopardize this strategic necessity and so long as it remains true the Roman heartland is completely safe from anything beyond pin-prick raids from naval forces. There is no power east of Morocco and Arles that poses any threat whatsoever to Rome and even those two powers are mostly toothless without Sicily actively aiding them.
Looking at the map I still think at some point Rome is going to look to war with Morocco again at some point only to secure the coastline of Tunisia/Libya that is currently under Moroccan control. It is the furthest from the Marinid heartland and vulnerable that way but it is also the only coastline in the hands of a major/secondary power in the Eastern Mediterranean; that isn't an ally of Rome; that breaches the Tunis, Malta, Sicily barrier that currently exists. It is hard to see exactly where the border is but at a minimum the ports of Sfax, Gabes, and possibly Tripoli all look to be under Moroccan control. A limited war to at least seize Tripoli; if the Marinids do indeed control it; as well as the Kerkennah Islands and Jerba Island would play to Roman strengths; naval superiority; while minimizing the Moroccan ability to just retreat into the interior and strike wherever they want while also removing outright Tripoli and giving nearby bases for Rome to shut down all the ports along the Eastern Tunisian coast. This would go a long way to removing any lingering pirate threat to the Roman heartland and would also play well in Sicily since any reduction in the pirate threat is good for them.
Sicily is a good compromise place for negotiations. It’s equidistant between Constantinople and Lisbon, so it’s neutral compared to having talks in one of the capitals.
Regarding Libya and the likes, I know there have been a few off-hand references to at least some of these places, but they were minor bits, not significant elements. But your comments have given me an idea regarding these areas, although not sure when exactly it’ll show up.
The City of Rome: Rome will probably get a boost later on as antiquarian interest increases, possibly as a stop on a Roman version of the Grand Tour. But for the city to really develop the Pontine Marshes need to go. This issue is that the money devoted to marsh-draining is first going to go to places like Cilicia or Thrakesia. Especially since to literally fuel the economic boom of the Flowering the Romans cut down too many of their trees, which increases soil erosion and water runoff, which tends to make swamps.
How are the kommenoi doing in Mexico btw?
The ruling family is doing alright, but Mexico is in a population nadir at the moment. It’s at the point where the various Old World diseases have chewed through the locals, killing most of them, but the population hasn’t rebounded yet. (This is like OTL, where the native inhabitant population of Latin America seems to have bottomed out around 1650 and started climbing back up afterwards.) Mexico is huge but doesn’t have many people. England has more people than the territories that comprise OTL Mexico. (South Terranova is undergoing the same process, but is farther behind than North Terranova, so there the population is still dropping.)
who in russia is colonising siberia? Is it some form of cossacks?
Essentially the tsar through cossacks. My memory of the topic is that the four Russian principalities are fairly independent and the tsar has little real power within them, but has been building up a huge personal domain in the east. It's been a long time since the government structure of Russia has come up, so please let me know if I'm wrong about anything.
Cossacks and some Russian settlers. I’m planning 1-2 updates focused specifically on Russia in the near future.
Roman and Greek: This is when I say that identities can come in different types, in layers, with people having multiple identities. I think comparing Roman to Greek is comparing apples to oranges.
That is because Roman is a political identity.
Greek however is an ethnic and cultural identity.
These are different things. The Emperor is politically Roman (he is the Emperor of the Romans, not of the Greeks) but culturally Greek. The Romans will identify as Roman as a marker of state identity, but for examples of classical rhetoric they’ll look to Demosthenes, not Cicero. And in the event they do look to Cicero, it’ll be in a Greek translation. For an example of epic poetry, it’s Homer all the way. Virgil might as well not even be in the contest.
An Arabic-speaking Arab Orthodox Christian is not called a Greek; they’re called a Melkite. But nobody would question calling themselves a Roman. Greek and Melkite are cultural designations, so they’re mutually exclusive, but since Roman is a political designation, it can double up with either of them.
I’d also note that the use of the term Roman as an ethnic designation doesn’t work in a way that Greek does. Their own mythology attests to the Romans not being some pure race but a mix of various peoples. Pre-Roman Italy was extremely diverse, with the Latins being only one group. Livy, Virgil, and Cicero all came from non-Latin Italy originally, yet they were definitely Roman. The Severan dynasty was definitely Roman (hard to argue that the Emperor of the Romans is not Roman, after all) but it was of mixed North African and Syrian ethnicity. To be Roman was a political identity that could, and was, layered on top of ethnic and cultural identities. If it’d been much more exclusive, like Greek was in the various Hellenistic kingdoms, it’s extremely doubtful the Romans would’ve had nearly as much or as long-lasting success.
Now this does present things as being neater and tidier than reality, which is much messier than theory. In classical Rome, one could be Syrian or Egyptian and also Roman, but it did involve taking cultural elements from Rome. An auxiliary that becomes a citizen after completing his service would be speaking in Latin. Romanized elites would be wearing togas and living in Roman-style villas and towns. It’s similar ITTL. To be Roman now ITTL means speaking Greek and being Orthodox Christian, but one can still do that and be Albanian or Arab.
As for what this means for the Romans and Rome, the Eternal City will have some resonance. Political Roman figures like Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, and Trajan will be famous and influential figures. However more cultural classical Roman figures like Virgil and Livy and Cicero will be distant second to Greek counterparts. So Rome will have some resonance, but not an overwhelming one.
And yes, I know this is confusing and doesn’t fit well with OTL modern views. We’re used to a match between the nation and the state in the nation-state. But here we have a Roman state paired with a Greek nation. (Rhomania is a lot like China, yes it’s a multiethnic state, but the main ethnicity far outnumbers everyone else, although TTL Greek in Rhomania isn’t at Han in China levels. But think China rather than Austria-Hungary.) It’s weird. Although I think this testifies to the amazing strength and durability of the Roman identity, since it was disassociated from its place of origin, yet was adopted and carried on by an original subject people, and that’s OTL, not me. That’s really impressive.
Finally, having said all this, this setup could open the door for the various western Europeans to claim Roman identity. “We’re culturally French/German/whatever, but politically Roman.” But the counterargument to that would be “Roman is a political identity, and the continuity of that polity was in Constantinople.”