Understanding is not required. This is your (hi)story, and you can do it in whatever way you like.
-
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.
No worries. This is something you choose to freely create, and you shouldn't feel obligated to write for us.
That said, we'll be happy to read once you do return!
That said, we'll be happy to read once you do return!
So much to do...reminds me of myself. Just hope that your actual work turns out great. And, as you can see in AARs like Nick Giordano's and Svip's ones, your fans and friends won't abandon you for not posting for a while...or a while longer.
Or posting in El Pip's slower-than-real-time. :laugh:
In any event, I'll certainly read the next update whenever we are graced by its' presence.
Was it Weltkriegshaft where the author managed to almost cover one year of gameplayer over 5 years of writing the AAR?
- 1
Chapter XXIII: Dreaming of Alexander
The backdrop of the Roman-Persian Wars entail an important new epoch in the history of the Near East, and the conflict brewing between, in all honesty, a moderate easterly power (Rome) and an emergent power (Persia) nonetheless sat between the two principle powers in the region—a depleted Turkish kingdom and a the static hegemonic power of Mamluk Egypt. Of course, the latter two had just fought a bitter war over the contested areas of Syria, and were in need of economic, social, and military recovery. So, the tidal forces coming to the fore between the two powers that disintegrated the last of the nomadic confederacies was a welcome service to the despots along the Nile and the foothills of Anatolia.
The eastward drift of the Roman Empire, during the reign of John, also seems to be a phenomena that, nonetheless, had dire consequences for the future of the imperium. Although chronologically prior to the Italian Wars, the western expanses of the empire were still hemmed in by Hungary and Austria to the north, the Turkish Balkans, and Italy to the more immediate west. Thus, it naturally made sense to turn east against the declining nomadic confederacies that slivered the boundaries of the Caucasus Mountains and an emergent Persia. Plus, John—perhaps in his own delusions—always saw “eastward” glory. Indeed, the history of Roman imperial expansion was one in which eastern campaigns, first against the Greeks, the diadochi successors to Alexander—principally Egypt, and the never ending struggle against the Persians always offered more honor and glory than the western conflicts with the sub-civilized barbarians. Indeed, ever since the defeat of Carthage, the gold-studded eyes of the Romans always looked east for a requiem of glory, prestige, and honor.
In this sense, John, despite being a Christian, was still encapsulated by the ancient metaphysics of the Greeks, especially Pythagoras. The cyclical notion of metaphysics that was, by now, already overturned in the Latin West, still captured the imagination of the eastern peoples. The struggle of opposites, it seems, would continue without end. Even if one civilization, if you permit me to say, would fall, another would simply arise in its place and the conflict would begin anew. For, after Roman conquest of the Near East, and the fall of Persia through Mohammedan conquest, the Mohammedans simply replaced the Persians as the new enemies of Rome and the Western peoples occupying the stretches from the Thames, Iberian Plateau, to the walls of Constantinople. The titanic, eternal struggle between east and west, or as it was captured in the imagination of John and the Romans despite themselves being an eastern power and culture in the eyes of the Latin West beyond the Balkans—seemed to feed energy and spirit into the young emperor who had no lapse of the glorious vision he had for himself.
Emperor John, dressed in Eastern Persian garb. This was a reflection of the long Roman glory-seeking tradition that could have been epitomized by the phrase, "Go east, young conqueror."
Of course, the Romans were now going up against a foe that was a combination of their two most famous adversaries—a Mohammedan Persian society that had mixed the elements of both cultures together into a new, emergent, and mighty entity. In addition, the Shi’ism of the Persians, in this age of millenarian fever, also added a deadly pietism to their zeal and ambitions. Let alone were fellow believers rendered heretics, they would have no mercy for those who had formerly been given revelatory knowledge of the Divine but had since lost their way.[1]
The contested fields of Mesopotamia had long since been a field of battlegrounds—and with the recent unearthing of the ancient civilizations between the great rivers, we have reason to believe that these civilizations never united and were under constant threat of attack throughout the ages.[2] The lush rivers and lands of this area had, ever since the first Agricultural Revolution nearly 10,000 years ago,[3] been the prize of the rise and fall of empires. In 1513, the war clouds were gathering once more over the fields of Mesopotamia.
