[OOC] I, Arabicus: A story of Rome and the rise of Islam

[Vilageidiotx]

I, Arabicus: Rome and the Rise of Islam

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the Saracens appeared in Syria, Emperor Marcellus was fighting the Lombards in Italy
So the task was given to Marcus Priscus Caesar, the third son of the Emperor.
He set out from Rome in Anno Domini 633 with one third of the Palantini.
And a host of Visigothic knights sent in friendship from their King.

What is known about the career of young Priscus in Syria is very little.
But I will tell you what news came back to the Imperial Court.
In November of that year, he arrived in Antioch.
He rested there until March of the next year, Anno Domini 634.
The army of Priscus Caesar arrived in Jerusalem to pray.
There they heard news that the Ghassanid Saracens were failing.
The Saracens from the south were rapidly overtaking them.

In April, a small contingent of Saracen scouts were captured.
And they were brought to Priscus Caesar in Jerusalem.
There he ordered them executed on the steps of the barracks.
Their crime was demon worship in the city of God.
After this incident, Priscus Caesar declared a victory.
And he gave upon himself the title "Arabicus"
For he claimed to be the conqueror of the Arabs.
And so he became Marcus Priscus Caesar Arabicus.

At the waning of April, his army marched out to meet the enemy.
Arabicus was welcomed by the Ghassanid Saracens.
Who had carried the brunt of the War.
There was a battle, and Arabicus was lost.
Little is known, but his army was destroyed.

-Linus Pious, Pontiff of Rome and Imperial Historian

WELCOME TO THE ARRPEE!

It is the year 634 AD, but events have not transpired in the way they did in our world. Urged on by his mysterious Aksumite wife, the General Stilicho overthrew Emperor Honorius and seized power for himself. A series of strong Germanic Emperors ruled in the 5th century, keeping the Western Empire together at the loss of Britain and Soissons.

Further losses would take place as the rising Barbarian Kings in Francia and Visigothia pushed their territorial rights whenever they saw weakness. When Emperor Remus died in battle against the Visigoths in 598, it looked as if the Western half of the Empire up to the Italian border would be lost in its entirety. A young nephew of Remus, Marcus Marcellus Priscus, was declared Emperor by his soldiers and proved his worth by pushing the Visigoths back in Hispania. He was crowned Emperor Marcellus, and the few feeble opposing claimants were assassinated before he reached Ravenna. When the old ruler of the Eastern Empire died childless, Marcellus moved to take control and proved himself again in a skirmish with the Sasanians. And so the Empire was unified.

The Sasanian threat grew larger when the Shahanshah Bozorgmehr made a shaky alliance with the White Huns. He had expected an exiled Roman prince in his court to be elevated in the Eastern Empire, and he saw the rise of Marcellus as a threat. Confident he could get the Eastern court to support his claimant, the Shahanshah invaded. Off and on wars between the two great powers followed, continuing for nearly thirty years and only ending when Bozorgmehr died. With his other sons lost on the battlefield, the Persian Empire came under control of a three year old boy, the new Shahanshah Mazdak.

In Constantinople, Marcellus split the Empire in two so that his son Flavius Marcellus Pulcher could rule the west and be prepared to control a unified Empire. Pulcher placed his capital in the young port city of Venice. In 630, German incursions through the alps became so intense that both father and son were called to fight on the border.

So when reports of increasing Saracen raids reached the Emperor, he decided to send his second son, Marcus Priscus Caesar, who would prematurely declare himself "Arabicus" before disappearing as his army was destroyed in the deserts of Syria.

Emperor Marcellus and his son, Emperor Pulcher, fight the Germans on the borders of Italy. The second Imperial son, the self-named "Arabicus", has went missing after a defeat, and an eight year old boy named Mazdak sits as Shahanshah of Persia. Blood on both sides have been spilled, and the borders of the two Empires are exhausted from thirty years of hard war. Will they be able to defend against the Saracen threat, or will the world's great civilizations fall to the Arabs and their strange new religion?

SO WHAT DO WE DO?

