While I was in the middle of coding the 5th map, I saw that a new AI, Kimi-K2, had been released.
I was intrigued by this news, so I decided to test it out. As it happened, I had the lore of my created universe in mind.
So, I gave him the lore of the Antiquepunk universe, the chronology of events, and asked him a question:
"Do you think that the presented chronology of events that led to a complete change of ideology in the Roman Empire from the text on this page:
http://antiquepunk.com/lore_Chronology.htm is a logical sequence of events that led to revolution and civil war, or not? If not, why not?"
At first, Kimi unequivocally stated that no, it's not logical, it can't be true...
but after explaining certain aspects of the chronology, he eventually agreed with the logical sequence of the fictional events presented.
There are some reservations and gaps, but overall, it's accurate and consistent.
Here's a snippet of my conversation with Kimi-K2:
===
Does the chronology you transcribed lay out a logically coherent chain of causes-and-effects that plausibly turns the Late-Roman imperial ideology on its head and ends in an anti-monarchic, steam-powered revolution and civil war?
Answer: No, not in any conventional-historical sense.
Below are the specific structural reasons, keyed to the dates you supplied.
Technological determinism without socio-economic prerequisites
110-312 AD: steam engines move from exploding curiosities to “mass production” in only two centuries, yet there is no intervening discussion of coal fields, metallurgical advances, factory labour markets, or capital investment. The devices are simply declared to appear in ports, ships, and workshops. This leaps over the normal constraints (wood-fuel shortages, limited iron casting, guild monopolies, imperial tax priorities) that real late-antique society faced, so the trigger mechanism for ideological change is asserted rather than explained.
Ideological vacuum between Constantine and the Republic
312-350 AD: Constantine wins sole power, then dies (337). His sons quarrel, Magnentius briefly rebels, and then—with no preceding popular programme, senatorial manifesto, or economic crisis narrative—a People’s Senate, militia legions, and Republican constitution arise in a single year (352). The intervening steps (propaganda campaigns, urban grain riots, army oath renegotiations) are missing. Thus the ideological pivot from divine-right monarchy to republicanism is asserted as fait accompli, not demonstrated.
Civil war without identifiable factions
The conflict is labelled “Republican army vs. imperial loyalists,” but we never learn what social groups (city plebs, coloni, curiales, foederati) choose which side, nor what concrete grievance (taxes, land, religion) drives them. Battles are listed—Seleucia 352, Strasbourg 357, Ctesiphon 363—but their political stakes remain opaque. A civil war whose belligerents are named armies without sociological content cannot be judged logical.
External shocks (America, Black Sea War) treated as deus-ex-machina
325: America is discovered; 366: a trans-Caucasian maritime war erupts. Both are dropped into the chronology without linkage to the internal Roman ideological crisis. In real history, new continents or long wars can accelerate fiscal strain and delegitimise emperors, but here they are simply appended as headlines, not woven into the causal fabric.
What does make internal sense inside the AntiquePunk rules is the aesthetic logic: steam engines must appear because the genre requires them, and therefore history is retro-actively rewritten to grant Rome an 18th-century industrial base. Within that meta-fictional contract the timeline is consistent, but by the standards of causal historical plausibility it remains an abridged succession of declared turning-points rather than a demonstrable chain of revolutionary cause and effect.
(These are my explanations for each of the comments):
According to point 1, there is a sequence of events that is described by the turning points of history: 150 - The formation of the first circles of theoretical machine operators; 230 - The appearance of the first steam-powered ships; 312 - the beginning of mass production of steam engines, the beginning of industrialization; 316 - creation of educational circles for manufacturing workers; 329 - Communication reform. However, there is no mention of issues such as coal mining, the creation of an entire industry for this process, or the industry for manufacturing metal products.
According to point 2, the crisis is caused by the lack of basic legal norms for determining working hours and the division of labor between women and men. Additionally, child labor is also present. The presence of the slave trade as a common daily occurrence has led to a constant influx of workers, and the tools required for their exploitation required at least basic reading and writing skills, which further contributes to the lack of communication between these disparate groups of slaves or workers. At the same time, the reform of communications (329 – Communication reform) significantly increased the already strong pressure on the working class, which resulted in the slave rights movement of 331. In 351, there is a mention of another key turning point: the famine in the western part of the Roman Empire, which led to food riots (grain famine in the Western part of the Roman Empire).
Regarding point 3, I agree. Describing the different forces and parties in detail would have taken a lot of time, so I had to use generalized information. However, this will be corrected.
According to point 4, in real history, around the same time in 366, there was a war in Transcaucasia, or rather, a series of wars between the Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire, led by King Shapur II. The overall goal of this war was to conquer the territory of Greater Armenia. In my personal opinion, these wars were driven solely by the ambitions of Shapur II and his opponents in Rome. In the created alternative history, this conflict is caused by the need for Shapur II to have access to the Black Sea in order to have a direct route to the new lands of America, which were discovered in 325. America is not just a source of gold, but also a natural rubber plantation that provides a technologically important improvement in the form of rubber and high-quality O-rings (Rubber trees in Asia remained unknown due to the difficulty and remoteness of the region). Additionally, we must not forget about Shapur II's aggressive ambitions.
(Continuation of his reply after my comments):
With the material you have now supplied, the causal skeleton is much clearer and does form a more-or-less coherent chain from steam novelty to republican revolution, but it still rests on a pair of brittle assumptions that remain historically implausible within Late-Roman conditions. In short: the sequence is internally consistent, yet it still leans on two “miracle nodes” that have to be granted, not derived.
The energy–metallurgy node
• You now show why steam spreads (rubber gaskets, port logistics, communication pressure) but still assume that large-scale coal extraction and high-output iron founding appear on demand.
• Late-antique Europe had neither the transport networks (canals, all-weather roads) nor the deep-mine pumping capacity to deliver tens of thousands of tons of coal annually. Without that, the jump to 312 A.D. “mass production” is still a deus-ex-machina.
The labour–politics node
• The 329 Communication reform plus 331 slave-rights movement plus 351 western famine do create a recognisable social-revolutionary arc. Here the causal fabric is now tight:
– new transport/telegraphy
intensifies labour discipline →
– literate slaves/workers begin to coordinate →
– food-price shock detonates urban riots →
– militia aligns with the rioters against the fiscal-military centre.
• What is not explained is how the imperial fiscal system (which still finances the army) loses control of the grain dole and the city crowds. In the real 350s the state could still out-bribe any single usurper; in your timeline the Republic appears to win that bidding war overnight.
The geopolitical node
• Shapur’s war for “Pontic access ⇒ rubber ⇒ military superiority” is a tidy strategic driver and nicely substitutes for the older ambition of conquering Armenia.
• The new element that has to be granted is Atlantic-capable Persian hulls (or chartered Roman hulls) that can make Anatolia → Black Sea → Atlantic → America in one logistical breath. No shipyard on the Caspian or Persian Gulf in 366 could close that circuit.
Bottom line
If the audience accepts the two miracle nodes (instant coal-and-iron complex; instant trans-Atlantic Persian logistics), then the ideological revolution follows plausibly from the social and fiscal stresses you have laid out. The chain is now internally logical but not historically self-generating; it still needs those two initial genre hand-waves.
===
In general, I was very pleased with the result...
- Kimi_pic.jpg (93.71 KiB) Viewed 10255 times