AHC: Rump Byzantine Empire lasts to present day

There's sort of two halves to this challenge. The first is that some entity which justifiably calls itself the Byzantine Empire (stuff like "Neo-Byzantine Empire," or "Restored Byzantine Empire" also count) exists in 2013. The other is that it's not in any way a considerable power. In fact, it's preferable if it's basically the bitch or puppet of some major power.

Are those two in any way probable, or compatible?

hmm...

Maybe Greece wins the Greco-Turkish war handily (I am thinking the 1919-1922 war, though I realise that is after 1900) supported by Britain. They manage to keep Constantinople and the Aegean coast. They muddle along similar to OTL Greece, and by 2013 are utterly broke and completely dependent on the European Union for handouts. The problem I have with that scenario is that I am not sure the Megali idea was really about 're-forming' the Byzantine Empire...

Maybe when Greece gets its independence in the 1820s, the Brits, French and Russians decide to force the Ottomans to hand over all the Greek territory... but that would require more than just a victory at Navarino..

You could have the Byzantines become puppets of the Ottomans like Wallachia and Moldavia. They would probably lose Constantinople, but southern Greece (Athens, etc.) is certainly possible. They kind of muddle along throughout the centuries as a backwater of the Ottomans. They would probably reassert their independence once the Ottomans collapse, and possibly regain Constantinople and other parts of the Balkans. By the modern day, they're at a similar level of development to the rest of the Balkans, controlling modern-day Greece and Istanbul. They're not a failed state, but certainly nowhere near a world power.

imperialaquila said:

You could have the Byzantines become puppets of the Ottomans like Wallachia and Moldavia. They would probably lose Constantinople, but southern Greece (Athens, etc.) is certainly possible. They kind of muddle along throughout the centuries as a backwater of the Ottomans. They would probably reassert their independence once the Ottomans collapse, and possibly regain Constantinople and other parts of the Balkans. By the modern day, they're at a similar level of development to the rest of the Balkans, controlling modern-day Greece and Istanbul. They're not a failed state, but certainly nowhere near a world power.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Turkish sultans would approve of having an emperor calling himself emperor.

t0m1991 said:

I don't think the Turkish sultans would approve of having an emperor calling himself emperor.

Click to expand...

Yeah, agreed.

Maybe have a Russian attack on the Ottomans in the 19th century go better (Britain is distracted somewhere or other, maybe intervening in the US Civil War or something? Anyway) and have the Russians seize Constantinople. British pressure on Russia means that they are themselves pushed out of the City, and instead a more or less client state of Russia is set up around the Straits and Marmara, as a sort of Orthodox Vatican, under the protection of the Great Powers. Not wanting to be too closely associated with Greece due to Russian Pan-Slavic influence, this state ends up calling itself a restored Roman Empire?

Fast forward to 2013 and the little Straits state is wealthy and prosperous in a Singapore-style way, but certainly not hugely influential in world affairs.

t0m1991 said:

I don't think the Turkish sultans would approve of having an emperor calling himself emperor.

Click to expand...

He could just use his official title "basileus," which is basically the Greek word for "king."

As long as the demography of western Anatolia remains Greek, allowing eventual transition into a nation state that retains Constantinople as capital, its possible, but that requires PODs that go way back. Like, 4th Crusade way back.

While I could imagine very different borders coming about just after WW1, I really don't think that modern Greece, even with Megali borders, would seriously toy with reclaiming that old name. It's long dead in the era of nationalism.

Evan said:

He could just use his official title "basileus," which is basically the Greek word for "king."

Click to expand...

In the Byzantine context, Basileus is solely to be used for the Emperor of the Romans in Constantinople (in the Late Antique period, the Sasanian Shah was allowed the title too). It's a fair bit different from, say, the period of the Diadokhoi who all called themselves and one another Basileus as a non-exclusive title.

Perhaps a Mount Athos style situation? Byzantium ends up as a single island/peninsular which basically rules its own affairs but is pretty much entirely dependent on the Ottomans.

Alex Richards said:

Perhaps a Mount Athos style situation? Byzantium ends up as a single island/peninsular which basically rules its own affairs but is pretty much entirely dependent on the Ottomans.

Click to expand...

If you don't have Constantinople, you're pretty much just a Greek statelet, and I can't see the Ottomans allowing for continued Christian control of Constantinople in any scenario.

imperialaquila said:

You could have the Byzantines become puppets of the Ottomans like Wallachia and Moldavia. They would probably lose Constantinople, but southern Greece (Athens, etc.) is certainly possible.

Click to expand...

Well there was the Despotate of Morea which was ruled by a brother of one of the Emperors that lasted a short while after the fall of Constantinople, but thanks to general misrule which meant they couldn't pay their tribute and being a little too friendly with Venice the Ottomans decided to finally annex them. If they play things a little smarter they might be able to get away with surviving as a vassal state. The Ottomans also left Naxos pretty much to its own devices as long as they kept stumping up the taxes they owed, if the Byzantines had been able to retake the islands a branch of the imperial family might be able to get the same kind of deal as long as they don't make any waves.

Might being the key word. Why would the Ottomans want to let them survive?

Wallachia and Moldavia can be used as buffer states, these not so much.

Basileus Giorgios said:

Yeah, agreed.

Maybe have a Russian attack on the Ottomans in the 19th century go better (Britain is distracted somewhere or other, maybe intervening in the US Civil War or something? Anyway) and have the Russians seize Constantinople. British pressure on Russia means that they are themselves pushed out of the City, and instead a more or less client state of Russia is set up around the Straits and Marmara, as a sort of Orthodox Vatican, under the protection of the Great Powers. Not wanting to be too closely associated with Greece due to Russian Pan-Slavic influence, this state ends up calling itself a restored Roman Empire?

