How would a surviving ERE affect the Middle East up to modern day?

[Iacobus]

This could go in either pre-1900 or post-1900 but since the POD would be before I placed it here.

So, I've had a scenario the Roman Empire turns itself around after Manuel Komnenos in the 1170's, manages to reconquer Anatolia, ally with Hungary and establish suzerainty over the Levant. Due to Mongol invasions and the Timurids there is a back and forth until the 15th century but the empires that rise from these invasions don't last and Romania reacquires these territories.

I think that is a good explanation why a surviving ERE would be limited to the Balkans and Anatolia, plus a few vassal crusader states, until 1500. After then I'm not sure what comes next.

Europe is actually fairly easy for me to theorise upon. Hungary remains independent from Austria, possibly a power and rival against Austria and Poland. Austria is focused on German affairs without it's eastern territories, balanced with Brandenburg/Prussia and France. Germany when/if it's time comes to unify could incorporate Austria from the outset. A more chaotic HRE could mean an continuously sovereign or even powerful Poland into the modern times.

But the Middle East throws me. The Caucasus, Georgia and Armenia in particular, would likely fall within a Roman sphere of influence and Russia would stop expanding at the Caucasus perhaps in exchange for Romania pledging access to the Black Sea and supporting them against Poland.

But the Middle East throws me. That region from Syria to Iran to the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea I find hard to ultimately predict. Romania would probably seek to incorporate Syria, settle it with Greeks and prevent Arabisation, maybe do the same along the Levant coast. I'm wary that this ERE would probably struggle or seek to avoid having to govern too many Arab Muslims but might want to also a) set up a buffer in Mesopotamia and Palestine to protect other territories and b) access the Indian Ocean meaning either conquer Egypt or parts of Iran and the Arabian Peninsula.

Could a surviving ERE have paralleled the Ottoman Empire and conquered large swaths of Asia and Africa or is that ASB?

I am assuming it modernises to be in line with the rest of Europe at least militarily relatively quick, benefiting from the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

 

[Namayan]

ERE territorial expansion was to dominate terminal nodes of silk trade routes and/or liberate provinces of the Roman empire.

There would be similarities but also difference. One main difference would be ERE controlling italy was more acceptable than an Ottoman one. The same can be said of Mecca. A Christian Roman controlling Mecca would be less than accepted had it been under Ottoman control.

ERE would probably control/compete with the Indian and Chinese trade and let the Latins deal with Americas. So any conquest on top of Egypt, southern italy and levant would be any land or islands to support the chinese and indian trade. northern italy, tunisia, persia and mesopotamia are bonus conquests.

 

[Rèxīn]

IMO Rome will be hard pressed to immediately reconquer former Roman provinces in the Middle East especially with the Norman problem in the west so it should do what it did best; bribery i.e., crusading states against Muslims and vice-versa. Much better if they let the Latins do all the work. Additionally, regions near the Levantine coasts will definitely be Christian if the crusaders are supported by a stronger and stable ERE which in this scenario they are, maybe Egypt and northern Iraq too in the long run.

I have a hard time seeing anything south and east of Baghdad being part of the ERE so no Ottoman parallels there.

If the ERE does not want to get left behind economically, it has to control Egypt or Iraq but that requires a lot of speculations to arrive at and to which I think most are ASB, at least near the starting POD.

Also interestingly besides the Middle East, England might become Orthodox if ever a reformation like OTL occurs.

Finally to a more sensitive subject, Christian populations in modern day America and western Europe will have closer cultural and religious ties to the crusader states and Rome and will hopefully be less prejudiced.

 

[Iacobus]

ERE territorial expansion was to dominate terminal nodes of silk trade routes and/or liberate provinces of the Roman empire.

There would be similarities but also difference. One main difference would be ERE controlling italy was more acceptable than an Ottoman one. The same can be said of Mecca. A Christian Roman controlling Mecca would be less than accepted had it been under Ottoman control.

