An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
And now (hopefully) back to our regular programming…
That’s the one; expect similar opinions to be more widespread throughout certain parts of Latin Europe.
@Archereon: The East Swiss is the Swiss Confederation; the west Swiss is the Bernese League.
Now I haven’t played any of the Victoria games (so I have no idea if the game models these concepts), but the game issues you describe sound a lot like what Rhomania will face at that point ITTL. Mainly limited natural resources and a small population by Great Power standards. One potential out is to trade heavily with Russia, since protectionist instincts won’t be so strong there, but then there’s the risks of being dependent on one vendor for vital materials.
Also Rhomania would have a strong, prosperous, and secure peasantry who are not inclined to move off their land to become early factory workers (considering the conditions, who can blame them?). So while there would be a mass of urban poor, there’d be less of a migration of rural poor to the cities to be the labor pool of factory drones.
Based on my limited understanding, that last bit is a key reason why French industrialization lagged behind Britain and Germany. The post-Revolution peasantry were strong and stable enough to be able to stick with their smallholdings, so there was less of an urban labor pool.
One of the key issues facing Rhomania as a great power (and one that will become increasingly important going forward) is its weakness manpower-wise compared to other great powers. It’s a 1913 France great power in this regard.
So in comparison to the OTL Ottomans, the Roman population would be better educated and more prosperous but not massively higher, at least not enough to vault it into a higher category.
(Note that these numbers are arbitrary and strictly for a sense of proportion.)
So if OTL Ottomans were 15M and OTL French were 30M, Romans would be 20M.
That’s the one; expect similar opinions to be more widespread throughout certain parts of Latin Europe.
@Archereon: The East Swiss is the Swiss Confederation; the west Swiss is the Bernese League.
Now I haven’t played any of the Victoria games (so I have no idea if the game models these concepts), but the game issues you describe sound a lot like what Rhomania will face at that point ITTL. Mainly limited natural resources and a small population by Great Power standards. One potential out is to trade heavily with Russia, since protectionist instincts won’t be so strong there, but then there’s the risks of being dependent on one vendor for vital materials.
Also Rhomania would have a strong, prosperous, and secure peasantry who are not inclined to move off their land to become early factory workers (considering the conditions, who can blame them?). So while there would be a mass of urban poor, there’d be less of a migration of rural poor to the cities to be the labor pool of factory drones.
Based on my limited understanding, that last bit is a key reason why French industrialization lagged behind Britain and Germany. The post-Revolution peasantry were strong and stable enough to be able to stick with their smallholdings, so there was less of an urban labor pool.
One of the key issues facing Rhomania as a great power (and one that will become increasingly important going forward) is its weakness manpower-wise compared to other great powers. It’s a 1913 France great power in this regard.
So in comparison to the OTL Ottomans, the Roman population would be better educated and more prosperous but not massively higher, at least not enough to vault it into a higher category.
(Note that these numbers are arbitrary and strictly for a sense of proportion.)
So if OTL Ottomans were 15M and OTL French were 30M, Romans would be 20M.
The Contexts of Roman Society, part 13-1: Rhomania in the World-A Mutilated Victory
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.
And now we get the dark side of all of the in-universe baying for more blood and treasure.
Nothing ominous about that at all, no sir!
Can Rhomania not catch a break?
I can already imagine what will happen; Athena will either die, assassinated, or there will be a coup. The army will then attack everyone, in that they will not be able to decide who to attack first. As such, officers will just invade who they want. This massive war will last years, they will lose and Sicily and Egypt become fully independent.
I can already imagine what will happen; Athena will either die, assassinated, or there will be a coup. The army will then attack everyone, in that they will not be able to decide who to attack first. As such, officers will just invade who they want. This massive war will last years, they will lose and Sicily and Egypt become fully independent.
I really don't see how population could be such a problem though. Isn't Bulgaria one of the more fertile regions of Europe? Doesn't Rhomania have basically unlimited access to Egyptian and Ukranian grain? Past the little ice age their population should grow at the same level as the rest of Europe unless they really enter the post 1815 France mode.
I find that... questionable. The independent Christian Balkan states all had much higher population growth rates than the Ottomans and the patterns of settlement and development are significantly different to the OTL Ottomans here.
I really enjoy the mixing of the readers into not just the Newspapers but now the Party of the Tourmarchs.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
I mean, it is also a very real kind of faction that would pop up, especially in a nation with a burgeoning literate class that didn't decide to overextend but has many who think it should have gone farther, the fact it would open up opportunities for personal gain is just a coincidence, surely.
It is also just one of the factions and this is the couple of centuries where factions and true ideological parties truly started to have mass appeal and force on government policy. I would be highly surprised if there isn't at least one or two more factions. Though we can definitely see where the final Roman-Persian war happens if Herakleios inherits the throne and tries to put those policies into place. Probably with not more than a bit of internal Roman resistance at that bit of blinding stupidity.
It is also just one of the factions and this is the couple of centuries where factions and true ideological parties truly started to have mass appeal and force on government policy. I would be highly surprised if there isn't at least one or two more factions. Though we can definitely see where the final Roman-Persian war happens if Herakleios inherits the throne and tries to put those policies into place. Probably with not more than a bit of internal Roman resistance at that bit of blinding stupidity.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
I agree, while I doubt it would have the demographic heft of 1913 of Germany, much less Russia or the US, the Rhoman Empire is unlikely to be beset by the non-Little Ice Age rolling disasters that afflicted the Ottomans during the 18th and 19th centuries that hammered its demographics, which doesn't even consider the non-Ottoman parts it directly controls or how starting at a higher base will effect things long term even if their growth rate is lower than Russia due to the greater urbanization prior to the 19th and 20th century.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
Hell in 1800 the Ottomans had between 25 and 32 million though with the losses during the 1800's, particularly the Balkans and Egypt, it drastically shrunk territorially by two thirds yet still ruled a population of 18.5 million in 1914, and that was with undercounting minority populations. You could probably tack on another 10-12 million by adding the Balkans that are directly ruled by Constantinople which would give Rhomania a 1914 population of 30-35 million in just it's core territory, not including any colonies or despotates, and that's if it suffers similar calamities the Ottomans did during the 1800's. That compares pretty favorably with Italy's 35 million, France's 40 million, and Great Britain's 46 million though lacking compared to Austria-Hungary's 52 million or Germany's 68 million much less Russia's 166 million, the last three of which include portions of TTL Poland and Prussia.
The biggest one that is going to change beyond Rhomania is the Triunes if they hold their empire together though, they truly will be a western giant.
The biggest one that is going to change beyond Rhomania is the Triunes if they hold their empire together though, they truly will be a western giant.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
So B444 is correct that even if Rhomania is doing really well and the peace bonus does its magic to make the core territory, and this includes North Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine, supporting a population of 50 million by 1914, which would be a ~33% increase over the OTL population of the area covered, it would still be demographically behind the Triunes, the HRE, and the Russian Empire in Europe.