AMW Big Discussion Thread

[Chrinthanium]

Thanks for that Chrin. Again, I never meant to be a #!@%$, I just wanted to make some of my thoughts known. Thanks also for sharing your experiences, I know what you mean, the thoughts are really appreciated. And again thanks everyone for all of your thoughts, you put my worries about feeling overwhelmed totally in perspective.

Please bear with me everyone as I try to respond individually to all of your all’s posts, I promise I will do so diligently and as quickly as possible. In the mean time, I will post a news blurb that I think can be used as a general reaction for all the various posts so far, in kind. So in the mean time I will stop with the drama and start the RP again!

There's no rush. Really. AMW doesn't move fast, so we are used to it. I am definitely not of the mindset you were being anything derogatory. I was just frustrated. Keep at it and let the chips fall where they may.

[Chrinthanium]

As some of you know, I've been reorganizing the Roman Empire internally a bit. I've been deciding just what kind of position Rome has in the world and whether or not it has a global empire or remains a regional empire. The fact of the matter is, most people tend to keep Rome stuck at 117 CE. Having it no more important, bigger, or influential than that. A regional power in the modern world with the ability to provide influence in regional affairs both diplomatically and militarily.

I have attempted to, at times, expand the empire to have the last vestiges of a global empire resigning the empire to the fact that it had its day and now it's just ambling along being all Roman in Europe and just following along with whatever Munstra was doing at that point in time. The English are, quite rightly so, skeptical of the papacy and the Catholic Romans. Obviously there hasn't been a more influential empire than Walmington since the Romans were in their heyday. I can envision a scenario where the Top Hats in Walmington worry that a rising Roman Empire could, to some degree, cut into their global influence and, throughout history, have fought the empire in its attempt to colonize around the world. Perhaps this is how RL Morocco became Walmingtonian in the first place? Just a thought.

So, rather than have a Roman Empire in the last throws of global imperialism, I think the Romans did have, and still maintain, a decent intercontinental empire. Founded during the late middle ages/early modern age when the power of a Roman emperor was reduced and the individual provinces had far more autonomy than they do in the modern day. Families sponsoring expeditions of the Great Explorers around the world in search of gold and power (much like the RL Spanish and Portuguese Empires). The rise and fall of dominant nobleman the likes of which permeated Europe during these times with a weak central government in Rome unable or unwilling to do much to assert its control across two peninsulas and, now, an ocean.

During these times, the Romans would also hit RL Australia, but eventually give up when all they encountered was desert and a host of things that can kill a man without much effort.

Thus, I'd like to try this idea of having a more global empire. Exterior areas with a greater deal of autonomy than the home provinces owing to their distance and the different regional political scenarios in place around them. So, I will be suggesting some additions and subtractions to the empire below.

1: As stated before, The Bahamas, Turks & Caicos, French Polynesia, Reunion, B.I.O.T. and Mauritius will be removed from the Roman Empire (total population: 2,814,571).
2: I will be willing to give back Austria (south of the Danube River) and Bavaria (south of the Danube River) (total population: 13,719,171) as well as the Canary Islands (population: 2,117,519), and Liechtenstein (population: 37,313) Total population decrease: 18,688,574
3: I would like to add the remainder of Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, and El Salvador (total population: 29,081,371). This addition would serve as the basis for Roman Catholic missionaries in the past and launch Roman influence in North America. This would be a semi-autonomous territory of the Roman Empire. It's name would be Nova Hispania.
4: I would like to add the Brazilian State of Rio Grande do Norte (population: 3,228,198). This would be an autonomous territory of the Roman Empire. It's name would be Brasilia (because the RL Brazil's roots are Latin--Brasa meaning "ember" and the suffix -il from iculum/illium). Total addition to the empire: 32,309,569. A net gain of 13,620,995 for a total imperial population of 137,511,354
5: The Roman GDP will remain the same (2.736 trillion), but the GDP per capita will drop from 23,007.82 to 19,896.90.

Should this be permitted, Rome will stay out of the Anahuac crisis because, really, you can't just have a population and government suddenly appear on your doorstep and have it make any type of impact that was unplanned or, more likely, unwelcome. Also, I realize that this isn't so much "global" but is just Roman territory in Central and South America. But, there wasn't much else out there that had people within relative distance to make it seem like something worth doing. I had thought about territory in Asia and Africa a la the RL Portuguese, but, I think this is more than enough adding and subtracting for now.

Yes, the population is larger than before (124.6-ish million vs 137.5-ish million). It is still nearly 30 million less than Walmington with a lower GDP per capita over all. It doesn't truly classify Rome as a global power, but it does give us a bit of an overseas empire with landmass that can be defended from attack better than small islands and atolls across the Indian and Pacific.

How does this all work within the empire? Well, first off, the residents Nova Hispania are not Roman Citizens, but they do have the Latin Rights They are protected under Roman law, they have the right to do business within the empire, and to make contracts between themselves and full Roman citizens. They cannot, however, vote in Roman national elections while. They can become full Roman citizens, however, if they move to the home territories and take up residence. It has its own legislature and executive. The emperor is represented by a special legate akin to the Governor-General in British Commonwealth Realms. Nova Hispania cannot make treaties independent of the Roman Empire, though a special dispensation can be ordered by the reigning emperor to allow such things which may benefit the people providing it is not contrary to Roman national interests. Those with the Latin Rights would be required to show a passport upon entering the home provinces, but Roman citizens can move freely between the two with a simple valid form of identification. A nominal Roman taxation takes place and the Roman Empire itself is responsible for its defense.

Brasilia, then, will become an international tax haven with its special status within the empire. As an autonomous territory of the empire, its citizens are not Roman Citizens, but colonials within the Roman Empire. They have their own executive, legislative, and judicial systems. Roman law does not apply, but the legal code has taken its cues from the Roman Legal Code. The territory is responsible for its own taxation unlike Nova HIspania, which pay taxes to Rome. The colony itself is responsible for its own defense owing to its not paying taxes directly to the empire. However, in recent years, the Romans have overseen the training of a defense force for its own protection against hostile powers. In recent years, the gambling industry has taken firm control in the territory and has become a major source of revenue. Roman Citizens and those with the Latin Rights are required to show a valid passport to enter, and the same is true when colonial travel to the home provinces. The emperor is, like Nova Hispania, represented by a legate. Brasilia can make treaties with foreign nations independent of the Roman Empire, but the Imperial Legate can veto such treaties deemed to be against Roman interests.