ERE would probably control/compete with the Indian and Chinese trade and let the Latins deal with Americas. So any conquest on top of Egypt, southern italy and levant would be any land or islands to support the chinese and indian trade. northern italy, tunisia, persia and mesopotamia are bonus conquests.

So the terminuses of trade on the Silk Route included Constantinople, Antioch and Caffa which could very easily be held by Rome. Having tight control over Anatolia and allies in the Caucasus would be imperative to this in the long run though. Cairo is the other potential terminus via land and sea via the Red Sea so it's certainly possible with control and Christian support in the Levant and assistance from the Copts, the Romans could springboard an invasion of Egypt. A pretext for this could be the Egyptians backing Barbary pirates attacking Europe which could bring the Italians onside with the ERE and allow the Roman navy a presence in Southern Italy and footholds in North Africa. This could play out as early as the 16th century imo.

I think Syria and Northern Mesopotamia could be Christianised with a plurality in Palestine and Egypt of Coptic, Syriac, Catholic and Orthodox mixed with Muslims. I do think though that beyond Syria there is bound to remain a sizeable Muslim presence even after centuries and this will surely be a source of strife though maybe not to the same extent as OTL. European colonisation of the ME screwed up the region in ways a Roman occupation probably would avoid...

One thing a 20th century ERE might do is annex the oil rich areas of northern Mesopotamia into the Christian majority Syrian state. Also it would probably let Jews settle Palestine though if the Christian demographic is high enough it will oppose a Zionist state in favour of autonomous Jewish settlements. One could propose....

 

[Iacobus]

IMO Rome will be hard pressed to immediately reconquer former Roman provinces in the Middle East especially with the Norman problem in the west so it should do what it did best; bribery i.e., crusading states against Muslims and vice-versa. Much better if they let the Latins do all the work. Additionally, regions near the Levantine coasts will definitely be Christian if the crusaders are supported by a stronger and stable ERE which in this scenario they are, maybe Egypt and northern Iraq too in the long run.

I have a hard time seeing anything south and east of Baghdad being part of the ERE so no Ottoman parallels there.

If the ERE does not want to get left behind economically, it has to control Egypt or Iraq but that requires a lot of speculations to arrive at and to which I think most are ASB, at least near the starting POD.

Also interestingly besides the Middle East, England might become Orthodox if ever a reformation like OTL occurs.

Finally to a more sensitive subject, Christian populations in modern day America and western Europe will have closer cultural and religious ties to the crusader states and Rome and will hopefully be less prejudiced.

I think you're perimeters are right, these are areas with a significant Christian presence starting from POD which could be incorporated overtime. I said in the other reply that the ERE could have Egypt by 1600 and unlock access to the Indian Ocean. It could as a result of this reach out to Christian kingdoms in Africa as potential allies and establish maritime connections to India possibly through seizing Portuguese possessions around the Arabian Sea, maybe allying with the Dutch.

I think it could take Southern Mesopotamia later on if it fights the Persians and opens up a route between Basra and Hormuz. That region wouldn't be a stable holding though as Persia or the Arabs to the South would be seeking to reacquire the territory unless the ERE can ensure a route through via a loyal puppet or protectorate which is still nominally Muslim. This territory wouldn't be held up to modern day however and would be independent or under Arabian rule.

I think England was always going to establish Anglicanism tbh, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were too headstrong to follow in the stead of anyone else, even Rome! Protestantism had it's own allure to it's adherents, though I wouldn't doubt that the ERE would experience its own religious upheaval, maybe an opening up and rediscovery of Greek philosophy at least at a higher level...

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

maybe an opening up and rediscovery of Greek philosophy at least at a higher level...

They already studied Greek Philososphy. Much of the West's knowledge of Greco-Roman society are translated from the works taken by the Crusaders preserved by the Arabs and the Byzantines after the Sack of Constantinople, and its collapse where many scholars fled Westwards into Southern Italy kicking off the Renaissance. Under the Komnenoi Constantinople was the richest and largest city in all of Christendom. The Komnenian restoration and Macedonian Renaissance saw massive periods of cultural and scientific progress in the Empire. In many respects they were more advanced than Western Europe which only kicked off and surpassed the Eastern Romans during the 13th century during the fall of the Komnenoi, misrule of the Angeloi, and the sack of Constantinople.

