I'd think the Trebizuntines would encourage conversions by making Muslims second or third class citizens, forced movement to different parts of their empire when rebellions occur and I'd think a lot of children would truly be orthodox Christian even if their parents aren't. Another interesting thing is syncretism between coptic Christianity, Orthodox and Islam. Would those religions be successful and be accepted as Orthodoxy?
The Undying Empire: A Trebizond Timeline
- Thread starter Eparkhos
- Start date
- Status
Also keep in mind that this region right now has several religions present, the big ones are the Orthodox Churches, the Coptics, Islam of course, some Catholics, maybe a few Gnostic holdouts, and some Jews. The Orthodox might make up the majority right now, but it's going to be a SLIM majority.
With all the chaos there might be some new religious movement/group that emerges, in RL the Ottomans had to deal with several religious splinter groups like the Alevis, the Qizilbash, and of course the infamous Sabbati Zevi who claimed to be the messiah. David and his heirs are going to have similar problems.
By the way, should we begin calling the Trapuzintines Byzantines now? Technically they hold Constantinople and are right now the legitimate successors to the OG empire
I look forward to it, Eparkhos.
I'm not surprised that David went on a rampage after seeing Constantinople, but I'll blame Osman for what was obviously a suicidal strike, and got thousands or more killed as a result of that. As for Shkoze, his failure to capture Constantinople should have some interesting consequences down the line....
I'm glad that some of the Ottoman Turks survived, if only to get absorbed by a resurgent Egyptian Caliphate. I doubt we'll see the Egyptians retain control over Anatolian territory, but that depends on how politics plays out in an Ottoman-less Balkans and Anatolia.
As for the Qutlughids, we'll see whether Siyavash can win, but I doubt it, even if David's nothing short of insane right about now. Not sure that happens to the Neo-Rumite Empire after Erzurum.
They need to deal with the Palaiologoi / Moreans before they could rightfully claim to be the successor to the Roman Empire.
I'd like to see a scene where the Trebizuntines wreck Mecca as they establish dominion over the red sea due to how the Ottomans wrecked the Hagia Sophia. Doing this will make sure they lose any soft power they have over their Muslim subjects, but it would make sense as the Trebizuntines would still be pissed over the broken Hagia Sophia. Maybe they do it in the excuse of helping out their vassals wreck their enemies? That'd make the Muslims less pissed off.
The Neo-Rumites without Erzincan would at least produce a period where anarchy is rampant in former Neo-Rumite lands, leading to Trebizund picking bits of land off Central Anatolia until all of Anatolia is under trebizuntine control except the khandarid and venetian holdings in Anatolia.
I'd personally like to see two greek states survive, but that might just be wishful thinking. would be fun tho. Maybe the Moreotes conquer Naples and Sicily?
@Eparkhos where would the Trebizuntines colonize other than Egypt and the red sea? they either have to try for palestine of Persia to restore their borders. Another direction they can try to go towards is to try conquer Sri Lanka and South India to control trade from South East Asia.
PS: I hope the ttl incas don't get colonized. Do they use bronze for tools more ittl?
Last edited:
wrecking Mecca seems way over the top and childish, how would that be feasable be done even i dont think they can even dream of establishing control over the red sea in the near future, thats like saying they should burn down St. Peter cuz of the crusaders
Also on another note i would keep these things down cuz i think we all dont want this threat get closed
Also on another note i would keep these things down cuz i think we all dont want this threat get closed
Gotta agree with Paschalis here. Sacking Mecca doesn't make sense since David and the Trapezuntines already had their revenge against Osman and the rest of the Turks for betraying their trust and destroying the Hagia Sophia, which was already a massacre. What you're asking for is basically the genocide of Muslims as a whole since you'd need to carve a bloody path through Egypt, the Levant, and Arabia before that's even possible. The Romans are both unable and are unwilling to do that.
As for the Greek states....no. You can't have two claimants for Rome, and I don't think the Komnenoi want to share.
Isn't the estimate of 3.5 million for Pontos proper's population in 1525 somewhat high? In the 1480s the population was around 500,000, and with the additional conquests in Anatolia likely grew much higher (2-4x maybe), in addition to the Pontic heartland enjoying a relatively peaceful 40 years (barring the occasional revolt) which is good for population growth (the deaths from all the various wars while impacting that, are not debilitating), food production, raising children etc., so the Anantolian portion of the Trapezuntine Empire likely has a population in the millions. I just find 3.5 million to be a somewhat excessive figure.
