The Eagle of the East, Rhomania: An Eastern Roman Timeline (1196 - 1245)

[Theodorecorvin]

I think the ERE still needs to have great power over egypt tho. Maybe egypt will be split into north and south egypt where north egypt will be majority Christians (around the delta area and the Suez) and a client state, while the muslims live upstream

Basically everything above Cairo can become a Coptic client state. Cairo will be under south Egypt control since would aggravate Muslims extremely if was under Coptic control. Makuria still exists at this time so will be used to help contain South Egypt.

 

[Averious]

I think the attitude of maintaining the borders and just establishing colonies in either mostly uninhabited or extremely primitive areas would make sense for the ERE. Over extending the borders is why the Roman empire had to be split in east and west in the first place. Having territory full of angry natives is why the western half of the Empire fell and why the ERE couldnt hold what parts of the Western Empire it retook. Those lessons from history would be a solid reason why the empire after retaking it's important territories has no real desire to expand those borders very much. Making those nations they share borders with Vassals on the other hand fulfills any needs for expansion by gaining access to ERE's new vassals resources but also makes sure that those nations maintain their own forces for defense that can be called upon.

Exactly, you understand the point I've been making. As for making them vassals? I've already established the 'tendency' for the Empire under the Grypads to make efforts to turn areas they see as important, but too high an effort to conquer, into Client States--so its not too far fetched for them to continue to do the same as they expand further.

I think the ERE still needs to have great power over egypt tho. Maybe egypt will be split into north and south egypt where north egypt will be majority Christians (around the delta area and the Suez) and a client state, while the muslims live upstream

I don't think the split will be quite that massive, but the state of Alexandria will control a decent chunk of the fertile north. Having power over Egypt itself shouldn't be too hard as long as they play their cards right. This also reminds me that at this point the Nubians as a people and polity still exist, since the Ottomans haven't had a chance to wipe them out, which could be interesting. Nice post.

Basically everything above Cairo can become a Coptic client state. Cairo will be under south Egypt control since would aggravate Muslims extremely if was under Coptic control. Makuria still exists at this time so will be used to help contain South Egypt.

Good point, although to be honest I wouldn't see Cairo as a border territory of this supposed South Egypt, I'd need to work out the functionalities of the matter, but good point about Makuria, as it ties into what I said earlier of Nubians still being a thing as a people and polity.

 

[Avrorrange]

That implies that they have the capacity to even think of such a thing, let alone try it. It isn't a matter of 'allowing' it; it's a matter of if they can. Added to this you're ignoring the fact that the Romans purposefully populating the area would leave it with a larger population than the area OTL, which would allow it to more easily defend what it has with local forces.

We have to consider several things. You are ignoring that the canal zone is a very narrow strip of land.There is a limit to how many local forces it can deploy or sustain.Ultimately, you will need to put a strong regular garrison there, not just to protect from the locals, but other great powers as well.

Even if you wrestle away parts of the north from Egypt, it's still gonna be a well populated country. If it is independent, it will have the capacity to think about pushing invaders out of it's past territory.You are being really dismissive about how revanchist countries are.And opportunities will arise for such occasions when the empire is tied up in wars against other great powers.

And I think this is going to be the biggest elephant in the room.Building a Suez Canal without sufficient technological advancement might not be a feasible option.Which would mandate greater control over Egyptian territory in order to use things like a rebuilt Pharoah’s canal.

Even aside from this, acting as if an Empire that controls the Balkans, Anatolia, the Crimea, and chunks of the Levant (which is over thrice the size of France or Germany) would be 'on the level' of such powers is dismissive and ill-thought-out. It doesn't add up when you consider the resources, the manpower and the functionality of the areas verses France and Germany. There is no 'luck' with this; a properly managed Empire with these core territories will be stronger than France or Germany; it doesn't need the supposed critical mass of Russia, India, China or the US to be supposedly 'invulnerable' as no state truly is.

Because France and Germany contains some of the most fertile plains in Europe. The Balkans and Anatolia consists of a lot of hills in comparison.And I say by luck because until the French demographic decline of the 19th century and the two world wars, both Germany and France at times had comparable or a larger population than the Ottoman empire even when the Ottomans had additional territory in North Africa,Levant and Mesoptamia . If you discount these territories, the population is actually less.That and there’s no guarantee that the ERE with it’s population can become properly managed.

Losing control of the canal certainly is possible, but just because it is doesn't mean that I should just decide to not write something because it 'might' not work in the context of the universe. That's a bad way to go about functionalities such as that.

