Just the Tarim basin. The Chinese have their own problems, and dont even border the Turks at the moment.
Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn: The Restored Roman Republic
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- Start date
Just the Tarim basin. The Chinese have their own problems, and dont even border the Turks at the moment.
There's retaking the Yellow River and there's retaking the Tang borders.
Eh.... yer right. Don't think the Turks will hold the Tarim basin long enough for when China is back in business
One thing I have considered is that if the Romans come to recognize the profits to be had by sending a merchant fleet to India and the East Indies for the spice trade, they can cut out the Turkish middleman. This would give them a large advantage economically that would only build on itself if sustained, which it could be until at least the 18th century, assuming similar technological advancement as OTL.
Well, I'm confident that Europeans in general in this history will end up pursuing maritime ventures similar to oir history.
Who will discover America? if the Turks control the silk route and are hostile to the European nations perhaps like in OTL someone would try to travel to India and China sailing to the west.
Perhaps the Romans do establish a trade with the East via the Red Sea, which spurs speculation about an alternate route.
Well, It must be someone well located, with seafaring tradition and the desire to expand beyond Europe because reasons (lack of space and strong neighbours).... Hmmm ... Looking at you Portugal...
Well, strictly speaking, America, from the Eurasian perspective, has been discovered by the Norse (as in OTL), and the Cordobans. Both are happening right around the time we're covering in the main body of this timeline, and both are relatively ephemeral, though more consequential than in our history.
That requires them to have access to the Red Sea, which, at this point, they don't. I'm very intrigued why everyone is assuming that they're just going to waltz back in and restore their Justinianic borders. Just because the title and focus is on the Romans doesn't mean I'm trying to make this a pure Byzanto-Roman-wank. Of course, they're not likely to fall in 1453, either, so, I guess any improvement is a wank of a sort.
As for Portugal, would they have any reason to become a separate entity from Galicia in this history? I suppose that depends on where the center of gravity, so to speak, ends up being for Galicia. Does it remain in Galicia itself, or at least in the west? In which case, I imagine that Galicia would be an analogue to Portugal, just existing in the northwest corner of the peninsula, instead of the southwest. If Galicia expands further into the interior, then its possible that the country might break up, similar to our history. Then, its a question of whether or not the bulk of it re-unites, again, similar to our history.
If you want a list of small, maritime states in Western Europe, you do have a pretty good list at the moment: Galicia (well, they're not that small), Vasconia, Brittany, Wales (assuming they're united, I haven't really given them any attention), Scotland, hell, maybe even Ireland. Of course, whomever is in Hispania has a leg up by being well-positioned to settle the Macaronesian islands.
We're obvious expecting much more!
Nah, IMO, you've got a much more robust system in place with the Republic than the Empire was at this point in time. Is it disappointing to lose to the Turks? Sure. But that can always be turned back.
What is exciting for me however, is that the Romans have (with the loss of Syria), loads of good borders, and large population centres. Italy and the Alps, Pannonia & The Carpathian Basin could have the actual Carpathians, but given time, there is a new large population centre of Romans around the Middle Danube. Greece - So central that its basically nuff said - and Anatolia. Africa could join that list if the Romans and Berbers could figure out a long-term settlement. This is WAY better than Justinian had, as the resources of Greece and Anatolia were struggling to hold Africa and Italy. Now those latter two are contributing.
Sure, overextension with the Carpathian basin sucks - but in the long term that region will be a defensible recruitment pool, and provide defence in depth for the Balkans - again, something Justinian never had. As long as Greece and the Balkans can keep making babies to give spears, the Republic has a strong foundation - it'd need major civil war to ruin that.
Military and Cultural Developments of the 11th Century
Military and Cultural Developments of the 11th Century
At the time the Millennial Plague reached Europe, by many standards, the continent had recovered from the Dark Ages following the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Even outside of Roman territories, urbanization was increasing, as was trade. Of course, those two very factors contributed greatly to the plague's death toll, but the populations were still low enough to insulate the region to a degree.
