Limit found then. Read in another thread they were at least short term possibilities so I wanted to check the long term consequences. So what's the verdict on Morocco, Algeria, and Libya?
Largest Byzantine Empire by 1900
- Thread starter Kaiser Tito
- Start date
While Egypt and the Levant might be hard to defend, they are both extremely valuable and if you can justify them keeping them against Arab/Sasanian incursions the Empire will be much stronger and longer lasting.
Egypt's grain and the spiritual/prestige value of holding Jerusalem really makes things a breeze from that point. Of course, defending them in the 6th and 7th centuries might just be impossible.
I agree that the west is really not viable, granted, excluding Italy and North Africa. If the Byzantines could leave the Berbers alone and placate them, presuming they held Egypt they'd keep North Africa, which is valuable. Otherwise, Italy or parts of Italy, were held by the Byzantines for centuries after the shock of the Arab conquests. Keeping southern Italy and possibly the North, maybe under vassal realms, will probably be a long term benefit. The Churches can be more effectively cajoled to get along, and I'm sure there would be significant economic benefits. The Alps and other mountains present a good buffer, as does the Danube/Byzantine controlled Illyria/Croatia. I think Spain is ultimately untenable, as is the rest of the west. Africa, if Egypt is held, only has to pacify the Berbers to remain in Byzantine hands.
Egypt's grain and the spiritual/prestige value of holding Jerusalem really makes things a breeze from that point. Of course, defending them in the 6th and 7th centuries might just be impossible.
I agree that the west is really not viable, granted, excluding Italy and North Africa. If the Byzantines could leave the Berbers alone and placate them, presuming they held Egypt they'd keep North Africa, which is valuable. Otherwise, Italy or parts of Italy, were held by the Byzantines for centuries after the shock of the Arab conquests. Keeping southern Italy and possibly the North, maybe under vassal realms, will probably be a long term benefit. The Churches can be more effectively cajoled to get along, and I'm sure there would be significant economic benefits. The Alps and other mountains present a good buffer, as does the Danube/Byzantine controlled Illyria/Croatia. I think Spain is ultimately untenable, as is the rest of the west. Africa, if Egypt is held, only has to pacify the Berbers to remain in Byzantine hands.
Libya, with a small population (a large portion of which is already Hellenized at this point) is likely fully assimilated by 1900 ad. It sure isn't breaking away once the Romans find the oil there. The lands of modern-day Tunisia likewise aren't going anywhere so long as the Romans control Sicily. As for the rest of North Africa, considering that the French weren't kicked out of Algeria until the 1960s I can see the Romans holding it for quite some time. Though I do think their distance from the Hellenic core would prevent thorough assimilation and make them more trouble than they were worth.
It's unfair to compare the two just because they were both large orthodox empires.
Unlike ERE, pre-industrial Russia lacked big population centers, had very little diversity in trade goods, and perhaps most importantly little control over its fiscal and monetary policies leading to a lack of access to capital. Also to be considered is the low literacy level of the populace, even among the Streltsy.
In fact, when Russian industrialization really picked up after World war I and they de-pegged the currency from the gold standard, the Ruble's value (predictably) tanked leading to severe hyperinflation in the 1920s.
ERE has none of these problems. They have a history of a semi-meritocratic bureaucracy, far better monetary and fiscal control, higher rates of literacy and record-keeping throughout and they trade in every product that enters Europe. While the civilian administration could be suspicious of change, the pre-Islamic roman military was adept at incorporating new technologies and methods. It may not be exactly how industrialization happened in otl, but the basic skill set for innovation was there. Case in point the various automata adorned the throne room of the Emperor or the wind-powered automata in Baghdad (inspired from greek designs).
Last edited:
I think it is not unfair to say Justinian's borders are achievable to be held on the long term. With competent leadership and no big threat in the East, I would say Iberia can also be conquered as well as Pannonia. Perhaps even Souther France, but that is pushing it a bit, given how Pyrenees, Alps and Carpathians could provide good defensible borders in the West, which is a traditional Roman goal (natural borders). In extension, I could see them holding some important trade cities here and there (Massilia, Crimea, etc).
As for colonization: the main driver behind it is not there for the Romans, they have easy access to India and the riches of the East. Provided that they have comfortable military, scientific and industrial upper hand, they will likely want to establish trading posts in India, Indonesia, East Africa, Malaya and all the way to China. The goal being to have a firm control of seaborne trade in the Orient, so that any resurgent Persia cannot just block (and tax) the flow of goods on the Silk Road. They might not go for direct conquest as OTL European powers at first, but if strong states form in Western Europe, they will definitely want to get a piece of the pie without having to purchase everything via Constantinople. This gives them a clear motivation for Westward expeditions. Once these "Franks" or whatever find America, the Romans will also be interested, and with the control of Iberia they are in a good position to get there. However, in this case they may be in the same position as England and France OTL, being late comers, so they would probably be mostly oriented towards North America. Would fur trade be able to complement the Eastern trade somehow? Perhaps, I could see an ATL triangle of trade here, and if Byzantium has enough surplus population, North America could be a good dumping place for that, so they might get at least part of the continent, but other Europeans would be the main players here. There is also the question of the arrival of European competitors in India via alternate routes, that could prompt Constantinople to pursue a more direct colonization policy to avoid their rivals taking a India for themselves.
