The Eagle of the East, Rhomania: An Eastern Roman Timeline (1196 - 1245)
- Thread starter Averious
- Start date
When has practicality ever stopped ambition? I think it's only been 70 years since Manuel Komnenos sent something like 250 ships to invade and occupy Egypt in his joint campaign with Amalric. And by all accounts it was only a lack of cooperation between the two groups which prevented any gains.
Ayyubids are certainly nowhere as weak as the Fatimids were then, but that's just the weather not the climate. Have the Mongols defeat them at TTL Ain Jalut and/or maybe ERE gets an early gunpowder advantage, and the Romans have decent shot at pulling an Ottoman.
Hell if this crusade succeeds in reestablishing a viable crusader kingdom in Levant and syria under imperial suzerainty, the Romans would basically have a perpetual knife pointed at Egypt's Jugular.
I haven’t quite considered this to be honest; but I’m open to a discussion on this. I’ve been debating getting suggestions/working with someone on the western parts of the world in order to free up my mind for more eastern stuff.
I dislike having to repeat myself, but I get why this topic keeps being brought up; the Empire will not be expanding into Egypt or the Middle-East in any viable manner for the foreseeable future. I’ve outlined essentially the next 100 or so years; and to be a little basic and spoilery;
John III is more concerned with keeping what the Empire has, and contributing to this Crusade overall, than anything else. He will die early into his middle age, and will not contribute much more than he already has for the state.
Heraclius Dragases will spend most of his early reign dealing with both being a teenager, and destroying any and all opposition to his, and his dynasties, rule. His middle reign will be entirely encompassed in first grinding down the Seljuks to nothing and cleaning up the rest of Anatolia, as well as then handling the Mongols. His later reign will be a time of unprecedented peace. Dragases lives 76 years; and is Emperor for 63 of them—he will be, and is, the longest reigning Emperor in Roman history.
His designated successor, his cousin Michael Grypas Laskarid, will spend most of his reign putting down attempts on his life and ensuring that the colossal slab of territory Dragases left him doesn’t go the way of Basil II’s Empire.
There is functionally no opening for the Romans to swipe in and take Egypt before it’s too strong again.
While I could feasibly see the Pope getting nerfed and maybe even demoted (though that would be a difficult thing to do in practice) I don't see the Schism getting mended. Even the historical attempt at 'Union' was an attempt by the late Emperors to get Catholic support against the Ottomans, not any desire for real unification as a subordinate to the Pope.
It goes the same in the other direction. Even if you 'demote' the Pope-in-Rome back to Patriarch of Rome, you're just likely to have an Antipope pop up somewhere. Avignon if relations cool with France, maybe somewhere else if they don't. There's too much tied up in being 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' at this point for it to really be mended. If nothing else, you'd probably see Catholic powers who have no reason to look to Constantinople wanting to maintain their own power, and having an Antipope (if, indeed, the actual Pope loses his power worse than OTL) is a good way to cement that.
It goes the same in the other direction. Even if you 'demote' the Pope-in-Rome back to Patriarch of Rome, you're just likely to have an Antipope pop up somewhere. Avignon if relations cool with France, maybe somewhere else if they don't. There's too much tied up in being 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' at this point for it to really be mended. If nothing else, you'd probably see Catholic powers who have no reason to look to Constantinople wanting to maintain their own power, and having an Antipope (if, indeed, the actual Pope loses his power worse than OTL) is a good way to cement that.
Fair point. I’m going to need to deliberate over this for a while yet before I really go forward with the timeline.
I’m open to feasible suggestions.
Twice hence this limerick has graced us; see that a third does not.
I should note that I'd have no issues with the Schism being 'formally' mended, insofar as the Pope getting demoted back to 'just' Patriarch of Rome and the Italian kingdom (whatever form that takes) looking to Constantinople as much as Rome. It's still reasonably feasible, if the Pope makes missteps or is otherwise eclipsed by the physical rulers of the peninsula. Might still have stubborn holdouts who insist on being 'Catholic', but functionally, it's not the same kind of 'Catholic' anymore.
