JGBeagle posted:Next you'll be telling us that the conquest will end once the "Holy Roman Empire" is no more. When will it be enough "senator"?  Well, we've got Gaul, Iberia, Britannia, Germania (since the Romans aimed to take it, we as "the successor" should take it in its entirety), Aegyptus, Tripolitania, Africa, Numidia, Mauretania, Babylonia, Mesopotamia... I guess once we've got all that, the Old Romans might be content. God forbid somebody discover an entirely new, somewhat unclaimed landmass, we'd never hear the end of how large "Nova Roma" must grow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
TheMcD posted:
I don't know how big it would get, but I know it would split off into a lot of "Romes".
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:
 Honestly for now should probably just focus on Greece, Anatolia, Italia, the Levant, Aegyptus and the North African coast. The most ancient and established parts of the Roman Empire. Once we have those under our control, then we can consider expanding into the areas when the Empire was at its apex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:
 I concur with the senator of the Komemnians. Consolidate our core, re-establish the Pentarchy, work from there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
 The New Byzantines Steppes and Republics Greetings fellow senators what is the agenda for..... oh.... well what is the debate on today."reads senate meeting minutes" conquering Rome, restore pentarchy, hate for douxes. "puts down paper" Well I have no input that hasn't already been said, keep up the good work fellow senators and wacth out for Croatian-Serbian-Bulgarian-Seljuk assassins. Oh and we have the Azov estuary now, that should increase our trade in the Black Sea by a moderate amount, so that's good news. "sits down and reads trade reports"
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I don't particularly see why we have to stop at all, really. Why not beat the Old Romans at their game, hey? I'm sure there's now parts of the world that are worth grabbing that were mostly rubbish back when we still had most of Italia as well. And then, well. There's more to this world than the Mediterranian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
 I now see that the Old Romans are the superior party here. And now we stand upon the precipice of becoming Rome once again. I suppose the question is if we will move our capital to Rome, or remain here in Constantinople. I mean, we've put so much work into defending and improving Constantinople, and I'm not quite sure if Rome's defenses will hold up to snuff in comparison. I for one, invite the return of the Roman Empire, and know that soon we will conquer all of our former lands and bring this world back into the greatness it once was. For Rome!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
 @the Pentarchy: While it is true that restoring the Pentarchy could benefit the Empire, if it would allow us to end the schism in our favor, I am not convinced that it should be our most immediate goal. The Fatimids have a strong and stable state, unlike the Turks. To conquer Alexandria and retain it would be expensive and time consuming at this point. If our agents can destabilize them as they have the Turks and we can strike as they have a moment of weakness, then certainly. But if not I would suggest that we focus on overcoming our more vulnerable enemies first. @TheMcD: Out of respect for my fellow senator, I'll go through his list of tenets one by one and provide my own commentary. TheMcD posted:1) Diametrically opposed to the Old Romans. They want the reconquest and redeclaration of the Roman Empire, we're directly against that. I'm pretty sure this was directly stated when the party was founded. TheMcD posted:2) Focused on inner-imperial development. Full reinstatement of the theme system (I think it's not fully restored just yet) and improvement of the imperial provinces are the center points of that - if there's a choice between spending money to gain land or spending money to develop already held land, I would go with the latter. The Old Romans are the party that wants to conquer like their forefathers did. TheMcD posted:3) Theologically, there should be no active push to convert anybody unless there is a big reason to do so. Loyal subjects should be free to pursue their own belief as long as they answer to the Emperor when it comes to worldly things. If you want religious unity, there's the Milvians. I generally agree. Subjects who do not cause trouble on account of their religious beliefs should be left to worship as they will. That said, the doctrine of the papists deny oru Empress authority as God's steward on Earth. In so far as a papist attempts to act on that doctrine to undermine the empress, they should be opposed. If they do not, I cannot say I care overmuch about them. TheMcD posted:4) If we are to expand, we are to do so based on strategic value of the area, not out of longing for the past or just because "it's easily takeable land". The recently conquered Italian lands, to me, are nothing but a hotbed of future rebellions and are a nightmare to work with logistically. I can drat near guarantee that every single rebellion will involve the Sicillian crown. While I agree with the sentiment that we should expand based on an areas value, in this specific instance I disagree with your analysis. Italy is not all that far from the core areas of the empire. To date our armies have had no trouble going where they are needed. To put down rebels is business as usual. It does not matter to me whether the traitorous Doux rules in Italy or in Anatolia. TheMcD posted:5) On the cultural front, the image of a perfect New Byzantine realm is a concordat of Greek, Slavic, Turkish and more peoples loyal to the Empire, as opposed to, say, the Unitas' platform. Agreed. Insofar as Crimeans, Italieans etc. become loyal to the empire, they should be accepted as well. TheMcD posted:6) The power of douxes is to be limited at every opportunity to increase the power of the Senate. I agree, but I do not believe that this sentiment needs to be part of the New Byzantine tenets. As far as I can tell, a desire to reduce the power of the douxes is the one thing that all senators can agree on. I suppose we could quibble over whether the douxes should be curtailed in favor of the Empress, the Senate, the merchantry or the Church. But in any case their ability to threaten the stability of the Empire should be limited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
