Forum:Age of Glory

Rome
The POD itself regards a very odd figure in Roman history, Justinian II Rhinotmetos. He was known exceptionally well for his devout religiousness, and during his second rule after his ousting, brutality and vengeance.

A particular example of this was when he fled his place of exile, Cherson, in 704. He and a handful of supporters boarded a fishing boat and headed back to Constantinople.

On the way, the little boat is consumed by a raging storm. Fearful of being drowned, Myakes begs Justinian to promise God he will show mercy on all those who have wronged him when he gets back to Constantinople. Justinian refuses, and shakes his fist at the thunderclouds shouting, "If I have mercy on even one of them, may God drown me now!"

Historically, the storm passed easily, and Justinian began a reign of terror shortly after regaining the throne. But what if the storm only threw him and some others overboard, nearly drowning them? Given Justinian's very pious nature, he most likely would have seen this as a sign from God to change his ways.

Justinian II's crew approaches the court of Tervel of Bulgaria, and Tervel agrees to assist in Justinian's coup, in return for additions to Bulgaria's treasury and territory. Also, Tervel would be elevated to Caesar (becoming Caesar Terbilius) within Romania, and would be married to his daughter.

In the spring of 705, the army of Romans and Bulgars besieges Constantinople and ousts Emperor Tiberius, whom he would later banish to Mount Athos. However, he would elevate his brothers Heralcius and Leontius to Strategoi, which would greatly affect war effort. Patriarch Callinicus would be exiled to Crimea, replaced by appointment by Cyrus.

Over the period between 706-722, Justinian the Magnificent would focus on reforming the Empire and resecuring boundaries in Italy, the Balkans, Cyprus, Anatolia, and much of the Caucasus. Romania would also aid the Caliphate in building the Great Mosque of Damascus, providing craftsmen.

Canuck2012 (talk) 20:16, September 17, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Again: They will not send anyone to the Caliphate like that, for any reason. Lordganon (talk) 06:33, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

France
Durign the late 700s, Charlemagne transformed the loose federation of Frankish states into the First French Empire. Due to family intrigue, Charlemagne designated the Empire to be co-ruled between his three sons after his death.

Things didn't go as planned. The Emperors were unhappy, and attempted to usurp control, dissolving the Empire into into Brittany, Aquitaine, Gascony, Navarre, Toulouse, Neustria, Flanders, and Champagne.

~Can

Collapse after his death? That's not really something that makes sense, Can. He would give it, divided into three, to his heirs, just like otl. Nor does the concept of it being a Roman tributary state make sense. Lordganon (talk) 17:48, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Charlemagne gave the Empire up to his sons to rule together, as co-emperors, did he not? They disagreed with eachother, and didn't that lead to a civil war? So technically, it did collapse.

Canuck2012 (talk) 21:09, September 18, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

No, he divided it between them. Not a collapse, even remotely. And, as a matter of fact, it was his son that did that with his sons - Charlemagne's grandsons. Past that? Middle guy died first, and his lands got fought over. Lordganon (talk) 00:58, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Germany
After the death of Charlemagne, Allamania split from France. She became a dominant power in Central Europe, but by 930 had dissolved into Lorraine, Saxony, Franconia, Swabia, Bavaria, Thuringia, Bohemia, Moravia, Austria, Carinthia, Holland, Luxembourg, Brandenburg, and Pomerania due to crippling invasions by Vikings, Slavs, and various French states.

~Can

Wouldn't collapse either. At most, it goes the way of otl - the dukes gained independence through time through the accumulation of power. And Roman invasions? No way. Lordganon (talk) 17:48, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Arabia
In 705, an Armenian revolt, deposing Smbat VI Bagratuni and other princes. Many nobles are rounded up in churches in Nakhchevan and burned to death. Later in the year, the Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan dies and is succeeded by his son al-walid ibn Abd al-Malik.

