ISOT What if HRE in 1066 AD isot to 16 AD

Winston Bush

Well-known member
2172e1f8-1f1e-4ff6-acac-910a68f9b818-jpeg.622242

rough idea of the ISOT territory. I think this will be very interesting as the technological gap isn’t as great as most ISOT’s and i’d love to see medieval christians react to the fact that they’re in the times where Jesus is still alive.
xqqKxmq.jpg
 
Last edited:

Airedale260

Well-known member
So I can’t tell from the map above but Rome may have been part of the HRE at the time. If not, they still have to deal with the fact that a new empire has just appeared with their borders just outside the capital...which means conflict is going to erupt because the Romans are going to understandably freak out about these people appearing out of nowhere and right next to the heart of their empire. They may make some initial gains as the HRE moves forces in, but when you have standing armies it likely makes it easier for the Romans to make gains. Thing is, their legions are scattered all over the place to keep order and defend their borders, so any weakening means they’re going to have to deal with another threat and play whack-a-mole, whereas the HRE only has to worry about securing its own borders.

I doubt they launch a drive straight for Jerusalem quickly, however: the logistics simply aren’t there. But I can see them going to town once things get rolling. Also, it’s going to play merry hell with the Church’s hierarchy and authority right away, plus whatever happens when they actually meet Jesus and the Apostles, or whatever happens when they meet Him. Certainly it may change the future of His ministry, as a huge populace has accepted His teachings. And if they are there, it’s because God sent them there, so there will be fierce debates on His plans.

Now, if Rome does get included in the territory sent back, it will make things far easier for the HRE, because their biggest threat has now been decapitated and the various provinces are going to erupt into civil war, not to mention no debate over who has authority over the Church. They’ll still wind up having to defend themselves, but at the same time, it’ll be easier and they’ll be able to get to the Holy Land sooner.

All in all, it probably shortens the process of regaining knowledge the Romans had in the field of construction and the like but that was subsequently lost. Likewise, the Crusades may happen to fight against the Roman provinces, but they also probably concentrate on neighboring areas first.
 

Buba

A total creep
In some areas the borders of the HRE are iffy.
Please post maps and/or define if Italy north of Papal States (in their 1066 borders) and the Kingdom of Burgundy - Arles/Arelat edition - come along or not.
Fun fact - Corsica and Sardinia come along. Venice does not :) making Romans scratch their heads why some swamps in Cisapline Gaul and half of the Istrian Peninsula are still "downtime".
I don't think that Rome should be included in the HRE, but I could be wrong.
Did the ISOT wipe out the legions on the Rhine? Danube?
 
Last edited:

Winston Bush

Well-known member
In some areas the borders of the HRE are iffy.
Please post maps and/or define if Italy north of Papal States (in their 1066 borders) and the Kingdom of Burgundy - Arles/Arelat edition - come along or not.
Fun fact - Corsica and Sardinia come along. Venice does not :) making Romans scratch their heads why some swamps in Cisapline Gaul and half of the Istrian Peninsula are still "downtime".
I don't think that Rome should be included in the HRE, but I could be wrong.
Did the ISOT wipe out the legions on the Rhine? Danube?
Italy north of the pope is included but burgundy is not.
Flip a coin to decide wether they are destroyed. Heads yes tails no.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Since God decided to die for us,he would do that anyway,no matter what crusaders would otherwise - Rome is in romans hands,so german emperor do not need to care about pope.


P.S Poland in 1066 was german client state,you could add us,too.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Poland will not be included.

Hmm...i just think about how Europe from 1066 with added roman parts would look like.Romans in Italy certainly try capture Rome,those in former HRE territories would fight France and Burgundy.
And becouse HRE territories in germany would be replaced by german tribes,all countries near it would come to grab it.Danes,slavic western states,Czech,Poland....
 

ATP

Well-known member
Poland will not be included.
I forget one thing - we should think about how people from 1066 would react to romans /and german -slavic tribes/ appearing in HRE territory.
Romans would try/and probably do that/ take Rome,catholics would made Crusade on them after that,and in the East,when romans never made any strongholds,german and slavic tribes would create power vacuum ,quickly used by Denmark,Czech,Poland and western slavic states to conqer as much as possible.

And becouse romans would be fighting pope,France,Burgundy,Sicyly and Normandy, nobody would care about how much danes,czech,poles,obodrits and others would conqer.
 

