The Seven Years War will be the last in which England and Byzantium are allies. Humbling the French is always welcome.
-
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.
Seven Years' War: Prelude
Throughout the later part of 1753, Emperor Alexios VII Palaiologos’ health had been rapidly declining. By the start of 1754, the Emperor was completely bedridden and unable to perform his Imperial Duties. Upon his return from Prussia, Konstantinos, Alexios’ eldest son and Crown Prince, made himself Regent for his ailing father with the ‘consent’ of the Agora Nymfon.
Konstantinos was popular with the military, and likely used their support to coerce the Agora Nymfon into supporting him as well. For the next several months he would rule as Regent while his fathers condition gradually worsened.
For the first few months his reign as Regent went smoothly, but on May 28th, far away in North America, the sparks of war were ignited. On that day, a small force of 40 militia under the command of Lieutenant Colonel George Washington launched an ambush with their Indian allies on a force of French militia under Ensign Joseph Jumonville.
The battle was quick and bloody, and resulted in most of the French troops being massacred by out of control British militiamen after their surrender. When interrogated by Washington, Jumonville pleaded that they were an emissary on a peaceful mission, rather than a raiding party.
Jumonville himself was soon killed when Seneca Chief Tanaghrisson cleaved open Jumonville’s skull with his hatchet, allegedly stating: “Vous n'êtes pas mort encore mon père!", or “Thou are not dead yet my father!”. The Chief then proceeded to wash his hands on Jumonville’s braincase.
This act naturally outraged France, who within a month had sent an army towards modern day Uniontown, Pennsylvania. Though Lt. Colonel Washington had constructed a fort in anticipation of the attack, its poor placement, as well as conflict between him and British Army Captain James Mackay caused their defeat in the battle at the hands of the French and their Indian allies.
In Constantinople, Konstantinos soon after received an envoy from the British, requesting that the Emperor condemn the French attack, and to guarantee them support should a war break out. However, Konstantinos blatantly refused to give any such guarantee, and sent the British envoy back to London with little to offer.
Many consider this to be the formal end of the alliance between the Empire and Britain, and it is said that King George II sent an angry and begrudged letter to Konstantinos in response to his “rude” refusal.
On September the 17th, 1754, Emperor Alexios VII finally passed away from his illness. On October the 9th, Konstantinos held a lavish coronation in which he was proclaimed Emperor Konstantinos XVI Palaiologos.
It is said his coronation cost an astonishing 1 million modern American dollars. This gives an idea of its grandeur, and people from across the Empire were invited to see it, the Monarchs of Europe were also invited, though George II of Britain refused to attend.
After the dazzling coronation, the new Emperor immediately ordered his Grand Domestic, Georgios Curcuas, to organize a grand military parade through the capital. He had his White Guard march through the normally busy streets of Constantinople to the sound of trumpets and drums as the crowd cheered in awe.
Finally, the Emperor held a grand banquet, inviting all Senators and Ministers from the Agora Nymfon to attend. This is considered to be one of the most opulent and extravagant displays of wealth, power and prestige in modern history, and likely was done to dazzle both the masses and the Dynatoi, as well as the heads of Europe.
As excessive as this might seem, one must remember that Emperor Konstantinos was faced with the same problems his father was, mainly an increasingly vocal Agora Nymfon with an ever growing opposition and with a squabbling Senate unable to keep the wealthy Bourgeoisie in the lower chamber in line.
Konstantinos, like his predecessors however refused to grant any large concessions to those who opposed him. He staunchly believed in his right to rule the Empire as he saw fit, seeing his reign as a continuation of that of Augustus himself.
Despite his absolutism, like the other Emperors of his era, he was for all intents and purposes what historians today call an “Enlightened Despot”. A lover of the arts and of opera like his father, he commissioned many great plays, and also was known for his poetry, which is often praised even today for its surprising honesty.
Unlike his father however, Konstantinos was not a great fan of free speech, particularly for the ministers of the Agora Nymfon. He saw it as a hindrance and obstacle when it came to performing his Imperial Duties.
Despite the Emperors preference for a silent Agora Nymfon however, his opposition continued to grow, perhaps faster than before because of his desire to ignore them and keep them silent. Unlike his father, who would sometimes heed the Nymfon’s advice if they were vocal enough, Konstantinos had no concern at all for their desires.
His decisions were based solely on his own conscience and will, and it was this blatant disregard for the Agora Nymfon’s wishes that helped the Emperor’s opposition gain further strength. By the end of his reign, those supporting his authority would hold the majority only by a few seats, a thin sliver.
The Emperor had little time to focus inwardly however, as the conflict between France and Britain in North America escalated into war in July 1755 with a British-American offensive into New Brunswick lead by Lt.-Colonel Robert Monckton.
Though ultimately successful, it did little to weaken the French, who defeated another British offensive in Pennsylvania that same month. The war appeared to be moving towards a stalemate, as most wars between the two powers had.
Despite another British victory at Lake George, New York, in the latter part of 1755, the stalemate was not broken. In 1756, the French won the battles of Fort Bull and Fort Oswego, reasserting that they were anything but defeated.
Though the Emperor feared the war spreading to the Caribbean, where the Empire’s colonies there could be at risk, he remained intent on staying out of the war between the two powers, and refused any further envoys from the British asking him to do otherwise. As far as the Emperor was concerned, their alliance truly had ended.