China
In 660 Emperor Gaozong of Tang China died at a banquet, reportedly poisoned by Wu Zhao, who in a power grab, declared herself Empress Zetian of an extended Zhou Dynasty. She would secure further power for the Zhous,

~Can

China and Europe were not in direct contact. Not even close to it, as a matter of fact. The Romans wouldn't even know of a change in the ruler of China. Those reforms are also far too much. Lordganon (talk) 17:48, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

And that's if they actually knew of the Chinese at all. Any trade with them would be through the Arabs, on the Silk road, etc. During The crusades, there was that whole myth of Prester John, whose lands roughly corresponded to Mongolia and China.

Now, the man who came at Eastern Europe was not Prester John.

Though he might have pressed a John once.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:24, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

The Romans did know of China. They found Chinese remains in a Roman era graveyard in I think Milan? And besides, with Wu Zetian's progressiviness China could have come into contact with Rome, at some point.

Canuck2012 (talk) 21:09, September 18, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Oh, they knew of the Chinese, and vice-versa. But were they in contact? No. Representatives of the two nations were in passing contact only a few times, most notably when a Chinese diplomat was in modern Persia on a massive trip around everywhere during the waning days of Rome. Past that, there's only a few claimed embassies to China, which were, realistically, just merchants hired by the Roman emperors to give them presents. Other contact was just chance meetings of merchants inside of Central Asia.

Progressiveness has nothing to do with it - there is just no contact between them, and no way to have it happen. Distance, simply put.

Those remains aren't Chinese.

The Progressiveness, and any sort of contact with Rome, just isn't happening.

Lordganon (talk) 21:48, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Could you give me some advice on how to make this more accurate, or how to acchieve these outcomes? The Internet can only provide so much.

Canuck2012 (talk) 22:02, September 18, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

...Nor did they trade directly, really. Almost all of their trade went through India. Trade winds more or less dictated that.

The gender equality bit is the worst part. It simply wouldn't happen.

Lose the Rome and progressive bits.

Lordganon (talk) 22:25, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really mean direct. I know they would have only traded through India.

I meant gender equality as in equal for the era. It wouldn't have been as good as it is today, and even today it's iffy.

What do you mean by the Rome bits?

76.11.101.57 23:43, September 18, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

If you didn't mean "direct," then why did you say it?

There is no such thing as "equal for the era" when it comes to that. Women were nothing in their eyes, and that wouldn't change.

Rome bits - as in all references to Rome and China interacting.

Lordganon (talk) 01:00, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

-_- no one laughed at my pun.

jk. Not sure if you got it. Prester John, Pressed a John?

Well, actually, the Romans would trade with the Arabs/ Persians, if they went by land, who would either directly trade with the Chinese, or with Indians who would then trade with the Chinese. So... no interaction beyond merchants, and even then rarely, since it's either through Persia or India...

And as LG said, no embassies. Nor would the Chinese care. They're happy.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:19, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Umm...I don't know who Prester John is?

Even with Wu Zetian's reign? That's hard to believe. I mean yes, there wouldn't be as much as today, but Wu Zetian did attempt to prove women could, and if she had a longer reign, couldn't she have changed some perception, so that things could change by a small margin?

And could you guys help with dynastic stuff?

Canuck2012 (talk) 20:20, September 19, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Yes Guns, I understood the reference.

Can, I have to say I'm a bit surprised you don't know but - have a look here for info.

No embassies or real contact. Ever.

Incorrect, Can. What she did was attempt to take power, even holding it for a while. That's it. Nor does it have anything to do with perception - it is the culture.

As I've said before - I will only advise.

Lordganon (talk) 06:36, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

But what would Wu Zetian's extended reign mean for China?

Do you know any powerful political families of the time that would marry into the Heraclian Dynasty? As I said, I don't like making people up. I could, but that tends to give rise to unrealistic outcomes.

Canuck2012 (talk) 22:42, September 20, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Also, how will Rome's rerise effect Medieval Europe, specifically France and Britain?

Canuck2012 (talk) 23:40, September 20, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Would mean nothing. Not that such an extension would be plausible, imo.

