Forum:Global and regional issues/History of Ancient West Uletha and North Tarephia - Romantish Empire

Forums → Global and regional issues → 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
• The Capital of the Empire

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. That being said, here follows my proposals.

- Nostro Empire (Coming from the Latin Nostro Imperium, or Our Empire, most likely the coloquial name that citizens would call the empire, since Nostro Mare was the roman name for the Mediterrenean, it wouldn't be so far fetched that the coloquial name of the empire would carry over through history). - Triaum Empire (Reipublicae Popularis Triaum, Popular Republic of Tria, would be the official name of the Empire, but instead of being named after a city, it would be named after a people, the Tria people, even thought Tria means Three, we can consider the Tria a mithological name, maybe after three goddesses, family members or anything related to the number 3, I think Triaum is a nice name.

• 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)

I think Stjur's ideas would work, but I think that the territories should be continuous. Imperator (talk) 22:55, 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)

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)

I agree, also, since we are not agreeing on the full hisotr of the empire, I doubt there would be a reason to discuss about other ancient nations as well. -- DavieerrDavieerr (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Name for the Sea

@Davieerr (talk), Mare and Imperium are neuter in Latin, you would have Mare Nostrum and Imperium Nostrum (for nominative). For the sea, I would suggest using a stem that relates to its southern location when looked from Osianopoli (Osianople in Ingerish?), either as such or alludes to it: something based on the notion of light/bright, red/white or warmth as some languages do. What about Mesembric Sea based on μεσημβρία/mesembría (Ancient Greek for midday or south while Modern Greek uses νότος/nόtos for south)? You would have Mar Mesémbrico, Mare Mesembrico or Mer Mésembrique in some of the languages now bordering that sea. --Aiki (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've always wanted to change the name of the Mediterranean Sea on OGF, so I am very happy to see this finally being discussed. The Mesembric Sea is a nice name I think. Seeing as there likely aren't any Greek-speaking territories bordering the sea, where would the Ancient Greek name have come from? Hellanesian/Eganian settlers predating the OGF:Roman Empire? --Timboh (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Concerning Aiki's suggestion and Timboh's reponse: If Latin is preferred, Meridian Sea can be used instead with the same meaning. Imperator (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I really like Mesembric Sea as a name option. We could have it so Ancient Greeks were quite influential and a scholarly source of information in ancient times and explain why their naming preference of things took precedence? --Arlo (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Ancient Hellenisia is quite influencial, and the Mesembric Sea is a great alternative to using Mediterrenean for a region with similar cultural influences, considering that the Hellenisians would see the entire sea "south" of them. —Unsigned comment by Davieerr (talk).

As admin, I am simply going to state that if there is enough desire on this particular issue, I will gladly fork this conversation into its own separate forum entry. There, we can discuss greater detail about the naming (including other languages for those that may wish to use a different nomenclature) and hold an official vote to make a new name canon. — Alessa _(talk) 02:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Name for the Empire

Just adding some corrections regarding the Latin used. Reipublicae Popularis Triaum > Res Publica Popularis "Triadina" (adj for name of Empire) Tria - Trias Given the points mentioned *The Extent of the Empire - *The Name of the Empire - I think the idea for the name as proposed works. Imperium Nostrum can work. If we take trias (triad) as a base there are many options, given the declension (https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/noun/16656/) a triad root may seem most reasonable.

So perhaps Triadine Empire from Imperium Triadinum. Other options from the adjective would be: -ānus, -ēnus, -iānus, -ūnus or -(i)ensis. Another option is using the nominative to form triassic: Triassic Empire - Imperium Triassicum. *City, I would personally prefer using an existing city as Temisa or Costa or maybe even Rivador. It doesn't have to be a very large city as cities can be abandoned. —Unsigned comment by Imperator (talk).

I think Triaum is a great name and offers for some cool religious/cultural development regarding the "triad/three" element. --Arlo (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Imperator corrected some of my latin and I believe we should either have the original Latin name be Imperium Nostrum (Nostro Empire in English), Triaum Empire (Triadian Empire/Trassic Empire, in english), Res Publica Popularis Triae/Triadiana. While the official capital should move away from the 3-simbolism, to avoid the city being names Tripoli, a very common name.

About location, Rivador, and Franqueterre in general are too inland for my taste, also, I doubt OGF:Rome would be abandoned, the thing is, most cities that were abandoned were rebuilt, just changed names because new languages and cultures came along, Ugarit didn't dissapear, it was rebuilt to what is nowdays Latakia, but its people and language changed, so we can consider the end of that chapter, since the continuity of the city was cut, same thing for Babylon, that had existed as the village of Babil up to the 1600's. But when talking about Rome, though the city was sacked multiple times, the level of civilizational advancement and lack of this pause in the city's history made for Rome to still have its existence preserved, even when the city lost most of its power. It still held simbolical value, so I doubt the city would have been abandoned. —Unsigned comment by Davieerr (talk).

Notice that Triae would mean that the name of the Empire/nation is Tria as Triae would be the genitive form of Tria. Triaum Empire is not possible as Triaum is not an adjective form, you could base an adjective on the genitive form which would be Triai - (Triaian Empire for example). Imperator (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the corection Imperator! I think we can all see that using Tria or a variation of it is coming along pretty well for a name 15:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Davieerr

Glad these details about how the word would be used is being worked out. That said, please don't confuse the dialogue here with consensus as to the name of the empire. I would like to see if there are any other options out there, and we will need to have a broad community consensus here (much more than four or five people) in the forums on this before making it official. — Alessa _(talk) 16:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree on both the sea and empire's name needing more consensus and maybe even another page for it, however, I do have a question for you, seeing how sometimes engagement here is slow and that tends to lead to the lack of anything being decided, how do you reccomend better helping this discussion? -- DavieerrDavieerr (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) @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)