In the localities that were large enough to be able to afford such expenditures, various drainage and sewer projects were undertaken, often restoring older Roman systems that had decayed over the centuries. Mostly, this occurred in the wealthier regions, which were primarily in the south. Though these projects did not address the actual cause of the disease, they were thought to, due to the miasma theory of the era, and the improved sanitation did help with overall health in these areas.
The Medieval doctors did their best to treat the plague, but, due to the limitations of the era, they could do little but attempt to assuage the pain. However, their efforts to find medicine did result in the general adoption of distillation for production of alcohol, moving the process from the experiments of alchemists and into broader use. The production of various liquors for non-medical purposes followed as the plague subsided, and would eventually provide a strong boon to agricultural regions. The reduction in population also provided various social impacts, including a general shift towards more liberalized treatment of peasants within the feudal order. With their labor in high demand, the peasants were generally able to negotiated better terms with the nobility, and the period saw a slight shift towards more free holders and fewer peasants tied to the land.
Meanwhile, the Roman military was attempting to make do with far fewer troops, and had to reorganize their entire strategic and tactical outlook on warfare. With fewer foot soldiers available and better and more cavalry, proportionately, the Republic went back to the drawing board. As they hoped to be on the offensive once more, and had to deal with the highly mobile Turkish armies, they formed their armies into mobile camps. Their armies would march in square formation, with the infantry lining all four edges, ready at a moment's notice to bunker down into a defensive posture. The cavalry were the main offensive arm, and they would ride in and out of the square as the situation demanded. Thus, the unit, as a whole, was effectively a fortification from which their cavalry could sally against targets of opportunity.
The infantry were refined into two basic roles. The heavy infantry, who were mainly spearmen with large shields and heavy armor, would man the outer perimeter. Ranged infantry, preferably archers, but also slingers and crossbowmen, as available, would bolster the heavy infantry and attack any opponents that threatened the main formation. The cavalry, meanwhile, were expanded into a very large variety, and virtually any offensive capability was delegated to them. With better grazing land available, and solid contact with the various feudal kingdoms and their equestrian traditions, the Romans were able to breed a large number of very heavy horse breeds, perfect for cataphract-style warfare. They still made great use of lighter breeds for mounted archers and scouts, but they were generally used in support roles, due to their lack of armor. The heavy cavalry was divided into no less than three general types: those for use against light cavalry, heavy cavalry, and infantry. Regardless of this specialization, all the heavy cavalry was often lumped together for practical reasons. The other offensive capability of these new Roman armies was left to their artillery, which by this time, had been refined into the very capable manganikon, or trebuchet. These were divided into traction and counterweight types, and were mobile enough to provide the main formation quite a punch against stationary targets.
The Romans found that they had plenty of cavalry opponents to test their new army against, as, in the 1040s and 1050s, various groups among the Berbers, Magyars, and Pechenegs all tested the Republic's resolve after their defeat at the hands of the Turks. As the kinks were worked out of the new formations, the Republic was able to crush these uprisings, and the more pro-Roman elements among those groups quickly returned their people into the fold.
Just as the Mediterranean and Middle East were recovering from the plague, it swept through in a second wave. This wave was much less deadly, generally killing less than 5% of the population; especially in non-Roman Europe, where the first wave of the plague had disrupted society enough to insulate it from this second wave. However, in the Turkish lands, this second wave may have been the reason that, in AD 1072, pilgrims were banned from making the journey to Jerusalem. Islamic historians tend to cite the plague as the reason for this ban, arguing that it was simply a temporary quarantine measure. Roman and Christian historians tend to argue that it was religious zealotry, as the Turks were trying to bolster their support among their Muslim populations by using the Christians as scapegoats. Whatever the cause may have been, it seems that this ban was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back of the already strained relations between the west and east.
End
At the time the Millennial Plague reached Europe, by many standards, the continent had recovered from the Dark Ages following the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Even outside of Roman territories, urbanization was increasing, as was trade. Of course, those two very factors contributed greatly to the plague's death toll, but the populations were still low enough to insulate the region to a degree.