Unfortunately for Konstantinos however, keeping the Empire out of war proved to be an impossible goal. While the Empire was no longer allied to Britain, its new found alliance with Prussia would in the end drag them into a another war on the side of Britain. Though Prussia had soundly defeated them in the War of the Austrian Succession, Austria, and Maria Theresa were not yet ready to give up on the province of Silesia.
The wealthy province had nearly doubled Prussia’s population, and truly made it the newest Great Power in Europe. Though small, its state was extremely well organized, and its army was second to none, to say the least.
Still, Frederick knew that he needed allies in order to survive against his two larger neighbors, Austria and Russia, and the Empire was that ally. The War of the Austrian Succession had solved little, and the tensions between the two powers continued to rise.
Maria Theresa knew at this point that she could no longer count Britain among her allies, as it was they who had forced her to cede Parma to Spain and worse yet, Silesia to Prussia in the previous conflict. On top of this, Britain and Prussia had signed an alliance, in which Prussia guaranteed Britain that it would protect Hanover, the homeland of the British Monarchy, from French aggression in exchange for nonintervention in the event of an Austrian attempt to retake Silesia from them.
Realizing that an alliance with Britain was no longer in her interests, she sent her Foreign Minister, Count Wenzel Anton Graf Kaunitz to France in order to negotiate a defensive alliance. Though reluctant at first, Louis XV eventually agreed to a defensive alliance with Austria once war had broken out between they and Britain.
In addition, as a response to the Westminster Convention which allied Britain and Prussia, Austria and France concluded the First Treaty of Versailles in 1756. The treaty had both countries agreeing to remain neutral should they become involved in a war with a third party, and also promised to provide 24,000 troops for the conflict.
Maria Theresa after this began attempting to form an alliance against Prussia in order to regain Silesia. Knowing that he would be overwhelmed should she be allowed to form a powerful alliance against him, Frederick II of Prussia thus decided to make the first move by invading Saxony, hoping this show of power would dissuade Russia from allying with Austria.
This, unfortunately for Frederick, had the opposite affect. Instead of being scared, Empress Elizabeth was outraged, and sent 80,000 soldiers into Austria in order to help them with their campaign against the Prussians.
In addition, Austria and France, approximately one year after signing the First Treaty of Versailles, signed the Second Treaty of Versailles, establishing a new offensive alliance between them that allowed France to intervene on Austria’s side. In exchange for this alliance and their aid, Austria promised France the Austrian Netherlands.
Knowing that he had no hope of defeating the three powerful countries on his own, Frederick called upon his allies in London and Constantinople to come to his aid. Both, fearing a hostile France that would be greatly strengthened by such a victory, quickly agreed to come to Prussia’s defense.
Though Emperor Konstantinos XVI had wished to avoid war, he knew that he was obligated to protect Prussia from its enemy’s aggression, and that they would likely be defeated without his aid. Though he disliked the idea of fighting with Britain once more, the Empire’s greater interests came first.
Regardless of his personal desires, the Emperor in Constantinople now had another war on his hands. It now fell on his shoulders to guarantee that this war accomplished something worthwhile for the Empire, and did not end in another worthless stalemate that only cost lives and money…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go, read and reply.
hmmm..... so the empire is yet again figthing the french (something really should be done about those frogs) side by side with the brits. But then again austria and russia is two powerful enemis that should not be forgotten.
Nice couple of updates SeanB, I'll be waiting for the next one.
Nice couple of updates SeanB, I'll be waiting for the next one.
Very interesting how the new emperor is handling the Imperial Parliament. Im very curious to see how the Empire will deal with the rising parliamentarian sentiment... will we see a return to the republic? Technically wasn't the republic never formally abolished?
Maximilliano said:
Was the byzantine/eastern empire ever a republic? Wasen't it founded as an empire from the begining?
t's true that its formations marched under banners bearing SPQR. Its rulers bore the title of King and Autokrat, never that of Emperor, although the title of King would have been even more of an anathema to a Roman and then as its power faded, its rulers took on other grandiose titles - ruler of the world and ruler of time. Since they were not time lords, they failed to halt its decline.
The Repbulican offices of Consul, Praetor, Quaestor and Censor continued right to the end. The Republic was never formally abolished or an Empire formally proclaimed.
All wars cost lives and money and whether those who lost loved ones would ever consider the gain of some land fair recompense is another matter. As Thucydides said of the Peloponnesian War that the Athenians did not fight to extend democracy (though they said they did) nor the Spartans to spread oligarchy and restrain Athenian power (though they did the fomer and said the latter), but over power.
The Repbulican offices of Consul, Praetor, Quaestor and Censor continued right to the end. The Republic was never formally abolished or an Empire formally proclaimed.
All wars cost lives and money and whether those who lost loved ones would ever consider the gain of some land fair recompense is another matter. As Thucydides said of the Peloponnesian War that the Athenians did not fight to extend democracy (though they said they did) nor the Spartans to spread oligarchy and restrain Athenian power (though they did the fomer and said the latter), but over power.
Chief Ragusa said:
Not quite. The office of Consul died out during Justianian's time; Qaestor was essentially a similarly dead office by about the late 4th century, IIRC; and Censor as a seperate office, and not merely a sub-title of the Princeps was a goner in the early years of Augustus. I am not entirely sure of the Praetor, but I am fairly certain that it went the way of the Consulship at some point during the Byzantine period, if not earlier.