There were, of course, logistic advantages and disadvantages for both sides. First, and most obvious, the Persians had direct lines of communication and travel into Mesopotamia, even if their territory—the foothills of Persia were tough to traverse. The full force of the Persian armies, roughly 40,000, could be assembled in reasonably quick fashion. By contrast, the Roman armies were spread out into their three principle theaters: Trebizond (ca. 8,000), Constantinople (ca. 10-12,000), and Greece (ca. 9-10,000). The logistics of having to traverse the seas to Asia Minor, then march down the hills and mountains of eastern Anatolia made communications, lines of supply, and open movement difficult. Yet, in this, there was also an advantage. The mountains and hills themselves provided for excellent defensive positions. The Romans had, for some time, been constructing a string of defenses around these perimeters in anticipation of such a conflict.
Indeed, the lack of formal territorial unification was a problem that John was keenly aware of, and that he was always attempting to rectify. The movement of the Roman armies was dependent upon its navy to transfer soldiers from Greece to Asia Minor. While the Romans, in the first decades of the sixteenth century, possessed the fifth largest fleet in the world—behind their more immediate Mediterranean competitors the Mamluks, the Roman fleet shouldn’t be mistaken for a grandiose display of power. Unlike the navies of the Kingdoms of France, Castile, or England, they possessed few heavy ships—mostly galleys. A large contingent of ships were modest transport vessels, unable to provide sustained naval fighting in pitched battle. Although, in this conflict with the Persians, the Romans had no fear of naval difficulty since the Persian ships were contained in the Indian Ocean.
Shah Abbas I, at center, in a battle against Roman soldiers during the initial invasion leading up to the Siege of Trebizond. At the Battles of Totz and Djevizlik, the Persian armies routed, in consecutive order, the Roman army of Trebizond and Armenia. The path was clear for Trebizond. Another Persian army invaded from Mesopotamia, all the while the Roman forces had to be mustered from Greece and Constantinople and transported east.
Thus, when the Persians invaded and laid siege to Trebizond, after defeating the Roman army in battle—the relief force was already underway. John, commanding the Imperial Army of 12,000, had landed just west of the city to re-assemble the remaining 5,000 men who had been repulsed from the fields of Trebizond earlier. On August 11, the Roman army numbering 17,000 strong faced the Persians of 20,000. Shah Abbas himself was leading the main Persian force, with a second having been sent south through Armenia. For John, the forthcoming battle mirrored that of Galerius’ confrontation at Satala in 298 A.D., where the fate of the Roman-Persian balance of power was to be decided now, as it was then.
[1] This is a contentious issue within Islamic theology. At least early in its history, Islam saw Judaism and Christianity as brothers of the same faith, and was not required to convert with the understanding that they had been contacted by God to follow their own laws and customs (The Mosaic Law for the Jews, the Gospels for the Greeks). The arrival of Mohammed to the Arabs was God’s revelatory contact with the Arab peoples, and in the old tradition of Abraham to Jesus, established a code for the Arabs to follow. This evolved over time, and the Muslims, primarily under the Umayyad, had come to see the abandonment of the original precepts given unto the Jews and “Christians”, and that God, through Mohammed, inaugurated the final revelation with the Muslims themselves. Over time, this belief created the dhimmi class—those of the Christian and Jewish faith who would not submit to the precepts of Islam, but live under the guidance of the Sharia Law, under the prescription of paying taxes. Others had further revised this idea to allow for attacks on those who had abandoned, in essence, their own faith, and as such, were no longer counted among the community of believers.
[2] In keeping with the turn of the century feel, this is a deliberate reference to the Mesopotamians. It is also true that, apart from the later Babylonians, the Sumerians were never able to unify Mesopotamia and were not only in constant warfare with each other, but faced constant threats from the Steppe nomads who often raided their lands and cities on a regular basis. This constant state of fear and war is what many Sumerian religious scholars believe to be the reason for the rather dark, and bleak religion of the Mesopotamian civilizations. Hence why the Hebrews often said that the Babylonians worshiped “demons.”
[3] Reference to the Neolithic Revolution.