That depends on how such a state handles itself; does Israel rely on everyone else for protection, despite its size and enemies? No, it's built a culture of arming its people and not allowing a step to be taken back--this has allowed them to build up a reputation as someone that would be hard to dislodge despite their size and population. I don't see why a state of Alexandria, which would hold near the same size territory and population as Israel, would be so weak as to continuously rely on the Romans for every little thing as you make it seem they should.

Because America is actively arming and funding Israel, and that the Arab armies are massively incompetent at their job?The fact that the Arabs are constantly having problems with Israel(and America) shows just how big of a headache it is if you try to fight limited wars. You can win how many times you like, but one lose is game over. Look at the crusader states for better comparison. They fought well against the Arabs despite their numbers, but once the ERE was unable to assist them, and that they lost a single war, they never recovered.All I am doing is commenting on the weakness of your strategy.If you chose to go with such a strategy and still have the Romans succeed at the end, that's fine you are the author.

'Simplest' and 'Feasible' don't quite work here. Egypt is predominantly Muslim and has been heavily Arabized. There is nothing 'Simple' and 'Feasible' about annexing a whole region who will make every attempt to throw off the 'yoke' you've put on them. Ignoring this and implying its not difficult to control doesn't do justice to the fact that it was only repeatedly conquered at its absolute weakest points--and even then, if you see the actions undertaken by it as a semi-independent arm of the Ottomans you'd know it isn't something you can easily keep under wraps.

It's not another country in the supposed 'neighbourhood', its an entirely different polity with its own religion and culture; both of which are outright hostile to the Romans and their way of life and its culture and religion. You're fundamentally ignoring huge elements of the area just to push this argument which by itself is based on nothing more than semantics.

Having the strength to wrestle away portions of a territory doesn't imply you have the strength, or even want, to hold all of it. Again, ignoring huge elements of how states work and how they function to push your argument.

Functionally, having trade with India, and other African polities such as Ethiopia, is worth the effort to make minor colonies downward the winds of the Red Sea. Taking over a territory full of angry, religiously fanatical and militant people who hate you, your state and everything you and your people stand for on the other hand? I don't think so.

So how does your Roman empire actually reconquer Anatolia and the Balkans?I really don't want to argue, but your logic of only how states work only function when you want it to happen. Ruling a country with it's own religion and culture is problematic, but not an impossible problem to solve like modern day. If you rule long enough, people will be convert to your culture and religion in hopes of better employment and social progression. The same way how Egypt ended up Arabized and Islamic in the first place.

As for why they would make colonies 'half way in the world', well, Africa isn't half way of anything, its southward. Taking control of small island ports and so on, which can easily be colonized and built up into bases of trade and power projection, is rather self-explanatory in why they would do this instead of taking over a 'neighbour'. Shall I remind you that Spain did the same thing in ignoring Portugal and instead colonizing the new world?

Spain didn't ignore Portugal. It succeeded conquering it at one point in time and it only broke off after massive foreign support.

@Averious I understand that you are growing frustrated, but can we both make a commitment to be as civil as possible?

 

[Quinkana]

That implies that they have the capacity to even think of such a thing, let alone try it. It isn't a matter of 'allowing' it; it's a matter of if they can. Added to this you're ignoring the fact that the Romans purposefully populating the area would leave it with a larger population than the area OTL, which would allow it to more easily defend what it has with local forces.

Even aside from this, acting as if an Empire that controls the Balkans, Anatolia, the Crimea, and chunks of the Levant (which is over thrice the size of France or Germany) would be 'on the level' of such powers is dismissive and ill-thought-out. It doesn't add up when you consider the resources, the manpower and the functionality of the areas verses France and Germany. There is no 'luck' with this; a properly managed Empire with these core territories will be stronger than France or Germany; it doesn't need the supposed critical mass of Russia, India, China or the US to be supposedly 'invulnerable' as no state truly is.

Losing control of the canal certainly is possible, but just because it is doesn't mean that I should just decide to not write something because it 'might' not work in the context of the universe. That's a bad way to go about functionalities such as that.

That depends on how such a state handles itself; does Israel rely on everyone else for protection, despite its size and enemies? No, it's built a culture of arming its people and not allowing a step to be taken back--this has allowed them to build up a reputation as someone that would be hard to dislodge despite their size and population. I don't see why a state of Alexandria, which would hold near the same size territory and population as Israel, would be so weak as to continuously rely on the Romans for every little thing as you make it seem they should.