In the localities that were large enough to be able to afford such expenditures, various drainage and sewer projects were undertaken, often restoring older Roman systems that had decayed over the centuries. Mostly, this occurred in the wealthier regions, which were primarily in the south. Though these projects did not address the actual cause of the disease, they were thought to, due to the miasma theory of the era, and the improved sanitation did help with overall health in these areas.
The Medieval doctors did their best to treat the plague, but, due to the limitations of the era, they could do little but attempt to assuage the pain. However, their efforts to find medicine did result in the general adoption of distillation for production of alcohol, moving the process from the experiments of alchemists and into broader use. The production of various liquors for non-medical purposes followed as the plague subsided, and would eventually provide a strong boon to agricultural regions. The reduction in population also provided various social impacts, including a general shift towards more liberalized treatment of peasants within the feudal order. With their labor in high demand, the peasants were generally able to negotiated better terms with the nobility, and the period saw a slight shift towards more free holders and fewer peasants tied to the land.
Meanwhile, the Roman military was attempting to make do with far fewer troops, and had to reorganize their entire strategic and tactical outlook on warfare. With fewer foot soldiers available and better and more cavalry, proportionately, the Republic went back to the drawing board. As they hoped to be on the offensive once more, and had to deal with the highly mobile Turkish armies, they formed their armies into mobile camps. Their armies would march in square formation, with the infantry lining all four edges, ready at a moment's notice to bunker down into a defensive posture. The cavalry were the main offensive arm, and they would ride in and out of the square as the situation demanded. Thus, the unit, as a whole, was effectively a fortification from which their cavalry could sally against targets of opportunity.
The infantry were refined into two basic roles. The heavy infantry, who were mainly spearmen with large shields and heavy armor, would man the outer perimeter. Ranged infantry, preferably archers, but also slingers and crossbowmen, as available, would bolster the heavy infantry and attack any opponents that threatened the main formation. The cavalry, meanwhile, were expanded into a very large variety, and virtually any offensive capability was delegated to them. With better grazing land available, and solid contact with the various feudal kingdoms and their equestrian traditions, the Romans were able to breed a large number of very heavy horse breeds, perfect for cataphract-style warfare. They still made great use of lighter breeds for mounted archers and scouts, but they were generally used in support roles, due to their lack of armor. The heavy cavalry was divided into no less than three general types: those for use against light cavalry, heavy cavalry, and infantry. Regardless of this specialization, all the heavy cavalry was often lumped together for practical reasons. The other offensive capability of these new Roman armies was left to their artillery, which by this time, had been refined into the very capable manganikon, or trebuchet. These were divided into traction and counterweight types, and were mobile enough to provide the main formation quite a punch against stationary targets.
The Romans found that they had plenty of cavalry opponents to test their new army against, as, in the 1040s and 1050s, various groups among the Berbers, Magyars, and Pechenegs all tested the Republic's resolve after their defeat at the hands of the Turks. As the kinks were worked out of the new formations, the Republic was able to crush these uprisings, and the more pro-Roman elements among those groups quickly returned their people into the fold.
Just as the Mediterranean and Middle East were recovering from the plague, it swept through in a second wave. This wave was much less deadly, generally killing less than 5% of the population; especially in non-Roman Europe, where the first wave of the plague had disrupted society enough to insulate it from this second wave. However, in the Turkish lands, this second wave may have been the reason that, in AD 1072, pilgrims were banned from making the journey to Jerusalem. Islamic historians tend to cite the plague as the reason for this ban, arguing that it was simply a temporary quarantine measure. Roman and Christian historians tend to argue that it was religious zealotry, as the Turks were trying to bolster their support among their Muslim populations by using the Christians as scapegoats. Whatever the cause may have been, it seems that this ban was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back of the already strained relations between the west and east.
