• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tongera

Captain
99 Badges
Dec 25, 2011
404
1
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II
  • March of the Eagles
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Hearts of Iron 4: Arms Against Tyranny
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Rome Gold
Does anyone know how history might have turned out if Byzantium survived? I mean if they could take and the keep the whole of Anatolia, Balkans, Levant and Egypt in the period around 1100-1300 (retaking said territories and it would based around the assumption that the crusaders didn't sack Constantinople, therefore splitting up the empire and that the Muslims (Turks, Umayyids etc) could not take and keep parts of Anatolia, even temporarily) and that the Byzantine Empire remained Greek and Orthodox Christain (particularly in Greece and Anatolia) and a Absolute Monarchy. Discuss how you would think this impact world events up to the end of the 20th century.
 
I've wondered this also.

I am currently reading Lost to the West by Lars Brownworth, and it is interesting to note how many points there were where one decision could have radically changed...everything, really. It's a nice brush of Byzantine history. But to your question:

For starters, the West would have probably taken longer to develop. There was no Byzantine influx to push learning, so I'd say set the Renaissance/Enlightenment back a while. But that may be wholly inaccurate, as Eastern influence may have been able to spread West anyway if they were as powerful as you make your ideal one out to be. There is also the chance they would have come to war with the West anyway, such as through the fourth crusade, and the results of that would be hard to guess.

Whether or not Byzantium managed to survive beyond that fateful day in 1453, the mid east would have been greatly affected if, as you say, Byzantium had managed to reconquer all the way to Egypt. Which was highly possible, for the Christians of the area had just been placed under the Muslim yoke, and longed to overthrow these new masters; if Constantine V had worried about his fellow Christians rather than causing the iconoclasm Muslim influence could very well have been driven from the Middle East entirely, and for a long time. This would have greatly weakened the burgeoning religion.

This may have prevented crusades against Muslims, but after the East-West Schism I can easily picture Western kings deciding Jerusalem was not fit for a heretic to rule. Although the matter of the schism's not happening due to increased influence of the Orthodox church at the time is another issue entirely and not one you could entirely rule out.

If, after everything, Byzantium survived to modern day as an Absolute Monarchy, I can see it taking the role of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Events at that point are too far away to attempt to hazard a fairly informed guess, however, so who knows what would have happened.

Perhaps you should just forget my entire spiel; I am, after all, no historian. But I like to think I can see somethings sometimes.
 
With no powerful Muslim and Turkish state in Anatolia and pushing into the Balkans, the history of that area changes completely. Instead of Austria on the defensive against Islam, you get the Caliphates on the defensive (presumably) against Orthodoxy. The various Muslim states on the coast of North Africa no longer have a powerful patron and protector backing them; certainly the Western and perhaps the Eastern med might become a Christian lake instead of a battleground of competing piracies. That would have immense effects on trade, perhaps to the point where the search for a sea-route to the Orient isn't so important anymore? Or alternatively, it might be done earlier because the Christian kingdoms have more resources to spare for that sort of extra. In any case, southern Europe immediately becomes much richer just from the lack of raids, piracy, and slavery. The historical shift in power northwards, to the Atlantic-rim states, might be delayed by a century or more. That would have all kinds of effects on religion, obviously. Protestantism might become one more reformist movement within the Church, rather than a full-on massive schism, if there were no state actors with both the interest and the power to become its protector.

Really, when you change such a massive development as the fall of Byzantium, all kinds of things might happen. Maybe the Turks, thwarted in Anatolia, would change direction and go north of the Black Sea, uniting or conquering the weak Khanates there and bursting into Russia to make a vassalage-and-tribute network of the Rus, several centuries before schedule. Then who knows what would become of Poland, and indeed Germany? A hundred years later the renewed Byzantium might find itself staring down a Muslim threat from the north. After all they'd had many long centuries of Bulgarian and Avar raids from that direction, why not Turks?
 
Thanks for the answers, they are quite interesting.

Also, how do you think it would affect modern day politics, with the scenario above? The reason i ask is because i simply think it is interesting to see how a modern Byzantine Empire would fare in the modern world, an empire that has lasted for more than 1,400 years and how it would affect world history and relations and how it would impact the modern age.
 
Well, I suppose it was possible. Say, at Manzikert, the western mercenaries accidentally run into Alp Arslan scouting the battlefield and capture him (or he gets an arrow in the eye, or...), and as a result the Seljuks are thrown back (for at least a while). Arslan, or his successor, then invades Mesopotamia and the Levant first instead of attacking Byzantium. Still, the threat keeps the Byzantines somewhat allied to eachother instead of going off to kill themselves. Malik Shah's death still leads to confusion, and a Byzantine expedition manages to seize much of the Levant and Syria. The expedition contains many catholics too (seeking glory and bounty now that Sicily has mostly fallen) but the Byzantines are strong enough to keep official power, and in 1099 (although extremely bloody in the taking, as the mercenaries go wild) Jerusalem is added once more to the lands of eastern Rome.