'Simplest' and 'Feasible' don't quite work here. Egypt is predominantly Muslim and has been heavily Arabized. There is nothing 'Simple' and 'Feasible' about annexing a whole region who will make every attempt to throw off the 'yoke' you've put on them. Ignoring this and implying its not difficult to control doesn't do justice to the fact that it was only repeatedly conquered at its absolute weakest points--and even then, if you see the actions undertaken by it as a semi-independent arm of the Ottomans you'd know it isn't something you can easily keep under wraps.

It's not another country in the supposed 'neighbourhood', its an entirely different polity with its own religion and culture; both of which are outright hostile to the Romans and their way of life and its culture and religion. You're fundamentally ignoring huge elements of the area just to push this argument which by itself is based on nothing more than semantics.

Having the strength to wrestle away portions of a territory doesn't imply you have the strength, or even want, to hold all of it. Again, ignoring huge elements of how states work and how they function to push your argument. As for why they would make colonies 'half way in the world', well, Africa isn't half way of anything, its southward. Taking control of small island ports and so on, which can easily be colonized and built up into bases of trade and power projection, is rather self-explanatory in why they would do this instead of taking over a 'neighbour'. Shall I remind you that Spain did the same thing in ignoring Portugal and instead colonizing the new world?

Functionally, having trade with India, and other African polities such as Ethiopia, is worth the effort to make minor colonies downward the winds of the Red Sea. Taking over a territory full of angry, religiously fanatical and militant people who hate you, your state and everything you and your people stand for on the other hand? I don't think so.

I'm going to say genocides and cultural assimilation will and would occur in an Egypt that is conquered by the ERE, and could push the Muslim Egyptians into a minority group. By 1300 the Egyptian Muslims weren't the majority, the Copts were (barely), which meant what you said is technically wrong, and the ERE influencing/conquering Egypt would cause egypt to be Majority Copt at least.

How did the Christian Middle East become predominantly Muslim? | University of Oxford

www.ox.ac.uk

On the subject on Spain not controlling Portugal, they tried. the Portuguese rebelled and won against the Spaniards.

 

[Avrorrange]

I'm going to say genocides and cultural assimilation will and would occur in an Egypt that is conquered by the ERE, and could push the Muslim Egyptians into a minority group. By 1300 the Egyptian Muslims weren't the majority, the Copts were (barely), which meant what you said is technically wrong, and the ERE influencing/conquering Egypt would cause egypt to be Majority Copt at least.

How did the Christian Middle East become predominantly Muslim? | University of Oxford

www.ox.ac.uk

On the subject on Spain not controlling Portugal, they tried. the Portuguese rebelled and won against the Spaniards.

Kind of actually hoping the Empire could become more religiously tolerable to co-religionists and bring the Copts and Levantine Christians back to the fold.What the empire did in the 4th-7th century was disgusting.

 

[Quinkana]

Kind of actually hoping the Empire could become more religiously tolerable to co-religionists and bring the Copts and Levantine Christians back to the fold.What the empire did in the 4th-7th century was disgusting.

coptic Egypt is a fun concept and a doable one in this time frame

 

[Avrorrange]

coptic Egypt is a fun concept and a doable one in this time frame

But bringing them back to the fold makes the empire stronger over the long term though.In general I am really skeptical about divide and conquer strategies.Almost every one of them end up backfiring eventually.There’s also no telling that the Copts will stay loyal if they are an independent entity.They have their own priorities.Re-integrating Egypt and promoting religious tolerance for the Copts in my opinion saves a lot of long term pain.

 

[Whiteshore]

Anyways, how far is this TL going to cover? Until the "present day"?

 

[Averious]

We have to consider several things. You are ignoring that the canal zone is a very narrow strip of land.There is a limit to how many local forces it can deploy or sustain.Ultimately, you will need to put a strong regular garrison there, not just to protect from the locals, but other great powers as well.

Even if you wrestle away parts of the north from Egypt, it's still gonna be a well populated country. If it is independent, it will have the capacity to think about pushing invaders out of it's past territory.You are being really dismissive about how revanchist countries are.And opportunities will arise for such occasions when the empire is tied up in wars against other great powers.

And I think this is going to be the biggest elephant in the room.Building a Suez Canal without sufficient technological advancement might not be a feasible option.Which would mandate greater control over Egyptian territory in order to use things like a rebuilt Pharoah’s canal.