Furthermore, I have worked out with America (Mod) about some Roman history involving those who, in real life, united Italy into the nation we know today. They were revolutionaries in the empire attempting to regain a sense of Roman identity in a time where it was all but lost since the time of the Renaissance. They fought to bring the Roman Empire, again weak in central control, back to the days of a Roman Republic and abolishing the emperor. Of course, they failed and left Italy and became the foundations of the great Italian Immigrants in America.

[Nova Gaul]

It seems very logical and well thought out to be Chrin, although I am certainly not in a position to be a neighbor. I don't see any reason why Columbus couldn't have sailed in 492, 992, or 1092 as opposed to 1492. And from a religious point of view it makes a lot of sense too. But that's really all I can say given the area of the claims, still I think it is a solid and interesting idea.

[Chrinthanium]

It seems very logical and well thought out to be Chrin, although I am certainly not in a position to be a neighbor. I don't see any reason why Columbus couldn't have sailed in 492, 992, or 1092 as opposed to 1492. And from a religious point of view it makes a lot of sense too. But that's really all I can say given the area of the claims, still I think it is a solid and interesting idea.

Apart from the fact he sailed in 1492. It wouldn't be earlier than the RL voyages (because technology).

[Beddgelert]

Eh, okay by me. Leaves a new Euro-hole, which, along with Tulgary, makes the continent a bit less busy and more inviting, for better or worse. The Americas don't much matter to me, so my opinion can't carry too much weight.

[Europe - Prussia]

Another Euro-hole? man, that sucks

Seriously though, I don't really mind, though I think you should ask the opinion of the players in the American continent. Maybe you should post this in the applications thread? this is a shift in territories after all.

Also, I hope you keep Austria, so there's not another hole that will most likely never be filled.

[Chrinthanium]

Eh, okay by me. Leaves a new Euro-hole, which, along with Tulgary, makes the continent a bit less busy and more inviting, for better or worse. The Americas don't much matter to me, so my opinion can't carry too much weight.

Well, it was done to offset the addition, which is hefty. It has RP ability both as a lower-end nation for a new player or a portion of the Roman Empire. Though, I'm slowly giving up hope of new players.

Another Euro-hole? man, that sucks

Seriously though, I don't really mind, though I think you should ask the opinion of the players in the American continent. Maybe you should post this in the applications thread? this is a shift in territories after all.

Also, I hope you keep Austria, so there's not another hole that will most likely never be filled.

Eh, there's the Euro-hole between you and Cass that will, most likely, never fill. Difference here is that the Euro-hole I left is around 12-13 million people (I think, but not certain owing to river border with Cass). When you're asking for 30-odd million in expansion, you kind of have to give up something else. I'd keep it, in tandem with the expansion, if it wouldn't cause issues. I'm sure the GDP per capita could be dropped lower, and a probable reduction in overall GDP to compensate? An interesting thought that I hadn't had till you brought it up.

And, the apps thread is the ideal place for such a thing. It's funny, though. When I had, in the past, asked people to keep these things in the apps thread, most people used the discussion thread. When I use the discussion thread, people want me to post it in the apps thread. Hehe, funny how things work out, eh?

And I just realized that, if this doesn't get rejected, there will be such an ethnicity as Mayan-Roman. That's very interesting, if I do say so myself.

[Jatriqya and Hoya]

Chrin,

I'm ok with the move of your territories. Of course, I would like to hope that the spot left empty in Europe will eventually be filled by someone! Of course, not being in the Americas, I'm not sure how much my opinion is worth.

[Europe - Prussia]

Eh, there's the Euro-hole between you and Cass that will, most likely, never fill. Difference here is that the Euro-hole I left is around 12-13 million people (I think, but not certain owing to river border with Cass). When you're asking for 30-odd million in expansion, you kind of have to give up something else. I'd keep it, in tandem with the expansion, if it wouldn't cause issues. I'm sure the GDP per capita could be dropped lower, and a probable reduction in overall GDP to compensate? An interesting thought that I hadn't had till you brought it up.

And, the apps thread is the ideal place for such a thing. It's funny, though. When I had, in the past, asked people to keep these things in the apps thread, most people used the discussion thread. When I use the discussion thread, people want me to post it in the apps thread. Hehe, funny how things work out, eh?

And I just realized that, if this doesn't get rejected, there will be such an ethnicity as Mayan-Roman. That's very interesting, if I do say so myself.

Well, that's irony at it's finest, no?

About the hole between Cass and me, truthfully I forgot about it. It's a very small piece of land after all, much more smaller than the hole you're going to leave. Maybe I should ask to the rest of the community if I can annex it to my claim? or maybe Cass? though I doubt he's going to say yes to such proposal considering that he was the one who left the hole in the first place. Oh well, I'll post this in the apps thread (which is were it belongs ) to see what's the opinion of the others about this.

Now onto other matters. I don't know if most of you have realized, but I've posted a new factbook here in NS. Obviously, I've made a few minor modifications, like the change of flag, slightly bumping the GDP and slightly decreasing the Per Capita. This also prompted me to write, or in some cases slightly rewrite, my history; however, when I arrived to the Napoleonic Wars, I found myself with a little problem. I know that we already have this conflict somewhat scripted (Napoleon gathers his army and attacks Hispania and the Nibelunc States, the Shield goes to face Napoleon only to get their butt kicked, Napoleon moves to Byzantium through Geletia only to get his army slaughtered by the Celts, and finally he returns to Valendia to gather another army only to end with his head cut off by a guillotine) but there's one little problem: how this war started.

In RL, the Napoleonic Wars started as a defensive conflict, from France's point of view; in fact some historians consider these wars as nothing more than a continuation of the French Revolutionary Wars. If my memory serves me right, when Kyr was playing as France he had a similar justification for the Napoleonic Wars.

And so we return to the crux of the matter: how we start this conflict? WoS wrote in his factbook that the Walmies invaded then Valendia-controlled Borneo in 1803, which could be the event that kickstarted everything, but I don't see this as enough to start a continental war; at most, it would involve Nibelunc and only because they are in the way to Amberland and Britain, which would be Napoleon's final objective. What I would need is a rival, a enemy that would attack Napoleonic Valendia even for something as flimsy like the restoration of the old monarchy and make the Geletians cooperate in the war effort, or at least to lure Napoleon to his defeat at the hands of angry Celts.

Also, what about Gandvik, Rome's Italian territories, Amberland and Britain? I'm just asking to get a complete picture and get the whole war figured out.

[Walmington on Sea]

You'll have to catch me up on where Valendia's history prior to the Napoleonic era stands, now. I can't exactly criticise you for being mid-factbook re-write, given my own position, but this all requires some information and much thought.