From here, however, it gets a bit difficult. Say, does Frederick Barbarossa spend his political capital reforming the HRE even more than he did, as he doesn't organise a crusade? Does Richard (Lionheart) trounce Philippe Capet in battle and after that has a son instead of going off to Crusade, making half of France an English possesion and permanently weakening the English barons? (as the English kings now have a powerbase against them). Does Friedrich II seize Egypt or Tunisia instead of wasting time bickering with the church about a crusade or not?

And, from there... do the Iberian kingdoms get so much more support that the Portuguese seize Tanger in 1250? Do they get less far as the emirates unite fearing the fate of Syria? Do the Byzantines or the Sicilians eventually take Egypt, or might there be even a nativist coptic power that rises up, now that the muslims have no foreign support?

Plenty of options, really.


As to the modern day: if Byzantium remains an ancient Empire it will probably go the way of the Ottomans or Russians: eventually, the locals will remember they aren't actually Greek, they're Syrian/Egyptian/Babylonian/whathaveyou, or that a small class has all the power, and they will rise up. Assuming the Empire wins, it will be destabilised by decades of rebellion and revolution, and some outlying territories may well be seized by opportunist powers, and at the end of it they'll be just another power. Rich in history and descent, but no more important perhaps than the long-lasting Japanese Empire.
 
If it didn't fall in 1453 it would have fallen anyway in civil wars.
But first of all
The crusades would by no means happen;unless a pope which hated schimatics would take power in the curia
After that in periods like World war 1 i think byzantium would take the place of the russians but not of the germans or the franks;after all they descended from germans,people who destroyed the western roman empire
From that point onward i can imagine a ww2 byzantium vs soviet union :p
But like others said alot of things could happen
Maybe the byzantines got corrupt and the reformation didn't happen in the west but in the east.
 
Well, I suppose it was possible. Say, at Manzikert, the western mercenaries accidentally run into Alp Arslan scouting the battlefield and capture him (or he gets an arrow in the eye, or...), and as a result the Seljuks are thrown back (for at least a while). Arslan, or his successor, then invades Mesopotamia and the Levant first instead of attacking Byzantium. Still, the threat keeps the Byzantines somewhat allied to eachother instead of going off to kill themselves. Malik Shah's death still leads to confusion, and a Byzantine expedition manages to seize much of the Levant and Syria. The expedition contains many catholics too (seeking glory and bounty now that Sicily has mostly fallen) but the Byzantines are strong enough to keep official power, and in 1099 (although extremely bloody in the taking, as the mercenaries go wild) Jerusalem is added once more to the lands of eastern Rome.
Byzantium was at its lowest point in the years before Manzikert actually. The emperors were idiots who did not manage to rule much, the army was neglected and Byzantine prestige was going down the drain. Where would they find the leadership that would enable them to field an army and go on the offensive?

I don't see them lasting long, to be honest. They did well when under pressure, but after the demise of the Macedonian dynasty their entire political system was just anarchy, anarchy, anarchy. They driving at full speed towards the abyss.

The Seljuks weren't a threat actually, Alp Arslan was at no point interested in conquering Byzantine lands. At that time, he wanted to march on Egypt to overthrew the Shiite Caliphate. Manzikert itself also was not a cathastrophic defeat - the larger part of the Byzantine army did not even take part in the battle, and the part that did was not mauled worse than in many battles before. What turned it into a total cathastrophe was that (1) the defectors (i.e. the part of the army that did not fight) marched straight on Constantinople, (2) the emperor himself was captured and humiliated worse than any emperor had been in centuries, and (3) the Byzantines BROKE the armistice that Alp Arslan had agreed to, which led to the Turkish invasion and the establishment of the Rum sultanate.

Essentially a giant dam of shit, that had steadily filled up over decades, broke, and the shit flushed all over the Byzantine empire: Decay of army and society, decay of imperial authority within and outside the empire, disastrous decision-making on the part of the emperors and their envious rivals, and crass egoism of the aristocratic upper classes.

A victory at Manzikert would have shored up the emperor's prestige, but it would likely not have averted any of the ills that were plaguing the empire at the time. Within a couple of years, the Sicilian Normans would be staring greedily across the Adriatic, and they'd be right in the next great danger.
 