In honesty, I'm in favour of reclaiming Rome but leaving Constantinople as our capital for now. We are in one of the largest and wealthiest cities in the known world, why move everything to do with the Empire's seat of power back to where we'd have to start all over? Perhaps when we've built the city of seven hills back up to its old glory we can change the capital.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
I see no need to move the capital away from the city of Justinian and Constantine. It is the reuniting of West and East that is more important, Rome is too poor and remote from the heartlands of the empire to serve as the Imperial Capital.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Pyroi posted:
If Constantinople is the new Rome, then let Rome become a New Byzantium, the settlement on which a far greater and grander city may be built, as with the ancient city superseded by Constantinople. Perhaps we shall move when and if it is once again worthy to be the capital. I do not consider this a priority given the advantageous position of Constantinople.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Capture Rome. Rename Rome to Old Byzantine. Suck it Rome-lovers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
The Empress is truly inspired by God. I am humbled to share a lifetime with such an incredible figure.Sinner Sandwich posted:You are Greeks, not Romans. Senator Sandwich, I feel your deliciously moist yet crunchy filling has blinded you to the obvious truth. Yes, we are Greeks -- and before the empire of Rome held sway, we led the Mediterranean basin in an age of science, rationality, and wonder. The Caesars of Rome feasted on our corpse, and their glories were our glories. Straight roads and good drains are nice, but philosophy, science, mathematics, astronomy, literature, medicine: culture itself is our gift to the world. When we sweep through Rome like a wind, blowing the Catholic disease before us, we are not hearkening back to such recent pups as Justinian. We are reclaiming what had been ours by right for the last eighteen centuries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Personally, I'm of the mind that eventually a move to Rome will be called for. Rome was a great capitol for the old empire in-so-far as it was the very center of it, and had all roads leading to it. However, I agree with my prior two fellow Old Romans. That move cannot be immediately. We must take the time to make Rome as great as it once was, before the barbarian hordes and Catholics had their way with that Eternal City. To that end I'd propose that the Empress and her heir keep Rome within the Imperial Demesne, so that it can be assured that Rome will be restored to a glory worthy of being the capitol of our empire once more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Skyfinder posted:
You're going to lose your Theodosian Walls if you move to Rome. It isn't worth moving the entire legislative branch to another region without losing some kind of control of the Anatola.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Moving the capital from the City to Rome is exactly the sort of backwards-minded foolishness that I joined the New Byzantines to help avoid. The City is the center of civilization. Rome is a backwater. To spend resources attempting to swim against the current of history is a waste. Rome is no more important than any other city with comparable population, no matter how grand it may once have been. I commend those senators wise enough to see that Rome in its current state does not even begin to compare to the City. Especially those that do not wish to spend excessive resources on a city whose glory days are long behind it. edit: Considering that the City is easily defensible and far from the borders in addition to being the economic heart of the empire, it is especially foolish to suggest that the capital should be moved away from it. Caustic Soda fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Caustic Soda posted:
This senator speaks the truth. We are not the Roman Empire, we are the Byzantine Empire. Rome is the past, the City is the future. If we do capture Rome we should rename it as "Old Rome" or "Old Byzantium", to signify it's current status in relation to the City. Although Rome is a great conquest, it should not be the focus for a New Byzantine. We should be protecting our border interests to the North and East, while removing foreign merchant influence from our lands. To reiterate, we are Byzantines, not pagan Roman. We are better than that latrine you call Rome. If you are a New Byzantine that wants to restore Rome you should leave this party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
 How exciting! We live in such interesting times. I hope we don't hurt anyone though, let's just make sure that we do this in a way that makes sure everyone goes home safe and satisfied!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