Also need to figure out some Anglo-Roman conflict as both of our nations have moved on in recent months/years.

[Europe - Prussia]

Hmm, you're right. It is not feasible for you guys to form an opinion about this if I have my history half-written. My original plan was to post all my history in one post, but given the circumstances and the fact that the more I write the bigger it's becoming (12 pages currently) I'll cut it in parts and post it separately. So, my apologies about such oversight.

However, if you want an abridged version, it pretty much follows along the lines of the French Revolution: By the 1700's, Valendia is like a more competent version of the HRE, then came along the ideas of absolutism and enlightenment, then an absolutist emperor comes along who eventually attempts to put into practice his ideas, which causes riots, a Coup d'Etat by the military and the entire royal family sans a toddler being sent to the guillotine. Then a triumvirate takes the regency, only to be eventually replaced by Napoleon, who first declares himself sole regent, and shortly thereafter emperor.

[Chrinthanium]

I think the main point of Napoleonic history and the Roman Empire falls under the idea that you crossed the Pyrenees and stopped at the Ebro. IIRC, we justified that by having Napoleon invade deep into RL Spain, but the Romans pushed him back to the Ebro where everything turned into one big stalemate. Since then, the Valendian-Roman border has been set there by whatever means we decide upon unless it's a situation that hasn't been resolved. It's probably the first point of contention between Steyr and Rome. Then, beyond that, the whole Great War issue between Rome and Valendia.

But, EP, as far as Italy goes, most likely Napoleon wasn't as successful there. In particular because once he invaded Hispania, Italy would find out eventually and beef up defenses. Certainly we're well trained in Alpine combat, and that's a large part of the overland route into Italy from Valendia. Possibly you had some gains but they were ultimately wiped out.

Hmmm.....

Y'know, the more history is discussed, the more the Romans are beaten up and invaded. I'm beginning to feel like a red-headed step child. However, this will probably explain why Rome has a large military budget, why Rome continually passes at the opportunity to involve itself in the whole affair between Ian, Cass, and TCB, and why Rome doesn't really feel like it has any true allies in the world. Yes, the Nibs are there if someone attacks us first, but I doubt Munstra is going to get too involved in any conflict between Rome and X nation unless its own security were to become threatened by such acts. It's quite clear the British/English are only allies when it is convenient for both sides. The Celts will never be Roman allies no matter what we do. The Valendians..... well, there's still a lot of movies from the post Great War era where they may have been compared to demons and other vile creatures for their actions--not to mention the whole Napoleon thing and losing part of the Iberian peninsula to that froggy munchkin. The Byzantines certainly are natural allies, but even Rome and Constantinople don't see eye-to-eye. Europe is a daunting continent in AMW.

[Europe - Prussia]

Hmmm, you're given me an idea Chrin: how about if, until the Napoleonic Wars, Nabradia (Catalonia et al.) was a mercenary-producer kingdom with very loose ties with the Roman Empire, merely in name only; something like Switzerland, but crazier. Then, for x reason they decide to attack Napoleonic Valendia which not only is repelled, but also is answered with a retaliatory invasion, thus starting the Peninsular War.

With this, I believe I have a picture clear enough about this conflict. Now everything that is left are a few minor details and determine who will be Napoleonic Valendia's "executioner", so to speak. Maybe it will be the Geletians? the Gandivians could fit on this role too I suppose.....

[Chrinthanium]

You'll have to catch me up on where Valendia's history prior to the Napoleonic era stands, now. I can't exactly criticise you for being mid-factbook re-write, given my own position, but this all requires some information and much thought.




Also need to figure out some Anglo-Roman conflict as both of our nations have moved on in recent months/years.

Aye. I'm also redoing the factbook a bit, so I'm in the same boat with you two. A Briton, and American, and a South American walk into a bar.... we've also the making of a joke between us

I'm certain there's any one of a dozen reasons Rome and Walmington may have butted heads in the past. Of course, one thing of curiousity on my part is how RL Morocco got to be Walmingtonian in the first place. Possibly some conflict there?

Outside of that, I do see a lot of competition between Roman Catholic Missionaries and Walmingtonian Protestants around the globe. Sorry I'm not much more help, but day 4 of work tends to knacker me out.

Hmmm, you're given me an idea Chrin: how about if, until the Napoleonic Wars, Nabradia (Catalonia et al.) was a mercenary-producer kingdom with very loose ties with the Roman Empire, merely in name only; something like Switzerland, but crazier. Then, for x reason they decide to attack Napoleonic Valendia which not only is repelled, but also is answered with a retaliatory invasion, thus starting the Peninsular War.

With this, I believe I have a picture clear enough about this conflict. Now everything that is left are a few minor details and determine who will be Napoleonic Valendia's "executioner", so to speak. Maybe it will be the Geletians? the Gandivians could fit on this role too I suppose.....

Well, whatever it was before it was "officially" Valendian is up to you as it is in your territory. But, that works for me in all honesty.

[Beddgelert]

So far as the Napoleonic Era and Geletian involvement, I think it's all potentially quite significant to my history.

The Triarchy had been a major power, terrorising the great empires of Rome, Byzantium, and the Shield, drawing 'tribute' (a protection racket, essentially) from them and Tsalland during many parts of history, because better to pay them to leave us alone than pay to fight them and risk them looting everything. But then I imagine the ascendancy of the Grand Empire lead to some costly defeats as the Shieldians issued muskets more widely, probably developed rational artillery systems, and disciplined their line infantry to hold fire until the last moment against a highland charge, and maybe adopted English bayonet tactics developed against the Irish and Scots. Probably during this time, Bratislava (Pressbury, Pressburg, or Dinasdanu, or whatever else) passed from Geletian to Shieldian control (possibly via one of the Nibelung nations).

The Nine Tribes were then at odds as to how they should react, with some clinging to tradition and relying for defence upon the clan muster while the Durcodi began to 'westernise' somewhat and raised a standing army organised along Shieldian lines.

I'm imagining Napoleon breaking the Shieldian army in a huge pitched battle outside Bratislava, before marching on the Durcodi plains. The Durcodi Black Army would confront him, a ballsy move for a tribe representing less than 20% of the Triarchy's population, but would be massively outnumbered, especially in artillery, and its commanders would be inexperienced in directing a 'conventional' army. The Valendians would have little trouble shattering this force after the massive clash of arms that battles against the Shieldians had represented, leading to the fall of Akink.

