Imperial Renewal: The Romans of the Industrial Age (An Heirs to Aquitania AAR)

[goldbugbite]

Imperial Renewal: The Romans of the Industrial Age (1836-1936)
An Heirs to Aquitania AAR

​

Welcome to my first ever AAR as the Roman Empire (Byzantium) from Heirs to Aquitania. I've been reading AARs for over 3 years, always wanting to do one but never gathered the courage (or the d*mn) to actually start one myself. Like most AARs, Imperial Renewal will mostly be written as an in-universe text, with the occasional narrative interruptions. IRL, I'm a huge Byzantiboo so I'll be applying a lot of what I know and am familiar with to make a Victorian era Byzantium work while also fitting it into the world of Heirs to Aquitania. Sometimes the lore for such mods can be hard to come by, so apologies for any inconsistencies with the established lore as of 2023.

I still haven't finished playing this campaign, so this work is very much in process! I haven't decided whether to attempt a Justinian-esque reconquest of Rome or stick to realism, but I'm definitely going the expansionist route.

Some basic rules of expansion:
1. No conquests in Asia beyond what Byzantium held there at its peak.
2. No expansion into the New World.
3. African conquests will be limited to North Africa and perhaps the Horn of Africa (One of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in Ethiopia and all that)
4. Building puppet regimes that incorporates former Roman territories will count as part of my Renovatio Imperii (I.E., puppeted Vosea, puppeted Hispania), straight up conquests of all these territories is too unrealistic and hard for me because I suck at this game

 

[Idhrendur]

Looking forward to it!

 

[goldbugbite]

Introduction

Constantinople in 1847, the Queen of Cities was a bustling hub of industry in the Renovatio.
​

The Roman Empire, the words evoke antiquity, power, and legacy. At its height, the Empire was the continent spanning state that shaped Europe’s cultural framework. As the Empire fragmented, and its western part collapsed, its east half would continue to exist till the present day. Often compared to Iran and China, the Roman nation is seen as one of the world’s oldest cultures, a testament to the endurance of mankind. After more than two thousand years of a cycle of rise and decline, modernity finally set the Empire on a steady stream of prosperity and strength that would last a century. The industrial innovations of the Western states spread East, bringing forth a second apogee in Roman history. Even after the age of imperialism and global decolonization, the Roman state would remain as one of the world’s great powers. This work explores Rhomania’s cultural and economic changes, as well as the political dynamics that created the status quo of today; through what historians typically refer as the Renovatio (renewal in Latin), a period consisting of the reign of three emperors from 1836-1936.

The explosive period of the Renovatio, Ananéosi in Greek, would see economic and territorial growth not seen since the reign of Justinian. Rhomania’s industrialization and political centralization would see it dominate most of its neighbors and reversing the fragmented Age of the Exarchs in just a hundred years. Through gunpowder and machinery, Constantinople would revert centuries of Imperial decline, this is the Renovatio, modernity’s Roman Renewal.

The Empire in 1836, it is worth noting that most maps in this period would not have featured the Exarchates as autonomous political entities, the borders of the Empire officially reached the Danube.

 

[J_Master]

Always nice to see a new V2 AAR, especially a HtA one, will be following this

 

[goldbugbite]

The Modern Roman: Enlightenment and Tradition
​

As in the middles ages, the Western perspective on the people that call themselves Romans on the east Mediterranean, is clouded in confusion and suspicion in the early 19th century. One of the West’s foundational mythoi is its shared Roman heritage. All of Europe’s legal codes, particularly in the Age of Liberalism, had been to some extent based on Roman law; the artists and sculptors of the Renaissance resurrected the love of the human body that the Greco-Romans had mastered; after centuries of feudalism, ideas such as republics and democracies were discussed in the saloons of Toledo and Milan. The continued existence of the Romans, uninterrupted after the fall of Rome itself, was an uncomfortable reality during the Enlightenment.

On the other side of the Mediterranean, an interest in ancient Rome and Greece grew as a consequence of the Renaissance, but state-enforced Orthodox censorship meant that the full potential of the latter Enlightenment did not develop in Rhomania. Instead, a unique Roman cultural revival, following the foundations laid by the medieval state, had created a distinct Eastern identity for the Romans. The Empire’s geographic position and constant contact with the West saw it balance both western and eastern European identities into what we know as modern Roman culture. In the streets of Constantinople, fashions would vary from the traditional to the western and Orthodox churches stood next to academies were students advocated for complete state secularism. These seemingly contradictory realities were the beginnings of 19th century Roman cosmopolitism.