Fast forward to 2013 and the little Straits state is wealthy and prosperous in a Singapore-style way, but certainly not hugely influential in world affairs.

Click to expand...

A large part of British strategy in the mid 19th century was preventing Russia from getting hold of the Bosphorus and Constantinople, whether holding it themselves or through a client. This is the same reason that Greece would not be allowed to hold it - as fellow Orthodox believers, the Greeks are too open to Russian influence, they will end up falling under Russian sway eventually if they hold Constantinople because Russia would declare a never-ending charm offensive to make it happen. If Britain were distracted by the ACW, they would pull out of that war just to stop Russia from gaining Constantinople in the first place, let alone pushing them out again afterwards. I'm not saying this can't happen, but if you want it to happen, you need to have Russia directly beating the British mano-a-mano and forcing it on Britain, not the Russians sneaking in while British backs are turned.

One issue with this is that there never has been a state which called itself the "Byzantine Empire", nor has there ever been a state called that by its contemporaries. To get a state calling itself by this name to the modern day, you first need a state which calls itself by this name, which as some posters have suggested an unusually successful modern Greece which captures Constantinople could adopt such a name.

Bytewave said:

As long as the demography of western Anatolia remains Greek, allowing eventual transition into a nation state that retains Constantinople as capital, its possible, but that requires PODs that go way back. Like, 4th Crusade way back.

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Avoid the 4th Crusade somehow and you likely have the Byzantines survive to the 16th century with their 1204 borders, more or less. By that time the Seljuks were pretty well contained and the Bulgarians were also not that much of a threat. And then the Seljuks got ass-raped by the Mongols. It was only Byzantine weakness that allowed the Ottomans (at first one of many small beyliks springing up over the remains of the Sultanate of Rum and encroaching upon Byzantine territory) to rise in the first place.

If they make it that far, then they have a pretty good chance of making it to modern times. Basically it would be a bigger Greece, with Constantinople instead of Athens as the main city. It would certainly be distinguished with its long history, but it wouldn't be a major power by any means.

Then again, this might mean that it's the Byzantine Empire rather than Greece that threatens to bring down the Eurozone.

I once had a kernel of a thought for a timeline where the last Byzantine Emperor fled to Rome and lived under the Pope's protection. He hung around and started a family and the title kept getting passed down. By the time WWII broke out, the Roman Emperor was pretty much just the Pope's mayor for the Vatican.

I think that may be too small a rump state for this thread though.

You could have Greece take a more active role in WWI, which eventually leads to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, as in OTL, but has Thrace and Constantinople(and possibly western Anatolia) annexed by Greece, which renames itself the new Byzantine Empire, but doesn't really have much influence. It probably becomes a Russian puppet after WWII, and after the collapse of the USSR, restores the monarchy but becomes a constitutional one instead.

Superman said:

You could have Greece take a more active role in WWI, which eventually leads to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, as in OTL, but has Thrace and Constantinople(and possibly western Anatolia) annexed by Greece, which renames itself the new Byzantine Empire, but doesn't really have much influence. It probably becomes a Russian puppet after WWII, and after the collapse of the USSR, restores the monarchy but becomes a constitutional one instead.

Click to expand...

Western Anatolia had a very percentage of Turks there I believe. What could Greece do to help with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? Greece may have to deal with Bulgaria as well.

Tongera said:

Western Anatolia had a very percentage of Turks there I believe. What could Greece do to help with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? Greece may have to deal with Bulgaria as well.

Click to expand...

Even with just Thrace and Constantinople, Greece could justify calling itself the new Byzantine Empire. The de facto capital would probably be Athens, since Constantinople(now probably known as Byzantine) would be too close to a possibly revanchist Turkey

There's no way for Greece to have any long term control over even Izmir in Anatolia, short of some nightmare Nazi victory sort of scenario where a Nazi aligned Greece is given the resources and permission to conduct ethnic cleansing/genocide on the native Turks, but Thrace is possible in a less terrible world. Perhaps Russia gets what it wants in the Balkans but instead of taking Constantinople themselves to give it to an allied/puppet Greece to mitigate British displeasure, or something along those lines. Greece taking the territory under its own power is less likely, almost impossible with a stable Anatolian based state, but given the zaniness of the Near East a century ago it's probably doable under the right circumstances.

The more difficult question is having the Greeks rename their country by a name that they've never used themselves. The Greeks today refer to themselves as the "Hellenic Republic", and appear to identify more with the ancient Hellenes as opposed to the medieval Rhomaoi. It's difficult to see how the Greeks would develop an identity with discredited Rhomania (which given the time frame we're talking about was perceived by most western scholars as a decadent, even degenerate perversion of Ancient Rome), and even more so for them to label themselves with the very label which carries with it such connotations. A different Greek war of independence could possibly result in a Greece which thought of itself as the current iteration of Roman civilization, but this won't occur from any OTL foreign aide, as unless I'm mistaken there're no states in Europe which want a small impoverished peninsula to take on the prestige of Ancient Rome; they wanted it for themselves. At the same time, while a war of independence without any foreign aide is surely possible with the right circumstances, for the victorious Greeks to then use the frankly racist term "Byzantine" as opposed to "Rhomanian" to name their state and nation seems difficult to imagine. Ultimately the term "Byzantine" needs to have markedly different meanings to OTL for such a scenario to eventuate.