Del Aguila is very polite but also very firm in his terms. The Kingdoms of Spain and Arles have recognized the Papacy as the rightful rulers of Rome and the surrounding territory of Lazio and are there to ensure the Pope can take up his authority. If the Romans cooperate, he will guarantee safe passage and provide any necessary transport and supply for Lazaros, the garrison, and any Roman civilians who wish to accompany them to Messina. If the Romans do not cooperate, things will be messier.
Lazaros protests at first, arguing that Spain and Arles are supposed to be at peace with the Roman Empire and are supporting rebels, an unfriendly act. But the protest is largely for form’s sake. He recognizes the terrible odds against him and after the massacre of Catholics in Constantinople had expected this kind of demand. Del Aguila recognizes the protest for what it is and additionally makes the argument that, naming conventions aside, the city of Rome itself matters far more to Catholics than it does to the Romans, who have New Rome after all. Lazaros then concedes and agrees to the Spanish terms.
I 100% expected this to happen, and that was before the anti-Latin pogrom even happened, which sealed it.
Not like Rome is experiencing a civil war, a war with the Ottomans, and a rebellion in the Sicilian Despotate all at the same time. I'm sure Rhomania is perfectly capable of defending the city militarily or has the public support from Constantinople or Rome itself to commit resources to it.
It's a miracle that Spain and the other Catholic powers have not pressed the issue with Rome militarily, but I suspect this will become more likely as the rebellion to liberate Rome grows stronger.
It's a huge blow to Roman prestige and political influence in Italy (with places like Genoa soon to follow, I think), but they're not in a position to resist the re-establishment of the Papal States. That being said, Rhomania still has Sicily (and to a lesser extent Venice) so not like they will lose everything in this war, but I have my doubts they will reclaim the Eternal City ever again.
For the Romans, I think it could signify that Rome is simply
not worth the effort needed to take it again. They know what the city is like and how it's virtually a backwater compared to New Rome. Not even under the illustrious administration of the Kephale has managed to revive the city to the same level as the worst cities in Rhomania. If the Latins want something that amounts to a pile of shit on the streets of Constantinople, then let them take it.
(I prefer Rome under the Papacy rather than the Roman Empire for that reason, as they're one of the few institutions capable of reviving the city to a level similar to its OTL counterpart)
The Romans already have their Rome, the true Rome passed down from the Roman Emperors of Antiquity, and that won't be taken away from them anytime soon.
Del Aguila does not move because he has very clear orders from his King; he is to support the revolt in Rome but to provide no aid for the one in Naples. The public outrage over the massacre of foreigners in Constantinople, which included many Spaniards, made it impossible for King Joao to continue sitting on the side as he had. However, his long-term strategy still requires negotiating with the Romans, which means he doesn’t want to push too far and burn a bridge he’ll want to cross later. Supporting the one rebellion and not the other is his effort to reconcile these two impetuses.
It's a move that benefits Spain and the Papacy for the most part, but I have a feeling that this decision will doom the Neapolitan rebellion, by abandoning the Catholic rebels to the heretics. I could see a lot of Catholics (especially Sicilians) either believe that the rebellion could've been won with further Spanish-Arletian support and/or curse them for their role in the oppression or even possible genocide of Sicilian Catholics for the sake of political expediency.
Masaniello though is not forgotten, his name frequently conjured up in later political dialogues. [1] He is commonly invoked as an example of the danger of riling up the common folk, as mobs tend to be vicious, ungrateful, and unpredictable. He is also cited as a clear reason why one should not empower the common folk, because the common folk are too stupid to know their own interests. If they had, they would’ve dismembered Maddaloni who despised them as rabble instead. More happily, he is also invoked as a reminder of the need to implement needed reforms in advance, lest desperation conjure up a man like him; in this, he shares a similar historical memory to that of his contemporary Konon.
A future Hobbes sure will have a lot of historical documents for inspiration. I'm hoping a counterpart will arise in Rhomania since his ideology corresponds nicely with how the Romans think.
And they will. The year 1663 is the nadir of Rhomania’s General Crisis. Now begins the climb out.
Thank goodness.