It should go without saying that the capital must remain in Constantinople. The City is called Second Rome exactly because it's superior to the city with the same name in Italy. Listen! The Roman Empire is centred in Rome! The most Roman of Romes, the one straddling the Bosporus! Looking to give up Constantinople for Rome is not a testament to one's Romanness; it speaks only of an inferiority complex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
We are Greek peoples first, and Romans second. The capital should remain in Constantinople. Besides, if we relocate to Rome, eventually we'll probably lose access to these bitchin' cataphracts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
I agree. Although I would be pleased to see the eternal city restored to Roman rule, we must remember that it was abandoned as the capital long before it was lost to the empire, and for good reason. Really, retaking it is important symbolically, but in practical terms it is just another city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Besides, if we relocate to Rome, eventually we'll probably lose access to these bitchin' cataphracts. Nope - we only lose those if our ruler stops being of Greek culture, but that's easily managed by making sure our kids are tutored by Greeks. No big.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Look, if Constantinople was good enough for Constantinos, it's good enough for me. You gotta move with the times, you know. Besides, the poor old place wouldn't be able to take the influx of civilization brought on by our august body, rather less the whole of the civil service, army and whatnot. We can build a Spring Palace there though, or some such thing. I'm already looking into which families might see fit to sell their ancestral abodes in Roma, or where one might acquire such places on the cheap through a little use of, forceful subtlety.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Would you maniacs stop talking about moving the capital of the Empire to Rome and get back to the matter at hand-- the fact that you intend to invade and sack the city? What's happened to this senate in my absence? We used to discuss the intricacies of strengthening the Empire, of policy decisions regarding the rights and duties of citizens and its nobility, of defending Europe from the advances of scheming Turks and ruthless mongols, but now it seems we've become the invaders! I admit, when I had heard about the war in Sicily, I considered smashing a chair over the messenger's head, presuming he was a lying cur! But thank the Lord I didn't, as not only did he report the truth, but thousands were butchered to plant the Empress' flag on the Italian peninsula! Have you seen the carnage? Its right outside the city gates if you'd like to take a look! That's what you intend to unleash on the people of Rome! Don't tell me its what the Lord would've wanted, I see that look in your faces. Don't you dare tell me, again, that you are enlightening or ascending the peasants and merchants, as if they were secretly begging for Empress Valeria to come and liberate them from the Bishop of Rome's tyranny. I've seen the fear firsthand! And I know it to be justified. Even if our legions show superhuman restraint largely unknown to soldiers and don't sack the city when we breach its walls, we still plan to spend months starving them out! Do you think the Bishop of Rome will capitulate when we surround the seven hills? Do you think he'll be handing his food to the commoners when the merchants can't leave the gates or the ports? He'll be feasting while the people you claim to liberate starve. And when, inevitably, we win, what shall we tell the survivors, while flies and rats feast on their families and friends? "Congratulations, you are now part of the Roman Empire!" I am sure they will appreciate our heroic efforts. Senators, senators. You claim to serve the Lord, or perhaps to work for the good of the Roman people. I implore you, neither our father in Heaven nor I nor the people of Italia want a bloodbath! Do not mistake me, as I have repeated several times today alone, I love the Empire, and I would love to see the Empire, its prosperity, its tolerance, and the enlightened rule of our Empress spread-- truly, I would! But this is not the way to do it! This is the way of the Mongol hordes, of the vilest of the Mohammedans, of the pagans who once plundered the Baltic and killed at the Emperor's command! This is not the way of the followers of the Lord, whether you consider Christ his child or not. This is not the way of the civilized world! Let us expand, let us reclaim our borders, this I have no qualms with, but let us not torture the plebeians and butcher the shepherds for the sake of, of... of pretty borders!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Well, what else do you expect us to do? Just twiddle our thumbs as the world crumbles into rebellions and war? Just look at Kiev to our North--once more fractured! And don't even get started on whoever's to our east, they fracture weekly now! We are restoring the glory and stability of Rome! There will always have to be death and destruction before progress can be made for the righteous, and as the Roman Empire, we are the most righteous power in the world. If it means a brighter future for all peoples, who will all one day serve gladly under the rule of the Roman Emperor once more, we must use any means necessary to bring this future to light.