-
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.
Soon we will finally begin the third, and last, and hopefully most grandiose volume of this AAR!
>>> Read the last update, previous page (Chapter XXV) <<<
Dated can sometimes be alright, depending on what you're looking for. Like christ I'd rather read a slightly off [fact wise] account of the Gracchi than read some awful Schama-esque reading of them wherein the Gracchi (because they're revolutionaries, right?) are somehow responsible for every bad thing that's ever happened because obviously Roman society should have been reformed.
(The question is: does this post come out of bitterness at reading a contemporary french revolution text, or refreshedness after reading an older one?)
I recently started listening to 'The History of Rome' podcast and got past the relevant few episodes, so I actually know who the Gracchi brothers are now. I'm quite curious to hear more (including being told to reread sections of this AAR now that I'd catch the reference), because it really sounds like they were central players in a transitional period. Amy suggestions for a time-starved historically-interested layman?
Oh dear. Why do the best always die so young? A shame,but I guess this is what you get for having revolutionary ideas in a strictly conservative environment.
In gameplay terms, I hope that his brother didn't live too long. Those stats are awful. Really, really awful.
Once your story ends, will you give us a map (in-game or otherwise) of the borders of the empire between the centuries that your AAR covers? Showing us the changes over the years in a more condensed form would be a good recap of what transpired in Rome since 1444.
In gameplay terms, I hope that his brother didn't live too long. Those stats are awful. Really, really awful.
Once your story ends, will you give us a map (in-game or otherwise) of the borders of the empire between the centuries that your AAR covers? Showing us the changes over the years in a more condensed form would be a good recap of what transpired in Rome since 1444.
I prefer 'dated' works simply because they are more academic (although that's my bias as someone trying to make a career in the Academy). Plus, many of the older writers (I'm thinking Braudel) have such and ebb and flow in their writing that makes reading them so much more pleasant than contemporary popular historians.
Stockton's book is still the best biography (also because I happen to be much more well read in Late Antiquity) I don't necessarily venture out into contemporary scholarship in Antiquity unless it revolves around the Greek Philosophers from Thales to Aristotle since they're important to my intellectual/social thought aspect and my philosophy background. I wouldn't be sure if there's a good/well-received more contemporary biography--but he's definitely worth the read imo. Plus, Stockton treats both Gracchi brothers very good (almost too good!)
I hope this AAR inspired you to that podcast
As mentioned, Stockton's The Gracchi is very good. Plus its under 300 pages so it's a weekend read if you want it to be! I'm not happy with John assasination
I was not happy that he died at 43, could have lived and reigned so much longer in game!
I of course took his 'premature' death to use artistic license for assassination. Plus, with what transpires next, I thought it played a good segway into the next 15 years I will cover with the final chapters here in Volume II and the first half of Volume III.I didn't really take many screenshots. I'll have to check. I still have the old save, but it is an early version of EUIV so is "broken" now with all the new updates and added provinces. You'll see a lot of "incognita" territories where my pretty Purple used to cover up!
I'll figure out something since you all have been so faithful to a text-laden AAR with a few historical pictures/paintings every now and again just for aesthetic purposes.
Just do what I do in situations like this, use paintings while creating a new save in save editor that matches with your save.
In steam, if you go to the game properties, and then to the 'betas' tab, you can downgrade EU4 to whichever version the save was. Though for once I'm not as eager for a map as I tend to be. I think you've managed to make me that much interested in the characters instead of the land.
It just so happens that I had a pre-saved screenshot (that would have otherwise likely have been used) that can hopefully suffice.
This was the border of the empire prior to the Persian Wars as you can note the Qoyunlu still hold the swaths of Iraq that were the contested battlefields. But as we remember from the chapter on John's War with Persia, we gained nothing so the screenshot still holds to what the borders were like. We own Cyprus and Rhodes too (Rhodes might be a little less noticeable unless pointed out). [And yes, that is Bosnia where Romania should be] The Mamluks are doing very well due to a weakened Ottoman Empire (as pointed out in the Chapter on the Syrian War).
At 46 ships, I remember, The Roman Navy was 4th or 5th largest in the world.
This was the border of the empire prior to the Persian Wars as you can note the Qoyunlu still hold the swaths of Iraq that were the contested battlefields. But as we remember from the chapter on John's War with Persia, we gained nothing so the screenshot still holds to what the borders were like. We own Cyprus and Rhodes too (Rhodes might be a little less noticeable unless pointed out). [And yes, that is Bosnia where Romania should be] The Mamluks are doing very well due to a weakened Ottoman Empire (as pointed out in the Chapter on the Syrian War).
At 46 ships, I remember, The Roman Navy was 4th or 5th largest in the world.
- 1
I hope this AAR inspired you to that podcast
It's certainly one of the inspirations! I've got Stockton's book on my wishlists now, but I think a better notion is digging out my alumni association card and hitting up my old college library.
Reading this makes me wonder: how did news travel during this era? Was news written down and spread that way? Or is it all word-of-mouth?
Alumni association discount is useful, if you're actually nearby your old institution!
