AHC: Byzantine Americas

This one is obviously a bit of a stretch, but here goes:

With a POD of no later than Yarmouk, have the Byzantines discover and settle the Americas (say that sometime during the Justinian Era the Byzantines start to scout the Atlantic Ocean, maybe in an attempt to find a sea route to China). I don't know much about the endurance of period Byzantine vessels, so I'll allow for a few sudden advances in Byzantine naval technology.
 
Now, this isn't exactly what you were going for, but I can give you a piece of the Americas. It's quite achievable in any Byzantine wank, even those built to be quite plausible.

Now, I doubt they'd be the ones discovering the Americas, especially looking for China. For a resurgent Rhomaion, there's no reason to circumvent Africa or vastly underestimate distances and head west looking to avoid the middle man in trade. That's mainly because they are in the middle man for Chinese and other eastern goods to Europe.

They're also much less likely to go on a colonizing spree in the New World upon its discovery by a western maritime nation, as if they've gone to the task of retaking their previous land (i.e.: Egypt), the East Indies is a much safer objective for Roman colonies with a known profit to be had. Not only will the early years of Colonization be without secure returns, but the Romans could be quite swiftly cut off from their own American colonies by its competitors. They might be kings of the Mediterranean, but a large Atlantic fleet would strain supply lines and likely be easy pickings for the likes of Spain, or England, etc...

It'd cost a lot of manpower to maintain, where the Romans just can't compete with the Western European powers also in the Americas while split between the East and West Indies. Which is exactly why they wouldn't focus on the New World at the end of the day, despite the possibility of all those other negative factors: It takes away part of their ability to get a larger share in the East Indies, their irrestible desire. But still, I did promise a bit of America.

Your answer is... *Drum roll*... some islands in the Lesser Antilles! Not great, I know, but it wouldn't be incredibly difficult to get ahold of several. Quite a few powers had their fingers in those islands, even those who were not particularly large on colonial efforts. It'd mostly be a prestige acquisition for the Basileus, or Senate, the leaders in whatever kind of Byzantine wank we're in, but it's a neat little bit I've heard proposed. Basileus444 (whom I won't @ without permission), author of Age of Miracles, floated the vague idea a few times when readers would ask the same question as you.

I personally find it an acceptable prize for the Byzantines. The only way I could see full out colonization à la New England happening is in a Byzantine wank pumped so full of steroids that even the empire itself just wants to die. Still, that's just my opinion, and what's my opinion!?

Dumb, that's what it is....

Curious to see what others are thinking though.
 
I think it makes a lot of sense, but I think maybe establishing an outpost in Senegal or something could make it easier. Then when a Byzantine ship is going there, they can be knocked off course and blown to the Americas. They end up in Brazil, then when thay go back to Bizantium they tell others about their discovery. It would make a perfect TL.
 
Your answer is... *Drum roll*... some islands in the Lesser Antilles! Not great, I know, but it wouldn't be incredibly difficult to get ahold of several. Quite a few powers had their fingers in those islands, even those who were not particularly large on colonial efforts. It'd mostly be a prestige acquisition for the Basileus, or Senate, the leaders in whatever kind of Byzantine wank we're in, but it's a neat little bit I've heard proposed. Basileus444 (whom I won't @ without permission), author of Age of Miracles, floated the vague idea a few times when readers would ask the same question as you.
Question, what would they have here?

Couldn't they find sugar in the Azores, Madeiras or India, which wasn't that far?
 
This one is obviously a bit of a stretch, but here goes:

With a POD of no later than Yarmouk, have the Byzantines discover and settle the Americas (say that sometime during the Justinian Era the Byzantines start to scout the Atlantic Ocean, maybe in an attempt to find a sea route to China). I don't know much about the endurance of period Byzantine vessels, so I'll allow for a few sudden advances in Byzantine naval technology.

Here the Problem I see in this scenario:

A Byzantine Empire needs a reason to explore the Atlantic Ocean, and to colonize it, the Byzantines need a population which is large enough to send overseas. The reason to explore the west was to find a seaway to India. Byzantium, at least before Yarmouk, hadn't this problem. They knew the maritime route to India, even if it was (at least partially) controlled by the Persians. And since the plague of Justinian, the Byzantines lacked the demografic and economic base to support a colonization which as no immediate gain.

Also, a Byzantine Empire has to hold some western ports to be able to navigate on the Atlantic Ocean. At least control the Strait of Gibraltar.

In fact, a Byzantine Empire colonizing the Americas would be a more populous, more western Empire with a reason to explore the Atlantic Ocean. Such a reason could be Persia completely closing the maritime routes to India, or the Arabian expansion as per OTL. I suspect that such a Byzantine Empire would be based in the west and wouldn't be Byzantine at all - more something along the lines of a surviving Western Roman Empire.
 
Here the Problem I see in this scenario:

A Byzantine Empire needs a reason to explore the Atlantic Ocean, and to colonize it, the Byzantines need a population which is large enough to send overseas. The reason to explore the west was to find a seaway to India. Byzantium, at least before Yarmouk, hadn't this problem. They knew the maritime route to India, even if it was (at least partially) controlled by the Persians. And since the plague of Justinian, the Byzantines lacked the demografic and economic base to support a colonization which as no immediate gain.

Also, a Byzantine Empire has to hold some western ports to be able to navigate on the Atlantic Ocean. At least control the Strait of Gibraltar.

In fact, a Byzantine Empire colonizing the Americas would be a more populous, more western Empire with a reason to explore the Atlantic Ocean. Such a reason could be Persia completely closing the maritime routes to India, or the Arabian expansion as per OTL. I suspect that such a Byzantine Empire would be based in the west and wouldn't be Byzantine at all - more something along the lines of a surviving Western Roman Empire.

I do have a pet scenario that I think would allow this to happen - based around an Empire mostly made of Exarchates. Assuming no-Phocas, we still have the Caliphate, which takes Syria and Egypt and Mesopotamia, but the Romans and Persians are able to push them back - with the Romans having Egypt and later Syria made into Exarchates because of the power of Africa and Italy - with that forming the model for the Roman 'Commonwealth' Empire.

If you have that system which essentially ties nominally subservient Exarchates to the Empire Proper, and no military conflict between them, the Exarchs can only really advance/compete by either taking over the Empire, breaking away, or trade. - Which means that an Exarch of Lusitania has the same reasons to want to explore as Portugal - they'd be able to supplant Egyptian trade from the East.

Does that mean you'd have colonisation in the same way? Perhaps not - the Exarchates may be forced by their contemporaries to release overseas territories as Exarchates of their own if they settle too much. I'd expect more of a "I set up a trade post, you invade, I invade in force and take over vast swathes of your land" form of colonisation (there really has to be a term for that, if there is I've forgotten), much more similar to how the Romans expanded during the Republic.

An important point is however, that I've radically changed how the Empire works to encourage a similar path. Just as others have insisted on a paradigm shift (Losing Egypt vs Internal Competition vs Population Boom vs Vanity Project), the key is that each form is radically different in its approach to colonisation, even in the early days.

But yes, my PoD would be twofold. 1) Emperor Maurice in 599/600 pays the ransom for 12,000 troops (removing Phocas from popular attention as he can't begin to protest). 2) Ensures his campaigns north of the Danube have had winter quarters north of the Danube properly prepared so that they don't feel the need to rebel. That IMO leads to the conditions I outlined above, butterflying OTL Yarmouk, and likely leading to an Empire that can continue the reconquest of the west.

Now, this typically leads to Africa, sure - with the needs to travel that way being the impetus for developing better ocean-going vessels - and later exploration to go West to see if they can get one better. At which point ambitious politicians could raise a force, or if they find the Maya/Aztecs - why wouldn't the Romans pull as Spain and invade for the 'Mountains of Gold'?
 
Best Idea would be winning Yarmouk but later still loosing Syria and Egypt to muslims while keeping north Africa. Lets have said muslim power close trade routes later. Than when the idea emerges to go west to reach east they could give it a try. Wont be OTL Spanish Empire but could end up with a few american holdings.
 
Assuming no-Phocas, we still have the Caliphate, which takes Syria and Egypt and Mesopotamia, but the Romans and Persians are able to push them back - with the Romans having Egypt and later Syria made into Exarchates because of the power of Africa and Italy

Why should Egypt and Syria be made into Exarchates? The Exarchates were created in a very specific situation. The Byzantines saw the defense of their oriental provinces as their priority. The Emperors in fact denied Africa and Italy supplies in troops because defending the east was more important than holding Justinian's conquests. That's why they appointed Exarchs in Africa and Italy These officials united military and civilian power in one person (while Diocletian had seperated military and civilian jurisdiction in the imperial administration) and could act with a certain autonomy.

Now Syria and especially Egypt are the territories on which the Empire concentrates and which precisely shouldn't become to autonomous. Egypt was very populated and important for the recruitment of Byzantine soldiers (remember that the Theme System was created only after the loss of Egypt). There's no reason to turn them into Exarchates. In fact, that would be very dangerous. The situation of the Exarchate of Ravenna was very difficult (and Italy wasn't powerful) - it was therefore wise to decentralize its administration and to give it to a military commander. But Egypt has to be firmly controlled by a civilian governor, supervised by the Emperor, due to the great military and importance of the province.
 
Why should Egypt and Syria be made into Exarchates? The Exarchates were created in a very specific situation. The Byzantines saw the defense of their oriental provinces as their priority. The Emperors in fact denied Africa and Italy supplies in troops because defending the east was more important than holding Justinian's conquests. That's why they appointed Exarchs in Africa and Italy These officials united military and civilian power in one person (while Diocletian had seperated military and civilian jurisdiction in the imperial administration) and could act with a certain autonomy.

Now Syria and especially Egypt are the territories on which the Empire concentrates and which precisely shouldn't become to autonomous. Egypt was very populated and important for the recruitment of Byzantine soldiers (remember that the Theme System was created only after the loss of Egypt). There's no reason to turn them into Exarchates. In fact, that would be very dangerous. The situation of the Exarchate of Ravenna was very difficult (and Italy wasn't powerful) - it was therefore wise to decentralize its administration and to give it to a military commander. But Egypt has to be firmly controlled by a civilian governor, supervised by the Emperor, due to the great military and importance of the province.

The scenario (outlined elsewhere) emerges from political shenanigans - mainly on the premise that Egypt or the Levant couldn't be reconquered without the assistance of the Exarch of Africa - and he stipulates that condition. (Emperor wants Egyptian grain and trade, doesn't want to deal with religious differences, etc, yadda, et al). I think I had one variant where the Exarch of Africa invaded Egypt successfully and the Emperor stepped in and went "No", but because they didn't have the Levant, and the Exarch of Africa was already in control, they negotiated an Exarchate and agreed to seperate the territories on the Exarchs death. As I said, weird shenanigans.

I'll go into it in more depth elsewhere if you'd like. However, I mainly used it to outline a situation where the Empire is fundamentally different as an entity to what it was pre-Yarmouk, or IOTL. Which it would need to be. Unless the Empire is stronger, and has a reason to not import via Egypt, why bother? Having regional competition between Exarchs is a way - then again, so could governors, but I fear they may not have the autonomy or power to then act upon it.
 
Top