End
Last edited:
Ih, and here's a handy link to some information on the real world Byzantine equivalent to this army:
https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2017/03/24/episode-133-sowing-the-dragons-teeth-with-eric-mcgeer/
https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2017/03/24/episode-133-sowing-the-dragons-teeth-with-eric-mcgeer/
The Birth of the Crusade
The Birth of the Crusade
As tensions between the ascendent Turks and the Romans continued to rise in the wake of the fall of Egypt, the brewing conflict began to take on increasingly religious tones. Though the religious differences between the Muslims and Christians had long formed an important aspect of the military conflicts between the two groups, they had never before been so pre-eminent in terms of rhetoric or justification for conflict. With the banning of pilgrims from journeying to Jerusalem in AD 1072, the Turks laid the cornerstone of the war that was to come. Meanwhile, in the Caucasus mountains, the supposed peace between the Turks and Romans was less than paper-thin. In that region, where both sides maintained spheres of influence, the competing minor states were devolving into open war, almost purely on religious lines, with each major empire backing their clients with little effort made to hide their actions.
As consequential as these disputes were to the ratcheting up of tension, there were also a myriad of political and religious reasons that did not directly touch on the Turko-Roman conflict. In the western regions of Christendom, where the Pope in Rome and the associated autonomous bishops held sway, the religious authorities had been trying for centuries to cope with the violence inherent in the feudal system. The fragmented nature of the European realms led to near-constant conflict, and now that even the Vikings had almost entirely converted to Christianity, there was no ready villain to use as a reason to set aside differences. The Church had all but given up on curbing the martial nature of the warrior nobility, and hoped only to channel it. This urge only grow more powerful as the population began to recover from the plague, helped in some small part by the gradual adoption of the new grain that the Danes had begun growing (maize).
Meanwhile, the Republic, despite the looming conflict with the Turks and low level border fighting, had begun to swing back and forth in its foreign policy, as political infighting began to paralize the state. As with any semi-pluralistic government, consensus was the cornerstone of any major decisions. Since its rebirth at the dawn of the 8th century, the Roman state had been relatively united by a revanchist goal of re-uniting as much of the former Empire as possible. However, the popular perception of the best way to achieve that goal was a patient and opportunistic expansion of influence wherever the path of least resistance lay. Beyond that, the Romans had achieved many of their strategic objectives over the past four centuries, with almost the entirety of the Mediterranean under Roman influence, prior to the loss of the Levant in their last war against the Turks. Even that blow did bring some modest benefits, as the Turks were excellent trading partners when they weren't at war, and Roman merchants still carried the bulk of goods coming from the east - though few would consider the increase in piracy a cost worth bearing for the increased access to Turkish markets.
With all these conflicting factors, the government in Constantinople was torn between two separate but correlated axes of debate. On the one hand, there were expansionists who considered the wresting control of the Levant and Egyptian coasts back from the Turks to be of paramount importance to the health of the Republic. Opposed to them where those who looked at the last two costly major wars the Republic had fought and did not see the point in attempting to attack the largest power in the hemisphere. Bolstering this position was that the geography of the time favored a defensive posture; Constantinople and its environs along the Aegean were in no danger from any direction, with the mass of the Anatolian and Balkan peninsulas forming excellent buffers to this core region of the Republic. The next most valuable region was Italy, which was similarly protected by outlying territories. With the Alps, Carpathians, and Armenian highlands forming the major borders, why not just sit tight and strike at a more opportune time?
Running in parallel to this policy debate was the classic debate that occured in the halls of power of any great territorial empire: centralization versus decentralization. In the Republic, the outlying territories had official representation within the government, but, generally, little say in the actual execution of policy - their recourse was usually simply to vote for Hypatoi (Consuls) that supported their preferred policies, a policy which did not always bear out, once their preferred candidate was in the capital. A simplified way of presenting the situation was the themes had enough power to obstruct and delay policy, but not enough to actually get their own policies enacted. In the current debate of peace versus war, the centralists and decentralists could be found in both camps; though the decentralists tended, to a modest degree, to be more supportive of peace - largely, this was due to many of them hailing from border regions that had the most to lose during war.
It would be entirely innacurate to call the escalation of these internal disputes a revolt or civil war or anything of the like. However, there was some political violence in the major cities, and there was discord within the ranks of the military and civil administration across the entire Roman Republic. Whatever mix of factions might be in power at any given moment, the outlying governors and generals that felt their interests did not align with the capital's would drag their feet on almost every order coming from Constantinople, further paralyzing the Republic.