The Byzantines were very good record keepers, this kind of news would have been well-documented by scribes and court historians. A lot of news, of course, traveled by word of mouth, although the Byzantines were ingenious in their means of communication. We are all familiar with the "Beacons of Gondor" in LoTR. The Byzantines used a beacon system during the Middle Ages in case of political emergency--Tolkien just copied and pasted from the Byzantines to his novel.
-----
Of possible interests to anyone following this:
~ One of my primary work projects since I started it last July, a paper on the Mesopotamian influences on Byzantine symbolism and Christian iconographic practices has finally been published. That opens up some spare time now for the summer! And if any reader is curious enough to venture wonder into the cut-throat world of trying to publish papers, maybe you'll find inspiration (or at least gain some new insights and appreciation of the obscure topic the paper is on)
"The Mesopotamian Origins of Byzantine Symbolism and Early Christian Iconography" Valley Humanities Review, Vol. 6, 2015.
- 1
- 1
Alumni association discount is useful, if you're actually nearby your old institution!
Fortunately, I am! There's just the matter of finding the card, getting a new library card and finding time when both the library is open and I'm not at work (or off on honeymoon).
That was fascinating. You had previously mentioned a bit about the crescent and star before (which I even subtly worked into my AAR at one point), but I hadn't caught that it became a popular christian symbol. And I hadn't known at all where they got the double-headed eagle as a symbol!
Interesting work for sure. I never would have associated moon with Christianity since it has been heavily used by the Islamic World. You said its use in the Islamic World only dates from the Conquest of Constantinople, isn't it earlier (I reckon having seen early Islamic document with a crescent moon but well I'm not that sure) ? With a lunar-based calendar I would think the moon a pretty logic symbol for the Muslims. (I guess clichés are pretty hard to destroy
)
Well, if the "off on honeymoon" means you were recently married, congratulations!
As for odd symbolism--what is, perhaps, stranger; is the people who tend to know these awkward and obscure histories (outside of scholars) are some of the very strange religious sects within Christianity--the anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox types. They like to make the argument that since the Catholic and Orthodox Churches used these icons and images of suns, moons, and stars, etc., that all have these ancient Mesopotamian/Babylonian/Sumerian overtures (and of course, since many of the 'demons' of the Old Testament have Mesopotamian origins) that these churches are really Pagan and what not.
Well, I'm happy to know that someone happened to read it, and seemingly enjoyed it since my document file lists 797 minutes of editing time for that article--and that doesn't count the weeks/months of collecting literature and reading them (and discounting those not deemed important) to contribute. After all, the four citations for the Didron books are ancient, I had to dust out nineteenth century copies of his work and delicately flip the pages so not to ruin the 150+ year old books!
Interesting work for sure. I never would have associated moon with Christianity since it has been heavily used by the Islamic World. You said its use in the Islamic World only dates from the Conquest of Constantinople, isn't it earlier (I reckon having seen early Islamic document with a crescent moon but well I'm not that sure) ? With a lunar-based calendar I would think the moon a pretty logic symbol for the Muslims. (I guess clichés are pretty hard to destroy
I don't blame most people for never associating the moon (or star) with Christianity since those icons that have survived are relatively scarce now, and no one is interested in iconography except for students and professionals. I mean, even if you were to talk with a pretty devout Christian, I'm sure they'd just naturally assume the cross has always been the main symbol of the religion.
Well, I merely cited others in stating that the crescent moon and star enter the Islamic world. (I'm sure Edward Said and so many other postmodernist theorists would claim that I'm an "Orientalist" and other hogwash).
If there are sources, that means I'm not familiar with them, and neither are the scholars I've read and cited. {if you happen to ever come across one, you should let me know about it, since all I do nowadays is read without end} That may very well be true; and that's what the academy exists for. Someone writes a reply, etc. It's definitely true of the Ottomans pre-1453, their flag was just a red banner. The Abbasids used a pure black banner, which is why ISIS has the famous black flag with script; trying to play up a lineage of restoring the caliphate and all. But yeah, cliches have some truth to them for obvious reasons)
Last edited:
- 1
Chapter XXV
The 27 year reign of John X was marked by reform, war, controversy, and plotting. Altogether, his reign marks the end of the reforming of the empire and the downward spiral towards the Long Regency. His reign is, when taken into consideration, all the more remarkable that he reigned as long as he did. Before the fall of the Western Empire, the senior to junior line of emperors in Rome rarely managed more than a decade. Augustus was the longest at 42 years. Antonius Pius second, at just over 22! While the eastern emperors experienced longer reigns, at least some—with 9 holding the throne for over 30 years, John’s longevity in spite of strong opposition seems all the more remarkable.
His death, therefore, is all the more tragic given the half-completed centralizing reforms he had inaugurated—now for not since the enthronement of his feeble younger brother, Manual III, was under the thumb of the aristocrats and the disloyal members of the Court. This too, brought forth a rupture between those advisors loyal to John and those who had plotted against him. With the ascension of Manuel, those advisors who were the leading architects in the centralization reforms were immediately placed under arrest. Some executed in the most devious of manners. Others, expelled into the countryside—at least those with lesser influence and clout. The cleansing of John’s Court all but ensured that Manuel was under the thumb of the ignorant and backward aristocrats who had weakened the empire beyond belief through their plotting against John—culminating in his assassination by military men sympathetic to aristocratic concerns.