Napoleon is then convinced that the Geletians don't know what they're doing, and all the Triarchy lies open to conquest. He'll also be reinforced in his view that if this is all the threat the Celts pose, then the Romans, Shieldians, Tsag, and Greeks must be a sorry lot themselves. A bit like the Winter War helping to convince Hitler that the Red Army wasn't up to much. He'd then get ideas about marching on the great prize represented by Constantinople, and go traipsing off into what Shieldians call 'the mountains of death' (the Southern Carpathians). There, the other tribes, convinced that there's no point trying to fight like Ellmyn ('foreigners', especially English, Nibelungi, Shieldians), conduct a guerrilla resistance that demoralises the Valendian army, destroys its supply chain, and subjects it to large-scale ambushes in the passes et cetera.

I don't know whether Napoleon subjugates Tsalland along the way, or whether he makes it to the walls of Constantinople or not, but if he does its with a much-reduced and exhausted army that's probably lost most of its guns and has a few thousand irate highlanders at its back. Not one well placed to take a major fortress that'll have known for months that it were coming, in any event.

Geletia doesn't really care about the background to the Napoleonic Wars, and only involves itself when said wars find their way to the Danu(be).

[The Crooked Beat]

A belated reply to recent discussions.

As you'd probably expect, I'm not one hundred percent comfortable with the notion of a twenty-odd-million-person Roman colonial outpost closed up along Anahuac's southern border, though primarily for reasons of not wanting to introduce such an explicitly democratic, or at least not murderously-inclined element into the whole ongoing Anahuac affair. I mean, I'm thinking that such a strong Roman presence in the Americas will unbalance things by way of the Gulf States, which already has most of North America against it, and introduce a state of affairs similar to that prevailing in Western Europe, where, in spite of some friction here and there, no major strategic rivalries exist apart from those directed against outnumbered and isolated outlier-states. Then again, I'm happy enough to go along with whatever is decided, and I suppose we can always find some sort of work-around. In terms of historical implications, I can't really see how Anahuac would have survived as an independent state-empire-whatever with the Romans showing up right next to them, so perhaps it would make sense, if Chrin decides to go ahead with that, to include some sort of colonial history, with the Nahua, after being decimated by European diseases, brutalized, enslaved, the whole early-colonial thing, and later on exploited more generally, launching (or at least in elements) a long-running independence struggle against Rome?

Also, didn't Chemaki put in a claim recently in more or less that same area? I don't know if that's still active, though.

In general, I'm quite comfortable with the idea of a more imperial Roman Empire, even a significantly larger one, but slightly concerned that, depending on its capabilities and precise location, it might prove too much a force for peace in an AMW which, for good or bad, depends on conflict, rivalry, and strategic competition in large part to drive RP. To address one of NG's earlier points, to my mind it isn't conflict itself that's the problem, or starting conflicts. Global politics in real life, after all, is the story of big ambitions gone horribly wrong (look at Japan in WWII, for instance! How did they ever think that would work out?), miscalculation, nations doing anything and everything they thought they could get away with and often failing to notice (or ignoring outright) when they crossed those critical lines. The problem in the past, and I am as guilty of this as anyone, is that conflicts in AMW have all too frequently been conducted in a fashion where each side has a completely different idea of what's going on, and can never seem to reconcile those differing interpretations into an acceptable reality. This has to do, I think, primarily with us getting too wrapped-up in our own plans and visions, too personally invested in our nations (which, given the effort we all put into them, is understandable) to take a step back and ask ourselves, given the resources available to both sides, the constraints imposed by all sorts of factors, the abilities and limitations of friendly and hostile powers, what kind of result can logically be expected from a particular action, and to what extent is it desirable to go ahead with that action regardless of adverse probable implications?

So I'm definitely of the opinion that Japan stands to play an immensely important role in AMW, and I'm even in favor of a Japan that's beefed-up militarily and geographically, so that it can better sustain an aggressive and confrontational international posture. The only problem with that would be if Japan sets out to accomplish too much, too quickly, if legitimate strength is tapped to perform more than can actually be expected of it.

A bit disappointed, though by no means surprised, that BG has decided to remove Tulgary from Scandinavia, so definitely thinking about taking back Norway and Sweden, if only to remove that unsightly blank space from the map. Well, actually, then again, maybe I won't. What does everyone else think? I'm honestly having a lot of trouble deciding one way or the other.

Strongly prepared to enact some more doubtless annoying changes to Gandvik's aeronautical scene, mainly because I'm inclined to think that the Sukhoi product line might be very appropriate for NG's Japan, much better at any rate than simply pretending all these license-built F-15s and F-4s are just coincidentally similar! Kamov might likewise make sense as a substitute for a Japanese aeronautical industry which simply didn't have any of the necessary machines to offer between 1945 and just about now in RL. The Su-27 line, for instance, has the range to operate out over the open ocean, the versatility to act as a very credible fighter-interceptor, attack aircraft, and long-range bomber (see Su-34), and ample scope remaining for evolutionary development according to technological advances. Not to mention, the PAK FA/T-50 might be a better choice for AMW-Japan than the Mitsubishi ATD-X, while the PAK FA is a lot closer to reaching active service, and is stealthy, but not quite so stealthy as the YF-23.

Gandvik, meanwhile, will I think revert to MiG, while perhaps I'll also, if everyone agrees, use the Tupolev Tu-22M and Tu-95 in moderate numbers (maybe 30-40 of the former and 20 or so of the latter) to cover for Gandvik's very small surface navy.

As for Gandvik in the Napoleonic Wars, that's still a subject which I'm pretty unfamiliar with. I'd been thinking, previously, that Gandvik might have done almost as Sweden did, very loosely, and switched sides a few times with a view to gaining advantage over the Shieldian Empire, which perhaps at that point in time occupied big chunks of present-day Gandvik? Perhaps there could also have been some Copenhagen-like battle with Walmington at some point? Other than that, I don't have anything terribly useful to add at the moment. I'll try to do a bit of reading and get back to you!

[Chrinthanium]

I think TCB raises a valid objection to the proposed expansion of the empire. Taking the post as a whole, I find myself willing to relinquish the idea of that spot of land being Roman in any form. Personally, I don't really want to deal with tons of natives running about the place trying to declare its independence as a precursor for acceptance. I get why TCB would prefer that history, and I understand how having something more organized and orderly would, more or less, potentially cause issues with the Anahuac claim.

I think, then, since I'm still planning on adding the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Norte, I'll more-than-likely concentrate on the nipple of Brazil (heh). Probably two more next-door Brazilian states to make a little Roman territory there. Also, maybe, a few other areas away from North America. It's probably better that way since the North American territories tended to break away and do their own thing. Rebellious continent!

Subtractions from the empire will remain as above with one augmentation: I wish to retain Canary Islands.

