The House of Palaiologos, Against the Tide: An Eastern Roman Timeline

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Avitus

Elfwine, I would like to point out to you, and really anyone else, that this ERE is not going to be the same as one that survived without the fall of Constantinople, or even one with an earlier PoD like B444's. It is culturally poor, and has been humbled ad infinitum, so they will not be stuck in the Constantinople is the center of the world idea. By the end, Greek will probably be one of many minorities within the empire, the church structure will change in ways that I am still deciding upon, and they will not control all the territories that are considered the core of the ERE. I have five main goals for this TL,

1. Byzantium shall survive into modern times.
2. Constantinople shall remain the capital.
3. Byzantium shall remain an empire.
4. Byzantium shall become a world power (not a superpower) by modern times (think WW2 Italy, give or take).
5. House Palaiologos will retain control of the empire.

As to weather these things are impossible, I would ask that you see if I can explain their occurance to you in a plausible manner, and if I have failed to do so at a specific point, please tell me, and I shall take it into consideration.

1) With a POD this late, I think that's impossible.

2) Doable as long as the empire survives.

3) As distinct from?

4) Byzantium would be lucky to be a power along the lines of WWII Denmark (trying to think of a country with enough power to not be just plain insulting).

5) Easier said than done - but not necessarily impossible. Dynasties have lasted that long, and coups aren't necessarily going to succeed - although it's unlikely that there will be no (successful) coups within the family.

That said, welcome aboard, glad to have gained your interest.

And, as for Constantine's loans, they were taken from a variety of different countries, none of which knew how much he was borrowing in total until later. They did eventually figure it out, which was why they were so relieved when Candarli picked up the tab. Also, I actually only bought EU two weeks ago after hearing how much the people here like it, so it was not an influence at the time.

Well, it's more that EU loans work pretty much as loans have done here - even modest loans from any given source are going to be questionable given the state of the Empire's finances.

Still, I suppose its possible if he gets very lucky.

On the Church and indulgences, sorry I didn't point out the church fundraising earlier, I assumed that it was similar to OTL (they gave large subsidies to all the Balkan crusaders OTL too, so I figured thatgiving some to the Byzantines was more or less the exact same thing) and thus wouldn't need explaining. Also, although I hadn't thought about it, this earlier reformation Idea is perfect for what I had in mind for Byzantium relgiously, so I will be using it. Thanks everyone.

Makes sense. It wasn't really worth getting worked up about, just that money doesn't grow on trees - but diverting money OTL spent elsewhere for pretty much the same purpose to the Byzantines directly makes sense.

So, looking forward to seeing this progress, really.

[cimon]

Avitus,
I agree with rldragon that what appears to be 'fantacy', on balance of probabilites,before the event, can become reality and in the course of history the examples are countless;
You have Athens,in your hands and Piraeus,the best port in the Mediterranean,take advantage of it to develop the navy...
I noted that Giustiniani is your hero,but pay attention to captain Flantanellas' feat of arms in the sea who defeated the Ottoman navy in 20th April 1453 outside Constantinople,causing immense losses with his one warship(probably 'Dromon') and the three Genoese armed merchant ships coming from Chios to supply Constantinople;it is the last victory of the empire,read about it...probably navy is something that the empire can depend for money(commerce) and power.
Also Avitus,most nations in Europe that count and the world are still in the making,so the Empire can develop to anything you want,not only WWII Italy;only the first stage is somewhat difficult...

[Avitus]

Elfwine, I meant an Empire as opposed to a Democracy or other form of government. I particularly despise democracy, since it only works in practice as a republic, which is essentially a state under the command of the aristocrats, who tend to care nothing for the state, since their own image and finances are not tied to the state's success in any way. At least an a monarchy is a hit and miss system, rather than the slow subjugation of the poor in favor of the rich, with no particular concern for the nation at large.

Cimon, very true about the potential for nations to rise to great heights given time. Honestly at 1449 (my Pod, not 1453 as some have been saying) the Byzantines are in a better position than the USA, if for no other reason than because they at least exist. Since the USA became a global superpower in 200 years, Byzantium could probably do half as well in 400 with some good leadership and luck. Of course, Germany, Italy, and Japan are also in similar, might never exist territory, so they are all valid comparisons.

