True. If it was a one-on-one parallel, why call it Lunar Empire? There are several similarities, though.
> it was not tolerant
> (see the iconoclast strife and the schism with Roman Church);
Compare their attitude to the White Moonies, or illumination schools originated by Sheng Seleris. Or the treatment of Orlanth (compared to other religions).
Byzantium was home to Manicheans, Latin christians, and pagans at times.
> it was not expansionistic (after Justinian, if this is the
> correct English sp);
It kept subduing the various immigrating nomad peoples settling south of the Danube, and losing the territory again. Replace "south of the Danube" with "west of the Arcos", and the situation gets familiar.
For a short while, it even retook some of the territory lost to the Muslims.
Eastern Rome christianized the Ostrogoths and various Slavic and nomadic peoples along the lower Danube. Compare this to Hwarin Dalthippa's conversion of the neighbouring Orlanthi of Sylila, or later White Shirt Day in Talastar.
> it had little infantry (apart from mercenary one) and big cavalry
> regiments;
And it was a major naval power, too. We've already discussed the military model which resembles the Lunar army better.
> it was almost entirely agricultural based;
So is the Lunar Empire.
> it was forced for a millennium by his enemies to a strategical
> defence-based attitude;
Occasionally spurting forth and taking back what it has lost. If you view the Lunar "dynasty" as direct continuance of the Carmanian dynasties in Peloria, you get this, too.
> it had a strong bureaucracy which often suffocated
> and overtook Imperial Authority;
Some of the more recent changes in the Emperor's aspect may be regarded as consequences of such bureaucratic "unrest".
> it had little military contact with anglo-saxon or Frank (read
> Orlanthi) barbarians and lost all battles against them (in Italy
> or during the crusades);
The Franks resemble the Malkioni as much as the Orlanthi. If you want trouble with lightly armoured religious fanatics in the south, well, there were the early Muslims.
The Franks would be the Fronelans...
> it was a one-city-empire, while the LE has many capitals and
> metropolis...
Not quite.
Glamour is larger than any of the Dara Happan tripoleis, and it is the undisputed capital. Eastern Rome controlled Alexandria and most of the cities of the Hellenic world before it lost them to the Muslims.
A lot of aspects of the Lunar Empire fit one or the other period of Byzantine history. It is valid as one real world parallel (of several) to illustrate certain aspects.
Powered by hypermail