Chief Ragusa said:
Well, yes and no. Although there was never a single event which transformed the Principate to the Dominate, the period between Diocletian and Constantine generally transformed the office into one in which the monarchical themes which had been developed over the previous centuries became explicit - Emperors began to title themselves as 'Lord' and they were now crowned with the oft-referenced diadem; those who came into his presence were formally required to kneel and kiss his purple robes, and to refer to themselves as 'your slave'. So by the Byzantine period there was an explicit monarchism which would have been utterly unthinkable in Augustus' time, which was a definitive transformation - the notion of the Emperor as simply being an extraorindary magistrate was dead.
Last edited:
This is fantastic, and it's good that you haven't gone ALL WC-ey, keeps it interesting =)
Vincent Julien said:
I believe Belisarious' final act of command was as Consul revived for him. Justinian did streamline a great deal, some of which later got reversed. With the emergence of the Holy Roman Empire, the old offices were taken out dusted down and given a new lease of life to show who was the true Roman Empire. That lasted until equal recognition was granted and the lesser offices were swallowed up into the bureaucracy. The single Consul was usually the Emperor thereafter.
Augustus was a Censor as well as holding a whole host of Magisterial offices including Tribune of the Plebs, which gave him a veto over the actions of the Senate. The Office continued throughout
Vincent Julien said:
So were Consuls garlanded at first and then the ceremony became more ornate to impress foreign dignitaries and diadems were used.
Mark Anthony was found of such adoration in the first centruy BC and Constantine "the great" thought he was something special, too.
I said formally There was Yes and there was no No.
Chief Ragusa said:
Belisarius was Consul for the year 535, during the Gothic campaign; the last holder was a fellow called Basilius in 541, which is probably where the confusion stems from.
Chief Ragusa said:
There was the rise and fall of various pre-Byzantine bodies and offices, such as the Byzantine Senate, but everything I have points to the definite extinction of the Consulship under Justinian. If you have something which suggests otherwise then I would appreciate a specific reference.
Chief Ragusa said:
It actually didn't even continue as a permanent title of the Princeps after that point, let alone a seperate office. Although the general aegis of the Censor fell under the remit of the Emperor, and various subsequent Emperors took various Censorial-style titles such as censor perpetuus under Domitian, this was a purely ad hoc affair and depended on the whim of the individual Princeps. The nearest we get to a complete revival is under the crypto-Republican Claudius, although that as it turned out was not a breakthrough to re-establishment.
Also, Augustus was not Tribune of the Plebs, since it was impossible for a patrician to hold that office. He was instead given tribunitia potestas, which gave him the powers of a Tribune without holding the office.
Chief Ragusa said:
Again, source? Diadems may have been used during ceremonies, (They were held above the head of a general during a Triumph) but they certainly weren't worn by Consuls as you suggest.
Chief Ragusa said:
Which caused uprorar in Rome and was partly responsible for Anthony's fall - the diadem was rightly seen as a Hellenistic, despotic, monarchical ornamentation, which is what it would later come to be symbolic of in Rome.
Chief Ragusa said:
Well, if you're looking for a decree by an Emperor saying 'I am an Imperial Despot and the Republic is dead' then you're not going to get it, for obvious reasons. There was however, an overthrow of Republicanism first in practise, and, much later, in presentation and form; by the time of Constantine, Emperors were not even paying lip-service to republicanism and were openly monarchical; and by the time of the middle to late 5th century, Rome was constitutionally in every relevant sense a monarchy.
Last edited:
Mid fifth century western Roman emperors from the murder of Valentinan III were named and removed by the Patrician almost at will. hardly monarchical at all, was it?
Justinain's own line became extinct with him. When Constantine established Byzantium he divided the magistrate offices between Rome and Constnatinople. When Justinian recaptured Rome, he sent the Consul ship back. Later, in extremis, he recalled Belisarious and gave him the title of Consul.Usually there was only one candidate. Under the Good Empeors in Rome, both Consuls were elected, though the Emperors did hold a Consulship at some stage.
Augustus as you call Octavian was too young to hold the posts of Pontifex Maximus or Consul yet the did. Caesar's father was proscribed which reducedthe family in rank. Octavian did hold the post Tribune of the Plebs and was technically a Pleb. On his final victory after Actium, he renounced his powers. He was then graciously allowed the tribunita potestas for his life without reservation.
The Censor monitored Roman morals and the content of plays. You tell me this was a dead duck. Really? Did the Romans stop watching plays? Why then did the Byzantines have kensors still doing the same job? I did not say that Censor remained part of the Imperial titles.
The diadem was traditionally worn by Dictators. Marius, Sulla and Pompey also wore it. They effectively ended the Republic and reduced the Senate to a servility it never managed to throw off. The members of the First and Second Triumvirates all wore diadems. People got used to seeing Octavian wearing a diadem as Consul.
Anthony's actions caused uproar because Octavian fanned the flames.They were more scandalised by his treatment of Octavia than his love of eastern adoration.
The Consulship of Basilius in 541 was a precaution taken by Theodora against her fear that Justinian would succumb to the plague and that the Senate would place Belisarious on the throne.
Constantine issued many decrees that fundamentally altered the relationship of ruler and ruled, essentailly creating the mediaeval world view, but he stopped short of formally extinguishing the Republic. Even he received the acclamation of the people and vote in Senate. These were the ultimate halmarks of Roman Republicanism.