The backdrop of the Roman-Persian Wars entail an important new epoch in the history of the Near East, and the conflict brewing between, in all honesty, a moderate easterly power (Rome) and an emergent power (Persia) nonetheless sat between the two principle powers in the region—a depleted Turkish kingdom and a the static hegemonic power of Mamluk Egypt. Of course, the latter two had just fought a bitter war over the contested areas of Syria, and were in need of economic, social, and military recovery. So, the tidal forces coming to the fore between the two powers that disintegrated the last of the nomadic confederacies was a welcome service to the despots along the Nile and the foothills of Anatolia.
The eastward drift of the Roman Empire, during the reign of John, also seems to be a phenomena that, nonetheless, had dire consequences for the future of the imperium. Although chronologically prior to the Italian Wars, the western expanses of the empire were still hemmed in by Hungary and Austria to the north, the Turkish Balkans, and Italy to the more immediate west. Thus, it naturally made sense to turn east against the declining nomadic confederacies that slivered the boundaries of the Caucasus Mountains and an emergent Persia. Plus, John—perhaps in his own delusions—always saw “eastward” glory. Indeed, the history of Roman imperial expansion was one in which eastern campaigns, first against the Greeks, the diadochi successors to Alexander—principally Egypt, and the never ending struggle against the Persians always offered more honor and glory than the western conflicts with the sub-civilized barbarians. Indeed, ever since the defeat of Carthage, the gold-studded eyes of the Romans always looked east for a requiem of glory, prestige, and honor.
In this sense, John, despite being a Christian, was still encapsulated by the ancient metaphysics of the Greeks, especially Pythagoras. The cyclical notion of metaphysics that was, by now, already overturned in the Latin West, still captured the imagination of the eastern peoples. The struggle of opposites, it seems, would continue without end. Even if one civilization, if you permit me to say, would fall, another would simply arise in its place and the conflict would begin anew. For, after Roman conquest of the Near East, and the fall of Persia through Mohammedan conquest, the Mohammedans simply replaced the Persians as the new enemies of Rome and the Western peoples occupying the stretches from the Thames, Iberian Plateau, to the walls of Constantinople. The titanic, eternal struggle between east and west, or as it was captured in the imagination of John and the Romans despite themselves being an eastern power and culture in the eyes of the Latin West beyond the Balkans—seemed to feed energy and spirit into the young emperor who had no lapse of the glorious vision he had for himself.
Emperor John, dressed in Eastern Persian garb. This was a reflection of the long Roman glory-seeking tradition that could have been epitomized by the phrase, "Go east, young conqueror."
Of course, the Romans were now going up against a foe that was a combination of their two most famous adversaries—a Mohammedan Persian society that had mixed the elements of both cultures together into a new, emergent, and mighty entity. In addition, the Shi’ism of the Persians, in this age of millenarian fever, also added a deadly pietism to their zeal and ambitions. Let alone were fellow believers rendered heretics, they would have no mercy for those who had formerly been given revelatory knowledge of the Divine but had since lost their way.[1]
The contested fields of Mesopotamia had long since been a field of battlegrounds—and with the recent unearthing of the ancient civilizations between the great rivers, we have reason to believe that these civilizations never united and were under constant threat of attack throughout the ages.[2] The lush rivers and lands of this area had, ever since the first Agricultural Revolution nearly 10,000 years ago,[3] been the prize of the rise and fall of empires. In 1513, the war clouds were gathering once more over the fields of Mesopotamia.
There were, of course, logistic advantages and disadvantages for both sides. First, and most obvious, the Persians had direct lines of communication and travel into Mesopotamia, even if their territory—the foothills of Persia were tough to traverse. The full force of the Persian armies, roughly 40,000, could be assembled in reasonably quick fashion. By contrast, the Roman armies were spread out into their three principle theaters: Trebizond (ca. 8,000), Constantinople (ca. 10-12,000), and Greece (ca. 9-10,000). The logistics of having to traverse the seas to Asia Minor, then march down the hills and mountains of eastern Anatolia made communications, lines of supply, and open movement difficult. Yet, in this, there was also an advantage. The mountains and hills themselves provided for excellent defensive positions. The Romans had, for some time, been constructing a string of defenses around these perimeters in anticipation of such a conflict.