I just see issues trying the same in, I dunno, Iberia or Britain or Scandinavia that have no reason to accept Constantinople asserting dominance in that way- even if the 'dominance' is more 'going back to being theoretical equals'. Even if it isn't actually the Romans being the ones to nerf the Pope. That's where the likelihood for an Antipope comes in, IMO. Especially if France ever has reasons to be leery of their currently-friendly relations with Constantinople andRome Ravenna.
(this could, of course, lead to fun times like the Reformation being an actual Reformation of the remnant Catholic Church instead of just creating new churches instead. I doubt that the Antipope would suddenly become something like Luther or Calvin, but the Church changing to become more focused on the nation the Antipope is in (or just national churches in general) instead of looking to Rome? That's possible.)
I just see issues trying the same in, I dunno, Iberia or Britain or Scandinavia that have no reason to accept Constantinople asserting dominance in that way- even if the 'dominance' is more 'going back to being theoretical equals'. Even if it isn't actually the Romans being the ones to nerf the Pope. That's where the likelihood for an Antipope comes in, IMO. Especially if France ever has reasons to be leery of their currently-friendly relations with Constantinople and
(this could, of course, lead to fun times like the Reformation being an actual Reformation of the remnant Catholic Church instead of just creating new churches instead. I doubt that the Antipope would suddenly become something like Luther or Calvin, but the Church changing to become more focused on the nation the Antipope is in (or just national churches in general) instead of looking to Rome? That's possible.)
Hope the position of pope doesn’t get kicked to the curb, that would hurt my little Catholic heart!
If you all know the up-and-coming Pope you'll know that the Papacy isn't quite over yet, lol.
Part 2; 1239-1242 - The Great Crusade
"Knights, why do you still think? You who are prized for your armed deeds, offer yourself to the one! who was raised upon the cross for you, and yours, sake!" - Flourished line from the Chevalier, Mult Estes Guariz.
1239-1242 - The Sultanate of Egypt had been in shambles for over a decade following the death of Al-Adil, brother of Saladin himself. This shambled setting was put in order after much effort by Al-Kamil, the son of Al-Adil, with the Sultan continuing what his father had started and putting further pressure on the Crusader States in the Levant [1]. This had ensured a further decade of 'peace' to rebuild, but left the Muslims unprepared for the effectively sudden arrival of a new Crusade [2].
At first it was nought but minor skirmishes, as early as February, along the borderlands--mostly set in motion by the movement of K.o.J based troops. These would only escalate as the actual Crusade itself began to shake-off. The planned functionality was simple; the army would be split up--allowing for the two Emperors to uphold their duties in the Middle East, while the eager King Louis IX would take a 3rd of the Crusading force to Egypt to launch a strike at the core of the Sultans capacity.
The Crusaders under Louis would arrive at, and occupy, the port of Damietta in late March, before making the hard march south towards Cairo in early April (after securing their front). Between them and Cairo lay Al-Mansoura; which blocked their northern route from the north side. This forced the Crusaders to lay siege to the city; however Louis' scouts scouts failed him, and did not warn him and his forces of a large Muslim army led by Al-Kamil himself.
The Crusaders were running out of supplies, and were forced to turn back lest they be forcibly battered away between the walls of Al-Mansoura and the Sultan's armies. Louis set up camp in a good position, just north, attempting to draw in the Muslims--yet his scouts would fail him once more [3]; not warning him of the fact that Al-Kamil had made his next move.
The Sultan ordered the destruction of the dam managing the nearby section of the Nile River; flooding and effectively destroying the hard-built camp before the Crusaders even had time to react. This would be compounded by a shattering blow against the Christians the following morning as they tried to back out to more favourable ground; with the army of Al-Kamil bloodying the Crusaders heavily; and forcing them up the nearby hill.
