AHC/POD/WI: Byzantine Survival/reconquest in ME-NA

Albert.Nik

Banned
Greetings,
What are some interesting scenarios in which Byzantine Empire survives in the Middle East and North Africa can survive to its full extent and flourish? Assimilation or/and Alliance with Slavic,Germanic and other peoples who threatened the Northern and the Western borders? A possible treaty with the Sassanid Empire who threatened the East? Expansion into Caucasus?
And with the survival,how would later turn of events take? A reconquest of the West and a new Golden age? An expedition into the East and the South? Relations with the Western powers like UK,France,Spain and eventually USA? How about the modern world? What happens to the Jews? Are they settled in the Israel region peacefully? Or will they continue to live in the Western countries? Would WW2 and Holocaust happen in this timeline? How would Christianity look like? How would Central Asia look like? How would Russia look like? And relations with the East? How advanced would Science be in this world? These are some of the questions that come with this.
 
Whoa, slow down man.

What are some interesting scenarios in which Byzantine Empire survives in the Middle East and North Africa can survive to its full extent and flourish?

You need to abort the last of the Roman-Persian wars. It was pretty much two giants mutual-killing one another in a no-holds barred deathmatch. They should call it World War Late Antiquity.

Alternatively, have something happen to slow down Arab expansion and give Heraclius the time to shore up the fortifications and state control in Syria. Maybe 10, 20 years. Maybe the civil war in the Caliphate lasts for longer, aborting or slowing down the Rashdun.

Or maybe we just get a ERE Yarmouk victory. Maybe they don't ignore Jabalah, for starters.

So, the ERE defeats the Arab invasion. Still results in Arabs attacking the Sassanids, who were doing even worse.
If they fail to take down the Sassanids or sucessors, I expect the Arabs to build ships and take to the seas towards Africa and India.

Assimilation or/and Alliance with Slavic,Germanic and other peoples who threatened the Northern and the Western borders?

They didn't have much problems with the Slavics, I think.
Germanics they don't deal well because right now Germanics are the guys squatting on Italy, Hispania and Western Europe.

Still, there's the Varangians later on.

A possible treaty with the Sassanid Empire who threatened the East?

Possibly, relations were pretty decent until Phocas. Both sides are utterly exausted and will probably remain at peace for a long time because nobody else has the capability or desire for another All-Or-Nothing Fight-To-The-Death.

The Sassanids might collapse entirely before long, anyway. From what I read here, seems to me they were undergoing a collapse and civil war and marching towards feudalization.

Expansion into Caucasus?

I dunno. Caucasus always seemed like crapland to me, too much mountain. Maybe vassal states?

And with the survival,how would later turn of events take? A reconquest of the West and a new Golden age?

Reconquest of the West is a bit wildly optimistic. Even assuming they bounce the Muslims out, the Roman State is still totalled from the biggest war since ever, and the Avars and Arabs are still around. They won't be doing any expanding anytime soon.

An expedition into the East and the South?

Maybe some wars against Sassanid sucessors, IF they collapse.

No reason for them to go south, unless they want to take the fight to the Arabs.

Relations with the Western powers like UK,France,Spain and eventually USA?

You mean a bunch of Anglo-Saxon and Welsh petty kingdoms, the Franks and Visigoth Hispania? What's an USA?

This ain't our world anymore.

How about the modern world?

Totally irrecognizable.

What happens to the Jews? Are they settled in the Israel region peacefully?

Considering the Bar Khobar revolt, not as long as the ERE holds that land and doesn't undergo a big shift of opinion about the Jews. Its possible, but a lot would have to happen. Sionism might not even exist.


How would Christianity look like?

Good question. Heraclius was trying to mend things between Monophisites, Nestorians and Chalcedonians. He didn't manage, so I suspect we will continue to see more conflict.

One question is what will happen to the Bishop of Rome. Right now, the Bishop of Rome is subordinated to the Emperor. A stronger ERE means no Schism... for now.


How would Central Asia look like?

Dominated by the Tang, at least as long as it can.

How would Russia look like?

Completely alien, like desunited.
We might see the emergence of a Not!Rurik. Or a Finno-Ungric polity. Or maybe just nomads, nomads everywhere. Maybe the Khazaks or something settle.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
@Miguel Lanius Two observations in this: Why would a Byzantine Survival curtail the rise of the prominent powers in the West OTL like Britain,France,Spain,Other Germanics,etc if ERE didn't conquer them back? I see differences in language and other minor differences but Anglo Saxon England,French Empire and British Empire pretty much can remain the same except empires in Egypt,Algeria,Syria,Iraq,Palestine,etc aren't possible if ERE didn't conquer the West. The main nations that could be butterflied are the smaller Balkan nations,many Arab countries and Turkey in the location where it is today. Also since Byzantine Empire is huge and stable with good resources and stability,their motive to colonize a far off place like USA would be limited and this would lead UK,France and the Germanic people to colonize,populate and create countries like Australia,USA,Canada and NZ as in OTL. All this only if it didn't conquer the West. And why does Russia have to be like that? Wouldn't European settlement take place anyway? In this case Germanic or Celtic could replace Slavic but rest probably remains the same.