Additions to the empire:

Jamaica: 2,930,050

Total for Roman Caribbean: 2,930,050 (2014 CIA Factbook Estimate)

Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Norte: 3,228,198
Brazilian state of Paraiba: 3,815,171
Brazilian state of Pernambuco: 8,931,028

Total for Roman South America: 15,974,397 (Wikipedia estimate)

Cape Verde Islands: 538,535 (2014 CIA Factbook Estimate)

Total Roman population subtraction: 16,571,055
Total Roman population addition: 19,442,982
Total additional Romans: 2,871,927

[Chemaki]

A belated reply to recent discussions.

As you'd probably expect, I'm not one hundred percent comfortable with the notion of a twenty-odd-million-person Roman colonial outpost closed up along Anahuac's southern border, though primarily for reasons of not wanting to introduce such an explicitly democratic, or at least not murderously-inclined element into the whole ongoing Anahuac affair. I mean, I'm thinking that such a strong Roman presence in the Americas will unbalance things by way of the Gulf States, which already has most of North America against it, and introduce a state of affairs similar to that prevailing in Western Europe, where, in spite of some friction here and there, no major strategic rivalries exist apart from those directed against outnumbered and isolated outlier-states. Then again, I'm happy enough to go along with whatever is decided, and I suppose we can always find some sort of work-around. In terms of historical implications, I can't really see how Anahuac would have survived as an independent state-empire-whatever with the Romans showing up right next to them, so perhaps it would make sense, if Chrin decides to go ahead with that, to include some sort of colonial history, with the Nahua, after being decimated by European diseases, brutalized, enslaved, the whole early-colonial thing, and later on exploited more generally, launching (or at least in elements) a long-running independence struggle against Rome?

Also, didn't Chemaki put in a claim recently in more or less that same area? I don't know if that's still active, though.

Honestly, as a (prospective) claimant for a similar area in Central America (The Karstilian Carribean Republic, or KCR for short), I'm perfectly fine with Chrin's first claim of the mainland, as my original idea was to be a wartorn rastafarian post-communist state focused on Jamaica, Cuba, and possibly Hispaniola; I initially pushed for Zion to gobble up Guatemala and Belize, leaving myself a narrow strip of land on the Yucatan peninsula as a rump state and reminder of the Carribean Republic's more prestigious past. In fact I may have thrown the idea around to Chrin and WoS about the Carribean islands being a patchwork of old English and Roman colonies which were liberated in quick succession by a Communist slave rebellion, and solidified by the Carribean national hero Karstil into a unified polity with its own ideology, a take on the Igovian ideology which was taking root at the same time in Geletia. Such a movement, occuring at a time when the Roman Empire was vulnerable (perhaps post Great War?) could have easily left Central America under Roman control (perhaps with a degree of autonomy, or even a corrupt, locally-run client state) in return for recognition of the KCR's claim over the Carribean Islands and various military treaties to prevent the WRE (signed and observed by Rome, the KCR, Anahuac, Zion, and perhaps even Hibernordia and TUGS) from any warmongering in Central America.

Although this proposal has been sitting quietly for quite some time, giving Chrin every right to claim dragonland in the Carribean, I'd really rather prefer if Jamaica was kept independent from the Roman empire on the grounds of its cultural importance. The island is a huge focal point for Carribean culture and indeed the Afro-Carribean exodus across the world (to be replicated in AMW with the arrival of Carribean refugees in California and perhaps America), and whilst I'm not at all doubting your competancy or depth of your factbook, the Western Roman Empire still has a huge wealth of things to write about (across Spain, Italy, and your proposed/existing possessions across the Western hemisphere) before you'd even be able to touch upon Rastafarian culture. Although I have a few paragraphs and ideas in the works, admittedly partly stoner fantasy as well as reasoned history, and enough to put together a brief factbook for a Cuban/Jamaican claim, I'd still rather you left those two islands out of your claim so a future applicant (perhaps one with a better activity than myself currently) with a passion for all things Rastafari and Afro-Carribean can seize them and pour their heart and soul into writing about them, as opposed to having it incorporated into a claim with 2,800 years of rich cultural history and ~120-140 million inhabitants to write about which could eclipse a valuable focal point of Central American culture.

[Chrinthanium]

A belated reply to recent discussions.

As you'd probably expect, I'm not one hundred percent comfortable with the notion of a twenty-odd-million-person Roman colonial outpost closed up along Anahuac's southern border, though primarily for reasons of not wanting to introduce such an explicitly democratic, or at least not murderously-inclined element into the whole ongoing Anahuac affair. I mean, I'm thinking that such a strong Roman presence in the Americas will unbalance things by way of the Gulf States, which already has most of North America against it, and introduce a state of affairs similar to that prevailing in Western Europe, where, in spite of some friction here and there, no major strategic rivalries exist apart from those directed against outnumbered and isolated outlier-states. Then again, I'm happy enough to go along with whatever is decided, and I suppose we can always find some sort of work-around. In terms of historical implications, I can't really see how Anahuac would have survived as an independent state-empire-whatever with the Romans showing up right next to them, so perhaps it would make sense, if Chrin decides to go ahead with that, to include some sort of colonial history, with the Nahua, after being decimated by European diseases, brutalized, enslaved, the whole early-colonial thing, and later on exploited more generally, launching (or at least in elements) a long-running independence struggle against Rome?

Also, didn't Chemaki put in a claim recently in more or less that same area? I don't know if that's still active, though.

Honestly, as a (prospective) claimant for a similar area in Central America (The Karstilian Carribean Republic, or KCR for short), I'm perfectly fine with Chrin's first claim of the mainland, as my original idea was to be a wartorn rastafarian post-communist state focused on Jamaica, Cuba, and possibly Hispaniola; I initially pushed for Zion to gobble up Guatemala and Belize, leaving myself a narrow strip of land on the Yucatan peninsula as a rump state and reminder of the Carribean Republic's more prestigious past. In fact I may have thrown the idea around to Chrin and WoS about the Carribean islands being a patchwork of old English and Roman colonies which were liberated in quick succession by a Communist slave rebellion, and solidified by the Carribean national hero Karstil into a unified polity with its own ideology, a take on the Igovian ideology which was taking root at the same time in Geletia. Such a movement, occuring at a time when the Roman Empire was vulnerable (perhaps post Great War?) could have easily left Central America under Roman control (perhaps with a degree of autonomy, or even a corrupt, locally-run client state) in return for recognition of the KCR's claim over the Carribean Islands and various military treaties to prevent the WRE (signed and observed by Rome, the KCR, Anahuac, Zion, and perhaps even Hibernordia and TUGS) from any warmongering in Central America.