It would be a bloodbath; one that saw most of the Crusaders killed--yet the skill at arms, and leadership, of Louis IX allowed them survive and break out; carving a path in a slow, yet functional manner, back to Damietta, fleeing Egypt back to Acre on whatever ships were left. When Louis and his forces returned to friendly territory what had been an army of hardened Crusaders numbering 13,000 numbered now 4,000; leaving the total force at around 31,000.
Louis himself took the notion on the chin; willing to accept full responsibility for the failure; yet the cries of his enamored soldiers that it was not his fault rang loudly--and saw John and Frederick note that Louis had done the best he could. This whole event had wasted 3 months, leaving the Crusaders in their totality in late July with only one option; collective campaigning.
What would follow, over the next 2.5 years was nothing short of a dustbowl--the forces of Islam hardening at every blow offered them as the three-prong Crusader force; aided by those of the K.o.J, and a reluctant Antioch. The largest non-siege battle of these years was the Battle of Acre; as the aging Al-Kamil pushed against the Crusaders, and their current backers in the Crusader States, with a direct stab at the heart of what was left.
The battle began in late September of 1241, and was dragged on throughout a period of 4 days as forces joined and retracted intermittently. It was only the skill of Louis himself--dedicated to righting the wrong he felt responsible for--that truly held the line; as the German forces under Frederick proved too integral to the center of the Crusader force to risk continued battle-movement, and the Romans relied on the signals given by Louis [4]. It would end in a decisive Crusader victory--with Al-Kamil maimed in close-combat with a Lakonoi, forcing his core forces to flee. The battle had cost the Romans dearly though in the death of the aged Andronikos Romanos--the first Captain of the Lakonoi, placed by Romanos himself. Andronikos would be replaced by his chosen successor; Romanos Turkas.
It is said, within several contemporary sources, such as the scholar Henry of Ravenna, that at the end of the battle--when the major prisoners were being rounded up--that an Egyptian officer had the bravery to demand why the Turks, after looking at the Lakonoi, were fighting alongside the Christians--let alone the Romans. In response, it is said, that Romanos Turkas asked in fluent Greek; "Ti Toúrkoi?", "What Turks?" [5], before carving out the eyes, and upper face, of this officer in one blow of his cleaver.
Al-Kamil would die broken in body at the end of September; leaving his unready son as the new Sultan; Al-Adil II. Al-Adil II was a military man, but not a ruler--this was shown in his blunt, and blatant, disregard for protocol and functionality upon his ascension. The young Sultan simply wanted this whole mess with the Christians, as he saw it, over with. His skilled response in leading counter-pushes against any attempts to carve out further territory in the Holy Land by the remaining Crusaders over the rest of year; not even breaking to allow them Christmas, put the fear of failure in those warriors of God.
John was the one to suggest the riskiest move of their efforts; retaking Jerusalem itself. It would send a message to the Muslims that it was over; and to cease hostilities, while giving hope to those Christians who fought against the Muslims. It would be in early January 1242; forgoing the usual month-long preparation done each new year, that the united forces of the Christens, by now numbering around 29,000 due to gradual losses, would make for Jerusalem.
The siege was dragged out; made harder than ever expected by Al-Adil II's skilled hit-and-run raids into sections of the brokered siege camps. In the end the Crusaders, after two months on this, were getting desperate; stripping much of their siege equipment to allow the Roman engineers to build functional counterweight trebuchets to cause more damage to the hardened walls of the Holy City.
Funnily enough, this was not even needed as time panned out. As-Salih, the exiled half-brother of Al-Adil II, had returned--and led a skilled campaign against his half-sibling in retaliation for the loss of his rights. This movement caused an anticlimactic end to the Great Crusade; as Al-Adil simply offered Jerusalem and its environs as payment to the Christians so that they would, in short, sod off and let him handle his own internal affairs. This would be finalized in April 1242.
While Christendom had the city back the price was heavy; only 19,000 Crusaders remained.
In the end, Frederick II's forces had taken the major losses--even after Louis' own early losses, as the Germans had acted as the core of the Crusader force, with the Holy Roman Emperor returning home with little more than minor prestige to show for it (aside from the obvious loot and so on).