As for colonization: the main driver behind it is not there for the Romans, they have easy access to India and the riches of the East. Provided that they have comfortable military, scientific and industrial upper hand, they will likely want to establish trading posts in India, Indonesia, East Africa, Malaya and all the way to China. The goal being to have a firm control of seaborne trade in the Orient, so that any resurgent Persia cannot just block (and tax) the flow of goods on the Silk Road. They might not go for direct conquest as OTL European powers at first, but if strong states form in Western Europe, they will definitely want to get a piece of the pie without having to purchase everything via Constantinople. This gives them a clear motivation for Westward expeditions. Once these "Franks" or whatever find America, the Romans will also be interested, and with the control of Iberia they are in a good position to get there. However, in this case they may be in the same position as England and France OTL, being late comers, so they would probably be mostly oriented towards North America. Would fur trade be able to complement the Eastern trade somehow? Perhaps, I could see an ATL triangle of trade here, and if Byzantium has enough surplus population, North America could be a good dumping place for that, so they might get at least part of the continent, but other Europeans would be the main players here. There is also the question of the arrival of European competitors in India via alternate routes, that could prompt Constantinople to pursue a more direct colonization policy to avoid their rivals taking a India for themselves.
The Romans took Mesopotamia in OTL but relinquished it because of its distance to the imperial core and for the fact that the empire was overextended enough as is. For the Byzantines, however, Mesopotamia is adjacent to their Anatolian core, making long-term control a much more tenable prospect. The Byzantines have every incentive to take the region: increased tax base, trade access, and most importantly, kneecapping Persia.
Besides, the Ottomans, an empire based in Constantinople, conquered and held Mesopotamia by 1900. I see no reason why the Romans wouldn't as well given the chance.
I can see two reasons why Mesopotamia wouldn't be feasible for ERE, even if it was for the Ottomans.
1. Safavid power base was eastern Caucasia and the Persian Highlands. Mesopotamia was a bonus for them and was never truly assimilated into their state. This is part of why Ottomans were able to conquer and hold it relatively easily.
On the other hand, Mesopotamia was the center of power for the Sassanids with well established capital at Ctesiphon. No chance a Persian state allows the Romans to hold it.
2.Since romans cant hope to hold the Zagros, Mesopotamia would soon become more trouble than its worth. ERE already had a very good defensive line with western caucuses, Armenian Highlands and the Syrian desert serving as natural defenses, with only upper Mesopotamia needing to be really held and fortified with large garrisons.
You presuppose that the Sassanids will remain a constant, but this is far from likely. Even if they somehow manage to stick around for another 600 years, chances are the Mongols will rip them to shreds just as they did to the Kwarezmids. And then, assuming they haven't been ravaged by the Mongols as well, the Romans can swoop in and fill the power vacuum once the Ilkhanate disintegrates as in OTL. And this all assumes the Sassanids survive the Arab invasions, which they didn't in OTL.
If they held Egypt. I'm not sure why they would need to go to America's really. They control the pathway overland from Europe to Asia. Unless they manage to hold and control something like Italy and Spain at the time.
They might be able to get back to the size of the Roman Empire but it would take a little bit of war West and not East.
I agree. Roman colonies in the new world is a cool idea, but ultimately a waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere.
How realistic is a Roman trade city in South India because to me that's at best a maybe?
With pre industrial technology deepens on how is persia and how good the leadership is
I agree the map may be unrealistic for before the 17th cent. but what if it had more realistic borders and then around the time Africa begins to be scrambled it expands like that? Though considering it's a contiguous empire it may for the most part keep especially if the Byzantines adopt some of the same distasteful policies the Ottomans and Russians did. I can't even imagine how crazy the Byzantine nationalism must be, there'll probably be some Mussollini-tier kooks that want to invade southern Italy.
Maybe an alliance with Russia to curb Persian/Iranian influence in the Region.
Egypt probably goes into the British sphere earlier to prevent conquest by the Byzantines.
Honestly without the Ottomans around there's not even a "sick-man" great power left to really represent their interests, could we maybe see more radicalization happen earlier because of this? I can't imagine what the effects would be of a primarily non-Muslim power colonizing the Hedjaz...
Maybe an alliance with Russia to curb Persian/Iranian influence in the Region.
Egypt probably goes into the British sphere earlier to prevent conquest by the Byzantines.
Honestly without the Ottomans around there's not even a "sick-man" great power left to really represent their interests, could we maybe see more radicalization happen earlier because of this? I can't imagine what the effects would be of a primarily non-Muslim power colonizing the Hedjaz...
That's actually a good point. What form of government would have the most legitimacy from the old imperial system but modern enough to avoid stagnating and being eaten alive by their neighbors? Some checks to keep another Justin II from destroying the legacy of his predecessors the same way Germany did (twice) otl would also be useful.
However, didn't we establish that Egypt was easy enough for Constantinople keep indefinitely?
Yes but as soon as we get into the modern period it becomes harder and harder to do so considering outside interference. Britain would probably protect Egypt for the sake of a canal.
While Byzantium can take Egypt before the modern period I think it's a bit frivolous and means they'll have to extend their military forces over quite a bit rather than keeping it largely limited to the two fronts of Anatolia and the Balkans meaning that if there were to be some devastating event it'll hurt all the harder.
Trying to avoid unnecessary catastrophes but definitely an understandable point. If the Mongols still happen (last major disaster that comes to mind) was there any chance for the Byzantines to negotiate peaceful borders so that even if they do eventually reconquer their lands it's not just a pile of cooled rubble?
What the Byzantines desperately need is a concrete succession system in order to lessen the absurd number of civil wars that plagued them OTL. Perhaps the Byzantines getting something akin to a Five Good Emperors period would give them time to breathe and establish a formal system.