Indeed, the lack of formal territorial unification was a problem that John was keenly aware of, and that he was always attempting to rectify. The movement of the Roman armies was dependent upon its navy to transfer soldiers from Greece to Asia Minor. While the Romans, in the first decades of the sixteenth century, possessed the fifth largest fleet in the world—behind their more immediate Mediterranean competitors the Mamluks, the Roman fleet shouldn’t be mistaken for a grandiose display of power. Unlike the navies of the Kingdoms of France, Castile, or England, they possessed few heavy ships—mostly galleys. A large contingent of ships were modest transport vessels, unable to provide sustained naval fighting in pitched battle. Although, in this conflict with the Persians, the Romans had no fear of naval difficulty since the Persian ships were contained in the Indian Ocean.
Shah Abbas I, at center, in a battle against Roman soldiers during the initial invasion leading up to the Siege of Trebizond. At the Battles of Totz and Djevizlik, the Persian armies routed, in consecutive order, the Roman army of Trebizond and Armenia. The path was clear for Trebizond. Another Persian army invaded from Mesopotamia, all the while the Roman forces had to be mustered from Greece and Constantinople and transported east.
Thus, when the Persians invaded and laid siege to Trebizond, after defeating the Roman army in battle—the relief force was already underway. John, commanding the Imperial Army of 12,000, had landed just west of the city to re-assemble the remaining 5,000 men who had been repulsed from the fields of Trebizond earlier. On August 11, the Roman army numbering 17,000 strong faced the Persians of 20,000. Shah Abbas himself was leading the main Persian force, with a second having been sent south through Armenia. For John, the forthcoming battle mirrored that of Galerius’ confrontation at Satala in 298 A.D., where the fate of the Roman-Persian balance of power was to be decided now, as it was then.
[1] This is a contentious issue within Islamic theology. At least early in its history, Islam saw Judaism and Christianity as brothers of the same faith, and was not required to convert with the understanding that they had been contacted by God to follow their own laws and customs (The Mosaic Law for the Jews, the Gospels for the Greeks). The arrival of Mohammed to the Arabs was God’s revelatory contact with the Arab peoples, and in the old tradition of Abraham to Jesus, established a code for the Arabs to follow. This evolved over time, and the Muslims, primarily under the Umayyad, had come to see the abandonment of the original precepts given unto the Jews and “Christians”, and that God, through Mohammed, inaugurated the final revelation with the Muslims themselves. Over time, this belief created the dhimmi class—those of the Christian and Jewish faith who would not submit to the precepts of Islam, but live under the guidance of the Sharia Law, under the prescription of paying taxes. Others had further revised this idea to allow for attacks on those who had abandoned, in essence, their own faith, and as such, were no longer counted among the community of believers.
[2] In keeping with the turn of the century feel, this is a deliberate reference to the Mesopotamians. It is also true that, apart from the later Babylonians, the Sumerians were never able to unify Mesopotamia and were not only in constant warfare with each other, but faced constant threats from the Steppe nomads who often raided their lands and cities on a regular basis. This constant state of fear and war is what many Sumerian religious scholars believe to be the reason for the rather dark, and bleak religion of the Mesopotamian civilizations. Hence why the Hebrews often said that the Babylonians worshiped “demons.”
[3] Reference to the Neolithic Revolution.
Last edited:
I just finished listening to the AskHistorians Podcast on the Macedonian and Komnenian dynasties. And then I come over and find this! I'm really getting my Roman fix today.
And of course you left us on a cliffhanger.
And of course you left us on a cliffhanger.
Most likely both at the same time.
That said, welcome back Volksmarschall! How did your own publication go?
That said, welcome back Volksmarschall! How did your own publication go?
Two ancient empires waging war on the planet's oldest battlefield - epic stuff and an interesting cliffhanger. Abbas is clearly no push over.
Two weak shells of ancient empires, once again shelling one another. Clash of ancients?
- 1
Although the title of the AAR and the promises of the author ensure that any verge of greatness will inevitably be undone by a final decline and fall!
(but perhaps, not yet...)I just finished listening to the AskHistorians Podcast on the Macedonian and Komnenian dynasties. And then I come over and find this! I'm really getting my Roman fix today.