Manuel III was the next continuation of the great Palaiologoi Dynasty, he, however, was far from the lot that had produced Michael VIII, John VIII, or John X. The new emperor, for all his faults, none of which seem to be his own for he suffered from mental illness likely the result of familial inbreeding—seemed to be a genuinely benign individual. At least the royal historians have portrayed his short reign as such. Of course, one might expect that to be the case—as was the fact that several histories of the period, less reputable in the light of new discoveries following the Greek War for Independence, described Manuel as a sturdy ruler without the overbearing influence of the aristocracy. George Finlay’s* history of the Greeks indicates otherwise.
Thus, Manuel was the least capable ruler in this time of crisis. Empress Sophia, the deceased widow of John, was far stronger—as seen during her stewardship during the Long Regency. The military commanders, despite their faults, were also in a more suitable situation to lead the Roman state. Nikolaus Melissinos and Ambrosios Gabras were all fine generals—even if their egos were overinflated and their petty rivalry of each other led to internal instability during the Long Regency. Nevertheless, there were a superior crop of candidates that could have, if they wanted to, seized power from Manuel and his puppeteering aristocrats to preserve the Roman state and John’s reforms in this time of crisis and confusion.
In terms of Manuel’s reign, it was as unnoticeable as Alexios V, who reigned for all but two months. While Manuel’s reign was longer, sitting at a healthy three years, he achieved nothing of note, and nothing of interest occurred during his reign. Naturally, this era was the climax of the reign of the despotates that had garnered so much strength in the last few decades—if not centuries, particularly after the Palaiologoi restoration.**
The only surviving image of Manuel III, a rusted old coin relief of the emperor.
He was not a skilled diplomat, politician, ruler, or fighter. Some colleagues of mine have written of him that he suffered from a mental illness—one of the primary reasons the aristocrats backed his ascension, knowing well they would be able to manipulate him. I am otherwise not sure if I agree, but one thing is certain; Manuel’s reign is not worth the time to cover in the pages of this work; for it would be an endless saga of blank pages. Instead, I will endeavor to highlight the growing strength, tension, and rivalries between the aristocrats that inevitably boiled over into civil war and murder upon Manuel’s death. For Constantine XIII, Manuel’s son, was but three years old upon his father’s death. Empress Sophia, the widow of Emperor John X, would return to the fore during the “Long Regency.” The military generals split their loyalties, some favoring the new, prospective emperor—while others sought to carve out their own personal domains against the weakened neighbors of the empire (even if the empire itself, was incredibly weak with the recent passing of events; from economic and manpower draining wars, to the assassination of John X, to the manipulated reign of Manuel III.
Nevertheless, the story of the Long Regency shall capture the bulk of my attention in the third volume. It is ever fitting that, in the long saga that is the history of the Roman Empire, that its most memorable series of civil wars, murders, and pretending claimants would occur right at the most inopportune of times. With the last of the Romans dead (John X), and his reforms destroyed, the next chapter of Roman civilization begins.
A painting of the Empress Sophia, she would become a major player during the Long Regency after the assassination of her husband and death of Manuel III.
*George Finlay was a Victorian Era Anglo-Scottish historian of Greece, whose larger history of Greece (164BC-1864) was broken down into two volumes on the Byzantines: A History of the Byzantine Empire from 717-1057 and 1057-1453. Finlay was the subject of a historiography paper I have written on the evolution and representation of Byzantine historiography, and is largely credited with having begun the alteration of the wholly negative view of the Byzantines (i.e., Edward Gibbon and William Lecky) to a more benign and positive representation that later Byzantinists like Charles Oman and JB Bury continued. However, Finlay (and Oman and Bury) should not be confused with the otherwise overwhelmingly positive portrayals of the Byzantines by contemporary popular historians. Due to my debt to Finlay, I wanted to include him in the AAR.
**This reflects the in-game notes for rulers, in which there were no listed important events during Manuel’s otherwise short reign.
Last edited:
- 1
Thanks for the congratulations! The wedding is actually on the 13th, but the last week beforehand doesn't leave me any time for library runs.
And yes, those anti-orthdox and anti-catholic types are quite annoying. Being protestant, I hear far too much of that sort of nonsense. It's not often, but any is too much.
As for your update, I see some ominous foreshadowing. A Greek war for independence? A long regency? Things are about to get crazy again!
And yes, those anti-orthdox and anti-catholic types are quite annoying. Being protestant, I hear far too much of that sort of nonsense. It's not often, but any is too much.
As for your update, I see some ominous foreshadowing. A Greek war for independence? A long regency? Things are about to get crazy again!
It feels like the days of Rome are counted. An Empire, once eternal, now on its way to destruction. Looking at the political situation inside Empire and at the relative strength of its surrounding enemies one might think that this internal plot against the Emperor was one too many.
But no Empire is to stand eternal, thus history merely repeats itself.
But no Empire is to stand eternal, thus history merely repeats itself.