Would a surviving Byzantium matter?

Riain

Banned
I've been thinking about everybodys favourite (for different reasons, even if as an object of hatred) empire, and how it would have participated in the events of the mordern era had it survived in a reasonably powerful form. I'm thinking of the territory of either the Macedonian or the Komnenos dynasties, more or less. Are they destined to be bypassed by the march of history; the rise of Atlanitc Oceanic powers, merchantilism, constitutional monarchy/republicanism and eventually the industrial revolution and nationalism? Or could they influence the march of history by making the Portuguese empire less profitable by allowing landward spice trade, utilising the Italian banking revolution and merchantilism for their own ends and cashing in on resources such as Romanian oilfeilds?

Feel free to use your own favourite PoD so long as it allows the empire to survive strong into the modern (1500 and beyond) era. Also I'm not overly interested in personalities, more the structural trends which push historical events along.
 

Carinthium

I'm actually a historical determinist on most things, but suspending disbelief:

1- Whether you are interested in personalities or not does not change the fact they matter (e.g- Napoleon).

2- Why necessarily does a surviving Byzantine Empire make the trade routes cheaper?

3- My reckoning is that the main consequence other the butterfly effect is the end of the Ottoman Empire + butterfly effects

4- Most people on A.H.com know this already, but butterfly effects would be considerable. The Hundred Years War could go either way, no Charles I, probably no Spain, probably no Kalmar Union, HRE decline not inevitable.

I'm not sure about these things, so if anybody knows better on some points could they critique?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
There could be some serious butterfly effects, what date are you using as POD? Anyway, a surviving Byzantine Empire could mean very different structures of power throughout Europe, but I think whatever states there would be on the Atlantic Coast, that would gain from the Atlantic Trade would bypass the Empire economically. However without the turks the trade in the east would be somewhat cheaper. Of course this depend on what kind of dynasties would rule in the Levant, Iraq and Iran in this TL.
 

rcduggan

If it survived with a realistic (pre-Manzikert) POD, then the whole focus of power would be different. Maybe the crusades are directed at North Africa, or never take place at all. Either way, the Mediterranean is going to be where the cultural focus is. The Byzantines meddled with the papacy from time to time, maybe their intervention in the Investiture Controversy could lead to a different result (victory for the emperors and no fracturing?). Also, the Byzantines might keep the Asian Trade routes open, which means much different colonization.

However, with a later POD things would be different. After Manzikert, Myriokephalon, and the Fourth Crusade the empire was basically doomed to irrelevance, a minor regional power at most. But before that, I think it would matter immensely.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
With a pre- Mazinkert POD the Byzantines would be a quite powerful state, probably still losing some land to the turks, but not a catastrophe as IRL. A later POD could be a Ottoman disaster during the war against Timur Lenk, then a mini Byzantine state could have survived, probably not more than the city of Constantinople though.
 

Ran Exilis

Carinthium said:
2- Why necessarily does a surviving Byzantine Empire make the trade routes cheaper?
Click to expand...

Because of the Ottoman conquest of the Levant, Egypt and most of North Africa in OTL, the Ottomans gained a solid monopoly on the spice trade between the Orient and Europe.

Thus, the Ottomans could (and did) raise the prices of and taxes on goods coming from the Orient.

And Byzantium would not be able to conquer and hold on to all of the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa (at least not during the Medieval Ages and the Renaissance) so it would not be able to gain a monopoly on the trade between Europe and the Orient like the OTL Ottomans did.

Carinthium said:
3- My reckoning is that the main consequence other the butterfly effect is the end of the Ottoman Empire + butterfly effects

4- Most people on A.H.com know this already, but butterfly effects would be considerable. The Hundred Years War could go either way, no Charles I, probably no Spain, probably no Kalmar Union, HRE decline not inevitable.

I'm not sure about these things, so if anybody knows better on some points could they critique?
Click to expand...