Thanks for the answers, they are quite interesting.

Also, how do you think it would affect modern day politics, with the scenario above? The reason i ask is because i simply think it is interesting to see how a modern Byzantine Empire would fare in the modern world, an empire that has lasted for more than 1,400 years and how it would affect world history and relations and how it would impact the modern age.

As Avernite says, the empire as such would probably fall away eventually, as happened to Russia, the Ottomans, and Austria. But you wouldn't get the historical displacement of the Greeks from Anatolia, so even if the country were stripped down to its ethnic core it would consist of modern Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, and probably a few of the Med islands. Perhaps also the Crimean peninsula? It was settled by Greeks for a while; indeed, without the historical disasters, perhaps the Greeks would continue to push north, making agricultural colonies in the Ukraine. It doesn't seem impossible to get the Black Sea as a Greek lake. In any case even the ethnic core would be a very significant regional power, just as Turkey and Iran are today but rather more so. Of course, all the above assumes that the Mongols don't cause the preserved Empire to come crashing down as the Turks did in OTL.

If you have a look in my sig you can read an alternate history where Byzantium survives Manzikert but is eventually conquered by the Persians. It remains to be seen how modern-day politics will be affected. :)
 
With the way you describe the scenario's above (very well detailed) and how i described them having the Balkans, Anatolia etc, you don't feel that the Byzantines couldn't become a great power again and modernise like the great powers in the west and create a great empire (land empire like the Ottoman Empire or a colonial empire), as the lands i described above, Balkans, Greece, Anatolia, Levant and Egypt and if they remain/turn Greek and Orthodox Christian, would be rich economically and population wise, wouldn't the Byzantines use this to their advantage in becoming a great power?

Thank you for the great answers above.
 
I don't really think Rome would have become a colonial power, although the effect a strong Rome would have on the Crusades or the development of Austria would be interesting.
 
I don't really think Rome would have become a colonial power, although the effect a strong Rome would have on the Crusades or the development of Austria would be interesting.

If Tongera's dreams came true and they were wealthy, large, and stable, why wouldn't they become a colonial power? I can picture a Roman Africa quite well, thank you very much. Especially if there was no Ottoman influence to hold North Africa.

And as I outlined in my original post, Islam would most likely have been so weakened by a powerful Byzantium that it would not have been able to do what it did in modern day. So it is very possible that the entire middle east and north Africa would remain christian, Hellenized/Romanized, and much more similar to Byzantium. Hell, by that time it may already have become byzantine again. and if a European power held north Africa, it is certainly possible for them to continue expanding south.
 
Afrika, yes. Im just not sure I can really picture Rome colonising anywhere else. Perhaps through a land route, but I find myself doubting if they would have done any overseas colonisation, due to a lack of proximity to the New World. Perhaps Asia, but without the Suez Canal, Im not sure that I can see them having any major naval adventures in the Indian Ocean.
 
But lets not forget byzantium suffered from chronic narrowmindness.So only if they became more innovative or a skillful emperor willing to become the enemy of the Orthodox church took the throne would Byzantium trully progress
 
Afrika, yes. Im just not sure I can really picture Rome colonising anywhere else. Perhaps through a land route, but I find myself doubting if they would have done any overseas colonisation, due to a lack of proximity to the New World. Perhaps Asia, but without the Suez Canal, Im not sure that I can see them having any major naval adventures in the Indian Ocean.
They'd have a land frontier with the muslim world. They would not go colonzing anywhere since all available manpower would be needed for army recruitment and resettlement policies.
 
They'd have a land frontier with the muslim world. They would not go colonzing anywhere since all available manpower would be needed for army recruitment and resettlement policies.

There wouldn't be a muslim world if Byzantium had remained as strong as Tongera's scenario. Constantine V would have completely crushed Persia and any dreams of Islam spreading.
 
There wouldn't be a muslim world if Byzantium had remained as strong as Tongera's scenario. Constantine V would have completely crushed Persia and any dreams of Islam spreading.
How so? Byzantium ruled the Levant for centuries prior to the Arab conquest, and despite warring Persia almost all throughout that period, never managed to crush them. I don't see why it should be any different in such a hypothetical 13th century. They would be busy as hell just keeping order in their vast empire. (Since they don't magically invent teleconferences, air planes and rail roads.)

Castile, Aragon and Portugal also managed to wipe out their next door Muslim neighbours in the 1100-1300 time frame, but that did not put them on a course to continue that conquest into Morocco or Algeria. Or, looking at it from another angle, the Abbassids and earlier the Ummayads also managed to unify their respective sides of the Christian/Muslim frontier and created super-empires that (on paper) vastly outpowered their religious enemies. But that was not "game over" for the Christians either. The frontier remained. Same thing would happen if the Byzantines re-created the empire of Justinian.