Look up Byzantine nobles on wikipedia. There's a lot of them.

The Byzantines taking back Italy - and that's about all it means - would have almost no net effect of the Brits, and a marginal one on France.

Lordganon (talk) 00:37, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

But if Daoism was institutionalized, couldn't she have done something?

But how many of these nobles were back around 705-740? Most I found were from 1000-1300.

I don't know how the political structure of the Resurected Roman Empire would look like. Should Justinian divide the Empire into two like Austria and Hungary were in their Union? Or should simply it remain intact, and Justinian relocating the court back to Rome?

The only reason I ask these questions is because of the fairly large cultural and religios divide between East and West; Latin, Greek; Catholic, Orthodox. If the Roman Empire was reuntied under Justinian, I don't think it would last that long, whereas if Rome was split into two AH style, than it would stand united for far longer.

And what Hindu or Buddhist nation on the Indus or Ganges could have united India between 705 and 1200?

Canuck2012 (talk) 00:29, September 22, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Well, for the last...

Maurya, which came the closest out of the 4 big empires of India (even larger than today's republic, if you count the tributaries) was in BC- too early.

Guptas had just collapsed.

Delhi didn't really pull it off until 1325, though by then they were the second closest (under Muhammad Bin Tughluk)

And the Mughals were way, way, too late.

Sorry. I don't think so.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:24, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Taoism had long been institutionalized prior to 700.

She could not have done anything, Can.

There was a tong of nobles in that century, many of whom are on wikipedia. Generals, for instance, were nobility.

You can find a ton of Byzantines from that century here.

He would neither divide it, or relocate the capital.

As I've said before: he's not going to get more than Italy, North Africa, and maybe Iberia, from the former western empire. And conversion is easier than you think.

And splitting, quite frankly, would have the opposite effect of what you want.

There are many large kingdoms and small empires in India during that period that could have done it. The vast majority, however, are in the south. The strongest, overall, that would have had a chance, would have been the Pala Empire.

Lordganon (talk) 22:52, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well, a) He said from the Indus or Ganges (all of the Above controlled that areas), so the southern nations are out, but yeah, I forgot about the Pala. With your parameters... I'd agree with LG. Pala are your best bet (though frankly speaking, I doubt that they could have actually pulled it off. There's a eason they topped where they did.). Actually, though, turns out the Mauryas DID do it. If Ashoka had been a bit less mortified after Kalinga, enough to convert but to also keep on putting down rebellions etc, the dynasty might have lasted considerably longer than it did, maybe even till 500- 700 AD.

The Royal Guns (talk) 22:59, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, pretty well any power managing the feat is unlikely, at best. There's a reason why the subcontinent has only been unified twice.

No way that the Mauryas would last anywhere near his timeframe, however.

What I was getting at, Guns, is that the limit of rivers like that is not realistic. The southern states are just as good, if not better, candidates for the task.

Lordganon (talk) 23:10, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Could Wu Zetian's Zhou Dynasty have put a small effect on equality? Not within her lifetime, but in the scope of a couple of centuries? I'm sorry, I just really dislike how much women were treated like objects in Ancient China, despite having in my opinion quite an able woman empress.

The Pala were around this exact time, weren't they?

Could the Sena Dynasty be prevented from forming? And could the Palas succesfully defend themselves from Mongol and Arab invasions?

Even if not, could they at fight a civil war that eventually leads to a reunited "Pala Empire" that'll extend (eventually) to OTL Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Burma?

What's going to be the relation between the Orthodox and Catholic churches since Iconoclasm isn't going to happen, or to a lesser extent?

And why wouldn't Justinian relocate the capital to Rome? I mean, it was the Roman Empire.

If that still isn't likely, could there be a dual-capital system going on? Like, say Constantinople is capital in winter while Rome is the summer capital? Or should Rome simply be the imperial summer retreat?

Or a better question: when can Rome become the capital of Romania?

Also, would they adopt a state flag? Or is that a bit fanciful for the time period?

