d like to once again thank everyone for taking the time to read and comment on this AAR! It was a long long journey, I’m glad you all came along! I’d also like to thank everyone for all the feedback. There were definitely some surprises in your responses, which is a good thing (these are things I can take a closer look at when I reread on my own to analyze my own writing). I’m curious about what there seems to be more of a dislike of the writing during Andronikos I’s reign, and what several of you said was a “return to form” during Andronikos II’s reign… on this side of the screen, Andronikos I’s was far more… planned, and Andronikos II’s was more chaotic. I expected a different response, but I’m curious for more specifics as to why those of you who said that felt that way. As always, if you don’t want to post it here, please feel free to PM.
I’m also interested in more specifics on why there was some dislike of Thomas II’s writing, other than the multiple personalities. On that subject, I do have to agree that it got overdone somewhat… it was a very very challenging character to write, and I never really…well… got “comfortable” writing the differing personalities, which is why by the latter part of his reign he almost stopped appearing as a POV character. Anyone have any ideas on how it could’ve been done better? I’m interested in brainstorming some alternatives, feel free to PM if you have ideas!
I didn’t notice that little writing tic, it’s something I’m going to have to watch now. Thank you!
As for the history book scenes, at first they were supposed to be a regular part of the story (as evidenced early on). Later on, once the story moved to a predominantly narrative format, they became a form of shorthand.
Okay, they really became a form of cheating.
If there was a rather sudden switch to history book, it was because I ran into a scene I had trouble writing for some reason (either the words wouldn’t come, I was distracted by real life, or something just didn’t fit). A perfect example would be the third section of the Battle of Neapolis—I’d planned a POV scene from the perspective of Georgios Donauri, showing him saving the injured Thomas II after the latter’s infamous charge, but I didn’t want one battle to go into four or five updates. So I switched to history book to end the battle, and usher in the next important stage—Kaukadenos’ betrayal and the start of a civil war. If I had an infinite amount of time and patience, turning those history book sections, especially some of the really broad ones, into a narrative would be my dream.
That brings me to the next thing I wanted to post—things I wished I had covered more. There’s a long long list of them…
CONCEPTS/PLACES
Atashkavedism – Originally, I’d planned four long term religious fallouts from the massive extension of the Roman Empire and the defeat/driving back of Islam, especially from the holy city of Mecca. The first was a reformation of sorts in Islam itself, represented by Taymiyya and his followers—those who think the old order showed its decay with the loss of Mecca, and seek reform. The second was Aionism—a synthesis of Muslim and Christian traditions with new ones added (such as an emphasis on rationalism, and the addition of the Abadi as the “Last Prophet.”). Both of these would take place during the timeline of the story.
For the EU3 version, I’d planned on laying the groundwork for two other religious developments, however I only managed to barely hint at one—the eventual Orthodox Spanish Reformation, foreshadowed by the disagreements that lead to (and broke apart) the Council of Konstantinopolis. The final religious upheaval would’ve taken place deep into the EU3 time frame, with perhaps one update hinting at what was to come late in the 14th century. I never came up with a hard and fast name for the movement, but I’ve been playing around with Atashkavedism—a synthesis of Zoroastrian, Muslim, and Christian thought that would be unique to Roman Persia. It would slowly gain popularity via events in the 15th century, eventually allowing a Persian player to choose to adopt it as a state religion by the late 15th/early 16th century.
Beyond that basic concept, I never really fleshed out the how’s and the why’s though…
Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe – All got sadly neglected when the time came to tell the story of the fall of the Empire. This was partially a conscious choice—I wanted to keep my eye (and my limited time) focused on the Komnenos family, as it had been for the rest of the story. However, there are tons of interesting things going on by the start of EU3 in these regions. The Finnish Bohemians have survived, even thrived, the Steppe Danes are still around, and in a prime position to reap some benefits from the collapse of Romanion, and the future likely collapse of the Timurid conglomerate. Germany is still a mess, though I think we can safely say that the Hohenfrankens, Arpads, Bohemians, and Burgundians will all be major players in German politics for years to come. Finally, to the far north, Sweden reunited Scandanavia into an empire once more, which should have some interesting repercussions as well…
Persia In General – I would argue Persia deserved an AAR all to itself. There would be so many stories to tell—the stories of the native Persians, elite and common, and their response to a new, alien power ruling over them, the struggles of the Romans to rule and integrate into an alien culture, the slow “Persification” of the Romans, and how their countrymen back home react. It gives me shivers!
Alas, if I’d given Persia the time she deserved, I doubt the story would be done until 2020, so sadly so much of this goldmine of material was left alone. If anyone has anything specific question wise about Persia I can try my best to answer… or at least come up with some theory as to how things happened. It’s the best I can do for all the Persia fans out there!
Aionism – Once again, something far bigger than the small amount of screentime it got. Partly this was because Aionism was a side part of the story, but also it’s because I never felt comfortable writing about it because I’d never fully fleshed it out….like with Persia, I’ll try my best to answer questions people may have, or at least come up with some plausible guess as to how or why things developed the way they did…
CHARACTERS
Characters were always the center of the story, from the very start, I sincerely regret that I didn’t get a chance to explore many of the personalities lined out in the history book section, or finish exploring some of the personalities of the final parts of the narrative portion. From as early as the reign of Thomas I, I made a conscious decision to keep the story focused on the imperial house and to pull away from side affairs, if only for the sake of being able to finish (otherwise, we might’ve just been finishing Thomas III now…).
A second issue with characters has to do with my writing style… it’s modular, I suppose… I’ll write a section here and there, and throw out some characters early in a chapter and see which ones ‘lead’ to something big. Sometimes they become something spectacular, like Sophie Komnenos or Ioannis Thrakesios. Sometimes, they lead nowhere, like Zoe (who several of you mentioned despite her appearance in only a single post… now I wish I’d fleshed her out more!), or Thomas II’s wife (who originally was supposed to be the reason he went mad… till I thought up Neapolis).
Zoe Komnenos (To answer one particular question) – I remember I threw her out there in a scene as a “aww what the hell, let’s see if anything comes out of this.” I had a very fuzzy idea of her being a stabilizing, nurturing force on Thomas III, back when I’d conceived that one day he reigned in his own right for a brief period. The more I wrote Thomas, however, the more I realized his character wouldn’t want the throne, and he’d happily hand power to someone else, and the only person who’d reasonably seize it in the end of the day was Albrecht von Franken. Zoe’s fuzzy reason for appearing thus disappeared, and she was written off to her in-game destination—being the wife of the powerful Prince of Shirvan. A few ideas popped up later where she helped persuade her husband to help Gabriel in his Mongol wars, but these fell apart too…
Heraklios Komnenos – Another character who got written out by other characters. When I first conceived of Heraklios, I’d already known Thomas II went nutty, (it was one of the biggest events in my game) and to explain how things didn’t fall apart he’d need a stabilizing influence. The original idea for Heraklios was that he was almost a redux of Nikolaios—the quiet, studious emperor in the background that ran affairs for the boisterous, warlike senior emperor in the foreground. However, literally days after I posted the death of Basil, I went through the saves and re-found Albrecht von Franken, and noting his longevity (and his perennial status as chancellor), I knew I’d found a better stabilizing influence, and one that needed a long, in depth story arc of his own. Heraklios then needed to be written out, and I panicked and went with expedience… :/
The Thrakesiokomnenoi – As their name suggests, these were descendants of Alexandros Thrakesios, given the Exarchate of Baetica all the way back in the reign of Basil III. If you remember, they were descended from Basil’s sister as well, and were among the first to shove a ‘komnen’ in their name to signify their exalted status. They were among the most ancient of the Roman Spanish houses, and Ioannis would have used all of this weight to become the power behind the Spanish throne.
The Komnenodukoi – Another case, just like the Thrakesiokomnenoi above. Deserved more screen time, but it never happened.
The Aiguptokomnenoi – Arguably after Persia the second biggest hole in the story. I wanted to do more from the view of the Egyptian monarchs, but instead we got a view through other characters… I never outright said it, but it’s fairly clear what Egypt’s multigenerational arc was… to stay neutral, stay out of fights, and use its status as a bargaining chip with the flavor of the moment, keeping all parties off balance while it consolidated its backyard, including the lucrative Red Sea trade lanes.
The Hohenfrankens – After such a detailed portrait of their patriarch, I’d hoped to keep a tab on them as the story progressed. The further we got into the civil war, the further I lost track of them, to be honest, especially after I lost my save files and couldn’t refer back to them. My original idea was to have them alternate between a prop and an opponent of the throne during the reign of Andronikos II, but I soon realized that Andronikos didn’t need them to cause instability… he’d do so on his own. Coupled with the long period where updates came more slowly, I quickly ran out of time to keep them in.
The Godwinsons – Once again, there were only hints at this family, and I never really got a chance to flesh them out beyond their patriarch, Harold Godwinson. Considering the actions that gained them a royal title, it’s safe to say that during their stay in Romanion they picked up the ‘Roman’ bug.
Guillaume d’Ockham – Guillaume was, in my head, the Christian answer to ibn Taymiyya, character wise. My father is a Baptist minister, so I’ve heard a sermon or two about how sin doesn’t leave someone once they are saved. It’s a theme I tried to keep going with Guillaume and how he thinks—he’s a sinner that was saved, shoved into events far larger than himself and trying his best to fit into the shoes he’s been forced into. He still has flashbacks, inklings to his previous life, the things he enjoyed, the things he loved, even as he tries to soldier on as a good Christian. In the end, he is forced to make a choice between his dearest friend and his faith, and he shows himself willing to make that ultimate sacrifice in the name of his belief. That makes him a noble character, in my mind at least, even though the repercussions end up shattering a Roman world that seemed on the cusp of being whole again.
Anastasios III – Here was the true dinosaur. From the earliest days of the story, I had Anastasios pinned as a bad guy… an early chart I made had him labeled “the Vain,” but slowly in my head he morphed into something sinister, then something pitiful. He was, in many ways, the last of the old Komnenoi, the last to dream of uniting the Empire, of ruling from Spain to Syria unchallenged, and unlike Andronikos II (who fought many others who had the same dream), Anastasios was alone in this belief. Like Andronikos, he was willing to do anything to see this dream come to life, even to the point of arresting a Patriarch, and ordering mass killings of all his political rivals. In a narrative form, I hadn’t decided if this would’ve come from supreme self-confidence, mental illness, or even him believing it was his divine mission as Emperor to do this. In a history book format, it was easy though—both chroniclers would have a dim, if not demonic, view of him and his actions, considering how far he was willing to go to see his dream accomplished…
Petros I – I deeply regretted the chance to fill this character out. In a longer narrative, Petros would have been struggling to make his own, somewhat dim star in his father’s colossal shadow. Petros was neither very bright, nor very gifted, and for most of his life he was going to depend on Nikon to do all the heavy lifting. Nikon bears mentioning, as he would’ve been a Mehtar to Petros’ Thomas—minus the homosexual attraction. However, Nikon, as mentioned in the history book, would’ve died inconveniently, shortly before Petros took the throne, and his true incompetence would’ve showed. In the AAR, as in the game, Petros would’ve quickly taken the field to prove he was his father’s son, and like in the game, he would’ve been smashed, and ran away a coward, only to die of the plague in misery a scant few years after taking the throne. His was the incredibly incompetent reign I mentioned at least once.
If you have a question about a character not mentioned above, feel free to ask. I’m going to be focusing on finishing the EU3 map, but I’ll try to respond to these questions as well! Thanks again!