And of course you left us on a cliffhanger.
One can never get enough of a fix, especially on a history that lasts nearly 2,000 years
Cliffhangers are the only acceptable means of writing in short, sporadic, updates!
Busy with acceptance with revision, so the latter part really ate away at much of my February. Of course, I still need to sign a contract form with one of the publishers. Technical stuff mostly. One more paper is still under the reviewing process and depending on what happens in the next week or so when they reply, I can have my March eaten away too!
But in the spare time, I can now get a few updates in. Hopefully we'll finish this chapter on the Roman-Persian Wars before I get swamped with end of semester work too.
Abbas is the al-Mahdi! Of course he is no pushover!
Two weak shells of ancient empires, once again shelling one another. Clash of ancients?
Cyclical history perhaps?
Not cycles, just forgetting past mistakes.
Clash of east versus west, once again in Middle East, episode something in the 9000's.
Somehow AI Persia rarely becomes important, in any Pdox game.
Clash of east versus west, once again in Middle East, episode something in the 9000's.
Somehow AI Persia rarely becomes important, in any Pdox game.
- 1
Not cycles, just forgetting past mistakes.
Clash of east versus west, once again in Middle East, episode something in the 9000's.
Somehow AI Persia rarely becomes important, in any Pdox game.
Which is all the more surprising because I rarely notice Persia form in-game whenever I play from the 1444 start, but in this campaign, not only did they form--they were massive!
Chapter XXIII: Dreaming of Alexander
A thunderous charge, their sacrifice was paid.
The sun above, bore down on all.
On that field of death, many were called.
~ Evagrius, Life of Emperor John, Book XI
The Battle of Trebizond was a monumental struggle that returned to the fierce clashes that these two rivals had come to know in the final centuries before the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West. Trebizond, despite Rome’s new acquisitions in the east over the decades, was still the crown jewel of the empire in Asia Minor. Frankly, no other city held as much importance to the emperors in Constantinople. If the city was lost, the whole of the east would be lost.
The clustering of nearly 40,000 soldiers outside the city, glistening in armor and banners, would have been a magnificent splendor. John, never the traditionalist and a man with a mind for experimentation, had brought with him the finest artillerymen south of the Danube. 33 cannons were deployed prior to the battle, which would play a pivotal in the forthcoming battle. By contrast, although filled with energy and undefeated in battle, Shah Abbas suffered from the reality of the cult that had grown around him. For many, he was the incarnation and return of the al-Mahdi, his presence literally signaled the final hours of the earth and that the apocalypse would come at any moment. The recent history of Islam seemed to play in favor of this millenarian fever sweeping the Near East in the early sixteenth century.
The great Islamic powers had turned on one another. The brutal Syrian Wars had dried the coffers and slew hundreds of thousands of believers under the banners of the Ottoman Sultanate and Mamluke Sultanate. The wars in Persia, by which the Timurids were overthrown by the Shi’a Persians, were but another fateful and tragic turn of events among the community of believers. This infighting foretold, it was from among the Shi’a that the al-Mahdi was to return to lead victorious in battle, the forces of the true believers against apostates and infidels alike. With divine providence guaranteed, Abbas neglected to bring any modernized weaponry with him for his invasion of the Roman East. As such, the Persians, despite defeating an inferior Roman army up to this point, now found themselves—man-to-man, the equal of the Romans but outgunned and out-equipped.
Both men knew of the importance of the upcoming battle. As I had prefaced earlier, Trebizond was the only major center of importance in the Roman East. To lose Trebizond was to lose the entire east. Abbas knew this well, while smaller towns and provinces stretched along the Black Sea Coast, and Roman militias would no doubt harass any further advancement, to secure victory against the Imperial Army outside of Trebizond would guarantee his peripheral hegemony in the Caucasus and Mesopotamian regions of the Near East. The stakes, for these old players in the region, had never been higher. The Ottomans had grown weak in their backsliding against the Romans and bloody stalemate with the Mamlukes. The Mamlukes were equally unfit, for at least a generation, for full-scale war after repeated bloodied struggles to retain control of Syria from the Turks. It was in this vacuum that both Rome and Persia made their move, but in this vacuum space seemed only to exist for one or the other—not both.