You're ignoring the fact that the land taken to control the canal doesn't have to be a tiny strip. It's not like the Romans, if and when they do conquer the land and decide to begin the construction of the canal, are only going to take what little territory they 'need' for it. It will still require a strong regular garrison, yes, but to note the 'locals' will be Romans through the process of effective colonization by the time the canal is even built.

I'm not quite being dismissive of how revanchist countries are, nor am I ignoring that a 'free' Egypt will still be a well-populated country. Opportunities will arise, of course, but the functional fact is that this doesn't imply that the Egyptians will have the capacity to retake anything, even if they try. That's the point I was making; deciding that, 'Oh, the Egyptians would probably take it back, better not write it in,' feels needlessly 'meta' and ruins a good story. Why write anything that might see the Empire be put at risk later down the line then?

The biggest elephant? Not really, I wasn't implying they'd take the territory, let alone build the canal, any time soon. Dragases dies early on into the 1300's after a long reign, and the Empire is still consolidating Anatolia and Antioch. The absolute minimum time period for this to take place would be the 1530's to 1600's. It's not like I intend to have the Romans build the canal in the middle-ages.

Because France and Germany contains some of the most fertile plains in Europe. The Balkans and Anatolia consists of a lot of hills in comparison.And I say by luck because until the French demographic decline of the 19th century and the two world wars, both Germany and France at times had comparable or a larger population than the Ottoman empire even when the Ottomans had additional territory in North Africa,Levant and Mesoptamia . If you discount these territories, the population is actually less.That and there’s no guarantee that the ERE with it’s population can become properly managed.

Right, but you're simply dismissing the benefits the Balkans and Anatolia have over all. Western Anatolia is quite fertile and viable for growth, and the Balkans itself, especially the territory of modern Bulgaria has the fertile 'black soil' that makes crop growth very viable in these areas. The Ottomans themselves never took real advantage of anything other than the upper Southern Balkans and Anatolia, which is why their population and economic output stagnated. As for a guarantee that the Empire will be able to be properly managed? There isn't one, but again, I'm not going to outright meta my own story just because of things like that.

Because America is actively arming and funding Israel, and that the Arab armies are massively incompetent at their job?The fact that the Arabs are constantly having problems with Israel(and America) shows just how big of a headache it is if you try to fight limited wars. You can win how many times you like, but one lose is game over. Look at the crusader states for better comparison. They fought well against the Arabs despite their numbers, but once the ERE was unable to assist them, and that they lost a single war, they never recovered.All I am doing is commenting on the weakness of your strategy.If you chose to go with such a strategy and still have the Romans succeed at the end, that's fine you are the author.

America isn't supplying the Israeli population themselves with weapons; they're buying and arming themselves. Look into the amount of gun owners in Israel, and their functions and you'll see what I mean. I don't really have the need to refute or comment on the rest of your conversation on the Arab incompetence, so I'll gloss over that--but yes, being weak to crushing blows as the Crusaders were is a functional truth, but how can you compare the two?

The Crusaders were a foreign people with a limited population and resource pool; of course they'd be weak to destruction after one bad battle. A state of Alexandria however could command a notable population of Copts, and the resources of Upper Egypt (and those brought in by trade) to hold its own given enough time to build up. I don't see a weakness in this, but I'll take your opinion on the matter into consideration.

So how does your Roman empire actually reconquer Anatolia and the Balkans? I really don't want to argue, but your logic of only how states work only function when you want it to happen. Ruling a country with it's own religion and culture is problematic, but not an impossible problem to solve like modern day. If you rule long enough, people will be convert to your culture and religion in hopes of better employment and social progression. The same way how Egypt ended up Arabized and Islamic in the first place.

Spain didn't ignore Portugal. It succeeded conquering it at one point in time and it only broke off after massive foreign support.

The Balkans have already been reconquered, at least in the eyes of the current Roman state. They're still in the process of consolidating Bulgaria and its population. As for Anatolia? I'm not keen on revealing entire sections of the up and coming storyline just to facilitate an argument--because then this TL basically becomes one based around arguments and not one based around the core story. To put it simply; a combination of the tactics used by Basil II and Alexios and John Komnenos. If you know your history you'll be able to put it together, which I assume you should be able to do.

If you look into history, and the functions of demographics, by the time of the 12th century they've effectively become hardline and hard to dig out. It would be even harder to rule over and convert a population that has it ingrained in their cultural identity to hate you, your religion, and everything you stand for. They'll keep fighting for their independence, even in the middle-ages, especially in such a collective area as Egypt.

