The Contexts of Roman Society, part 13-1: Rhomania in the World-A Mutilated Victory
While there were many and varied sources of discontent over the course the Empire was on in the 1640s, perhaps the most articulate and organized were the ultra-hawks. These were a mix of individuals, both civilian and military, but membership was especially concentrated in the ranks of mid-tier Roman military officers. For this reason, this group is sometimes also referred to as the Party of the Tourmarches.
Sources for their discontentment were not new. They went back at least as far as Mashhadshar. The humiliating end of the Eternal War had been due to a mix of military and diplomatic failures on the part of the Romans. The Roman military had been willing to concede the military failures, but fiercely and deeply resented that all of the blame had been shoved onto them while the diplomats who’d been bamboozled by Iskandar had suffered no censure. Demetrios III’s actions as Emperor had helped to resolve much of this tension, and had that been given some more time to heal and nothing further added, that likely would’ve been the end of the matter.
But much was further added. While battling the Germans, the Roman army had been subject to a constant and unending torrent of abuse from the rear. Odysseus Sideros’ own complaint that he and his fellow officers must apparently all be a second Andreas Niketas or be damned was hardly unique to him. Troops after suffering horribly at the front had been vilified even if victorious, because they had been insufficiently victorious. The result was that by the end of the war, a good section of the Roman army, especially its officer corps, had been deeply alienated from Roman civil society.
Nothing came of it then, because the Roman army remained loyal to the Sideros dynasty (although if Odysseus had elected to march on Constantinople even with Theodor bearing down on Thessaloniki, he would’ve been followed). But by the late 1640s, both Demetrios III and Odysseus were dead, and for a variety of reasons Athena’s popularity had declined substantially from the siege of Thessaloniki.
Odysseus’ campaign eastward had been a saga of glory and triumph, with the bloodiness of the fighting in Mesopotamia being overshadowed by the sweep across Persia and northern India. After the bitter experiences of the Eternal War and the War of the Roman Succession it was a most welcome change. But it was brief and really only extended to a small fraction of the Roman army. And as the years passed, promotions and honors overwhelmingly went to those who were veterans of the fighting in Persia and India. Now those veterans had more experience and opportunity to display their skill and valor, but still this left the six-sevenths of the army that had not participated getting a comparative cold shoulder, and many resented it.
And so there were many who were interested in a much more aggressive foreign policy. For those who had not fought in Persia and India, it would be an opportunity to win renown and glory, to blot out past poor performances, and to humiliate all those who had slandered them behind their backs.
Fueling this desire for war, really for victory, was the feeling that there just hadn’t been much victory lately. The victories of recent years felt diluted, and the term ‘mutilated victory’ would be coined sometime in the late 1640s (several different versions of its origins exist). The material benefits of the victory over the Latins had been meager, and largely evaporating by the late 1640s. And while Odysseus’ campaign fruits seemed more tangible, they still felt rather weak in light of what Roman arms had accomplished during the campaign itself.
The full war-hawk program certainly did not lack for ambition. The purpose was to secure the fruits that Rhomania should have secured after its recent wars, rather than the watered-down pathetic scrap they’d gotten instead. Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and all of Italy to the Alps should’ve been conquered, with Hungary, Vlachia, and Georgia all turned into official satellite states. The Egyptians and ungrateful Sicilians should also have been reabsorbed, and Mesopotamia either conquered or at least turned into a vassal state that owed allegiance only to Constantinople. Persia should be, if not shattered, at least firmly shoved behind the Zagros. Conquests around Carthage in North Africa were also discussed, but took backstage to the above-mentioned which were considered far more important.
The war hawks considered these just recompense for Roman sufferings and also what was needed to ensure Roman security. They recognized that such a program could not be achieved without military conflict, but they were open to that, even welcoming that. It would provide the opportunity for glory and revenge, and they believed that such a program was within the realm of possibility, if the government would only strive for it.
But the government, Athena’s government, plainly would not strive for it. Far from supporting such measures, she’d even gone so far as to cede some territories to those Sicilians. The main diplomatic initiative undertaken by the White Palace was an effort to improve relations with Spain. Both Romans and Spanish in the East were being seriously pressured by surging Lotharingian/Dutch fleets (despite the division between a Triune and independent Lotharingia, east of the Cape they were cooperating) so a rapprochement was logical. But these efforts were contrary to war hawk territorial ambitions in Italy, where the Spanish tercios were seen as the biggest obstacle.