The battle commenced with an opening salvo from the Roman Imperial artillery battery, and, as typical in eastern warfare, the cavalry and light infantries were quick to move out to gain a tactical advantage on the main bodies that slowly paced towards each other. Shah Abbas personally led the Persian rightwing and threw himself into battle against the smaller, much beleaguered, Roman cavalry. Creating a crack in the Roman lines, Emperor John was forced to divert attention to his fledgling leftwing with his guards and reserves. Despite this, the Roman artillery was accurate and deadly. A hole was opened in the center of the Persian line which was quickly exploited by the crack veterans of the Roman infantry. The Persian soldiers tumbled, and were thrown back by the weight of the Roman advance coupled with constant shelling by the Roman cannons. Although Abbas had gained a tactical advantage on the Roman flank, his assault was blunted by the influx of reserves and his flailing lines. He retired in haste, embarrassed by the conduct of his army and thus ended his aura of invincibility.
A depiction of the Battle of Trebizond, at the height of the battle.
The aftermath of the battle had important outcomes for the future directions of both nations, and societies. First, ended the belief that Abbas was the al-Mahdi after he had personally suffered defeat. His apologists defended him not as the al-Mahdi, but as the precursor to—and that the defeat marked the end of the occultation and the beginning of his return to lead the forces of the righteous against the apostates and infidels. A new cult emerged that tried to overcome the damage of the defeat, but to little avail. The millenarian fever that had swept through the Shi’a lands reduced itself to cynicism and despair.[1] For the Romans, and for Emperor John, the victory preserved the Roman East from a troubling invasion that nearly spelled its doom in the region. However, immediate negativity followed the victory as John had immersed himself with his own cult of divinity and invincibility.
This overconfidence of the Roman army and emperor was met with disastrous defeats in the succeeding campaign. Oblivious and unaware of the close proximity of the Persian Army marching through Northern Mesopotamia, in the Kurdish mountains as John pursued his fleeing enemy he was caught in the barren lands near Aqrah. The resulting battle was nearly a disaster as the Persians descended upon the advancing Roman column in a brutal ambush. Emperor John himself, had to flee in distress as he was nearly captured. His Imperial Guard fell, to the man, in his defense to allow his escape. Twenty Roman cannons were captured, and some 6,000 men were killed, wounded, and captured to less than 2,000 Persian casualties. In the retreat, the historian Evagrius recounts the sadness and change of personality of the emperor who had previously felt himself as the heir of Alexander.
As the Romans retreated to re-gain their composure and organization, the emperor faced a Mohammedan uprising at Sulaymaniyah. The Mohammedan forces, likely funded and supplied by the Persians, arose in arms—some 10,000 strong, to wreak havoc in the countryside and Roman logistics. John’s fury was unleashed. In putting down the rebellion, all 10,000 men were either killed, or executed after their capture to send a message to the neighboring population and the Persian forces that had consolidated for a renewed offensive. The Revolt of Sulaymaniyah became a sullied moment in Roman history, and upon the emperor himself which would bear itself out in embarrassment for the emperor during his return from the Eastern campaigns at Constantinople when Bishop Michael denied the emperor communion without a personal and public confession for his brutality.
Woe unto you, O Emperor, for not having restrained yourself in matters of life. Have you not read Thou shall not kill? Have you not read that Thou shall turn the other cheek?
Your sins are grave, grievous, and they offend the Lord our God. Christ has surely wept at your actions – and in your actions, you did not even bat an eye! If you are repentant, leave this holy temple of God in peace, and wash the sins from the stained temple of God that is your body! Depart from us you doer in iniquity, we do not know you!
Emperor John is denied communion in Constantinople, a painting of the Greek Renaissance.[2]
As for the new lines that had been drawn, the secondary campaign, which would decide the war, would be fought in Northern Mesopotamia—long the grave of empires and armies that had sought glory and prestige in the Near East. The winter months saw both sides consolidate their position, roughly at the pre-invasion borders, and to regain their strength from the initial invasion (Persia) and counter offensive which ended in defeat (the Romans).
[1] This reflection deliberately mirrors the aftermath of the Battle of Chaldiran (1514) between the Ottomans and Safavids where historical Shah Ismail I, whom has influenced my crafting of his in-game counterpart, Abbas, was defeated and the cult that had been created him as the returned al-Mahdi was damaged forever despite attempts to rationalize the defeat.
[2] The real painting, which already appeared in this AAR, is a depiction of Bishop Ambrose of Milan denying communion to then-Roman emperor Theodosius. There are more famous depictions of this event by Peter Paul Reubens and Anthony van Dyck.
The Battle of Trebizond
On the fields of Trebizond, the wreath was laid.A thunderous charge, their sacrifice was paid.
The sun above, bore down on all.
On that field of death, many were called.
~ Evagrius, Life of Emperor John, Book XI
The Battle of Trebizond was a monumental struggle that returned to the fierce clashes that these two rivals had come to know in the final centuries before the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West. Trebizond, despite Rome’s new acquisitions in the east over the decades, was still the crown jewel of the empire in Asia Minor. Frankly, no other city held as much importance to the emperors in Constantinople. If the city was lost, the whole of the east would be lost.
The clustering of nearly 40,000 soldiers outside the city, glistening in armor and banners, would have been a magnificent splendor. John, never the traditionalist and a man with a mind for experimentation, had brought with him the finest artillerymen south of the Danube. 33 cannons were deployed prior to the battle, which would play a pivotal in the forthcoming battle. By contrast, although filled with energy and undefeated in battle, Shah Abbas suffered from the reality of the cult that had grown around him. For many, he was the incarnation and return of the al-Mahdi, his presence literally signaled the final hours of the earth and that the apocalypse would come at any moment. The recent history of Islam seemed to play in favor of this millenarian fever sweeping the Near East in the early sixteenth century.
The great Islamic powers had turned on one another. The brutal Syrian Wars had dried the coffers and slew hundreds of thousands of believers under the banners of the Ottoman Sultanate and Mamluke Sultanate. The wars in Persia, by which the Timurids were overthrown by the Shi’a Persians, were but another fateful and tragic turn of events among the community of believers. This infighting foretold, it was from among the Shi’a that the al-Mahdi was to return to lead victorious in battle, the forces of the true believers against apostates and infidels alike. With divine providence guaranteed, Abbas neglected to bring any modernized weaponry with him for his invasion of the Roman East. As such, the Persians, despite defeating an inferior Roman army up to this point, now found themselves—man-to-man, the equal of the Romans but outgunned and out-equipped.
Both men knew of the importance of the upcoming battle. As I had prefaced earlier, Trebizond was the only major center of importance in the Roman East. To lose Trebizond was to lose the entire east. Abbas knew this well, while smaller towns and provinces stretched along the Black Sea Coast, and Roman militias would no doubt harass any further advancement, to secure victory against the Imperial Army outside of Trebizond would guarantee his peripheral hegemony in the Caucasus and Mesopotamian regions of the Near East. The stakes, for these old players in the region, had never been higher. The Ottomans had grown weak in their backsliding against the Romans and bloody stalemate with the Mamlukes. The Mamlukes were equally unfit, for at least a generation, for full-scale war after repeated bloodied struggles to retain control of Syria from the Turks. It was in this vacuum that both Rome and Persia made their move, but in this vacuum space seemed only to exist for one or the other—not both.
The battle commenced with an opening salvo from the Roman Imperial artillery battery, and, as typical in eastern warfare, the cavalry and light infantries were quick to move out to gain a tactical advantage on the main bodies that slowly paced towards each other. Shah Abbas personally led the Persian rightwing and threw himself into battle against the smaller, much beleaguered, Roman cavalry. Creating a crack in the Roman lines, Emperor John was forced to divert attention to his fledgling leftwing with his guards and reserves. Despite this, the Roman artillery was accurate and deadly. A hole was opened in the center of the Persian line which was quickly exploited by the crack veterans of the Roman infantry. The Persian soldiers tumbled, and were thrown back by the weight of the Roman advance coupled with constant shelling by the Roman cannons. Although Abbas had gained a tactical advantage on the Roman flank, his assault was blunted by the influx of reserves and his flailing lines. He retired in haste, embarrassed by the conduct of his army and thus ended his aura of invincibility.