Justinain's own line became extinct with him. When Constantine established Byzantium he divided the magistrate offices between Rome and Constnatinople. When Justinian recaptured Rome, he sent the Consul ship back. Later, in extremis, he recalled Belisarious and gave him the title of Consul.Usually there was only one candidate. Under the Good Empeors in Rome, both Consuls were elected, though the Emperors did hold a Consulship at some stage.
Augustus as you call Octavian was too young to hold the posts of Pontifex Maximus or Consul yet the did. Caesar's father was proscribed which reducedthe family in rank. Octavian did hold the post Tribune of the Plebs and was technically a Pleb. On his final victory after Actium, he renounced his powers. He was then graciously allowed the tribunita potestas for his life without reservation.
The Censor monitored Roman morals and the content of plays. You tell me this was a dead duck. Really? Did the Romans stop watching plays? Why then did the Byzantines have kensors still doing the same job? I did not say that Censor remained part of the Imperial titles.
The diadem was traditionally worn by Dictators. Marius, Sulla and Pompey also wore it. They effectively ended the Republic and reduced the Senate to a servility it never managed to throw off. The members of the First and Second Triumvirates all wore diadems. People got used to seeing Octavian wearing a diadem as Consul.
Anthony's actions caused uproar because Octavian fanned the flames.They were more scandalised by his treatment of Octavia than his love of eastern adoration.
The Consulship of Basilius in 541 was a precaution taken by Theodora against her fear that Justinian would succumb to the plague and that the Senate would place Belisarious on the throne.
Constantine issued many decrees that fundamentally altered the relationship of ruler and ruled, essentailly creating the mediaeval world view, but he stopped short of formally extinguishing the Republic. Even he received the acclamation of the people and vote in Senate. These were the ultimate halmarks of Roman Republicanism.
Chief Ragusa said:
This is a bizzare and wholly irrelevant point; monarchs throughout history have been puppets in the hands of more vigourous people - we need only look at Bagoas in Persia (Who poisoned two Persian Emperors and nearly bumped off Darius III when he began acting independently) and the regents of Phillip III in Macedon within ancient times (to name but two examples) to confirm that. Indeed, one of the features of monarchy is strong monarchs ruling by themselves, whilst weak monarchs are dominated by others - their mothers, wives, generals, etc.
As for Dictators and Consuls wearing diadems - I am not convinced. I believe you may be mistaking the overtly monarchical diadems with items such as the civic crown, laurels, etc, which were legitimate republican honours. They are not one and the same. What Constantine and his successors wore was a crown in the medieval sense and recognisable as such to us.
Chief Ragusa said:
This was the only remnant of the republic left in place - the elective element. (And it was only a nominal consideration - the Senate confirmed choices which had already been made by the army, on the whole) Although that was severely curtailed and by no means dominant by the time of the later Empire; Emperors crowned their sons and election was irrelevant under periods of strength. It is unsurprising that the Senate eventually disapeared altogether in Byzantium.
Last edited:
The Byzantine Senate may have been reduced to discussing which sex were Angels, but it did still exist right to the end.
Dictators wore a copy of the old royal crown; they just weren't supposed to do it in the Senate.
The Japanese Imperial family under the Shogunate would have been the more apposite example.
Bizarre and irrelevant sums up your contribution.
The answer to the question poised was that technically the Republic continued and no Byzantine Empire was proclaimed.
Dictators wore a copy of the old royal crown; they just weren't supposed to do it in the Senate.
The Japanese Imperial family under the Shogunate would have been the more apposite example.
Bizarre and irrelevant sums up your contribution.
The answer to the question poised was that technically the Republic continued and no Byzantine Empire was proclaimed.
Chief Ragusa said:
The Senate disapeared in the later years of the Empire, along with the rank Senator; it is not mentioned as a corporate body after the Fourth Crusade, the impact of which seems to have finally dispersed even the pretense of it's continued existence, along with the rank of Senator. Once it's legislative and constitutional functions were gone, there was no need for it to remain in existence in any case. It revived slightly after Justianian, but apart from that it was a continuous spiral of decline, and it was effectively meaningless by the 8th century; the Senate was an incongruous relic in Byzantium.
Chief Ragusa said:
If this was the case, then why did Caesar notably refuse the offer of a crown, twice - outside of the Senate - from Anthony? If crowns were such a commonplace, then why was the notion of not only a King, but a crowned individual so clearly abhorent that a man as singularly powerful as Caesar felt it neccessary to refuse one? Even a man who had too much power as a legitimate Republican magitrate - albeit an extraordinary lifetime apointee - was clearly a disturbance, as we see from Caesar's assasination. The garb of the Dictator and the Consuls was very similar to those of the Kings, but I think it is relatively clear that the diadem or any royal crown was not part of it.
Plutarch:
Chapter 61 said:
If Caesar was, as you say, already wearing a diadem, then why the fuss? As I've said before, if you can produce one good source for this, then I will gladly conceed the point. But I am not prepared to do so merely on a repetitious say-so, particularly when so much of what you have to say on these subjects is, to be tactful, highly variable in it's accuracy.
Chief Ragusa said:
Another good example that equally supports my point.