With this sclerosis as a backdrop, the clergy of the the western churches felt almost nothing but consternation with the Republic. They had been preaching about how vital it was that the Holy Land be reclaimed, and here were the guardians of Christianity, bickering amongst themselves, rather than readying to battle the heathens. Many in the west had hoped that the opportunity provided by mercenary recruitments for such a war would help keep the Christian knights from fighting each other. With the Republic failing to act, Pope Valentinus III saw an opening to increase Papal influence within the broader Christian Church. If he could mobilize forces from among the western kingdoms to help defend the rights of the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Alexandria from the Muslims, the Papacy would be seen as indisputably pre-eminent among the five Patriarchates of the Pentarchy. Possibly taking his cue from the Islamic notion of Jihad, Valentinus declared that any who journeyed to the Holy Land as pilgrims, or died in the attempt, either through the rigors of the journey or in battle with those that would attempt to stop them, or those that protected others making the journey, would receive remission of their sins. Though the word itself would not be coined for a few more centuries, this papal edict marked the beginning of the Crusade.
The latitude of options for fulfilling these conditions for remission of their sins was not at all lost on the leaders of the various Christian kingdoms. In particular, many saw the enterprise in a very opportunistic light: if they could secure territory in the east, they could carve out new kingdoms, in richer lands, winning glory for their cause. Soldiers and knights from all over the western Churches answered the call, supported by nobles and kings from the Mauretanian client kingdoms of North Africa to the British Isles. Among the nobility that made the journey were two kings, Antso III of Vasconia and William III of Francia. The entire enterprise would, like every other development in at this time, spur more discord in the Republic. The Patriarch of Constantinople was entirely opposed to the idea, while the Patriarch of Antioch did not object strenuously, seeing great advantage in a foreign army consuming the attention of the Turks, without much risk to the Romans themselves. The civil administration was similarly divided, with some seeing it as an opportunity to profit from the expedition, while others wary of the idea of an army of foreigners marching into what was seen as their land.
End
As tensions between the ascendent Turks and the Romans continued to rise in the wake of the fall of Egypt, the brewing conflict began to take on increasingly religious tones. Though the religious differences between the Muslims and Christians had long formed an important aspect of the military conflicts between the two groups, they had never before been so pre-eminent in terms of rhetoric or justification for conflict. With the banning of pilgrims from journeying to Jerusalem in AD 1072, the Turks laid the cornerstone of the war that was to come. Meanwhile, in the Caucasus mountains, the supposed peace between the Turks and Romans was less than paper-thin. In that region, where both sides maintained spheres of influence, the competing minor states were devolving into open war, almost purely on religious lines, with each major empire backing their clients with little effort made to hide their actions.
As consequential as these disputes were to the ratcheting up of tension, there were also a myriad of political and religious reasons that did not directly touch on the Turko-Roman conflict. In the western regions of Christendom, where the Pope in Rome and the associated autonomous bishops held sway, the religious authorities had been trying for centuries to cope with the violence inherent in the feudal system. The fragmented nature of the European realms led to near-constant conflict, and now that even the Vikings had almost entirely converted to Christianity, there was no ready villain to use as a reason to set aside differences. The Church had all but given up on curbing the martial nature of the warrior nobility, and hoped only to channel it. This urge only grow more powerful as the population began to recover from the plague, helped in some small part by the gradual adoption of the new grain that the Danes had begun growing (maize).
Meanwhile, the Republic, despite the looming conflict with the Turks and low level border fighting, had begun to swing back and forth in its foreign policy, as political infighting began to paralize the state. As with any semi-pluralistic government, consensus was the cornerstone of any major decisions. Since its rebirth at the dawn of the 8th century, the Roman state had been relatively united by a revanchist goal of re-uniting as much of the former Empire as possible. However, the popular perception of the best way to achieve that goal was a patient and opportunistic expansion of influence wherever the path of least resistance lay. Beyond that, the Romans had achieved many of their strategic objectives over the past four centuries, with almost the entirety of the Mediterranean under Roman influence, prior to the loss of the Levant in their last war against the Turks. Even that blow did bring some modest benefits, as the Turks were excellent trading partners when they weren't at war, and Roman merchants still carried the bulk of goods coming from the east - though few would consider the increase in piracy a cost worth bearing for the increased access to Turkish markets.