Also, I'm having difficulty locating online information about Flantanellas, do you have any helpful links perhaps? The navy is a priority, but at this point it is a lower one than maintaining good relations with Genoa, so Genoa will need to lose some influence, or have reason to want the Byzantines to have a navy, before the navy can be restored. That said, that is one of the main reasons why they are getting Athens in the crusade. The other reason is that the Duchy of Athens was Venetian friendly, while the Byzantines are Genoese friendly, so it was a way of kicking Venice in the Balls during the crusade without anybody noticing.

Everyone, still working on the next update, but here's the map I've been working on, comments and criticisms more than welcome.



Bright Red is Venetian colonies, and Yellow is Genoese ones (including the Duchy of Thessalonica).

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Avitus

Elfwine, I mean't an Empire as opposed to a Democracy or other form of government. I particularly despise democracy, since it only works in practice as a republic, which is essentially a state under the command of the aristocrats, who tend to caree nothing for the state, since their own image and finances are not tied to the state's success in any way. At least an a monarchy is a hit and miss system, rather than the slow subjugation of the poor in favor of the rich, with no particular concern for the nation at large.

Ah but that is why the tree of liberty must be occasionally wattered with the blood of tyrants. (Also Absolute Monarchy is just as much if not more intrinsically tied around subjugation of the poor to the point of outright dehumization)

[Avitus]

It depends on how much the current leader is dependant on his/her aristocracy. If their support comes from the lower classes, then the lower classes do better. In democracy, at least the democracies I've seen, nobody actually draws support from the lower classes. If a monarch is strong, then he tends to (but does not nescessairily) favor having a less powerful aristocracy, and a more powerful middle/lower class to counterweight the aristocrats. It's still hit and miss at best, with an occasional family of strong or weak leaders (the latter being sadly more common), but I've never known a democracy to be beneficial to the lower classes unless it is yeilding 100 fold profits for the Aristocrats.

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Avitus

It depends on how much the current leader is dependant on his/her aristocracy. If their support comes from the lower classes, then the lower classes do better. In democracy, at least the democracies I've seen, nobody actually draws support from the lower classes. If a monarch is strong, then he tends to (but does not nescessairily) favor having a less powerful aristocracy, and a more powerful middle/lower class to counterweight the aristocrats. It's still hit and miss at best, with an occasional family of strong or weak leaders (the latter being sadly more common), but I've never known a democracy to be beneficial to the lower classes unless it is yeilding 100 fold profits for the Aristocrats.

Just off my head for governments that draw power from the lower classes and their well being Venezuela and Bolivia have both been supportive of the lower classes as that is where their base lies. I believe what you are seeing is just the current situation in the Eurozone and the US which I think will be largely fleeting in the grand scheme, a situation can only remain the same for so long and even in the Euro zone that idea is collapsing.

[Dragos Cel Mare]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

Ah but that is why the tree of liberty must be occasionally wattered with the blood of tyrants. (Also Absolute Monarchy is just as much if not more intrinsically tied around subjugation of the poor to the point of outright dehumization)

Originally Posted by eliphas8

Just off my head for governments that draw power from the lower classes and their well being Venezuela and Bolivia have both been supportive of the lower classes as that is where their base lies. I believe what you are seeing is just the current situation in the Eurozone and the US which I think will be largely fleeting in the grand scheme, a situation can only remain the same for so long and even in the Euro zone that idea is collapsing.

I'm agreed on this, at least most of it. That said, most discussions like this that I've seen on the Internet have turned into vicious flamewars, and I'm iffy on making more posts on this matter.

[Avitus]

eliphas8,Perhaps, but I refuse to consider democracy as a good thing until it produces results to match, or at least reasonably better than the governments it is replacing. I probably am biased by the current situation (and this being an election year here in the states with two multimillionairs arguing about moral issues that they have no right to intervine in certainly highlites the situation in my mind), but democracy honestly has a track record no better than the monarchies that existed at the same time and technology level, and often worse IMO. My best example is revolutionairy France, which immediately degenerated into a dystopia of sorts before resulting in civil war, while within the last hundred years they had been the most powerful nation in Europe, although other examples exist in abundance. Can you offer me any examples of effective democracy for discussons sake?

Also, I'm not versed in the current situation in South America at the moment, but aren't most of their governments kept innefective and corrupt by continued US interferance? I've heard of various factual accounts of past presidents (especially Nixon) being paid by corporations to depose governments that stood a chance of effective leadership and consolidation of resources in favor of more maliable (as in unstable and violent) rulers.