Chief Ragusa said:
Which I've answered in return. The Republic continued only in the most pedantic, technical sense, in as much as it was never formally declared absolished. But the Empire was a completely different polity in every sense that mattered; the later Empire was notably different from the earlier Empire. To call the Byzantine State of the Paleologids or even Justinian a Republic is clearly an innaccuracy - It was a Monarchy with a very, very distant, effectively desiccated Republican heritage.
Anyway, enough of this. I don't want to clog up Sean's thread.
Last edited:
Vincent Julien, you know you had no need to answer in return. Since I have used the words formally and technically I am not arguing for the existence of substance. Indeed , you must have known the definition of the words and simply used it to launch a personal attack on me.
You've hijacked a thread to do so. No amount of smileys is going to disguise that fact.
I thought you'd put us out of the rhetroical posings with Ceasar, but you did not. He refused the crown being offered him, because it was offering to make him a King. He refused. He did not need to be a King. As a Dictator for Life he had all the power he wanted. It is likely that had he taken the title of King, the mob would have ripped him apart.
I have never argued that the Empire of Justinian or the Palaeologi was Republican for all that they called themselves Roman, styled their ruler Augustus, fought under banners reading SPQR or had a Senate that met. It is disingenous of you to imply that I did. Form only. 'Course that's what formally means.
You've hijacked a thread to do so. No amount of smileys is going to disguise that fact.
I thought you'd put us out of the rhetroical posings with Ceasar, but you did not. He refused the crown being offered him, because it was offering to make him a King. He refused. He did not need to be a King. As a Dictator for Life he had all the power he wanted. It is likely that had he taken the title of King, the mob would have ripped him apart.
I have never argued that the Empire of Justinian or the Palaeologi was Republican for all that they called themselves Roman, styled their ruler Augustus, fought under banners reading SPQR or had a Senate that met. It is disingenous of you to imply that I did. Form only. 'Course that's what formally means.
As I have said, I had no intention of replying, but this kind of compels a response.
Chief, this is ludicrous. You're stating that I hijacked a thread with a serious debate, relevant to the AAR, in order to start personally attacking you several posts into that debate? This is silly.
I have not to the best of my knowledge, insulted you. I merely said that a lot of your statement are of variable reliability. Which they are. You continue to make unsourced statements which go against the historical consensus and which are often based, as far as I can tell, on historical anecdote. If you continue to make such assertions, then I think anyone is entitled to point that out. I've asked you for sources; you've consistently declined to provide them. If you are insulted by this, then I apologise, for it is not meant as an insult. I simply can't take what you say as a given - anyone is entitled to say the same of me, and I will do my upmost to oblige them with references.
If you want my sources, then I'm happy to oblige.
For example, on the Consulship, to take one random example:
(The numbers are source references)
As I've said, I'm open to a rebutal. But you won't provide any. This is, I'm afraid, bad debating.
As regarding the form/substance issue: I'm afraid you actually have implied that the republic still had some sort of life by suggesting that crowns were an accepted Republican ornament, and many other arguments which devalued the notion that there was a significant substantial break between the Empire of Constantine and the Republic. And I've said, the 'form' was so irrelevant as to be a worthless consideration. Even in form, the republic was gone. There was an accepted and legal monarchical system, merely with some republican tokenism. It is true that the Republic was never abolished; but it is equally true that there were developments which amount to so much without explicitly stating so. There were developments across the history of the period which are not adressed by merely stating that 'the Republic was never formally abolished', and these deserve to be pointed out. That is my point. Perhaps it is not so different from what you are arguing, but I haven't really got that impression so far.
Anyway, I suggest we take this to PM if you feel the need to continue with it.
Chief, this is ludicrous. You're stating that I hijacked a thread with a serious debate, relevant to the AAR, in order to start personally attacking you several posts into that debate? This is silly.
I have not to the best of my knowledge, insulted you. I merely said that a lot of your statement are of variable reliability. Which they are. You continue to make unsourced statements which go against the historical consensus and which are often based, as far as I can tell, on historical anecdote. If you continue to make such assertions, then I think anyone is entitled to point that out. I've asked you for sources; you've consistently declined to provide them. If you are insulted by this, then I apologise, for it is not meant as an insult. I simply can't take what you say as a given - anyone is entitled to say the same of me, and I will do my upmost to oblige them with references.
If you want my sources, then I'm happy to oblige.
For example, on the Consulship, to take one random example:
J.B Bury said:
(The numbers are source references)
As I've said, I'm open to a rebutal. But you won't provide any. This is, I'm afraid, bad debating.
As regarding the form/substance issue: I'm afraid you actually have implied that the republic still had some sort of life by suggesting that crowns were an accepted Republican ornament, and many other arguments which devalued the notion that there was a significant substantial break between the Empire of Constantine and the Republic. And I've said, the 'form' was so irrelevant as to be a worthless consideration. Even in form, the republic was gone. There was an accepted and legal monarchical system, merely with some republican tokenism. It is true that the Republic was never abolished; but it is equally true that there were developments which amount to so much without explicitly stating so. There were developments across the history of the period which are not adressed by merely stating that 'the Republic was never formally abolished', and these deserve to be pointed out. That is my point. Perhaps it is not so different from what you are arguing, but I haven't really got that impression so far.
Anyway, I suggest we take this to PM if you feel the need to continue with it.