I don't think the ittl Greeks agree that the massacres are enough tho, I'd think. The Hagia Sophia is the most important church in the Orthodox world. It'd not make sense for the Greeks/Rhomans to think that's enough, demented as that might sound. I think people are paranoid about being called out for genocide, but that should not stop us from talking about such possibilities.
yeah, the Moreotes and the Trebizuntines will come to blows to determine who's the true Roman Empire. Would be cool for both of them to survive tho.
In terms of logistics, right now neither David nor Trebizond is in a position to attack Mecca, much less burn it to the ground. Right now he's got more... Immediate problems.
Now in a century or two, if/when we have a fully restored Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire, they could very well wind up in a war that sees them at the gates of Mecca, THEN we can talk about the city being destroyed. But until then right now that is NOT in the cards.
Now in a century or two, if/when we have a fully restored Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire, they could very well wind up in a war that sees them at the gates of Mecca, THEN we can talk about the city being destroyed. But until then right now that is NOT in the cards.
If there is one thing that will unite the Sunnis, Shias and ibadis of the middle East it will be sacking Mecca and Medina. Bayezid during the ottoman mamluk war got letters from basically every Muslim power and his own Muslim vassals threatening war if one mosque in Mecca was out of place. And this was against the most powerful Muslim power at the time.
I disagree, because the amount of damage done by Osman was fairly minor, as he only attacked and burned Constantinople for only a single day. Compared to the Sack, this was nothing. While the Hagia Sophia being damaged is unfortunate, it's something that can be rebuilt by David, as Eparkhos said. And besides, in David's eyes, he already conducted just retribution against the Muslims (more specifically the Turks/Greek Muslims) for this betrayal through that massacre. I don't think this sort of emnity with Islam will last as long as the Romans continue to face more immediate threats, including their own Christian brethren like the Moreans, the Bulgarians, and the Albanians.
In fact, I think working with the Caliphate could be beneficial against the Qutlughids. Even if that doesn't pan out, David/Mgeli isn't dumb and wouldn't dare try to anger the Caliphate for something irrational. Peace with the Egyptians is preferable when the Trapezuntines are still surrounded by enemies on all fronts.
it's totally not in the cards right now, that's for sure. it'd be one of the things David wants to do tho.
I think the the war between trebizund and Persia will result in a central Anatolia that's in anarchy. who would be the guys who'd take advantage of that? I hope David will, but the Khandarids and Persians may take some land off as central Anatolia will be ripe for the taking.
ps: I agree that blowing up Mecca would be stupid. Would the Trebizuntines try? I just think they'd try at least once. would make sense for the story in a certain way, although it'd make more sense that they don't for any colonial Empire in the red sea and Egypt. I wrote that sentence due to the carthasis that would bring. makes no sense tho, especially when Anatolia isn't in Trebizuntine control.
Last edited:
The Byzantines didn’t refer to themselves as byzantines. It’s a much more modern term. I’d just call them Romans as it’d probably how they’d identify themselves-or some form of that. And if it survives to modern day it’ll still use the term Rome
I'd think some countries would call Trebizund Byzantium so that they can claim to be true Rome, and at this stage I think the trebizuntines would be called Ponts by some countries at this stage, considering their geographical situation.
Eparkhos
Banned
Won't be able to update until tomorrow, but this is an idea that just struck me: Art.
The Renaissance is quite different from what it was OTL as evidenced by the WoTL, so it stands to reason that the art that was produced during the period would be quite different as well. With the Church being much more puritanical than OTL (leaning more into the Deuservii than Savonarola's followers, though), it stands to reason that they would be less willing to finance the neoclassical paintings, statues and mosaics of the historic period, and their influence would mean that nobles would be less willing as well. However, I think that there would still be an impetus for art to be commissioned, so I think that the dominant form of art in the latter half of the !Renaissance would be long and intricate songs, many of them with religious themes (neopsalms, anyone?).
The Renaissance is quite different from what it was OTL as evidenced by the WoTL, so it stands to reason that the art that was produced during the period would be quite different as well. With the Church being much more puritanical than OTL (leaning more into the Deuservii than Savonarola's followers, though), it stands to reason that they would be less willing to finance the neoclassical paintings, statues and mosaics of the historic period, and their influence would mean that nobles would be less willing as well. However, I think that there would still be an impetus for art to be commissioned, so I think that the dominant form of art in the latter half of the !Renaissance would be long and intricate songs, many of them with religious themes (neopsalms, anyone?).
That’s nearly a millenia of blood feud the Romans had with Islam.If they have the opportunity to reconquer their lost lands I don’t think a lot of Romans would skip the opportunity to sack the Muslim holy cities,
- Status