Louis IX himself came off a hero, as the French troops he led spoke of his bravery, skill and piety more than was expected--and often said notes of his friendship with the 'Great Emperors' simply gave him more political clout and prestige upon his return to France.
John III? Life as a campaign leader in the Near East had taken its toll on the now 41 year old Emperor--who began to get sicker and sicker as the time dragged on; unable to be moved from Acre upon his arrival until November. He would return with what remained of the Lakonoi; a force of 4,500 or so, a sickly and bedridden Emperor who regularly coughed up blood.
In his moments of pain-induced delusions he was noted to cry; "Here, Trajan![6] He lines out my path!"
--
[1] While the Crusader States had managed to maintain a firm grasp on the Middle-Eastern Coastline, they lacked the staying power to push in-land. This was proven when they were effectively cracked over the head by Al-Adil during their attempt; leaving a unique stalemate in the air as the aged Al-Adil was forced to effectively call a time-out to deal with successional issues.
[2] It hadn't quite sunk in yet that the Romans, and their Latin fellows in Christendom, had become firmer allies since last time--as in the 3rd Crusade the Roman leadership effectively tried at every turn to hamstring their Latin fellows.
[3] Unlike the Romans scouts, who were masters of the terrain, the scouts employed by Louis IX could never get used to the ever shifting climates, rivers and basic territories of Egypt.
[4] Due to John's sickly nature while on campaign he could do little more than command in a functional manner--and often relied on others movement notions, namely Louis, to angle his forces correctly. This was offset by the fact that the Lakonoi were the most elite formation there--and were relied upon for much of the hard hitting victories within the area.
[5] The Lakonoi fully considered themselves Roman after their upbringing as elite soldiers for the Emperor and his Empire. It was an insult to call them, as they stood, Turkish--even if several notions such as their marching functions, and tactics, had a Turkish flare.
[6] Trajan's death was due to natural causes, but its onset was due to the harsh lifestyle he was forced to endure while campaigning in the Near East, and beyond. This cry of John's was likely his well-read mind playing the notes, in tandem, for him and all those who could hear him.
1239-1242 - The Sultanate of Egypt had been in shambles for over a decade following the death of Al-Adil, brother of Saladin himself. This shambled setting was put in order after much effort by Al-Kamil, the son of Al-Adil, with the Sultan continuing what his father had started and putting further pressure on the Crusader States in the Levant [1]. This had ensured a further decade of 'peace' to rebuild, but left the Muslims unprepared for the effectively sudden arrival of a new Crusade [2].
At first it was nought but minor skirmishes, as early as February, along the borderlands--mostly set in motion by the movement of K.o.J based troops. These would only escalate as the actual Crusade itself began to shake-off. The planned functionality was simple; the army would be split up--allowing for the two Emperors to uphold their duties in the Middle East, while the eager King Louis IX would take a 3rd of the Crusading force to Egypt to launch a strike at the core of the Sultans capacity.
The Crusaders under Louis would arrive at, and occupy, the port of Damietta in late March, before making the hard march south towards Cairo in early April (after securing their front). Between them and Cairo lay Al-Mansoura; which blocked their northern route from the north side. This forced the Crusaders to lay siege to the city; however Louis' scouts scouts failed him, and did not warn him and his forces of a large Muslim army led by Al-Kamil himself.
The Crusaders were running out of supplies, and were forced to turn back lest they be forcibly battered away between the walls of Al-Mansoura and the Sultan's armies. Louis set up camp in a good position, just north, attempting to draw in the Muslims--yet his scouts would fail him once more [3]; not warning him of the fact that Al-Kamil had made his next move.
The Sultan ordered the destruction of the dam managing the nearby section of the Nile River; flooding and effectively destroying the hard-built camp before the Crusaders even had time to react. This would be compounded by a shattering blow against the Christians the following morning as they tried to back out to more favourable ground; with the army of Al-Kamil bloodying the Crusaders heavily; and forcing them up the nearby hill.