There would be a couple of "glorious" campaigns, where the emperor marches with a vast host against Baghdad or Tabriz, forcing the Muslim rulers to pay him tribute and hand over all the lost crosses, Jesus' baby teeth and Mary's shrouds they still have. Then he would march back to Constantinople, have a huge triumph or two, and then hold theological debates for a decade or two.

Why would there be vast conquest? They'd already own more than enough land if they already have all the lands of Justinian.

Show me one period in history where the Byzantines actively desired conquest of foreign lands! There is none. The empire was around for over 1000 years and at no point did they actively pursue the conquest of lands beyond "winning back" lost land. They loved to mess with the countries beyond their frontier - Armenia, Georgia, and also the Arabs back in the day before Muhammad - to install pliable rulers or enforce the particular Christian creed of the day. But conquest?

History has lots of empires that craved for foreign conquest - the Spainiards, for one, or the Vikings. But the Byzantines really weren't one.
 
Last edited:
Show me one period in history where the Byzantines actively desired conquest of foreign lands! There is none. The empire was around for over 1000 years and at no point did they actively pursue the conquest of lands beyond "winning back" lost land.

Well, with so much lost land to win back, the distinction between recidivism and imperialism is a bit of a moot point. If you ignore the old claims, Byzantine campaigns of reconquest look much like any other country's campaigns of plain conquest. Supposing they did win all their lands back, why would they stop at the old Roman borders?

Whether they would be able to expand effectively is a different question. The Roman borders were there for a reason: They were basically the economic boundaries of the Med basin, prior to railroads. And the Iranian core of Persia is defensible to the point that neither Russians nor British conquered the place, nor is the American military very enthusiastic about the idea these days.
 
Well, with so much lost land to win back, the distinction between recidivism and imperialism is a bit of a moot point. If you ignore the old claims, Byzantine campaigns of reconquest look much like any other country's campaigns of plain conquest. Supposing they did win all their lands back, why would they stop at the old Roman borders?
Because Byzantium, as a society as well as individuals, never had any fascination with foreign or exotic cultures. They were like China, 100% certain of their own culture's superiority, and uninterested in the world beyond unless in how much tributes and mercenaries they could give them.
 
There wouldn't be a muslim world if Byzantium had remained as strong as Tongera's scenario. Constantine V would have completely crushed Persia and any dreams of Islam spreading.

The great threats to an eastern Mediterranean power was not states like Persia or something centered in Egypt. It was the various nomad hordes, who couldn't be crushed at that time. It was demographics. An advanced, settled power needed to have most of its population *not* fighting, so they'd always be straining against the nomads; they also stood to lose a lot even in victories, for example a large scale raid that was ultimately defeated could still disrupt economy and political structure over a massive region.

These be a constant pressure under the best of times, needing resources to combat. And if we follow the historical patterns, at least two (the Ilkhanate and Timur) would be major problems, possibly existential ones. This is just going to take most of their resources. If this wasn't what-if thread to begin with, I'd say the odds of them surviving both would be miniscule.

If the Byzantines really dominate the east, the benefits I think come mostly from a safer market in the east with more secure trade routes. However, many of the benefits may still go to Italy and other smaller, younger states that benefit from Constantinople providing a nice buffer. So the Mediterranean remains the center of Europe a bit longer, but I still think you end up with a relatively backward state in the east and western Europe taking the lead eventually.
 
The great threats to an eastern Mediterranean power was not states like Persia or something centered in Egypt. It was the various nomad hordes, who couldn't be crushed at that time. It was demographics. An advanced, settled power needed to have most of its population *not* fighting, so they'd always be straining against the nomads; they also stood to lose a lot even in victories, for example a large scale raid that was ultimately defeated could still disrupt economy and political structure over a massive region.

These be a constant pressure under the best of times, needing resources to combat. And if we follow the historical patterns, at least two (the Ilkhanate and Timur) would be major problems, possibly existential ones. This is just going to take most of their resources. If this wasn't what-if thread to begin with, I'd say the odds of them surviving both would be miniscule.

If the Byzantines really dominate the east, the benefits I think come mostly from a safer market in the east with more secure trade routes. However, many of the benefits may still go to Italy and other smaller, younger states that benefit from Constantinople providing a nice buffer. So the Mediterranean remains the center of Europe a bit longer, but I still think you end up with a relatively backward state in the east and western Europe taking the lead eventually.

mhmm...

what does this have to do at all with the quote? With Islam???