Although this proposal has been sitting quietly for quite some time, giving Chrin every right to claim dragonland in the Carribean, I'd really rather prefer if Jamaica was kept independent from the Roman empire on the grounds of its cultural importance. The island is a huge focal point for Carribean culture and indeed the Afro-Carribean exodus across the world (to be replicated in AMW with the arrival of Carribean refugees in California and perhaps America), and whilst I'm not at all doubting your competancy or depth of your factbook, the Western Roman Empire still has a huge wealth of things to write about (across Spain, Italy, and your proposed/existing possessions across the Western hemisphere) before you'd even be able to touch upon Rastafarian culture. Although I have a few paragraphs and ideas in the works, admittedly partly stoner fantasy as well as reasoned history, and enough to put together a brief factbook for a Cuban/Jamaican claim, I'd still rather you left those two islands out of your claim so a future applicant (perhaps one with a better activity than myself currently) with a passion for all things Rastafari and Afro-Carribean can seize them and pour their heart and soul into writing about them, as opposed to having it incorporated into a claim with 2,800 years of rich cultural history and ~120-140 million inhabitants to write about which could eclipse a valuable focal point of Central American culture.

You do realize that Haile Selassie I, Emperor of Ethiopia, is quite an important figure in the Rastafari movement, right? They consider him to be Christ. Last time I checked in AMW, we didn't have him kicking about the place. And Ethiopia, quite a central location in the Rastafari movement, is still dragonland. I don't quite understand that part of your objection. In AMW, RL history doesn't have to take place in any area of the world your claim. In fact, AMW prides itself on the fact that a lot of it can either be incorporated into different parts of the world (like a British Empire that didn't start in the RL British Isles) or that a Roman Empire can still exist into the modern age, or that the Celts settle into the Balkans and form their own independent nation. Quite simply the Rastafari movement could have started elsewhere in AMW. Furthermore, what Afro-Caribbean culture truly exists in AMW? There's not much Africa to speak of, in AMW, that has a life and history. There's not much of the Caribbean that is claimed. There isn't any history in any claim unless those who claim it put it there. I really don't understand your complaint.

[Walmington on Sea]

Well, Chemaki, in AMW, the island of Puerto Rico is instead Tobago, and stands-in for the British West Indies anyway, so its inhabitants (2.6 million in AMW, 1 million being shipped off to other parts of the British Empire to plug some gaps) exhibit a great array of Afro-Caribbean cultures already, and those are not threatened by the shape that the island of Jamaica takes in-game. As WoS's factbook is built-up, Vieques, Culebra, and Mona will potentially become distinct from Tobago to represent likenesses of British Leeward and Windward Islands.

Worth remembering, also, that in AMW, the British Empire is still not far from the peak strength that it has ever attained. The world isn't full of ex-colonies, because the British haven't nearly come around to the notion that other people can run their own countries. Britain has only been through one world-war, and its economy is far from collapse. Communist insurgents are still getting carpet-bombed and machine-gunned when they pop up.

There's probably not much scope for an independent Jamaica that's similar to the one we know. It's going to have to have become independent from a very different nation to the one that ruled it for centuries IRL. Britain hasn't let its 'Jamaica' go.


Meanwhile, on Napoleon...

I imagine that Britain joins at least one coalition against Napoleon, and keeps fighting or at least sponsoring others to fight, as IRL. Some British territory would seem to be in more peril in AMW than IRL, with Anglia, Wales, Scotland, and sort-of Cornwall, and Amberland all on the continent itself. Britain would probably in some way have to involve itself in the struggles over what is now Nibelunc, sometimes supporting individual Nibelung states, sometimes supporting the Shield against Valendia or Gandvik, and maybe at times even supporting Valendian or Gandvian interests to maintain some semblance of an agreeable balance of power. Seems like this might be where the term, “Perfidious Albion” comes into AMW lexicon!

I think Britain would be very afraid of and affronted by the rise of Napoleonic Valendia, and attacking the Banjarmasin Sultanate was part of a strategy to contain it, as it was feared that the Sultan planned to seek an alliance with Napoleon. I sort of loosely assume that Valendia lost something during that campaign, were it merely an ally, influence and some commercial institutions in the sultanate, or actually some greater territory surrounding what is now Brunei I couldn't say, but in any case presumably Napoleonic troops held out at least in Bandar Seri Begawan and Valendia was able to keep a toehold on the island.

Britain would have tried to oppose Valendian hegemony on the European continent by showering money on amicable Nibelung states, the Shieldians (until they collapsed, and then afterwards maybe still some nobles there opposed to the forced alliance with Napoleon), and eventually even Rome, Tsalland, and Byzantium and perhaps the Geletians to support their war efforts. The Royal Navy would have been highly aggressive towards Valendian ships, keen to keep Napoleon from interfering in North America where the Empire was already having trouble with Republicans and the Americans, and to prevent any amphibious circumventing of the direct route into Britain.

If, perhaps, Napoleon escapes from Geletia/Constantinople and makes a second attempt at dominating Europe, then maybe the British would send in ground forces in a concerted effort to finish him off, having just come out of a large-scale war with the Americans. All loosely similar to reality, from a British perspective. There's always been a lot of pro-Shieldian sentiment in Britain, so the Empire would be keen on any opportunity to get involved there and drive pro-Valendians from any position of power. Could AMW's Waterloo take place on the Shield, with the remnants of Napoleon's Grand Army and the Shieldian Empire allied to him since the batterings at Austerlitz, Pressbury, and whatnot, pitted against rebel Shieldian nationalists, the British, and perhaps contingents from various other nations of Nibelunc, either or both of the two Roman Empires (or perhaps the WRE would be busy recapturing Iberian territory from Napoleon's generals?), even Gandvik (or would the Ganders have fought on the little Corporal's side in that situation?)?


As to Anglo-Roman wars, I suppose Mauretania's capture by the British could come either following an Islamic invasion/uprising against Rome, which the British simply take advantage of, possibly citing piracy concerns or claiming to be saving Christendom where Rome had failed; or it could be captured directly from Rome as part of a larger conflict probably brought on either by Rome expanding its empire on other continents and running into conflict with British interests, or by Britain trying to increase her presence in the Med, though that last one's harder to figure out, I'm finding.

I suppose we have to work it so that it makes sense for Rome to lose Mauretania yet retain or gain Cabo Verde and the Canaries. I may be too tired for this one.