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Sinner Sandwich posted:Desperate plea You are right: This is not a measure to be taken lightly, and certainly not for any flimsy reason. If it were simply a matter of mortal governance, I would be standing with you, pleading for the Peace of God and mercy for the good citizens. But this is not a matter of worldly concern. This is the rooting out of a heresy, one that has poisoned the hearts, minds and, most damnably of all, the very souls of those who have heard it. This is removing a corrupt lineage from a sacred office, restoring the proper orthodox and apostolic succession. Yes, people will suffer. People will experience agony, heartbreak, turmoil, the loss of loved ones, of homes, and indeed some will fall victim to the ravages of the besieging army. Great wrongs will be done to innocents, and it will be on our account. I know full well the cost, and only with the heaviest of hearts, fully aware every step of the way of what we are doing, both in deed, and in implication, and in consequence, do I ask that we proceed. Their lives will be fraught with suffering, for the months until this hard-hearted heretic is brought down. Their eternal lives are what is at stake. I pray that the Almighty is merciful - even unto these Papist heretics themselves! - for their heresy was learned from birth, agonisingly close to the truth, yet as with Arianism and Iconoclasm, something which must be rooted out completely. Those that die before conversion, I grieve the most for. But those who will be born afterwards? Raised in the true Orthodoxy, untainted by heresy, led by a true and pious Patriarch? It is for them, for their children and their children's children, onwards until the second coming of the Lord, for them, we do this. For them we must do this, even with full knowledge of the cost, and the burden upon our own souls. Your reticence does you and this Senate credit, but this is a mission of divine importance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
theblastizard posted:How dare you slander noble senator Scruffles? He has contributed more to this great Empire than any other member of this Senate! It is, in fact, illegal to slander the name of Consul Senator Scruffles XVII, Doux of Canis, et cetera, et cetera. Please note that this is a privledge not extended to even the Basilissa herself. I'm not making this up. It was written sometime last century. The fine is two pickled sardines, delivered to the personage of Senator Scruffles himself. I'm not suggesting we enforce this law, just noting it's existence. TheMcD posted:
It's the finest university in the world, but yes, I'm kind of unhappy with the current direction of the New Byzantines as well. Conquering Rome again, are we? How original. I'm happy with all the infrastructure we've built, but, well. Sinner Sandwich posted:Let us expand, let us reclaim our borders, this I have no qualms with, but let us not torture the plebeians and butcher the shepherds for the sake of, of... of pretty borders!  Hear hear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
PART EIGHTEEN: The Rome is Where the Heart is (1267-1281) (With apologies to Mike Duncan) (And hey, why not listen to the new Revolutions podcast while you're at it?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GmzK6_tAmo Hello, and welcome to the History of Rome. Episode 500: Rome, Sweet Rome. Last week, France, excellent Catholics that they were, decided that it'd be really super great of them to declare war on Genoa-- y'know, those guys who had spent like a zillion years trying to prop up the Republic of Jerusalem? And Valeria the Apostle was all like, well, you did just help be string up Loui the Sicilian, so why not? Better keep the army in practice while they run out the clock on their truce with whatever's left of Cilicia. And then Prince Trajan goes and prances into the Senate and tells everyone that he has an 100% foolproof plan to conquer Rome.  That's Rome Rome, by the way, not "Rome" like contemporary historians like Iouliana Konmene or Anna Anatolike or whoever wrote the Letters from Anatolia write when they mean what we call "the Byzantine Empire". Actual Rome. Seven hills Rome. Pantheon Rome. Colosseum Rome. That Rome. As you might recall from some of our earlier episodes, the Pope had been hanging out there for the last few centuries. Valeria didn't even bothering making peace with Genoa before pouncing on Trajan's diplomatic coup. If the French needed help, well, Rome's closer to Genoa than Constantine.  France, for obvious reasons, wasn't exactly eager to jump into a war to depose the Pope. They'd just mind their own business, sacking the city state that had bankrolled the Crusades for generations, thanks. But if the Catholic kingdoms weren't exactly lining up to help Byzantium chase Pope Leo X out of Rome, they also weren't really feeling siding with the Pope either. It's important to remember that even though the Pope was the head of the Catholic Church all the kings of Western Europe theoretically were part of, medieval kings weren't really the Pope's number one fans. Remember how Alexios' pal Henry IV kept appointing antipopes in hopes of getting away with stuff behind the real Pope's back? Well, Catholic monarchs just kept on doing stuff like that-- appointing fake popes, embracing heresies, whatever. They were just as likely to see the Pope as a dangerous rival for temporal power than as a revered spiritual leader. Still, Leo X wasn't alone. It's not like Valeria and Trajan decided to go beat up a bunch of monks and call it a war. He had boatloads of money to hire mercenaries, and the various holy orders of his church flocked to Rome to defend it. This Papal army was put under the command of a general named-- and I swear I'm not making this up-- Baron Glum.  In spite of his hilarious name, Baron Glum was no dummy, and knew that the Byzantine Empire was really big. This meant two things: 1.) Their army was way bigger than his, but also 2.) it would take a long time to ship all those troops across the empire to Italy-- especially since the Byzantine's vassals in southern Italy, following the defeat of Loui, all decided to have their own little internal civil war. Since everyone down there was either dead or busy murdering one another, Byzantine forces would have to shlep all the way out from Greence and Anatolia. Glum decided to cross the Adriatic and strike the Byzantines in a series of hit and run attacks.  