The butterfly effect would indeed be considerable, but IMHO the absence of the Ottomans would not even be the largest cause of butterflies.

In a pre-Mantzikert Byzantium survives-scenario, the main cause of major butterflies is the absence of the Crusades.

The OTL struggle of the Byzantines againest the Seljuks in Anatolia would be butterflied away, and with that, Emperor Alexius Comnenus and his letter to the Pope.

And even though the other (direct and indirect) causes of the First Crusade would still exist (like the destruction of the Church of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at the orders of the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim, and the frequent Turkmen attacks on Christian pilgrims during the early Seljuk age), Byzantium, which is still the pre-eminent Christian power in the East, would have no reason to want, stimulate, or even tolerate a significant Western European presence in the Levant.

...and the absence of the Crusades is going to cause a whole string of butterflies in Europe (the lives of most late 11th century/early 12th century European kings and princes will be different; people who died IOTL will live ITTL, and many royal marriages will be different from OTL) and the Middle East (no Zengids and therefore no Ayyubids, and either a surviving Fatimid Caliphate or a Seljuk Egypt, to name but a few differences).

The next greatest source of butterflies in this scenario would be the Mongol invasion; the presence of a strong Byzantium (which has an excellent militairy, a long history of dealing with armies of horse archers, and some of the best fortifications in the world) would greatly affect the pattern of the Mongol invasions of both the Middle East as well as Eastern Europe, and it would also affect the dynamics between the *Golden Horde and the *Il-Khanate.

And due to the many butterflies, there's really no telling what happens afterwards, really.
 

Riain

Banned
Carinthium, I'm a big believer in the power of personalities, but they only matter when structural factors are there to allow it. If Napoleon was Irish for example all the brilliance in the world wouldn't have allowed him to conquer Europe. Byzantium was blessed and cursed with personalities as much as any other power.

How would Orthodox Byzantium fare in the Reformation/counter-reformation? Would the break-up of the Catholic church help or hinder the fortunes of the Orthodox Chruch and Byzantine state? Perhaps Byzantine help may be sought by one side or another during the 30 years war?

As for a PoD, I think there is a hell of a long time between Manzikert and the fall of Constantinople, in which anything could and probably would happen. I personally prefer much later PoDs, perhaps better bouncing back from disasters such as the 4th Crusade and the like. I think the less time between the PoD and the start of the early modern era in 1500 the more reliable the chances for a core Byzantine state to exist into the modern era.
 
Last edited:

Paladin

Another butterfly is the Italian renaissance. One of the key factors in its creation is believed to be the influx of Greek-speaking scholars escaping the fall of Byzantium in the fifteenth century. With no fall, most of those scholars stay put. This is a bit of a double-edged sword. On one hand, there is less direct Hellenic classical influence on Italy itself. On the other hand, the whole classical bundle- architecture, books, and thinkers, is available just across the Adriatic. I can imagine young up and coming Italian princes studying abroad for a few years.

There is also the matter of Russia. A surviving Byzantium would have a huge impact on the Rus, economically, politically, and socially. And of course the whole of Balkans history is changed.
 

Midgard

Based on the territory you have mentioned, it is almost certainly a pre-1204 POD (or failed IVth Crusade POD, followed by a relative restoration of the Imperial frontiers). Maybe even a POD where Manzikert does not happen or goes the other way. Therefore...

As the other posters said, the differences are going to be huge. But several major points need to be addressed. First, is the POD pre- or post-crusades? This will determine whether or not there is going to be the Crusades, and if so, where they will occur. Surviving Byzantium with no Manzikert disaster means that any likely Crusades are probably going to happen in Spain or North Africa. This may lead to earlier Reconquista, as it is easier to supply Spain and to reinforce the areas there, where there is already sizeable Christain presence with powerful military.

