|
and the romans, the basques, the brythons, AND al-andalus are ALL going to the new world!!
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 02:48 |
|
|
# ? May 12, 2024 11:24 |
|
Gonna have to throw my vote into Britons in the North, Romans in the South.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 02:53 |
|
Oh poo poo I forgot about the Basques. Put them in there.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 02:54 |
|
Three Romes: The Caralian Empire, The Holy Roman See and The Byzantine Empire. Would also like to see Britons, Basques and/or Suebi doing well for themselves in Northern Iberia. Fox Ironic fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Jun 13, 2015 |
# ? Jun 13, 2015 02:56 |
|
Get hype for Rome-mance of the Three Romes.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 06:07 |
|
Who will be our Lu Bu?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 06:11 |
|
Merdifex posted:
Yes!
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 09:53 |
|
Strong enemies lead to more interesting stories.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 10:01 |
|
I like the idea of having a relatively strong WRE fragment in Hispania, but also with some Celts having landed in the north. If Hispania is completely united under a Roman state, I feel it would be a tad boring, as it removes some options for variances. Plus, I like the idea of multiple Roman successor states all vying to potentially reform the empire. Also, even though the WRE used Sardinia as a capital during the collapse, I have severe doubts they would keep such an isolated capital so close their rivals/enemies. I feel once things were consolidated in Iberia they would have relocated their capital to their heartlands in southern Iberia, and perhaps even expanded into North Africa to retake Septem (Ceuta) and some other coastal regions. Considering their early reliance on naval power to stay alive and connect all their far flung territory in the western Med, it would make more sense to me if they expanded along coastline rather than driving to deeply into central Iberia. This way they could more easily maintain communications, restore trade, and use their reduced military capabilities to their maximum through rapid and concentrated deployment through naval power. This would play in well with allowing a Celtic presence in the north. One possible capital could be Carteria at the bay of Gibraltar, which in our timeline was sacked by the Visigoths, but in this it would have gone relatively untouched. So you could call them the Carterian Empire, which still has a bit of a ring to it.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 13:06 |
|
Merdifex posted:
Clearly the best option. Bonus points for being something that sort of happened in OTL.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 13:20 |
|
Merdifex posted:
Actually yeah, this please. Changing my vote from earlier.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 14:39 |
|
Also support strong basque peuples!
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 14:51 |
|
TTBF posted:
Even if this guy wins the Brythons should be a thing.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 15:26 |
|
Griffen posted:Also, even though the WRE used Sardinia as a capital during the collapse, I have severe doubts they would keep such an isolated capital so close their rivals/enemies. I feel once things were consolidated in Iberia they would have relocated their capital to their heartlands in southern Iberia, and perhaps even expanded into North Africa to retake Septem (Ceuta) and some other coastal regions. Considering their early reliance on naval power to stay alive and connect all their far flung territory in the western Med, it would make more sense to me if they expanded along coastline rather than driving to deeply into central Iberia. This way they could more easily maintain communications, restore trade, and use their reduced military capabilities to their maximum through rapid and concentrated deployment through naval power. This would play in well with allowing a Celtic presence in the north. One possible capital could be Carteria at the bay of Gibraltar, which in our timeline was sacked by the Visigoths, but in this it would have gone relatively untouched. So you could call them the Carterian Empire, which still has a bit of a ring to it. So the 'True' Roman Empire would become Neo-Carthage?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 15:27 |
|
Fluffy Tail posted:So the 'True' Roman Empire would become Neo-Carthage? Well, it parallels our time line where the "True" Roman Empire became Neo-Greece. I think a better analogy to what I'm imagining for the current situation is the various successor kingdoms to the Byzantine Empire after the Fourth Crusade. After a few decades of warring, the Nicean Empire eventually conquers the Latin Empire and claims the mantle of the Byzantine Empire (although I suppose at the time it was still more Roman Empire). In the same way, I see the WRE, HRE, and ERE as the three main successor empires/kingdoms to the Roman Empire, each of which still probably holds some dream of restoring the true Roman Empire. The fact that the surviving WRE is centered in Iberia wouldn't make it Carthaginian really, since Carthage never really spread that much culture to Iberia compared to how much Latin culture was imported in the following five centuries after the Punic Wars. I would imagine that the WRE would stay rather true to Latin culture, since there was no strong culture that could rival it in the area. The ERE went Greek I think because there was never a strong push for Rome to erase/subsume the Greek culture; rather, a lot of Roman culture was inspired/copied from Greek culture. Cathaginian/Phoenician culture, on the other hand, probably would have met a much more harsh fate. Likewise, Rome would have erased much of the native Iberian culture, as it was considered barbaric. I think the main reason Latin culture was removed in out timeline was due to the Visigoths, but in this scenario, they never made it to Iberia. Thus, I figure Iberia is still a Latin stronghold. edit: Wait, if you mean Neo-Carthage in terms of strategic methodology and map appearance, yeah that is a good comparison.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 16:12 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 16:16 |
