Forum:Global and regional issues/History of Ancient West Uletha and North Tarephia - Romantish Empire
As we move to a new age in OGF where we seek a more collaborative world history, we need to finally discuss about the "Romantish Empire". As we all should know, we have an equivalent to the Roman Empire, however, with no official decision being made, the name, extension and duration of the empire was never defined, this creates a few issues. With no limitations, the Empire can have been as large or small as we wish, as long as territories decided to include the empire in their history, so we should set in stone it's general extension.
In this Forum, we will define:
- The Extent of the Empire
- The Name of the Empire [Admin edit: This topic has been moved here.]
- The Capital of the Empire [Admin edit: This topic has been moved here.]
What is discussed here comes from long threads from Discord that will be shortened, since no consensus has been made.
- Empire Extension:
Through discussion, I have brought a proposal for the extent of the Empire, during it's history, the Empire would most probably have large issues of movement of troops, limiting it's extension. The empire would border the Prettanic Lake and The Great Rift in the North, the Surian Plains in the East, the Sea and "Indian" to the South and a messy border to the West. The issue of geographic barries would create a few important policies for the empire, like, most probably the creating of multiple client states and outer provinces of the empire with more self-authority to allow a better control of the politics inside the land. Romantish Sathria, the Original Hellenisian land, some Kalmish Kingdoms and the "Phoenicians" would most probably be dominated by the Empire but given a type of sel-authority so that local elites would be less willing to revolt.
Ta Seti, though it would be heavily influenced by Hellenisian culture, the Romantish would not be able to reach as far as Ta Seti.
Here I request, if you have any other proposals or ideas on this, please contribute.
- Empire's Name:
We must change the name of the Romantish Empire, using Rome in any type of way is counter active to our attempt to distance this empire from the Roman one. So I request contributions to a name, after that we will discuss and most probably vote. The Roman Empire was named by historians because of the influence of one city on the entire empire, and since we are trying to move from that comparison, we should not name the empire after a city.
[Admin edit: To follow and participate in this discussion, see its own dedicated forum post. ]
- Capital of the Empire:
There has been a long discussion of Osianopoli not being the empire's capital. So I propose an idea, Osianopoli WAS the original capital, but contrary to the Roman Empire, here, the city was not needed to be the centre of power. The Popular Capital, where most things go, where holidays are celebrated, where victories are celebrated would be Osianopoli, however, during the growth of the empire, the political capital would be moved to a more centralized area. Here are my proposals:
- Triaum Urbs Imperial/ Triaumpolis Imperial / Triaum Imperial (Named after the empire itself if the empire is to be named Triaum, it would probably in the coast along UL08e, UL08b, UL08e, Etoe in Sathriada, Mitras or Northern Castellán, however I would like to avoid putting the capital in the territory of a current owned territory). - Civitelle (It would have been moved there, meaning in Italian, just, small city, it would probably show how the political capital is smaller than the historical capital)
We could also have the political capital be in an unknown place, maybe locations have been proposed but not archeological evidence was able to fully prove that one specific place was the capital.
I ask of all of you your ideas so we can finally settle this issue. —Unsigned comment by Davieerr (talk).
Ideas
Extent of the Empire
I would like to see the empire extend further north to include Tircambry (and UL10-98 & 99) because there are a lot of Latin-origin words and placename elements in Welsh (OGF Cambric) which date from the Roman occupation. A number of common English placename elements also have Latin origins from this era, either directly or via Brittonic (pre-Welsh), e.g. ...cester, ...chester, ...port... , so I'm not sure it makes sense to exclude Ingerland either. This creates an empire which is much bigger than the Roman Empire but still smaller than some other pre-industrial empires (Mongul, Chinese, Islamic), so would it be unrealistic? Pawl (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is how I imagine the Romantian Empire to have looked like: https://imgur.com/r5XR7ew
- darker red: empire proper; lighter: dependencies; ellipse: area for possible imperial capital --Stjur (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think I prefer this sketch of the empire's extent. The OGF:Roman Empire having less influence over Turquan Uletha could perhaps aid in explaining why there is a very abrupt cultural border between Romance and Turquan cultures in our world. A "French Rome" could be an interesting way to reimagine the potential capital of Franqueterre. As for the role of Osianopoli within this version of the empire, it could have been an important city for maritime trade rather than political power in the empire. Alternatively, if we imagine our Roman Empire got divided much like its real life counterpart, perhaps Osianopoli became the seat of power for one of the empire's more notable successor states? --Timboh (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- While I have other thoughts about the Empire I'll write up here soon (hopefully), I just want to say that I agree that a historic capital in Franqueterre would be ideal in my opinion, and would remove the empire further from IRL:Rome (and I don't think Osianopoli has necessarily been mapped as a historic capital). I also don't think a division between a political/popular capital makes sense as Davi has proposed, while classics isn't my area of expertise it's my understanding that Rome depended on the city being the centre for everything --- having a geographic disconnect between the political elite and the popular public I don't think would have gone over well. --Lithium-Ion | [1] (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- This might be a bit outside the scope of the discussion, but I do think a Roman capital in Franqueterre would be a creative way to give Franqueterre a notable capital without simply reiterating Paris. We can still take ideas from French urbanism, but with a strong influence from