Rome AARisen - a Byzantine AAR
- Thread starter General_BT
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
General_BT- But will the Northern Italian states view themselves as successor states? Or will they view themselves as a new kingdom/Republic? I would believe that there is still a certain appeal for any of those states to tie their legitimacy to one of the most powerful and glorious Empire in the European history.
They might go back to Rome (Rome Rome, not those prissy Greeks) as they sort of did in OTL.
Contrary to popular belief (among history nerds), people don't automatically necessarily think highly of empires that rules them. "Power" and "glory" is something that kings and princes cherish - common folk prefer it if their rulers leave them alone, and keep them safe. For the northern Italian states, Byzantine rule brought decades of warfare, the destruction of many cities (Milan being the most infamous example) and the loss of political independence. Thomas I and II weren't necessarily the most likeable of rulers.
I mean, what did the Empire give the Italian cities that they did not already have before? They had trade opportunities, they had wealth, and even better they had their independence. Venice, Genoa, Florence, Pisa, and so on all had their own laws, their own rulers and really huge civic pride. Under the empire however they're just vassals (at best) and at worst pawns in the power games of others. When you're independent, you can amke your own fortune - but under an empire as powerful as the Byzantine one right now, the best you can hope for is to be left alone. Anything that focuses the Empire's attention on your city can only be bad - Option one: The city has screwed up somehow (backed the wrong pretender?) in which case terrible vengeance will fall upon it. Option two: The emperor desires something from the city. This can be good (business opportunity) or bad (he expects to be furnished with ships, weapons or mercenaries and expects the city to pay for it). Or, third option, the city has governed itself well under Imperial overlordship, and now the Emperor will send someone to tax it and milk it of its riches. Being independent is definitely better, all things considered - they can still do business with emperors, but can't be bossed around that easily. They can keep their hard earned riches. And if they screw up, as an independent city they can still negotiate their way out much better than as an imperial fief.
The original Roman empire wasn't that fondly remembered either, by the way. Philosophers like Macchiavelli thought highly of the empire, but that was at a much later time (15th century) after people had rediscovered the empire's history and picked those parts they liked. What people thought of as "Roman history" during the middle ages were stories of martyrs, local saints, heroic exploits of this or that venerable city father, and folk tales. Not much positive stuff remained about the Empire. Also the church promoted not the best image of the empire - the old emperors featured mostly as power-mad pagans who put the early Christians to gruesome deaths. The Roman Empire had a really good time in the 1st and 2nd centuries, but if you look at it on a linear timeline, this is only a short period. Very little about the 3rd to 5th centuries following this good time were "happy times".
It would be interesting, though, to read what the philosophers of the 15th century of this story will write about the two Roman Empires. Macchiavelli et al will certainly try to compile a balance about which one was better, all things considered. Would be funny to read of it, once the EU3 period rolls around.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the current empire played up the Roman one. "You used to be part of Rome, We came from/are the Roman Empire, so we are all one big happy family, right?" Whether this is well received is another matter entirely of course.
A nice interim there BT and of course another fabulous update as usual!
Now my own thoughts on what is taking place and how it will effect the future.
The British Isles I feel eventually will 'unite' under a Great Britain like entity in the future. However, unlike our timeline where the Scots were pretty much nailed down and eventually forced into the Union, this time around Scotland will be one of the major powers on the island. I can foresee more wars cropping up but the biggest question is will French dominated England become a mighty power once again or will it be Scotland this time dictating the future? Could Edinburgh end up becoming the future 'capitol' of this union, with Scotland playing the leading role?
France I feel will end up becoming a mighty power on the continent once again when the Byzantines collapse. This could lead to a new jockeying of power on the continent between a dominant Scotland, a newly revived France, Komenid Spain, Burgundy and possibly the Holy Roman Empire. Perhaps a new 100 years type war occurs between England and France - which one bickering holds the most rights to the nation? Especially if Hugues ends up fleeing there should he lose....
Burgundy I feel will play an interesting tale. Considering its the country that pretty much owns Belgium and Holland at this point, will it stay a united country? Could we end up seeing a future Burgundian colonial empire in the making where Dutch merchants based in Burgundian controlled Amsterdam explore the world and grab the riches that lay ahead? It'd be nice to see a Burgen South Africa, Indonesia, etc. Hopefully the AI will be able to achieve this. However, that could be the only route for the Burgundians, considering how entrenched they'd become with the Holy Roman Empire on one side and a resurgent France on the other....
Sweden I feel will remain a major power for alot longer, playing a rather large role on the European continent and the colonisation of the New World. Heck, it could even still be a major power for when the Napoleonic Wars and the 20th century turn. Of course, Russia is likely to be a natural rival, especially when it comes to issues such as Finland....
Oooohhhh the possibilities this could all lead too! Still I just hope we can get some credible new countries in the New World and Africa following the Age of Colonisation in this timeline!
Now my own thoughts on what is taking place and how it will effect the future.