Unfortunately, he was slightly too slow getting back to his boats after one of these sail-by-attacks, and he was caught by a Byzantine army led by the Varangian Captain Dyre.  And so, the fate of Rome was sealed on eastern shores of the Adriatic, far from the Eternal City.  The Byzantines had to chase Glum around the Adriatic for a bit, but the Battle of Sibenik was pretty much it.  The war was decided entirely on Byzantine soil, without any fighting in the city of Rome itself. This turned out to be really important.  It meant that instead of having to besiege Rome for months and then maybe lightly pillage it just to keep a bunch of cranky soldiers happy, Valeria and her army marched into an open, undefended city-- the Pope had already fled to Orbetello.  Now, we know that Valeria the Apostle's relationship with her church was way rockier than you'd think it'd be if they're calling you "the Apostle". But she still figured she'd get tons of Apostle brownie points if she restored the pentarch of Rome.   For those of you keeping score at home, that's three out of five pentarchs. Can we call it a pentarchy yet? It rounds up to five.  Valeria was naturally keen to visit Rome. So was, like, half the Senate? But then somebody reminded her that they were still technically at war with Genoa, and there were Genoese armies running around in Greece, so probably someone should take care of that.  There wasn't even really a point to it, anymore, since Valeria's husband had dropped dead of smallpox so the alliance with France would be dissolved anyway.  Meanwhile, the long civil war-slash-circular firing squad in Sicily ended, and the new Despot of Sicily was... Prince Trajan, on the basis of his late father Gebhard's (remember him?) brief stint on the throne.  And back east, the Doukessa of the new theme of Cilicia gobbled up the last bit of the old independent kingdom of Silicia.  Finally, the French decided that they'd beaten up Genoa enough, and everyone in the Byzantine Empire could finally exhale and try to take in what had just happened.  Rome. Rome. Everyone in the Senate was beside themselves. The Old Romans were over the moon because they'd finally, finally managed to get Rome back, for the first time since the Exarchate of Ravenna Justinian set up way back in the sixth century let it slip away. The Milvians were really pumped about chasing the Pope out of what they saw as their turf and into an ignominious exile in Orbetello. The New Byzantines saw that they'd get their names in the history books as the ones who were in power when Valeria did all of that. And the Komnenians liked everything the Komnenos did, so of course they liked it when a Komnenos empress seized Rome. The Discordians were still pretty much the Monster Raving Loony Party of Byzantine politics at this point, so unfortunately Anna Anatolikes-- our only decent source for this era-- neglected to write down what they thought. Pretty much everyone of note decamped from Constantinople and the various themes and republics of Byzantium to visit Rome— Valeria, her council, Prince Trajan, the Senate, Patriarch Markos III, Dyre of the Varangians, the douxes and doukessas, the eparchs and exarchs, the Despot of the Pechenegs, the Katepano of Venice-- everyone who was anyone. Let's let Anna Anatolike take it from here: It wasn't a triumph-- not quite. That would come later, in Constantinople— the hastily abandoned treasures of Leo X paraded before the masses, Valeria in her four-horse chariot, Traianos following on horseback, prayers at the hippodrome in the fashion of Justinian's triumph for Belisarios. Oh, they thought of putting on a Roman triumph, of course. But it was considered ungracious. Gauche. The populace of Rome were grateful that their city was spared siege or sacking, of course— and they had no love for Leo X, who abandoned the city undefended. But the New Byzantines worried that they'd see us as foreign conquerers with an alien faith, reminding the Old Romans that the Empire had not ruled this city for more than six hundred years. Even Justinian's conquests were fleeting. (What triumph would be complete without the companion whispering in the conqueror's ear that all men must die?) Instead, a slightly different message needed to be conveyed— demonstrate that the empire was far richer, safer, and more civilized than life under the thumb of the Pope would be. The procession led us, then, not the the Capitoline, as did the triumphs of old, but to the Vatican Hill. We approached St. Peter's Basilica, built on the ruins of the circus of Nero by Constantinople. The Vatican obelisk-- once the spina of that circus-- cast a sharp shadow across our path. I instinctively ducked as we passed under it. "The ashes of Julius Caesar himself are kept in the gilt ball on top of the spire!" exclaimed Traianos. This struck me as a very strange place to inter the remains of a dictator, but I said nothing. Valeria and the prince surveyed the basilica. "What a wonder!" said the Prince, "To think this was built by Constantine the Great himself! I'm sure he'd be proud of us-- the inheritors of the New Rome he founded, have finally come home." The empress looked at the basilica, looked at its cracked columns, its faded mosiacs, the tumbledown bulk of the Leonine Walls, the layers of half-hearted repairs left behind by half-hearted Popes. She looked over her shoulder, as if seeing of Patriarch Markos or the Pentarch of Rome were listening. "It's no Hagia Sofia," she finally said.  