So I've been reading up on late antiquity quite a bit recently, and I've taken an interest in writing some stuff based on the time period. I've also wanted to experiment with the Nation genre and blur it into advanced character RPing a little more by adopting a smaller, more local-scale story. For reference, here is the base-map.

Warning: It's a map

The first thing you will probably notice is that I am an uninspired map maker. The second thing you will notice is that the region is not divided the way it historically should be for an NRP. That is because I've chosen to scale down to local governments. In some cases, like in Africa, the traditional regional nation-states are still up for grabs in their full power. The three central empires however (Rome, Persia, Islamic Arabia) are divided into their respective types of regional government. The Roman Emperor will be a hands-off NPC who I will avoid using as much as possible, and this will be explained by wars in the west that keep him occupied. The Shahanshah of Persia will be handled much the same way, though I think I will most likely explain his absence by incapability, either through extreme youth or through extreme old age. The exception will be the Caliph, who will be RPed by Dinh AaronMk. That does not mean that Aaron will have absolute control of the Arabs, as others will be allowed to control smaller Arab tribes and clans either in support of Aaron's Caliph or in spite of him.

To further explain, here is a map clarifying borders.

Warning: It's also a map

Africa, the Caucasus, and the Eastern Steppe nations will be one shade per country, whereas the shades in the three major empires represent their subdivisions. In the case of Rome, you will be RPing local appointed officials that belong to important families throughout the Empire. In Persia, you will RP the hereditary noble families and the lands they possess. In the case of the Arabs, as I said above, you will control a tribe or clan.

A third map for further explanation.

Warning: It's also a map too

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WILL BE LIMITED TO THE SECTIONS ON THE MAP

Rather, if you wish to be a governor or major regional political power you will be limited to those sections. If you want to play an individual, a lesser government official or local tribe, or a foreign army from somewhere else in the western world fighting as mercenaries in the east, you will be allowed to do so. If you want to be a Visigoth, or a Briton, or a Khazar, you can so long as your story remains in the middle east and you respect your limits as a stranger in a strange land.

Also, if this RP succeeds, i'd be fine with expanding the map and the storyline to cover a larger area. Hell, if we reach Precipice of War level success, we could include the entire world.

APP?

If you want to apply as a larger government of some kind, you will have to join as one of the above areas. Just one, you cannot mix and match. With the Caucasian, Turkish, and East African powers you will be a monarch. For Persia, you will be a local noble of some sort. With Rome, a local official. With the Arabs, a clan or tribe.

So long as you start within the above map area, you can also join as a smaller unnamed faction. This could be a military leader, a mercenary, or a smaller polity like a city or small desert tribe. You can also elect to RP a single person if you so chose.

Fill out what is relevant to you. Make sure to have a bio of some sort, as I need those for deciding whether or not you can fit into this world.

Leader Name:

Faction Name:

Map Province:

History/Bio:

CURRENT PLAYERS
&
CLAIMED TERRITORIES

Vilageidiotx - Diocese Oriens
Dinh AaronMk - Quraysh (Caliphate)
babbysama - House Karen-Pahlav: Media
Nerevarine - Sigbjörn "Bláserkr" Ivarsson: The Blue-Shirt Army (No Provinces)

[Vilageidiotx]

APPENDICES

Here is where I will post extra info. Mostly it'll just be explanations that are given in the OOC when people ask for them.

THE WORLD MAP!

THE APPENDICES

The State of Religion (Vilageidiotx)

The big schism, the division between the Catholic west and Orthodox east, would not happen. That evolves out of head-butting politics between the Papal sphere of influence and the Imperial sphere, but in this world the two spheres would be more or less one and the same. You would probably get uppity Popes from time to time trying to insist their word comes before the other patriarchs, but with Imperial power present in the west it is unlikely any Germanic kingdoms would accept Papal primacy since it would do them no good. Remember, accepting Papal primacy was how Charlemagne got made an Emperor.

That means that the worlds "Catholic" and "Orthodox" will be interchangeable words for the Chalcedonian dogma.