A depiction of a typical Anatolian tavern circa 1840, the fusion of western and eastern clothing, the company of Urban Romans, rural Anatolians and Armenians were a testament to the cosmopolitan nature of the empire, previously dormant in the Middle Ages.
​

The Enlightenment saw a revolutionary wave of political thought across Europe; the continental intelligentsia called for a radical restructuring of the old order in Europe inspired by Roman republicanism and Greek democracy, but the idea of a government that served its people, instead of the whims of despotic kings, was not alien to the Romans. Indeed, the idea of the Res Publica still lived on after the fall of the Empire’s Western half. Though it might seem contradictory, it is important to note that the ancient Romans did not see a difference between its Republican and Imperial periods, other than the rise of the authoritarian office of the emperor. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Senate had long ceased to function as a powerful political entity, instead the emperors symbolically sought their approval while exercising increased palace centralization. The power dynamics of Emperor and aristocrat had changed since the days of Octavian as well. No longer did the Emperor visit the villas of the great houses of Rome, by the Middle Ages the nobles had to go the Imperial palace in Constantinople, creating a highly competitive and deadly court that jealously sought the Emperor’s ear. However, it is a misconception that the increasingly centralized medieval state was akin to the absolute monarchies that Europe would see starting from the Renaissance onwards.

The ancient Greek word Politeia, usually translated as civil rights or government, would replace Res Publica in common Roman parlance by the Greek-speaking medieval period. The ideal of a government that ruled with the consent of the people and for their benefit, was an essential part of Roman politics. Ever since the Middle Ages, Roman citizens would be ever more vocal at the same time the Imperial office centralized its power. Sometimes, the Emperors would prefer the commoner’s support over the good side of the aristocracy itself. This seemingly contradictory balance of power was not so different from the relationship of the Caesars and their people since antiquity, in stark contrast to the feudal kings of Western Europe. This dynamic would become ever more relevant in Roman politics as the constant coups, assassinations and civil wars of the medieval period raised issues of legitimacy among many Imperial administrations.

Roman Politeia itself would influence the Enlightenment, but with 1700’s Romans under the rule of the office of the despotic Basileus, western intellectuals still looked to Classical civilization for its political and philosophical base. The modern Roman state by that period had a reputation for being the complete opposite of Classical Greece and Rome, zealously Christian and contributing little to philosophical achievements beyond the preservation and reproduction of ancient texts. This worldview hardly reflected reality, as a great contributor to the Renaissance itself were the great Roman schools of Constantinople and Thessaloniki, themselves laying claim to the legacy of medieval Roman thinker Michael Psellos. Combined with the seemingly enigmatic and exotic Constantinopolitan court, western scholars had an orientalist perception of Rhomania, that of an “eastern thing", long distanced from the age of Cicero or Marcus Aurelius. One thing was certain though, ever since the Spanish Revolution, conservative elements in the aristocracy and the church actively censored culture by the 18th century. Afraid of liberal ideas and republicanism, reactionary forces in Rhomania prosecuted outspoken critics of the empire’s political system, but one area where aristocrats and intellectuals found common ground was in the increasing regionalism of the provinces further away from the Bosporus metropole. With the Western influences of nationalism and self-determination, separatists found an alliance with the rising ducal families that would define the Age of the Exarchates.

Alexios Trikoupis and Sofia Miaoulis, two of the most influential figures of the Roman Enlightenment. Censored by an increasingly paranoid regime, the 18th century and early 19th century Roman intelligentsia tread through dangerous waters on the waves of conservative reaction. Trikoupis would become a martyr of the liberal cause, while Miaoulis often wrote with a male penname in her treaties for female liberation.​

 

[J_Master]

This seemingly contradictory balance of power was not so different from the relationship of the Caesars and their people since antiquity, in stark contrast to the feudal kings of Western Europe.

This is the one part I will have to disagree with. It was the growing wealth of cities and burghers that allowed for rulers to centralize power around themselves and no longer need to rely on feudal nobility. De Bourgondiërs (a Dutch language book) contains wonderfull examples of this in describing the relationship between the Valois-Bourgonge Counts of Flanders and their subjects in their oh so wealthy and powerfull cities, especially as that wealth was based on trade with England and thus this would often bring conflict with the King of France (whom they owed nominal fealty) and the Count would have to manouvre this. Or how once Charles the Bold died, the by that point Burgundian Netherlands did want to stick together but cared little for pushing the claims of their Habsburg lords on the Duchy of Burgundy itself. Ofcourse, these specific examples do not exist in HtA, but they do describe the relationship between Western European rulers and the vast mass of their subjects.