Now, this is Anna Anatolike, so there's like a 50/50 chance anything even vaguely like this happened. But it's no accident that she continuously evokes the memories of Justinian and Belisarius. Since this wasn't the first time the Byzantines got their mitts on Rome again after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Now, obviously, Justinian's expansion was much closer to 476 than Valeria's conquest was to the end the exarchate, so in a way her campaign was far more audacious than Justinian's. But pretty much everyone in the empire was wondering if Valeria could, you know, make it stick. If Justinian couldn't... well, you know. It would have been totally understandable if Valeria had just kicked back and relaxed at this point. She'd conquered Venice, the Adriatic coast of Croatia, half of Italy, Antioch, Cilicia, chased the Crimeans away from the Black Sea, won the now-obligatory futile revolt of douxes and despots and-- oh yeah-- conquered Rome. She could have spent the rest of her reign watching chariot races and letting Prince Trajan pick up the slack and we'd still be comparing her to the likes of Juliana the Great or Trajan I or Justinian. Instead, though, she decided she'd get the ball rolling on the reconquest of Georgia.   Georgia, if you'll recall, was that little Orthodox kingdom perched on the Caucasus which fell to the Hashimids in the reign of Alexios I, when the Byzantine Empire had much bigger things to worry about. Since then, the Hashimids had given way to the Ardavan Satrapy-- notable for being an independent Persian state in a period when most Persians were ruled by either the Seljuks (and the Saimids... and the Baytasids... and etc.) or the Ilkhanate. Did I mention the Seljuks? They were allied with the Ardavans. That's a thing that happened.  So, yeah. Valeria decided to follow up on conquering Rome by picking a fight with the Seljuk Empire like a year later. Still, she hoped she could make it the all-important Caucasus before the Seljuks could reinforce their allies.  Still, she relished the chance to fight the Seljuks. She led her soliders personally, getting reckless in her old age.  By the time the Seljuks arrived, the Byzantines were occupying southern Ardavan, forcing the Seljuks to cross the Caucasus from the east.  Reinforcements from both sides scrambled to join the fray.  The Byzantines, however, had the advantage of not having to cross a huge mountain range to get to the battle, so in the end the strategic advantage swung their way.  Now, you'd think that by this point it would have sunken in that having the ruler of your empire serve as a field commander wasn't the best idea, since they could get captured or killed, and then what are you going to do? Valerian, Julian, Valens, Juliana the Great, Euphrosyne-- Valeria's own mother-- the list goes on and on. So it should have surprised nobody when, in the thick of the fray, Seljuk troops pouring out of the mountain passes, Valeria the Apostle and her men killed the Seljuk Sultan Ilgazi IV. Wait, what?  With the defeat of the Seljuks, the Ardavans threw in the towel. "It's nice to fight a war that's not a foregone conclusion for once," Anna Anatolike quotes Valeria as saying, which means she almost definitely said no such thing.  Valeria established an exarchate in her new territory.  The Byzantine Empire wasn't exactly Trajan I big. It wasn't even really Justinian big. But it was still getting pretty big for the middle ages.  The decided to try to bring some order to Lombardy by creating new themes and assigning them to loyal Italian vassals. This was probably as much to send a message to the people of Rome that life could still be pretty great as an Italian in the Byzantine Empire as it was about Lombardy. Just don't ask Lucio Morosini.  She also had the Black Chamber kill another Seljuk sultan. So, um, way to murder a seven year old?  In 1272, Valeria decided to give converting the Golden Horde another try. This time, it went slightly better.   Then she went and founded a new city in Thrake.  Genoa, in arrears after the enormous expense of its adventures in the Holy Land and its war with France, was seized by a band of Bulgarian mercenaries in lieu of payment. This was right on the border with Byzantine Lombardy, by the way. Because Byzantines and Bulgarians get along so well.   Without any eligible French princes left to marry, Valeria looked around for new allies in the west. She settled for marrying one of her younger sons to a princess from the minor Catholic kingdom of Castille-- one of the petty Christian states caught between the struggle between Mauritania and Andalusia for supremacy in Ibera.  This alliance would be put to the test in 1276, when the Seljuks made a last-ditch attempt to regain supremacy in the eastern Mediterranean and retake Antioch.   As was becoming increasingly common in Byzantine war efforts, the first challenge was the simple logistical nightmare of bringing together levies from all over the empire. Valeria, like her predecessors, had been gradually increasing the size of her standing army of cataphracts, but it was still just a few thousand men. The bulk of the Byzantine military was still levies provided by douxes, despots, katepanos, and exarchs, supplemented by Turkish mercenaries and the Varangian Guard.  At this point, many in Georgia, feeling insufficiently liberated by the Byzantines, decided to revolt in the hopes of creating a new Sunni kingdom of Georgia. Usually, this kind of revolt was just a speed-bump, but they were hoping Byzantine preoccupation with the Seljuks would let them squeak by.  The Byzantines outnumbered the Seljuks-- although not by nearly as much as you'd think-- but while their armies were still massing in Thrace, Seljuk armies were all over the eastern empire.  