The British Isles I feel eventually will 'unite' under a Great Britain like entity in the future. However, unlike our timeline where the Scots were pretty much nailed down and eventually forced into the Union, this time around Scotland will be one of the major powers on the island. I can foresee more wars cropping up but the biggest question is will French dominated England become a mighty power once again or will it be Scotland this time dictating the future? Could Edinburgh end up becoming the future 'capitol' of this union, with Scotland playing the leading role?
France I feel will end up becoming a mighty power on the continent once again when the Byzantines collapse. This could lead to a new jockeying of power on the continent between a dominant Scotland, a newly revived France, Komenid Spain, Burgundy and possibly the Holy Roman Empire. Perhaps a new 100 years type war occurs between England and France - which one bickering holds the most rights to the nation? Especially if Hugues ends up fleeing there should he lose....
Burgundy I feel will play an interesting tale. Considering its the country that pretty much owns Belgium and Holland at this point, will it stay a united country? Could we end up seeing a future Burgundian colonial empire in the making where Dutch merchants based in Burgundian controlled Amsterdam explore the world and grab the riches that lay ahead? It'd be nice to see a Burgen South Africa, Indonesia, etc. Hopefully the AI will be able to achieve this. However, that could be the only route for the Burgundians, considering how entrenched they'd become with the Holy Roman Empire on one side and a resurgent France on the other....
Sweden I feel will remain a major power for alot longer, playing a rather large role on the European continent and the colonisation of the New World. Heck, it could even still be a major power for when the Napoleonic Wars and the 20th century turn. Of course, Russia is likely to be a natural rival, especially when it comes to issues such as Finland....
Oooohhhh the possibilities this could all lead too! Still I just hope we can get some credible new countries in the New World and Africa following the Age of Colonisation in this timeline!
Nice speculation
As for the UK: The French still possess the economically most worthwhile parts, don't they? The same cultural shift towards an "English" culture could be happening right now - the locals slowly adopting French customs and language, and fusing their Germanic culture with that of the conquerors. King Hugues probably moved his court there at some point, so now this process will accelerate. However it reaches only as far north as French rule extends... which is somewhere around Lincolnshire if I remember BT's maps right. So the north (Yorkshire, Lancashire, Shropshire) is falling under Scottish cultural influences. Or, Scotland is falling under northern English influences, culture is a two-way street after all.
Should a French monarch in the future come to rule over just the English part of the Capetian realm, he would still possess a rich and powerful kingdom. Definitely no pushover for the Scots.
Burgundy is interesting. It's essentially an early version of Burgundy as it appeared in our 15th century under Charles the Bold. (Minus some French territories). That Burgundy was a very powerful entity and could have become a permanent fixture had Charles the Bold not died without a male heir... Dutch Lowlands + Rhineland are a geographically compact and culturally not too diverse region. With France destroyed and the Holy Roman Empire wrecked permanently, what is there to stand in the way of a glorious future?
Sweden I think will not come into conflict with Russia any time soon. Swedish kings looking for rich territories to conquer are more likely to look south across the Baltic, than east... the Lettish / Courish coasts are a good place to send your landless second or third sons, to fight the pagans and seize a fief for themselves, but not really "rich" territories that can be milked for taxes by the Swedish king. If it's taxes and loot he's looking for, he should better look towards Lübeck, Stralsund, Stargard or Greifswald.
Russia - there really isn't such a country yet, is there? AFAIK the Kings of Rus got stomped by the Mongols, and now there's just Novgorod, Sortmark and minor princes. Or did I get that wrong? Sweden could of course end up fighting the princes of Smolensk or Tver at some point, but neither of those would be a serious contender for control of the Baltic coasts.
I personally would like to see some Malinese / Moorish colonization of the new world. Imagine the hilarity if slavery in the New World was started by moorish conquistadors, bringing white slaves to their new possessions :rofl: Perhaps at the behest of compassionate Aionite Ulema, who worry about the death rates among the native Indians?
(The Dominican monk Bartolomeo de las Casas, denounced the Spanish in very harsh terms for cruelly working the Indians to death in the early 1500s. His suggestion was to import black slaves, this would be more humane since black people were known to be physically strong and capable of working hard in hot climates.)We could have a "Black Guilt" complex in modern Latin (Aionite) America
Countries like Mexico, Colombia, Cuba or Haiti could be majority white, with a black upper class... there would be endless possibilities for parables on ethnicity and race in our world. America could be known as Al-Merica or some similar sounding Arabic term. (The Latins and Greek could still garble it to "America".)
Why would it be called America? In this timeline who knows who will discover it and explore it.
Aye, for all we know it could be the famous Spanish Muslim explorer, Al-Americo, who discovers this strange new land
If Andronikos succeeds in his short-term intentions, Burgundy will eventually arise as the most powerful European state, and France will be mangled and feudalized beyond repair for the foreseeable future.
How could you?! The most valuable Polish Crown Jewel to be broken down?! I implore you, make them keep it as an oddity in their castle, anything, just don't destroy it! Bloody Romans. I would've voiced my discontent earlier but I was not here.
