AHC: Largest Possible Byzantine Empire

Your mission is simple, Make the Byzantine Empire conquer the most amount of lands possible with a PoD no earlier than 335 AD (to avoid them from getting more lands in the Division of Rome because that's cheating :p )

Bonus points if you provide a map!

Have fun :D
 
My starter for ten would be a core Empire essentially covering Justinian's Roman Empire, plus some more territories in coastal Spain and Gaul, and some favourable territorial adjustments in Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. Add to this a wider sphere of indirect rule and influence covering much of the Caucasus and Arabia (let's say some sort of significant loss of Iranian influence in the region) and extending into the regions of OTL Hungary, Romania and Ukraine to encompass Christianised Slavic and Turkic tribes who derive their legitimacy from their relationship with the Roman Emperor at Constantinople, and are kept in check by subsidies from him. Ditto for those areas of north Africa outside direct imperial rule.

Such a construct would not be stable and unchanging and would wax and wane according to the power of the larger states on the frontier that are unable to be simply dominated, notably Iran but to a lesser extent Francia, Axum and theoretical steppe constructs. It would nonetheless be considerably more powerful than OTL Byzantium ever was, and there's no reason why it shouldn't live a China-esque existence of basic continuity.

All of this, it goes without saying, pretty much relies on no Arab explosion, so in my book doesn't count as a proper "Byzantium" but rather a more successful "late Rome", though of course where these terms begin and end is endlessly debatable.
 
Have Justinian conquer the west as OTL, have the plague butterflied away (or, have the plague affect Northern Europe, Persia and Arabia too - that's more plausible) and have Justinian's successors continue to grab one or two provinces in the west.

East Roman Empire No plague.png
 
Basil II has a male heir who continues to expand his father's empire.

I'm always unsure why people think that this is in any way a given or even particularly likely, if you consider that the two Basils were the only Macedonian emperors particularly interested in military exploits.
 
Interesting ideas, now i am not too keen on Kieven Rus', but Byzantium and Rus' were friends right? Because didn't Rus' look up to them and decided to adopt their religion?
 
The reason i ask this is because if they indeed were friendly towards each other, would that help them keep the European states that were hostile to Byzantium in line? Thus allowing for more focus on Africa, The middle east, and the rest of Romes original territories?
 
If we're talking about a true "Byzantine" (i.e. medieval) as opposed to simply late Roman state, I would suggest the following:

A Byzantine state that manages to stabilize its mid-11th century borders has a couple interesting avenues for expansion. First-off: Italy is in virtual anarchy for much of the middle ages. If Constantinople can beat the Normans to Sicily, or dislodge them early on, it's hardly unthinkable to imagine them chewing up the rest of the peninsula fairly rapidly. The Byzantines were always masters of the divide-and-rule strategy, and the Guelph/Ghibelline conflict would be a real goldmine for Byzantine diplomacy.

Another possibility is North Africa: The Kingdom of Sicily managed to impose tributary status on various North African princes and even seized important cities off-and-on throughout its existence. Outright conquest would be difficult and expensive, but long-term suzerainty should be doable.
 
Consider the maximum extent of Byzantine military adventures. To the east they repeatedly tried to crush Persia.
To the North, Muskovy looked to them for cultural leadership (Cyrillic alphabet and Eastern Orthodox religion).
I am not sure if Byzantium could conquer Scandinavia, but OTL they maintained trading links.
Also consider the size of the subsequent Ottoman Empire, all Byzantium needed was a few weak neighbours to control a Silat-sized empire pretty much to the southern edge of the Sahara Desert.
 
The Byzantines were always masters of the divide-and-rule strategy, and the Guelph/Ghibelline conflict would be a real goldmine for Byzantine diplomacy.

I will note that the historical outcome of Italian-Byzantine Wars is an octogenarian sacking Constantinople.

Italy is hard to crack in this period, as the Holy Roman Emperors found out, and disunity? Well, the Lombard League has just found an additional target.
 
Your mission is simple, Make the Byzantine Empire conquer the most amount of lands possible with a PoD no earlier than 335 AD (to avoid them from getting more lands in the Division of Rome because that's cheating :p )

Bonus points if you provide a map!

Have fun :D

Not fun :D !!! IMO Byzantine Empire really became Byzzie after Division of Rome (aka after the 6th Century). I think your POD is too earlier (for my TL they are at 1172 and 1185 :D)
 
How about more focus in the east and the north rather than recovering the western possessions? Like the following maps. Or maybe I just wanted an excuse to post my crusader kings 2 current game map. :D

http://imgur.com/xzUwcFK
http://imgur.com/hLXNNrZ

Beautiful empire. A Byzantine Alexander the Great.

Though, I have one question: why? Why should an empire naming itself "Roman" and Christian focus on the east populated by muslims and without any link to Roman culture instead of trying to get their traditional territories back?
 
I think the uber-Justinian conquest map is probably the best you'd see. Focus on any area reasonably reachable from the Med, and maintain the trade network there.
 
I will note that the historical outcome of Italian-Byzantine Wars is an octogenarian sacking Constantinople.

Italy is hard to crack in this period, as the Holy Roman Emperors found out, and disunity? Well, the Lombard League has just found an additional target.

The Lombard League would be crushed if it was simultaneously attempting to defend against two different empires. But I would certainly agree that by the 13th century Byzantium is in no position to threaten Italy.
 
Have Justinian conquer the west as OTL, have the plague butterflied away (or, have the plague affect Northern Europe, Persia and Arabia too - that's more plausible) and have Justinian's successors continue to grab one or two provinces in the west.

Its beautiful :eek: Yes I think this scenario is the most plausible. If the plague is not as severe it may allow the Byzantines to hold Italy and the western Med. I wonder how Italian advancement would have fared under a powerful and wealthy power that associates them with their origins.
 

Deleted member 67076

I will note that the historical outcome of Italian-Byzantine Wars is an octogenarian sacking Constantinople.

Your post reads such that the Italians were able to weaken and overcome the empire such that a sacking was the result of that, rather than the internal factors within the empire at play.
 
Your post reads such that the Italians were able to weaken and overcome the empire such that a sacking was the result of that, rather than the internal factors within the empire at play.

I'm not sure it's much better to say that the Byzantines were so quarrelsome and divided that they let it happen.

People keep posting about the Byzantines around here as if it was this unstoppable leviathan, instead of a moderately prosperous state that ruled the Aegean.

Maybe it can hold Bulgaria?
 
Top