[Chrinthanium]

Well, Chemaki, in AMW, the island of Puerto Rico is instead Tobago, and stands-in for the British West Indies anyway, so its inhabitants (2.6 million in AMW, 1 million being shipped off to other parts of the British Empire to plug some gaps) exhibit a great array of Afro-Caribbean cultures already, and those are not threatened by the shape that the island of Jamaica takes in-game. As WoS's factbook is built-up, Vieques, Culebra, and Mona will potentially become distinct from Tobago to represent likenesses of British Leeward and Windward Islands.

Worth remembering, also, that in AMW, the British Empire is still not far from the peak strength that it has ever attained. The world isn't full of ex-colonies, because the British haven't nearly come around to the notion that other people can run their own countries. Britain has only been through one world-war, and its economy is far from collapse. Communist insurgents are still getting carpet-bombed and machine-gunned when they pop up.

There's probably not much scope for an independent Jamaica that's similar to the one we know. It's going to have to have become independent from a very different nation to the one that ruled it for centuries IRL. Britain hasn't let its 'Jamaica' go.


Meanwhile, on Napoleon...

I imagine that Britain joins at least one coalition against Napoleon, and keeps fighting or at least sponsoring others to fight, as IRL. Some British territory would seem to be in more peril in AMW than IRL, with Anglia, Wales, Scotland, and sort-of Cornwall, and Amberland all on the continent itself. Britain would probably in some way have to involve itself in the struggles over what is now Nibelunc, sometimes supporting individual Nibelung states, sometimes supporting the Shield against Valendia or Gandvik, and maybe at times even supporting Valendian or Gandvian interests to maintain some semblance of an agreeable balance of power. Seems like this might be where the term, “Perfidious Albion” comes into AMW lexicon!

I think Britain would be very afraid of and affronted by the rise of Napoleonic Valendia, and attacking the Banjarmasin Sultanate was part of a strategy to contain it, as it was feared that the Sultan planned to seek an alliance with Napoleon. I sort of loosely assume that Valendia lost something during that campaign, were it merely an ally, influence and some commercial institutions in the sultanate, or actually some greater territory surrounding what is now Brunei I couldn't say, but in any case presumably Napoleonic troops held out at least in Bandar Seri Begawan and Valendia was able to keep a toehold on the island.

Britain would have tried to oppose Valendian hegemony on the European continent by showering money on amicable Nibelung states, the Shieldians (until they collapsed, and then afterwards maybe still some nobles there opposed to the forced alliance with Napoleon), and eventually even Rome, Tsalland, and Byzantium and perhaps the Geletians to support their war efforts. The Royal Navy would have been highly aggressive towards Valendian ships, keen to keep Napoleon from interfering in North America where the Empire was already having trouble with Republicans and the Americans, and to prevent any amphibious circumventing of the direct route into Britain.

If, perhaps, Napoleon escapes from Geletia/Constantinople and makes a second attempt at dominating Europe, then maybe the British would send in ground forces in a concerted effort to finish him off, having just come out of a large-scale war with the Americans. All loosely similar to reality, from a British perspective. There's always been a lot of pro-Shieldian sentiment in Britain, so the Empire would be keen on any opportunity to get involved there and drive pro-Valendians from any position of power. Could AMW's Waterloo take place on the Shield, with the remnants of Napoleon's Grand Army and the Shieldian Empire allied to him since the batterings at Austerlitz, Pressbury, and whatnot, pitted against rebel Shieldian nationalists, the British, and perhaps contingents from various other nations of Nibelunc, either or both of the two Roman Empires (or perhaps the WRE would be busy recapturing Iberian territory from Napoleon's generals?), even Gandvik (or would the Ganders have fought on the little Corporal's side in that situation?)?


As to Anglo-Roman wars, I suppose Mauretania's capture by the British could come either following an Islamic invasion/uprising against Rome, which the British simply take advantage of, possibly citing piracy concerns or claiming to be saving Christendom where Rome had failed; or it could be captured directly from Rome as part of a larger conflict probably brought on either by Rome expanding its empire on other continents and running into conflict with British interests, or by Britain trying to increase her presence in the Med, though that last one's harder to figure out, I'm finding.

I suppose we have to work it so that it makes sense for Rome to lose Mauretania yet retain or gain Cabo Verde and the Canaries. I may be too tired for this one.

Hmmm.... perhaps the Islamic invasion/uprising against Rome angle is best. Would be the tidiest way to deal with the situation, IMHO. Furthermore, it would then stand to reason that the Canaries and Cape Verde are still Roman.

[Walmington on Sea]

Hm. Maybe Morocco-proper represented the full extent of Roman North Africa, and was invaded by nomads coming out of Western Sahara, who over-ran a large part of a colony that was complacent and unprepared.

Rome no doubt sends reinforcements, which should be able to overwhelm the relatively small numbers of lightly-armed invaders, but finds that Berbers in Mauretania don't want them back, and the general population has risen against remaining garrisons, captured towns, and looted armouries.

Foreigners are taken hostage, including British merchants, and Rome's hard-line no-negotiation position is cited as a threat to Godfreyite subjects and British economic interests. When Britons are killed during a successful Roman siege of a Berber-held town (perhaps with controversy existing as to how they died: Roman artillery during the general bombardment? Shot trying to escape? Executed when the defenders realised they were going to lose? Mistaken identity? Murdered by Roman forces using an opportunity to get the Protestant traders out of their colony?), the Royal Navy intervenes.

Royal Marines storm Saharawi settlements to the south, in what becomes British Saharaland ((Western Sahara)), and troops come ashore to pacify the region. British troops move up the coast, pursuing Saharawi fighters into Roman Mauretania itself. Roman troops obviously oppose this, and the British commander takes it upon himself to engage them as well as the Berber fighters. There's a relatively contained conflict, as Rome doesn't want a general war with Britain, given the Royal Navy's presumed ability to break the link with Rome's New World colonies, so just has to fight with one hand tied behind its back, against two enemies, until deciding to cut its losses and give up on North Africa.

Along the way, I can see some Roman strongholds having to be bombarded by the RN or stormed in dramatic fashion, with some fortified cities having remained loyal to the WRE throughout the revolt... after all, some people are bound to have thought they were better off staying Roman than becoming part of some Islamic empire the shape of which would be unknowable. In retrospect, the British assault on places that hadn't fallen to the Berbers would perhaps remain a bone of contention. "We can at least understand the rest, but how do you justify the Bombardment of Mogador, the Storming of Ceuta, and the Siege of Melilla?", "Er... quiet, you cracker-munching Pope-fancier, that's how!" A nod to recently-aired concerns that western nations are getting along a little too well?