 

[HistoryDude]

Ah, a Byzantium AAR! I'm a little late here, but I'll be following if this resumes updates.

The Age of Exarchates, huh? That doesn't bode well for the central authority of the emperors...

 

[Midnite Duke]

I admire the courage of anyone whose first post is an AAR. CK Byz is fascinating as anything can happen. EU Byz is almost suicidal and an early game over. What does Vicky Byz hold?
If you want to increase viewership, add a link to the AAR to your signature and make comments on other AARs.
Thank you for showing me a new world.

 

[goldbugbite]

I admire the courage of anyone whose first post is an AAR. CK Byz is fascinating as anything can happen. EU Byz is almost suicidal and an early game over. What does Vicky Byz hold?
If you want to increase viewership, add a link to the AAR to your signature and make comments on other AARs.
Thank you for showing me a new world.

Sorry for the late reply, thanks for the tips! Victorian Byzantium's a weird one, but a fun writing exercise nonetheless!

 

[goldbugbite]

The Age of the Exarchates​

The period of Roman history from 1827 to 1840 is known to historians and the popular consensus as the Age of the Exarchates. This period is seen as the culmination of a century of imperial stagnation, were the Themes of Makedonia, Hellas, and Bulgaria; themselves culturally distinct from the metropolitan Bosporus Romans, would seek increased autonomy after the loss of the Theme of the Anatolikon to the Armenians. The ambitious local aristocracy, though some themselves fueled by separatist ideas, would see their ambitions fulfilled by the reigns of the unstable regency of Helena of Smyrna, mother of Ioannes XI and the latter emperor's short rule. The level of autonomy granted to the Ipeirótis, Shishman and Synadenos families would see them become the most powerful houses in Rhomania. Of course, an important factor in the rise of the Exarchs was the influence of the Enlightenment in the Empire. Though weakened by state censorship, Enlightenment ideas would storm the minds of the rising middle class. In the edges of the Empire, the dreams of nationalism combined with the inefficiencies of Constantinople, fueled regional differences between Romans. For the Arbens and Bulgarians more so, as they never felt identified with greater Roman society, many of them not even speaking Greek at all. The unlikely alliance of noble and bourgeois would see Constantinople loose grasp on its furthest provinces, granting them self-rule rather than cause yet another destructive Roman civil war, surely an ideal moment for the Sultans of Armenia to strike again and destroy all hopes of retaking Anatolia.

From left to right, Exarchs Illir Ipeirótis of Makedonia, Ivan Shishman of Bulgaria, and Andronikos Synadenos of Hellas.​

The title of Exarch was common in the Roman Middle Ages, given to governors of distant (at least from Constantinople) provinces. The position would see irrelevance as the empire’s expansions declined and the government consolidated its provinces. By the late 18th and early 19th centuries, central authority weakened, and the risk of rebellion in the west and Armenian invasion in the east forced Empress Dowager Helena to concede to the autonomist demands. The Exarchates of Makedonia, Hellas and Bulgaria were established in 1827 at the Conference of Salonika, giving the Iperiotoi, Shishmanoi and Synadenoi families domain of the Exarchates. This was codified in the Imperial Governance Act of 1828. The Exarchs would essentially rule as viceroys that would respond to a call to arms whenever the empire saw itself at war, but who would otherwise have free reign over the administration of their demesnes. The Exarchates would all share the same currency as the empire, and the economy still tied them to the Bosporus, making sure no attempt was made to rebel against the capital. A less important note for the everyone at the time, was that if the Empire ever liberated Anatolia, a new Exarchate would be established there to limit the power of the Basileus. Officially, these states would still be part of the Roman Empire, only given special privileges due to the strategic realities of the time, but the weakness of Constantinople was evident to many.

The separatist response to the Conference of Salonika and the Imperial Governance Act was mixed, with some considering that more concessions could have been made to the empress, including independence. Such talks were pacified by the Exarchs, as their uneasy alliance with middle class radicals could see them losing power if they declared independence from the aristocratic government that gave them legitimacy to begin with. Another issue was the status of national identities. The Greeks of Hellas had built a national consciousness distinct from that of their Greek speaking brothers in the Sea of Marmara, even in the Middle Ages, Constantinopolitan prejudice would see Attica and the islands of the Aegean as not quite Roman. Sometimes, the terms Hellene or even Graeci were used as pejoratives. This would ironically reawaken Hellene national consciousness and many romantics would identify themselves with Classical Greece, rather than Rome.

