Crazy idea I thought of last night-what if Constantine had chosen somewhere besides Byzantium to be Nova Roma? I distinctly remember reading in my college History of the Roman Empire course last year that an emperor before Constantine (I want to say Diocletian, but I'm not 100% sure) made Chalcedon an eastern capital and declared it an "equal of Rome", but this didn't last beyond his death. If Constantine had continued with this, well, Chalcedon is quite near Byzantium, so its easy to imagine a *Byzantine Empire emerging like OTL. However, Chalcedon is on the Anatolian side of the Bosphorus rather than the European side, so it would be impossible for the *Byzantine navy to protect it from the Persians (and Arabs and Turks, if Islam isn't butterflied) the way they could with Constantinople. Might this cause the *Byzantines to focus more on their land army, and make them less of a naval power? Might *Byzantium fall earlier ITTL?
Beyond that, eastern Rome had plenty of other big cities Constantine could have concievably picked. Its interesting to think how history would have gone if the capital of the ERE had been in, say, Antioch or Alexandria. An Antioch-based ERE would have much less strategic depth vis-a-vis Persia than its OTL counterpart did, with interesting effects. However, for an Alexandria-based empire, the Sinai would provide a natural choke point against Persia or anyone else coming from the East, one that I think would be more likely to be used ITTL. Egypt, after all, would be the center of this ERE rather than the distant, often-discontented province it was IOTL. Unlike IOTL, the capital's food supply would be a lot less of a headache, since Alexandria is sitting almost on top of the grain farms of the Nile. Something like the Chalcedonian schism is, I think, unlikely to happen-or if it did, it would probably be in reverse, with Egypt being Orthodox and Anatolia being schismatic. An Alexandria-based empire will probably Copticise over the course of time as well, and would likely produce an Egypt much more resistant to the Arabs than OTL.
Thoughts?
Beyond that, eastern Rome had plenty of other big cities Constantine could have concievably picked. Its interesting to think how history would have gone if the capital of the ERE had been in, say, Antioch or Alexandria. An Antioch-based ERE would have much less strategic depth vis-a-vis Persia than its OTL counterpart did, with interesting effects. However, for an Alexandria-based empire, the Sinai would provide a natural choke point against Persia or anyone else coming from the East, one that I think would be more likely to be used ITTL. Egypt, after all, would be the center of this ERE rather than the distant, often-discontented province it was IOTL. Unlike IOTL, the capital's food supply would be a lot less of a headache, since Alexandria is sitting almost on top of the grain farms of the Nile. Something like the Chalcedonian schism is, I think, unlikely to happen-or if it did, it would probably be in reverse, with Egypt being Orthodox and Anatolia being schismatic. An Alexandria-based empire will probably Copticise over the course of time as well, and would likely produce an Egypt much more resistant to the Arabs than OTL.
Thoughts?