It would be a bloodbath; one that saw most of the Crusaders killed--yet the skill at arms, and leadership, of Louis IX allowed them survive and break out; carving a path in a slow, yet functional manner, back to Damietta, fleeing Egypt back to Acre on whatever ships were left. When Louis and his forces returned to friendly territory what had been an army of hardened Crusaders numbering 13,000 numbered now 4,000; leaving the total force at around 31,000.
Louis himself took the notion on the chin; willing to accept full responsibility for the failure; yet the cries of his enamored soldiers that it was not his fault rang loudly--and saw John and Frederick note that Louis had done the best he could. This whole event had wasted 3 months, leaving the Crusaders in their totality in late July with only one option; collective campaigning.
What would follow, over the next 2.5 years was nothing short of a dustbowl--the forces of Islam hardening at every blow offered them as the three-prong Crusader force; aided by those of the K.o.J, and a reluctant Antioch. The largest non-siege battle of these years was the Battle of Acre; as the aging Al-Kamil pushed against the Crusaders, and their current backers in the Crusader States, with a direct stab at the heart of what was left.
The battle began in late September of 1241, and was dragged on throughout a period of 4 days as forces joined and retracted intermittently. It was only the skill of Louis himself--dedicated to righting the wrong he felt responsible for--that truly held the line; as the German forces under Frederick proved too integral to the center of the Crusader force to risk continued battle-movement, and the Romans relied on the signals given by Louis [4]. It would end in a decisive Crusader victory--with Al-Kamil maimed in close-combat with a Lakonoi, forcing his core forces to flee. The battle had cost the Romans dearly though in the death of the aged Andronikos Romanos--the first Captain of the Lakonoi, placed by Romanos himself. Andronikos would be replaced by his chosen successor; Romanos Turkas.
It is said, within several contemporary sources, such as the scholar Henry of Ravenna, that at the end of the battle--when the major prisoners were being rounded up--that an Egyptian officer had the bravery to demand why the Turks, after looking at the Lakonoi, were fighting alongside the Christians--let alone the Romans. In response, it is said, that Romanos Turkas asked in fluent Greek; "Ti Toúrkoi?", "What Turks?" [5], before carving out the eyes, and upper face, of this officer in one blow of his cleaver.
Al-Kamil would die broken in body at the end of September; leaving his unready son as the new Sultan; Al-Adil II. Al-Adil II was a military man, but not a ruler--this was shown in his blunt, and blatant, disregard for protocol and functionality upon his ascension. The young Sultan simply wanted this whole mess with the Christians, as he saw it, over with. His skilled response in leading counter-pushes against any attempts to carve out further territory in the Holy Land by the remaining Crusaders over the rest of year; not even breaking to allow them Christmas, put the fear of failure in those warriors of God.
John was the one to suggest the riskiest move of their efforts; retaking Jerusalem itself. It would send a message to the Muslims that it was over; and to cease hostilities, while giving hope to those Christians who fought against the Muslims. It would be in early January 1242; forgoing the usual month-long preparation done each new year, that the united forces of the Christens, by now numbering around 29,000 due to gradual losses, would make for Jerusalem.
The siege was dragged out; made harder than ever expected by Al-Adil II's skilled hit-and-run raids into sections of the brokered siege camps. In the end the Crusaders, after two months on this, were getting desperate; stripping much of their siege equipment to allow the Roman engineers to build functional counterweight trebuchets to cause more damage to the hardened walls of the Holy City.
Funnily enough, this was not even needed as time panned out. As-Salih, the exiled half-brother of Al-Adil II, had returned--and led a skilled campaign against his half-sibling in retaliation for the loss of his rights. This movement caused an anticlimactic end to the Great Crusade; as Al-Adil simply offered Jerusalem and its environs as payment to the Christians so that they would, in short, sod off and let him handle his own internal affairs. This would be finalized in April 1242.
While Christendom had the city back the price was heavy; only 19,000 Crusaders remained.