However, as Aaron said, there was a Monophysite split between Alexandria and the Orthodoxy that would have happened regardless, and they became very popular on the eastern fringes. You'd see it entrenched in Egypt and East-Africa, popular in Armenia, and influential in Syria. Also in Syria, particularly deeper in Christian parts of the otherwise Zoroastrian Persian Empire, you would have the Nestorians. Historically many of the Germans were Arian as well, though whether or not Arianism would have lasted in this situation is hard to tell. Miaphysitism happens later, and represents the moderation of the Monophysites.

Now, the meaning of these terms seems really petty to me and probably most modern people, but it was important to people in this time period. I will try to explain them though.

The Orthodox position is that Jesus was both divine and human at the same time, and that this divinity and humanity were distinct but acting in tandem.

The Monophysites held that Jesus was divine and that was that. One nature, not two.

The Miaphysites who later evolve from the Monophysites and represented by the modern Coptic churches held that Jesus had one nature, but that this one nature was some sort of mix between divinity and humanity.

The Nestorians, who are the Syriac christians of the modern day, believed that Christ was bother divine and human but that these two aspects were completely separate. They are different from the Orthodox because the Orthodoxy saw the humanity and divinity as being equally present, the Nestorians saw Jesus as a human with divinity inserted post-production.

The Arians believed that Jesus was the son of god, but that he was not divine, but was a separate subordinate human son kind of like a Greek demi-god.

There is also the Donatists, who you will see mentioned if you research this stuff. They probably would not be present in the RP, as they were mostly worried about the nature of apostasy, which wouldn't be common in the 7th century. They were popular when large parts of the western world were still hostile to Christianity, and they represented the faction that believed that anybody who renounced Jesus, even under duress, could never be forgiven or allowed to receive the Eucharist. It is possible this idea might resurge in the face of Islam.

Now, if there is anybody better at theology than me, please speak up, because the theological divides make very little sense to me and I don't understand why anybody could ever have cared. This was shit that nearly brought the Empire to civil war several times, and it would have divided everything from rival street gangs to aristocratic families. And that I truly don't get.

Arians (Dinh AaronMk)

Aesthetically as well: Arians were probably much more "humble" than their Catholic/Orthodox counterparts. I think the big effect of preaching Jesus as being more human than he was spiritual didn't mean there was a lot of emphasis on trying to present some maddening image of heaven you'd get in richer Orthodox and Catholic churches/cathedral (especially later period, but Arianism was also dead by the time the romantic image of the "gothic" cathedral arose). Arian aesthetic would be more about the approach-ability of Jesus and possibility the divine as being human in many respects, and not some major divine hand of God and he needed to be that much.

Though Jesus WAS created according to Arius, he is not the son of God in the same way the mainstream church viewed him. This kind of falls into line that God is one and only, and any attempt at shoe-horning a trinity into God's nature is a half-assed attempt at being polytheistic while claiming it's still monotheistic by claiming the Son, the Father, and the Holy Ghost is one the same. So that might be the focus of the theological debate. Aesthetic argument might boil down to, "That church is too rich, you could have spent the money you got on alms for the poor"; but not as extreme as the Lollards (whoever thought it was amazing to be poor) or whatever.

Recommended Reading (Vilageidiotx)

The History of Rome

This played a part in why I wanted to do a Roman RP in the first place. Back last fall, I started to listen to these while I was at work. It's an amazing overview that everybody should listen to if they call themselves history fans, and covers everything up to the fall of the Western Empire. There is a continuation of it done by somebody else about the Byzantines, but I haven't listened to it so I cannot say anything about it.

Count Belisarius

This is what I am reading right now (albeit in text format, so I didn't spend no twenty bucks =p. If you can find this at the library, that would be great). Pretty good overview, the narrator explains a lot of the small cultural details of the time, like the religious differences.

In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire

Admittedly, this one forms the foundation of what I know about the rise of Islam. It wasn't a subject I had much knowledge in at all until this year. Pretty good overview of the events that caused it all to happen.

[Drunken Conquistador]

So, how about this?

House Suren

Leader Name: Narsē. Marzban of Sistan.

Faction Name: House Suren.