Thus Athena was losing popularity in the eyes of the war hawks, but there were additional reasons. It must not be forgotten that Athena was a woman; certainly the war hawks did not. This was ‘surely’ the explanation for her focus on diplomacy and unwillingness to engage in the hard tasks that needed to be done.
Some of Athena’s efforts to retain the loyalty of the army also were counter-productive. She was one of those women who had served openly in the Roman army during the siege of Thessaloniki, and at certain points she still proudly wore her artillery tourmarch’s uniform. But while many Roman men had praised the women who had done so, there were many more who condemned such actions. Many of the latter also thought it was a reproach to their own manliness. Warfare is the most stereotypical masculine activity and having women participate in it, especially with skill and dedication, was unnerving and shaming. To those thus disposed against women in uniform, or Athena’s policies in general, Athena’s references to her past military conduct diminished rather than enhanced her status.
Athena did push the envelope of what was acceptable by the standards of the time. The hesychastic lodges, where members joined together and participated in joint mystical exercises to experience the divine, where biometric readings of participants could and did mirror each other, were intensely important in Roman military culture. Dating back to the mid-1200s and St Ioannes of the Turks, these lodge brotherhoods were intensely deep and personal. While they were spread more widely throughout society, these lodges were primarily associated with monks and soldiers, and especially with soldiers. Monks were more likely to engage in private mysticism, and when they didn’t their lodges were usually located in less obvious locations.
Athena did something unheard of. In 1648 she established a hesychastic lodge for women. Many (male) theologians doubted whether women could see the divine fire (the goal of hesychastic mysticism) at all, while even those that allowed for the possibility expected this to be done privately. Some women had, but none had thought to establish a lodge so as to show others how to do so. Until now.
It was a small affair. It followed the structure of a typical lodge, with the lodge leader being a nun who’d experienced the divine fire privately, a requirement for all lodge leaders. The lodge was small, with Athena and a few female attendants, including Celeste Galilei, numbering no more than seven sisters plus the lodge mother. During the ceremonies, there were no differentiations in rank; all were equal in the face of God.
Many men, especially military men, were furious that Athena would do such a thing. Women participating in this most absolutely masculine activity (especially with its military associations) was an affront to their manhood. This is not to say that all men or soldiers had turned against Athena; many were still loyal to her and respected her. But by 1650 she was a controversial and divisive figure in a way even her father had not been even in the worst stretches of the War of the Roman Succession.
The face of the war hawk faction were that of mid-tier military officers, but they were not alone. Another group prominent were what could be called, by the standards of the time, big businessmen. The war hawks were aware of the demands that would be required by their program of expansionism, but they thought those demands could be met, provided certain reforms were made. The War of the Roman Succession had seen the creation of war profiteers, but the material resources for the war effort had been created and distributed, and that was what mattered to the war hawks.
Clearly the way forward was to just take what had already been done during the war years and to continue it. Any such talk of limiting to the just profit or the just wage or price should be removed. This would allow for the expansion of the big, efficient, and profitable enterprises that had already provided the materials needed for a major war effort, and so could do so again. For those in a position to profit from the removal of those restrictions, this was an attractive concept, and so many supported the war hawks. And while there was concern, even here, about the pressures this would place on the poor, for the war hawks that could also be a benefit. Economic downturns were very good for army recruitment.
For those who fell into this mindset, Athena was clearly an impediment. Her nephew Herakleios seemed far more promising. His personality was admittedly unimpressive, but he was the son of Odysseus, and Odysseus certainly ranked far higher in war hawk eyes than his sister. He was also a male, a big plus. And even if Herakleios showed no signs of martial prowess, indications were favorable that he could be influenced to have the right opinions.
Herakleios is infamous in his personal life for having a mistress, Anastasia Laskarina, who started having an affair when he was 13 and she was 27. He was intensely devoted to her, although some might rephrase that as ‘being obsessed with and commanded by her’. Athena had made some efforts to get rid of her, but in the face of Herakelios’ resistance, which went so far as a threat to commit suicide, Athena backed down. Now while there were many in the war hawk camp who thought Herakleios’ behavior to be unbecoming and unmanly, it was most useful. For one of the literal Tourmarches in the Party of the Tourmarches was her brother, Isaakios Laskaris.