The Seljuks were attempting to hold down a wide battlefront, however. Valeria decided to concentrate on retaking the Cilician gates.  The Seljuks recalled their forces from Antioch to hold the gates, while the Byzantines raced to get additional reinforcements from Nicomedia to the battle before the first wave got wiped out.  What followed was a long, knock-down, drag-out fight for the gates, which pulled in Seljuk and Byzantine troops from all over Anatolia.  Eventually, though, the Seljuks overwhelmed the gates, forcing the Byzantines to withdraw before they could commit additional armies to the battle.  The Byzantines renewed their assault on Cilicia, but the Seljuks now had the advantage of being dug-in defenders, rather than trying to squeeze through narrow mountain passes against an entrenched foe.  By this time, however, the struggle for control of the Cilician gates had dragged on for long enough that the majority of the Byzantine forces had finally arrived in the region.  And so the Byzantines won the second battle of the Cilician gates-- not through cleverness, or tactical superiority. They just had more guys, and were finally in a position to use all those guys at once. That had pretty much become the Komnenos doctrine by this point.  With the Seljuk army crippled by its attempt to hold the Cilician gates, Sultan Suleyman II died in a coma-- another blow to the Seljuk's last attempt to cling to relevance.  Perhaps offended by the idea that a Seljuk sultan might die of natural causes, the Black Chamber had Çagri II assassinated mere months later.  The regents for the new child sultan Mustafa, hoping to try to preserve the regime, quickly accepted Byzantine demands.   From there, there was nothing left to do but mop up the Georgian rebels.  They sought refuge across the Caucasus, in the Ardavan rump state, but the Byzantine army, still mobilized from its war with the Seljuks, easily cornered them.  The Seljuks gambled everything on trying to turn the tide back against the rising strength of Byzantium. They almost succeeded, too, outmaneuvering the unwieldy Byzantine military apparatus to win the first battle of the Cilician Gates. With two sultans dead and most of their armies routed, though, that was pretty much it for the Seljuks.  On January 27th, 1279, the Seljuk sultanate fell, and a new dynasty assumed control over the empire. Of course, the Turkish empire changing hands was nothing new-- the past few centuries had been a revolving door of Seljuks, Saimids, and Baytasids. This, though, was something way more important. After years of setbacks and territorial losses at the hands of the Byzantines, Mongols, and Fatimids, the Turkish nobility that had long held sway in the region were finally thrown out of power. Badshah Seyfullah was a Levantine Arab, and his new Bichri Sultanate would be ruled on behalf of the Arabic majority of its territories, rather than an elite Turkish minority.   Castille, which had sent a small but dedicated army to help the Byzantines against the Seljuks, formally requested the empire's aid in 1279.  Valeria, eager to let the west know that the Byzantine Empire was a force to be reckoned with throughout the Mediterranean, landed with a sizable expeditionary force in northern Iberia.  Meanwhile, in the Holy Land, the Pope took advantage of the chaos stemming from the collapse of Turkish power and a Fatimid civil war to once again establish a cruader state in the Holy Land. As Genoa had been wiped off the face of the earth by Bulgarians, however, the title to the kingdom of Jerusalem went to one of the Catholic Rurikoviches of Hungary.  Meanwhile, the war in Iberia was going exceptionally well. Valeria was still leading her troops personally. Since, you know, nothing bad has ever happened to a Komnenos leading wars in person. So, on January 5th, 1281, of course Valeria the Apostle... died in her sleep, naturally, of old age. She was 66 years old, and had ruled the empire for fifty years. She had reigned longer than any Byzantine or Roman emperor or empress, and was the first Komnenos ruler to live long enough to die of old age.  When appraising Valeria's reign, we have to be careful, because our only real source on it is Anna Anatolike's History of the Empress Valeria. It's tempting to take her at face value, since her odd, ambivalent attitude towards her empress seems more believable than, say, the Alexiad's fawning panegyrics to Alexios. But it's important to remember that Anatolike was a dyed in the wool Old Roman, and her history reflected that political agenda. Still, I think it's pretty safe to say that Valeria was one of the greats. She might have inherited an empire in much better shape than the one that other great emperors and empresses like Aurelian, Diocletian, Alexios, or Juliana had to knit back together-- but it's undeniable that she accomplished a lot in her reign. Just look at a map of the Byzantine Empire in 1231, and then look at one in 1281. Next week, we'll start exploring the reign of Trajan II. Will he live up to the legacy of his mother-- and his Classical namesake, for that matter? Or will Valeria's conquests be as fleeting as Justinian's?  World Map, 1281   Assassination Scorecard: Tsars Killed: 2 Sultans Killed: 7 (plus 1 battle death) Nosy Chancellors Killed: 2 Katepanos Killed: 1 Mad Bishops Killed: 1 Empress Theonora fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
AJ_Impy posted:
You do realize you're just capturing Rome, right? People are going to continue following the Pope whether he's in Rome or London. No one is Europe proper is going to acknowledge you as the "right" Christians, especially when your Patriarchy is all but fractured. Don't be surprised to see those same people you kick to the curb come back with one of their "Crusades".
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
We did it! Good job, everyone! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Next: A mini-update about Traianos II's first year as emperor, and then the state of the world and a new senate session. If you have new parties to create, please do so ASAP! It's harder to keep track of them if they're being formed right in the middle of a vote, so I'd like to avoid that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:The Discordians were still pretty much the Monster Raving Loony Party of Byzantine politics at this point, so unfortunately Anna Anatolikes-- our only decent source for this era-- neglected to write down what they thought. Since you wont bother writing it down anyway, let me be the first to say good riddance to the Empress. OOC: (And maybe you should lay off the assassinations, getting a little too gamey)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
The glory of Rome is ours. The infidels in the east have been beaten back again and again. Our Empress has lived long and well enough to pass peaceably in her sleep, rather than at the end of a sword. The Emperor is a man of many virtues and incomparable strength. The state of the Empire is strong. It is in light of this that I propose something a touch unconventional. I promise that the New Byzantines be dissolved. The platform and policies of the New Byzantines are too broad, and its members too flexible, for it to serve as a dedicated political party in this new age. Instead, I propose the creation of two new parties: The Pragmatists will be devoted to gains whenever possible, and taking whatever measures are necessary to the long term strength and power of the Empire. The Inclusionists would be more focused on tolerance, infrastructure, and solidifying our gains rather than expanding further. I can understand if this proposal is met with derision, but I believe that the New Byzantines are too bloated and inefficient for their own good.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
 Hoorah! Rome, ours again. Too much has been said on it already, and so I commend the Apostle for a glorious reign. Finally, we are beginning Georgia's liberation! We dallied too long, of course, and far too many converted, but we are working on it. And Greeks are running it, ready to guide the Georgians back to the light of civilization. Civilization the Mongols themselves were unable to resist! It is hard to believe, but that plan worked! My congratulations to the priest Adrianos. I am also proud of the Sicilian nobility, installing our glorious new emperor to be their Despot. They are beginning to assimilate! Wonderful! Unfortunately, installing Italians to any position of power is bad move. It will not only prolong the process of assimilation for our new subjects, but it will also give our dissatisfied vassals focal points of rebellion! Only Romans should rule in their own Empire. Otherwise, what's the point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Just going to repost thisJGBeagle posted:Capture Rome. Rename Rome to Old Byzantine. You've already done the first, now finish it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
The New Byzantines Steppes and Republics We of Steppes and Republics are glad to see our Steppes brothers the Mongols are beginning to see the Light of Civilization. And also that we are closer to controlling the gold mines of the Caucasus Mountains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Need to decide what party to join for next session, but I definitely know what I'm going to propose. Rename Rome Valerianopolis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Hail, senators! Its a momentous occasion, and not just because Rome is back under proper control! Here, pass the wine, I've been far too sober today. I-- what? What are those looks for? No, no, don't worry, my wet towel of an uncle won't be returning anytime soon. You'd think he'd be happy, what with Rome not being sacked or sieged, but the bitter old man threw a fit over soldiers dying! Soldiers! Can you believe it? I hardly could, nor could I believe it when the old man told mother that he didn't plan on returning to the Senate. Oooooh, he would say, those mongrels are thirsty for blood and wine, and nothing else! Shame he didn't have a son or brother to inherit the position, so now I suppose I have to step in. Of course, I solemnly swear to uphold the laws and beliefs of the Senate a-- more wine! Who's hiding the drat jug? Ah, there we go. Well, fair warning. Seems he's run off to Rome or the Amalfi Coast or something of the sort, so if you ever feel like visiting Italia, try to keep your eyes peeled for the least fun man in Europe! In the meantime, I'd like to raise at toast to our beloved and great Empress, and our new and equally beloved Emperor! So long as he's willing to keep the wine flowing into the Senate and the women flowing into my chambers, I'm more than content with the arduous task of helping steer the Roman Empire! Three cheers for the Emperor!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
It has come to my attention that my grandfather, who went on a beer run some time in the late 12th century and never returned, has been absent from the senate for more than thirty years. During the intervening years, my family's traditional seat in the senate appears to have been occupied by a series of small, alcoholic dogs of indeterminate breed and indescribable musk, all named Scruffles (yes even the female ones). This arrangement worked out well for all involved as the Empress Valeria was very fond of dogs and rewarded the loyal Skruphloi with belly rubs, rawhide treats, and honorary Douxies. Times have changed, however. The otherwise perfect Emperor Traianos is, unfortunately, quite allergic to dog dander. I'm sure Traianos, like all previous rulers, will stop checking in on us after a year or two and we can get back to business as usual, but for the time being I have been obliged to keep the Consul confined to his dog villa. It is therefor my sad duty to pull myself away from the pleasures of my Fornicatorium and take up the family's senate seat, at least until the rest of Scruffle's hair falls out. Now it seems to me that we have a great empress to honor and the bloated coffers to do it right, so my first proposal is par-TAY!!! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
Senators, what is there to be said of Empress Valeria that hasn't been said already? An bright and influential woman who constructed a university, a conqueror who brought Anatolia, Southern Italy, Rome and now much of Georgia into our fold, an Apostle who strengthened the True Faith by re-taking two of five Pentarchies to add to our original one and an excellent warrior and statesmen to boot. Apostle, The Great, The Conqueror, The Roman, The Wise... none of these names quite capture what Valeria has meant to our Empire. My fellow Senators, I propose that we reward Valeria, for her service to the Empire, to Orthodoxy and to her subjects, a title truly the equal of the women herself. The Empress, Valeria the August, is dead. Long Live Emperor Traianos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:32
|
|