Britain takes Saharaland and Mauretania, and spends the rest of history mining phosphates and fighting constant rebellions in the desert and the Atlas.

Just a question of when this all happens, I suppose. Perhaps the 1850s? Before the Romans would have the sort of repeating fire-arms that might have put paid to the invasion/revolt. Britain has some spare time in the middle of that century with no Crimean or Opium Wars to fight! Could be that Rome's able to put the loss of its colony down to some technological disadvantage that can be fixed, so as not to have other subjects lose too much faith. "Ah, you see, the British had never used percussion-cap rifles before! We never had a chance! But look, we're issuing them to our troops, now, so don't get any ideas, you in the other colonies! And that iron steam-frigate was totally unfair, too! ...Let's build some."

If the British use the recent Valendian invention that is the Minié-ball in their rifles for the first time in action, and Rome loses badly as a result, it could spur a significant Roman rearmament, causing everyone to leave you alone for the next eighty or ninety years.

But now I'm just adding frills for no particular reason, so I'm off for a brew.

[The Amyclae]

I was always waiting for Chemaki to pull the trigger on the KCR, and I'd as soon have him in the Caribbean as not. If the whole Haile Selassie I issue becomes the roadblock to a claim there, couldn't there be some sort of Vatican II workaround? The KCR claims, as sovereign territory, an embassy or as a protectorate the house/grounds of the great Selassie family--leaving the rest of Ethiopia to exist for whomever else wants to come along.

[Chemaki]

I was always waiting for Chemaki to pull the trigger on the KCR, and I'd as soon have him in the Caribbean as not. If the whole Haile Selassie I issue becomes the roadblock to a claim there, couldn't there be some sort of Vatican II workaround? The KCR claims, as sovereign territory, an embassy or as a protectorate the house/grounds of the great Selassie family--leaving the rest of Ethiopia to exist for whomever else wants to come along.

My intention was to have Haile Selassie as a Tanzanian nobleman (perhaps with a lineage stretching back to whatever dynasty ruled the region before it became a British colony), recognized by black Africans in Tanzania but regarded as a troublemaker for his protests against colonization and the old slave trade (which left many Tanzanian natives relocated to British colonies in the Carribean, their descendents yearning to return back to their homeland).

[Chrinthanium]

Hm. Maybe Morocco-proper represented the full extent of Roman North Africa, and was invaded by nomads coming out of Western Sahara, who over-ran a large part of a colony that was complacent and unprepared.

Rome no doubt sends reinforcements, which should be able to overwhelm the relatively small numbers of lightly-armed invaders, but finds that Berbers in Mauretania don't want them back, and the general population has risen against remaining garrisons, captured towns, and looted armouries.

Foreigners are taken hostage, including British merchants, and Rome's hard-line no-negotiation position is cited as a threat to Godfreyite subjects and British economic interests. When Britons are killed during a successful Roman siege of a Berber-held town (perhaps with controversy existing as to how they died: Roman artillery during the general bombardment? Shot trying to escape? Executed when the defenders realised they were going to lose? Mistaken identity? Murdered by Roman forces using an opportunity to get the Protestant traders out of their colony?), the Royal Navy intervenes.

Royal Marines storm Saharawi settlements to the south, in what becomes British Saharaland ((Western Sahara)), and troops come ashore to pacify the region. British troops move up the coast, pursuing Saharawi fighters into Roman Mauretania itself. Roman troops obviously oppose this, and the British commander takes it upon himself to engage them as well as the Berber fighters. There's a relatively contained conflict, as Rome doesn't want a general war with Britain, given the Royal Navy's presumed ability to break the link with Rome's New World colonies, so just has to fight with one hand tied behind its back, against two enemies, until deciding to cut its losses and give up on North Africa.

Along the way, I can see some Roman strongholds having to be bombarded by the RN or stormed in dramatic fashion, with some fortified cities having remained loyal to the WRE throughout the revolt... after all, some people are bound to have thought they were better off staying Roman than becoming part of some Islamic empire the shape of which would be unknowable. In retrospect, the British assault on places that hadn't fallen to the Berbers would perhaps remain a bone of contention. "We can at least understand the rest, but how do you justify the Bombardment of Mogador, the Storming of Ceuta, and the Siege of Melilla?", "Er... quiet, you cracker-munching Pope-fancier, that's how!" A nod to recently-aired concerns that western nations are getting along a little too well?

Britain takes Saharaland and Mauretania, and spends the rest of history mining phosphates and fighting constant rebellions in the desert and the Atlas.

Just a question of when this all happens, I suppose. Perhaps the 1850s? Before the Romans would have the sort of repeating fire-arms that might have put paid to the invasion/revolt. Britain has some spare time in the middle of that century with no Crimean or Opium Wars to fight! Could be that Rome's able to put the loss of its colony down to some technological disadvantage that can be fixed, so as not to have other subjects lose too much faith. "Ah, you see, the British had never used percussion-cap rifles before! We never had a chance! But look, we're issuing them to our troops, now, so don't get any ideas, you in the other colonies! And that iron steam-frigate was totally unfair, too! ...Let's build some."

If the British use the recent Valendian invention that is the Minié-ball in their rifles for the first time in action, and Rome loses badly as a result, it could spur a significant Roman rearmament, causing everyone to leave you alone for the next eighty or ninety years.

But now I'm just adding frills for no particular reason, so I'm off for a brew.

Seems fine to me. That ties in nicely to post-Napoleonic invasion Rome. Having already lost part of Hispania earlier in the century to Valendia, now Rome loses its last outpost in mainland North Africa owing to a combination of insurgency, mistaken identity, and the continuing rise of the British. All this tied together probably causes Rome to rethink itself a bit, get a tad more assertive, and begins a spiral of actions that, 80-90 years later, cause the Celts to invade and thrust Rome into the Great War.

There's also some internal things that could stem from all of this as well. Direct rule by the emperor being challenged during the 1800s and early 1900s because of these two wars being lost and Rome losing territory and people being killed, emperors probably try to disuade this kind of thing by getting buddy buddy with the one man in the empire who can help (the Pope), then it becomes "the thing" to have the pope as an adviser and mouth piece. Of course, the Papacy take this to new levels as technology begins to race forward in the late 1800s and into the 1900s causing all the hubbub between Rome and the Celts. Then, enter the Great War years. Afterwards, having had 3 wars betwen 1800 and 1950 that caused Rome to lose power, prestige, and people, things are reorganized internally and less is placed in the hands of an absolute monarch and more given to a democratically-elected government.

I like how this all pans out for me. I also like the frills you've added. Give me a rough idea of what to do with years that are pretty empty in Rome.