But this sort of thing happened a lot IOTL in the ERE, so I don't think Alexios' behaviour is unusual by any means. As far as he's concerned, the succession is up to God, not him, and so his own deciding on a successor is largely irrelevant to the matter in hand. This sort of thing can be sort of hard for us to understand in the 21st century- Alexios would have been extremely strange in a Byzantine context not to believe in frequent divine intervention in this sort of thing. For Alexios to seriously question the fact that the succession would be chosen by God is somewhere akin to a modern leader seriously questioning, say, gravity.
Isaac's Empire 2.0
- Thread starter Basileus Giorgios
- Start date
But this sort of thing happened a lot IOTL in the ERE, so I don't think Alexios' behaviour is unusual by any means. As far as he's concerned, the succession is up to God, not him, and so his own deciding on a successor is largely irrelevant to the matter in hand. This sort of thing can be sort of hard for us to understand in the 21st century- Alexios would have been extremely strange in a Byzantine context not to believe in frequent divine intervention in this sort of thing. For Alexios to seriously question the fact that the succession would be chosen by God is somewhere akin to a modern leader seriously questioning, say, gravity.
Maybe you are right.
But all his life he struggled like a wild cat for the good of the Empire and his people. And he didn't count on the divine intervention too much (though he was happy if it somehow helped).
I don't think Alexios' behaviour is unusual.
They say Alexander the Great on his deathbed several times tried to name his succesor, but failed. And not because of his sickness, but because it is too hard to part with power while you're still alive.
My point is when on his last day in this world he was kneeling in church before God he wanted to save his immortal soul. He'd better save some innocent souls of children and women who might get slaughtered because of his irresponsibility.
So IMO it has nothing to do with Alexios' religious beliefs. It has something to do with his selfishness.
This way also seems more interesting than your average Romanwank, as we get to see how the area could have developed independently without the Crusades.
We do indeed. But, I hardly want IE's version two to be merely an "average Romanwank".
No, this will be a "slow, painful (for the Arabs) Romanwank".
Every(!) ATL is ...wank.
If it somehow changes things comparing to OTL.
That's inevitable. And actually that's what alternate history is about.
Every(!) ATL is ...wank.
If it somehow changes things comparing to OTL.
That's inevitable. And actually that's what alternate history is about.
I'm sorry but no. Many ATL, critically among the hardcore-AH ones, have no wanks. EaH, by exemple, is more about "less screwed-up" than wank.
Isaac's Empire II, is more about "how making Byzantines makes better while realistic" than "I want to put the most possible purple on the map trying, just avoiding to be ASB".
I'm inclined to agree. Only badly thought out TLs usually contain wanks.
We are speaking about different things.
I say that if you give any country in your ATL a few more square kilometers of territory than it has in OTL - you might be called ...wank. By somebody.
Because you changed the reality in favor of some particular country/people.
whence ANY(!) change of OTL might be considered by somebody as ...wank. And this 'somebody' would be right. To some extent.
That's my point.
You certainly do have a depressing view of this. AFAIC, a wank is only when you start doing that to excess, and nearing ASB levels.
Wank, is this :
The term “wank” describes a certain style of timelines and scenarios. In the original version of it, a single country is always successful, steadily expands, and generally does way better than is plausible. Later, the term was expanded to anything that can have success (nations, group persons, etc.) or even every tool that can be used to have success (like certain technologies); currently the meaning can be watered down to mean anything down to “has more success than IOTL”. The idea behind the name is that the scenario's author would masturbate about the subject in question. Wanks are generally named for their wanking subject, for example Ameriwanks (the original wanks), Japanwanks (or Nipponwanks), Socialism-Wank, Magic-Wank (if in ASB), etc, etc, etc.
Lately, the term has come under increasing critique, as many members begin to find it annoying, like a fad that has lasted too long. Also, newbish members display a frightening ability to use the term in their very first post.
Source : Alternate History.com wiki.
Are you ready to produce a definition of 'what is excess' and what is not?
Than I happen to be the one who finds the term annoying.
Are you ready to produce a definition of 'what is excess' and what is not?
When there is no historical precedent for a nation conquering something, or when they would have no interest in doing so, it is "to excess".
Hm, interesting definition.
So if you write your own ATL it would be 99,999999% as it happened in OTL.
That would be a hell of a fun to read!
In your version of 'Isaac's Empire' the Byzantine Empire would be exactly as it was in reality? (give or take a few years or plus or minus a few kilometers).
It would be boring but nobody would ever accuse you of 'romanwank'.
Did I get you right?
*p.s. btw BG's ATL don't qualify as 'Romanwank' according to your definition. Think about it.
1) The ERE had a historical precedent conquering (what it conquered in ATL)
2) it definitely had an interest in doing so
Hm, interesting definition.
So if you write your own ATL it would be 99,999999% as it happened in OTL.
That would be a hell of a fun to read!
In your version of 'Isaac's Empire' the Byzantine Empire would be exactly as it was in reality? (give or take a few years or plus or minus a few kilometers).
It would be boring but nobody would ever accuse you of 'romanwank'.
Did I get you right?
*p.s. btw BG's ATL don't qualify as 'Romanwank' according to your definition. Think about it.
1) The ERE had a historical precedent conquering (what it conquered in ATL)
2) it definitely had an interest in doing so
I never claimed that everything should be almost exactly as IOTL for it not to count as a wank. That was you.
As for IE, the wank idea was in reference to the Mark I TL, in which the Romans basically just went on steadily conquering everything around it with few hindrances whatsoever until Egypt came within a stone's throw of the Imperial hosts. BG has stated that he will try to have them run into more difficulty doing so, and as far as I can see that has been the case so far.
Those are some pretty influential Assassins.
Well they were very influential in that very timeperiod IOTL. Although as far as I know it was never proven it was said that Redwan of Aleppo was completely in their hands.
Those are some pretty influential Assassins.
I imagined that they'd easily come to control the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon Mountains, since there aren't dozens of Crusader strongholds in the area, and the Turks are probably more focused on maintaining control over the valleys.
Last edited: