Narrative Appendices: Yes or No

  • Yes

  • No

  • Neither: Build a canal (Results)


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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,
Is it really that much of a blood feud when the Romans were willing to restore Kadir to the throne or when they took a deal with the Caliphate instead of just massacring the last of the Turks? If that's the case, then I don't really see it being a thing.

Rhomania sacking Mecca and Medina could theoretically happen, but this one incident triggering that kind of event doesn't make sense in my eyes. There's been so many times where Constantinople has been invaded or even sacked that in a few centuries time (when Rhomania could have Egypt and Arabia), Osman's suicidal charge might be a distant memory (Again, compared to the Sack, which literally shattered the Roman Empire, this is nothing). There has to be a far more recent and egregious offense for them to act this way, and this is not it.
 
Is it really that much of a blood feud when the Romans were willing to restore Kadir to the throne or when they took a deal with the Caliphate instead of just massacring the last of the Turks? If that's the case, then I don't really see it being a thing.

Rhomania sacking Mecca and Medina could theoretically happen, but this one incident triggering that kind of event doesn't make sense in my eyes. There's been so many times where Constantinople has been invaded or even sacked that in a few centuries time (when Rhomania could have Egypt and Arabia), Osman's suicidal charge might be a distant memory (Again, compared to the Sack, which literally shattered the Roman Empire, this is nothing). There has to be a far more recent and egregious offense for them to act this way, and this is not it.
That’s pragmatism than them acting according to their feelings because they lacked the strength to do anything extra.The move to restore Kadir was done out of a desire to weaken the Turks without overstretching themselves, while the move to deal with the Mamelukes was done because they lacked the strength to fight them with guaranteed victory.If the Romans are in a position to sack Mecca and Medina,they would be in a position of total victory.They certainly weren’t so merciful to the Carthaginians for example when that type of thing happened.
 
Last edited:
That’s pragmatism than them acting according to their feelings.If the Romans are in a position to sack Mecca and Medina,they are in a position of total victory.
Yes that's pragmatism, which is why I find it hard to believe that the Romans would want to sack Mecca and Medina because of this one incident that was already paid in blood, especially in the far future where more pressing concerns would distract them. They need to find other reasons in recent times that are justifiable, and even so, they might not even try and do it because of the obvious implications of sacking the two holiest cities in Islam.
 
Yes that's pragmatism, which is why I find it hard to believe that the Romans would want to sack Mecca and Medina because of this one incident that was already paid in blood, especially in the far future where more pressing concerns would distract them. They need to find other reasons in recent times that are justifiable, and even so, they might not even try and do it because of the obvious implications of sacking the two holiest cities in Islam.
Not one incident.MANY incidents.As of the latest chapter, the Romans are (again) invaded by another Muslim power.
 
Not one incident.MANY incidents.As of the latest chapter, the Romans are (again) invaded by another Muslim power.
Okay so? This invasion really isn't anything special compared to the last invasions done by the Qutlughids or other Muslim powers like the Turkish beyliks or the Golden Horde, some of which the Romans actually won, leading to the destruction of those same Muslim powers. Heck, Siyavash only wants to vassalize the Trapezuntine Empire and make them tributary states, as was their position before, not out of a need to ravage/destroy the Romans, much like his predecessor before him.
That doesn't really contribute to the blood feud, in my opinion, especially if the Romans actually win and kill Siyavash in this latest engagement.
 
Okay so? This invasion really isn't anything special compared to the last invasions done by the Qutlughids or other Muslim powers like the Turkish beyliks or the Golden Horde, some of which the Romans actually won, leading to the destruction of those same Muslim powers. Heck, Siyavash only wants to vassalize the Trapezuntine Empire and make them tributary states, as was their position before, not out of a need to ravage/destroy the Romans, much like his predecessor before him.
That doesn't really contribute to the blood feud, in my opinion, especially if the Romans actually win and kill Siyavash in this latest engagement.
They have been at war with Muslim powers who justify their wars in one form or another on account of their faith for nearly a millennium.There are many soldiers and their families,not to mention many more civilians, who have died as a result of the Muslims.They won’t care if Siyvash “only wants to vassalize them”. And there will certainly be more wars against the Muslims in the future.
 
They have been at war with Muslim powers who justify their wars in one form or another on account of their faith for nearly a millennium.There are many soldiers and their families,not to mention many more civilians, who have died as a result of the Muslims.They won’t care if Siyvash “only wants to vassalize them”. And there will certainly be more wars against the Muslims in the future.
Yes, that is true, and it's why I fail to see how Osman's attack on Constantinople or this invasion you speak of changes this whole dynamic between the Romans and the rest of the Muslims, especially when the attack was already met with a response ten fold on the Greek Muslims/Turks. By the time Rhomania has conquered Egypt in a hypothetical scenario, Osman is rendered as a laughing stock and the Hagia Sophia is fully rebuilt, his last outing a distant memory for the people in Constantinople.

The Romans and their neighboring Muslim neighbors have always been at conflict for millennia, and some of those conflicts have been won by the Romans, including the events that happened ITTL. Again, if the Romans want to sack Mecca and Medina in the far future, they'll find their own reasons for doing so, but I don't think they'll draw on centuries of this conflict or these incidents, since that basically amounts to "we want to burn these cities because we want to". That's obviously unrealistic and quite frankly insane.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is true, and it's why I fail to see how Osman's attack on Constantinople or this invasion you speak of changes this whole dynamic between the Romans and the rest of the Muslims, especially when the attack was already met with a response ten fold on the Greek Muslims/Turks. By the time Rhomania has conquered Egypt in a hypothetical scenario, Osman is rendered as a laughing stock and the Hagia Sophia is fully rebuilt, his last outing a distant memory for the people in Constantinople.

The Romans and their neighboring Muslim neighbors have always been at conflict for millennia, and some of those conflicts have been won by the Romans, including the events that happened ITTL. Again, if the Romans want to sack Mecca and Medina in the far future, they'll find their own reasons for doing so, but I don't think they'll draw on centuries of this conflict or these incidents, since that basically amounts to "we want to burn these cities because we want to". That's obviously unrealistic and quite frankly insane.
Because the Romans were never in a position to sack Mecca/Medina or any other symbolic targets.When the Greeks/Macedonians and the Romans captured Persepolis and Carthage respectively for example,they destroyed the cities out of spite/symbolic purposes—despite doing so not making sense in the long run,and that whatever grudge they had happened a long time ago.In this case,it is also likely that some Zealot leader would want to destroy the Muslim holy sites in order to show that the Muslim faith is ‘fake’.
 
Last edited:
Because the Romans were never in a position to sack Mecca/Medina or any other symbolic targets.When the Greeks/Macedonians and the Romans captured Persepolis and Carthage respectively for example,they destroyed the cities out of spite/symbolic purposes—despite doing so not making sense in the long run,and that whatever grudge they had happened a long time ago.In this case,it is also likely that some Zealot leader would want to destroy the Muslim holy sites in order to show that the Muslim faith is ‘fake’.

I think how Mecca and Medina are treated always depend on the geopolitical situation. A Neo-Byzantine Empire which have reestablished control over Anatolia, Levantine and Egypt and then conquered Hejaz would demolish the Kaaba and build a cathedral on top of it. Some Christians sacking Mecca would be more likely to focus on plundering the city and steal the stones and sell them to highest bidder. A European colonial power gaining control over Hejaz would be more likely to simply give some powerful local Arabic tribe the authority over the Kaaba against them serivng the colonial power.
 
I think how Mecca and Medina are treated always depend on the geopolitical situation. A Neo-Byzantine Empire which have reestablished control over Anatolia, Levantine and Egypt and then conquered Hejaz would demolish the Kaaba and build a cathedral on top of it. Some Christians sacking Mecca would be more likely to focus on plundering the city and steal the stones and sell them to highest bidder. A European colonial power gaining control over Hejaz would be more likely to simply give some powerful local Arabic tribe the authority over the Kaaba against them serivng the colonial power.
Yep.Basically what they did to Jerusalem and the Jews.
 
Because the Romans were never in a position to sack Mecca/Medina or any other symbolic targets.When the Greeks/Macedonians and the Romans captured Persepolis and Carthage respectively for example,they destroyed the cities out of spite/symbolic purposes—despite doing so not making sense in the long run,and that whatever grudge they had happened a long time ago.In this case,it is also likely that some Zealot leader would want to destroy the Muslim holy sites in order to show that the Muslim faith is ‘fake’.
So your response hinges on a possibility? It's just as likely that the Romans could have a leader that isn't insane and would see that sacking Medina and Mecca would have huge consequences, mostly bad ones, especially if the Muslim sects all unite against Rhomania under that scenario, as Sarthaka hinted.

Also, your examples don't really hold water, as when Alexander was about to capture Persepolis, he met a cadre of Greek artisans that were handicapped by the Persians and were forced to be kept in the city (according to worldhistory.org). That could've influenced his decisions on whether to sack the city or not, although I will not discount that he could've sacked it regardless for the sheer material wealth of the city and the prestige of avenging the Greeks for the Persian Wars.

As for Carthage, it was clear that not all Romans shared the belief of destroying Carthage and there was a significant anti-Carthage faction that pushed for the city's destruction, with Cato the Elder being a prominent figure, with him coining the term "Carthago delenda est". Even if the chances of maintaining Carthage was very slim, it's clear that there were contemporary people and events that shifted the course of such decisions, even if grudges and feelings of revenge were a factor during the sack of Carthage or Persepolis.

For Mecca, I can see a similar trend occur. The Romans of the far future might have a hatred for Muslims due to being taught of the grievances done to them in the past, but leaders could be pushed to the extremes by some geopolitical forces or events that affected them or their people. Stuff like rebellions, barbaric actions done by the enemy, the possibility of taking precious holy relics/items, the loss of a precious loved one, or political factions back home that desire such destruction. Those are the things that those leaders might be thinking foremost when they are doing this, not solely by some hostile relationship that didn't even commit something as egregious as the Latins did in 1204 or Islam's legitimacy in comparison to Christianity. That's probably the pretext that helps them justify such a horrific act.