The Exarchate of Hellas, stretching from the Peloponnese to Epirus.​

Bulgaria, though populated by many Romans, was still majority Bulgarian. The Slavs of the region had never fully assimilated into the empire, even Basil II’s reign was more of a takeover of the Bulgarian state rather than a total conquest of their people. Numerous attempts were made to restore Bulgarian independence, one of which was by the Shishman family themselves, but were all put to the sword or musket fire. The instability of Bulgaria even brought the Roman emperors to use the title of Caesar of the Bulgars. The Shishman dynasty’s past did not come unnoticed by the Roman court, but with the threat of civil war the Basilissa conceded to Bulgar demands to make Ivan Shishman their Exarch.

Bulgaria proper, Paradounavon and Paristrion, the three provinces of the Exarchate of Bulgaria.​

The Exarchate of Makedonia was the most complicated of the new autonomies. This multiethnic nation consisting of Aromanians, Slavs, Greek speakers and Arbens. Ironically this diverse group of Romans are what made Makedonia a unique identity in the empire. Aromanians, a romance culture closely related to Wallachians and Moldovans, were usually confusingly referred to as Western Romans by some medieval sources, but the most popular name for this ethnic group is the of the Vlachs. The Aromanians of Makedonia lived harmoniously with the Arben and Greek speakers of the region, creating a distinct identity for the region that would foreshadow the cosmopolitan nature of 19th century Rhomania. Their Exarch Illir Ipeirótis, was of Arben and Aromanian stock, the perfect leader for a Makedonian autonomist state.

Multiethnic Makedonia encompassed the Thessalonian coast, Arbenon to the west and Southern Serbia to its north. It’s capital of Skupol, smaller than bustling Salonika, rested in Macedon proper.​

The Age of the Exarchs brought upon changes, for better and worse, that forever marked Roman politics in the modern era. For Constantinople, the Conference of Salonika was a wake-up call. If the administration was not reformed, the Empire could risk total dismemberment from within. The Roman Empire survived for millennia due to its incredible adaptability to change and adversity. The collective trauma of once more losing a great deal of Anatolia to muslim invaders shook the average Roman citizen to the core. Perhaps, some have argued, the loss of Anatolia left a deep resentment for the traditionalist policies of the government, seen as stagnant and corrupt. Despite his faults , one of Emperor Ioannes XI’s longstanding legacies was his administration's stability and military preparations for the reconquest of Anatolia, a dream that he would not see in his lifetime. His reforms and political maneuvering unsured that his successor would inherit a relatively stable, if still divided, Roman Empire. The aristocracy and the emperor were both in the same camp that the Sultan must be defeated, but the aftermath of such a campaign was what everyone feared the most. Nobody knew at the time whether Ioannes’ successor would obey the Conference of Salonika and establish an Exarchate in Anatolia or if he would directly annex it, to be ruled by Constantinople. The winds of change would storm Rhomania with the ascension of the, not only expansionist but also absolutist rule of Constantine XVI.

 

[HistoryDude]

This is an interesting solution to rising issues of nationalism, and it might save Byzantium from the issue of nationalism breaking up multi-ethnic empires (like Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans in OTL). On the other hand, these exarchs have a lot of power and could use it if something major (like a civil war) happens...

It's a risky decision. We'll see how it pays off.

 

[Midnite Duke]

Good to see Greater Arben. Thanks for the update

 

[goldbugbite]

The Rise of Constantine XVI​

Though much is credited to Constantine XVI’s decisive halt of his predecessor’s fragmentation of the Empire, it is important not to fall into the Great Man Theory that Roman propaganda emphasizes so much on its 19th century history curriculum. The Empire was already experiencing great cultural and economic change regardless of Constantine’s rule, but had his uncle chosen his cousin Georgios, the empire could have seen a continuation of the Exarchates and a less expansive Rhomania. It was Constantine that directed the Roman state from a decaying relic into the forefront of the Age of Imperialism, gearing the empire towards Justinianic levels of territorial expansion into Europe, Asia, and Africa. This legacy is not without its sins however, Constantine’s attempts at centralization led to autocratic policies, needless violence in his rejection of a new Roman Senate, and his “reconquests” were not so different from the exploitative colonization done by nations like Aquitania and Aengland. A man of mixed morals, who’s reputation has been exalted by nationalism, only recently has his legacy been revised. Regardless of his faults, Constantine left an impression upon world history that changed the balance of power in three continents forever.