In the end, Frederick II's forces had taken the major losses--even after Louis' own early losses, as the Germans had acted as the core of the Crusader force, with the Holy Roman Emperor returning home with little more than minor prestige to show for it (aside from the obvious loot and so on).
Louis IX himself came off a hero, as the French troops he led spoke of his bravery, skill and piety more than was expected--and often said notes of his friendship with the 'Great Emperors' simply gave him more political clout and prestige upon his return to France.
John III? Life as a campaign leader in the Near East had taken its toll on the now 41 year old Emperor--who began to get sicker and sicker as the time dragged on; unable to be moved from Acre upon his arrival until November. He would return with what remained of the Lakonoi; a force of 4,500 or so, a sickly and bedridden Emperor who regularly coughed up blood.
In his moments of pain-induced delusions he was noted to cry; "Here, Trajan![6] He lines out my path!"
--
[1] While the Crusader States had managed to maintain a firm grasp on the Middle-Eastern Coastline, they lacked the staying power to push in-land. This was proven when they were effectively cracked over the head by Al-Adil during their attempt; leaving a unique stalemate in the air as the aged Al-Adil was forced to effectively call a time-out to deal with successional issues.
[2] It hadn't quite sunk in yet that the Romans, and their Latin fellows in Christendom, had become firmer allies since last time--as in the 3rd Crusade the Roman leadership effectively tried at every turn to hamstring their Latin fellows.
[3] Unlike the Romans scouts, who were masters of the terrain, the scouts employed by Louis IX could never get used to the ever shifting climates, rivers and basic territories of Egypt.
[4] Due to John's sickly nature while on campaign he could do little more than command in a functional manner--and often relied on others movement notions, namely Louis, to angle his forces correctly. This was offset by the fact that the Lakonoi were the most elite formation there--and were relied upon for much of the hard hitting victories within the area.
[5] The Lakonoi fully considered themselves Roman after their upbringing as elite soldiers for the Emperor and his Empire. It was an insult to call them, as they stood, Turkish--even if several notions such as their marching functions, and tactics, had a Turkish flare.
[6] Trajan's death was due to natural causes, but its onset was due to the harsh lifestyle he was forced to endure while campaigning in the Near East, and beyond. This cry of John's was likely his well-read mind playing the notes, in tandem, for him and all those who could hear him.
Last edited:
And so Heraclius's reign starts, I can't wait to see what that means!
On another note, this crusade is definitely going to have huge effects once the Mongols come kicking in raping everything that doesn't immediately surrender to them, they might not be able to conquer Egypt but they will definitely have huge impacts, Egypt would enter some serious internal strife at minimum. It'd be interesting if another crusade tries to take advantage of this.
On another note, this crusade is definitely going to have huge effects once the Mongols come kicking in raping everything that doesn't immediately surrender to them, they might not be able to conquer Egypt but they will definitely have huge impacts, Egypt would enter some serious internal strife at minimum. It'd be interesting if another crusade tries to take advantage of this.
I think Milan’s a better location.Right in the centre of his empire,also a capital of the Romans,and a major centre of trade.Plus,it removes the Milanese as a source of opposition.
Last edited:
I’m sorry, I know it’s hard when a good Emperor goes.
In 2 years, but close enough.
As for the Crusade’s effects? Funnily enough it’ll leave Egypt well-placed to hold out; as much of their overhanging border is gone—they can simply lockstep and take the hits until they’re ready to swing their own.
There will be another Crusade, led by Louis IX (since he obviously has to burn in his deeds and become a Saint) but it’ll be in Tunis as in OTL; as with Jerusalem reclaimed the King, and the rest of the major Crusade pushers, don’t see any point of going back to the Middle East for now.
This ignores the fact that Frederick TTL, and OTL, gave very little care to the ‘rest of his Empire’ north of the Alps. Milan is a backwater at this point with very little Roman heritage left on full display. It’s also pressed too close to the Alpine border; which leaves it more vulnerable to being taken.