Anyway, which of the two flags for the medieval period would better reflect Rome Resurected?





And here's an eventual flag from maybe the thirteenth-fourteenth centry onward. I'm quite proud of it.



Canuck2012 (talk) 00:35, September 28, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Nice flags. Mind if I use one in my own TL (specifically the last one)?

As I said, yes, the Palas were around this time, but no, they could not have unified India. A) not enough resources, B) The Palas were from Bengal, so 3/4 of their army and all their provinces would revolt within minutes of being conquered.

No, it was the BYZANTINE empire.

The Palas would not have a civil war in the sort. The problem with your time period is that it's in between dynasties.

The Delhi Sultanate is just about coming to power in the North, the Deccan is fighting among itself for supremacy, the extreme south is split between several nations, and even of they unite, they then have to fight their way up the chaos of the Deccan, then smash their way up several other growing dynasties... then you have Alloudin Kilji, the height of the Delhi Sultanate (in terms of power; in land size, it was Muhhammad Bin Tughluk, but he wasn't the strongest of rulers, more the start of the decline). So, basically, it's a compicated answer, but... under your guidlines, let me put it this way; no.

The Royal Guns (talk) 22:40, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

I guess you could use it.

Umm...no. There is no distinction between the Roman Empire and the Bzantine Empire. Byzantine is a term invented by westerners to differentiate between Western Rome and Eastern Rome. Even to the Siege of Constantinople, they referred to themselves as Romans, or Romanians. You could still argue that the cultural differences between east and west could be enough to seperate East and West, but politically, no.

Canuck2012 (talk) 23:26, September 29, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Right, but the Byzantine empire (called, even then, officially, the Byzantine empire) was split off from Rome.

In any case, they didn't. At several points in history I believe the controlled Rome, but it was too far away from the core of the empire, and too close to the borders. I don't think they actually held it for more than 100 years.

It would be crazier than Muhhamad Bin Tughluk's move to Daulattabad. At least, that would be safe.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:04, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

No, the Byzantines never called themselves "Byzantine", they always called themselves the Roman Empire until the day they fell. Almost no one called them anything but Roman until after they fell, that's when the Westerners tried to come up with a term to differentiate them from the older, united Roman Empire. They would never change their official name from "Rome". LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:11, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

=P point is, they never controlled Rome long enough to mmake it capital. The core was always near Byzantium/Constatinople/Istanbul.

The Royal Guns (talk) 20:02, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Quit removing those comments, Can.

Can, there would be no changes for women. As we've been over before, you not liking something does not make "fixing" it at all possible.

There is every possibility that the Palas could have done it. The location of their power base is entirely irrelevant, and the majority of that has no basis in truth - only your own assumptions.

Rome would not be the capital in any way, shape, or form. Not ever.

It is possible that the Sena Dynasty could be prevented from forming. Such a war would be beyond them.

Iconoclasm likely would not happen.

A state flag would not happen for centuries. Not even the flags we associate with them today were "state flags" but rather family banners.

A Byzantine flag would not have the double-eagle. That was a flag and symbol of the Palaiologos family, not the Empire.

Nor is the second flag Romanesque or Byzantine.

The third one is the only realistic option.

The Byzantine Empire was never actually called that. To all, it was either the "Roman Empire" or the "Eastern Roman Empire." It being called the "Byzantine Empire" was a later construct initiated in order to mark the empire and to establish its differences from the Roman Empire - before it turned to the east - and to give the HRE more of a claim to the title "Roman."

Lordganon (talk) 21:41, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, LG. The Palas fell when they did, for several good reasons. In addition, with the Sultanate building up near Delhi- much more powerful, at it's height, which wasn't far away- the war would have smashed them both.

Not enough resources, too far out in a corner- either they shift to the center, and die as the populace revolts, or they completely collapse over a couple of generations at the top, the empire ripping itself into tiny shreds.

Ok, still doesn't answer the point that they NEVER controlled Rome long enough to make it their capital.

