I don't get he confusion; the attackers would be Muslim. So far from there "not being a Muslim world," there would be one and it would be a threat.
-
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.
I don't get he confusion; the attackers would be Muslim. So far from there "not being a Muslim world," there would be one and it would be a threat.
If Byzantines survived their fate would be the same as Ottomans, once Spice trade and America(gold inflation) is explored they start to decline for eventually loose some land against western european untill the nationalism kicks in where they finally implodes. They would be in same strategical position as Ottomans, hostile east(Iran), hostile west(Austria) and a expansionistic Russia who wants to put their hands on Black Sea.
With southern border secured Poland could pay more atention on rising Russian power...
But wont the religious connections between russia and the ERE likely mean close relations between the two of them?
What kind of close relations were their between France and Austria in the same age?
The Rus and the ERE had made specific attempts to forge closer ties - Marriage, the Rus taking the Orthodox religion, that kind of thing. The two had closer ties than France and Austria ever did.
On the other hand, Russia really wanted to put its hands on those southeren ports. Same religion is no guarantee that two powers wont fight eachother. Just check the relation between Wahabis of Arabia and Ottomans for example. At the end i believe that Muscovy/Russia would just find a reason to be aggressive against a Byzantine state(pointing on oriental christians/byzantines not being the truth orhtodox, whatever), just like other orthodox powers in the Balkans did agianst the Byzantine empire before the Ottos came and knocked them down. In the 1800s where Russia is most aggressive in the Balkans they could use their slavic card just as they did in IRL. So regardless, Byzantines is toast just like OE were at the end.
Well, toast... the 'minimum heartland' would be close to modern Turkey plus Greece, most like, rather than the Ottomans who ended up with only Turkey. possibly losing Armenia or possibly expanding in some directions, but I suspect the Greekishness of the Byzantines could be fairly spread after so long as a mainly Greek state. They start with a bonus compared to the Ottomans (namely being in place already in most of Anatolia and Greece+), at least.
You're talking about their policy in the 18th century. While Byzantium was around, they only once ever did an attack on the Bosphorus, and that was in the 9th century. Ever since their conversion to Christianity they minded their own business and were happy to work with the Byzantines whenever expedient. A resurgent Byzantine empire would be a cultural magnet to the Russians. Who would have their own strategic problems (Mongols) that would keep them far, far from the Dardanelles for quite some time.On the other hand, Russia really wanted to put its hands on those southeren ports. Same religion is no guarantee that two powers wont fight eachother. Just check the relation between Wahabis of Arabia and Ottomans for example. At the end i believe that Muscovy/Russia would just find a reason to be aggressive against a Byzantine state(pointing on oriental christians/byzantines not being the truth orhtodox, whatever), just like other orthodox powers in the Balkans did agianst the Byzantine empire before the Ottos came and knocked them down. In the 1800s where Russia is most aggressive in the Balkans they could use their slavic card just as they did in IRL. So regardless, Byzantines is toast just like OE were at the end.
This seems very anachronistic to me. You're taking a point of divergence in 1072 and then saying that it things would be the same based on events from OTL 1500 and 1800. Austria was no power in 1072, nor was any Russian duchy. By the time the butterflies are done flapping their wings, it would take a miracle for their respective rises to come out the same way. Why would Austria expand south and east into ethnically hostile lands with no Big Scary Moslem Threat to make it clear that they could expand or go under? (Or indeed expand at all, as compared to the equally unimportant minor powers all around them?) As for Russian expansionism with respect to the Dardanelles, it's eight hundred years later and anyway arose in the context of non-Christian control of the natural path for their exports.
And how does a Byzantine state based in the same area as Ottomans make a difference here for the formation of those two states? Lets assume that no Austria is formed, Byzanintes would still have Hungary at their borders. Also if Byzantines survived they would probably get trashed by the Mongols first and Timur later, so we still would have a paralyzed state that would not be able to do much anyway to influence events here.
As for Austria expanding south, why wouldnt they? Didnt Hungary try to expand south? That was the main reason Orthodox in Balkans at the end prefered turks, since the alternative Catholics was even worse. Byzantines, expecially strong Byzantines were pretty hated in the west anyway, so a Byzantine state would have to meet same hostile group of states as Ottomans did.