And additionally,what happens to the Vikings? Would invasion to the Byzantine reconquered West divert Vikings more towards North America? A North Germanic America?
 
A lot of butterflies come from surviving Byzantium and presumable lack of Arab/Islamic conquest. You have no Reconquista, so how the Iberians develop is radically different (there is likely not to be a recognizable 'Spain' or 'Portugal'). Austria never becomes what it was, because you don't have the Magyars/Hungarians in the same form, and you don't have the Ottomans marching into Europe. The HRE probably still collapses at some point, but the 'Germany' that results (likely still some form of unification) is nothing like the Germany we know. Whatever happens in Italy is up in the air, since the ERE is going to want to meddle there and they basically replace Austria in that regard.

Do we get unified Italy? Eh, maybe. Hard to say.

France is definitely not developing the same way. Much as with Iberia, without a Muslim conquest (the only way you have the ERE remain a power in North Africa), you don't have the issue of KEEPING THE MUSLIMS OUT. No Battle of Toulouse changes a lot of the French national myths. Furthermore, the French development relied a lot on wars that may or may not happen now. While 'France' probably becomes a thing, much as with Germany, it is not likely to be a France we recognize. There's at least as much chance you get an Occitain state as you are to get a unified 'France' on roughly the same borders.

Britain, and her empire, are the results of historical accidents as much as anything. No Spanish Armada, no glorious victories. No Hundred Years War, no Norman Conquests, no constant wars with France and the Dutch...

Hell, there may not even be a 'Dutch' identity here.

Not to mention who the hell even knows what happens in India in this situation, since it's possible you never have the Mughals or anything like them. Even the Mongols are hard to judge in this scenario since you have different factions for them to go up against.

That's what the other poster was getting at. You can't just (without it being ASB) say 'oh, the ERE lives and stays successful. EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME'. Without a Muslim threat, things are so different as to be unrecognizable in short order.

(and this isn't even touching on the fact you wouldn't have Crusades and the like)
 
Give Basil II two more Emperors like himself in succession and we could see very interesting changes. Certainly if at least one gets a naval focus we see most of the Mediterranean, Levant, Italy, Tripolitania, Numidia, Georgia, Crimea, and OTL southern Spain as areas of acquisition. I suspect OTL southern France, Egypt, OTL Iraq, Hungary, Cislethania, and OTL Romania would be sites of encroachment and probably a few defeats
 
Well I think that with a butterfly net a moderatly successfull ERE could survive and we still would have a somewhat recognizable OTL. Though not as sucessfull as OP ask but with a Mantzikert POD and having the ERE later play the role of the Ottomans - as a threat to the west in the eastern mediterranean and fighting the germans in the Carpathian basin- as much as possible could achive this. The west could be recognizable - islam and Araby I think not but thats another question.
 
What are some interesting scenarios in which Byzantine Empire survives?

There are several options:

1. Prevent the Byzantine civil war after Manzikert in 1071
2. Prevent the Byzantine defeat to the Normans at Dyrrhachium in 1081 (without this defeat, Alexios Komnenos can turn east 16 years earlier, dramatically increasing the chance to recover Anatolia; the imperial tagmata is also not destroyed, so he has a better army to fight with)
3. Prevent Michael VIII from coming to power in 1259. His reign sowed the seeds for the fall of Byzantium.
4. Prevent Andronikos II coming to power in 1282. He was perhaps the least successful emperor of all time, although it can be argued much of the blame lies with Michael VIII's policies.

Anything later than that is venturing into ASB territory imo. Anything that affects the Arab Muslim conquests is also ASB, because it it changes the world so drastically that it becomes impossible to say anything meaningful.

There is one more I forgot:

5. Prevent the death of John II Komnenos in 1143 from a poisoned hunting arrow. He was one of the good emperors and he died prematurely. Also, if we can prevent the deaths of his two elder sons (from disease), then Manuel I Komnenos does not come to power in 1143. While Manuel was also a powerful emperor, he was flawed and his policies arguably achieved little while costing a lot. A different successor to John II might have ruled with greater success.
 
The best PoD - besides some radical end-times PoD that would have some trigger-happy folks call ASB - for this sort of survival is a Maurice PoD - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_(emperor)

I'd actually use two.

1) To improve his image, agree to pay the ransom to the Avars in 599/600 to get his men back - embarrassing, but those men will thank him.
2) After continuing as normal, bar an extra 12,000 men - use those 12,000 men to build a new fortress on the northern side of the Danube - a small distance west of modern Galati - which can act both as a new supply depot, but effective turns the lands between the Carpanthians and the Danube into a corral that is much easier to take control over as time goes by - effectively moving forces river by river, year by year, north and south to take the region in 3 summer campaigns.

This both makes him more sympathic to the army - not purely a cheapskate, but one that wouldn't let his soldiers stay hostages - and not one to force his men to fight the winter campaigns.

Plus, it means the Romans can settle captured Avars in the region, or more Armenians, and at the same time open up trade on that part of the Danube. All in all, nice little new province that could later push "back" into Dacia
 
The earliest POD for a surviving Eastern Roman Empire is Justinian not invading the West/somehow conquering Italy in a quicker and less destructive fashion. The latest POD for them to survive in the Middle East is to not lose at manzikert, if they keep the Turks out they could hold onto anatolia and maybe indefinitely.
 
There are several options:

1. Prevent the Byzantine civil war after Manzikert in 1071
2. Prevent the Byzantine defeat to the Normans at Dyrrhachium in 1081 (without this defeat, Alexios Komnenos can turn east 16 years earlier, dramatically increasing the chance to recover Anatolia; the imperial tagmata is also not destroyed, so he has a better army to fight with)
3. Prevent Michael VIII from coming to power in 1259. His reign sowed the seeds for the fall of Byzantium.
4. Prevent Andronikos II coming to power in 1282. He was perhaps the least successful emperor of all time, although it can be argued much of the blame lies with Michael VIII's policies.

TBH I'm not sure you aren't giving Michael VIII and Andronicus II too much (dis)credit here. Yes, their reigns weren't the most fortunate, but the reason they ultimately harmed the Empire's chances so much was that the Empire had so little margin for error by that point. Any state is going to have bad leaders from time to time, so even if you butterfly away those two, someone equally bad will come along sooner or later.

IMHO, the latest POD for a plausible Byzantine Reconquista in the Middle East and North Africa would be the Fourth Crusade. (Ideally you'd want to get rid of the whole Angelid dynasty, but things didn't become irretrievable until 1204.) Before that, the Comneni had done a good job shoring up the Empire after the post-Manzikert disaster (though it might have helped had Manuel concentrated on reconquering central Anatolia rather than grandiose schemes in Egypt or Sicily). If the Empire remains in good shape and doesn't get torn apart by angry crusaders, it could plausibly continue expanding eastwards, especially if the Mongols come along and wreck the Sultanate of Rum like they did IOTL. Assuming they don't cock things up in a big way (not necessarily a safe assumption, I know), they could end up regaining their 11th-century borders; then, when gunpowder comes along, they could do an Ottomans and push south into the Holy Land and Egypt. I think that big pushes into the Balkans and western Mediterranean are unlikely, as they wouldn't have the same ideological impulse to do so as the Ottomans did, but I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to essentially recreate the old Eastern Roman Empire borders.
 
...they could push south into the Holy Land and Egypt.

There was a brief moment in the late 10th century when this seemed possible. In the reign of John I Tzimiskes, Byzantine troops did reach as far as Nazareth, in Palestine. His last campaign, in 975, was aimed at Syria, where his forces took Emesa (Homs), Baalbek, Damascus, Tiberias, Nazareth, Caesarea, Sidon, Beirut, Byblos, and Tripoli, but they failed to take Jerusalem. He died suddenly while returning from this campaign; these areas appear to have been lost shortly afterwards to the Fatimids, who marched north from Egypt to threaten Antioch but were eventually turned back without taking that city.

I think after 1100 though the idea of the Byzantines conquering these areas becomes fanciful. I am aware that John II did campaign extensively in Syria but these campaigns resulted in no real gain to the empire (other perhaps than being an impressive display of military might) and must have been somewhat expensive. Manuel I did invade Egypt but this was not successful. The fundamental problem as I see it is that the empire's Crusader "allies" in both cases were unreliable, truculent and fundamentally did not share the empire's interests.

Furthermore, such expeditions were difficult to maintain because of the distance involved, and invariably failed to produce any lasting conquest. Meanwhile, they represented a poor allocation of resources that might have been better spent closer to home. It makes little sense to conquer Damietta (Egypt) when there are Turks at Dorlyaeum (Anatolia).

That's perhaps the paradox of the Komnenoi; we know they had both great wealth and a powerful army. But they did not use that power wisely. They consistently applied maximum resources to peripheral targets like Cilicia and Antioch which were too far away to hold for any length of time, while applying the minimum attention and force in the centre of Anatolia, where it would really have mattered. Perhaps a different set of policies, from a dedicated campaigning soldier emperor, might have done a world of good.
 
Top