As for Spain and Portugal? The comment I made on the matter was pertaining to the Era of Colonization. Spain didn't succeed, let alone make the attempt, to take over Portugal until the tail-end/just-after this Era.

I understand that you are growing frustrated, but can we both make a commitment to be as civil as possible?

I've been perfectly civil thus far, so as long as you match that I have no qualms.

 

[Averious]

Anyways, how far is this TL going to cover? Until the "present day"?

I'm honestly not sure. I have a TL roughly going as far as the 1530's lined out, but that is subject to change as time goes on. I think the best way to describe it is, sadly, 'Until I get sick of it,'

 

[Averious]

Coptic Egypt is a fun concept and a doable one in this time frame

True, but I'll need to consider things like that. Perhaps the Romans put in place a government based around this after defeating Egypt, in exchange for the land concessions I've already established. Would solve several issues, but this'll need to be considered.

 

[Avrorrange]

You're ignoring the fact that the land taken to control the canal doesn't have to be a tiny strip. It's not like the Romans, if and when they do conquer the land and decide to begin the construction of the canal, are only going to take what little territory they 'need' for it. It will still require a strong regular garrison, yes, but to note the 'locals' will be Romans through the process of effective colonization by the time the canal is even built.

I'm not quite being dismissive of how revanchist countries are, nor am I ignoring that a 'free' Egypt will still be a well-populated country. Opportunities will arise, of course, but the functional fact is that this doesn't imply that the Egyptians will have the capacity to retake anything, even if they try. That's the point I was making; deciding that, 'Oh, the Egyptians would probably take it back, better not write it in,' feels needlessly 'meta' and ruins a good story. Why write anything that might see the Empire be put at risk later down the line then?

I think we are running into the age old problem of powers getting more and more territory in order to make an existing 'valuable' territory secure. Territory east of the Suez is mostly desert while anywhere west is populated hugely by local Egyptians.There's gonna be trouble with the population if you get more than the Canal zone.Hence why I thought it'd be best to just get to whole thing and be done with it.

The biggest elephant? Not really, I wasn't implying they'd take the territory, let alone build the canal, any time soon. Dragases dies early on into the 1300's after a long reign, and the Empire is still consolidating Anatolia and Antioch. The absolute minimum time period for this to take place would be the 1530's to 1600's. It's not like I intend to have the Romans build the canal in the middle-ages.

I don't think they are going to be able to construct that kind of canal even in the 1600s minus some super scientific development.And in order for the Romans to capitalize on colonization(before others get all the good stuff), I think they need to take advantage of the old Canal of the Pharoahs.

Right, but you're simply dismissing the benefits the Balkans and Anatolia have over all. Western Anatolia is quite fertile and viable for growth, and the Balkans itself, especially the territory of modern Bulgaria has the fertile 'black soil' that makes crop growth very viable in these areas. The Ottomans themselves never took real advantage of anything other than the upper Southern Balkans and Anatolia, which is why their population and economic output stagnated. As for a guarantee that the Empire will be able to be properly managed? There isn't one, but again, I'm not going to outright meta my own story just because of things like that.

You make an excellent point about Bulgaria. I'm curious how much difference it could make.It’s worthwhile to note that the Ottomans couldn’t make up the difference even with the black soil rich Egypt.The rest of the empire however, I'm not entirely sure about how much difference they could make,given Western Anatolia was the heartland of the Ottomans.

America isn't supplying the Israeli population themselves with weapons; they're buying and arming themselves. Look into the amount of gun owners in Israel, and their functions and you'll see what I mean. I don't really have the need to refute or comment on the rest of your conversation on the Arab incompetence, so I'll gloss over that--but yes, being weak to crushing blows as the Crusaders were is a functional truth, but how can you compare the two?

The Israeli weapons in the first Arab-Israeli war was almost entirely supplied by the US. Subsequent weapons development in Israel were aided by US technological transfers.Even then, a lot of weapons are still imported from the US. During the Yom Kippur War for example, Israel actually ran out of military supply and blackmailed the US into resupplying them--or else they would nuke the Arab countries. And yes, the Arab armies even now are very incompetent.This isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of a lot of military commentators.

The Crusaders were a foreign people with a limited population and resource pool; of course they'd be weak to destruction after one bad battle. A state of Alexandria however could command a notable population of Copts, and the resources of Upper Egypt (and those brought in by trade) to hold its own given enough time to build up. I don't see a weakness in this, but I'll take your opinion on the matter into consideration.