Dragos Cel Mare, I promise not to flame, but you're right, a return to topic soon would probably be best for the thread.

[Xgentis]

Your exemple is flawed revolutionairy France was not a democracy.
Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Avitus;6063007
[B

Cimon[/B], very true about the potential for nations to rise to great heights given time. Honestly at 1449 (my Pod, not 1453 as some have been saying) the Byzantines are in a better position than the USA, if for no other reason than because they at least exist. Since the USA became a global superpower in 200 years, Byzantium could probably do half as well in 400 with some good leadership and luck. Of course, Germany, Italy, and Japan are also in similar, might never exist territory, so they are all valid comparisons.

. . . that's not how things work. It'd take a lot of good leadership and luck for there to still be a Byzantine polity in the late 19th century, especially with a POD this late, for it to actually be even a second string power would be . . . impressive.

Staying the hell out of the discussion on monarchy and democracy (some people know my preferences already, the rest of you can ask them). Sufficient to say, the monarchy was not what brought down the Empire, that's all that we need to know.

[Russian]

Originally Posted by Avitus

Russian, Thank you very much, I'm working on a map to go with next update now, using the second template, since it has rivers. Any thoughts on the TL so far?

you did a good job! Nice map!

As for my thoughts on the TL:
- take my advice - do not worry what the others think about your TL. Do it for yourself. Enjoy the process

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Russian

you did a good job! Nice map!

As for my thoughts on the TL:
- take my advice - do not worry what the others think about your TL. Do it for yourself. Enjoy the process

But also remember if everyone tells you what you wrote doesnt make sense there is no shame in changing it to make more sense, Mr. 444 did that once and his TL was all the better for it.

[Russian]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

But also remember if everyone tells you what you wrote doesnt make sense there is no shame in changing it to make more sense, Mr. 444 did that once and his TL was all the better for it.

That's true. If you feel that you'll enjoy approval of everyone - change it!

[Avitus]

Xgentis, fair enough about france, although I don't see how any of their republics since then could be considered more successful than the ancien regime. In any event, I'll just agree to disagree, and since it is my TL democracy will do decidedly worse than OTL, but will still be a factor.

Elfwine, but didn't it take allot of good leadership and luck to get the U.S., Germany, Italy, and Russia into existance as well? Byzantium was a decidedly unlucky nation, although I still contend that their position in 1449 is more to work with than nations that do not exist at all, nor are close to existing yet, so my reasoning is that they need less luck than the OTL powers that they might be replacing.

Russian, true, I definitely don't want my TL to be overshadowed by popular opinion (if I did Constantinople would already be besieged again), but I nevertheless like to ask questions and get ideas from the members here.

Next update sometime before tomorrow, and hopefully one more during the weekind.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Avitus

Elfwine, but didn't it take allot of good leadership and luck to get the U.S., Germany, Italy, and Russia into existance as well? Byzantium was a decidedly unlucky nation, although I still contend that their position in 1449 is more to work with than nations that do not exist at all, nor are close to existing yet, so my reasoning is that they need less luck than the OTL powers that they might be replacing.

Germany's and Russia's seeds as of 1449 are far more promising than Byzantium's dying remnants - Italy as in the whole peninsula is a situation that's not what one would expect from 1449, but that's for different reasons.

Meanwhile, the USA started in a position entirely unlike Byzantium's in so many ways that there's no real way to make a good comparison between them.

Not sure what the criteria are for "unlucky", but given that the Empire survived over fourteen hundred years (Augustus on), which is longer than there's been an England for instance, I'm not sure you can say it was that unlucky. There aren't very many states that have lasted as long - and certainly none with 1200 years of unambiguous continued existence (China and Iran fall short here, as while there's been "China" or "Iran" for that long, it's been a cycle of reincarnations, not the same polity chugging along).

[Xgentis]

Originally Posted by Avitus

Xgentis, fair enough about france, although I don't see how any of their republics since then could be considered more successful than the ancien regime. In any event, I'll just agree to disagree, and since it is my TL democracy will do decidedly worse than OTL, but will still be a factor.

Elfwine, but didn't it take allot of good leadership and luck to get the U.S., Germany, Italy, and Russia into existance as well? Byzantium was a decidedly unlucky nation, although I still contend that their position in 1449 is more to work with than nations that do not exist at all, nor are close to existing yet, so my reasoning is that they need less luck than the OTL powers that they might be replacing.