Ravenna on the other hand is well-placed as a center of trade between the Venetians, and his Northern Italian vassals—as well as a crossroads for him to maintain his control of these lands. It also has a special place in both Frederick, and Sophia’s, heart as it maintains a unique mixture of Western Roman, and Eastern Roman, influences—such as the famous Mosaic of Justinian the Great.
And that's why the empire was fucked.
The other side of the Alpine border is Frederick's other power base, Swabia(which in my opinion is an added incentive to make it a capital). I would have to disagree however that Milan was a backwater at this point in time. It was a major center of trade and was already pretty powerful. It was in fact one of the most powerful centers of opposition against Hohenstaufen rule in Italy.
The only redeemable factor about Ravenna is that it is supposedly more defensible than Milan because of the swamps(which rarely actually stopped people from taking Ravenna) and that it could have sea communication with Constantinople. Also, Ravenna is actually in the south-eastern edge of Northern Italy. There is actually no reason for Venetian trade to go through Ravenna if they are trading with Northern Italian cities. If Frederick wants to make Ravenna a centre of trade, he will probably have to compete with Venice to make Ravenna the centre of trade.
Last edited:
There isn’t really any real reason for Frederick to be majorly different from OTL since he was born before the PoD.
The keywording I used was ‘at this point’, which is 44 years post-PoD. Frederick has spent decades exercising his will and power over the area—and chose Ravenna for its symbolic rather than strategic value. In the decades spent building up Ravenna as an Imperial City Milan would have naturally declined in value and prestige as well as power.
As for Swabia? While it is a power base OTLFrederick simply ignored it—as he spent most of his life even further south in his Kingdom of Sicily. TTL Frederick has the exact same tendencies as his OTL self—just shifted because he actually got to experience Constantinople, and Roman culture for himself—as well as having a Roman Princess as his wife.
I know Ravenna’s positioning and it’s capacities against Milan; as stated it’s a symbolic choice more than a valuable one—and if you read back in the TL you’d see that as a major factor. Frederick was captivated by the cities Roman character, which was akin to Constantinople in several ways.
As for Venice? Venice and Frederick have been on good terms for over a decade, as the Emperor gave them disloyal lands in Istria following the civil war that saw his rise to power as Holy Roman Emperor. This land revitalised Venice following it’s massive failure in the 4th Crusade; and tied them to Frederick’s North Italian domains more obviously. Added to this, when you have an Imperial City right on your doorstep you’re going to route trade through there for access to larger markets; made even better by the fact that Ravenna, as you noted, as access to the sea over Milan.
Much like how Roman Emperors in the east shifted whole trade networks around to suit their needs (such as Justinian; who shifted the whole trade of the Marmara southward, to the very tip of Constantinople), Frederick’s ‘zone-of-control’ over Northern Italy had been in effect for decades; shifting the balances of power in the region to suit his needs.
I've just gone and reworked the whole threadmark system I ran the TL with.
Every 'Part' now corresponds to a ruler; so when John III dies, and Heraclius II/Dragases I takes the throne it shall shift into Part 3.
Added to this I've gone back and reworked several TL postings to make them function better (notably the one that started this timeline); as I've refined my style and system of writing since starting this TL months ago.
Hopefully this system allows you all a better time putting together the aspects of the TL when reading for the first time, or rereading.
Every 'Part' now corresponds to a ruler; so when John III dies, and Heraclius II/Dragases I takes the throne it shall shift into Part 3.
Added to this I've gone back and reworked several TL postings to make them function better (notably the one that started this timeline); as I've refined my style and system of writing since starting this TL months ago.
Hopefully this system allows you all a better time putting together the aspects of the TL when reading for the first time, or rereading.
By choosing Ravenna as his HQ,Frederick is already a vastly different person from otl.Just saying
.And yes, I was speaking retrospectively where the capital should have been as the center of HRE.I couldn’t care less what Frederick thinks.His otl policies doomed the HRE.
So is Venice actually declining as a centre of trade?If the ships are going to Ravenna instead of Venice, the importance of Venice will probably decline.
Last edited: