RGB said:
Spoken like a true Easterner ! XD PUT SOME HAIR ON THAT CHEST ! Anyway , good luck with your formulations ! You should get on MSN more often too , I don't see you as often as I like =P
A Year's Education - Russia Megacampaign, pt. I
- Thread starter unmerged(59077)
- 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.
Spoken like a true Easterner ! XD PUT SOME HAIR ON THAT CHEST ! Anyway , good luck with your formulations ! You should get on MSN more often too , I don't see you as often as I like =P
RGB said:
You must belong to one of the poor hordes. I was playing as the Mongols for awhile in my game (so they wouldn't die so easily) and they've got a tribe of flatulant midgets they use. It tickles a little at first but you get used to it.
And I'm not a Seljuk. I'm the antichristos! which is like at least three times cooler, unless you're using gavelkind inheritance!
j.
Congratulations RGB on your ACA win !!! Very well deserved !! Hope you're doing alright on your update . I've also been encouraged to do an acceptance speech on the ACA and have done so so you should come and do one too !!
Congratulations RGB - now you have no reason to be Sad Panda again
But most eastern europeans seems to like complaining all the time, Poles or Russians
But most eastern europeans seems to like complaining all the time, Poles or Russians
Llyw: I've speeched already. Some people have been specifically thanked and apologised to in an underhanded way. I tend to lose my sense of what is sarcasm and what isn't when I get angry.
TM - damn right. More specifically, Eastern European men. We whine like champions. The women do all the work.
BoS - thank you.
canonized - your speech was not sufficiently self-centered. Yes, update coming. I can't abandon this now when it's jsut getting good, can I?
TM - damn right. More specifically, Eastern European men. We whine like champions. The women do all the work.
BoS - thank you.
canonized - your speech was not sufficiently self-centered. Yes, update coming. I can't abandon this now when it's jsut getting good, can I?
Congratulations!*. Just as an aside, somebody asked about a mod that made its appearance**.
Since i don't know the answer, figure may as well point somebody less clueless than myself in the direction of the questioner***.
Oh, and the question.
*this is not a shameless bump. **patiently lurking, i swear! ***i know you can't rush perfection or even Llewelyn for that matter.
Since i don't know the answer, figure may as well point somebody less clueless than myself in the direction of the questioner***.
Oh, and the question.
*this is not a shameless bump. **patiently lurking, i swear! ***i know you can't rush perfection or even Llewelyn for that matter.
Tskb18 said:
omg... I had never seen that this all had its origin in superold supergay jesus... :rofl::rofl::rofl:
j.
The Barbarian Empire
The Insufferable Wench
The Insufferable Wench
“If I am to speak of womanly virtues to those of you who will henceforth be widows, let me sum them up in one short admonition: To a woman not to show more weakness than is natural to her sex is a great glory, and not to be talked about for good or for evil among men.”
- Thyucidides, Pericles’ Funeral Oration.
“She only had one deep longing
(though she does not admit it) this haughty Greek woman,
that she was never able, despite all her dexterity,
to acquire the Kingship; but it was taken
almost out of her hands by the insolent John.”
(though she does not admit it) this haughty Greek woman,
that she was never able, despite all her dexterity,
to acquire the Kingship; but it was taken
almost out of her hands by the insolent John.”
Kavafis, Anna Comnena
I feel like ildly musing on larger topics today, so in the beginning of the class I launch into a discussion about the role of individual ambition in shaping events. It’s easy to see historical cause and effect as part of some kind of great scheme, a big, predictable pattern of societal forces and pressures and tensions and collective interests. I certainly present it that way, because it’s easy, and because saying that something is someone’s fault – someone very particular – well, we don’t even do it in Oxford anymore. That’s how the hoi polloi think after all, we academics in our vanity have long outgrown it.
But history’s great events, let along smaller happenings, are full of stories of personal interests, personal ambitions, personal decisions and responsibilities. That’s how we have seen history for a very long time, and not without grounds. Even today, someone’s personal ambitions can alter a predicted outcome, quite suddenly. Take that vain, mannish woman who is at the heart of the scandal wracking the Independence party right now. They’re going to lose, and Greece will go back to hell in a hand basket, and whose fault is it going to be? Now whose fault was that Byzantine civil war in 1221? There are many candidates, of course. Every great lord vied for the diadem, or access to it. When the Monomachs’ authoritarian rule finally showed some cracks they leapt in, but the old system wasn’t about to go peacefully. Seems so simple – it was time for a fall, anyone would have sufficed to bring the strife and the bloodshed. But unravel the knot into threads, and most of these attempts at power were short-lived, and of little import due to the impotence of the actors attempting the part of the usurper. But some threads weave right through the entire story. So if I were to pick someone to blame for most of what happened, I’d pick Ekaterine Monomach, the Harlot of Tripoli, as some medieval chronicler generously titled her. So that’s how I started the lecture.
But history’s great events, let along smaller happenings, are full of stories of personal interests, personal ambitions, personal decisions and responsibilities. That’s how we have seen history for a very long time, and not without grounds. Even today, someone’s personal ambitions can alter a predicted outcome, quite suddenly. Take that vain, mannish woman who is at the heart of the scandal wracking the Independence party right now. They’re going to lose, and Greece will go back to hell in a hand basket, and whose fault is it going to be? Now whose fault was that Byzantine civil war in 1221? There are many candidates, of course. Every great lord vied for the diadem, or access to it. When the Monomachs’ authoritarian rule finally showed some cracks they leapt in, but the old system wasn’t about to go peacefully. Seems so simple – it was time for a fall, anyone would have sufficed to bring the strife and the bloodshed. But unravel the knot into threads, and most of these attempts at power were short-lived, and of little import due to the impotence of the actors attempting the part of the usurper. But some threads weave right through the entire story. So if I were to pick someone to blame for most of what happened, I’d pick Ekaterine Monomach, the Harlot of Tripoli, as some medieval chronicler generously titled her. So that’s how I started the lecture.
“She was the youngest daughter of Vsevolod III, who left her vast stretches of newly-conquered Syria and a hefty personal fortune. Like most of the Monomachs, she did as she pleased, trampling over the wishes of her underlings, and playing the mob against the nobility when conflicts arose. Her disregard for convention was unthinkable for a woman of that time; she was an unmarried Orthodox princess ruling over a mostly-Muslim domain, and her early years were spent picking fights with her brother Rostislav of Jerusalem over the rich border cities. She later had an affair with someone and had a child, whom she first concealed as a mere page in her court. When the time was right and it would be more acceptable, she revealed him as not only her son born out of wedlock, but also, importantly, the son of her cousin Heraklios, son of Nikephoros the Emperor, who had briefly served as her marshall and whose domains were in her territory. Few could have gotten away with this, but she did, with her considerable charisma and her ruthless, brilliant skill for intrigue. Her network of spies was extensive, and what she lacked in straightforward authority she made up for by subterfuge; but even this ambitious, autocratic woman knew what failure felt like, and it must have stung her all the more. The senate, convened for the first time in fair election without a Monomach army camped both inside and outside Constantinople’s walls, chose young Andronikos as Emperor over Ekaterine. It was ridiculous of her to assume that she could have won, of course, but she kept her grudges.”
“Why was it ridiculous that she should win?” I stop, interrupted. Her again, of course, little Xenia with her perpetual frown as she listens to me and scribbles down the notes with her pencil. She continues:
“I mean, she helped the Empire secure Syria as one of the less troublesome regions, despite the problems with religion and culture. She was a Monomach, which was important in securing family loyalty of the many Monomach lords. Later events showed the extent of her popularity in Russia – and put plainly, she was the strongest vassal the Empire had. Would she have made a bad Empress? Was it her ambition that was a mistake or was it the ambition of the lesser clans? Even Theodotus agrees that she should have been a better choice”
I smile. I’ve heard all this before; so I reply.
“Well, first of all I would really appreciate it if you waited for permission to ask a question instead of interrupting me, and the question you are asking is not the one I was addressing at all - but you do bring forward an interesting consideration. Would she have been a better Empress than Andronikos? She would have probably – with her skill at intrigue – been much more prepared to deal with challenges by rival clans, and win the war of assassinations. But strong-hand tactics could have never kept the Empire together. She lacked authority, because she flouted convention. Typically of the Monomachs she didn’t care what the people thought, or the nobles. I think a measure of liberty was always important to the Greeks. If you rule autocratically, do you deserve to rule? If you think that rules don’t apply to you, can you count on respect? She should have known that before trying to avenge the perceived snub by the senate. She was out of her assigned role in the society, and tried to break society to fit her, and of course she failed.”
The girl looks agitated now.
“She wasn’t just avenging her own pride, but also fighting on the behalf of all Monomachs, because the Cypriots assassinated Petros. But even if it was only her ambition, what was wrong with that? Was it not justified? She seemed the best candidate to the Diadem. Was it only because she was a woman and an unmarried mother that the appraisal of her historical role is so low?”
Clearly, it was time to end this.
“I have a feeling that perhaps her part in the history is of some personal significance to you, which is certainly one way of reading past events, but it is, in my opinion, unambitious in a historian. We cannot just agree to each pick a personal favourite, we have to try to establish the truth. So, yes, she was a woman, but she was also aware of the obstacles facing her, and a lot less blood would have been split if only she had learned to live with it instead of trying to achieve what was impossible. Naturally, that could be said of many of the powerful at the time, but in her case it was a civil war that she started – the biggest one in Medieval Greek history. I appreciate the keen interest you are taking in the subject, but we have limited lecture time and I’d like to go on with the material. If you want further information on the matter you can speak to me later”
“As we’ve just now mentioned, the period we commonly call the civil war did not begin until much later; the first significant event of Androinkos’ reign was the rebellion of Sanseverino Sicily. This small war was to have great import for Ekaterine, in particular, and for the Empire in General. Almost at once, there was disagreement about the preferable course of action. Gabriel Paleologos, who, if you remember was one of the regents, advocated direct action. Petros Monomach preferred negotiation, since the Sanseverinos were hitherto good vassals and uprooting them to place a new dynasty in distant Sicily seemed like a waste of resources. In the end, the hawks prevailed, and a summons was sent around the Empire. In response the Sanseverinos also signed an alliance with Zulfiyah Fuwadi, ruler of a small sheikdom in North Sardinia. Despite the Imperial court’s hope of land-hungry nobles supplying most of the fighting forces, the vassals’ interest in Sicily was sluggish, with only small contributions from Greece, Anatolia and Syria and none at all from Russia. Ekaterine’s contingent was the largest, and lead by Heraklios Monomach, the second son of the late Emperor Nikephoros. I won’t go into details, but the expedition was a disaster. The Sicilians mauled the Imperial navy off Malta, and even upon landing, the Greeks were unable to take Syracuse for several months. After waiting fruitlessly for the surrender, Heraklios left the siege in the hands of a deputy, and decided to chase down the Sanseverino army. After finally catching and routing them in Trapani, he pursued them by sea, albeit slowly, to their great stronghold in Cagliari, but found the Sicilian navy once again waiting for him. He decided to land in northern Sardinia instead, which went relatively smoothly, but he found the small Muslim force of the Sardinians blocking his way. Forced to deal with Zulfiyah and her captains, he finally invested her capital at Nuoro. There he was killed by a stray arrow, and his force retreated home. The Sanseverinos returned to Sicily and lifted the siege of Syracuse. The political repercussions were immense for the Empire. The Sanseverinos stood defiant, the Emperor’s weakness was revealed, and any hopes of talking the rebels into making a new vassalage contract that Petros harboured were lost. More importantly, Heraklios was killed, and this prompted the long-laid plans of the both the Monomachs and their opponents into motion.”
“Why was it ridiculous that she should win?” I stop, interrupted. Her again, of course, little Xenia with her perpetual frown as she listens to me and scribbles down the notes with her pencil. She continues:
“I mean, she helped the Empire secure Syria as one of the less troublesome regions, despite the problems with religion and culture. She was a Monomach, which was important in securing family loyalty of the many Monomach lords. Later events showed the extent of her popularity in Russia – and put plainly, she was the strongest vassal the Empire had. Would she have made a bad Empress? Was it her ambition that was a mistake or was it the ambition of the lesser clans? Even Theodotus agrees that she should have been a better choice”
I smile. I’ve heard all this before; so I reply.
“Well, first of all I would really appreciate it if you waited for permission to ask a question instead of interrupting me, and the question you are asking is not the one I was addressing at all - but you do bring forward an interesting consideration. Would she have been a better Empress than Andronikos? She would have probably – with her skill at intrigue – been much more prepared to deal with challenges by rival clans, and win the war of assassinations. But strong-hand tactics could have never kept the Empire together. She lacked authority, because she flouted convention. Typically of the Monomachs she didn’t care what the people thought, or the nobles. I think a measure of liberty was always important to the Greeks. If you rule autocratically, do you deserve to rule? If you think that rules don’t apply to you, can you count on respect? She should have known that before trying to avenge the perceived snub by the senate. She was out of her assigned role in the society, and tried to break society to fit her, and of course she failed.”
The girl looks agitated now.
“She wasn’t just avenging her own pride, but also fighting on the behalf of all Monomachs, because the Cypriots assassinated Petros. But even if it was only her ambition, what was wrong with that? Was it not justified? She seemed the best candidate to the Diadem. Was it only because she was a woman and an unmarried mother that the appraisal of her historical role is so low?”
Clearly, it was time to end this.
“I have a feeling that perhaps her part in the history is of some personal significance to you, which is certainly one way of reading past events, but it is, in my opinion, unambitious in a historian. We cannot just agree to each pick a personal favourite, we have to try to establish the truth. So, yes, she was a woman, but she was also aware of the obstacles facing her, and a lot less blood would have been split if only she had learned to live with it instead of trying to achieve what was impossible. Naturally, that could be said of many of the powerful at the time, but in her case it was a civil war that she started – the biggest one in Medieval Greek history. I appreciate the keen interest you are taking in the subject, but we have limited lecture time and I’d like to go on with the material. If you want further information on the matter you can speak to me later”
“As we’ve just now mentioned, the period we commonly call the civil war did not begin until much later; the first significant event of Androinkos’ reign was the rebellion of Sanseverino Sicily. This small war was to have great import for Ekaterine, in particular, and for the Empire in General. Almost at once, there was disagreement about the preferable course of action. Gabriel Paleologos, who, if you remember was one of the regents, advocated direct action. Petros Monomach preferred negotiation, since the Sanseverinos were hitherto good vassals and uprooting them to place a new dynasty in distant Sicily seemed like a waste of resources. In the end, the hawks prevailed, and a summons was sent around the Empire. In response the Sanseverinos also signed an alliance with Zulfiyah Fuwadi, ruler of a small sheikdom in North Sardinia. Despite the Imperial court’s hope of land-hungry nobles supplying most of the fighting forces, the vassals’ interest in Sicily was sluggish, with only small contributions from Greece, Anatolia and Syria and none at all from Russia. Ekaterine’s contingent was the largest, and lead by Heraklios Monomach, the second son of the late Emperor Nikephoros. I won’t go into details, but the expedition was a disaster. The Sicilians mauled the Imperial navy off Malta, and even upon landing, the Greeks were unable to take Syracuse for several months. After waiting fruitlessly for the surrender, Heraklios left the siege in the hands of a deputy, and decided to chase down the Sanseverino army. After finally catching and routing them in Trapani, he pursued them by sea, albeit slowly, to their great stronghold in Cagliari, but found the Sicilian navy once again waiting for him. He decided to land in northern Sardinia instead, which went relatively smoothly, but he found the small Muslim force of the Sardinians blocking his way. Forced to deal with Zulfiyah and her captains, he finally invested her capital at Nuoro. There he was killed by a stray arrow, and his force retreated home. The Sanseverinos returned to Sicily and lifted the siege of Syracuse. The political repercussions were immense for the Empire. The Sanseverinos stood defiant, the Emperor’s weakness was revealed, and any hopes of talking the rebels into making a new vassalage contract that Petros harboured were lost. More importantly, Heraklios was killed, and this prompted the long-laid plans of the both the Monomachs and their opponents into motion.”
“Several rebellions in Russia’s Oka region occurred the autumn of that same year, and in spring the Prince of Volhyn unilaterally upgraded himself to Tzar, promising friendship and loyalty to the Emperor, but only in the same fashion that Lithuania or Jerusalem paid. This time Petros insisted on negotiation first, and set off personally to head the talks. His galley and the four escorting dromons left the Bucoleon on May twentieth, 1220, and were never heard from since. The only surviving factual clue as to what happened them is a report by a naval patrol near Burgos of some unidentified warships slipping by towards the Bosporus. However, the nobles and the people cared nothing for the truth: in days there was talk of the Petikopouloi having murdered the Monomach prince. This was the excuse for a lot of brewing rebellions to come into the open. The Ariminicoi of Trebizond – long-time Monomach allies - declared they owed the treacherous Emperor no allegiance, as did the princes of Ryazan and Smolensk. I could imagine that if one were the boy Emperor, this was the world crashing down around you; you were a figurehead nobody believed in, and your relatives looked at each other with murderous eyes, and your former vassals were plundering your possessions. Ekaterine of Tripoli, as the strongest of all the Empire’s vassals, held the keys to maintaining the Empire. She held most of rich Syria and also Lyubech. But she chose to sacrifice the Empire for a chance at her own advancement.
Going through friendly Trapezuntine territory she boarded a ship to the Crimea, where she met with Sofia Petzikopoulos, now at the death of her husband Petros the Princess of the Crimea and Severia; no doubt it was then that the seeds for the widow’s rebellion were sown. Later she traveled upriver to Kiev, still technically an Imperial holding, but not a loyal one. Where the Barbarian Emperors made a mistake thinking the Greeks were the same as the Russians, and thus lost their Empire, the regents of young Andronikos supposed that the rich Rus cities would be loyal to a Greek Emperor that wasn’t a Rurikovich; and they were horribly mistaken in that as well. Ekaterine toured Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, and Kiev, presenting herself as the last scion of the great Monomach-Rurikovich house (even though both Heraklios’ children were still alive and well, and Arsenios son of Petros was almost coming into his majority in Novgorod-Severski) and decrying the perfidy of the Greek nobles for having killed gentle Prince Petros. The population of the cities, used to living by their emotions and having a lot of power due to their special status, listened intently. Within three months of her arrival the people kicked out the Imperial governor in Kiev and threw their lot with Tripoli. In June 1221, Ekaterine declared war on the Emperor, joined by Sofia and young Arsenios of Severia and Crimea. The entire Empire was thrown into turmoil. The Knytling Rurikoviches of Tmutarakan chose for the Emperor; the Greek lords mostly for the Emperor, but the Katakaloi of Krete for Ekaterine. Even the Tsardoms did not stand ildly by. Croatia actively supplied troops for the Petzikopouloi, while Lithuania and Novgorod backed the Monomach, until both got involved in a war with Sweden over Denmark in 1222. Alexander Philanthropenos, lord of northern Pelloponessos, declared himself the Greek Tzar, and blocked off the passage of Andronikos’ Pelloponessian troops to the north. The war had begun in earnest. While the Emperor’s regents desperately looked for allies and soldiers, Ekaterine raised her armies in Syria and most importantly in Russia, and marched them south towards Constantinople into a long, drawn-out war, just like so many of her descendants would do in later centuries."
"This is where we'll have to stop today; this is a long topic and key to understanding the subsequent history of the Empire. Those of you who want to investigate the period in more detail can speak to me in my office. I'll see the rest of you same time on Thursday".
"This is where we'll have to stop today; this is a long topic and key to understanding the subsequent history of the Empire. Those of you who want to investigate the period in more detail can speak to me in my office. I'll see the rest of you same time on Thursday".
Last edited:
Everyone The Sad Panda is no more as a spanking new update is here. It's a lot less good than I would have liked but I think I may have procrastinated most of my readership away so I don't know how much further I could have stretched the wait.
Lly & Tskb: Well, well. You guys found the thread. Amazing. Mezzo never did finish this one, did he?
Hasforth: Welcome and thank you. Hope you drop by again!
Thanks everyone for sticking around. This thing isn't dead. I'm just having a lazy patch.
Lly & Tskb: Well, well. You guys found the thread. Amazing. Mezzo never did finish this one, did he?
Hasforth: Welcome and thank you. Hope you drop by again!
Thanks everyone for sticking around. This thing isn't dead. I'm just having a lazy patch.
Ahh what the great civil war coming! I`m damn curious how it will end. I suppose that you`re now playing Ekaterine, and that action will return to Russian mainland soon. With eventual Seljuk intervention, or even mongol invasion, things might get even more interesting.
Great update , but I hope that we`ll not wait so long for the next one, in the middle of this epic civil war.
Great update
, but I hope that we`ll not wait so long for the next one, in the middle of this epic civil war.
Flouted, not flaunted. (and not to be confused with flaut either, not sure if that can be verbified)
Other than that no complaints with an otherwise flawlessly neat update. Hurray!
As for ambition, it is usually made of stern stuff.
What's a few thousand compatriots when there is a crown or a cause at stake?
Obviously the prof is taking the easy route and blaming the woman. Cherchez la femme only applies 99% of the time.
/runs from any female (or fair-minded) posters.
Other than that no complaints with an otherwise flawlessly neat update. Hurray!
As for ambition, it is usually made of stern stuff.
What's a few thousand compatriots when there is a crown or a cause at stake?
Obviously the prof is taking the easy route and blaming the woman. Cherchez la femme only applies 99% of the time.
/runs from any female (or fair-minded) posters.
Great update, she's a fascinating figure as I suspected. I love that event where an unmarried woman has a child, particularly when she rules, glad to see what you did with it.
canonized: well, there's always more than one way of looking at things. Stay tuned for the next update!
TM: yes indeed, as soon as Andronikos won the election I switched to Tripoli. I didn't want to continue with Nikephoros' line; they were excellent young gents, really, diplomatic and good with money, Petros and Heraklios that is, but they weren't as interesting as Ekaterine was. And then they both died to random events.
Tskb: flaunted what? No such thing in the text (seriously, thank you though). Cherchez la femme, heh, haven't heard that one in a while. Where are you from, if you don't mind me asking? Also, recognize the picture at the start?
BoS: That sounds real awesome. Sober yet?
JimBo9: Me too. I was like, yeah, right on. Hyper polarising figure. AND she had Intrigue 13.
TM: yes indeed, as soon as Andronikos won the election I switched to Tripoli. I didn't want to continue with Nikephoros' line; they were excellent young gents, really, diplomatic and good with money, Petros and Heraklios that is, but they weren't as interesting as Ekaterine was. And then they both died to random events.
Tskb: flaunted what? No such thing in the text (seriously, thank you though). Cherchez la femme, heh, haven't heard that one in a while. Where are you from, if you don't mind me asking? Also, recognize the picture at the start?
BoS: That sounds real awesome. Sober yet?
JimBo9: Me too. I was like, yeah, right on. Hyper polarising figure. AND she had Intrigue 13.
Finally sobered up. Well did that some time ago but finally got to reading. Anyway splendid as usual.
Seems there's a terrible lot gone wrong, I'm really curious who'll eventually take the crown/diadem. And how the empire will be split. Also will Xenia take on the professors offer?
Well did that some time ago but finally got to reading. Anyway splendid as usual. Seems there's a terrible lot gone wrong, I'm really curious who'll eventually take the crown/diadem. And how the empire will be split. Also will Xenia take on the professors offer?
Ask away... whether i answer is another question. So to speak.
My first impression was of Eisenstein's Ivan The Terrible (pt. I)...
Who is that sneaky person in the background? And this person with attitude in the foreground? Don't drink the wine, Anastasiya!
i.e. no, hadn't a clue. well, other than a strong hunch on the artist. so of course i did a bit of searching to confirm i was correct.
Matches the story well i'd say. Visually and historically. i assume this was blind luck on the authAAR's part.
My first impression was of Eisenstein's Ivan The Terrible (pt. I)...
Who is that sneaky person in the background? And this person with attitude in the foreground? Don't drink the wine, Anastasiya!
i.e. no, hadn't a clue. well, other than a strong hunch on the artist. so of course i did a bit of searching to confirm i was correct.
Matches the story well i'd say. Visually and historically. i assume this was blind luck on the authAAR's part.