Agree about the Flags, though Can. Still, thanks for letting me use the third one.

The Royal Guns (talk) 23:05, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

The sultanate did not even begin to arise until the early 1200s. And that was from the eastern ashes of the Ghurid Empire, well after the otl collapse of the Pala Empire.

Again: the location of their center of power is irrelevant.

There is no reason that they could not remain in power longer.

And your point about Rome itself is even more irrelevant.

Lordganon (talk) 23:21, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

About the deleting thing, I find it cluttered when people are posting in between the posts, or if posts remain after the issue has been resolved.

Couldn't Tiberius IV (Justinian's heir) reconstruct Rome and make it the capital within his or his heir's reign? How long will it take to become the capital? Will it shift during the Seljuk and Mongol invasions, or with the rise of the Ottomans?

Or could Rome be the capital de jure, or in name only, and Constantinople being the real power?

Is there any real time between 800-1600 that Rome can become the splendorous capital of the world's greatest power like she once was?

In India, the Palas controlled and made capital the religious, and I'm fairly certain cultural, economic, and military centre of the Indian subcontinent:Patna. With the Senas removed, they could possibly unite the entire continent and than some within a few centuries more than OTL, as long as they control Patna. Though I could see India fragmenting under Mongol invasions, and maybe a successor dynasty reuniting India during the 1300/1400s.

Though this is pure assumption, and probably not true in the least.

I couldn't find much info on the Senas and Palas, but do you know what could have caused the either early end of the Senas or preventing their existence at all?

Canuck2012 (talk) 00:33, October 3, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Quit removing posts.

The capital will not ever move to Rome. The idea, quite honestly, makes no sense whatsoever.

The Mongols never made it to India otl, for good reason. No change you could make would change that.

Butterflies from a stronger Byzantine Empire would domino eastwards - it is likely that the powers in western India would be weaker than otl, aiding the survival of whatever state rules all or most of India. That would help the Pala Empire survive, and help with the defeat of the Senas.

Lordganon (talk) 01:09, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

No, the Palas still crash after a couple of generations. Maybe with your plan, you'll get through an actual Dynasty of the same length as that of the Great Mughals (Babur- Aurangzeb). But maybe 200 year AT THE MOST.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:29, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why Rome won't ever become the capital of Romania. It makes no sense to me-it was the historic capital, and could be aggrandized once again, like she was historically, particularily if the Byzantines reconquer Italy.

However, wouldn't Rome still degrade by 1453, and Constantinople fell, or was threatened, by invading Turks? Than wouldn't the Romans relocate to Rome?

So most likely Persia will become a part of Rome? Or a vassal? How long will that take, considering Persia was a dominant force in Asia Minor for several centuries?

Also, this is my last question regarding Wu Zetian: Couldn't she have used her status of Empress and longer reign to put more women in power? And wouldn't she make sure her heir was female? That would, over a period of centuries, would lead to slightly better equality, wouldn't it?

Canuck2012 (talk) 22:03, October 3, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

A POD in 704 would make it highly unlikely that there would be any Turkic invasion of Byzantine lands at all. Furthermore, even if they attacked, a stronger Byzantine Empire would probably be able to repel them easily.IF the Romans were stronger, they might not degrade by then. There is nothing magical about real-life events that makes them have to occur.

Constantinople was a much richer and more powerful city than Rome for most of the Middle Ages. Furthermore, it is the heart, both geographically and culturally, of the Byzantine Empire.They already moved the Roman capital from Rome to Byzantium when it was still somewhat united under Constantine, there's no reason for them to move it back.

I doubt the Romans would be able to take over all of Persia for any significant period of time, if at all.

LordGanon has already repeatedly explained to you that the extremely patriarchal Chinese culture isn't going to be changed by the actions of a single successful Empress. Wu Zetian wasn't some radical feminist either, she's not going to try and establish some dynasty of women to rule over men and the Chinese men aren't going to let that happen. You just have to face the facts that China isn't going to become significantly equal that easily. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:23, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Again: Rome would never become the capital. Lurk is very right.