Russian, true, I definitely don't want my TL to be overshadowed by popular opinion (if I did Constantinople would already be besieged again), but I nevertheless like to ask questions and get ideas from the members here.

Next update sometime before tomorrow, and hopefully one more during the weekind.

Nice to say that you support tyrany and opression of peoples. Democracy is not perfect but it is better then a absolut monarchy or military junta and dictatorship and see if they are doing any better...
In a democracy you are not jailed because of your idea and opinion even when you spit on democracy itself.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Xgentis

Nice to say that you support tyrany and opression of peoples. Democracy is not perfect but it is better then a absolut monarchy or military junta and dictatorship and see if they are doing any better...
In a democracy you are not jailed because of your idea and opinion even when you spit on democracy itself.

Okay, I know getting involved is a bad idea but . . .

Supporting monarchy is not the same as supporting a government where people have no rights.

[Dragos Cel Mare]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Okay, I know getting involved is a bad idea but . . .

It is a bad idea, especially for ADHD/AS people like us.

[Avitus]

Elfwine, I wouldn't call Prussia a promising situation, although they don't have the Ottomans or an equivalent at their doorstep, but the Ottomans are already handled, so I would say that they are in a similar state. As for the U.S., when they first started, they had their Ottoman equivalent in Britan, a poor army, little real sence of unity, no means to exploid their resources, and were almost entirely reliant on outside help. Not only that, but their leadership, while sound in terms of infrastructure, was innept on the battlefield, and suffered from loyalty issues. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. position was very comperable, and they only survived it because of the aid they recieved from the French. If a benefactor comperable to France backed the empire's bid for survival, in the form of Genoa, the Papacy, and Hungary, because it satisfied their own regional interests (by removing the threatening expansionist power on their doorstep), then I say they have a shot at survival. With good leadership (which I am assuming based on his few OTL actions as emperor that Constantine XI was capable of), I could see that survival being turned into a bit of posetive momentum for the empire, giving us a state capable of presenting itself as worth more dead than alive (and expensive to conquer), if little else for the time being.

Xgentis, your whole post has flamewar written all over it, especially how you are questioning my character and judgement, so I would suggest that you not continue. I already said that I am done with this discussion, and this post highlites why. You are not going to turn me to your mode of thought, least of all by using angry generalizing propaganda from your point of view. If my being anti democracy because of my negative life experience with it and dim historical view of it bothers you, then you don't have to follow my TL. I ask that you reconsider though, as one doesn't have to like an author to enjoy their work.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Dragos Cel Mare

It is a bad idea, especially for ADHD/AS people like us.

Just AS in my case. Which probably explains in some respects why I support monarchy.

Democracy is too much like a popularity contest to not grate.

Originally Posted by Avirtus

Elfwine, I wouldn't call Prussia a promising situation, although they don't have the Ottomans or an equivalent at their doorstep, but the Ottomans are already handled, so I would say that they are in a similar state.

The problem is, the Byzantines control - OTL - the city of Constantinople and only a portion of the Peloponnesus. And are bankrupt, without much of an army, etc.

It's not just Brandenburg that's involved in the potential of Germany, either.

As for the U.S., when they first started, they had their Ottoman equivalent in Britan, a poor army, little real sence of unity, no means to exploid their resources, and were almost entirely reliant on outside help. Not only that, but their leadership, while sound in terms of infrastructure, was innept on the battlefield, and suffered from loyalty issues. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. position was very comperable, and they only survived it because of the aid they recieved from the French.

The problem - once the American Revolution is won, the US is pretty much unthreatened by foreign powers, and has enormous potential for development.

If a benefactor comperable to France backed the empire's bid for survival, in the form of Genoa, the Papacy, and Hungary, because it satisfied their own regional interests (by removing the threatening expansionist power on their doorstep), then I say they have a shot at survival. With good leadership (which I am assuming based on his few OTL actions as emperor that Constantine XI was capable of), I could see that survival being turned into a bit of posetive momentum for the empire, giving us a state capable of presenting itself as worth more dead than alive (and expensive to conquer), if little else for the time being.

Survival, yes, in the short term. But in the long term, it doesn't take the Ottomans to destroy something this weak.