The question is, will the crusades in Spain affect the development of Europe much, or not at all? After all, one side effect of OTL Crusades was the establishment of certain trade routes, better idea as to what is "out there" (which was further developed by the likes of Marco Polo, and almost certainly influenced the latter-era explorers, even before the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans). If the Crusading zeal is expended elsewhere, would it not have major implications as to where the explorers would go, and what they would seek?

Also, if the Crusades (or similar) would be launched against Egypt (and there was OTL precedent, as was mentioned here already), perhaps there is less of an impetus to try and find the "Western route" to India and China. If such Crusades are successful, and manage to capture parts of Egypt with Red Sea access, there is suddenly no need to go West when you already have an easy passage to the East. Of course, that is presuming such a Crusade is victorious and manages to hold on to its territories, which may or may not happen (and if it does not happen, then TTL's historians will debate if the Fall of Alexandria precluded the need to search for the "Western Passage")...

These are just some thoughts now, being at work, I don't have a lot of time to get into it at the moment. Perhaps I may have more time later to contribute further to this thread. Interesting topic!
 

Rick Robinson

Riain said:
As for a PoD, I think there is a hell of a long time between Manzikert and the fall of Constantinople, in which anything could and probably would happen. I personally prefer much later PoDs, perhaps better bouncing back from disasters such as the 4th Crusade and the like. I think the less time between the PoD and the start of the early modern era in 1500 the more reliable the chances for a core Byzantine state to exist into the modern era.
Click to expand...

I like your term 'more reliable.' On the face of it, a pre-Manzikert POD raises Byzantine survival prospects in general; on the other it produces a more unrecognizable world.

Perhaps the way to phrase the desired effect is, what is the best POD for a significant surviving Byzantium in a recognizably modern world? There are boatloads of AH 'philosophy' involved here, but surely among all the possible worlds - or at any rate plausible worlds - that different PODs can lead to are some that fit that condition.

A Comnenian empire that survived 1204, or even a fuller Paleologan restoration might be able to keep the Ottomans from crossing over to Europe in a big way, and at least have Greece as a base, perhaps much of the Balkans. No match for the full Ottoman might, but the Ottomans have lots else to contend with.

If Byzantium can regain control of its trade, that helps, both bringing in revenue and strengthening the maritime sector - convertable to sea power, which helps maintain control of trade - and make it harder for the Ottomans to jump the gap to Europe. Is there any inherent reason that Constantinople could not 'hold the gorgeous East in fee,' as Venice did after 1204 in OTL?

If Byzantium can hold on into the 16th century, the pressure starts to let up a bit, because the Ottoman plate gets fuller with Safavi Persia, emergent Russia, etc. Plus, there are lots of secondary butterflies at sea, helpful to the Byzantines, from keep the Ottomans from access to Aegean maritime resources. The whole eastern Med remains pretty much a Byzantine lake, without much Ottoman maritime presence at sea, because the shipbuilding and seafaring populations available to them are limited.

Among the butterflies, the Barbary corsairs, who got their start as sort of naval irregulars on the Ottoman side.
 

SeanB

Rick Robinson said:
A Comnenian empire that survived 1204, or even a fuller Paleologan restoration might be able to keep the Ottomans from crossing over to Europe in a big way, and at least have Greece as a base, perhaps much of the Balkans. No match for the full Ottoman might, but the Ottomans have lots else to contend with.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but people mentioning the Ottomans with a POD before 1280 drives me nuts. The rise of this little insignificant Turkish beylik into the great empire it became was hardly inevitable. Hell, if Michael XIII wanted to, he could've destroyed Sogut in the 1260s or 70s. It was only his desire to see the Laskarid dynasty weakened that allowed them to gain a foothold in the region and expand. If less self-centered Emperor was on the throne, then the Empire's western Anatolian provinces would not have fallen, in my opinion.
 

Mikey

Two thoughts:

What about an irrelevant Byzantine Empire? Is there any way the despotate of Morea connives there way into just enough protection to last, with just enough irrelevance to be well, ignored, until modern times?