Buba

A total creep
1 - There are no "Catholics" yet, the world of mainstream Christianity has not split into Catholic and Orthodox branches yet, although the distinction between Easterna dnWestern already exists.. The Uties (my shorthand for Up-Timers) are all simply "Christians". They'll come up with something to replace the Bishop of Rome. And this Christianity/Catholicism will evolve very differently to OTL, being unrecognisable inside a century or two. Looking at the Emperor at this time - Henry IV - I can very much imagine him appointing his own Pope. I won't even go into what is happening and will happen - or not - in Palestine ...
2 - there will be no Crusade as the concept has not been invented yet.
3 - there will be a meat grinder along the Gothic Line between the HRE and SPQR. Who will win? IMO a toss up.
4 - I wonder about the internal stability of the HRE. In OTL the struggle between Henry and Gregory was part of the struggle between the Emperor and German aristocracy. Here the aristocrats might turn to Rome - i.e. Tiberius - for aid against Henry. IMO no dearth of potential rebels - in OT the Saxon Rebellion (which Henry had problems putting down) was about to erupt. Fun times!
As the OP was not kind enough as to supply a usable map:
503px-HRR_10Jh.jpg


If Czechia - a vassal - IS included (unlike Burgundy), then - in spite of my suspicions - it should stay loyal as in OTL Vratislav backed Henry both against revolting German nobles and Gregory.
 

ATP

Well-known member
1 - There are no "Catholics" yet, the world of mainstream Christianity has not split into Catholic and Orthodox branches yet, although the distinction between Easterna dnWestern already exists.. The Uties (my shorthand for Up-Timers) are all simply "Christians". They'll come up with something to replace the Bishop of Rome. And this Christianity/Catholicism will evolve very differently to OTL, being unrecognisable inside a century or two. Looking at the Emperor at this time - Henry IV - I can very much imagine him appointing his own Pope. I won't even go into what is happening and will happen - or not - in Palestine ...
2 - there will be no Crusade as the concept has not been invented yet.
3 - there will be a meat grinder along the Gothic Line between the HRE and SPQR. Who will win? IMO a toss up.
4 - I wonder about the internal stability of the HRE. In OTL the struggle between Henry and Gregory was part of the struggle between the Emperor and German aristocracy. Here the aristocrats might turn to Rome - i.e. Tiberius - for aid against Henry. IMO no dearth of potential rebels - in OT the Saxon Rebellion (which Henry had problems putting down) was about to erupt. Fun times!
As the OP was not kind enough as to supply a usable map:
503px-HRR_10Jh.jpg


If Czechia - a vassal - IS included (unlike Burgundy), then - in spite of my suspicions - it should stay loyal as in OTL Vratislav backed Henry both against revolting German nobles and Gregory.

I thought,that orthodox split from catholics in 1054 or 1053,so westerner was arleady catholics.Problem is,HRE was influenced by Byzantine - our Koneczny even named northern germans as belonging to byzantine cyvilization - so they would probably made Byzantine-like state and church.Or at least try to.
And aristocrats could not turn to pagan imperator for help,at least not openly.
 

Buba

A total creep
I thought,that orthodox split from catholics in 1054 or 1053,so westerner was arleady catholics.
My brainfart :(
Problem is,HRE was influenced by Byzantine - our Koneczny even named northern germans as belonging to byzantine cyvilization
IMO Koneczny is best left ignored :)
And aristocrats could not turn to pagan imperator for help,at least not openly.
I believe in human greed.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
My brainfart :(

IMO Koneczny is best left ignored :)

I believe in human greed.

1.It happens.
2.Why? his theory of cyvilisation could answer many important questions.For example,why germany could not unite peacefully and must be conqered by prussian.
3.People was as greedy as today - but they belived in God.Crusaders should many times ally with muslims who fight their enemies - but they almost always attacked all.That is how they lost.
So,no german noble would support pagans.
When polish state practically disappear after german/russian/chech invasion in 1039,and people come back to being pagans,germans send polish prince with german knights to reclaime his throne and made Poland Christain again.
Of course as german vassal,but they do not try partition of Poland.
Why? becouse they were still christian.
 
Last edited:

Buba

A total creep
2 - I simply do not agree with Koneczny. Neither with his determinism nor with his rosey-eyed vision of Rome.
3 - Germany was incapable of ruling Poland directly, it was too far away. The system of Border Marches was strained as it was - see the Rebellion of 983 (and in 1056 a Saxon attack was slaughtered). A Christian Prince in Poland was preferable over Pagan Chieftain(s) - a march simply was not possible.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top