Constantine XVI was born in 1810 in the city of Xanthe (Xanthi) to a branch of the imperial family. That his family had chosen the name Konstantinos was pure coincidence, after all it was expected that the main branch would produce heirs and be born in the purple, as to be a porphyrogenite was extremely important for Roman political stability. Constantine would spend his early life living as any other Roman prince, eventually inheriting the Duchy of Nestos when his father died in 1830. When it became clear Ioannes XI would not marry and thus, would not produce an heir, two options for succession became clear: his nephews Georgios and Constantine. From the six years up until Ioannes’ early death, the Dukes Constantine and Georgios would engage in a friendly rivalry, both expressing different opinions about the future of the empire without directly mentioning the issue of succession. Constantine was vocal about his desire to see Rhomania as a more active player in international affairs and about the need for reform in the empire. His cousin Georgios always sided with caution, favoring a status quo and peace after Anatolian liberation. Already, the two Dukes had established themselves into rival camps. When the fateful day finally came, in which Ioannes was at his deathbed from a dreadful fall from his steed, he was brought to the Palace of Blachernae, where he chose his successor and the path the empire was to follow after his death.

Ionnes XI at his deathbed in 1835
​

Most of the nobility expected Georgios, the one who intended to keep stability and the continuation of Ioannes' and his mother's agenda. Perhaps seeing Constantine as the stronger option, the 32-year-old emperor, who only ruled for 8 years due to his overbearing mother's grasp in power, had passed the torch to Constantine's faction. The next week, the young Duke was crowned Constantine XVI in Christ, Emperor of the Romans and Czar of the Bulgars at the Hagia Sofia. For the first time in almost a century, a man not born in the purple was crowned emperor. Under traditional Roman practice, the child a monarch chose as successor was crowned emperor since childhood, but Constantine was already 28 by the time he became Basileus. It was a miracle Ioannes chose him before death, or else the Romans would have faced a troublesome succesion crisis. Even then, during the War of the Exarchates, some Exarchs claimed Ioannes had chosen Georgios instead and Constantine was a scheming usurper. Even if the claim had little evidence, it suggests Constantine's elevation to emperorship was not as smooth as he had hoped for.

Emperor of the Romans Constantine XVI in 1837 and 1840 in traditional Roman attire. Early portraits foreshadowed the young Basileus’ ambitions for the Empire, columns and crowds symbolizing order and Roman unity.

During the early stages of his reign Constantine kept his absolutist ambitions to himself, instead continuing military preparations set by his predecessor and uncle Ioannes XI. By focusing on military affairs, Constantine wooed the militarists in his court, ensuring loyalty to Constantinople in the armies and support for his expansionist ideals. The Romans had long been calling for the reconquest of the Armenian-held territories of the East, a herculean endeavor which called for extensive military development. A strong Imperial Army, serving the payroll of the state rather than the Exarchs, was essential to the direct rule installed by the Basileus after the eventual War of the Exarchates. The emperor’s early moves were carefully observed by the ever-ambitious Roman aristocracy, and superficially following on his uncle’s footsteps allowed Constantine to prepare for his eventual total takeover. The 28-year-old monarch had a difficult road ahead of him, but his decisive leadership would restore Rome as the world’s most powerful nation by the end of his reign.

The constant military thorn on Rhomania’s side was the Muslim Sultanate of Armenia. Ever since its conversion to Islam, Armenia had long distanced itself from the old days in which Armenians walked the halls of power in Constantinople. Indeed, the Armenians had occupied the Queen of Cities more than once, leading to the burning and plundering of the Boukeleon Palace. Ever since this act of humiliation and the loss of much of Anatolia, the Empire prepared for vengeance with a series of military reforms. Since Ioannes’ reign had already prepared manuals and drills for the preparation of the reconquest of Anatolia, Constantine met no resistance to the extended army reforms of the 1830’s. The Empire’s infantrymen would begin to import foreign arms and the Theme system would be revived for the 19th century, in a surprise to some and a foreshadowing of things to come, the Army of the Guards of the Basileus would be restructured into the Imperial Tagmata. This medieval Imperial construct was a professional force loyal to the emperor alone and had been revived under Constantine XVI to serve as the bulk of the new model army.

Drákous (dragoons) of the Imperial Tagma, the shock cavalry of the new Roman Army.