For such a state to survive, I think you need to make them larger. Otherwise there is an absolute limit on how many people they can accommodate.

The Balkans have already been reconquered, at least in the eyes of the current Roman state. They're still in the process of consolidating Bulgaria and its population. As for Anatolia? I'm not keen on revealing entire sections of the up and coming storyline just to facilitate an argument--because then this TL basically becomes one based around arguments and not one based around the core story. To put it simply; a combination of the tactics used by Basil II and Alexios and John Komnenos. If you know your history you'll be able to put it together, which I assume you should be able to do.

If you look into history, and the functions of demographics, by the time of the 12th century they've effectively become hardline and hard to dig out. It would be even harder to rule over and convert a population that has it ingrained in their cultural identity to hate you, your religion, and everything you stand for. They'll keep fighting for their independence, even in the middle-ages, especially in such a collective area as Egypt.

That is certainly something that could change and disputed.We are not in the modern era where nationalism became ingrained. One could say for example that the Roman cultural identity was ingrained in the Anatolia population prior to the conquest by Turks.

As for Spain and Portugal? The comment I made on the matter was pertaining to the Era of Colonization. Spain didn't succeed, let alone make the attempt, to take over Portugal until the tail-end/just-after this Era.

FYI Spain actually made the attempt during the Era of Colonization. They conquered and ruled Portugal for decades during the 16th-17th century, which was the golden age of the Spanish Empire.

I've been perfectly civil thus far, so as long as you match that I have no qualms.

Sorry. I jumped the gun and thought that you were about to flip if I continued the conversation.

 

[Quinkana]

I think controlling the Suez region is enough for the Romans to project power into the red sea, even though another fleet will be needed

 

[Protess]

Might I make a suggestion @darthfanta @Averious ? How about we just end this line of debate so that it doesn't spoil Averious's motivation and enthusiasm for this timeline?

 

[Averious]

Might I make a suggestion @darthfanta @Averious ? How about we just end this line of debate so that it doesn't spoil Averious's motivation and enthusiasm for this timeline?

Well the argument isn't quite enough to sour my motivations. But if it does continue I can see it devolving the timeline and making things harder. Either way, it had been productive in challenging some things and giving me new ideas, so there is that.

 

[Avrorrange]

Might I make a suggestion @darthfanta @Averious ? How about we just end this line of debate so that it doesn't spoil Averious's motivation and enthusiasm for this timeline?

I will.

Well the argument isn't quite enough to sour my motivations. But if it does continue I can see it devolving the timeline and making things harder. Either way, it had been productive in challenging some things and giving me new ideas, so there is that.

Good to know.It was a nice discussion.

 

[E_x_c_u_b_i_t_o_r_e]

So I just saw the post regarding this suez crisis. I believe its inevitable for Rome to expand to egypt once more. If they do invade and actually reconquer it, then it will only be natural for them to hold onto it in anyway possible.

Even without the benefit of foresight in regards to the Suez canal. Egypt is and always will be wealthy despite all the issues it has. Once the Mameluke's self destruct it will be the opportunity for once in a life time to reconquer egypt wholesale. Supporting a coptic rebellion is necessary to maintain a good hold on egypt itself.

Though if the Romans would really want to hold the area then sending settlers on lower nile in mass is needed. Copts are way too concentrated there, so mixing it with your own ethnic kin is necessary. Do it slowly but at the same time start propaganda on your culture to convert them as Romans.

 

[Gustav StressedMann]

I wouldn’t know, lol. Never got far into AoM. Mind filling me in?

Well basically Andreas was a 13 year old at the time of his coronation,and he got enough balls to procaim itself so.Also his reign was very successfull and saw reconquest of many territories.The overall charachters are kind of similar,but of course I they diverge in many things.Also I praise your TL for being quite realistic,while AoM drops many asspulls in the earlier years.

 

[Gustav StressedMann]

By the way I agree with you Averious.Controlling all the Levant+Egypt is too hard,considering syria and Egypt have cities such as Damascus and Cairo that are central in Arab culture.I think the very maximum the empire could expand is from anatolia to the Suez,but even then they are just making their border larger,and considering they have very hostile neighbours I think the borders you have put as "limit" are fair and realistic.

 

[Harshavardhana]

First of all, great timeline! Second, I want to know what you have planned for the age of discovery since it actually started with Vasco-da-Gama reaching India searching for a new trade route because of the Ottomans.