As long as Russia gets the steppes, their next target would be Black Sea coast. Now without a Crimean Khanate backed by Ottomans they gonna get their hands on steppes much earlier, so you would see Byzantine-Russian hostilities as early as late 1500s in this case.
Though again the Polish-Lithuanians would probably be contesting control of the modern Ukraine, so it's not cut and dry to assume the Rus would win those lands so easily.
The Russians might as well focus on the Baltic coast instead. Ivan Grozny and his successors did so for a while, didn't they? Their obstacle in both directions would be the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, against whom the Byzantines could be allies.
They would do both like they did IRL. As for Poland-Lithuanian and Byzantine alliance, why should this state be more friendly to Byzantines? They had a large orthodox minority that could be used by Byzantines, not exactly a reason to become friendly, quite the opposite.
I think he meant Byzantines as a Muscovian ally
However, Byzantine Empire, if survived, would never be so powerful like Ottomans were. They would be still too bothered with all those Turkish tribes and generally muslim menace in the East to meddle in the North. Also, still independent Hungarian Kingdom would be a great ally for the Commonwealth against Russians and to neutralize Habsburg's regional affairs...
True, but imagine a Komnenian type 'restoration' with Anatolia still intact. The muslims were fractured themselves, and I'm not sure anyone could really guess the impact of the hordes (mongol/timur) against a Byzantine Empire that didn't lose Manzikert. I'm not suggesting that the Byzantines would reconquer as much as the Ottomans, conquest wasn't part of their psyche.
I don't know why we're assuming that the rest of Europe would be so anti-Byzantine.
pithorr said:
thanx, i misunderstood that.
Well i was assuming a Byzantine state with Egypt, a Byzantine state with only Anatolia would be even weaker. They would still have Armenians in east, they werent very tolerant against other churces. Another problem would be Byzantine obsession of Italy, they would probably continue to waste manpower&resources in the region. Regardless if they had Egypt or not, they would be more unstable than the Ottomans due to having orient (and other)churces within their borders. While Ottos only had Alevis to harass, Byzanintes had much more "heretics" to harass than Ottos.
Becouse they were anti-Byzantine all the way.
Oh, so that's why they all wanted to marry purple-born princesses? Like pretty much all the Ottonian emperors. Or is that why the Pope sought a Byzantine alliance against the Normans?
Or why the Hungarian royal crown looks so much like a Byzantine crown? Why Béla III and other kings spent so much time in Constantinople, as princes? Why Harald Hardrada went to Constantinople and served in the Varangian Guard for over 10 years? Sure, they all hated them so much. They weren't all anti-Byzantine! Byzantium got a lot of hatred after the first crusades, there was a clash of cultures that sparked lots of bad blood. And they pissed off the pope in the 11th century, that caused the pope to spew anti-byzantine propaganda for the next ~250 years. But Latin Europe in general did not become outright anti-Byzantine until the troubles between the Venetians, Genoans and the Comnenid emperors. A surviving Byzantium would surely attract lots of envy and make enemies among the Italian trading cities but it would still be a cultural magnet and a worthwhile ally.
Wait, so you're assuming the Arab invasions failed? Or that the Byzantines retook Egypt? I can't them ever retaking Egypt successfully. I think the Byzantines had pretty much given up trying to take the offensive in Southern Italy.
And yeah, the rest of Europe was in no way "anti-Byzantine all the way". Hungary and the rest of the Balkans were antagonistic due to their proximity yeah.
Well thats my point. A surviving Byzantium, or a stronger Byzantium would be regarded "enemy of catholics" with even more anti-byzantine propaganda at least untill 1700s when religion starts to loose its power. So at the end they are as "alien" as Ottomans would be untill than. So they are in same position as Ottomans. Hostile Iran in the east, hostile catholics(or Habsburgs) in the west, later a Russia that enters the Black Sea coast from north. If they dont have Egypt, add a hostile sunnis in the south to the list. Not the best strategical position if you ask me.