Due to Mongol invasions and the Timurids there is a back and forth until the 15th century but the empires that rise from these invasions don't last and Romania reacquires these territories.

Why would the Mongol invasions or even Tamerlane invade in this timeline. Tamerlane is centuries after the Mongol Invasion. The Mongols only aquired success and invaded Iran because the Khwarezmids killed Genghis's envoys when he was looking to establish trading relations. Plus the Romans at their weakest had actual strategies and military treatises on Mongol tactics and methods to counteract them. The Romans would likely pay tribute to such a hulking behemoth as the Mongols and they would be content. The Romans have done this before in their history. Instead of fighting the Mongols after seeing what they did to their opponents on the field, they would likely fund Mongol enemies or form a coalition and alliance with other powers as a deterrent.

So, I've had a scenario the Roman Empire turns itself around after Manuel Komnenos in the 1170's, manages to reconquer Anatolia, ally with Hungary and establish suzerainty over the Levant.

This necessitates that Manuel Komnenos lives longer and wins the battle of Myrokephalon where the Romans were ambushed by the Turks in the Mountain passes. If he wins this battle or avoids the ambush then the gates to Central Anatolia would be wide open to him. Perhaps instead of Manuel foolishly directing military resources towards Italy, he focuses on retaking Anatolia. After decisively crushing the Turks, he vassalizes them and retakes all of Anatolia. Manuel was a competent commander, and had he focused on retaking Anatolia he would have won. Assuming he lives longer his heir Alexios IV is able to take the Throne peacefully without any disputes. Manuel would be popular and this would translate over to his son. Perhaps Manuel after taking Anatolia he establishes suzerainty over the Crusader States. Alexios IV focuses on consolidating his father's gains and building the administrative systems for Anatolia as it was the traditional economic core of the Empire. I can imagine that without Andronikos I taking the throne and the massacre of the Latins in 1181, the relations between West and East would remain friendly. Perhaps this leads to a gradual mending of the schism as the Pope was willing to sign an alliance with Manuel, and even promised Manuel the title of the HRE in otl.

After a long reign and the re-invigoration of the Roman economy and military thanks to Anatolia, the Crusader states fall under Rome's orbit to protect themselves from the Muslims. In otle Manuel funded the Lombard League with money and weapons which weakened the HRE from rising to threaten Rhomania. The French would likely be warring with the English and thus the Pope would be forced to cooperate with the Romans to ensure the Crusader States' survival. Maybe poorer knights and pilgrims travel through Roman lands seeking a better life in the Crusader states. Some are probably resettled in Anatolia to repopulate the cities. The Turks who were a minority to the Armenians and Greek speaking populations would intermarry with the Romans and be assimilated into Roman society. Ioannes Auxos the friend of Emperor Ioannes II Komenos, Manue's Father was a Turk who converted to Christianity and was a trusted subordinate. I think his family earned noble status within Anatolia as well.

and Caffa

With the surviving Crusader States being made into client states, and a stream of competent Emperors, I can see these regions being annexed into the Roman Empire over time. Perhaps the Pope and Romans sign an alliance to liberate the Patriarchate of Alexandria and invade Egypt creating the Despotate of Egypt or Regni Aegyptus. The local Coptic population were still a sizeable part of Egypt and would be included in power like how the Marionite Christians were in the Crusader states.

One thing a 20th century ERE might do is annex the oil rich areas of northern Mesopotamia into the Christian majority Syrian state. Also it would probably let Jews settle Palestine though if the Christian demographic is high enough it will oppose a Zionist state in favour of autonomous Jewish settlements. One could propose....

A Zionist State? Jews within the Roman Empire had an actual legal status within the Empire. The Byzantines were quite tolerant compared to Western Europe. I doubt Zionism would even get off the ground thanks to the Christian state of Jerusalem existing and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem reestablished along with the Pentarchy in this timeline.

Europe which could bring the Italians onside with the ERE and allow the Roman navy a presence in Southern Italy and footholds in North Africa. This could play out as early as the 16th century imo.

North Africa would be a natural target of expansion after Egypt as the Romans have historic claims to Carthage. And with the Romans back to their old Imperial borders. Plus North Africa is a major breadbasket. Retaking that would mean that Rome’s economy would improve even more. Though Berber resistance would be tough. Perhaps the Romans enact a slow conquest like that of Basil II and setup friendly client state that they subsidize. After Rome takes back North Africa, the Pope and the Italians would be nervous. The HRE night use this as a chance to reassert itself in Italy. Plus the Pope would not like Constantinople’s influence so close to Rome especially when it holds 4/5 sees in the Pentarchy. Eventually the Romans fight an alternate Italian Wars with the Germans and maybe French. They would likely prevail thanks to them being better equipped (Professional Roman troops > Feudal Levies). I can imagine that Rome’s vast armies take most of Italy without much of a fight as the other city states would see the benefit of submission to Rome. Perhaps they are given self rule in the form of various Catepantanates of Italy. Though at this point if the Pope resists, the Romans would likely replace him.

The Romans also butterfly the discovery of the New World changing its circumstances. The Christians dominate most of the trade routes. Though maybe England and France jealous of the Imperial dominance of trade seeks alternate routes West. If the Romans can conquer Morocco they would have to door open to Atlantic colonization as well.

A modern Roman Empire would be likely a top tier Great Power. Perhaps it is the strongest one in Europe as it was in otl. Under Basil II they were stronger than all their neighbors. Here they are vastly more wealthy.

 

[Miguel Lanius]

If the ERE holds the Balkans and Anatolia, then going south is pretty natural.

I suspect it would happen after the ATL!Mongols throughly destroy the existing balance of power in the Middle-East with all the randomness of a sudden meteor strike.

The Empire would probably just pay tribute to the Mongols. This is good to the Illkhans, because not only they get a reliable tributary, they can also divert more strength towards other fronts.

Btw, what's up with Egypt ITTL? Right now, Saladin is in charge.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

I suspect it would happen after the ATL!Mongols throughly destroy the existing balance of power in the Middle-East with all the randomness of a sudden meteor strike.

The Byzantines were in a period of extreme weakness when the Mongols struck. Plus when the raised Anatolia they destroyed much of the existing infrastructure. The Romans aren’t expanding anywhere for the next century and a half at least. The Turks would still be rebellious and the Empire would have to spend resources to integrate the population and consolidate their gains.

Arguably Iran still hasn’t fully recovered from what the Timurids and Mongols did to it. If the Mongols do what they did to Iran in Anatolia, the Romans would be strongest power in the region by default but would still be structurally on weak footing. This isn’t the Empire of the Komnenoi or the Macedonians after all.

Btw, what's up with Egypt ITTL? Right now, Saladin is in charge.

The only way for Rome to reasonably blog like that and conquer the Mediterranean once again is if Manuel or Ioannes II wins. They have a better shot under Ioannes II. He was an execellent general. Had he actually took Iconium then he would have had Anatolia open to him. This would give the Romans back their de jure land in the 12th century which gives them a much easier recovery and consolidation than under a reconquest under Manuel. Manuel had to deal with more entrenched Turkish Berliks after all.

 

[M79]

Renaissance is delayed if the Greeks don't fall in 1453 but then the North African communities may last longer and access to a printing press may allow classics not saves in OTL to thrive in this ATL. Russia loses its claim as the Third Rome and oil may make them quite wealthy. What are the borders of this surviving Roman state? If it is powerful enough to be a colonizing power the map could look interesting indeed.

 

[Namayan]

The only way for Rome to reasonably blog like that and conquer the Mediterranean once again is if Manuel or Ioannes II wins. They have a better shot under Ioannes II. He was an execellent general. Had he actually took Iconium then he would have had Anatolia open to him. This would give the Romans back their de jure land in the 12th century which gives them a much easier recovery and consolidation than under a reconquest under Manuel. Manuel had to deal with more entrenched Turkish Berliks after all.

Not really. Central Anatolia isnt a requirement to dominate the Med nor is wealthy to contribute to the coffers.

butterflying the angelois and post otl manuel succession is a must though. Plus the strongest navy around.

for De jure lands southern italy, syria and egypt or wealthier than Central Anatolia. That is the thought process of even the Komnenoi emperors. Even John spent more efforts in Syria than Central Anatolia. It is possible to take southern italy, sicily, syria and dominate the Med before even taking central anatolia.

However, during weak emperors controlling central anatolia helps on defense due to the taurus anti taurus geography.

 

[Miguel Lanius]

The Byzantines were in a period of extreme weakness when the Mongols struck. Plus when the raised Anatolia they destroyed much of the existing infrastructure. The Romans aren’t expanding anywhere for the next century and a half at least. The Turks would still be rebellious and the Empire would have to spend resources to integrate the population and consolidate their gains.

Yeah, but the PoD here is in the 12th century not the 13th. 1204 is not a thing here.

Hmmmm... no Timur means a far better future for Georgia. Also I hear the Georgians were gearing up to help the Crusaders when the Mongols struck. Could we get a Georgia on the side of the Crusaders here?

Arguably Iran still hasn’t fully recovered from what the Timurids and Mongols did to it. If the Mongols do what they did to Iran in Anatolia, the Romans would be strongest power in the region by default but would still be structurally on weak footing. This isn’t the Empire of the Komnenoi or the Macedonians after all.

Well, if we assume the Romans have Anatolia and pay tribute, seems logical to assume Anatolia will be well off.

Could this mean the Mongols dedicate more power to taking on Egypt?

The only way for Rome to reasonably blog like that and conquer the Mediterranean once again is if Manuel or Ioannes II wins. They have a better shot under Ioannes II. He was an execellent general. Had he actually took Iconium then he would have had Anatolia open to him. This would give the Romans back their de jure land in the 12th century which gives them a much easier recovery and consolidation than under a reconquest under Manuel. Manuel had to deal with more entrenched Turkish Berliks after all.

So, a harder struggle to take Anatolia?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Not really. Central Anatolia isnt a requirement to dominate the Med nor is wealthy to contribute to the coffers.

butterflying the angelois and post otl manuel succession is a must though. Plus the strongest navy around.

for De jure lands southern italy, syria and egypt or wealthier than Central Anatolia. That is the thought process of even the Komnenoi emperors. Even John spent more efforts in Syria than Central Anatolia. It is possible to take southern italy, sicily, syria and dominate the Med before even taking central anatolia.

However, during weak emperors controlling central anatolia helps on defense due to the taurus anti taurus geography.

Egypt or Syria more wealthy than Anatolia? In which metric?

During the height of the Roman Empire during the Mare Nostrum, Anatolia by all metrics of income to the government, outpaced by a fair margin the province of Egypt. It too held a larger populace, especially in rural areas, had more arable land and was also quite defensible. Egypt Anatolia as a whole is certainly more important to dominating the Mediterranean than Syria, in my view than Egypt and Italy, it would depend. It should be noted, Egypt is less prosperous in the year 1200 than it was in the year 200 and less populous, especially in zones centred upon the sea.

Syria is even worse for this category than Egypt by wide margins. Syria has less agricultural lands than Anatolia by a much wider margin, has less value in terms of trade links than Anatolia and is far less populous. Antioch, Damascus, the Phoenician coast, Aleppo, Palmyra, Harran and so forth are impressive settlements surely and have advantages, but the urban sizes are often countered by the many woes of ruling Syria without likewise ruling Mesopotamia (the area that alongside Egypt, can best compete with Anatolia).

After re-reading, you mean to say only Central Anatolia?

 

[pompejus]

Renaissance is delayed if the Greeks don't fall in 1453

The renaissance started in the 14th century. So it won't be delayed. The late renaissance would be different though.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Not really. Central Anatolia isnt a requirement to dominate the Med nor is wealthy to contribute to the coffers.

Yeah but Anatolia was the main economic core of the Byzantine Empire. Leaving such a gap in territory allows groups like the Turks closer to Constantinople the beating heart of the Empire. This was why Ioannes Tzimiskes and Basil II campaigned so vigorously against the Bulgarians. Anatolia was also where most of the army was recruited from. It was always a priority of Byzantine Emperors to retake Anatolia to have the defensible borders of the Taurus mountains. With only the little bits of coastal land, Anatolia could easily be overrun and the Romans would be booted out Anatolia leaving the Turks within striking distance of the Capital.

for De jure lands southern italy, syria and egypt or wealthier than Central Anatolia. That is the thought process of even the Komnenoi emperors. Even John spent more efforts in Syria than Central Anatolia. It is possible to take southern italy, sicily, syria and dominate the Med before even taking central anatolia.

You can't take Egypt without Anatolia though. Strategically it makes no sense. The Egyptians would easily ally with whatever Turkik Beylik there was in the region to lay siege to your important cities like Smyrna or Nikomedia while the Roman are off in Alexandria. Italy was a waste of effort. The Pope is there and the other city states and local nobles would resist you. Manuel wasted time there when he could have secured defensible borders in Central Anatolia the actual Roman heartland since the 7th century.

That is the thought process of even the Komnenoi emperors

John II Komnenos and Alexios Komenos's objectives were to reconquer Anatolia. John II at a certain point vassalized the Danishmends. Had the vassalization stayed in place then he would have had client states that he could slowly integrate into the Empire. This is an actual fact. Even Manuel knew this. He probably could have taken much of it had he won Myrokephalon. The whole point the Byzantines agreed to the Crusades was so that they could have help in retaking Anatolia while the Crusaders take the Holy Land. This was the mutual agreement between the Crusaders and the Romans.

Even John spent more efforts in Syria than Central Anatolia

John went to Syria so he could take Antioch. Had Antioch fallen then he has another naval base and staging ground for further military operation in Anatolia. He also wanted the Crusader states under his hegemony. This would make them more reliant on the Byzantines seeing them as a natural ally. John could use them in the fight against the Turks (Frankish Cavalry was pretty formidable) and later make them into client states to be integrated into the Empire. Had John II got everything he wanted, Rome would have peacefully taken control over the Levant.

Egypt or Syria more wealthy than Anatolia? In which metric?

During the height of the Roman Empire during the Mare Nostrum, Anatolia by all metrics of income to the government, outpaced by a fair margin the province of Egypt. It too held a larger populace, especially in rural areas, had more arable land and was also quite defensible. Egypt Anatolia as a whole is certainly more important to dominating the Mediterranean than Syria, in my view than Egypt and Italy, it would depend. It should be noted, Egypt is less prosperous in the year 1200 than it was in the year 200 and less populous, especially in zones centred upon the sea.

Syria is even worse for this category than Egypt by wide margins. Syria has less agricultural lands than Anatolia by a much wider margin, has less value in terms of trade links than Anatolia and is far less populous. Antioch, Damascus, the Phoenician coast, Aleppo, Palmyra, Harran and so forth are impressive settlements surely and have advantages, but the urban sizes are often countered by the many woes of ruling Syria without likewise ruling Mesopotamia (the area that alongside Egypt, can best compete with Anatolia).

After re-reading, you mean to say only Central Anatolia?

Constantine V shifted the breadbasket of the Empire to Anatolia creating new farms that supplied Roman Cities. Also the Empire of Basil II was far wealthier than the Empire of say Heraclius.

The renaissance started in the 14th century. So it won't be delayed. The late renaissance would be different though.

This wouldn't really be a Renaissance really but more of say Roman cultural hegemony in places like Italy and Spain.

 

[pompejus]

This wouldn't really be a Renaissance really but more of say Roman cultural hegemony in places like Italy and Spain.

I think that would be unfair to the early renaissance, which started roughly in 1350 or so.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

I think that would be unfair to the early renaissance, which started roughly in 1350 or so.

This is the State of the Empire in the mid 1300’s.​

By the mid 1300’s the Byzantine state is literally collapsing in on itself. Enemies were besetting it from all sides. To the North were the Bulgarian and the Serbian Empire. The South had the Remnant Latin Crusader States. The Ventians and Genoans were basically predatory lenders to the Romans and when they couldn’t pay loans land was taken as compensation which was a vicious cycle. The Empire was administratively in chaos. It was an under a period called the Palailogian Renaissance. However the Elites had too much power and the state was financially crippled. In the early 1300’s the Catalan company ravaged the countryside depriving the state of critical resources. The first and Second Palaiologan civil Wars was the last chance any Byzantine state could be saved. The Empire was utterly ravaged and exhausted whatever military and economic resources it had left. During this anarchy Constantinople declined and many buildings fell into ruin. An earthquake destroyed fortifications in Galipoli the only thing stopping the Ottomans from entering the Balkans. The Ottomans tools Galipoli and then slowly annexed the other regions of the Balkans making a Byzantine recovery nigh impossible unless a massive coordinated Western European intervention saved it. Even if they somehow beat the Ottomans the Byzantines in the 1300’s are in no shape to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean. They would be an unstable regional power at best.

A surviving and Byzantine Empire would only take root around the time of Manuel or John. You could theoretically have the Angeloi overthrown by some Byzantine Aurelian I guess but that’s too variable.

The Renaissance occurred during this period of Anarchy as scholars fled the collapsing Empire. This happened during the collapse of the West as well. The peasant turned Emperor Justin I fled to Constantinople to escape the chaos in the West.

A Stable succesful Komnenian Empire would not see scholars flee but rather flock towards it as the Empire is the largest Economic hub and Intellectual Center in Christendom at the time. A “Renaissance” though would occur with a different set of causes. The revitalized and militarized Roman state experiencing a second Macedonian style Golden Age would project it’s cultural hegemony over Europe. This was what the French, Spanish, and Hapsburgs did in Europe as the dominant power. The Romans taking Southern Italy means that the rest of Italy is influenced by it. Also all the wealth from controlling the trade routes between East and West will allow it to exert its influence internationally as well.

 

[Namayan]

Egypt or Syria more wealthy than Anatolia? In which metric?

During the height of the Roman Empire during the Mare Nostrum, Anatolia by all metrics of income to the government, outpaced by a fair margin the province of Egypt. It too held a larger populace, especially in rural areas, had more arable land and was also quite defensible. Egypt Anatolia as a whole is certainly more important to dominating the Mediterranean than Syria, in my view than Egypt and Italy, it would depend. It should be noted, Egypt is less prosperous in the year 1200 than it was in the year 200 and less populous, especially in zones centred upon the sea.

Syria is even worse for this category than Egypt by wide margins. Syria has less agricultural lands than Anatolia by a much wider margin, has less value in terms of trade links than Anatolia and is far less populous. Antioch, Damascus, the Phoenician coast, Aleppo, Palmyra, Harran and so forth are impressive settlements surely and have advantages, but the urban sizes are often countered by the many woes of ruling Syria without likewise ruling Mesopotamia (the area that alongside Egypt, can best compete with Anatolia).

After re-reading, you mean to say only Central Anatolia?

Yes Central Anatolia between 1140s to 1180s. I would still put Sicily, Southern Italy, Egypt and Syria richer than Central Anatolia during those times. Western Anatolia and the rest of Coastal Anatolia are totally different creature economic wise vs Central Anatolia.

Yeah but Anatolia was the main economic core of the Byzantine Empire. Leaving such a gap in territory allows groups like the Turks closer to Constantinople the beating heart of the Empire. This was why Ioannes Tzimiskes and Basil II campaigned so vigorously against the Bulgarians. Anatolia was also where most of the army was recruited from. It was always a priority of Byzantine Emperors to retake Anatolia to have the defensible borders of the Taurus mountains. With only the little bits of coastal land, Anatolia could easily be overrun and the Romans would be booted out Anatolia leaving the Turks within striking distance of the Capital.

Not the whole Anatolia. Remember, Anatolia is different from Central Anatolia. Central Anatolia from 1140s until Manuels death isnt the bread basket nor was heavily populated.

You can't take Egypt without Anatolia though. Strategically it makes no sense. The Egyptians would easily ally with whatever Turkik Beylik there was in the region to lay siege to your important cities like Smyrna or Nikomedia while the Roman are off in Alexandria. Italy was a waste of effort. The Pope is there and the other city states and local nobles would resist you. Manuel wasted time there when he could have secured defensible borders in Central Anatolia the actual Roman heartland since the 7th century.

John went to Syria so he could take Antioch. Had Antioch fallen then he has another naval base and staging ground for further military operation in Anatolia. He also wanted the Crusader states under his hegemony. This would make them more reliant on the Byzantines seeing them as a natural ally. John could use them in the fight against the Turks (Frankish Cavalry was pretty formidable) and later make them into client states to be integrated into the Empire. Had John II got everything he wanted, Rome would have peacefully taken control over the Levant.


Constantine V shifted the breadbasket of the Empire to Anatolia creating new farms that supplied Roman Cities. Also the Empire of Basil II was far wealthier than the Empire of say Heraclius.


This wouldn't really be a Renaissance really but more of say Roman cultural hegemony in places like Italy and Spain.

Yes, you can take Egypt, Sicily, Syria before taking Central Anatolia. It was a healthier target than Central Anatolia. Nor does Central Anatolia have access to Mediterranean. It doesn't mean each emperor will conquer Syria, Egypt or Italy before Central Anatolia but one can dominate and conquer the Mediterranean without Central Anatolia.

Although taking Central Anatolia before taking Syria/Egypt/Italy is better, it isnt a requirement to conquer the Mediterranean.

 

[M79]

So without 1204 we potentially get...(1170 via Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Komnenos_dynasty)

But to reclaim Egypt means getting Syria and probably Cyprus as well. Are we presuming a Byzantine Empire resurgency during the Mongol interlude under a Basil II type Emperor?

 

[God.the.Truth]

Taking back Levant and North Africa(incl Egypt) requires too much effort and planning. Anatolia is reasonable. Levant was already a Core Arab region by a couple of centuries of conquest and the Christians and Jews had enough of Byzantine persecution in that region. You need some Seljuk level POD to get these provinces back and now you would have the Latin Empires in competition for the Holy Land and Egypt, along with the Arabs. You just can't hold Levant for a long term like you could in the Pagan Eras(though not so easy even then).

 

[M79]

Taking back Levant and North Africa(incl Egypt) requires too much effort and planning. Anatolia is reasonable. Levant was already a Core Arab region by a couple of centuries of conquest and the Christians and Jews had enough of Byzantine persecution in that region. You need some Seljuk level POD to get these provinces back and now you would have the Latin Empires in competition for the Holy Land and Egypt, along with the Arabs. You just can't hold Levant for a long term like you could in the Pagan Eras(though not so easy even then).

Respectfully disagree. Monophysite divisions did indeed exist but the Levant as a core Arabic region is still another few centuries away. A strong Christian presence endured even into late Ottoman times when many immigrated to Colombia and elsewhere. Byzantine interests in Sicily and Tripolitania will probably cause them to be more interested in areas of Northern Africa many other powers might write off initially, but if they can secure the trades routes to the sub-Saharan gold or have a copy of Ptolemy's original world map, maybe they find more than initially expected.

*Ptolemy may have discounted the shift of the sun around Africa as Herotodus did, if so re-examine his map of the Erythean Ocean and reverse the turn at the 'Southern' end of Africa. Compare Cattigara and the river formation therein with this in mind.