The Empress would not be able to do such things. Nor would she want to. The idea is ludicrous, quite honestly.

As I've said before, Can, you need to drop notions like this. It's as realistic as a "peaceful" world like what you tried for before - as in, not at all.

Persia would not become a vassal, part of, or even friendly with the Byzantines.

Guns, you're not getting the point. You, quite frankly, sound like you have something against them. There is a very possible chance that they could have survived far longer.

Lordganon (talk) 23:10, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Okay. That's all I needed to know. From what I heard, Wu Zetian was a very pro-feminist leader, but alas.

And no, I didn't want a "peaceful" world. That's unrealistic. Something a little better than OTL.

Anyway, yes, Constantinople was far richer and more powerful than Rome for several centuries, but if urban renewal projects are enacted, wouldn't the capital transition from Constantinople to Rome at least around the late Renaissance?

If that isn't possible, than Rome will become the capital after some sort of disorder; either a revolution, invading armies threaten Constantinople, or an earthquake devastates Constantinople.

Canuck2012 (talk) 23:03, October 4, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Constaninople was the center of the Empire, if invading armies got to it then the entire empire would fall. A revolution would just lead to someone new declaring themselves emperor from Constantinople. I suppose that could start a civil war, and one side's capital could be based in Rome, but once that Emperor won, he would return to Constantinople. An earthquake would just result in the Byzantines rebuilding the city. The Byzantines would never build up and renew Rome at the expense of their capital.

Really, for the Byzantine Empire Rome was always on their frontier areas. The Byzantine Empire was always centered on the east. Unless you retook much of France and Spain and Northern Africa, Rome would always be on the edge of an Empire centered around Constantinople. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:15, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe I should have a POD that allows the survival of the Western Roman Empire?

What if Orestes wasn't appointed as Magister Militum by Julius Nepos, and Nepos reigned longer? He was known as an able administrator, so could he have kept Italy Roman? However, Ravenna would than be the Roman capital.

So could Rome be saved from sacking in what, 402? Or is that inevitable?

Canuck2012 (talk) 23:52, October 4, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Perhaps you should come up with a POD first, and then make the alternate world from that, instead of going in with what you want the alternate world to look like and scrambling to find a POD that will fit it. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:08, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no such thing as a "pro-feminist leader" at that time.

I think you need to listen more to want you find for yourself, and less on what you hear, Can.

Verbatim: The capital would not be moved.

Orestes or not, Nepos would still go down. And even if he somehow managed not to, the capital would still not be in Rome.

Lurk is right. Find a PoD. You're not getting these results like this.

Lordganon (talk) 21:46, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

All I want is a Roman Empire or Roman successor state having Rome as its capital and eventually becoming the world's superpower after the Roman Dark Ages, or Fall of Rome, whichever works.

Now, what are some PODs that could bring this as a result?

Could the non-Sacking of Rome have allowed a Roman state to exist in Italy after Western Rome's fall?

Could the Romans have offered citizenship to slaves aswel as foreigners citizenship in exchange for military service? Or is this OTL?

Canuck2012 (talk) 23:56, October 5, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

A "non-sacking" of Rome would not change anything.

Nor would giving the slaves any rights have had any effect.

Can, there is no way any remnant would have Rome as its capital, let alone become a "superpower."

Lordganon (talk) 00:34, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, is there a way that Western Rome's fall could have been prevented in the last century of its existence? And with Rome as its centre?

Canuck2012 (talk) 02:43, October 6, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

No. Heck, for that matter, in the last three centuries of its existence the capital was not even in the city of Rome. Lordganon (talk) 02:52, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to prevent the fall of the Western Empire? At any point in time? And Rome will eventually become capital, after surpassing Ravenna and Milan in "grandour", economic, cultural, and strategic improtance, and probably the start of a new dynasty.

Canuck2012 (talk) 16:49, October 6, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012