I trust @Eparkhos in coming up with reasons why the Romans would act this way (or not), since this is his timeline and he's done a great job crafting a story so far, but I just find it more believable if there were recent events or people that led to this conclusion instead of some Roman Emperor coming up to Mecca and Medina, only to brutally sack both cities, regardless of geopolitical concerns, purely because of their religion and what he has been taught from their teachers.
 
So your response hinges on a possibility? It's just as likely that the Romans could have a leader that isn't insane and would see that sacking Medina and Mecca would have huge consequences, mostly bad ones, especially if the Muslim sects all unite against Rhomania under that scenario, as Sarthaka hinted.

Also, your examples don't really hold water, as when Alexander was about to capture Persepolis, he met a cadre of Greek artisans that were handicapped by the Persians and were forced to be kept in the city (according to worldhistory.org). That could've influenced his decisions on whether to sack the city or not, although I will not discount that he could've sacked it regardless for the sheer material wealth of the city and the prestige of avenging the Greeks for the Persian Wars.

As for Carthage, it was clear that not all Romans shared the belief of destroying Carthage and there was a significant anti-Carthage faction that pushed for the city's destruction, with Cato the Elder being a prominent figure, with him coining the term "Carthago delenda est". Even if the chances of maintaining Carthage was very slim, it's clear that there were contemporary people and events that shifted the course of such decisions, even if grudges and feelings of revenge were a factor during the sack of Carthage or Persepolis.

For Mecca, I can see a similar trend occur. The Romans of the far future might have a hatred for Muslims due to being taught of the grievances done to them in the past, but leaders could be pushed to the extremes by some geopolitical forces or events that affected them or their people. Stuff like rebellions, barbaric actions done by the enemy, the possibility of taking precious holy relics/items, the loss of a precious loved one, or political factions back home that desire such destruction. Those are the things that those leaders might be thinking foremost when they are doing this, not solely by some hostile relationship that didn't even commit something as egregious as the Latins did in 1204 or Islam's legitimacy in comparison to Christianity. That's probably the pretext that helps them justify such a horrific act.

I trust @Eparkhos in coming up with reasons why the Romans would act this way (or not), since this is his timeline and he's done a great job crafting a story so far, but I just find it more believable if there were recent events or people that led to this conclusion instead of some Roman Emperor coming up to Mecca and Medina, only to brutally sack both cities, regardless of geopolitical concerns, purely because of their religion and what he has been taught from their teachers.
This is more or less a chicken and egg kind of situation.If the Romans are strong enough to conquer the Eastern Mediterranean and the Hejaz,would they not have already crushed all the Muslim powers able and willing to offer resistance in the first place?It’s not like the Muslim powers are gonna watch the Romans waltz into the Hejaz and do nothing to stop them.

And really, destroying holy sites and cities is nothing new to the Romans or anyone in the story’s era.It would not require an insane ruler to do that.It could even be done by individual commanders or even armies on their own initiative.It would not be the first time that a state loses control over their army due to the urge to plunder—which should be immense considering the pilgrims and donations located in the Hejaz.In any event ,any Roman attempt to conquer the Eastern Mediterranean and the Hejaz would be extremely bloody ,which makes it unlikely that the Roman armies involved would feel merciful towards their defeated enemies.The real take home message I would like to tell you is that as long as there’s wars with the Muslims, the memory of hatred will always be kept alive by the losses inflicted by both sides.
 
Last edited:
I feel like the sack could go either way. There is obviously a non zero possibility of happening and not happening. It all depends on the rulers and commanders of the era. I seriously doubt it would happen though. Rome hasn't even secured 40% of Anatolia not even mentioning Europe so going to Mecca for a raid or conquering Egypt is not in the near , or I would say , not even in the medium term future. So till then a lot of things could happen that would swing this argument to both ways.

To me the way this story goes , IMHO, Rome wouldn't even have control of all Anatolia. They would be something of the Komnenian Restoration borders in Anatolia, plus Kartvelia, and in Europe this are even murkier. So talking for a sack of Mecca is exactly like saying Romans would walk on the Moon or they would invent the engine, you get my point. It may happen but it's so far ahead and we don't have enough specifics to truly argue either way.

IMO I think a sack of Mecca is stupid because then you really need to "pacify" all of the Muslims in the Empire and having Egypt and the Levant would mean that the percentage of Muslims in the Empire would be at least above 25%. So imaging the shitstorm of revolutions and support it would get . What would Persia do? What would the Indian Sultanates do? Nothing? I seriously doubt it. It would mean an endless bloodshed without any real reason. Only the fact that a Roman flag and a church would be in Mecca is enough to humiliate the Muslims if that is what the leaders would want, and even a church would be a push but IF handled correctly they could get away with it. On a story perspective it's always up to the author to decide how the story would go and to make it seem real, as he has done time and time again.
 
I feel like the sack could go either way. There is obviously a non zero possibility of happening and not happening. It all depends on the rulers and commanders of the era. I seriously doubt it would happen though. Rome hasn't even secured 40% of Anatolia not even mentioning Europe so going to Mecca for a raid or conquering Egypt is not in the near , or I would say , not even in the medium term future. So till then a lot of things could happen that would swing this argument to both ways.To me the way this story goes , IMHO, Rome wouldn't even have control of all Anatolia. They would be something of the Komnenian Restoration borders in Anatolia, plus Kartvelia, and in Europe this are even murkier. So talking for a sack of Mecca is exactly like saying Romans would walk on the Moon or they would invent the engine, you get my point. It may happen but it's so far ahead and we don't have enough specifics to truly argue either way.
I agree. I don't think this is even an option for a long time too. They are far too weak to try something like that.However, the scenario asked is clearly what happened if somehow the Romans were able to reconquer their former holdings in the East and march on Hejaz.
IMO I think a sack of Mecca is stupid because then you really need to "pacify" all of the Muslims in the Empire and having Egypt and the Levant would mean that the percentage of Muslims in the Empire would be at least above 25%. So imaging the shitstorm of revolutions and support it would get .

What would Persia do? What would the Indian Sultanates do? Nothing? I seriously doubt it. It would mean an endless bloodshed without any real reason. Only the fact that a Roman flag and a church would be in Mecca is enough to humiliate the Muslims if that is what the leaders would want, and even a church would be a push but IF handled correctly they could get away with it. On a story perspective it's always up to the author to decide how the story would go and to make it seem real, as he has done time and time again.
IMHO, the wars between whoever controls Persia and the Romans might not actually be preventable regardless of what the Romans actually do. We've seen from otl how even a Muslim power like the OE managed to get into major conflicts with whoever controls Persia--ditto for a Christian power like the ERE. The Indian Sultanates are basically a non-factor because they are too far and too distracted in India.

As for your other point, I'd have to very much argue that Roman rule over the reconquered Muslims territories will always be a bloody affair. The Muslims of otl were remarkably more tolerant of their Christian subjects than the opposite(look at how the Spanish treated their Muslims for example), but even they were not beyond doing things like converting Churches--like the Haghia Sophia into mosques-- and treating the Christians like scum. There were certainly rebellions by the Orthodox population, but they were always crushed. None of them gained any traction until they were backed by more advanced Western militaries. Is it right to blow up Mecca and Medina as a "fuck you" to the Muslims? Certainly not so. But doing such things certainly would not be stupid in the sense that the rulers would be enhancing their personal prestige and relationship with the Christian base. It’s also going to badly weaken the legitimacy of Islam over the long run even if the Muslims due end up rebelling in the immediate aftermath.And as mentioned, it might not even be something that the emperor himself could control given a lot of the rank and file would have their own reasons to destroy the cities. Even Mehmed II for example had to allow his army to sack Constantinople for a couple of days despite the necessity for an city intact as his future capital.
 
Last edited:
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?).
It would be fascinating to see literature along the lines of The Divine Comedy become more prolific within this period and influence popular views on religion accordingly. Might be some interesting kindling to add to whatever brand of unrest grips Catholicism in the next couple hundred years...
 
Part LXXI: The Defense of Khaldea (1542-1544)

Eparkhos

Banned
My schedule is growing more and more constrictive as the school year approaches, but I think I can at least get the rest of David's reign done before then. I wrote another update last night but it just doesn't seem to have the 'spark' or 'energy' most of my writing does. I hope its tolerable, but if its not I'll do a rewrite. Please let me know what you think, it'll remain unthreadmarked for the time being.

Part LXXI: The Defense of Khaldea (1542-1544)

The sudden Persian invasion had struck the Romans like an avalanche, sending panic across the empire and especially the capital, which lay less than fifty miles from their furthest point and would have been left high and dry if Siyavash had been able to batter his way through the mountains. Bad communication in Pontos, especially between the regent Konstantinides and the provincial bandons, paralyzing the initial response to the invasion, and by the time word reached David in the far west it seemed as if the entire empire were about to be torn apart in the lion’s jaws. Though the ongoing negotiations with the Khandarhids complicated things severely, David was suitably spooked by this and began scrambling forces eastward in hopes of holding the passes and the capital long enough for true help to arrive. Finally, as July drew to a close, he himself took ship with the majority of the army left in the west, determined not to have bought Constantinople for Trapezous’ price….

Ultimately, David was unable to reach his capital before winter made the seas impossible due to logistical problems, a series of disastrous crashes on the Paphlagonian coast and pure bad luck in terms of storms. With the winter came an all-too brief pause in the fighting, though, and he was determined to use this break as an opportunity to rally his empire against the invaders. Most of the western army had been rushed to support Siderokastron while it was under assault, but the bandons from Pontos proper were either unraised or badly-positioned, again due to administerial incompetence and miscommunication. After sacking Konstantinidis, he organized the bandonoi into the fighting force that they were intended to be and made preparations to counter-attack across the mountains come spring. An army such as that of Siyavash could not be allowed to remain so close to the imperial capital, and it was of the utmost importance amongst the Roman command to push them as far away as possible as soon as possible.

By the time the passes began to thaw again in April 1543, Roman forces were distributed as follows: 30,000 footmen, including the best surviving veterans of the western campaigns and the war against the Dadianis, were camped under David himself directly at the mouth of the pass, with most of the few thousand cavalry that could be mustered up on such short notice with them to create a total force of around 35,000. A smaller force of 15,000 bandonoi was held in reserve at Matzouka near the Mylos River, which flowed along the pass, with orders to fight to the death against any Persian force that managed to get past the main force, while another reserve of 10,000 (mostly non-bandonoi militiamen from within Trapezous itself, of highly various quality) would remain within the capital to fight alongside the people of the capital in its defense if things came to that. God willing they never would, but David couldn’t take that chance. As he broke camp and marched southward on 16 April, the fate of the newly-restored Roman Empire seemed to rest on the shoulders of the Imperial army.

Seemed is the operative word. Siyavash had pulled back out of the pass as the snows began to fall, but he had not withdrawn far enough. The Persian army took atrocious losses from the cold, hunger and various camp diseases that winter, dwindling from 25,000 in November with only some 15,000 of the original force surviving to see the end of the snows. Luckily for the Persians, however, a smaller force dispatched the previous year into Samtskhe under Farrukhan Mehrani had turned back to reinforce them, bringing their total number to around 25,000. Still, the shahanshah could tell that his men’s morale had gone through the floor, and that he would need to withdraw southward to reform and prepare for the campaign to resume in 1544. In hopes of hastening this process enough to resume campaigning later that year, he sent orders for a force of 15,000 to be mustered at Bitlis as both a reserve and an auxiliary. He then began making preparations to depart in mid-April, once the region was warm enough to do so, but these plans would be dramatically altered by the arrival of the Romans.

After nearly four weeks crossing the pass--it wasn’t completely clear of snow, and the Romans were forced to brave onwards through the ice--David emerged onto the plateau on 9 May, now with an army numbering only about 30,000. Still, it was quite the force and he decided that he could and should engage Siyavash while his army was effectively coming out of hibernation and thus not at its best form. In addition to his not-completely-functioning force, Siyavash had also been caught nearly completely flat-footed by the sudden appearance of the Romans, not expecting them to arrive for a few more weeks, and was forced to suddenly break camp to meet them.

In this unready and slightly panicked state, he made a hasty and nearly disastrous decision, retreating towards the south-west rather than facing David outright. In doing so, the Persians scrambled directly into sight of the Kozokastron Fortress, a minor outpost in the mountains which was in contact with the Romans via signal fires. Their path was revealed and David scrambled a force to intercept them, but the light cavalry that rushed over the mountains was overeager, and rather than waiting to ambush the Persians they attacked them outright. They were driven back, and Siyavash managed to redirect his force southeastwards and escape into the open country. The qizilbash were still thick on the ground in this region, but it would take time to gather them, and as the mountains started to shrink behind him Siyavash was just as aware as David that in the interim the Persians would hold the upper hand.

However, this advantage would not last, and having already decided that a strategic withdrawl was in his best interests Siyavash decided to get while the getting was good and move southwards. Bayburt and Erzincan both remained in Roman hands, and while he had bypassed them the year before now that there was a proper Roman army coming after him the fortified cities formed the beginnings of a cage that could trap him in hostile territory. By the end of May, when the first major Qizilbash forces began to rally to David’s camp in the Pontic foothills, the Persians had managed to reach Erzincan. While Shirazi’s incompetent siege had continued for months at this point and his army was a shattered wreck of its former self, Siyavash’s arrival was able to abruptly turn the tide of the affair, pounding through the city walls with a vast array of cannonade. Most of the city’s defenders surrendered in exchange for good treatment, though Ismail and most of the Safaviyya retreated into the citadel to await relief.

Though Erzincan and Erzurum were both now in Qutlughid hands, at least to an extent, Siyavash felt that he was too exposed to enemy counter-attack to remain at Erzincan, as the sudden arrival of a large Roman force--he was unsure just how large David’s army was, nor if it had been reinforced by another--could see him pinned inside the city and between Romans outside the walls and inside the walls. Not enjoying the notion of an eastern Alesia, he decided his best option was to hastily refortify Erzincan’s outer walls to allow a smaller force to stay behind to try and take the citadel while the bulk of his force went south into Bitlis to link up with his reinforcements. The Qutlughids departed in the middle of May, before the wall was even completed, and this left the siege force to finish repairs a mere six hours before David arrived.

David had chafed in the Pontic foothills, watching the enemy which had come to within a hair’s breadth (or so he believed) of destroying his empire slip away into the high steppe without a fight, one which he was sure he could win. Once the qizilbash necessary to cover his force’s advance had assembled at his camp, he was eager to give chase, believing that the Persians could finally be crushed and the insults which Arslan had heaped upon him be done away with, and gave the order to march at once. In friendly country and moving along well-established supply networks, the Romans were able to move quite quickly, and came within days of catching the Persians at Erzincan. The brutal treatment which the people of Erzincan had been subjected to infuriated the Romans, as many of them had relatives in the region which could easily have faced the same fate. The valley was filled with the roar of cannons as the hastily-rebuilt walls were laid bear, and after coordinating an assault with the defenders of the citadel the Romans swept into the remnants of the city, slaughtering the remaining Persian forces and ironically causing even more damage than Siyavash’s army had. After restoring Roman rule in Erzincan, David’s army swiftly moved south-eastward in pursuit of the Persians.

As they approached the frontier, the road network which the Romans had used to speed their advance began to falter, their speed being hurt by the sudden lack of supplies they faced in country that had already been devastated twice by passing armies within the last year. The locals, mostly Armenian highlanders, were standoffish at best given the Romans’ less than stellar treatment of their neighbors across the border, and their advance became much slower. The Persians, meanwhile, finally held the advantage in terms of speed and familiarity, and were able to fairly quickly outstripe the Romans as they withdrew back towards their staging bases. By early July, with heat rising and the supply situation getting steadily worse, David began to suspect that Siyavash was attempting to draw him out past his supply lines and ambush him in the high steppe. Mindful of what had happened the last time he had ignored the voices in his head, he pulled back across the border, albeit after dispatching several thousand light horsemen to pursue the Persians further and harass them to the best of their extent.

Thus, Siyavash was able to escape into Bitlis. Humiliated by the forced retreat across the countryside, the shahanshah could practically feel his power starting to slip away from him like the foundations of a house made of sand. Still, he retained control of the forces available to him, and with them there was the possibility of a victory to restore his prestige and the control over his empire. He spent the autumn of 1543 and into the winter and spring of 1544 reorganizing his army into a proper fighting force, sacking, banishing or executing incompetent officials (Shirazi was tied to a cannon and, well, you can picture the rest) and creating a secondary supply corps to keep his main force fed.

David, meanwhile, had turned east to lay siege to Erzurum, in hopes of driving the Persians out of Roman territory that campaign season. Upon arriving, however, he found the city’s Roman and Armenian population expelled into the lands surrounding its walls, and the Persian forces holed up within with a great deal of cannonade, powder and enough supplies to last for several months. The Romans laid siege to the city, pressing the walls with everything they had, but ultimately the walls had been too well-fortified (by themselves, ironically enough) or reinforced and were defended too fiercely--none of the Persians were willing to surrender after the massacre at Erzincan--to be taken quickly, and David quickly decided they had to be starved out. The siege continued throughout the winter, and by the spring the defenders showed no sign of surrender. The bandonoi, meanwhile, had been in the field too long, and their absence from their farms was threatening famine. A decisive battle was needed, and quickly.

Fortunately for the Romans, Siyavash decided that now was the time to strike. He marched north from Bitlis, hoping to relieve Erzurum and inflict a crippling blow on the Trapezuntines that would allow him to sweep to the coast, as he was also experiencing supply problems. The two armies met in early June, or rather didn’t meet, dancing around each other to try and gain the upper hand in terms of natural positions. Eventually, on 16 June, the Romans managed to bait the Persians into anchoring their flank on the hills west of the city, putting themselves under the guns atop the ridgeline and breaking up their front in the irrigation canals of the region. The Romans attacked the leftmost section of the army first, crushing it easily before turning to attack the larger sections. However, because they were slowed by the canals they were able to make little headway, and the Persians were able to pull back in time to avoid encirclement and inflict heavy casualties on the Romans in the process. Luckily for the Romans, a cavalry force sent to outflank the Persians would become disoriented and blunder into their camp, which they would set fire to before fleeing. With a rematch almost certain to be a Roman victory, Siyavash retreated south, away from the city and into the mountains. The highlander groups--qizilbash, Armenians and Kurds--sensed the opportunity for loot and began to stalk them as they retreated southwards, attacking and managing to capture parts of the supply train, making the whole affair a very public and very humiliating defeat.

In the aftermath, Erzurum surrendered. David stood down most of the bandonoi, remaining in the region with 15,000 men to secure it and ward off any Persian return.
 
Last edited:
My schedule is growing more and more constrictive as the school year approaches, but I think I can at least get the rest of David's reign done before then. I wrote another update last night but it just doesn't seem to have the 'spark' or 'energy' most of my writing does. I hope its tolerable, but if its not I'll do a rewrite. Please let me know what you think, it'll remain unthreadmarked for the time being.

Part LXXI: The Defense of Khaldea (1542-1544)

The sudden Persian invasion had struck the Romans like an avalanche, sending panic across the empire and especially the capital, which lay less than fifty miles from their furthest point and would have been left high and dry if Siyavash had been able to batter his way through the mountains. Bad communication in Pontos, especially between the regent Konstantinides and the provincial bandons, paralyzing the initial response to the invasion, and by the time word reached David in the far west it seemed as if the entire empire were about to be torn apart in the lion’s jaws. Though the ongoing negotiations with the Khandarhids complicated things severely, David was suitably spooked by this and began scrambling forces eastward in hopes of holding the passes and the capital long enough for true help to arrive. Finally, as July drew to a close, he himself took ship with the majority of the army left in the west, determined not to have bought Constantinople for Trapezous’ price….

Ultimately, David was unable to reach his capital before winter made the seas impossible due to logistical problems, a series of disastrous crashes on the Paphlagonian coast and pure bad luck in terms of storms. With the winter came an all-too brief pause in the fighting, though, and he was determined to use this break as an opportunity to rally his empire against the invaders. Most of the western army had been rushed to support Siderokastron while it was under assault, but the bandons from Pontos proper were either unraised or badly-positioned, again due to administerial incompetence and miscommunication. After sacking Konstantinidis, he organized the bandonoi into the fighting force that they were intended to be and made preparations to counter-attack across the mountains come spring. An army such as that of Siyavash could not be allowed to remain so close to the imperial capital, and it was of the utmost importance amongst the Roman command to push them as far away as possible as soon as possible.

By the time the passes began to thaw again in April 1543, Roman forces were distributed as follows: 30,000 footmen, including the best surviving veterans of the western campaigns and the war against the Dadianis, were camped under David himself directly at the mouth of the pass, with most of the few thousand cavalry that could be mustered up on such short notice with them to create a total force of around 35,000. A smaller force of 15,000 bandonoi was held in reserve at Matzouka near the Mylos River, which flowed along the pass, with orders to fight to the death against any Persian force that managed to get past the main force, while another reserve of 10,000 (mostly non-bandonoi militiamen from within Trapezous itself, of highly various quality) would remain within the capital to fight alongside the people of the capital in its defense if things came to that. God willing they never would, but David couldn’t take that chance. As he broke camp and marched southward on 16 April, the fate of the newly-restored Roman Empire seemed to rest on the shoulders of the Imperial army.

Seemed is the operative word. Siyavash had pulled back out of the pass as the snows began to fall, but he had not withdrawn far enough. The Persian army took atrocious losses from the cold, hunger and various camp diseases that winter, dwindling from 25,000 in November with only some 15,000 of the original force surviving to see the end of the snows. Luckily for the Persians, however, a smaller force dispatched the previous year into Samtskhe under Farrukhan Mehrani had turned back to reinforce them, bringing their total number to around 25,000. Still, the shahanshah could tell that his men’s morale had gone through the floor, and that he would need to withdraw southward to reform and prepare for the campaign to resume in 1544. In hopes of hastening this process enough to resume campaigning later that year, he sent orders for a force of 15,000 to be mustered at Bitlis as both a reserve and an auxiliary. He then began making preparations to depart in mid-April, once the region was warm enough to do so, but these plans would be dramatically altered by the arrival of the Romans.

After nearly four weeks crossing the pass--it wasn’t completely clear of snow, and the Romans were forced to brave onwards through the ice--David emerged onto the plateau on 9 May, now with an army numbering only about 30,000. Still, it was quite the force and he decided that he could and should engage Siyavash while his army was effectively coming out of hibernation and thus not at its best form. In addition to his not-completely-functioning force, Siyavash had also been caught nearly completely flat-footed by the sudden appearance of the Romans, not expecting them to arrive for a few more weeks, and was forced to suddenly break camp to meet them.

In this unready and slightly panicked state, he made a hasty and nearly disastrous decision, retreating towards the south-west rather than facing David outright. In doing so, the Persians scrambled directly into sight of the Kozokastron Fortress, a minor outpost in the mountains which was in contact with the Romans via signal fires. Their path was revealed and David scrambled a force to intercept them, but the light cavalry that rushed over the mountains was overeager, and rather than waiting to ambush the Persians they attacked them outright. They were driven back, and Siyavash managed to redirect his force southeastwards and escape into the open country. The qizilbash were still thick on the ground in this region, but it would take time to gather them, and as the mountains started to shrink behind him Siyavash was just as aware as David that in the interim the Persians would hold the upper hand.

However, this advantage would not last, and having already decided that a strategic withdrawl was in his best interests Siyavash decided to get while the getting was good and move southwards. Bayburt and Erzincan both remained in Roman hands, and while he had bypassed them the year before now that there was a proper Roman army coming after him the fortified cities formed the beginnings of a cage that could trap him in hostile territory. By the end of May, when the first major Qizilbash forces began to rally to David’s camp in the Pontic foothills, the Persians had managed to reach Erzincan. While Shirazi’s incompetent siege had continued for months at this point and his army was a shattered wreck of its former self, Siyavash’s arrival was able to abruptly turn the tide of the affair, pounding through the city walls with a vast array of cannonade. Most of the city’s defenders surrendered in exchange for good treatment, though Ismail and most of the Safaviyya retreated into the citadel to await relief.

Though Erzincan and Erzurum were both now in Qutlughid hands, at least to an extent, Siyavash felt that he was too exposed to enemy counter-attack to remain at Erzincan, as the sudden arrival of a large Roman force--he was unsure just how large David’s army was, nor if it had been reinforced by another--could see him pinned inside the city and between Romans outside the walls and inside the walls. Not enjoying the notion of an eastern Alesia, he decided his best option was to hastily refortify Erzincan’s outer walls to allow a smaller force to stay behind to try and take the citadel while the bulk of his force went south into Bitlis to link up with his reinforcements. The Qutlughids departed in the middle of May, before the wall was even completed, and this left the siege force to finish repairs a mere six hours before David arrived.

David had chafed in the Pontic foothills, watching the enemy which had come to within a hair’s breadth (or so he believed) of destroying his empire slip away into the high steppe without a fight, one which he was sure he could win. Once the qizilbash necessary to cover his force’s advance had assembled at his camp, he was eager to give chase, believing that the Persians could finally be crushed and the insults which Arslan had heaped upon him be done away with, and gave the order to march at once. In friendly country and moving along well-established supply networks, the Romans were able to move quite quickly, and came within days of catching the Persians at Erzincan. The brutal treatment which the people of Erzincan had been subjected to infuriated the Romans, as many of them had relatives in the region which could easily have faced the same fate. The valley was filled with the roar of cannons as the hastily-rebuilt walls were laid bear, and after coordinating an assault with the defenders of the citadel the Romans swept into the remnants of the city, slaughtering the remaining Persian forces and ironically causing even more damage than Siyavash’s army had. After restoring Roman rule in Erzincan, David’s army swiftly moved south-eastward in pursuit of the Persians.

As they approached the frontier, the road network which the Romans had used to speed their advance began to falter, their speed being hurt by the sudden lack of supplies they faced in country that had already been devastated twice by passing armies within the last year. The locals, mostly Armenian highlanders, were standoffish at best given the Romans’ less than stellar treatment of their neighbors across the border, and their advance became much slower. The Persians, meanwhile, finally held the advantage in terms of speed and familiarity, and were able to fairly quickly outstripe the Romans as they withdrew back towards their staging bases. By early July, with heat rising and the supply situation getting steadily worse, David began to suspect that Siyavash was attempting to draw him out past his supply lines and ambush him in the high steppe. Mindful of what had happened the last time he had ignored the voices in his head, he pulled back across the border, albeit after dispatching several thousand light horsemen to pursue the Persians further and harass them to the best of their extent.

Thus, Siyavash was able to escape into Bitlis. Humiliated by the forced retreat across the countryside, the shahanshah could practically feel his power starting to slip away from him like the foundations of a house made of sand. Still, he retained control of the forces available to him, and with them there was the possibility of a victory to restore his prestige and the control over his empire. He spent the autumn of 1543 and into the winter and spring of 1544 reorganizing his army into a proper fighting force, sacking, banishing or executing incompetent officials (Shirazi was tied to a cannon and, well, you can picture the rest) and creating a secondary supply corps to keep his main force fed.

David, meanwhile, had turned east to lay siege to Erzurum, in hopes of driving the Persians out of Roman territory that campaign season. Upon arriving, however, he found the city’s Roman and Armenian population expelled into the lands surrounding its walls, and the Persian forces holed up within with a great deal of cannonade, powder and enough supplies to last for several months. The Romans laid siege to the city, pressing the walls with everything they had, but ultimately the walls had been too well-fortified (by themselves, ironically enough) or reinforced and were defended too fiercely--none of the Persians were willing to surrender after the massacre at Erzincan--to be taken quickly, and David quickly decided they had to be starved out. The siege continued throughout the winter, and by the spring the defenders showed no sign of surrender. The bandonoi, meanwhile, had been in the field too long, and their absence from their farms was threatening famine. A decisive battle was needed, and quickly.

Fortunately for the Romans, Siyavash decided that now was the time to strike. He marched north from Bitlis, hoping to relieve Erzurum and inflict a crippling blow on the Trapezuntines that would allow him to sweep to the coast, as he was also experiencing supply problems. The two armies met in early June, or rather didn’t meet, dancing around each other to try and gain the upper hand in terms of natural positions. Eventually, on 16 June, the Romans managed to bait the Persians into anchoring their flank on the hills west of the city, putting themselves under the guns atop the ridgeline and breaking up their front in the irrigation canals of the region. The Romans attacked the leftmost section of the army first, crushing it easily before turning to attack the larger sections. However, because they were slowed by the canals they were able to make little headway, and the Persians were able to pull back in time to avoid encirclement and inflict heavy casualties on the Romans in the process. Luckily for the Romans, a cavalry force sent to outflank the Persians would become disoriented and blunder into their camp, which they would set fire to before fleeing. With a rematch almost certain to be a Roman victory, Siyavash retreated south, away from the city and into the mountains. The highlander groups--qizilbash, Armenians and Kurds--sensed the opportunity for loot and began to stalk them as they retreated southwards, attacking and managing to capture parts of the supply train, making the whole affair a very public and very humiliating defeat.

In the aftermath, Erzurum surrendered. David stood down most of the bandonoi, remaining in the region with 15,000 men to secure it and ward off any Persian return. It was a wise decision, because Siyavash would return only two years later….
Great update and humiliating defeat for Sivayash but not a definitive one as I can see
 
My schedule is growing more and more constrictive as the school year approaches, but I think I can at least get the rest of David's reign done before then. I wrote another update last night but it just doesn't seem to have the 'spark' or 'energy' most of my writing does. I hope its tolerable, but if its not I'll do a rewrite. Please let me know what you think, it'll remain unthreadmarked for the time being.
The writing feels a bit clunky, but I don't know if that's the actual chapter or just a placebo after reading the disclaimer. The content is solid, though. Pretty dang good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top