I don't think it's possible unless some things beyond the Empire's control were to happen. Maybe the Magyars are more stronk in this timeline And absolutely devastate the Franks and Lombards while somehow not going after anything Byzantine for some reason, maybe Persia is irrevocably weakened and turned into a Roman client state through some combination of unlikely but not impossible circumstances. Maybe the Alchemists who made Greek fire start to diddle around with proto-gunpowder. Maybe the Franks stay Arian? You probably know better than me with all the timelines you did.



Yeah but a supply line that Runs along the border doesn't sound the most stable to me. A canal was built in Charlemagne's time so it's fairly possible.

My main point was that we’ve got a millennium and a half to play with - look what an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot of a tribal group that had barely formed at the time (the Ottomans) did with the resources of the Byzantine east, after having rebuilt their borders basically from scratch, in just a few hundred years.

Here, Byzantium has a better starting point, a long standing legacy in the bulk of the territory in question, and vastly more time. They can wear down the Lombards, then wait for the Franks to crumble, even if it takes waiting until the Norse invade - Byzantium is wonderfully positioned to pick up the pieces there. Especially if they’re doing well, it will be taken for granted that of course they’re going to restore the old borders, even if takes them a few centuries.

Meanwhile, I wasn’t thinking of the Danube as a supply line so much as a line of communication and troop movement - an Empire can still source its supplies from local depots. Beyond that, I’m arguing that, with the time available to them and the increase in development of Europe beyond the Rhine-Danube frontier, Byzantium would have every reason to push further outward, so the Rhine-Danube wouldn’t be a frontier anymore - it would be a key spine for the military and economy of the empire.
 
Urban doesn't necessitate Industrialization; after all the beginnings of it took place in semi-rural cottage industries or small mining towns like Coalbrookdale. You could make a case that it was the lack of development in cities in places like the U.K. that allowed for industrial growth the happen as easily as it did.
Well, but it was a proven contributing factor in most cases. As for the UK, by the time it entered the Industrial Revolution, it was more urbanized than most of Europe, certainly more than France. Note that being heavily rural is often attributed to France's slower pace of industrialization.
 
There's an interesting debate to be had about geographical determinism @EmperorOfTheNorthSea, and it's one I'd be interested in having, but I'm not sure if it's right for this thread. Suffice it to say that I disagree with you that geography sets the fate of civilizations in stone.
 
My main point was that we’ve got a millennium and a half to play with - look what an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot of a tribal group that had barely formed at the time (the Ottomans) did with the resources of the Byzantine east, after having rebuilt their borders basically from scratch, in just a few hundred years.

Here, Byzantium has a better starting point, a long standing legacy in the bulk of the territory in question, and vastly more time. They can wear down the Lombards, then wait for the Franks to crumble, even if it takes waiting until the Norse invade - Byzantium is wonderfully positioned to pick up the pieces there. Especially if they’re doing well, it will be taken for granted that of course they’re going to restore the old borders, even if takes them a few centuries.

Meanwhile, I wasn’t thinking of the Danube as a supply line so much as a line of communication and troop movement - an Empire can still source its supplies from local depots. Beyond that, I’m arguing that, with the time available to them and the increase in development of Europe beyond the Rhine-Danube frontier, Byzantium would have every reason to push further outward, so the Rhine-Danube wouldn’t be a frontier anymore - it would be a key spine for the military and economy of the empire.
Do you think they could hold France indefinitely or would it eventually break off? Most people (myself included) believe the latter.
 
Do you think they could hold France indefinitely or would it eventually break off? Most people (myself included) believe the latter.

The Romans held Gallia for about 500 years with only brief interruptions. I see no reason that territory would be beyond the reach of the Romans if it is reclaimed within a few centuries. Aquitania is easier, of course, and likely they would hold that southern region more solidly and sooner.

Of all the Roman territories at their Trajanic height, I put Britain as the most difficult to retake in any capacity. More than made up for by the ability to take Mesopotamia and Arabia, in my opinion.
 
put Britain as the most difficult to retake in any capacity. More than made up for by the ability to take Mesopotamia and Arabia, in my opinion.
I doubt they would even go for Britain. The Romans even at their height never really fully controlled Britain, and the province was a net drain on the empire in terms of its resources.
 
I doubt they would even go for Britain. The Romans even at their height never really fully controlled Britain, and the province was a net drain on the empire in terms of its resources.
Honestly, I think I disagree a bit. Power projection was harder back then; with relatively more modern technology it would be easier for them to be able to gain total control over Britain. (It goes both ways though - in hard times it would be even easier for their enemies to wreck havoc on the island)
A Byzantium able to take France - why would it stop at the Channel?
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I think I disagree a bit. Power projection was harder back then; with relatively more modern technology it would be easier for them to be able to gain total control over Britain. (It goes both ways though - in hard times it would be even easier for their enemies to wreck havoc on the island)
A Byzantium able to take France - why would it stop at the Channel?

The way I look at it, the bulk of their navy will be riverrine or Mediterranean-based (I’m including the Red Sea for that purpose). Of course, the bulk of their military will be an army, as well. They’d have to build a fleet specifically for the channel.
 
The way I look at it, the bulk of their navy will be riverrine or Mediterranean-based (I’m including the Red Sea for that purpose). Of course, the bulk of their military will be an army, as well. They’d have to build a fleet specifically for the channel.
I guess I'm postulating a bit more expansionist kind of Byzantium.
It's far from impossible that Roman "natural borders" might seen as extending a fair bit farther than in the days of Trajan.
 
I guess I'm postulating a bit more expansionist kind of Byzantium.
It's far from impossible that Roman "natural borders" might seen as extending a fair bit farther than in the days of Trajan.

Which is why my natural borders include everything in continental Europe west of the Vistula-Dnieper.
 
Let's say that the empire avoids the Byzantine-Sasanian war and manages to repel the Arab invasion to the best of their ability. After that they have a series of competent military emperors (not necessarily consecutively) that reconquer as much of Europe and North Africa as logistically possible. Provide no spectacular screw ups by the Byzantine government, what is the largest possible amount of land that can be held up to 1900?
You would be relying on so many variables working out favorably for the Byzantines.
First they would have begin a reform process in the Justinian period which would enable them to hold Italy and southern Spain more firmy (maybe even allow them to expand their control in Spain to the Pyrenees).
Secondly, they'd need to overcome the Lombards and Slavs, two migratory peoples who practically reduced the Byzantine Empire to its purely Greek regions, northern Africa and the Levant. Assuming a strong, military-oriented emperor could drive the Lombards back across the Danube, and possibly set them against the Slavs, they might not lose as much of the Balkans as they did IOTL
Thirdly and most importantly, they'd have to be successful against the Arabs, to the point that later on there would be no need for the Crusades. No Crusades would also mean no weakened Byzantium to face the Ottoman Turks and lose. Industrialization might be the key, but its unlikely the Byzantines would invest in it because they would see it as an affront to their religion. You'd need a Scientific Revolution to happen even earlier than it did in Western Europe IOTL.
 
In the 1900s, could be almost anything but i will say that the most reliable "core" centres on both european and asian natural borders and depth, alongside economic arteries.

In Europe that to me means an Alpine-Carpathian border with the Pruth to finish if off. It ensures strong mountainous borders and the Danube creates amazing inland lines of communication. Add the Pontic Steppe and its a bit dubious, but a loyal coassack population and a secure Crimea would be a solid choice.

In Asia... well we could drop asia entirely but if were going with the best borders I'd say we're looking at the Caucauses in thr north, ideally up to the Caspian Sea, across to the Tigris, down to a centrepoint as it meets the Euphrates and then across to Egypt.

Could it go further? Sure. It could go for Spain and even France, North Africa and potentially Bohemia and Austria if it really wanted. Yemen? Sure. Overseas colonies of course.

But like, saying "almost anything" is a bit boring!
 
You would be relying on so many variables working out favorably for the Byzantines.
First they would have begin a reform process in the Justinian period which would enable them to hold Italy and southern Spain more firmy (maybe even allow them to expand their control in Spain to the Pyrenees).
Secondly, they'd need to overcome the Lombards and Slavs, two migratory peoples who practically reduced the Byzantine Empire to its purely Greek regions, northern Africa and the Levant. Assuming a strong, military-oriented emperor could drive the Lombards back across the Danube, and possibly set them against the Slavs, they might not lose as much of the Balkans as they did IOTL
Thirdly and most importantly, they'd have to be successful against the Arabs, to the point that later on there would be no need for the Crusades. No Crusades would also mean no weakened Byzantium to face the Ottoman Turks and lose. Industrialization might be the key, but its unlikely the Byzantines would invest in it because they would see it as an affront to their religion. You'd need a Scientific Revolution to happen even earlier than it did in Western Europe IOTL.
In the 1900s, could be almost anything but i will say that the most reliable "core" centres on both european and asian natural borders and depth, alongside economic arteries.

In Europe that to me means an Alpine-Carpathian border with the Pruth to finish if off. It ensures strong mountainous borders and the Danube creates amazing inland lines of communication. Add the Pontic Steppe and its a bit dubious, but a loyal coassack population and a secure Crimea would be a solid choice.

In Asia... well we could drop asia entirely but if were going with the best borders I'd say we're looking at the Caucauses in thr north, ideally up to the Caspian Sea, across to the Tigris, down to a centrepoint as it meets the Euphrates and then across to Egypt.

Could it go further? Sure. It could go for Spain and even France, North Africa and potentially Bohemia and Austria if it really wanted. Yemen? Sure. Overseas colonies of course.

But like, saying "almost anything" is a bit boring!
How feasible would Spain be because I thought the General consensus before was that it was a combination of being too far west and too populated to properly administer in the long term?
 
How feasible would Spain be because I thought the General consensus before was that it was a combination of being too far west and too populated to properly administer in the long term?
It entirely depends on when in the timeline. Are we really saying that by 1900, a time when Empires like the Netherlands controlled Indonesia that it is impossible? (Or the UK controlling India for that matter?)

Plus the Empire, even at the start point of this timeline has a history of using Exarchates to effectively rule regions at a distance, and as long as we consider that "part of the Empire" then we're golden.

Part of this is also a recognition that if we have an Imperial "Core" that is that sort of Balkans, Greece, Anatolia (and more) yeah it might need to have more cooperative Exarchs, but if it directly controlled Italy, then its really not a huge effort to project power from Italy to Spain, much as repeatedly IOTL Spain projected power over Italy.
 
Si, ma i bizantini hanno un disperato bisogno di migliorare la propria tecnologia per continuare ad avere strutture adeguate per riuscire a competere con gli stati vicini.. Hanno sempre avuto una popolazione inferiore a quella necessaria.. Quali tecnologie potrebbero aiutare l'impero bizantino a salvarsi e ad espandersi?
 
Forse evitando la quarta crociata, quando arriveranno i mongoli possono aiutarli a prendere 'egitto, magari se si dichiarano vassalli tengono quel territorio.. L' egitto è troppo importante
 
Top