|
i'd rather not try to duplicate the 18th-century art history convention that somehow morphed into history* where we call the eastern romans byzantines. these western romans, i think, should just be called the hispanic empire - and even in this timeline i doubt there'll be a single city in europe with the resonance of byzantium/constantinople/istanbul, much less in this southern hispanic rump western empire. but that's all window dressing *or so skimming a google search result would indicate edit: oh yeah, and i don't think the empire would have its capital on an island any more either, but i guess there's some potential for that idea. if this roman 'empire' is centered on the far south, modern andalusia, we could call it the baetic empire but i'm guessing the romans would keep the ideal of reclaiming all of the roman hispanic provinces close to their hearts oystertoadfish fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jun 13, 2015 |
# ? Jun 13, 2015 17:38 |
|
zephyr42 posted:
I think if the Romans control Spain like the Byzantines etc. the Basques should be the western version of Georgia/Armenia with a moderately powerful northern realm blocking France from Roman Spain, which should extend to the coasts of Maurentia. Also oystertoadfish posted:i'd rather not try to duplicate the 18th-century art history convention that somehow morphed into history* where we call the eastern romans byzantines. these western romans, i think, should just be called the hispanic empire - and even in this timeline i doubt there'll be a single city in europe with the resonance of byzantium/constantinople/istanbul, much less in this southern hispanic rump western empire. but that's all window dressing I dunno Cordoba and other parts of Spain were pretty built up by the muslims so I could see a Roman Spain that never was seriously invaded by Visgoths holding together and having a large capital city in central spain, albiet smaller than Constantinople. Although this western Empire would have less threats to its stability and only one real border to worry about compared to the Byzantines.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 17:59 |
|
Griffen posted:edit: Wait, if you mean Neo-Carthage in terms of strategic methodology and map appearance, yeah that is a good comparison. That was more what I was going for, an empire that would likely focus on trade, naval dominance and using large amounts of mercenaries. Akin to Carthage but, very Roman in culture. I would imagine the the battle for naval dominance in the Mediterranean between The Old and New Western Roman Empires will be an important part of CK2 and the time leading up to it.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 18:17 |
|
Given that there's no naval battles in CK2 though, the issue of naval dominance is rather diminished due to game mechanics.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 18:27 |
|
A sort of-ish indication of naval supremacy could be, if they have an island capital, good fortifications on it. Not a very good implication but it might be nice.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 18:33 |
|
Rejected Fate posted:A sort of-ish indication of naval supremacy could be, if they have an island capital, good fortifications on it. Not a very good implication but it might be nice. Part of the problem with that is in CK2 suppose your island fortress is sieged, any counter attack to break the siege is likely to be an amphibious one, which has a penalty to it. I've found in practice that with island fortresses, unless you leave your army sitting around waiting for an attack to come, it generally favors the besieger, not the besieged. With regards to whether or not southern Iberia would be more developed compared to other regions, remember that this is one of the few regions that did not see widespread devastation. While there would likely have been some pillaging and banditry in the time corresponding to the ATW game and some interim period afterwards, for the most part the infrastructure would have remained undamaged. Contrast to much of rest of the former Roman Empire, and southern Iberia is looking in prime position to dominate trade, learning, and culture in the western Mediterranean, if not more. I would imagine that one of the Roman port cities would be quite likely to exploit the loss of most competition and be able to develop rather highly in the following centuries.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:59 |
|
The only thing close to "naval dominance" of the Mediterranean would probably be trade posts and trade sectors, but that's only a merchant republic mechanic. And for people who mentioned Sardinia, I think the poster who proposed that they become a merchant republic might have the most plausible scenario. Just like the Venetian lagoon was farthest away from the Byzantine power-base, the same can be said of Sardinia. I would also suggest that the WRE or whatever happens to it is not particularly capable of projecting power that far east due to competition from the HRE and what not. So like Venice, the Sardinians could just elect their own sovereign leader, name him "palatinus" or something, like how the Venetians declared their own doge who was later recognized by the Byzantines and given sovereignty.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 20:49 |
|
Voting is closed. And, by my counting, Yellow wins with 36 votes. Roman Spain ahoy!