Map Province: Makran. Sassanian Empire

History/Bio:

The Suren clan holds a distinguished place in the story of Persia. Like the Karen-Pahlava, the Surenas can prove the claims about the age and historicity of their house. The Kings of Parthia were always crowned by a Surena and it was a scion of this great and prestigious house that crushed the Roman legions led by Crassus at Carrhae. Only to later be killed by his envious liege.

Another esteemed Surena was Gundaparnah I (Holder of Glory), who from his family's ancestral lands in Sistan was able to establish the Indo-Parthian Kingdom. Overcoming the Indo-Schytian Kingdom and taking over Arachosia, Seistan, Sindh, Punjab, and the Kabul valley. Creating a kingdom that would last some 150 years before being themselves conquered by the then growing Kushan Empire.

When the Sassanid armies defeated and overthrew the Parthian Kings, the Surenas still in Persia quickly swore fealty to the new regime. Easily attaining a place of honor among the Seven Parthian Clans. Fighting for the new Sassanian rulers just as fiercely as they did for the Arsacids and eventually reuniting with their eastern branch as the Sassanian armies defeated the Kushan Empire.

In more recent times, the House of Suren earned some glory fighting against the Turks and in Bozorgmehr's wars against the Romans. Though the wars took their toll on the family. The current Marzban, Narsē, ascended after the death of his father, Spandiyār, in battle against the Turks. The subsequent wars against Rome also killed Narsē's three younger brothers. The sacrifices of the Surenas were richly rewarded however, and the family has managed to obtain an enviable position in the court of Mazdak. Though still not enough to challenge the dominance of the Karen-Pahlavas single handed.

[Dinh AaronMk]

It's fine by me.

[Vilageidiotx]

Works for me.

[Dinh AaronMk]

Where all da people be?

[Kho]

Very interesting. Was actually considering creating Khalid, but then I read the IC and noticed he was already made. I guess all Quraysh characters are Dinh's to control xP
Just a note though, head-cutting was never a trend of the Rashidun Caliphate, that only became a thing later on. Desecrating the bodies of the dead in general was something hugely discouraged by the Prophet and his successors (his own uncle had been mutilated in death by the Quraysh after all.)

I can't think of a character to create right now, though I am interested, so I hope you wouldn't mind me sticking around in the OOC and reading the IC xP

[Dinh AaronMk]

Very interesting. Was actually considering creating Khalid, but then I read the IC and noticed he was already made. I guess all Quraysh characters are Dinh's to control xP
Just a note though, head-cutting was never a trend of the Rashidun Caliphate, that only became a thing later on. Desecrating the bodies of the dead in general was something hugely discouraged by the Prophet and his successors (his own uncle had been mutilated in death by the Quraysh after all.)

I can't think of a character to create right now, though I am interested, so I hope you wouldn't mind me sticking around in the OOC and reading the IC xP

@Kho

Whether or not decapitation was prohibited by Mohammad it wasn't something that Khalid was above doing if to hit-home the message behind his being there or to enforce the authority of his commander-ship in that area. Khalid is famously known in his invasion of Persia to have had all his captives of war beheaded over his frustrations, turning the river Khaseef into one of blood when he opened the dams.

Khalid's a brilliantly brutal character. He may be a devout Muslim, but not necessarily moral in his tenacity. I've compared him to Precipice of War's Hassan: a man brilliantly transfixed on the conduct of war and to magnify the strengths of his relatively weak armies to equal or be greater than the others.

[Kho]

@Dinh AaronMk Not decapitation, I refer simply to the beheading of those already dead. I would not know whether beheading the living was prohibited or not (Khalid definitely didn't seem to think it was, from his many actions), but I know desecrating the dead wasn't a thing. The practice of sending heads to enemies/Caliphs was also not a thing during the Rashidun Caliphate, unless you have evidence which would make you believe otherwise. Obviously, it is an alternate timeline so it isn't a biggie either way xP

I'm assuming that those first few posts mean that the Arabs are already expanding into the Banu Ghassan region, right?