Last edited:
Seven Years' War: 1757 and the King in Prussia
The Seven Years’ War can in truth be seen as the conflict between Britain and France in colonies spreading to the continent, though it was the rivalries of the other European powers that caused it to do so. The war of the Austrian Succession had only served to inflame tensions between them, and little was resolved.
From the onset of the war, the leaders of most of the involved countries were determined to resolve the issues that went unanswered in the previous war, regardless of the cost. For King Frederick the Great of Prussia, however, the only issue was retaining his gains from the Silesian Wars.
Realizing that despite the unrivaled training of his soldiers, he was hopelessly outnumbered, King Frederick chose to make the first move by crossing the border of Saxony, one of Austria’s allies in the war.
Though the Saxon and Austrian armies attempted to link up with each other to counterattack, Frederick successfully prevented this maneuver in the Battle of Lobositz, forcing the Austrians to retreat. Days later, Saxony surrendered to the Prussians.
This victory and the subsequent surrender of Saxony were likely determining factors in the Roman Empire’s decision to join with Prussia in the war. Though the Emperor and King Frederick were allies, if Prussia had met with a disastrous defeat, there might have been hesitation on the part of the Emperor to declare war.
With this victory however, it seemed clear that Austria would be unable to defeat Prussia without Russian aid. This was further confirmed when a Prussian army under Marshal von Bevern defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Reichenberg, capturing valuable supplies that aided him in his march on Prague in the following weeks.
The battle of Prague soon followed, in which Frederick was once again victorious, though at a great cost. Due to his high casualties, he was unable to follow up his victory with an attack on the city’s defenders, and had to attempt to starve them out.
His plan was soon foiled however, when an Austrian army under Count Leopold Josef came to relieve the besieged city, winning the Battle of Kolin. It was a brilliant victory for Leopold, who withstood Frederick’s notoriously powerful assault, and then launched a skillfully time counterattack, forcing the Prussians into a hasty retreat.
Upon declaring war in late 1756, Emperor Konstantinos XVI recruited an army of over 80,000 men from Greece and the lower Balkans. Determined to follow the example of his friend Frederick, Konstantinos took personal command of the army.
Grand Domestic Georgios Curcuas, now in his late 70s, commanded the army in Italy. The aged general had his army camp near the French border to fight off any attempted crossing. He did not plan on invading southern France, still remembering the costly and ultimately futile attempt to do so in the War of the Spanish Succession, nearly 50 years prior.
Though the Empire was at war with France, its primary enemies in the Seven Years’ War were Austria and Russia. France, not wishing to attempt another costly invasion of Italy instead chose to focus its efforts towards crushing Britain and Prussia’s allied German States in the north, the Electors of Hanover, Brunswick, and Hesse-Kassel.
Following the Battle of Kolin, the Prussian army suffered another disastrous defeat, when a far larger Russian army invaded East Prussia, crushing the small Prussian army sent to stop them. Though they had started off well, things now looked grim for Frederick and his small state.
These defeats served to place Austria and Russia as the Greek Emperor’s main enemies in the war, as he was determined to not let Austria reclaim Silesia from his newfound ally, the only European ally the Empire really had at that point.
Frederick however was not as helpless as he now appeared. As grim as things were looking for Prussia, the King’s tactical brilliance would once again shine through to turn the tides of the war.
Frederick, realizing that for the moment the Austrians were not an immediate threat due to still being in the far south, turned his army to confront the Franco-Imperial army that was approaching Prussia from the west. Russia at the moment was still in East Prussia and posed no direct threat to his state’s heartland.
With an army of roughly 25,000 men, Frederick set off from Dresden on August 31st, marching his men relentlessly, covering over 170 miles in just 13 days by buying supplies ahead of his army while leaving his supply wagons behind so they wouldn’t slow down his progress.
However, despite the seemingly vulnerable position of Prussia, Frederick had a difficult time coaxing the French commander, Charles de Rohan, into battle. The two armies engaged in a series of maneuvers, each trying to pass around each other without success. While still maneuvering against the French, an Austrian raiding party managed to attack Berlin, and came close to actually capturing the Prussian royal family.
Finally, on November 5th, the battle of Rossbach began. The allies, with over 40,000 men possessed an almost 2 to 1 numerical superiority against Frederick and his force. They had also gained the upper hand in the maneuvers that took place over the past few weeks.
With this in mind, Frederick William, Duke of Saxe-Hildburghausen, decided to take the offensive. The Prince of Soubise however proved to be reluctant to commit his army to the offensive, and it took them till much later in the morning to break camp.
It is likely that Soubise only desired a partial action that day, wishing to wait as late as possible to begin. It is clear that he was extremely reluctant to go along with the Duke’s offensive plan. The Duke’s plan called for the allied army to march by Zeuchfeld, where natural obstacles posed little hindrance to their progress. They when then deploy in battle array, facing north, between Reichardtswerben to their right, and Pettstädt to their left.
The idea behind both the Duke’s and Soubise’ plan was to cut off Frederick and his army from the towns on the Saale. However, to attain this position the allies would be forced to march around the Prussian flank, which was a risky maneuver to say the least.
They posted a substantial flank guard to protect against the risk of an attack on their exposed flank, however, this was not a well planned action, and was in all actuality a hasty move to protect a flank that would presumably be attack full force.
While Frederick the Great was originally convinced that their movements indicated a retreat, but thanks to the observations of a Captain whom he had posted on watch, he realized they were planning on an attack. For weeks the Prussians had unsuccessfully attempted to force the allies into a pitched battle, and now they had offered it to him on a silver platter. The King in Prussia seized upon it without hesitation.
Leaving only a handful of light troops to oppose the French flank guard on the Schortau Hill, the rest of the Prussian army quickly broke camp and moved, in merely half an hour following the King’s order. The army marched in the standard Prussian order of the day, in two main columns, the first line on the left, the second line on the right; farther to the right marched a column consisting of the reserve of foot, and between the first and second lines the reserve artillery on the road followed.
The Right-wing cavalry was at the head of the army, while the left-wing cavalry rode at the rear of the two main columns. When the allies witness the Prussian army’s movement, they assumed they were retreating to avoid a flank or rear attack. Upon seeing this, the allied army sent nearly all of their cavalry towards Reichardtswerben, believing they were pursuing a fleeing enemy. This would prove to be a fatal mistake.
What the allied commanders failed to realize before it was too late, was that Frederick was in truth moving to attack them before they could form up, and they were playing right into his hands with their rapid pursuit.
Frederick had no intention of forming a line parallel to the enemy, or retreating however. His smaller and better drilled army could move twice as fast as a coordinated unit as the ally’s army, and he instead planned to make a detour, using the Janus Hugel and Polzen Hugel as cover, allowing him to suddenly fall upon them from the east.
Knowing that deployment was a lengthy affair, Frederick hoped that he would be able to crush both heads of the ally’s army before they were able to form up for battle. To this end, General Von Seydlitz, with every available squadron, hurried eastward from Rossbach, behind the Janus Hugel, to the Pölzen Hugel, while Colonel von Moller, with eighteen heavy guns, came into action on the Janus Hugel at 3:15 PM against the advancing columns of the Allied cavalry; and the infantry followed as quickly as possible.
Finding themselves under attack by Moller’s guns, the allied cavalry squadrons, which had strayed far ahead of their infantry, suffered extensive casualties. However, because bringing in artillery was common when covering retreats, they continued with the “pursuit”. However, they were completely taken off guard by Von Seydlitz, whose 38 cavalry squadrons suddenly came charging down upon the head and right flank of their columns from the cover of the Polzen Hugel.
Von Seydlitz himself fought alongside his men, receiving a severe wound. In less than 30 minutes, the allied cavalry was utterly crushed beneath the Prussian charge, and following this, the Prussian infantry were descending the Janus Hugel, falling upon the confused and demoralized allied infantry.
Though the remainder of the allied army struggled to form a line of battle a distance away from Lundstedt and Reichertswerben, where the Prussian army was, they were unable to put up a real resistance. When Von Seydlitz’s squadrons returned from pursuing the French cavalry, they crashed into the main allied army’s right, catching them completely off guard.
Following this, the allied infantry broke and fled in a complete panic, the wounded Prince of Soubise and Duke of Saxe-Hildburghausen managed to hold together two regiments, but the rest of their army scattered across the countryside.
The entire battle lasted but an hour and a half, with only seven Prussian infantry battalions engaging the enemy, and these only expanded 5 to 15 rounds per man. The total losses of the Prussian army were under 550. The allies on the other hand suffered 5,000 casualties, with another 5,000 men being captured.
King Frederick the Great was said to have stated, “I won the battle of Rossbach with most of my infantry having their muskets shouldered.” Indeed, in only an hour and a half, 3,500 cavalry had defeated the combined armies of two European superpowers.
As amazing as his victory as Rossbach was, however, the Austrian’s to the south had managed to conquer most of Silesia during that time, with the province’s capital of Breslau falling only days before the King’s arrival on November 28th.
Frederick and his army of 35,000 men faced an Austrian army nearly twice their size when they arrived at Leuthen. Charles of Lorraine, the Austrian commander of the army in Breslau, believing that he would be able to win a decisive victory over the much smaller Prussian army hastily had his army march out of the city to meet Frederick in battle.
However, the terrain around Leuthen had been Frederick’s training ground for his entire army, and he knew the area intimately. On top of this, the weather was foggy, thus giving the Prussian King’s familiarity with the area an even greater advantage.
The Austrian army was stretched to an incredible length, hoping to prevent Frederick from attempting to flank them, his favorite tactic. However in this instance, that decision would prove to be a fatal mistake. Frederick marched his army directly towards the Austrian army, while having his cavalry launch an attack on Borna as a feint.
He then turned his army to face the Austrian right flank, looking as if he would be launching an all out attack there. Whilst screening his army with cavalry, however, Frederick moved his well-drilled infantry towards the Austrian left in columns, having them march to the south, behind a line of low hills that were out of sight of the Austrian army, as well as the Prince of Lorraine.
With only the visible parts of Frederick’s army to go on, the Prince moved all of his reserves to protect the right flank, leaving the left highly vulnerable. After this, the Prussian army appeared to have vanished to the Austrians, and Lorraine believed they had retreated, remarking “The good fellows are leaving, let’s let them go.”
But when the heads of two superbly drilled Prussian columns, the distances between the marching platoons remaining exactly the width of each platoon's front, had passed the Austrian left, the columns veered left toward the enemy and continued their march until the heads of the two columns had passed beyond the left Austrian flank.
Then, following Frederick’s instructions, the platoons of the columns turned left at Lobetinz, and the whole Prussian army lay in line of battle at nearly a right angle to the left flank of the Austrian position.
Frederick had carried out with his entire army a maneuver analogous to that used by the Spartans to attack their enemy in flank. This maneuver was lethal, as the weakest soldiers of the Austrian army had been placed on the left flank, in a position protect by the hills as their fighting ability was doubted by their superiors.
The Prussian infantry, arrayed in a standard two line battle formation, advanced on the Austrian left flank. The Prussians were in luck, for much of the left’s infantry were made up of Protestant Wurttemburg soldiers, who were sympathetic to their also protestant enemies. After only a brief skirmish, the Wurttemburg regiments broke rank and fled the battle.
The remaining Austrian infantry were then hammered with merciless fire from the Prussian 12-pounders, as the advancing Prussian infantry opened fire upon them with their disciplined and well aimed volleys.
The remaining infantry, faced with this withering firepower, broke rank and fled. The Prince of Lorraine, now desperate, hastily rushed troops from his right to his left, forming a makeshift and poorly organized line along the town of Leuthen, where his center once was. Though the Austrians desperately attempted to realign themselves, their line of battle was so long that it took the soldiers from the right flank over one and a half hours to make it to the left.
Meanwhile, the Prussians continued to press onward, eventually assaulting Leuthen with heavy artillery support. The Prussian army, in just 40 minutes seized the village from the Austrians. The Austrian cavalry, now believing the Prussian line was vulnerable to attack attempted to charge them in the flank and gain a last minute victory for the Austrians. However they were soon intercepted by a devastating charge from the Prussian cavalry. The fighting between the two cavalry forces soon spilled into the Austrian line behind Leuthen, further demoralizing the confused and shaken army.
The Austrians, surrounded by chaos and confusion, retreated in a broken panic. The entire battle lasted just over three hours, ending in an astonishing Prussian victory. Following this defeat, Prince Charles of Lorraine exclaimed “I can’t believe it!”, having been defeated by an army only half his size, in a defensive battle.
King Frederick the Great showed his genius in this battle, with his well planned and executed pre-battle operational maneuvers. He was able to hide his intentions, achieve complete surprise, and then strike a devastating blow to the enemy’s weakest point in a tactic not dissimilar to what is known today as Blitzkrieg.
The Austrians retreated into Bohemia, leaving Silesia in Frederick’s hands once more. It was the King’s greatest victory, and showed the world once and for all the superiority of Prussian infantry and tactics. Following the battle, Maria Theresa forced Prince Charles to resign for his incompetence.
Emperor Konstantinos, upon receiving word of his ally’s triumph, exclaimed “This war shall be over before we even meet the enemy in battle!”. However, his prediction would prove to not be true. While Austria had suffered a bloody loss at Leuthen, they were far from defeated.
A Roman army of 80,000 soon marched out of Zagreb, heading towards the Austrian heartland. The army was lead by the Emperor himself, and this sent up alarms throughout the Archduchy, as Maria Theresa scrambled to send an army to face the Greeks.
As the two European powers prepared to square off for the first time in the war, Emperor Konstantinos was determined to show the King of Prussia that he was not the only one who could win a glorious victory over the Austrians…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go, read and reply.
Sorry for focusing on Prussia for most of this update, Frederick the Great is one of my favorite historical generals, and I love to show his genius. And Chief Ragusa and Vincent Julian, please try and keep it civil. I don't mind debating in my AAR, but don't let it turn nasty.
Last edited:
You do capture the shock of the Austrian army as they are left reeling from Frederick the Great's tactical genius.
As for the Byzantine army, I am not convinced a defensive posture is correct in Italy. I understand the reasons for it. I assume the plan is to wait for attacks, crush them and then counter, capture some provinces and make peace or some colonies.
I have no intention of debating with Vincent Julien. A question was put and I answered it. It did not seem to me to need any examination of institutions. If Vincent Julien wants to pursue the matter further, he can PM me.
I liked the way you brought the Agora back to life for the emerging bourgeoisie. It will be fascinating to see how the power of the Emperor and the institutions of Senate and Agora develop in the next couple of decades.
As for the Byzantine army, I am not convinced a defensive posture is correct in Italy. I understand the reasons for it. I assume the plan is to wait for attacks, crush them and then counter, capture some provinces and make peace or some colonies.
I have no intention of debating with Vincent Julien. A question was put and I answered it. It did not seem to me to need any examination of institutions. If Vincent Julien wants to pursue the matter further, he can PM me.
I liked the way you brought the Agora back to life for the emerging bourgeoisie. It will be fascinating to see how the power of the Emperor and the institutions of Senate and Agora develop in the next couple of decades.
Wow! This should get very interesting! I hope that Konstantinos can handle commanding such a large army though... Curcuas should be transferred to central Europe and take command of that army, as he's a better general than the Emperor will ever be
Does this siding with Prussia hint at the future of Roman geopolitics? Could the Roman Empire end up fighting on the side of Germany in the Great War?
More close to the current time, could the Empire end up siding with Napoleon to defeat Britain once and for all? Very interesting what if's in an even larger what if xD
Does this siding with Prussia hint at the future of Roman geopolitics? Could the Roman Empire end up fighting on the side of Germany in the Great War?
More close to the current time, could the Empire end up siding with Napoleon to defeat Britain once and for all? Very interesting what if's in an even larger what if xD