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 21:32 |
|
*If you are unsure of what the proper procedure for voting or what the hell even this thing is all about, please refer to the introductory post on this highly intellectual symposium. Session IV: The Rise of Islam During the seventh century, a new religion rose up in Arabia: Islam. Led by the Prophet Muhammad, Islam expanded greatly during his lifetime, reaching people across the Arabian Peninsula. The Prophet's eventual death, however, put the further expansion of the House of Islam into question. "[img posted:http://lpix.org/2083514/onionface5.png[/img]"]The Eastern Mediterranean was in a tenuous state following the fifth-century collapse of the Roman Empire. In the south, Axum had seized Egypt, and had then stretched itself even further to grab Jerusalem. To the north, the Sassanids had conquered a path to the gates of Constantinople, and now had an unconsolidated swathe of lands in Anatolia controlled partially by themselves and partially by their ambitious, bickering satraps. Although the respective cores of these empires were stable, they had both overreached, and now had shaky control over lands that were difficult to reach from their capitals. These lands were ripe for local unrest and conquest anew, and following the Prophet's death, that's exactly was Islam did. By the eighth century, Islam controlled much of the Eastern Mediterranean, from Anatolia to Egypt, but had not managed to crack Zoroastrian Persia or Christian Axum proper. "[img posted:http://lpix.org/2083513/onionface4.png[/img]"]Sassanid overreach had stretched the resources of Persia to the limit, and people everywhere throughout the empire- not just in the frontier provinces, but even in the Persian heartland- groaned under incessant Sassanid demands for taxes and soldiers. Among such a restless people, Islam found a receptive audience, and the religion expanded rapidly among the Sassanid general populace and lower nobility. Attempts by the central government to limit the spread of Islam merely inflamed passions, and soon the empire erupted in full-scale rebellion and civil war. The end result was an Islamic Persian Empire which, due to its wealth and power compared to Arabia, quickly became the new center of power and influence for Islam. "[img posted:http://lpix.org/2083510/onionface1.png[/img]"]Islam truly is the light! Its reach extended everywhere in the early Middle Ages-- Islam reigned supreme from the core lands of the Eastern Roman Empire down to Egypt, and west all the way to Tangiers. Not even the stable Romano-Moorish Kingdom of Africa was able to stop Islam's advance. الحمد لله, the House of Islam is a large one. "[img posted:http://lpix.org/2083515/onionface6.png[/img]"]With the death of the Prophet, Islam lost its driving force and failed to build upon previous conquests with any great success. The Muslim world was limited to the Arabian Peninsula, and expanded no further. "[img posted:http://lpix.org/2083516/onionface7.png[/img]"]I HAVE A GREAT IDEA WHICH INVOLVES CLEVER THINGS WITH ISLAM This session will run for exactly 24 hours (1 day) from the time of this post.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 21:38 |
|
Familiar, yet different.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 21:40 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 21:41 |
|
A diversity of faiths yet still allows for another strong presence in the Mediterranean. Rome can't have all the fun!
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 21:43 |
|
This works for me, but only if Persia controls much of modern Iraq still (up to the Euphrates, that is, Western Iraq is owned by the Muslims but Mesopotamia proper is Persian) and the Ethiopians control most of the Sudan still. That will still reward the two overachievers for their performance while allowing Islam a nice niche.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 21:49 |
The Empire of Axum must survive!
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 21:58 |
|
Interested to see how the game goes without the Muslim Clowncar.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 21:59 |
|
I feel this gives Axum and Persia enough breathing room to survive while still allowing a vibrant Islam.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 21:59 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 22:01 |
|
Changed my vote here.
Raserys fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Jun 14, 2015 |
# ? Jun 13, 2015 22:04 |
|
Edit: Changed my vote again, because I'm a flip-floppy bastard on par with most US politicians. Fox Ironic fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 14, 2015 |
# ? Jun 13, 2015 22:04 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 22:11 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 22:12 |
|
Dr. Tough posted:
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 22:13 |
|
Let W-Africa go Islamic The Sultunate of Mauretania isn't; It's Mandétania, after the one of the descendents of Muhammed (pbuh) were driven from Arabia and to the west, finally convincing the King of Ghana that Islam was the light and he has just concluded the conquest of just over half the kingdom. So there would be a king in Ghana who would rule the tribal parts, with Marrakech still being pagan, while the younger brother would be in charge of the Christian (?) settled parts. I dunno, there's justifications that you could write around it but it would at least not be the usual dull situation for W-Africa where it just sits there like a sad, abandoned lump. Ethiopia might also still be sunni, suggesting a more Islamic Africa.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 22:14 |
|
|
# ? May 12, 2024 11:24 |
|
The more Zoroastrian there is, the better!
|
# ? Jun 13, 2015 22:16 |