A depiction of the Battle of Trebizond, at the height of the battle.
The aftermath of the battle had important outcomes for the future directions of both nations, and societies. First, ended the belief that Abbas was the al-Mahdi after he had personally suffered defeat. His apologists defended him not as the al-Mahdi, but as the precursor to—and that the defeat marked the end of the occultation and the beginning of his return to lead the forces of the righteous against the apostates and infidels. A new cult emerged that tried to overcome the damage of the defeat, but to little avail. The millenarian fever that had swept through the Shi’a lands reduced itself to cynicism and despair.[1] For the Romans, and for Emperor John, the victory preserved the Roman East from a troubling invasion that nearly spelled its doom in the region. However, immediate negativity followed the victory as John had immersed himself with his own cult of divinity and invincibility.
The Sulaymaniyah Uprsing
This overconfidence of the Roman army and emperor was met with disastrous defeats in the succeeding campaign. Oblivious and unaware of the close proximity of the Persian Army marching through Northern Mesopotamia, in the Kurdish mountains as John pursued his fleeing enemy he was caught in the barren lands near Aqrah. The resulting battle was nearly a disaster as the Persians descended upon the advancing Roman column in a brutal ambush. Emperor John himself, had to flee in distress as he was nearly captured. His Imperial Guard fell, to the man, in his defense to allow his escape. Twenty Roman cannons were captured, and some 6,000 men were killed, wounded, and captured to less than 2,000 Persian casualties. In the retreat, the historian Evagrius recounts the sadness and change of personality of the emperor who had previously felt himself as the heir of Alexander.
As the Romans retreated to re-gain their composure and organization, the emperor faced a Mohammedan uprising at Sulaymaniyah. The Mohammedan forces, likely funded and supplied by the Persians, arose in arms—some 10,000 strong, to wreak havoc in the countryside and Roman logistics. John’s fury was unleashed. In putting down the rebellion, all 10,000 men were either killed, or executed after their capture to send a message to the neighboring population and the Persian forces that had consolidated for a renewed offensive. The Revolt of Sulaymaniyah became a sullied moment in Roman history, and upon the emperor himself which would bear itself out in embarrassment for the emperor during his return from the Eastern campaigns at Constantinople when Bishop Michael denied the emperor communion without a personal and public confession for his brutality.
Woe unto you, O Emperor, for not having restrained yourself in matters of life. Have you not read Thou shall not kill? Have you not read that Thou shall turn the other cheek?
Your sins are grave, grievous, and they offend the Lord our God. Christ has surely wept at your actions – and in your actions, you did not even bat an eye! If you are repentant, leave this holy temple of God in peace, and wash the sins from the stained temple of God that is your body! Depart from us you doer in iniquity, we do not know you!
Emperor John is denied communion in Constantinople, a painting of the Greek Renaissance.[2]
As for the new lines that had been drawn, the secondary campaign, which would decide the war, would be fought in Northern Mesopotamia—long the grave of empires and armies that had sought glory and prestige in the Near East. The winter months saw both sides consolidate their position, roughly at the pre-invasion borders, and to regain their strength from the initial invasion (Persia) and counter offensive which ended in defeat (the Romans).
[1] This reflection deliberately mirrors the aftermath of the Battle of Chaldiran (1514) between the Ottomans and Safavids where historical Shah Ismail I, whom has influenced my crafting of his in-game counterpart, Abbas, was defeated and the cult that had been created him as the returned al-Mahdi was damaged forever despite attempts to rationalize the defeat.
[2] The real painting, which already appeared in this AAR, is a depiction of Bishop Ambrose of Milan denying communion to then-Roman emperor Theodosius. There are more famous depictions of this event by Peter Paul Reubens and Anthony van Dyck.
Last edited:
Sounds like this is going to be a brutal war, leaving both sides exhausted no matter who wins.
Will there be yet another new power in the region taking advantage of that state of affairs?
Will there be yet another new power in the region taking advantage of that state of affairs?
It is insane to wage war deep into Iran when you don't even control Anatolia...
THIS IS MADNESS
THIS IS MADNESS
- 1