[Pepperm1nts]

Aaron isn't in control of all the Arabs, by the way. You can sign up as a clan/tribe and do your own thing. Support Aaron or go your own way.

[Dinh AaronMk]

@Kho

Depending on view, Husayan ibn Ali was killed and himself beheaded after being killed by Hurr ibn Yazid Riyahi at the Battle of Karbala. Shia view attests he and his followers were executed and decapitated, where the Sunni view simply makes the claim Husayan was killed by Hurr's spear before being beheaded.

And in a half-sense, Rostam Farrokhzaad was beheaded after the load of him camel was cut, crushing him under his weapons at the final stage of the battle of al-Qaadisiyysah.

So it's not like it hasn't happened nor has had its precedent during the Rashidun era.

And yes, the Rashidun are already moving into the Ghassanid lands, or already well in it.

[Vilageidiotx]

One important thing to remember when talking about practices and norms is that they are not absolutes. I think it is safe to say that mass murder is not an accepted practice in modern society, but it happens. Rape in the military is not an accepted practice, but that also happens.

Something can be taboo, but that doesn't make it literally unheard of.

[Kho]

Aaron isn't in control of all the Arabs, by the way. You can sign up as a clan/tribe and do your own thing. Support Aaron or go your own way.

@Pepperm1nts

Yup, just reading up on the other tribes. The Banu Hanifa were banned from contributing to the expansion (due to their role in the Ridda Wars) until the second Caliph's rule xD I guess they're a no-go for a warmonger like me >.>

[Dinh AaronMk]

@Kho

You're going to have some difficulty there. the Quryash held a monopoly of power over the course of the Rashidun and beyond. They are the tribe that controlled the Kabba and became wealthy from that, and many of the power-players at this time are early followers of the prophet and they got their position from that.

I suppose there are some small Muslim groups sent over into Abyssania I wouldn't know enough about. Otherwise there's the Lahkmids.

[Kho]

@Dinh AaronMk Ok, I never meant to be start a debate, just giving a friendly suggestion that something like that wasn't the norm, and as Vlagei said, some things happen even if out of the norm or taboo.
I think, as it is such a minor issue, I'll leave it at that :)

Edit: Ninja'd xD
I was thinking more of a tribe loyal to the Caliph that goes about doing his bidding or giving soldiers to the cause etc.

[Vilageidiotx]

I drew the Lahkmids into Persia for the sake of simplicity, but technically they are a loose client state and not a proper part of the Empire. They wouldn't be Muslim... but they would certainly be a competitor.

Also, alternatively, if you find someone not on the map while you are researching and you can place them in this period, I would allow you to play them. If you find a sub-tribe amongst the Quryash that you would want to play, you can probably request Aaron for control and figure out where they would go. One of the nice things about going to the level below nation-state is that we can add things without fucking with national sovereignty.

[Kho]

Hmm, I'm slightly confused. Does each character control an entire nation, along with provincial tribes/officials/noble families, or is there a different player for each region?

[Pepperm1nts]

Hmm, I'm slightly confused. Does each character control an entire nation, along with provincial tribes/officials/noble families, or is there a different player for each region?

@Kho

The Roman players control the top official of whichever region they choose. Arab players control a tribe (and whatever that tribe controls). Persian players control a family (and whatever that family controls).

[Vilageidiotx]

In Rome, the regions are military and civil offices. In Persia, they are Satraps. In the Islamic world, they are spheres of influence. These represent the most powerful names, but they don't represent complete control.

It might help to imagine that we are straddling the divide between Nation RP and Advanced character RP. You pick a faction and RP that faction within this world.

[Dinh AaronMk]

Hmm, I'm slightly confused. Does each character control an entire nation, along with provincial tribes/officials/noble families, or is there a different player for each region?

@Kho

With possibly the exception of the Caliphate - where exceptions can be drawn - Rome and Persia are larger entities made up of smaller player-controlled entities playing politics under the guise of that Empire. For Rome, it's the diocese. And in the Persian Empire it's the smaller noble families landed across the Empire.

Alternatively below that are smaller groups like volunteer armies or mercenary forces from outside the mapped region moving in to get involved with the region at large.