I think playing the Imperial City of Venice is a good idea. If it would be ruled by an offspring of the Gabrieline branch it would be a very good idea.
Yeah that's what you get for supporting that pretender of yours.
Aye, for all we know it could be the famous Spanish Muslim explorer, Al-Americo, who discovers this strange new land
If Andronikos succeeds in his short-term intentions, Burgundy will eventually arise as the most powerful European state, and France will be mangled and feudalized beyond repair for the foreseeable future.
Feudal states, like cockroaches, can be surprisingly resilient. "Beyond repair" may only mean, "Until one of the magnates left standing rallies the other magnates behind him and tosses out the Byzantine Viceroy". It doesn't take much organization or material institutions to found a feudal kingdom, after all. The Latin church will be more than happy to provide blessings, ointment and legitimacy to any willing pretender
(Unless you insist on having a sword handed to you by some watery tart as a precondition, that is. Thankfully the French never subscribed to such nonsense.)
Just for than reference, you're up at +100 relations with me, in CK terms
As for the rest: Good point, but once they toss out the Roman Viceroy, the French will almost surely begin fighting amongst themselves. And let's not forget the King in London, who will still have a claim on the throne in Paris. My point was that a long, long time will pass after this before France is once more unified as a single state.
I don't know why everyone thinks the Muslims will seize the New World. Roman Spain seems relatively secure, and from what I remember of the EU3 map a while back, the main successor holds both Christian and Muslim territory. I imagine the great colonizers will be the Andalusi Orthodox at first, followed in due course by Dutchmen, Swedes, Scots and maybe even Frenchmen. Of course, who actually wants France to succeed? I hope Dietmar Grimaldi gains the German throne (and the Bohemian lands), takes Schlesien and Prussia, and then beats the stuffing out of France for good measure. I also remember Munster being independent along with Deheubarth. Could the Irish and Welsh microstates start colonization.
If the Swedes own Iceland or remember Vinland, then they certainly have a good shot at colonization. Mali, if she has a port, can colonize, but they have little economic reason to do so. West Africa has never been a naval power, and the salt and gold trade will not decline without a decentralized Mali. I could see them taking Morocco if it remains majority Muslim. It would be a reverse-Songhai maneuver. Algiers has both Catholics and Orthodox people, and would be too religiously diverse for the Malians to manage across the deserts.
If the Swedes own Iceland or remember Vinland, then they certainly have a good shot at colonization. Mali, if she has a port, can colonize, but they have little economic reason to do so. West Africa has never been a naval power, and the salt and gold trade will not decline without a decentralized Mali. I could see them taking Morocco if it remains majority Muslim. It would be a reverse-Songhai maneuver. Algiers has both Catholics and Orthodox people, and would be too religiously diverse for the Malians to manage across the deserts.
Islam is basically doomed. Aionites might become powerful, but Islam is so fractured it will probably only survive in the Middle East, and Africa will become Christian and Aionite. Hinduism will survive in India, but other than that, Byzantine Orthodoxy will be very powerful until they fall completely, which won't be for 100s of years at least.
Well, black Muslims in the new world would be different, that's why (for me).
The Spanish powers are well located for exploration. But for a successful colonization effort (and not just one or two random expeditions) a state needs more than just a good location. They need deep pockets to fund continuous expeditions (failed expeditions are an enormous financial risk!), they need to have an open mindset, and most importantly they need to be free from pressing, existential threats to the monarchy and the state. If the Spanish states insist on spending the 15th/16th century at each other's throats, then none of them would bother to fund lengthy overseas expeditions. They would leave naval matters to the Italians / Dutch / whatever and focus on land warfare.
Mali right now certainly is in no position to do overseas expeditions, or conquer North Africa. But since they have taken in loads of refugees from Spain and Morocco, it's obvious that they are very well informed about events in Roman North Africa. Should the 14th century for the Roman world be doomsday times as announced, with climate change and political decline throughout the mediterranean world, it would not be a stretch to see the Malinese eventually gather their armies and march north to reclaim the Maghreb. They have highly educated men at their court to advise them, I don't think they would have a problem ruling over religiously and ethnically diverse peoples. If 12th century Greeks, of all people, can manage (notorious in OTL for crass antisemitism, general religious intolerance and the 1187 massacre of Constantinople's Catholics) then the Malinese should be models of cosmopolitanism.
There are lots of examples in history how brigands from the desert managed to establish themselves as rulers over diverse urban societies... the Ottoman Turks, the Almohads, and of course the original Arab conquest of the mediterranean world in the 7th century. The Malinese could end up relocating their capital to Morocco or Algeria (like the Caliphs moved away from Arabia in the 7th century) and becoming a mediterranean empire. Their southern domains would either be a backwater for recruitment, the way the Arabian peninsula remained a source of reinforcements for the Arab empire throughout the 7th and 8th century, or it would dwindle in importance until some local pretender splits it off. North Africa should still have enough Muslim nomads of its own, which a Muslim conqueror could recruit for his purposes.
Why not call the new continent 'Romania'?
I know one or two forum members who would be delighted