With all these conflicting factors, the government in Constantinople was torn between two separate but correlated axes of debate. On the one hand, there were expansionists who considered the wresting control of the Levant and Egyptian coasts back from the Turks to be of paramount importance to the health of the Republic. Opposed to them where those who looked at the last two costly major wars the Republic had fought and did not see the point in attempting to attack the largest power in the hemisphere. Bolstering this position was that the geography of the time favored a defensive posture; Constantinople and its environs along the Aegean were in no danger from any direction, with the mass of the Anatolian and Balkan peninsulas forming excellent buffers to this core region of the Republic. The next most valuable region was Italy, which was similarly protected by outlying territories. With the Alps, Carpathians, and Armenian highlands forming the major borders, why not just sit tight and strike at a more opportune time?
Running in parallel to this policy debate was the classic debate that occured in the halls of power of any great territorial empire: centralization versus decentralization. In the Republic, the outlying territories had official representation within the government, but, generally, little say in the actual execution of policy - their recourse was usually simply to vote for Hypatoi (Consuls) that supported their preferred policies, a policy which did not always bear out, once their preferred candidate was in the capital. A simplified way of presenting the situation was the themes had enough power to obstruct and delay policy, but not enough to actually get their own policies enacted. In the current debate of peace versus war, the centralists and decentralists could be found in both camps; though the decentralists tended, to a modest degree, to be more supportive of peace - largely, this was due to many of them hailing from border regions that had the most to lose during war.
It would be entirely innacurate to call the escalation of these internal disputes a revolt or civil war or anything of the like. However, there was some political violence in the major cities, and there was discord within the ranks of the military and civil administration across the entire Roman Republic. Whatever mix of factions might be in power at any given moment, the outlying governors and generals that felt their interests did not align with the capital's would drag their feet on almost every order coming from Constantinople, further paralyzing the Republic.
With this sclerosis as a backdrop, the clergy of the the western churches felt almost nothing but consternation with the Republic. They had been preaching about how vital it was that the Holy Land be reclaimed, and here were the guardians of Christianity, bickering amongst themselves, rather than readying to battle the heathens. Many in the west had hoped that the opportunity provided by mercenary recruitments for such a war would help keep the Christian knights from fighting each other. With the Republic failing to act, Pope Valentinus III saw an opening to increase Papal influence within the broader Christian Church. If he could mobilize forces from among the western kingdoms to help defend the rights of the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Alexandria from the Muslims, the Papacy would be seen as indisputably pre-eminent among the five Patriarchates of the Pentarchy. Possibly taking his cue from the Islamic notion of Jihad, Valentinus declared that any who journeyed to the Holy Land as pilgrims, or died in the attempt, either through the rigors of the journey or in battle with those that would attempt to stop them, or those that protected others making the journey, would receive remission of their sins. Though the word itself would not be coined for a few more centuries, this papal edict marked the beginning of the Crusade.
The latitude of options for fulfilling these conditions for remission of their sins was not at all lost on the leaders of the various Christian kingdoms. In particular, many saw the enterprise in a very opportunistic light: if they could secure territory in the east, they could carve out new kingdoms, in richer lands, winning glory for their cause. Soldiers and knights from all over the western Churches answered the call, supported by nobles and kings from the Mauretanian client kingdoms of North Africa to the British Isles. Among the nobility that made the journey were two kings, Antso III of Vasconia and William III of Francia. The entire enterprise would, like every other development in at this time, spur more discord in the Republic. The Patriarch of Constantinople was entirely opposed to the idea, while the Patriarch of Antioch did not object strenuously, seeing great advantage in a foreign army consuming the attention of the Turks, without much risk to the Romans themselves. The civil administration was similarly divided, with some seeing it as an opportunity to profit from the expedition, while others wary of the idea of an army of foreigners marching into what was seen as their land.
End