ancient Roman architecture and landmarks like what you might find in central Italian cities. I think the synthesis of these two high concepts could be a quite compelling base for a more unique Franqueterre, not just for its capital but its spatial development in general. I don't think this has to diminish Roman influence in Plevian urbanism either - Roman urbanism and engineering spread far and wide in the real world, so I see no reason why it couldn't in our world either. If that isn't enough to support Plevia's history, perhaps at the decline of the empire it was the provinces in Plevia that styled themselves as the successors of the empire, while the "core" in Franqueterre developed in a different direction and adopted the influences that eventually lead to a distinct Franquese culture. I am by no means knowledgable in Roman history so I don't know what cultural developments are plausible, but I hope some of these ideas might contribute to the discussion. --Timboh (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am also supportive of the idea that Franqueterre was the core of the OGF:Roman Empire, much more than the Plevian counterpart idea. We do not need a 1:1 parallel of everything from the real world on OGF. I can imagine Asterix and Obelix but with the roles swapped, haha. Now on a serious note, Franqueterre also has a more favorable position for such growth than Plevia. Yes, even if Franqueterre is all the way up into the Mediterranean Sea, it still has a better location in my opinion. Timboh's idea of Plevia resuming the supposed rule is great, given that a similar thing happened in the real world with the Byzantine Empire being a continuation of the Roman Empire, except in this scenario, the empire would not have had a different image after its fall (the Byzantine Empire was more Greek than Latin, hence the different name). A capital in the heart of present-day Franqueterre would allow the empire to grow as much as possible in all directions (which in turn means that I am supportive of Alessa's idea that this empire can and should stretch as far as possible to accomodate all nations and cultures that depend on the OGF:Roman influences). ⸺ Bixelkoven (talk) (West Uletha Admin) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think a good compromise would be that the original capital, from which the empire originated, was somewhere in Plevia, but as a result of its proximity to the Varvars (due to which frequent raids/lootings could occur), it was moved to a more centralized area (AKA Franqueterre) that was easier to defend. This way we can still have a strong Plevian-Roman association, while also having a sort of 'Roman Paris'. --IiEarth (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps a better analogy is a city like Marseille as the Roman Capital. This is not that unreasonable given that Occitan, the historical language of Southern France, is very similar to Italian and Catalan. After the unification of Franqueterre (another name that should be changed) there would've been a push towards a centralized language from further north with stronger Germanic influence. I do think that if this road is taken a bunch of names in Franqueterre near Rivador are to be changed: names like Deurzenpold, Licambourg are too Germanic to be in that area.
- This might be a bit outside the scope of the discussion, but I do think a Roman capital in Franqueterre would be a creative way to give Franqueterre a notable capital without simply reiterating Paris. We can still take ideas from French urbanism, but with a strong influence from ancient Roman architecture and landmarks like what you might find in central Italian cities. I think the synthesis of these two high concepts could be a quite compelling base for a more unique Franqueterre, not just for its capital but its spatial development in general. I don't think this has to diminish Roman influence in Plevian urbanism either - Roman urbanism and engineering spread far and wide in the real world, so I see no reason why it couldn't in our world either. If that isn't enough to support Plevia's history, perhaps at the decline of the empire it was the provinces in Plevia that styled themselves as the successors of the empire, while the "core" in Franqueterre developed in a different direction and adopted the influences that eventually lead to a distinct Franquese culture. I am by no means knowledgable in Roman history so I don't know what cultural developments are plausible, but I hope some of these ideas might contribute to the discussion. --Timboh (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- While I have other thoughts about the Empire I'll write up here soon (hopefully), I just want to say that I agree that a historic capital in Franqueterre would be ideal in my opinion, and would remove the empire further from IRL:Rome (and I don't think Osianopoli has necessarily been mapped as a historic capital). I also don't think a division between a political/popular capital makes sense as Davi has proposed, while classics isn't my area of expertise it's my understanding that Rome depended on the city being the centre for everything --- having a geographic disconnect between the political elite and the popular public I don't think would have gone over well. --Lithium-Ion | [1] (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think I prefer this sketch of the empire's extent. The OGF:Roman Empire having less influence over Turquan Uletha could perhaps aid in explaining why there is a very abrupt cultural border between Romance and Turquan cultures in our world. A "French Rome" could be an interesting way to reimagine the potential capital of Franqueterre. As for the role of Osianopoli within this version of the empire, it could have been an important city for maritime trade rather than political power in the empire. Alternatively, if we imagine our Roman Empire got divided much like its real life counterpart, perhaps Osianopoli became the seat of power for one of the empire's more notable successor states? --Timboh (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Stjur and Pawl, thank you for your contributions, I was wondering about the size of things, however, expanding the empire north to Tircambry AND Ingerland makes it too large for the general size of nations at the time, my counter proposal would be to consider a population shift of celtic and germanic populations, allowing for germanic/celtic populations that had been influenced by latin to move north and west, this would also allow Sathriada and other nations that seem to be really far from latin influence to survive in smaller forms.
OGF:Roman Empire should have latin influence, since places like Qennes and Malesoria, so I believe that at least northern parts of turquan lands should be under romantish control. Only if we consider the Hellenisian influence to be continued after the fall of the rest of the hellenisian sphere of influence, with maybe a few powerful romantish families moving into the enitities that were created after, instead of having romantish conquer so east. Again, I believe that the original seat of power MUST be in Plevia, the latin language would not create italian if there was another original language there, it would be a conglang, if we are not going to consider that, than I at least suggest that the original people that created the empire are from the coastal plevian region. Maybe we can consider that Franqueterre had a powerfull city that once was conquered became the official capital of the romantish empire. —Unsigned comment by Davieerr (talk).
- I cant fully agree with you on these points, I personally believe the extent of the empire is not an issue given the current cultural landscape of the continent; Regarding Malesoria and particularly Qennes, according to history segments on the wiki the Romantish cultural elements only appeared later, stemming from colonization under Garlis - of course this can be changed but it doesnt have to; While I do understand your reasoning as to why the Romantian capital has to be in Plevia, I dont think its that relevant, especially if the Romantian Empire has fallen under neighboring non-Romantian cultures at some point (scenario which seems instinctively reasonable to me, and didnt ever really happen this way with Rome - "conquering cultures" adapted to the Roman culture instead of thr other way around, while in Byzantium for ex relevant cultural aspects such as language and religion have been changed according to the "conquering cultures"). I think things dont have to be simplified in order for them to have possibly worked, history can be complex. I also think being that loyal to the Romantian/Roman parallel is not necessarily the best approach --Stjur (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would then, justify having Romantian/Roman influence over at the border of Tircambry, and Ingerland, while also having the region of Qennes and Malesoria be client states rather than part of the empire, but I would keep, even if with no history, western sathriada independent. Yes, things do get complicated, and the capital can be anywhere in he region, yet, my point still stands tha a capital that far into the mediterrenean sea would have a difficulty reaching outer regions, even if the location would be more centralized geographically, so maybe that is a better justification. 15:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Davieerr
- Speaking as a regional admin, it is important that the empire have actual control and not just client state control over areas like Tircambry and southeastern Ingerland just as much as it would Malesoria and points south of Castellan. We do not have to work out all the details of how something got this big, and they didn't all have to be in the empire at the same time. The point is that there are cultures on the map that are just not going to move and have to be accommodated. Yes, we're stretching the limits a bit, but this is the price we're going to have to pay to work out a common history a bit more. — Alessa (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Alessa sorry to ask, but why Malesoria? --Stjur (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- No problem to ask. It is my understanding that Malesoria is using an Albanian theme. Perhaps I'm incorrect on that, so please let me know if I am misunderstanding. If it is using an Albanian theme, there would need to be some type of Roman input to help shape the language and culture. This would account for systems of settlement and numerous words in the language that cannot be explained away as later learned forms. Now, to be clear, I do not think having the empire reach over to Malesoria needs to be a long, drawn-out affair. It could have been very, very brief. I'm simply saying that the Malesorian culture needs to have intersected (not just interacted) with the empire to account for the much higher post-Roman input than people often realize. — Alessa (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I initially wanted to refrain from this discussion until it becomes somewhat fruitful. But speaking of Erez Gulf region (Malesoria, northwest, Demirhan, Qennes, Niscavo and a bit of Antharia) I think history of Niscavo is key factor here. Now it's all blank but I remember taking historical basis for Ardeşehir, as well as naming settlements in the region from the old wikipage of Niscavo. If I remembert things correctly Niscavo was established in the antiquity by Eganian/Hellanesian colonisers, later was independent, joined Egani, independent again etc. Given that I assumed heavy Hellanesian influence in the region (that's why Almıros is called Almıros, it means salt in Greek). Given that Greek influence is (or used to be because I have no idea if it is still valid version of history) crucial for the region, I don't think Roman(tian) Empire would have to stretch as far as here as these Greeks are used as a substitute for Romans and Byzantines. But on the other hand both Greek and Roman cultures can intertwin in various ways, just like they did in the real world so such extent of (not)Romantish Empire is possible with recognition of the fact that region was more Greek than Roman (Latin). Rustem Pasha (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I have to second this. The Iviran Coast with the mentioned countries are all mostly influenced by the Hellanesian culture. Qennes, for example, has no Roman influence whatsoever, and the Romanian influence only arrived in the 13-14th centuries. The same is accountable for coastal Malesoria, Niscavo, etc. I'd personally like to keep it that way in my own territory, but if Roman influence had to spread that far east at any given point, I can propose the Kanesh∈⊾ (Qennes) river as an eastern boundary and the Kiran river as the southern boundary, however again, I personally would limit the Roman influence in my territory. As for Malesoria, I can suggest the Roman influence to not span beyond the central mountain chain. It would give the current capital of Talrasin some increased importance as a frontier town, and would also justify its current size. The rest of Malesoria can remain mostly Hellanesian inspired as was initially intended. ⸺ Bixelkoven (talk) (West Uletha Admin) 20:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I initially wanted to refrain from this discussion until it becomes somewhat fruitful. But speaking of Erez Gulf region (Malesoria, northwest, Demirhan, Qennes, Niscavo and a bit of Antharia) I think history of Niscavo is key factor here. Now it's all blank but I remember taking historical basis for Ardeşehir, as well as naming settlements in the region from the old wikipage of Niscavo. If I remembert things correctly Niscavo was established in the antiquity by Eganian/Hellanesian colonisers, later was independent, joined Egani, independent again etc. Given that I assumed heavy Hellanesian influence in the region (that's why Almıros is called Almıros, it means salt in Greek). Given that Greek influence is (or used to be because I have no idea if it is still valid version of history) crucial for the region, I don't think Roman(tian) Empire would have to stretch as far as here as these Greeks are used as a substitute for Romans and Byzantines. But on the other hand both Greek and Roman cultures can intertwin in various ways, just like they did in the real world so such extent of (not)Romantish Empire is possible with recognition of the fact that region was more Greek than Roman (Latin). Rustem Pasha (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- No problem to ask. It is my understanding that Malesoria is using an Albanian theme. Perhaps I'm incorrect on that, so please let me know if I am misunderstanding. If it is using an Albanian theme, there would need to be some type of Roman input to help shape the language and culture. This would account for systems of settlement and numerous words in the language that cannot be explained away as later learned forms. Now, to be clear, I do not think having the empire reach over to Malesoria needs to be a long, drawn-out affair. It could have been very, very brief. I'm simply saying that the Malesorian culture needs to have intersected (not just interacted) with the empire to account for the much higher post-Roman input than people often realize. — Alessa (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Alessa sorry to ask, but why Malesoria? --Stjur (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also speaking as an admin here: one way to counter balance this would be to include as little of Sathria as possible. We would need to include some for sure just to make the empire make sense. But, let's try to keep it minimalistic. — Alessa (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Speaking as a regional admin, it is important that the empire have actual control and not just client state control over areas like Tircambry and southeastern Ingerland just as much as it would Malesoria and points south of Castellan. We do not have to work out all the details of how something got this big, and they didn't all have to be in the empire at the same time. The point is that there are cultures on the map that are just not going to move and have to be accommodated. Yes, we're stretching the limits a bit, but this is the price we're going to have to pay to work out a common history a bit more. — Alessa (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delay in my reply. As the main coordinator of Plevia, I feel obligated to share my idea.
I may be biased as an Italian mapper, but it would be disappointing for the capital of the Empire not to be a Plevian city. I have always imagined it to be Osianopoli. However, if there is an issue with the centrality of the city, it could even be Temisa, traditionally an area very close to Franqueterre, which is also reflected in the map. I see the possibility of a double capital system to control both sides of the sea, as Plevia is thicker than the Italian peninsula. Osianopoli and another city in Franqueterre could serve as the capitals. A periodic shift between the capitals could be implemented, similar to a shifting monarchy. Kings would control the empire and move to the other capital upon their death. These are just ideas. --Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Here follows my revised proposal for the extent of the empire, with northlands annexed, while excluding the eastern areas of malesoria. The pink areas are client states and close allies (I assume part of the hellesian colonies would not be annexed and would maintaing independence even if close allies with Osianopoli). Sathria is still partially annexed, because regardless of it continuing to exist in the future or not, the area is of interest. The capital, in my opinion must stay at Osianopoli, Rome was an important and integral part of the empire, and made itslef a important city that would be sought after many people, and many empires later, including the ottomans, saw themselves as protectors of Rome, so when the Italians joined, Rome was the obvious pick, because finally the peninsula was once again unified, and Rome simbolized the pride and history for all of italians. While Osianopoli sits at a strange place sea whise, while Rome sat at the middle of the mediterrenean, Osiano is closer to open sea than a capital on Franqueterre. Osianopoli should be the capital of the "triac/romantish" empire.
Abou consensus, I'm not sure what way should we go, the Roman History, Law, Customs, affected all cultures in the world because of colonization, however, history wise, fewer countries had been impacted. So either we have anyone being able to decide the size of the empire, or only the West Ulethan mappers get into a consensus, either way I would prefer that this would be clarified. -- User:Davieerr
I would suggest to add to the desert areas in the south as client states too. Historically the Roman empire did not control such areas but simply left control to local tribes. The Ottoman reference is to the Imperial title of Roman Emperor, as held by the rulers of Constantipolis.
Imperator (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Copy-pasting the relevant part of a basic proposal I wrote offsite, hoping that the discussion isn't completely dead by now. It is centered around Plevia but explains the origins of the empire as a whole.
Around 500 b.C. Latin-like peoples calling themselves Plevians start organizing into one state in today's southern Plevia. At the same time Osianopolis is an important city belonging to a decently large state to the east (UL07e predecessors?), but not its capital. It gets conquered by the Plevian state, marking the birth of the Romantish empire or whatever it's called. During the following centuries the empire expands significantly, conquering territories much further north. This is a necessity because Pretannia and Astria speak romance languages. However, none of the territories north of Comazio (the geographical center of modern-day Plevia) are part of a "Plevian" province the same way that Apulia and Piedmont were both part of the province of Italia in the Roman empire. The northern half of the country is quite unpopulated, partially arid, and in general very different than the south, with no clear geographical unifying feature. Italia the Roman province was instead quite easily defined by being a peninsula surrounded by the Alps to the north. During the OGF:Middle ages (do they even exist?), after the dissolution of the Empire and the southern province called Plevia, various states compete for control over the south, however none of them is able to subdue the others. If someone knows about the history of Navenna it would be useful to know if this timeline could be coherent. Later on, they begin slowly expanding in different directions independently: Osianopolis and central modern-day Plevia are conquered by the 17th century.
The result of a smaller province of Plevia, which in my opinion makes sense by itself, might be an early increase in the economic importance of other Romantish provinces; this does not mean that the cultural significance of Plevia would necessarily be diminished: as the homeland of the empire it would still be held in high regard.
Here Osianopolis would neither be Plevia's original capital, nor the capital of the empire, just a large, already existing city (think Alexandria, which while not being at the center of the Mediterranean sea was if I'm not mistaken second only to Rome itself).
I have to disagree with ITC on the idea that the capital has to be located in Plevia: we needn't, and perhaps shouldn't, replicate the exact dynamics of the Roman empire. So many aspects of this empire have already been taken from it, and in a world that isn't the same as the real one I don't see why Osianopolis should serve the same purpose as Rome. Mtejku223 (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Name of the sea
[Admin edit: This discussion has been relocated here.]
Name of the empire
[Admin edit: This discussion has been relocated here.]
Comments regarding consensus
- @Alessa, would it be possible to set up some votes for these name changes? I personally don't mind very much what the name is, as long as it is grammatically feasible and it is a bit removed from the earthly name. What would be the required number of voters to count as a "broad concensus"?
- Regarding this topic, are there other water bodies that require naming / renaming at the moment? Imperator (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, it is hard to put a hard number on it, but I would like to see something approaching a two-thirds supermajority vote of a dozen or so people. It really depends on the topic. If we're talking about the name of the sea, and 90% of those on the sea like it but it barely receives 50% of the vote site-wide, it's going to win. If we're talking about the name of the empire, I'd like to see fifteen or so people voting on it, if not more. As for other bodies adjacent to the empire, I cannot think of too many other than maybe the name of straits or smaller gulfs attached to the mediterranean area. — Alessa (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)