mhmm...
what does this have to do at all with the quote? With Islam???
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.
mhmm...
what does this have to do at all with the quote? With Islam???
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.
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.
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.
Austria was no power in 1072, nor was any Russian duchy.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
However, Byzantine Empire, if survived, would never be so powerful like Ottomans were.
pithorr said:I think he meant Byzantines as a Muscovian ally
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.
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.Becouse they were anti-Byzantine all the way.
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.
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.