The challenge is to have the Byzantine Empire become a major colonial power at the dawn of 19th century.
The way I did it in IE was roughly this...
The invasions of the Near East (Mongols in version 1, Jurchens in version 2) are sufficiently devastating that Byzantine armies are able to seize control over Egypt and Palestine with only a minimum of fuss. Though revolts do follow over the next generation or two, by about 1350 the provinces are becoming stabilised as part of the Empire.
From the early fifteenth century onwards, Byzantine merchants begin to seek an alternative route to India to bypass the hostile state that has arisen in Iran, which leads to adventures down the Red Sea and Horn of Africa. Imperial waystations develop into little towns, complete with churches and bishops, and a missionary effort in Africa develops. In India, a similar process develops, albeit more slowly and violently, but ultimately the Byzantines control a good chunk of the subcontinent either through Exarchs or client kings. By the dawn of the nineteenth century, a Byzantine colonial empire exists around the Indian ocean.
... I really must get back to IE soon!
The problem with that scenario is, why wouldn't the Mongols thoroughly devastate Anatolia and Persia as well?
However, a Mongol devastation of the Middle East that the Byzantine Empire survives would probably result in a Byzantine absorption of the entire Middle East, including Persia.In the TL, Anatolia and its armies were largely bypassed by a mostly naval attack on Constantinople, with land troops coming through Bulgaria.
Why would the Byzantines want the entirety of the Middle East, including Persia? This is like France annexing Germany.However, a Mongol devastation of the Middle East that the Byzantine Empire survives would probably result in a Byzantine absorption of the entire Middle East, including Persia.
Also, why would the Mongols bypass Anatolia?
"Absorption" was the wrong word there. My point was that the Byzantines, emerging unscathed from an invasion that devastated Persia, would not be inclined to allow another strong Persian empire to emerge from the ashes.Why would the Byzantines want the entirety of the Middle East, including Persia? This is like France annexing Germany.
In the TL, Anatolia and its armies were largely bypassed by a mostly naval attack on Constantinople, with land troops coming through Bulgaria.
Doesn't make much sense considering Mongol tactics and strategy, to be honest. Really convenient way to knock out any robust opponents such as the Mamelukes and then easily take over Egypt despite it being about 80% Sunni and the Byzantine Empire facing overstretch in this situation.
I don't think the Byzzies taking back Egypt conclusively past the 1100s is really possible to be honest. It requires an absurd sequence of events where everything bad possible happens to the Muslims and nothing at all to Byzantium.
Why can't people for once write a TL where Byzantium doesn't inevitably conquer the entire East Med?
Edit: Let me clarify, BG, since this might seem a bit snide. I really like IE and enjoy your writing- I just feel like it's a bit stupendous to have the Byzantines take over Egypt and Palestine because everything goes right for them and nothing for Muslims. It's an irritating cliche and writes off essentially an entire culture as inferior in the face of Byzantine cultural assimilation.
But Byzantium is the last remnant of GLORIOUS ROME!
More seriously, though, a Byzantine takeover of Egypt shouldn't be impossible. After all, the Ottomans managed it in 1517, when they were controlling pretty much the same territory as Byzantium had pre-Manzikert.
The only problem with that is the Byzantine state during the Palaiologan Period hated trade. The state did little to promote trade as a major source of income until it was too late thanks to the influence of its conservative aristocrats who dominated the government like never before. You need to find a way to undermine that aristocratic domination and have the lower classes get a greater say, or change the mind of the aristocrats.Another way is to have Austria or the Normans conquer Venice in the 1200's. Without Venice, Byzantium could have taken the Pepper Trade Monopoly and also without Venice the Bulgarians, Croats and Greeks would have been without a financier. No 4th Crusade could have allowed BZ to maintain a stable power base in Southeastern Europe. The first Colony would be the Crimea followed by Crete. Afterward BZ explorers could colonize Africa
Why would the Russians attack the Byzantines? They would almost certainly be allied with them.Have a hard time seeing a surviving Byzantine Empire being a colonial power. Depending upon the POD, the butterflies are enormous. But consider a few challenges.
1) The Russians and Austrians will be a constant threat from the North and West. Provides fewer resources to fund colonies.
Colonial =/= New World.2) Their avenues to the Atlantic are blocked by the Spanish and they are at a tremendous disadvantage colonizing the New World and the west coast of Africa.
They can adapt rather quickly. In fact, they'd have to if they want to brave the Red Sea.3) I would assume their ship building would focus on the Med rather than open ocean sailing so they might have a disadvantage there.
Why are you ignoring Asia and the Indian Ocean as venues of Colonization?
Cutting out the Middle man is reason enough.5) They had decent trade routes on land or via the Red Sea. There's less need to colonize Asia the way the Brits and Portugese did.
I don't see why they'd fall behind. The Byzantine empire had a tradition of continually adapting whenever their opponents came up with a new challenge going back to Sassanid days (the creation of Cataphracts was in response to heavier Sassanid Cavalry). Why would they suddenly fall behind? The second these enemies come up with better guns for instance they will try to replicate, modify and integrate the enemy weapons into their armies and strike back, assuming diplomacy doesn't work. Even as late as the mid 1300s there were factions vying for reform in the navy and military to match Venice and Genoa- and they almost succeeded.There's a lot of potential depending upon how they handle the age of enlightenment and how Islam is nerfed. But the Byzantine Empire, from my memory, doesnt seem much more likely to modernize than the Turks. I can easily see them falling behind Western and Central Europe during the 18th century.
Second, they're a hell of a lot less decentralized than the Ottomans and don't have to deal with nomads on their borders. This gives the state more money to use to reform. As well, Anatolia isn't going to be ignored and more invested nor will they likely have to deal with so much territory, which is another boom.
Finally, what makes them a better colonizer than the Turks or Venetians?Being more willing to mix with whoever they conquered usually worked in Byzantium's favor.
Even one as late as the 1200s should do the trick.I think you need to establish a good POD to deal with the Turks and then some key developments that reforms the Byzantine Empire so as to make it more adaptable to the 17th and 18th century world.