Led by the capable and loyal Ilias Dousmanis, the Imperial Tagmata would be a loyal military retinue the Basileus could depend on in times of crisis, as well as deliver a punishing blow in foreign campaigns against Rome’s enemies. Dousmanis was a supporter of the reactionary Bosporus Faction (later Party of the Bosporus), a collection of mostly urban nationalists and orthodox traditionalists who supported absolutism and theocracy that had been following Constantine’s career closely. Dousmanis was crucial during the War of the Exarchates and the liberal revolts that followed, making him an effective commander yet controversial figure in Roman history. Dousmanis’ iron resolve and effective use of modern arms and tactics made him the model for future generals (Strategoi) of the new Thematic armies.

The restoration of the Imperial Tagma and it's Strategos, Ilias Dousmanis. A controversial figure, his efforts nonetheless gave him fame as one of the great figures of the Armenian War and the crisis that followed.

It was in Spring 1837, that the Roman army reserves were mobilized, and a declaration of war was issued on the Sultanate of Armenia, the Roman reconquest of Anatolia had begun. The armies of the Exarchs and Constantinople’s allies were called into the war to aid in the “liberation of the Anatolian Christians”. The Imperial Tagmata along with the local Theme of the Anatolikon mounted an offensive on the local Armenian army of 24,000, crushing it with superior numbers at Ikonion (Iconium). This victory would embolden the Romans to split their forces, with Dousmanis taking his Tagma to the north to regroup with the mobilized irregulars east of Bythinia. When the Armenians learned of this development, they decided to focus their counteroffensive one Roman army at a time. The second professional force of the Sultan’s, along with thousands of conscripts hardened by the mountains of Armenia marched on Heraclea, threatening the straits of the Bosporus and Constantinople itself. This forced Dousmanis to attack the encamped army. The resulting battle was a costly but decisive victory for the Romans. The Sultan’s army was forced to retreat, finished off by the allied forces. Already arrived from the Balkans. By the 5th of February, the Sultanate sued for peace. Anatolikon and the surrounding provinces were Roman once more in what the Aenglisc ambassador to Constantinople would refer to as a "short and splendid war".

The Roman victory against the Sultanate of Armenia on January 31, 1838. At Ceasarea, the Sultan would sign a peace treaty with the Romans on the 5th of February.

The Armenian War’s conclusion was not as relevant as the decisions of the Basileus immediately after the peace. The Treaty of Salonika and the Imperial Governance Act stated quite clearly that any newly liberated territories in Anatolia were to be assigned to a newly established Exarchate, to ensure the decentralized status quo of the empire. Constantine avoided mention of this until his visit to the Anatolian city of Ikonion. There, in a celebration to the liberation of the eastern provinces, Constantine made a speech stating the importance of a united realm and his intention of integrating Anatolia directly under the protection of Constantinople. After the celebration, the Exarchs present would storm furiously back to their demesnes, protesting the "illegal seizure of Christian Imperial lands by greedy Constantinople". Small scale protests erupted in Athens, Serdikus and Skupol. The beginning of the crisis known as the War of the Exarchates had just begun.

 

[HistoryDude]

It's nice to see this back!

Constantine certainly seems like a fascinating figure. Will he attempt to forge a unified Roman identity to combat nationalism after he defeats the exarchates?

Also, I see some of that Great Man Theory that the beginning criticizes in that very paragraph. "The Empire was already experiencing great cultural and economic change regardless of Constantine’s rule, but had his uncle chosen his cousin Georgios, the empire could have seen a continuation of the Exarchates and a less expansive Rhomania" sounds a lot like Great Man History to me...

 

[goldbugbite]

It's nice to see this back!

Constantine certainly seems like a fascinating figure. Will he attempt to forge a unified Roman identity to combat nationalism after he defeats the exarchates?

Also, I see some of that Great Man Theory that the beginning criticizes in that very paragraph. "The Empire was already experiencing great cultural and economic change regardless of Constantine’s rule, but had his uncle chosen his cousin Georgios, the empire could have seen a continuation of the Exarchates and a less expansive Rhomania" sounds a lot like Great Man History to me...

Yeah, I definitely made a mistake there, I just wanted a rationalization for the lamer Exarchate path the Romans can take in the game.

As for how Constantine deals with nationalism, we'll see what the young Basileus plans to do next

 

[goldbugbite]

Hi everyone, as you can see, I've taken forever to post a new update. I've not only been on a writer's block trying to keep up with all the lore of this mod and trying to expand it, but I've also had a busy time with work and studies. I don't think I want to make the effort of continuing this one, but I'll try again with another nation or mod. (Might try this nation again at some point in the future)