And then there's the fact that the King of Spain can be considered a pretender to the Byzantine throne for 500 years. Is there any point they'd consider making good on that claim - or at least, establishing it more fully?
 

Rick Robinson

HSB said:
Sorry, but people mentioning the Ottomans with a POD before 1280 drives me nuts.
Click to expand...

My bad! My only excuse is that the Ottomans are who need to be butterflied - or at least them, or a synologue the butterflies release, jumping the firebreak, since I see that as the minimum butterfly needed to give Byzantium a chance.

But my knowledge of the Paleologans is sketchy. It isn't my thread, but I wouldn't turn down a 1280 POD if one is on offer.
 

Rick Robinson

Mikey said:
Two thoughts:

What about an irrelevant Byzantine Empire? Is there any way the despotate of Morea connives there way into just enough protection to last, with just enough irrelevance to be well, ignored, until modern times?

And then there's the fact that the King of Spain can be considered a pretender to the Byzantine throne for 500 years. Is there any point they'd consider making good on that claim - or at least, establishing it more fully?
Click to expand...

A petty Byzantium would not require a huge change - I'm pretty sure bits of Greece were Venetian right till the Republic fell in 1797, so a vest pocket Byzantine state might survive under Venetian protection, then British protection.

The minimum Byzantium that can stand on its own, more or less, would roughly correspond to Greece. That gives it some demographic base, and some kind of 'national' cohesion. If it can make it into the 16th century, the empire can pick up elements of a proto-national monarchy.

Greece is inherently poor, but the Aegean maritime sector has the potential to make Constantinople, at least, rich, and a major Mediterranean power, particularly since this scenario cuts Venice off at the knees.

A Greece-sized Byzantium that survived to the present would make an interesting contrast to OTL Greece. The people would presumably call themselves Romaioi rather than Hellenes. With any sense of showmanship, something never associated with Greeks, they could blow Buckingham Palace out of the water. Imagine a televised imperial coronation. :D A real, actual Roman Emperor, not a modern replica or even a surviving HRE, but a contemporary head of state who's the direct if remote successor of Augustus.

When exactly was the Roman Empire 'founded?' Actium? The date that Octavian became Augustus? Since his whole point was to be vague, how do you pinpoint a date. But whatever you pinpoint, around the 1970s would have been the 2000th anniversary.
 

Riain

Banned
Rick, I also have the feeling that Greece as it stands today, isn't blessed with large amounts of natural wealth. I don't think pushing the borders out akin to the Komnenos or even the Macedonian dynasty changes this much. While it give access to much greater resources, they still don't seem to me to be overly concentrated and easily accessible for govt utilisation. The territory IOTL didn't seem to develop the intensive agriculture that occured in most of the rest of early modern Europe. In addition, with the advent of oceanic travel the Med became a bit of a backwater in world affairs, the Byzantines would be cut out of the loop just as effectively as the Ottomans were.

However I do wonder how much different the history of the Balkans/Asia Minor would have been if they had been ruled by Orthodox Christians Byzantines rather than Muslim Ottomans? At the very least the religious frontier would be in Asia rather than well into Europe. I also wonder if the empire would be drawn into the dynastic web of Europe, or perhaps be an important player in an alternate Orthodox dynastic web.
 

Manfr

An "amateur" article I'd read in an Italian newspaper ... three years ago ? ... imagined a Byzantinian victory at Manzikert, Crusades aimed at Egypt, later extending to Palestine, a "Cold War" between the the two Christian Middle East's powers, and Italian Republics, cut away from Eastern Mediterranean routes, going westward, and eventually discovering America. Is this even remotely plausible ? What would be the consequences of an Italian-dominated (at least at the beginning) colonization of America ? Would the Byzantinians play an active part in Italian politics, or even in events such as the Reformation and the late Religion Wars ?
 

Basileus Giorgios

I'm working on a timeline where the Komnenoi come to the throne earlier and Manzikert is won if anyone's interested...
bit of shameless self advertising here!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top