Probably around 1358-1360 we'll see young children arrive for Maria and Edward.
Our Fractured Crown: An Eastern Roman Timeline
- Thread starter Averious
- Start date
Really hoping that their heir is named John for Maria's brother, in spite of the stigma with John Lackland, after all John of gaunt also got that name.
John II of England gains a reputation like Emperor John II "The Beautiful" Komnenos. A successful king known for his piety, generosity, and skill in the battlefield.
Hey @Averious, will you do the occasional artwork/character models for our key characters throughout the story? I remember you doing that for the Grypas Imperial House in The Eagle of the East, Rhomania: An Eastern Roman Timeline by using CK3. I know AI is being used by a lot of authors on AH, myself included, allows for detail to be added that your average google search for a portrait can't convey.
It’ll definitely be fun to write!
And all at the expense of others, and things that came before—I felt it fair to use my author’s power just this once to veto the Sultan’s right to exist 🤣
As for having the firstborn be John instead of Edward as OTL? Kinda torn—my usual handling is to simply continue the naming, but considering it’s technically a new character? I just might, we’ll see.
In terms of art? I’ll probably boot back up CK3 again (been a while) and use that—I don’t really enjoy A.I images personally.
fantastic chapter, very real the discussion between Maria and John, regarding his marriage, I could really feel his anxiety and fear about it and at the same time the emotional conflict that raged in the Basileus, I am happy for the marriage between Edward and Maria, I hope that are happy, it will be interesting to see how he reacts to Anglo Norman traditions and Latin politics, a little sad instead regarding the Golden Bull of Charles IV, practically identical to Otl, I hoped that it would meet the will of the Italian Ghibellines, including one of their representatives ( this time too Rex Clericorum disappointed the hopes of the pro-imperial Italians ) but it must however be said that the Golden Bull itself was considered very incomplete ( Charles had deliberately left it like this, because he wanted to get his hands back on it at a later time ) so I can still hope that this modification can happen in the future ( after all, to avoid problems with the Italian states, the emperor will have to go through very long negotiations before deciding what to do, given that any candidate he chooses will create discontent, so it is quite a delicate situation, so I'm still confident )
Last edited:
I have a question like this almost by chance, but in the case of a meeting between a representative of the Empire and an equivalent of the Urbe ( for example Cola di Rienzo or Colonna / Orsini family ) obviously there would be disagreements over which of the two can actually use the name of Roman, but for the rest how the Roman representative would be called ( don't tell me Papalins, please he can't be heard )
Rough Line-Up; Andronikos III & John V (prime age)
This is a very rough line-up using CK3 to achieve a representation of Andronikos III, and John V--alongside a third successor I won't name if only to avoid spoiling things.
I attempted to upload this straight, but the site's limit for size is smaller than I remember, so I've resorted to Imgur.
I attempted to upload this straight, but the site's limit for size is smaller than I remember, so I've resorted to Imgur.
it's horrendous to hear, it seems to come directly from the English political discourse of the 17th century, wouldn't it be better to use the name by which they are commonly called, that is Romani ( in English Romans ) in relation to the imperial emissaries who call themselves Rhomanois ( after all they are both right to be called that, even if the other party would not like to recognize it willingly )
One claims to be Roman by statehood, the other by holding a city—the latter wouldn’t be referred to as Romans, because they serve the Papal cause.
It’d be like calling Americans ‘District of Columbians’.
You're actually wrong, the ( Italian ) Romans, they called themselves that, because it was their identity, simply over the course of centuries, the Roman identity in the region ( Italy ) was reduced to being once again centered on being born and raised in the Urbe and at the same time accept to live under the government of the city bishop ( who became the Pope ) so they would be extremely right to call themselves that ( they are still extremely proud of it, if I went to Rome, both in the present and in the Middle Ages, it is said a random Roman, that he is not a " real Roman " but rather a barbarian, you would end up having to run for your life ( as happened once to Narsete during his years of government in Otl ) following the same process that occurred in other Italian cities, with the only difference that a new collective identity was not created but rather the previous one remained, the Italian identity occurred only much later, but it never supplanted the regional one
Last edited:
The issue isn't a matter of city identity. Being born in Paris makes you Parisian, but you're French because you're a citizen of the French state/nation.
The same holds true here; they may be 'Roman' by birth in the city of Rome (although keep in mind very few actual city-Romans were important in the Papal scheme of things) but they are citizens of the Papal States, and thus Papists or Papalini.
In any documents or conversations that's what'll be used--because the Romans themselves aren't going to use the term 'Constantinopolitan' or (insert Roman city here)ian/an as their names. It'd be Roman v Papist/Papalini.
Last edited:
This is another case where we have to agree to disagree, as the whole issue of the papal state is more complex than that, in fact it wasn't even called that until 1815, but rather was known as the State of the Church or Patrimonium Petrii, but in the end it is right, given that it would be normal that in the diplomatic communications of the Empire, underlining their exclusive Roman identity, is possibly going to recognize that another one may exist ( completely independent of Constantinople ) would be a political faux pas, so it seems correct to me that when referring to the Western Romans, the Paleologos use the term " Papalins ", but then they shouldn't get angryb/ surprised if out of spite they are defined as " Greeks " by the exponents of the ruling class of the Urbe ( which is something totally different from the pontifical political class, given that several times the two sides were in profound opposition )
Last edited:
To clarify; Papal States is a perfectly fine simplification to use in a debate—because it simply underlines the point that they’re citizens of the lands beholden to the Papacy—added, the ‘Romans’ of the city of Rome have no actual Roman identity at this point, not one equivalent to the ‘Eastern Romans’—they’re citizens of the city of Rome, not ‘Romans’ in the cultural Imperial.
At this point they have far—far—more in common with their Umbrian surroundings than ‘Classical’ Roman, let alone ‘Eastern’ Roman.
To refer to them as ‘Western Romans’ affords them a label with implications that don’t match up with their culture or political notions.
As for the Papists deriding the Romans as ‘Greeks’? They did they anyway, so it doesn’t matter.
I partially agree with you, but I still believe that not recognizing the Roman identity of the inhabitants of the Urbe and the surrounding countryside ( and there are countless sources that affirm this, even some practices are identical, only the actors and the place change ), is an error equal to that of not wanting to accept that Byzantium is literally the Roman State that survived in the East, because Romanitas is not an imperishable monolith, but rather a concept in constant evolution and with multiple nuances, which in some cases can coexist ( Byzantium and the Roman duchy ( later to become the state of the church ) despite having now had a clearly different development, such that it could not be recognized by the two parties ( going as far as defining the other as Papalins or Greek ), so I'm sorry but here we are in two different positions
but I prefer to stop here, I don't want to derail your TL or get caught up in the temptation to take out my book on medieval Rome, but to start reeling off the sources that attest to how Urbe, despite being under Frankish's control, was still firmly attached to the past traditions, also because in medieval Italy belonging to a state ( in the modern sense of the term ) did not exist as a concept, rather one was tied to one's own city, which is why we talk about municipal experiences and then subsequently of Lordships and finally of city - states
Last edited:
Fair enough, thanks for being so interested in the TL that you wanted to have this debate.